1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Dems leave Sec Bolton hanging...again.

Discussion in 'Legal' started by bg, Jun 20, 2005.

  1. bg

    bg Well-Known Member

  2. slowworm

    slowworm Well-Known Member

    I heard Bush on the Radio today talking about the need for openness and accountabilty at the UN. I fully agree and I would also go further to state that open government and accountability, like charity, should begin at home. So it sucks that this administration is one of the most secretive ever.

    The information the Dems want is in my opinion a justifiable request. Much of the hearing for the confirmation painted Bolton in a less that satisfactory light. And it very much sticks in my throat to say that since I have little to nothing in common with the Dems.

    The intercepts will show one of 2 things. That Bolton was indeed on a personal witch hunt and is therefore not a suitable candidate or that the Dems are on a witch hunt for Bolton and that the intercepts were valid given security concerns.

    My comment to the White House at this point - put up or shut up.

    Not releasing the intercepts would indicate to me Bolton was mis-using intercepts for his own person vendettas and that the paperwork would prove it.

    If I did that I would lose my job, so why the hell should Bolton be rewarded with anything other than being fired for misuse of government property?

    Or is this like the case of Sandy Berger where you can break all the rules that would put me in prison but let the government appointed princes and royals get away with it and still hold security clearances?

    If the intercepts paint the Dems as being on a witch hunt against Bolton I cannot understand the White House not releasing them.
  3. RealGun

    RealGun Well-Known Member

    The Dems arguments, right or wrong, don't disqualify Bolton, much as they would like to think so, anymore than their attacks on Condolezza Rice disqualified her. All they want is to find a reason to beat up on nominees, nothing noble about it, especially since Bolton would probably be very effective at the UN. Those people are just excuses to attack the administration. The pit bulls in the lead are former prosecutors, probably selected in caucus meetings to take the lead. There is a planned strategy, bet on it.

    Bush will appoint Bolton during the summer recess, you watch. Any protests will just bring more accusations of obstructionism. The Dems will then go on to snipe at the next nominee. And we wonder why good people don't want to be considered for the job.

    The people harassing Bolton are the very same that speak out the loudest in favor of gun control measures, so be careful who you support. Being objective is fine, but just know with whom you are dealing here.
  4. slowworm

    slowworm Well-Known Member

    As someone else has said we are dealing with the Stupid Party and the Very Stupid Party. Apply names as you see fit. That is whom we a dealing with.

    In the same way that a stopped clock still manages to tell the right time twice a day (at least in the analog days) the Dems may be write about this one.

    If you think that a government official asking for transcripts of conversations to get names to be used for reasons other than the pursuit of national security is not a very serious misuse then you are free to have that opinion, but I believe you to be very wrong.

    If a future Hillary Clinton appointee :barf: uses intecepts to hold back a promising candidate from the CDC that states the research results were preordained to counter anti-gun legislation from within a department then by your logic this would be acceptable.

    Bolton supposedly wanted to get at someone who did not agree with the intelligance being produced and may have provided a counter and is alledged to have used intercepts to do it.

    In both cases differing opinion from the "official" stance is suppressed via the mis-use of intercepts. If one is acceptable then both are acceptable. To state otherwise is to to run around like Napoleon in Animal Farm saying "Four legs good, two legs better."
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2005
  5. 2nd Amendment

    2nd Amendment member

    As long as it pisses off the Dems I hope Shrubby does a recess appointment. In a government as decayed as this one and in dealing with an organization as depraved as the UN that's really all that matters.
  6. ACP230

    ACP230 Well-Known Member

    In a previous position Bolton stiffed the U.N. on global gun control proposals.
    That may also be a reason Schumer, Boxer, and other gun grabbers in the Senate, are trying to keep him from being U.N Ambassador.

    Recess appointment!
  7. Hawkmoon

    Hawkmoon Well-Known Member

    I'm puzzled.

    With all of the conservative, money-donating Republicrats to whom Bush has access, he can't find ONE person he can nominate who won't kow tow to the U.N. other than Bolton, an egomaniac who has no regard for the truth and actively seeks to belittle and destroy subordinates who wish to not issue falsified intelligence?

    Strikes me as a bit odd.
  8. cloudkiller

    cloudkiller Well-Known Member

    Why Bolton

    I hate to say it, but Bolton sounds like a terrible choice all around. His views of the UN may be in line with reform, but by all accounts I have seen, he sounds like a very poor person to represent the US. I think his nomination should be blocked
  9. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Other than talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, and more talk, what are the Republicans planning to do about it?
  10. RealGun

    RealGun Well-Known Member

    Recess appointment not a victory

    excerpt from:

    Bush to Keep Pressing for Bolton Vote
    Frist Says His Role Has Been 'Exhausted' but Softens Position After Talk With President

    By Jim VandeHei
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, June 22, 2005; Page A10

    Despite prodding from some Republicans, Bush is reluctant to appoint Bolton to a term that would expire at the end of this Congress, in January 2007.

    The interim appointment would not only be controversial but would also make it difficult for Bolton to carry out the changes Bush envisions, said Republicans who have discussed strategy with the White House. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who organized the lunch, said Bolton himself probably opposes a recess appointment because it would tie his hands. "Clearly that's not the next way to go into office," Kyl said. Bush is also convinced that Democrats want to force a recess appointment, which would allow them to declare victory and send a wounded nominee to the United Nations. A GOP official said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) sent word to the White House that Bush should use the recess appointment as a way to end the matter. But a top Reid aide said the minority leader, through a "person with the ear of the White House," said the option was one of three possibilities, including finding a new consensus candidate. "That's out of the question," a top White House aide said.

  11. Blackcloud6

    Blackcloud6 Well-Known Member

    It wasn't just the Dems, Vionovich (R) of Ohio had a lot to do with it too.
  12. roo_ster

    roo_ster Well-Known Member

    The Bolton mess is more a foreign policy fight than an inquiry into Bolton's qualifications.

    Shrub wants a man who supports his foreign policy at the UN. The Dems want a mealy-mouthed weasel who supports THEIR foreign policy...which elevates the UN and its interests over the interests of the US.

    The Dems will keep drawing it out as long as they can, unitl Shrub says, "enough" and recess appoints Bolton.

    FWIW, Voinovich is a sorry excuse for a Senator, a Republican, and a man.
  13. davec

    davec Well-Known Member

    Only presidents with strong electoral mandates need to use the administrative back-door of the recess appointment!

    Oh, I know, I know...its the evil media's fault.
  14. One of Many

    One of Many Well-Known Member

    National Security Compromised

    The quickest way to compromise Classified National Security information is to let politicians have access to it. Turning over this information to every Tom, Dick & Harry in the Senate would guarantee that it would be on the front pages and prime time broadcasts of every news media in the world within a matter of hours.

    The Committee Chairmen & Vice Chairmen (including Democrats) who have top security clearances and have seen the information have stated that it does not implicate Bolton in any wrong-doing.

    This is not a matter of the qualifications of Bolton. It is a matter of a Power Play and Obstructionism, with the Democrat goal being to weaken the Bush Administration and gain legislative seats in the next election cycle. It matters not to these politicians that the damage done to the Bush Administration is harmful to our Nation (the war on terror) and to our Military Personel, as long as the Democrats gain power and prevent President Bush from appointing Strict Constructionists as Federal Judges (especially to the Supreme Court).

    The problem is that the Republicans are being too nice to the Democrats. If the Republicans treated the Democrats the same way that they are treated by the Democrats, there would not be any delays in voting on confirmation of appointees.

    The same Democrats that now oppose the "nuclear" (or Constitutional) change in the TRADITIONAL Senate Rules, to prohibit filibusters of Presidential Appointments, were strongly in favor of such rule changes just a few years ago when they were in the cat-bird seats (majority party). Filibusters are a TOOL of the Minority, that is used solely to obstruct the will of the majority. We proudly claim to be a Democracy to all the world, but not in our own Senate, where the minority rules.

    All it would take to break this impass, would be for a small number of high ranking Democrat politicians to take an untimely "vacation" (incommunicado, of course) so that the filibuster could be broken. Then the confirmation vote could be held when these Senators returned from their brief "vacation". We all know that will not happen of course, because no Republican would ever stoop to the level of a Democrat and do something like this. (By the way, this idea comes from reading of a situation in a certain state where elected legislators "boycotted" a session to prevent a quorum from occurring, so no votes could be taken. The Governor then sent his state troopers out to arrest these "boycotters" and bring them to the legislative session so a quorum was available.)

Share This Page