August 01, 2005

Bush appoints Bolton as U.N. ambassador

President Bush sidestepped the Senate and installed embattled nominee John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations today, ending a five-month impasse with Democrats who accused Bolton of abusing subordinates
[By speaking in a "raised" tone of voice while putting his hands on his hips! Ooooh.--Jen]
and twisting intelligence to fit his conservative ideology.
[Oh, no! He tries to make régimes like Castro's Cuba, Kim Jung-Il's, and the mullah's Iran look as if they're evil!
The nerve!]
    
"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.
[...]
sh 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."

There's nothing wrong with Bolton;
in fact, there's a lot right about Bolton.
This was nothing but partisan politics, which we now recognize as SOP for the Democrats.

    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.
[Heaven forbid that any of us think that U.N. isn't perfect, no many how many corrupt or failed projects they're responsible for!]
    
As Bush concluded speaking, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, praised the president for using his authority "to end the obstruction against John Bolton."
[We love Sen. Cornyn here in Texas!]
[...]

  But Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., sharply criticized the move.
    "The abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House continues," Kennedy said. "It's bad enough that the administration stonewalled the Senate by refusing to disclose documents highly relevant to the Bolton nomination. It's even worse for the administration to abuse the recess appointment power by making the appointment while Congress is in this five-week recess. 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."
[Great, Teddy.
Give the thugs of this world a reason not to take Ambassador Bolton seriously, why doncha?]
    
Sen. Christopher Dodd 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. I will be monitoring his performance closely to ensure that he does not abuse his authority as he has in the past."
    Republican RINO Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, also said he was disappointed in the appointment.
[Did he burst into tears again?
That's always a crowd pleaser.]
[...]
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.
[...]
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.
[36 ain't a majority and it's not enough to block his appointment had a straight up-or-down vote been allowed to take place.]
    
"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 of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview.

I'm delighted about this--Bolton is the very man we need in that den of jackals known as the U.N.!
I don't know if he can play an instrumental role in "reforming" the U.N.
Can anyone?
It's like Humpty Dumpty.
But if anyone can represent us with a strong, firm stance in the swamp of Turtle Bay, it's this man.
Now, we have to get through the nomination of John Roberts to SCOTUS.
Senate Dems promise more of the same kind of obstructionist, filibustering behavior, even though they're having to dig a lot harder to get any "dirt"
on Roberts.
That wuss Frist may have to use the "nuclear option" (I prefer the term "Constitutional option") to get Roberts in.
These Dhimmicrat potentates promised they wouldn't filibuster anymore.
(Remember the Grate Compromise of the 14?)
Well, that apparently didn't apply to Bolton.
But you can bet it will happen to Roberts.