dumb dems to block Bolton!!!!

[Jennifer.Bush]

WASHINGTON — U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton won't get a hearing before the 109th Congress adjourns, effectively killing any chance he would have of being confirmed for his post.

Members of the current Senate coming together next week in a lame duck session to vote on remaining spending bills left unfinished before the October campaign season, but they are not going to vote on Bolton, staff members for Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told FOX News on Thursday.

Part of Bolton's inability to get through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is the result of opposition from Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee.

Chafee, who lost his re-election and is considering whether to leave the GOP altogether, said he has not changed his reservations about Bolton nor does he think now is the time for a fight.

"The American people have spoken out against the president's agenda on a number of fronts, and presumably one of those is on foreign policy," Chafee said. "And at this late stage in my term, I'm not going to endorse something the American people have spoke out against."......With control of the Senate next year passing to Democrats, Bolton, whose recess appointment is set to expire before the 110th Congress convenes in January, will not get a hearing then either.

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., who is likely to head the Senate Foreign Relations Committee next January, also said he sees "no point in considering Mr. Bolton's nomination again."

"Mr. Bolton did not get a vote in the full Senate last year because the administration refused, with no justification, to allow the Senate to review documents highly relevant to his nomination. ... Unless the administration provides the Senate with the documents it is entitled to see, Mr. Bolton should not get a vote."

Bolton was given a recess appointment to be the chief diplomatic negotiator to the international body in August 2005 after Congress refused to confirm him. The position lasts until the new congressional term.

The White House sent Bolton's nomination to the Senate on Thursday morning, and can try to ram through a hearing, but they are only able to do so much given the outcome of the election and the inability to get 60 votes to stop a filibuster if a Bolton consideration were to sent to the Senate.

"We'll find out if we can get him confirmed. We know what the vote tallies are," White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said Thursday morning, calling Bolton "a very accomplished and capable U.N. ambassador."

"We think it's important that he stay there," Snow said of Bolton's place at the U.N.

Opponents have called Bolton too brash. For four months prior to the appointment, Senate Democrats questioned Bolton's temper and treatment of staff aides. They also said they need more documents relating to Bolton's term as undersecretary for arms control and international security.

Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio blasted Bolton's described him as "the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be."

Chafee too cited concerns about Bolton's tie to a government investigation into faulty prewar intelligence on Iraq. In September, Chafee — who was in a tight re-election race — said he would oppose Bolton's nomination until the administration answered questions about its policy in the Middle East, which in effect delayed any vote until after the elections.

But several lawmakers said Bolton served with distinction during the recess appointment period, getting agreement on condemnation of North Korea for test-firing a nuclear weapon and generally winning over many of his colleagues on issues of lesser importance.

In July, Voinovich said that his observations are that "while Bolton is not perfect, he has demonstrated his ability, especially in recent months, to work with others and follow the president's lead by working multilaterally."

Democratic critics have not changed their tunes, however. Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, said in July he regrets that President Bush insists on forwarding Bolton.

"I'm sorry the administration wants to go forward with this. The problems still persist," he said.

If he chooses, President Bush can re-appoint Bolton during the congressional recess, a senior Republican aide who is an expert on parliamentary procedure told FOX News. But the ambassador won't get paid until he is confirmed by the Senate.

Bolton could be named to another U.N. post in order to ensure that he gets a salary, the aide said.

:finger: :finger:

 

[Gunny]

Yeah, we need to get some spineless, vacilating ass-kisser in there so we can appease the World.

 

[T-Bor]

Go Dems Baby !!!

 

[Mr. P]

Opponents have called Bolton too brash.

Liberals and Democrats hate someone that calls a spade a spade,
Or a suicide bomber, a terrorist
Or illegal aliens, illegal
Or a crime, a crime (without adding hate to it)

Or ………

 

[no1tovote4]

Good thing the Executive branch sets Foreign policy and the Congress literally is forbidden from mucking around in it... at least if they find the neato document called the Constitution important....

 

[Mr. P]

Good thing the Executive branch sets Foreign policy and the Congress literally is forbidden from mucking around in it... at least if they find the neato document called the Constitution important....

They may try an change that.

 

[no1tovote4]

They may try an change that.

Yeah, and most people in the US don't know enough of the Constitution and will probably let them get away with it.

 

[Redhots]

The lot of you need to come off it.

He was a shitty stooge that shouldn't have gotten it in the first place regardless.

Recent events and statements give the indication that Bush is stepping away from the Cheney style policy that hasn't been working and Bolton is a Cheney guy.

This whole thing could just be for show, like he did with Rummy before he cut him. I guess we'll find out in a couple months.

 

[Mr. P]

Yeah, and most people in the US don't know enough of the Constitution and will probably let them get away with it.

Sad but true. I'd say 'most' people have never even read the Constitution.

 

[Redhots]

Liberals and Democrats hate someone that calls a spade a spade,
Or a suicide bomber, a terrorist
Or illegal aliens, illegal
Or a crime, a crime (without adding hate to it)

Or ………

I'm not regestered as a Dem, but thats a bullshit distortion and you know it.

What many people hate is bellicose, showboating, rhetoric that serves no positive purpose.

Like that "Axis of Evil" shit that has caused N. Korea and Iran to scramble to complete nukes while we're boged down and unable to do shit to prevent it.

And another thing, we have a snowball's chance in hell of seccuring some semblence of victory in Iraq if we can't get Iran, among other regional powers, on board. Which is why we can't afford to have idiots like Bolton around.

 

[Mr. P]

I'm not regestered as a Dem, but thats a bullshit distortion and you know it.

No it's not and you know it. So does everyone else.

 

[theHawk]

Dems need to learn that they shouldn't be voting against Presidential nominees just because they don't like his politics. They can't hold the President hostage and force him to only select some liberal nitwit that will do their bidding, instead of the President's.


I was skeptical of him at first, but I think Bolton has done a damned good job so far. He has already proven he is capable of the job.

 

[Redhots]

Dems need to learn that they shouldn't be voting against Presidential nominees just because they don't like his politics. They can't hold the President hostage and force him to only select some liberal nitwit that will do their bidding, instead of the President's.

Why do so many of you never bother to read the full article or research before you shoot off at the mouth with your partisan crap.

This wasn't even half way down in the OPs article.

"Mr. Bolton did not get a vote in the full Senate last year because the administration refused, with no justification, to allow the Senate to review documents highly relevant to his nomination. ... Unless the administration provides the Senate with the documents it is entitled to see, Mr. Bolton should not get a vote."

Bolton was given a recess appointment to be the chief diplomatic negotiator to the international body in August 2005 after Congress refused to confirm him. The position lasts until the new congressional term.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I don't see what the hell you all are talking about when it comes to Constitutionality. The Constitution clearly says that the Senate must consent to Presidential appointees. It doesn't say the Senate has to consent. They're legal.

 

[Mr.Conley]

No it's not and you know it. So does everyone else.

It's a bullshit distortion.

 

[Rico]

I'm not regestered as a Dem, but thats a bullshit distortion and you know it.

What many people hate is bellicose, showboating, rhetoric that serves no positive purpose.

Like that "Axis of Evil" shit that has caused N. Korea and Iran to scramble to complete nukes while we're boged down and unable to do shit to prevent it.

And another thing, we have a snowball's chance in hell of seccuring some semblence of victory in Iraq if we can't get Iran, among other regional powers, on board. Which is why we can't afford to have idiots like Bolton around.

Bullshit Satan boy!! N. Korea has been working on a bomb for over ten years and Iran has been at it for twenty. Back to the drawing board for political analysis. Try to get the facts straight before making stupid conclusions.

Oh yeah we need Iran to help us in Iraq.. Oh boy I 'spose we need the Taliban to help us in Afganistan as well? Geeez piss poor thinking leads to shit can results.

 

[Mr.Conley]

No, it is your facts which are wrong!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_nuclear_program#1989-2001

 

[Rico]

No, it is your facts which are wrong!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_nuclear_program#1989-2001

Sorry sonny but your wiki is wrong. N. Korea has been in development of nukes since the 1980'S. You do know Wiki is editable by most anyone right?

Here's a much better history. Now how would you like your crow prepared for dinner?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke.htm


The North Korean nuclear weapons program dates back to the 1980s. In the 1980s, focusing on practical uses of nuclear energy and the completion of a nuclear weapon development system, North Korea began to operate facilities for uranium fabrication and conversion. It began construction of a 200 MWe nuclear reactor and nuclear reprocessing facilities in Taechon and Yongbyon, respectively, and conducted high-explosive detonation tests. In 1985 US officials announced for the first time that they had intelligence data proving that a secret nuclear reactor was being built 90 km north of Pyongyang near the small town of Yongbyon. The installation at Yongbyon had been known for eight years from official IAEA reports. In 1985, under international pressure, Pyongyang acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). However, the DPRK refused to sign a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an obligation it had as a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In September 1989 the magazine JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY stated that North Korea "could manufacture nuclear devices in five years' time, and the means to deliver them soon afterward." In July 1990 THE WASHINGTON POST reported that new satellite photographs showed the presence in Yongbyon of a structure which could possibly be used to separate plutonium from nuclear fuel.

 

[Redhots]

Bullshit Satan boy!! N. Korea has been working on a bomb for over ten years and Iran has been at it for twenty. Back to the drawing board for political analysis. Try to get the facts straight before making stupid conclusions.

Either you only read what you want to read or you need to expand your vocabulary to include words like "scramble".

This is what I said.

Like that "Axis of Evil" shit that has caused N. Korea and Iran to scramble to complete nukes while we're boged down and unable to do shit to prevent it.

So are you going to own up to your mistake this time or run away like you did in that other thread where you claimed the Dems never offered any plans for anything? I'm fine with either.

Oh yeah we need Iran to help us in Iraq..

This just shows you haven't been paying attention the last 3 1/2 years.

The PM of Iraq and many others in the government, the ones some of you are so proud of, are already big supporters of Iran. Whats the majority of the population in Iraq? Shiite. Whats the majority of the population in Iran? You guessed it, Shiite. Is any of this sinking in?

Working with Iran to stabalize Iraq is likely the best oppertunity we'll have to build a partnership that can later be the basis for real talks about Iranian nuclear ambitions. And it'll only improve the odds for a more successful outcome in Iraq after we leave.

Oh boy I 'spose we need the Taliban to help us in Afganistan as well?

 

[red states rule]

Libs have a great track record in protecting the US and confronting evil

Peace at Last! *clink*


Pop open a bottle of bubbly and drink a toast to Bill Clinton, because the seeds of peace he planted in North Korea have finally come to fruition. Now that the tiny island nation has joined the small but growing club of nuclear-armed states, the chances that the imperialist aggressor Bush will invade North Korea are now slim to none. Thus, six years after leaving office, Bill Clinton has assured a brand of peace with North Korea that the Shrub couldn't achieve during his entire stolen peeResidency.

Granted, this peace didn’t come about exactly as we had planned. When our last elected President sent his only begotten Secretary of State riding into Pyongyang on the back of a donkey with a radioactive hunk of cheese wedged between her butt cheeks, it was hoped that Kim Jong Il would be so moved by our gesture of trust that he would forever refrain from developing nuclear weapons - or at least keep it on the low-low so we wouldn’t look like complete jackasses. But no matter how Bill Clinton achieved the peace, it's the outcome that is important.

That's not to say that a nuclear-armed PDRK is without any drawbacks. Make no mistake, Kim Jong Il is a dangerous lunatic. Sure, the Supreme Leader was a sweet little man who could be trusted to abide by a non-proliferation pact when Bill Clinton was president, but it only took six years for Bush to drive him completely nuts. It wasn't just the "Axis of Evil" remark, either. When the Shrub blew the lid off North Korea's secret nuclear weapons program, he forced the proud nation to brazenly continue what it had been doing discreetly under Bill Clinton for years. Our only hope is that a Democrat will be in the White House in two years, so that Kim Jong-Il will once again be a misunderstood yet reasonable man ready to sit down at the bargaining table with his American friends.

I don't expect Bush to thank Bill Clinton for Winning the Peace in North Korea. But Clinton should at least get the credit he deserves for insuring that no Americans will ever have to die on North Korean soil, but rather in the comfort of their own homes as long as they live within the blast radius.




Jimmy Carter Won the Cold War



"Short-circuiting the long-established principles of patient negotiation leads to war, not peace." - Jimmy Carter

On this 93rd birthday of the Anti-Christ, Gipper-worshipping dittoheads across the blogosphere are squawking like lovesick parrots about how "Reagan won the cold war". But history will reveal the real truth - the man who actually won the cold war was none other than the 39th president of the United States, James Earl Carter.

Carter strongly suspected that the Soviet Union might be a bully. From his grade school years, Carter also knew that the best way to deal with a bully is to make yourself very small and hope they don't notice you. Failing that, offer them your lunch money. Whatever you do, do NOT confront them - it will only make them angrier. Meekly submitting to a wedgie is better than getting a bloody nose. And perhaps in time, the bully will realize you're no threat and let you pal around with him. Carter applied this policy of d鴥nte to his dealings with the Soviet Union.

The French word for "I'm your bitch", d鴥nte with the Soviets was the dreamchild of Henry Kissinger and Tricky Dick Nixon. But it was future nobel laureate, Jimmy Carter, who perfected it to an artform. When the Soviets began rattling their nuclear sabres in the 70's, Carter cut national defense in order to make us seem less threatening. When the Soviets appeared unmoved by his overtures of peace, Carter offered them an olive branch in the form of the Panama Canal, Nicaragua, Taiwan, Ethiopia, Korea, Yemen, Angola, Kampuchea, and Afghanistan. He was in the process of handing them all of Eastern Europe when he was cruelly tossed out of office by the Moral Majority.

However, Carter's refusal to confront the USSR set the wheels in motion for its eventual collapse. Lured into a false sense of superiority, the Soviets overextended themselves, spreading their influence across the globe in much the same way the Roman Empire did. If allowed to continue on such a course, the Soviet Union would quietly fade away in just a few hundred years. All Reagan did was speed up the process by forcing the "evil empire" into an arms race.

By standing up to the Soviets and forcing them in to an arms race, Reagan brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation. If it weren't for Sting's visionary Russians single soothing the tensions between the two world powers, I would very likely be typing this blog from a fallout shelter today. We owe him, and Jimmy Carter, a deep debt of gratitude.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2004/02/_shortcircuitin.html