re: Actually, no, it's about Bolton.

Current Events » in reply to Actually, no, it's about Bush.

re: Actually, no, it's about Bolton.

Mary Anne — 5/26/2005 6:52:40 PM (archived)

Bush has proposed someone with decidedly non-diplomatic tendencies for a diplomatic post.

Mr. Bolton's employment history and his temperament are not appropriate for this appointment.

Partisan politics is not the same as diplomacy. It's not about Democrats who played hardball with the Administration suddenly getting worried about meanness. Bolton is proposed as the face of American policy among career diplomats from nations all over the world, not among domestic politicians. The Senate, in the "advise" part of its Constitutional "advise and consent" function, has every right to be concerned about matching the job to the individual. This is a bad match.

Who was it that suggested that Bush should propose his dad for the post? George 1 is hardly a liberal lapdog, and this is a strong area for him.

The whole thread (81 posts)

Support John Bolton - gbaikie - 5/26/2005 8:10:58 AM
- It's about Bush, continued... - Tom Brosz - 5/28/2005 11:24:01 PM
- Bolton is a really bad choice - alcaray - 5/26/2005 4:05:55 PM
  - A list of former U.N. ambassadors - Tom Brosz - 5/26/2005 6:26:17 PM
  - re: Bolton is a really bad choice - p - 5/26/2005 4:15:55 PM
    - It is not about the UN, it is about Bolton (n/t) - alcaray - 5/26/2005 4:34:21 PM
      - Actually, no, it's about Bush. - Tom Brosz - 5/26/2005 6:10:12 PM
        
        Someone who would manufacture a bioweapons case against Cuba... - alcaray - 5/26/2005 8:45:50 PM
        
        re: Actually, no, it's about Bolton. - Mary Anne - 5/26/2005 6:52:40 PM
        
        Not according to the Democrats - Sam F. - 5/28/2005 10:52:34 PM
        
        First, your source is the "Washington Times", where Democrats are an endangered species. - Mary Anne - 5/29/2005 4:49:08 PM
        
        Oh no, you can't really meant that. You just can't have. - Sam F. - 5/29/2005 6:10:06 PM
        
        Curses. I really didn't mean (to do) that! - Sam F. - 5/29/2005 6:14:27 PM
        
        A technical hint - Mary Anne - 5/29/2005 7:14:45 PM
        
        Yeah, the UN members have been real diplomatic with Bush! (n/t) - SDAI-Tech1 - 5/27/2005 2:30:34 AM
        
        And your point is...? - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 3:10:40 AM
        
        It isn't about bending over and taking it from people whose bills we are paying, either. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 5/27/2005 6:43:43 AM
        
        You mean we aren't in arrears anymore? (n/t) - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 3:21:15 PM
        
        You want to tally it up since the organization was founded? (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 5/27/2005 6:51:10 PM
        
        Are we that badly in debt to them? (n/t) - alcaray - 5/27/2005 7:04:45 PM
        
        Who else does that work with? - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 7:01:59 PM
        
        Australia - Tom Brosz - 5/28/2005 3:22:05 AM
        
        Diplomats are not diplomatic. - SDAI-Tech1 - 5/27/2005 4:39:19 AM
        
        So naturally, we should allow the least of us to set the agenda. Nice. (n/t) - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 3:03:02 PM
        
        No. Let the dogs lie with the dogs. - SDAI-Tech1 - 5/29/2005 11:00:26 PM
        
        Just as it was just about Condi Rice, the judges who have been waiting 4+ years for the "advise and consent" up/down vote thing... - Scott Evil - 5/26/2005 8:38:06 PM
        
        "Advise and consent" does not mean "rubber stamp". - Mary Anne - 5/26/2005 11:06:39 PM
        
        Of course it doesn't mean rubber stamp. - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 2:44:36 PM
        
        You really have swallowed the whole line, haven't you? - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 3:01:01 PM
        
        I disagree with Joan Lefkow 100% - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 4:41:42 PM
        
        Of course you do. Don't work with the public much, do you? - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 5:17:20 PM
        
        I feel sorry for Judge Lefcow. But she is completely wrong. - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 5:34:33 PM
        
        As gently as I can, for fear of stirring up SamF again... - alcaray - 5/27/2005 5:58:39 PM
        
        I'm shaken, not stirred. ;-) (n/t) - Sam F. - 5/27/2005 7:17:56 PM
        
        Yes. Apparently you took something differently from it than I did. - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 6:12:30 PM
        
        Sorry, just seemed to me that you made no mention of... - alcaray - 5/27/2005 6:54:48 PM
        
        PS: The judge's name is Lefkow, with a K. - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 6:44:40 PM
        
        You give me more credit for being sophmoric than I deserve! - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 6:48:33 PM
        
        Discussion of professional errors is not the same as vilification. - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 6:24:16 PM
        
        Do those percentage numbers again for appellate court judges. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 5/28/2005 3:35:55 AM
        
        Link: - Mary Anne - 5/28/2005 2:09:07 PM
        
        53 percent - Tom Brosz - 5/28/2005 11:09:34 PM
        
        Supreme Court justices don't have to be appointed from the appellate courts. - Mary Anne - 5/29/2005 2:04:55 AM
        
        re: Supreme Court justices - Tom Brosz - 5/29/2005 2:19:30 AM
        
        Not just "an" exception. - Mary Anne - 5/29/2005 2:49:35 AM
        
        I agree that both sides are to blame here. - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 6:45:05 PM
        
        Wait and see if Bush nominates a hack - alcaray - 5/27/2005 6:57:27 PM
        
        re: Wait and see if Bush nominates a hack - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 7:00:20 PM
        
        On a related note: It shows how poor the Congress is that no congressmen were willing to challenge her. - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 5:39:07 PM
        
        Bolton - Tom Brosz - 5/27/2005 1:38:53 AM
        
        Let him put up a nominee who has the background and the temperament for the work. - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 1:49:02 AM
        
        You're not the President - Sam F. - 5/27/2005 12:54:27 PM
        
        No, I'm not. I'm one of his employers. - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 2:48:12 PM
        
        So you hired him November 2? - Sam F. - 5/27/2005 10:38:17 PM
        
        He is the President. He is a public servant. I am part of the public. Next! - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 11:57:06 PM
        
        OK, and it Certainly does not mean FILIBUSTER (n/t) - p - 5/27/2005 12:31:38 AM
        
        No? Or only when Democrats do it? - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 1:47:03 AM
        
        Until 2001, not once in over 200 years was a judicial nominee denied appointment to the court by Senate filibuster (n/t) - p - 5/27/2005 12:48:12 PM
        
        Mostly irrelevant - Tony - 5/27/2005 2:32:11 PM
        
        I accept that there are Republican hypocrites in the Senate - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 2:57:07 PM
        
        The Dems are not "filibustering everything". - alcaray - 5/27/2005 3:47:34 PM
        
        Predictable. (n/t) - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 3:04:08 PM
- No way - Jack Herer - 5/26/2005 12:37:58 PM
  - The CURRENT governments want us to stay. - David F Mayer - 5/29/2005 5:42:33 AM
  - re: To bad so sad. Bush won't leave the White House until 2009 - Scott Evil - 5/26/2005 2:09:50 PM
    - Too bad Bush doesn't know the difference between a tough diplomat and a tough. - Mary Anne - 5/26/2005 2:42:44 PM
      - It has nothing to do with dominance. - Scott Evil - 5/26/2005 3:15:03 PM
        
        How condescending. - Mary Anne - 5/26/2005 6:07:52 PM
        
        I recall most of the post 9/11 sympathy being tempered with a lot of: "You greedy Americans deserved it" - Scott Evil - 5/26/2005 8:30:55 PM
        
        Oh, go look up what people wrote and did back then. - Mary Anne - 5/26/2005 11:17:16 PM
        
        Faulty memory. (n/t) - alcaray - 5/26/2005 10:22:21 PM
        
        More than likely: "selective memory". (n/t) - Fox - 5/27/2005 1:59:45 AM
      - re: Too bad Bush doesn't know the difference between a tough diplomat and a tough. - p - 5/26/2005 2:48:48 PM
        
        And have we paid the bill? No. - Mary Anne - 5/26/2005 3:06:24 PM
        
        What do you mean that we haven't paid our bill? (n/t) - Scott Evil - 5/26/2005 3:15:58 PM
        
        re: What do you mean that we haven't paid our bill? - Mary Anne - 5/26/2005 6:31:18 PM
        
        I think you are right, I was under the impression that we were current. - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 6:04:23 PM
        
        If nothing will change, why is it so vital to put Bolton's keister in a UN chair? - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 6:53:24 PM
        
        Yep. It's about Bolton. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 5/28/2005 4:00:11 AM
        
        It is. He's not qualified. - Mary Anne - 5/28/2005 1:09:28 PM
        
        re: Good point - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 7:02:23 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (81 posts)