Go Vikes!
Posted on 08/01/2005 7:24:56 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
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 the next session of Congress, which begins 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 "partisan delaying tactics by a handful of senators" had denied the nominee the job.
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.
RIGHT IN YOUR FACE, LIBERAL SOCIALIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a CONSTITUTIONAL APPOINTMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
One more for this President, and the Republicans the American people put in power.
I have to say that Bolton has one heck of a cookie duster there.
I believe that Bill Lan Lee was voted down in the Senate and Clinton appointed him anyway. Am I correct?
Bush Circumvents a Senate That Seems Intent on Circumventing the Constitution (and any sense of responsibility or decency)
would be a more apt headline...
Bush said that Bolton's nomination had been supported by a majority of the Senate but that "partisan delaying tactics by a handful of senators" had denied the nominee the job.
This lets everyone know it was the DemoRats who prevented the U.S. from having a representative at the UN for the last 5 months.
OMG !
Democrats will go ballistic....
I believe that they will pick someone who can help them carry a state in the SW.
----
Arizona or New Mexico maybe..
probably Richardson..
definitely not Napolitano,, LOL
This is what the Rats and media wanted, an issue to *itch about. They will weave this into the debate and hearings over Roberts to illustrate how the administration has no regard for the constituional duty of the Senate to advise and consent.
I think you are right. At least he came up for a vote, which Bolton did not.
The nice thing about this is that, in the end, the democrats did NOT filibuster him because they said he was extreme.
Instead, they filibustered him because they wanted more documents.
He's letting them know publicly that he knows it, and knows how to use the media, as well.
This is a setup for the next round of Bolton confirmation nonsense when his appointment expires.
Way to go W !!
Go Vikes!
Ted Kenndy calls appointment "Devious"
Yes Teddy, but not as devious as turning up that inquest of the woman you drowned wearing a neck brace to garner public sympathy...
"I told ya so." Ping!
LOL!
A.A.C.
You made me sputter, I didn't want to do it. I didn't want to do it.(Insert hum)
ROFLMAO
I f@art in their general direction.
Wrong. Bolton made it out of committee, and to the Senate floor.
His first vote was blocked by a filibuster. They tried again a week later and it was blocked again.
Those blocking said they wanted more information from the President before they could "make a decision". Meanwhile, a majority said they had enough information and would vote to confirm.
So, since the democrats insisted they weren't filibustering him SIMPLY to block him, and since at best they information they got would convince them to vote NO which they were going to do anyway, the President was perfectly right to go ahead and appoint him, since he couldn't give them the highly secret information they wanted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.