The Bolton Is In
1. "This was the right thing to do. Recess appointments should be reserved for special circumstances. Using filibuster tactics to block a nominee who has clear majority support qualifies. When our system is functioning properly, a branch of government that acts abusively pays a price. The Senate Democrats, through their over-use of the filibuster, have acted abusively."
2. "Bolton served as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security from May 2001 until June 2004, during which time he advocated a hard line against Iran, North Korea and other states feared by Washington to be developing nuclear weapons. He often criticized the United Nations as being ineffective and led a Bush administration failed effort to oust International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei."
3. "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 . . . "
4. "Forget about U.S.-U.N. differences over Iraq . . . you don't have to be an admirer of U.S. foreign policy -- in Iraq or anywhere -- to conclude the world is being poorly served by the United Nations. That's why it boggles the mind to hear Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer, Christopher Dodd and John Kerry, among others, depict the United Nations as somehow being wronged by (John) Bolton's critique."
5. "Dems who sent a letter to Mr. Bush opposing an appointment of Bolton to the UN included the name of New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Add to that signature those of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Senators Dick Durbin of Illinois, Joe Biden of Delaware, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Bill Nelson of Florida and Patty Murray of Washington . . . Those names placed on one sheet of paper sent to the Oval Office should stir the logic fires all the more for the appointment."
6. "Bolton's critics, including senior Democratic Party senators, had been holding up his confirmation on the grounds that he has long been one of the UN's most vehement critics. He has called the world body both irrelevant and corrupt."
7. "Again, please, perspective. Bolton is not the devil incarnate. He won't bring the wrecking ball to the international system. Or to the United Nations. And there is no plot to dismantle said world body cooked up between neo-Straussians and neo-primitives. Trust me, it will be O.K."
8. "(Bolton) was the individual responsible for making the U.N. drop the anti-Zionism resolution . . . At a time in which America and Western Civilization itself is at risk from an amorphous, dedicated cadre of terrorists seeking destruction on a massive scale, let us hope that the man sent to represent America is a strong determined, competent, man capable of leading and cajoling our fellow nations in doing what is right and not just what is popular with the yellow press."
9. "The complaint that has been most frequently cited by Mr. Bolton's critics is to the effect that he sought to manufacture or otherwise manipulate intelligence and tried to get two analysts who resisted him fired. Mr. Bolton denies doing so. And the record backs him up."
10. "There is no stopping the Bolton. He will soon march into the U.N. Headquarters full of hands on his hips anger, and (we) predict there will be no survivors."
ADDENDUM:
And the lefties go nuts.
UPDATE:
This news article gives a good look at the reception Bolton has received at the U.N. It's a positive round-up, with only North Korea, Cuba and Iran singled out as potentially antagonistic to Bolton's appointment.
OFF-TOPIC:
This explains the New York Times.
OFF-TOPIC 2:
I'm sitting here watching Al Gore on The Tonight Show (because I feel it's necessary for someone to tiptoe about the Dragon's Jaws, and then come back and report on it). Every time I see Al Gore with his faux masculinity, misplaced self-regard, bloating waistline, terminally weak chin and epicene wardrobe, I thank the frickin' gods that he is not our President!
And is it just me, or is he starting to seriously resemble Michael Moore?
Comments
Yeah, I'm sure John agreed with you after he was roundly BOOED at the U.N....the right thing to do indeed!
You sir, are nothing but a pathetic, self-loathing queer who should know better by now than to climb in bed with such corporate whores as the Bushco group...you deserve everything you get once privacy rights are rolled back!
___________________
Homocon sez:
Considering that the U.N. hosts representatives of dictators (Cuba and North Korea), repressive theocrats (Iran), defacto monarchies (Syria) and outright thugs (Zimbabwe and Sudan), I would've been dismayed if there hadn't been a round of boo's tossed in Bolton's direction.
Here's a link to the Member States of the U.N. -- any number of representatives on this list are far more deserving of boo's than John Bolton ever could be, and if you weren't so blinded by your irrational dislike of anything "Bushco", you'd undoubtedly agree.
Posted by: Y.U.B. | August 2, 2005 7:56 PM
I am surprised that a real conservative would support this. What would you think if a Democratic President forced through the appointment of somebody like Al Sharpton of Hillary Clinton? The mid-term appointment rule is only meant to be used because Congress cannot meet. It is not meant to be used for controvercial appointments.
I just hope that the Democrats have enough balls to fight this when they return.
__________________
Homocon sez:
Regardless of how you personally interpret the mid-term appointment rule, the fact remains that it's been used before in similar circumstances, and it wouldn't have had to be used with John Bolton if the Senate had simply done its job and voted on his confirmation. For Democrats to complain that Bolton is "damaged goods" because he didn't receive a Senate confirmation, when the reason he didn't receive a Senate confirmation is because Democrats refused to allow a vote, is, frankly, bullshit.
And I doubt the Democrats can fight it when they return -- the President has the full constitutional authority to do exactly as he just did.
Perhaps you should stick to posting lame ramblings on your own website about the theoretical non-enforcement of marijuana statutes in Canada and the United States. It seems to be something you have more of a vested interest in than the actual ins and outs of U.S. constitutional law.
Posted by: Jason Cherniak | August 3, 2005 4:25 PM
By your logic, only somebody who is a bully or self-important demagogue should appear in the U.N. as a representative, which is why Bolton is a perfect choice.
As to Bush's Constitutional right to do a midterm appointment, you'd better look again. Appointing ambassadors is under the advise-and-consent checks and balances part of the Congress's authority. Please lose the idea that Congress must only rubber stamp what the President demands. It ain't in there.
As to unproven allegations about Bolton doing anything improper, we have to go to the REAL Democratic complaint on this appointment: the withholding of documentation of these allegations. Regardless of what's contained in those, and your efforts to ignore the possibility that he DID cross the line, I'm doubly amused by such an outspoken conservative citing precisely the same defense used by supporters of Bill Clinton during his supposed improprieties.
Just goes to show - we eventually become that which we hate most.
__________________
Homocon sez:
Which is what? Bill Clinton? I'd love to be the first black President of the United States! Are you kidding?
As per my logic, I think it's a tad bit more, uhm, "logical" than your fanstasmagoria about Congress and rubber stamps (why oh why are liberals so frickin' stooo-pid?). Oh well, at least it makes it more entertaining when you explain to them just how very wrong they are.
A recess appointment is a procedure that allows a president to fill a vacant job when Congress is not in session. Period. No ifs ands or buts. Congress is allowed to advise and consent, but after they advise and consent, they vote. The Democratic members of the Senate filibustered, er, asked for more materials on Bolton, and then more, and then more, and then more, stretching it on for four months without ever voting, and so when they left for a recess, the President used his constitutional authority (emphasis was just in case you missed that, you know, with your fabulous grasp of senate history) to appoint Bolton to his post as the U.N. ambassador.
You know, because he can.
And speaking of those who do things just because they can, Bill Clinton gave a recess appointment to Bill Lann Lee to the top civil rights post at the Department of Justice after Republicans were unwilling to confirm Lee because of his support for racial quotas. Recess appointments happen across the board, like it or not. Just because you don't personally like the Bolton appointment doesn't make it unconstitutional.
Funny thing about the Lee recess appointment is that Senator Ted Kennedy urged Clinton to do it. Imagine that, Ted Kennedy, urging on a recess appointment . . . *snort*
And Bolton has to be proven in any investigation that he actually *did* cross the line, not just that there may have been a possibility of crossing the line. Possibilities are just that -- they're not facts. You cannot block an appointment to a governmental position based upon the "possibility" that the individual may engage in behaviors you may not agree with. Oh, wait, I'm arguing with a democrat who believes that you should be able to do just that.
"But officer, there was the distinct possibility that he was going to crash into my car! Write him a ticket so I can get the insurance. And throw him in jail! I just know that he possibly wanted to hate crime me!"
Nice legal system you're concocting for yourself there. *rolls eyes*
Posted by: Jerry | August 4, 2005 6:32 AM
Nice ad hominem.
You sure about the Constitutional Authority bit? Show me in the Constitution any wording about mid-term appointments. THAT's what I'm arguing about.
Of COURSE he can do it. But only because procedural rules have been created by Congress and the Executive branch, as per their Constitutional rights to develop sound working procedures to make government work. It's not precisely a Constitutional right to make midterm appointments, it's a procedural right. Just as filibustering isn't in the Constitution per se, but it is a procedural right granted to any member of the Senate.
Yes, it's splitting hairs, but wrapping yourself in the Constitution just to make a weak point is silly.
________________
Homocon sez:
Recess appointments are authorized by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."
See? You're officially an ignoramus.
**Addendum: Jerry's complaining over on his website that I no longer accept comments from his IP address. I enjoy dealing with a wide variety of readers, but when a commenter begins to rapid fire posts at me after I've publicly disagreed with his/her point of view, my warning flags go up and I get rid of them, fast.
IMHO, the Internet is the Wild Wild West, so I keep my distance from the inhabitants who begin to exhibit signs of blog-post obsession (though I encourage most every other type of obsession -- flowers? candy? anyone?). If you're a commenter and you disagree with what I say, great. Feel free to express your opinion, leave a reply or send an email, but don't shower me with one comment after another after another in the space of 20 minutes. I find the sudden fixation disturbing. Besides, I have other readers to tend to, other email to answer, additional posts to research and write, a job, a boyfriend, a podcast I'm working to develop and a social life (so much to do, so little time).
Where's my beautiful clone?!!!
Posted by: Jerry | August 4, 2005 7:29 AM