Posted on 12/07/2006 3:57:40 PM PST by Jean S
An earlier thread naming some other names:
Bolton Criticized by Former Intel Official
Robert L. Hutchings, who was responsible for coordinating American intelligence assessments in 2003, told the committee staff he felt Bolton was intent on drawing conclusions in public speeches that were "politicized" and exceeded U.S. intelligence on both countries, said a committee source, speaking on condition of anonymity.
In another interview, former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, Larry Wilkerson, questioned Bolton's leadership skills and disputed the view that the undersecretary of state was brilliant, committee sources told The Associated Press.
Wilkerson told committee aides that Powell — who has not endorsed Bolton for the U.N. job — would "go down to the bowels of the building" to try to boost the morale of analysts who had clashed with Bolton. Bolton has been accused of berating subordinates who disagreed with his views.
Melody Townsel, a Dallas public relations consultant who called Bolton "pathological" in a letter to the committee last month, softened her criticism in an April 26 interview with the committee.
Also see this libelous article by Wayne Madsen, which illustrates just how low Bolton's opponents were willing to stoop in order to defend their comrade Fidel Castro:
Wayne Madsen, "Was Bolton behind death of State Department official?"
All the Beltway bandits--from the same mandarinate-- that's been attacking the President 24/7
I see Madsen's editors removed the last article I linked. I have the text of the original, but I will refrain from posting it in case there are any legal issues. To summarize, Madsen asserted that Bolton should be investigated for the death of John J. Kokal, who fell to his death near the State Department, and he implied that Bolton and Elliot Abrams had conspired in regularly defenestrating other government officials. Madsen cited no evidence whatosever to support these allegations. In the process of making these allegations, Madsen quoted criticisms of Bolton by Greg Thielmann and Carl Ford of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR).
Yes, exactly.
Chaffee is the holdup...specifically, he put a "hold" on the nomination...whatever that means, various senators have done it to nominees for whatever reason.
If half a dozen rinos had been even moderately conservative much would have been accomplished.
Melody Townsel (sp?) started "Mothers Opposing Bush" Moborg.com or mob.org or something like that. Soros-funded.
A filibuster in the Senate of a Presidential nominee for Ambassador or to the Supreme Court is unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution provides for an up or down vote by the Senate and for a simple majority of Senators voting needed for confirmation of the President’s nominee. Article II Clause 2 of the Constitution states:
“Article II Clause 2: He (President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court…”
The Constitution is clear that the President needs two thirds of the Senators present voting for a treaty that the President has made. It is stated clearly in Article II Clause 2. However, there is no two thirds requirement for the Senate confirming Ambassadors or Supreme Court Judges. The two thirds language is absent with regard to Ambassadors and Supreme Court Judges. Had the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution intended to require more than a simple majority for the Senate to confirm Ambassador and Supreme Court nominees of the President they would have provided for such as they did for treaties. Absent such provision, the President is entitled to an up or down vote on his nominees and a Senate rule (60 votes to stop a filibuster) can not override the U.S. Constitution.
Well, Ohio has gone Blue so your wish will come true. Unfortunately, Pub conservatives like Blackwell will never be elected either. The purists may not like RINO's or wussies, I don't, but the Dems know when they smell blood in the water as the election showed. No more DeWine either so now you have the lefty Brown, a worse loser than poor ole Mike ever was even with his Gang of 14 mistakes.
I never thought I would be ashamed to be a Republican. Guess I'll switch to the "My rent is too high" party. Yes, that one was on our NY voting machine. LOL.
Exactly. They just don't seem to learn either.
Because the Senate by tradition is a group of pathologically narcissistic self-important posers, they have a psychotic, senseless and plain unethical rule that if one senator--one--"Puts a hold" on a nomination, it is dead until he lifts it--no matter if 99 other senators think it's a great nominee.
This is one of the "Senate rules" of the "World's Greatest Deliberative Body" or so they are pleased to call themselves. No one else but power whores and media suck-ups would agree of course.
Just a part of the increasingly pathetic and dysfunctional excuse for a "government" we have ruling this country.
Bush's spine.
It'd be worth nominating him just to watch the Democrat's reaction.
And that's not the only process they won't have much power over. I think our biggest worry... is how chummy they will be with the Dhimmi's just to be 'involved'.
Bump to read later...
If Chaffee won't vote for Bolton in committee, he can't get out of the committee to the floor.
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.