"1) Why do you think his credibility is diminished?"
its just a matter of public opinion and media portrayal. he has become an embattled nominee, painted as a hot headed control freak, abuser of his power and of spying on other americans. these don't need to be proven facts, just allegations that get out there in the press, you think our media is liberal check out the rest of the world. so IF he gets to the UN, what do you think the people there will think of him knowing that his support here in the US was shaky?
"2) Are you for the Bolton nomination?"
i support his nomination, specifically because i feel he'll take a tough stance and do some reform, but i feel this drag out confirmation will hinder him in the UN now but i still lwant to see him get through. just wish the whitehouse did a better job at this.
someone earlier said the "hurt credibility" issue is something the DUers are talking about and its true, this is their plan and they are executing it.
Of course after he is confirmed, the media spot light goes away. He just becomes the biggest stick in the UN; he speaks for the US. Other countries have two choices: Pay attention to what he says (like you life depended on it), or ignore and ridicule him.
Care to guess how wide the collective backside of the UN will become after a hotheaded control freak (instead of a pinky tipping tea-totaler) finishes with them if they opt for option 2?
Really, it does not matter when he gets in, as long as he gets in.
He speaks for the president. That is why the PRESIDENT appoints him. What a bunch of liberal degenerates in the senate think of him will matter little to the UN lackeys under bolton's heel after he is appointed. Actually, they will probably be thinking, "Why did teddy let us down"?