I know and you know it's cheesy to turn around and complain about a tactic your guy has used in spades -- overcoming denied appointments, even. But why would fair play or logic stop the left from bitching about Bush's recess appointments?
Am I missing something?
Not at all. The rats are steaming and they know that complaining about the recess appointments is a loser from the git-go. They tried it a couple of weeks ago, remember, and not only did they get no traction, but they were called on their hypocrisy. And how dare they whine about the actions taken by a wartime President in response to a do-nothing Senate, LOL. The rats are tied up in knots, helpless and hopeless. You didn't miss anything - - there was nothing to miss.
Besides intelligence? Lots!!!
Clinton appointed Bill Lan Lee, who was turned down in the Committee hearings. Bill Lan Lee was found unfit, since it became apparent that he would enforce his own version of the law as he saw fit, not as the Courts had declared. So Bill Clinton then gave the guy a recess appointment, and then made the guy "acting", and thus usurped ALL Constitutional provisions.
Bush gave recess appointments to a few key people that some Senate Democrats refused to even allow hearings to proceed. These Democrats would rather cripple America and the economy during a time of war for partisan principles, than to allow the hearings to proceed.
Bush has indicated that he would still request hearings on the individuals named. My challenge to the Democrat traitors would be to hold hearings, and vote to deny confirmation, and request Bush to remove the the persons appointed, if that is what the majority votes for. But I somehow doubt that the Democraps will do anything above board like this.
Mike