[topher]

Peach:

Really stupid question on Bolton:

The Republicans snuck him in last session since the Democrats borked him.

So why do we have to have a confirmation hearing on Bolton if he is already the UN Ambassador (or at least the acting UN Ambassador)?

Seems likes the Democrats let a greased pig (pardon the analogy) get away and now they seem intent on trying to catch a greased pig.

Is this just a game to see how many Democrats can shoot themselves in the foot (and other places) just for the viewing?

Do the Democrats think they will win voters with these tactics or lose more of them for the November election?

I am really confused about making a big fuss about someone who is our UN Ambassador already and trying to say he is no longer our UN Ambassador. I think the Kerry-Bolton exchange shows how much the Democrats have to lose...

[Peach]

Hi, topher. The Bush administration wants to get Bolton appointed at the UN ambassador permanently; I don't think this is a position that changes with administrations.

Right now Bolton is just there for some interim period of time (I've forgotten - two years or three?).

But, as you pointed out, having another hearing did have the added benefit of letting the Democrats look like idiots. LOL

I think the administration decided they had another chance at this since Voinovich (spelling?) who is a Republican gave a mea culpa publicly last week in an open letter published in the newspaper saying he was wrong about Bolton and would now vote for him.

Hope that helps somewhat and I hope I'm right about the permanent appointment of Bolton too :-)

[Political Junkie Too]

Bolton is on a recess appointment that expires in January. They are trying to get him appointed permanently. They are also trying to take advantage of current events to box Democrats into a corner to confirm Bolton now or look weak on foreign policy while terrorists are on the attack in the Middle East prior to the upcoming mid-term elections.

-PJ