What you you guys think of bush appointing Bolton durring a recess in congress?

Bush Appoints Bolton As U.N. Ambassador
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON - President Bush sidestepped the Senate and installed embattled nominee John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations on Monday, ending a five-month impasse with Democrats who accused Bolton of abusing subordinates and twisting intelligence to fit his conservative ideology.

"This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about UN reform," Bush said. He said Bolton had his complete confidence.

Bush put Bolton on the job in a recess appointment — an avenue available to the president when the Congress is in recess. Under the Constitution, a recess appointment during the lawmakers' August break would last until a newly elected Congress takes office in January 2007.

Bolton joined Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the announcement ceremony and said he was honored and humbled by the president's appointment. "It will be a distinct privilege to be an advocate for America's values and interests at the U.N. and, in the words of the U.N. charter, to help maintain international peace and security," he said.

Bush said that Bolton's nomination had been supported by a majority of the Senate but that "because of partisan delaying tactics by a handful of senators, John was unfairly denied the up-or-down vote that he deserves."

Bush had refused to give up on Bolton even though the Senate had voted twice to sustain a filibuster against his nominee. Democrats and some Republicans had raised questions about Bolton's fitness for the job, particularly in view of his harsh criticism of the United Nations.

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan welcomed Bolton's appointment and steered clear of the controversy over whether Bolton would be weakened by the recess appointment. "We look forward to working with him as I do with the other 190 ambassadors, and we will welcome him at a time when we are in the midst of major reform," Annan said. He said the manner of Bolton's appointment was Bush's prerogative.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Bolton was a "seriously flawed and weakened candidate." He charged that Bush "chose to stonewall the Senate" by using a recess appointment.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said, "The president did the right thing by sending Mr. Bolton to the U. N. He is a smart, principled and straightforward candidate, and will represent the president and America well on the world stage."

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., sharply criticized the move.

"It's a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility at the U.N," Kennedy said."

Sen. Christopher Dodd (news, bio, voting record) of Connecticut, a senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, "The president has done a real disservice to our nation by appointing an individual who lacks to the credibility to further U.S. interests at the United Nations."

Republican Sen. George Voinovich (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio also said he was disappointed.

"I am truly concerned that a recess appointment will only add to John Bolton's baggage and his lack of credibility with the United Nations," Voinovich said.

Bolton's appointment ends a five-month impasse between the administration and Senate Democrats.

The battle grabbed headlines last spring amid accusations that Bolton abused subordinates and twisted intelligence to shape his conservative ideology, and as White House and GOP leadership efforts to ram the nomination through the Senate fell short.

In recent weeks, it faded into the background as the Senate prepared to begin a nomination battle over John Roberts, the federal appeals judge that Bush chose to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor at the Supreme Court.

At Bolton's April confirmation hearing, Democrats raised additional questions about his demeanor and attitude toward lower-level government officials. Those questions came to dominate Bolton's confirmation battle, growing into numerous allegations that he had abused underlings or tried to browbeat intelligence analysts whose views differed from his own.

Despite lengthy investigations, it was never clear that Bolton did anything improper. Witnesses told the committee that Bolton lost his temper, tried to engineer the ouster of at least two intelligence analysts and otherwise threw his weight around. But Democrats were never able to establish that his actions crossed the line to out-and-out harassment or improper intimidation.

Separately, Democrats and the White House deadlocked over Bolton's acknowledged request for names of U.S officials whose communications were secretly picked up by the National Security Agency. Democrats said the material might show that Bolton conducted a witch hunt for analysts or others who disagreed with him.

The top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee received a limited briefing on the contents of the messages Bolton saw, but were not told the names.

Democrats said that was not good enough, but later offered a compromise. After much back and forth, with the White House claiming Democrats had moved the goal posts, no other senator saw any of the material.

Last week, the administration telegraphed Bush's intention to put Bolton on the job.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the vacancy needed to be filled before the U.N. General Assembly's annual meeting in mid-September. Former Sen. John Danforth left the post in January.

In a letter released Friday, 35 Democratic senators and one independent, Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, urged Bush not to give Bolton a recess appointment.

"There's just too much unanswered about Bolton, and I think the president would make a truly serious mistake if he makes a recess appointment," Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview.

I think if he had nominated someone who wasn't an asshole to begin with we wouldn't have this problem.

Originally posted by Echo2
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan welcomed Bolton's appointment and steered clear of the controversy over whether Bolton would be weakened by the recess appointment. "We look forward to working with him as I do with the other 190 ambassadors, and we will welcome him at a time when we are in the midst of major reform," Annan said. He said the manner of Bolton's appointment was Bush's prerogative.


Daaamn.........what a spineless toady Kofi Annan was on this appointment. He really bent over and took it up the ass from the Reichwing............"I look forward to working with him"...........what an unmitigated lie.

I'm betting that had Annan been free to express his true opinion, he would have said Bolton is an execrable choice, and Bush is a sleazy chickenshit for using a recess apointment.

Typical underhanded move by Bush. Can't get him in the normal way, so they do it the sleazy way. Bolton is another arrogant neocon asshole that just want to further the corporate interests of Bushco.

So what can we do about it? Absolutely nothing!!

Echo,

Let me clue you in. In cases like this, I use what I call the Democrat scream test. You see, the louder the Dems scream over a particular nominee, or over a particular issue for that matter, the more I'm reassured that the person their screaming over is the right man for the job. The way the Dems are screaming, I'm overjoyed Bolton got the job. It's when the Dems start liking someone that red flags start sprouting up.

The best you guys can come up with is that Bolton "abused" the people who worked for him. Wow. :rolleyes: If that was enough to disqualify someone from a government post, then Hillary would've never gotten her Senate seat.

Gauging just how dishonest, two faced, decietful and untrustworthy the U.N. has proven to be, it just may be a good idea to have someone mean and nasty in the U.N. to shake things up. If Bolton ever appears on C-Span KICKING Kofi Anan, he should be offered a raise!

Dammit.

its not like the guy didn't have the votes for a confirmation - he easily would have been confirmed if they had went to a vote.

The guy seems like a bad choice, but what was Bush supposed to do - have nobody at the UN for the next 6 months?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
In cases like this, I use what I call the Democrat scream test. You see, the louder the Dems scream over a particular nominee, or over a particular issue for that matter, the more I'm reassured that the person their screaming over is the right man for the job.

My my, what a shrewd methodology.

The Democrats (along with most of the rest of the inhabitants of planet earth) "screamed" over a smirking imbecile being elected in 2000, and just LOOK what wonderful shape America is in under his leadership.

[/sarcasm]

et me clue you in. In cases like this, I use what I call the Democrat scream test. You see, the louder the Dems scream over a particular nominee, or over a particular issue for that matter, the more I'm reassured that the person their screaming over is the right man for the job. The way the Dems are screaming, I'm overjoyed Bolton got the job. It's when the Dems start liking someone that red flags start sprouting up. So lemmie get this straight...

You make decisions based on the opinions of a group of people you consider to be idiots...guess what that makes you...

Sure beats thinking huh?

Freethinker,

Would this be a bad time to remind you that the Democrats were screaming when Reagan got elected?

Yeah....pfwooo...that whole selling drugs to arm terrorists sure did prove them wrong...

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Freethinker,

Would this be a bad time to remind you that the Democrats were screaming when Reagan got elected?
It doesn't matter to him - he hated Reagan. :@@:

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Freethinker,

Would this be a bad time to remind you that the Democrats were screaming when Reagan got elected?

Not at all.

Reagan was a huge fucking disaster for this nation's future also.

As president, Reagan expanded the federal government by about 90%.

Reagan caused the military budget to explode, causing monstrous budget deficits and growth in the size of government...... growth that dwarfs anyhting under Clinton, even when Clinton had a Democratic Congress.

Reagan also bombed Libya, put the "war" in War on Drugs, allowed the continuation of Selective Service registration (despite his campaign promsie to end it), helped the Khmer Rouge terrorize Thailand, imposed brutal trade sanctions on Nicaragua causing untold thousands of needless deaths, funded the murderous and brutal Contras, sold missiles to Iran, gave financial and military training assistance to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and lied ---repeatedly and pathologically-- to the American people.

The fact that he did all these things in the supposed interest of "freedom," "capitalism" and "small government," only renders his legacy more vile and grotesque.

He might have been as bad as Bush........they're both abysmal, as far as trying to direct a country into social and economic progress.

_____________________________

The far-Right Conservative agenda is diametrically opposed to the precepts on which all traditional value systems of the world have been based. These traditional value systems say that we should not covet, steal, and murder, and that we should make sure that everyone has the necessary means for a decent life. But the Rightwing's agenda for global domination, ignoring all principles of morality and international law, is carried out in the name of the greed of the “haves” of the world to have still more, even if it means killing hundreds of thousands of people and letting millions more die every year of starvation and poverty-related diseases.

Recess appointments:
Bush 106
Bush Sr. 77
Clinton 140
Reagan 243

Originally posted by Theragtopguy
Typical underhanded move by Bush. Can't get him in the normal way, so they do it the sleazy way.

The Dems wouldn't even allow a vote on Bolton by YOUR elected officials. THAT'S the sleazy way.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Daaamn.........what a spineless toady Kofi Annan was on this appointment. I'm betting that had Annan been free to express his true opinion...

The honorable Kofi was probably too busy investing his oil money to care.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Recess appointments:
Bush 106
Bush Sr. 77
Clinton 140
Reagan 243

I really am not sure what your point is. Is this appointment merely a numbers game? Are you saying that because Clinton made more recess appointments, Bolton is the best man for the job? Your logic escapes me.

Originally posted by Brooks
The Dems wouldn't even allow a vote on Bolton by YOUR elected officials. THAT'S the sleazy way.

I agree, it's the sleazy way.

And the detestable way. And while it is technically legal, it shows the willingness on the part of one party to let partisanship block the working of democracy.

Now.......going back over the past 100 years, which Party --by a WIDE margin-- has been far more guilty of using such desperate, underhanded tactics??

Here is a small clue; it is not the Democratic Party.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Now.......going back over the past 100 years, which Party.....

Which party / president:
started the conservation movement?
strongly opposed slavery?
entered Vietnam?
ended Vietnam?
fought civil rights legislation?
imprisoned Japanese citizens?
etc....

In other words, let's keep it current and relevant.

Originally posted by Tapeworm

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Recess appointments:
Bush 106
Bush Sr. 77
Clinton 140
Reagan 243


I really am not sure what your point is. Is this appointment merely a numbers game? Are you saying that because Clinton made more recess appointments, Bolton is the best man for the job? Your logic escapes me.

This was referred to as a "Bushco" sleazy tactic. The numbers are a good rebuttal to that characterization.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Now.......going back over the past 100 years, which Party --by a WIDE margin-- has been far more guilty of using such desperate, underhanded tactics??

Here is a small clue; it is not the Democratic Party.

wow.... i couldnt disagree more

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Recess appointments:
Bush 106
Bush Sr. 77
Clinton 140
Reagan 243
---------------------------------------------------------------

Amazing how you guys can take a post and run with it.
Most should know by now that I am non-partisan.
I do not like most Democrat or Republican candidates.

The above figures were simply factual statistics I saw, that I thought you might be interested in.

The fact is that all presidents seem to use recess appointments.
George Washington was the first with his appointment later being overturned.

Originally posted by Tapeworm
I really am not sure what your point is. Is this appointment merely a numbers game? Are you saying that because Clinton made more recess appointments, Bolton is the best man for the job? Your logic escapes me.
I would have thought drawing the right conclusion was pretty obvious from the data given.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I would have thought drawing the right conclusion was pretty obvious from the data given.

sorry - must have misread the title of the thread. Damn, I did it again.

Originally posted by Brooks
let's keep it current and relevant.


translation;

"When the Democrats use *sleazy* underhanded tactics to block a nominee and to thwart the will of the White House, let's make sure to make a huge issue of it........but if someone points out that the Republicans do the same thing, and that they do it with FAR more regularity than the Democrats, then let's talk about something else, let's "keep it relevant".

________________________________

I never cease to be amazed by the immense hypocrisy of Conservatives, and their incessant **"If someone with a (D) by their name does it they are evil and unAmerican, if a Republican does it twice as many times, and to twice the degree, it is no big deal"** rationalizations

You honestly think that's what he was saying?

Originally posted by Freethinker
translation;

"When the Democrats use *sleazy* underhanded tactics to block a nominee and to thwart the will of the White House, let's make sure to make a huge issue of it........but if someone points out that the Republicans do the same thing, and that they do it with FAR more regularity than the Democrats, then let's talk about something else, let's "keep it relevant".


No....actually the translation is: if your post starts with "Now.......going back over the past 100 years," you must be starved for things to complain about.

Originally posted by Tapeworm
sorry - must have misread the title of the thread. Damn, I did it again.
And you complain that our thinking is too linear...sheesh.

"After a five month deadlock, President Bush has appointed John Bolton as the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Bush invoked his Presidential powers to appoint Bolton during a Congressional recess, effectively bypassing Democrats and Republicans who had blocked a vote in the Senate. A United States president has never before filled the UN post using a recess appointment.

[snip]

Soon after the announcement, Bolton was sworn into office and went immediately to New York. Bolton was reportedly booed on the sidewalk outside the United States mission to the U.N.. Bolton has been one of the fiercest critics of the United Nations within the Bush administration. He has drawn major fire for allegedly bullying subordinates. Last March, 59 former diplomats and other officials called for the Senate to reject Bolton's nomination in an open letter to Richard Lugar, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Opponents charged Bolton with trying to manipulate intelligence and intimidate intelligence analysts to support his hawkish views as the top State Department diplomat for arms control. " ____http://www.pacifica.org/programs/dn/050802.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ROFFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bolton was reportedly booed on the sidewalk outside the United States mission to the U.N..

!!!!!

Wow!! Signs of intelligent life in the United States.

Will wonders never cease.

quote:Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
In cases like this, I use what I call the Democrat scream test. You see, the louder the Dems scream over a particular nominee, or over a particular issue for that matter, the more I'm reassured that the person their screaming over is the right man for the job.



My my, what a shrewd methodology.

The Democrats (along with most of the rest of the inhabitants of planet earth) "screamed" over a smirking imbecile being elected in 2000, and just LOOK what wonderful shape America is in under his leadership.

[/sarcasm]


I wouldn't go so far as to call it a shrewd methodology, freethinker. I just know my fellow democrats, what the stand for and how they think. I also know that I'm vehemently opposed to almost every stand on any given issue. So it doesn't take much guesswork on my part to think that if the Dems oppose a certain stand on an issue or a certain candidate, then it must be a good thing.

Dammit.

Out of curiousity, freethinker,

Was the booeing of John Bolton a true spontaneous act, or was it staged by the Dems, the media and moveon.org types?

Seeing as how you claimed that the scenes and photos of the Iraqis pulling down the statue of Saddam and beating that statue with their shoes were staged, I figured I would turn the question right around.


Dammit.



Actually, given just how rabid anti-Bush the moveon.org types really are, I wouldn't doubt if a whole group of them were waiting for the chance to boo at Bolton.

Dammit.

Lets see you think the best guy to represent the US in the UN is the same guy who said if the UN blows up no one would care...

Why is it so important that this guy get into the UN, if the UN is so unimportant?

Seeing as how you claimed that the scenes and photos of the Iraqis pulling down the statue of Saddam and beating that statue with their shoes were staged, I figured I would turn the question right around. It was staged you jackass. Thats well established.

Well guerilla,

Why is the U.N. important? In the words of Ghandi himself, when asked what he thought of Western Civilization, Ghandi replied, I think it would be a good idea. You can understand why Ghandi wasn't impressed with Western Civilization. Seeing as how he lived under British Colonialism and saw the bad side of Western beliefs.

You'll have to take into consideration that I think it would be a good idea IF there was a league of nations that actually cared about human rights, democracy and freedom was devoted to actually seeing them take root throughout the world. Instead we get condemnation of Israel, huge monetary scandals involving several European nations, U.N. bigwigs and Iraq, truning a blind eye to genocide in Rwanda, the raping of women and girls by U.N. soldiers and the general kissing of hind parts of all the thugish nations of the world. It's a good first step that we have a man in the U.N. who isn't afraid to kick some ass. Dammit.


Jackass? Do I look like Johnny Knoxville or what? lol

...........Seeing as how you claimed that the scenes and photos of the Iraqis pulling down the statue of Saddam and beating that statue with their shoes were staged......."

"Claimed"...........how fucking ridiculous can these rightwing twits be..........?!?!?!?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
It was staged you jackass. Thats well established.

Yes. Its common knowledge that it was staged.........except to the imbecilic Reichwing cheerleaders amongst us , who will deny it simply for the reason that it casts their fucking ConservaFascist heroes --i.e., Bush et al--- in a bad light.

Originally posted by Freethinker
1. Bush invoked his Presidential powers to appoint Bolton during a Congressional recess, effectively bypassing Democrats and Republicans who had blocked a vote in the Senate.

2. Bolton has been one of the fiercest critics of the United Nations within the Bush administration.

3. He has drawn major fire for allegedly bullying subordinates.

1. Who in turn bypassed the voting process by blocking the vote.

2. A critic? How awful

3. You guys claim that the conservatives should ignore the Lewinsky supervisor/subordinate relationship, and are offended by "bullying"? Define bullying.

Darth, you can't see the forest through the trees. Your hatred of all things democratic has given you tunnel vision. Not EVERYTHING coming from the left is bad. Just as not EVERYTHING coming from the right is bad.

Making decisions by how loud the democrats scream is just plain stupid. But then we don't expect a well thought out and informed decision from the people who support this regime. They are sheople i.e. if it's a democratic idea they automatically hate it without any thought.

Originally posted by Freethinker
"Claimed"...........how fucking ridiculous can these rightwing twits be..........?!?!?!?

Yes. Its common knowledge that it was staged.........except to the imbecilic Reichwing cheerleaders amongst us , who will deny it simply for the reason that it casts their fucking ConservaFascist heroes --i.e., Bush et al--- in a bad light.
After everything that was said, you want to dwell on Saddam's statue being toppled in Baghdad??? Whether it was staged or not, that's hardly the point, although, his question was apt: was the booing of John Bolton an act of spontaneity, perpetrated by liberal geniuses who just so happened to be walking by with a cup in their hand, or was it staged by the media or moveon.org?

Oh, and Echo, I'd be careful...I think Brooks is a very bright man. I doubt very seriously that he aligns himself with a particular philosophy just because he dislikes the other. I've never heard him once praise "all things republican"...

A perfect example of right wing twist and spin. I never once said he praised all things republican. I responded to his statement:

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
In cases like this, I use what I call the Democrat scream test. You see, the louder the Dems scream over a particular nominee, or over a particular issue for that matter, the more I'm reassured that the person their screaming over is the right man for the job.

Jeese prae, spinning and twisting what someone is saying is not your forte, stick to blantant insults, you're better at it.

You're sneaky, Echo - I like how you took Brooks name out of the original post and substituted it with Darth. Talk about twisting shit...

Nice.

You didn't have to directly say verbatim that "Darth" ever praised all things republican to gather it from the context of your post. Don't treat us like idiots - we're not. On that note, I suppose you're not calling him a "sheeople" with this:
Making decisions by how loud the democrats scream is just plain stupid. But then we don't expect a well thought out and informed decision from the people who support this regime. They are sheople i.e. if it's a democratic idea they automatically hate it without any thought.
Stop making yourself look so bad. It's almost painful.

Yes, I did edit the name because I got it wrong. As for your twisting what I said, I stand by that statement.

Hateing all things democrat does not constitute supporting all things republican. However I am not surprised that you don't get that.

Originally posted by Echo2
Hateing all things democrat does not constitute supporting all things republican. However I am not surprised that you don't get that.
Oh, so you were just stating the obvious. Well, that's a load off, and thanks for clarifying.

Here I thought you were actually drawing a meaningful reference to Darth, and all you were doing was making bland commentary. Sorry I read too far into what you were saying, and boy...do I have egg on my face...

Try to follow what has been posted. It might help you understand.

Darth stated: I use what I call the Democrat scream test. You see, the louder the Dems scream over a particular nominee, or over a particular issue for that matter, the more I'm reassured that the person their screaming over is the right man for the job.

I responded with Making decisions by how loud the democrats scream is just plain stupid. But then we don't expect a well thought out and informed decision from the people who support this regime. They are sheople i.e. if it's a democratic idea they automatically hate it without any thought.

Your came back with I doubt very seriously that he aligns himself with a particular philosophy just because he dislikes the other. I've never heard him once praise "all things republican"...

I posted A perfect example of right wing twist and spin. I never once said he praised all things republican[b]

Your response was [b] You didn't have to directly say verbatim that "Darth" ever praised all things republican to gather it from the context of your post. Stop making yourself look so bad. It's almost painful.

You are so desperate to throw insults at me that you are twisting what was said to mean what you would like it to have said. Falling back on republican tactics of putting words in others mouths and changing the meaning of what they say. I know you are a better debater than that.

Originally posted by Echo2
Your came back with I doubt very seriously that he aligns himself with a particular philosophy just because he dislikes the other. I've never heard him once praise "all things republican"...
And at the time, I was talking about Brooks, not Darth, or did you forget the mistake YOU made when posting your message originally?

When you corrected yourself, I went with it under the guise that it was DISTINCTLY IMPLIED that Darth praised "all things republican" because, in essence, you called him a sheeople, and sheeople, if I can quote you, are people "you don't expect a well thought out and informed decision from because they support this regime", hence, all things "republican". I don't see it as taking some massive leap of faith to see it in this light, do you?

I don't want to throw insults your direction Echo, and I'm sorry if I pissed you off or hurt your feelings, and maybe we're just dealing with miscommunication here, but I thought it was pretty clear from the get-go.

Originally posted by Echo2
What you you guys think of bush appointing Bolton durring a recess in congress?

Hmm...I never much liked his music anyway. :D

Nah, I think its a load of crap that he did that during recess. A chump move if ever there was one.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Nah, I think its a load of crap that he did that during recess. A chump move if ever there was one.
No offense, Jere, but I don't think you have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about.