 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
!
Posted on 08/01/2005 7:51:03 AM PDT by kublia khan
Clark's statement is inaccurate. Bolton had senatorial support. The Democrats filibustered and that is the reason Bolton was not confirmed.
Bolton was not afforded the courtesy of an up or down vote because Democrats have decided that they are going to play politics at every opportunity.
Since the Democrat Party doesn't have a single winning issue, they have become the Party of "no" and hate-speach.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
!
What lack of support?
Would the ones who would have voted against him, if this could have been brought to a vote, been numbered among his supporters if they could have voted in a vote that they themselves were blocking?
And are the ones who would have voted for him, if this could have been brought to a vote, now numbered among his opponents, because they were denied their constitutional responsibility to vote for him by his opponents who on flimsy pretext refused them their chance to vote?
This is a johnhuang type conundrum worthy of his variety of serious sarcasm. :>)
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Leni
Lack of Senatorial Support? Please.
If the Dems would have ended their filibuster he would have recieved the support they say is so critical--for a mahority of the Senate would have voted for him. The Dems can't have it both ways.
I think this solution is perfect. The Prez gets to tweek the Dems, and we get our man in the UN. The Prez oughta put Miguel Estrada on the bench during this recess and then nom him to the SCOTUS when Rehnquist retires.
Let the crying begin......
Wesley who?
LOL! I can't understand why anyone would be upset about putting a Bolt On the UN.
Why did they hire this guy? Was Michael Moore unavailable?
And if Bolton accomplishes what he and Bush want to accomplish at the UN, the Democrats will look even MORE foolish, if that's possible.
They did it to themselves, again.
Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 1 between them made hundreds of recess appointments. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say that it would hurt their credibility.
Madonna should just shut up and sing. Wesley Clarke should just shut up and march.
Bingo, you really nailed it in one sentence. I always turn the channel whenever sissy clarke is on. I can't stand that obsequious nut. Any way, I would love to have know what he reaction would have been if the interviewer would have stated what you wrote. Fox is really getting more frustrating with its infestation of anti-US Liberals. Maybe someday there will be "real" conservative channel that will truly tell it like it is.
Bolton will probably be the most successful in history.
"Wrong Way" Wesley strikes again.
Moore just doesn't have that certain special something.
;-)
He still is working for a job in a left-wing government and will say NOTHING that might jeopardize that possibility. He'll try to be the presidential candidate but will pander to get the highest position possible. NOTHING he says can be trusted and he certainly isn't an "objective" observer nor are his words "fair and balanced." Why is he on Fox?
Exactly! You know what though....who cares! At least Bush had the cajones to do it!
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.
