Cliff May on the Bolton recess appointment:
Bolton’s opponents are saying he is “damaged.”
If that’s true, it’s because they have for months been working assiduously to damage him.
They say he will be less effective because he doesn’t have Senate approval.
If that’s true, it’s because a few Senators prevented their colleagues from having an opportunity to vote for (or against) him.
They say without Senate approval, Bolton won’t represent the Congress.
He will, however, represent the President of the United States.
The fact that he may not represent Chris Dodd should not be terribly debilitating.
Had the Senate given Bolton his up or down vote, he would have been approved, and none of this “taint” would be on him—short of that already bestowed upon him by the North Koreans, who share the Democrats’ violent and (to my mind, irrational) disdain for the new UN Ambassador.
The Democrats, let me make clear, are of course free to object to the President’s appointments. And they can vote their consciences. But what they are doing of late is attempting to go over the President’s head in order to discredit him in the court of world opinion—to try to defeat his policies, in essense, by taking the fight to an international audience more sympathetic to the liberal worldview. They are doing this against the will of the American public, who voted to give the President the right to nominate the kinds of candidates that will further his governing strategies.
One of the long-time knocks on liberals by conservatives is that they’ve been too eager to use the courts to circumvent the democratic process; using international opinion to align against the will of the US electorate is just the latest tactic that evinces a growing disdain for a citizenry that continues to reject its ideas.
****
update: more here (h/t Michelle Malkin)
****
update 2: Cole tips me to this, from Daily Kos:
Bush claims that Bolton will be a force for reform at the UN. Problem is, Bolton has been foisted upon the UN without any consensus in the Senate. He has only a shred of legal authority to the post, and no moral authority. His tenure is necessarily limited to a year.
So how can he effectively push for reform when the UN bureaucracy can simply run out the clock on him? And how will such delaying tactics blow back on the UN when Bolton couldn’t even garner the support of his own countrymen in the U.S. Senate? And how could anyone take Bolton seriously given the number and severity of the allegations against him?
Bush thinks he’s flashing the middle finger at Democrats, but in reality he’s setting back his own cause for reform at the United Nations. As for U.S. diplomacy, it’s yet another setback. But this administration has done nothing but give F.U.s to the world community for five years running. This is simply par for the course.
Amazing, isn’t it? The activist left base is in such a feedback loop that they obstruct, and then cite the fruit of the obstruction as proof of the righeousness for obstructing in the first place. Without irony!
When one of the democrats principal reasons for filibustering Bolton is that he has “poor interpersonal relationship skills”, you have to know something other than honest-to-goodness “advice and consent” is afoot.
There refusal to vote was strictly partisan showmanship. If Bush had nominated Clinton for the position, they still would have filibustered.
Mr. Bolton’s brief fron the President:
“Get on over there and kick those diplo-freaks to the curb, John. I want some serious toe-assin’ goin’ on. Clear?”
I’m sorry Jeff, but you completely lost me when you said the North Koreans had placed their taint on him. That’s disgusting, I had no idea they were collectively into teabagging.
Shank wins.
Which also explains the Clinton-for-SecGen rumblings one hears from time to time.
Billy Jeff: president of the whole world!
That’s disgusting, I had no idea they were collectively into teabagging.
Well, why not? I mean, with a mustache like that, you get the extra “tickle factor” free of charge.
If I had my own blog, I would have linked to this post as inspiration for the following:
Iraq = Vietnam.
Not as a matter of military history, of course. Rather, Iraq = Vietnam for the Democratic Party.
Vietnam was an instance where leftists in Congress were able to undermine the president’s foreign policy and war efforts enough that the entire thing would collapse a few short years later. These leftists managed to get the Democratic party branded as untrustworthy on matters of foreign policy and national security—a taint so severe that only two Democrats have been elected president in the years afterward. Jimmy Carter barely squeaked in ahead of unelected President Ford in the wake of Watergate. After four years of that, the U.S. refused to elect a Democrat president until the Cold War ended.
The Left ought to be more careful about what it wishes for.
Hmmm… That gives me an idea (idear?)
How about this guy for UN Ambassador?:
MGySgt John J. Valdez – last Marine out of Saigon, 30 April 1975
http://www.fallofsaigon.org/lastto.htm
And the fact that he flat-out lied to the Senate has no bearing on his fitness for the office?
And the fact that he flat-out lied to the Senate has no bearing on his fitness for the office?
Uh, no.
Hell, they lie to us all the time.
‘Round here, that’s a resume enhancement.
Would you mind providing a link (to a reputable source) that goes into some detail on this lie, Geek?
To be more specific, they lie to us about John Bolton all the time.
Bolton ‘omitted’ certain information:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/29/politics/29bolton.html
“John R. Bolton, President Bush’s nominee to be ambassador to the United Nations, failed to tell the Senate during his confirmation hearings that he had been interviewed by the State Department’s inspector general looking into how American intelligence agencies came to rely on fabricated reports that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Africa, the State Department said Thursday.”
Well, here’s the RNC, er, NRO spin on it:
**************************
The latest has to do with a mistake that Bolton made filling out a Senate questionnaire. He erroneously said that he had not been interviewed in any investigation over the last five years. But he had been questioned by the State Department inspector general in an inquiry into how the infamous 16 words about Saddam and Niger got into Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address. Since Bolton didn’t have anything to do with the 16 words and this investigation didn’t involve his conduct, he had forgotten about it. He had no motive to lie, and no one has even suggested what would have been a plausible one.
***************************
I find such naivete touching.
“Why no, Senator Kennedy, those pants don’t make you look fat.”
Fine time to pick your battles, Geek. John “Rude Boy” Bolton is on his way to Turtle Bay and you’re whining about some incorrect entry on his employment application. Keep it comin’, luv.
I’ll give you this, Geek–that’s interesting, and I’d forgotten about it. But what about the end of the NRO blurb that you quoted? What reason would he have had to lie? Why are we being naive about Bolton?
Geek, Esq.–
Why did he omit the information? Tell us. Because you’re right—Bushies are automotons who don’t make mistakes. So there has to be a more insidious explanation.
Do let us know.
Meanwhile, I mentioned this already here.
It’s worth noting the State Department doesn’t seem to think this a big deal—and it is also worth noting that this came to light after Biden (via an MSNBC exclusive) accused Bolton of lying about testifying in the Plame affair.
Unlike Bolton, though, I suspect Biden and MSNBC had a motivation for floating that story.
This is to laff:
Gee, Senator, if you and your pals hadn’t been such a bunch of obstructionist crybabies, the full Senate could’ve done its job. But I guess that was the point of Jeff’s post in the first place.
And the fact that he flat-out lied to the Senate has no bearing on his fitness for the office?
If certain Senators (all of whom have a ‘D’ after their names, but that’s just a coincidence) believe that he has lied to them and that he is therefore unfit to hold the office, you know how they get to express that position? {Jeopardy music}
That’s right, they VOTE on him!
Think it through… If you can.
“Of course, Senator Bryd, you look VERY distinguished in your hood. White is your color. (heh)”
And I don’t remember Teddy braying about an “abuse of power” or the “cloak of secrecy” covering the Clinton White House when Bill Lann Lee was appointed Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. On a recess appointment.
Funny, that.
Motive?
Plain and simple: It prevented the Committee from investigating and questioning him about it.
And it’s not credible to suggest that he ‘forgot.’ This wasn’t an inquiry into some missing Post-it notes from the supply room.
And this wasn’t a job application for the local 7-11. One would think a little due diligence–like asking his secretary–would be in order.
“No, Congresswoman Pelosi, no one can tell you’ve had a facelift.”
I do agree that the “abuse of power” stuff is just red meat rhetoric for the base. Faux outrage is a bipartisan vice.
“I know that I, for one, Senator Kerry, think you’re a hero. Can I see your medals? And secret hat?”
“Honestly, Senator Biden, I think your hairplugs look totally natural. Totally.”
“I think that in a year or two pantsuits will be all the rage, Senator Clinton.”
“Senator Schumer, the camera loves you.”
Arrrrrgh! Schumer was MINE!
“The abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House continues. … It’s a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton’s credibility at the U.N.† Sen. Edward M. Kennedy
It appears that a senior Senator is unacquainted with Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, namely this: The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
What is more worrisome: that a Presidential appointee forgot or didn’t deem it worth mentioning that he was asked to testify during an investigation into a matter that ended up not even concerning him? Or that a senior U.S. senator appears to be in imminent danger of flunking his oath to uphold the Constitution because he doesn’t care to even know the basics about it after 30+ years in the Senate?
I think most of us can agree on the answer to that question.
Snooze and lose, buddy.
“Yea Senator Dodd, that Helen Thomas is HOT! Another quadruple vodka martini?”
“And, yes, Senator Rockefeller, it’s all because of the Jews.”
“I think your understanding of the Constitution is awesome, Senator Kennedy”
(I know, I used him twice, but he’s big enough for a second person)
“Yes, Sen. Coburn, Schindler’s List is does indeed encourage sex and violence. State executions of abortion doctors would go a long way toward ending this plague of liberal moral relativism.”
You, Senator Jeffords, are a true party loyalist.”
huh?
thread killer.
“No Senator Obama, I don’t think the Democrats even care about your color.”
“I have no idea why you haven’t had a solid stool since ninth grade, Senator Kennedy.”
There’s no doubt in my mind that Senator Kennedy knows who you are, Senator Osama. No doubt.”
“I can’t figure it out either, Senator Leahy, I always thought Lake Champlain was a Great Lake.”
“I’m with you Senator Dayton, better safe than sorry.”
“I think it’s VERY manly to cry Senator Voinovich. In a, well, Andrew Sullivan sort of way.”
No, Senator Boxer, the Kelo ruling wasn’t like “God had spoken.” It came from a higher source.
“Uh no Senator Reid, we aren’t laughing at you. We take you quite seriously.”
“The camera peels a good fifteen pounds off you, Senator McCain. At least.”
“Why, I think you’re the obvious front-runner for the nomination in ‘08, Sen. Biden.”
“I think you’d be received quite well at Gitmo, Senator Durbin, I’d go if I were you.”
“I think you’d be received quite well at Gitmo, Senator Durbin, I’d go if I were you.â€Â
You win, Tom.
No kelly, you’re wrong. At Jeff’s place, we’re ALL winners.
Alright! Go us! Yay!
I see Geek is back to his psychic act.
Reading back over this with a good buzz going is pretty hysterical.
C’mon, isn’t it?
Kelly: Yes, it is.
t.w. “job,” something I don’t have and need to find.
I am not sure if Greek will be back, but I am curious if his facts amount to what he thinks they do regarding Bolton lying about the investigation. If Bolton works for State, is it possible that the questions asked of him took on the appearance of day to day operations rather than an investigation? In other words, is it possible that Bolton did not know the questions being asked of him were part of an actual investigation rather than just part of the day to day life at State?