Bolton Nomination

So Bush named Bolton U.N. Ambassador today while congress is on recess in order to avoid his rejection by Congress.

Do you think this is a good move or an unethical one?

On the one hand the move is Reagan-esque. On the other, Bush is no Ronald Reagan. Still with a Republican senate, the democrats don't have a lot of recourse outside of future fillibusters or perhaps killing bills in the House.

 

low blow if you ask me. He doesn't like the UN, what use is it to place him as the ambassador. There was such a stink about him, all this dirt they dug up about his temper and antics, just to have him snuck through. The more I hear about the bush antics, the less I like them.

Unless you are in the top 1% I am sure you are with me...

 

There was gonna be no rejection in congress. Congress simply decided to "continue debate" to deny the president a confirmation on him. Recess appointments are one of the powers of the president, it was exercised. It's done all the time.

 

eitherway that guy was an a55. Glad to see he will be representing the US since we are all a55es.

 

Glad to see someone with some balls go to the UN. Now maybe the UN will start getting back to its roots instead of being a play board for the corrupt.

Good choice bringing Bolton in and it should have happened long ago but certain parts of government have forgotten about the constitution and the way a democracy is supposed to work.

 

"The palindrome of Bolton would be Notlob!" -- Monty Python, The Dead Parrot Sketch

 

I'm not sure that I've heard anything about him being a tough or even a smart politician. Just a prick to the peons around him. I haven't heard about him being weak either. That's the problem with the media - they'll sensationalize anything the RNCC or DNCC wants them to and don't bother informing America on any actually important issues.

 

So what have you heard? I have heard quite the opposite, but then again, I dont watch the news.

 

What are the roots of the UN again? getting stomped in Korea...99% of the time, its an absolutely useless organization.

Bush had an opportunity and exploited it.

I cant stand the man, the GOP, etc...but this is not something to get bent out of shape over. All pols would do the same...

All that said...Bolton sounds like an embarrassment---par for the course. Apparently, he represents this administration's vision well.

 

Bolton earned this appointment by helping America in the 2000 election.

"Im with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count."

 

Again, good to see someone with balls heading to the UN.

 

'Cause that's what's most important! BIG BALLS baby!!!

 

Yeah - If there's anything that guys with the power to deploy armies need, it's more testosterone!

 

i think so far, he's a better choice than anyone else.

 

The U.N. is a szesspool of corrupt old men. What damage could Bolton possibly do?

 

That's an interesting statement. I try to stay up do date on politics, but it's difficult to find sources of information that are actually informative. The only person I've ever heard of making any noise at the U.N. was... I think it was Agnew - when he called out Russia. The U.S. has treated the U.N. with a fair amount of ambivolence since maybe 10 or 20 years after Wilson left office - which is strange considering the amount of power we hold there. Bush certainly has been pretty ambivolent and sometimes antagonistic during his term.

Anyhow, the reason I found this interesting was that a non-controversial ambassador should be easy to find, and the job itself rarely requires much in the way of political skill or aptitude - not much beyond what say the top 500 candidtates would have to offer anyways.

A recess appointment has never been used over such a benign position that I can remember. It would seem to me that you would want someone there who the country publicly backs up - so that other countries can have faith in his authority.

All I really know about this guy though is of his "abusive" history, and frankly that doesn't make him a tough guy in my mind, nor does it make him a potential embarrassment either. It just makes me think he's a bit of a weasel who I probably wouldn't like personally. That's usually the kind of guy you make an ambassador - especially if you owe him a political favor or if he was a big campaign contributor.

I don't know about this move though. I guess the choices were to Recess Appoint him or hide him somewhere else and hiding him means that you give the DNC a win.

 

Because they wont back us when we want to invade?

Being a bully doesn't seem to be helping us. We need ambassadors to work with our international allies, not someone that hates the organization they have to work with. he is "just a prick to the peons around him". We are just creating more level of distain.

 

http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/local//index.php?ntid=49086&nt_adsect=edit

eludes to the stonewall that was hit with document and witness discover over this guy... I think that was one of the main problems...

 

Amazing how "The UN can't enforce thier own rules because they are too busy trying to make money for themselves" gets interpreted to

 

The UN is the most corrupt institution on the planet.