PDA

**See This Page With Full Graphics, Pictures and Color!** CLICK HERE --> : Bush is still backing Bolton


SOS
05-13-2005, 11:57 PM
Why is bush still supporting Bolton?

In Face of Opposition, Bush Renews Support for Bolton (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/14/politics/14bolton.html?hp&ex=1116043200&en=0c077f6bf4dc5dbb&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: May 14, 2005

WASHINGTON, May 13 - The White House on Friday renewed its defense of John R. Bolton, President Bush's choice for ambassador to the United Nations, urging the Senate to confirm him quickly even as leading Democrats vowed to stall the vote until the State Department turned over certain classified documents.

"We believe there is a majority of the Senate that agrees with the president that John Bolton is exactly the person we need at the United Nations during this critical time of reform," President Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, said, adding that he hoped that "Democrats wouldn't try to play politics with this nomination."

But Mr. Bolton's future was very much hanging in the balance on Friday, while Republicans and Democrats in the Senate tried to figure out their next steps. The Republican leadership is hoping to have him confirmed by the end of the month. But with a showdown over judicial confirmations looming, and a decision by Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, to place an indefinite hold on the nomination, a quick confirmation is hardly assured.

At issue is Mr. Bolton's temperament and management style, along with accusations that he mistreated employees when they disagreed with his assessments about intelligence. On Thursday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took the unusual step of sending his nomination to the full Senate without an endorsement after a crucial Republican, Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio, denounced him as unfit for the job.

The committee's action was a setback for both Mr. Bolton and Mr. Bush. The president had made a personal plea to Mr. Voinovich on the eve of the vote - after the senator had already told Republican leaders he would not support Mr. Bolton. Despite his conversation with the president, Mr. Voinovich denounced Mr. Bolton in the most scathing terms, calling him "the poster child for what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be."

On Friday, Mr. McClellan was asked if Mr. Bush considered the outcome a defeat.

"The president had a good conversation with the senator the other day," Mr. McClellan said. "We respect his decision. But there are many others who agree that the president appointed exactly the kind of person that we need up at the United Nations during this time when they're moving forward on reform."

What happens next depends, in part, on negotiations between Senate Democrats and the State Department. That, in turn, will involve Senator Boxer and the hold she has placed on the nomination.

Under Senate rules, any senator can place a hold on any nomination. The hold can be lifted either by the votes of 60 senators or by the senator who called for it. With only 55 seats in the Senate, the Republicans are not likely to win a vote. And Ms. Boxer said Friday that she would maintain the hold until the State Department turned over certain classified documents, including those relating to Mr. Bolton's dealings with American intelligence agencies over Syria.

But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has so far refused to release the files, saying their disclosure would have a chilling effect on debates within the administration. On Friday, the State Department spokesman, Richard A. Boucher, held fast to that argument, saying, "We don't think anything further is required before the floor vote."

Mr. Bolton's chances for a floor vote are complicated by the fight between Democrats and Republicans over Mr. Bush's judicial nominees.

Democrats have vowed to slow Senate business to a crawl if Republicans exercise a rule change to prevent them from using the filibuster to block judges from confirmation. Aides to Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, say he wants to vote on Mr. Bolton after the fight over the judges but before the Memorial Day recess.

Some Democrats say that a filibuster against Mr. Bolton's nomination is unlikely. With Republicans already accusing Democrats of overusing the tactic, they do not want to look filibuster-happy.

But a spokesman for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said Friday that Mr. Reid had not ruled a filibuster out, and Senator Boxer agreed. "Everything's on the table," she said.

Republicans are hoping to shame Democrats into a quick vote on Mr. Bolton. They argue that he needs to be in place by June so that the United States will have the latitude it needs to press its concerns about Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program before the Security Council.

But Ms. Boxer said Democrats were hoping Mr. Voinovich's pointed speech would prompt other Republicans who have expressed doubts about Mr. Bolton to vote against him.

"I think that George Voinovich's speech was momentous in laying out the case against this nominee," she said.

Smoke
05-14-2005, 12:33 AM
Like many in the Bush administration, Bolton's first campaign experience came during Barry Goldwater's campaign, for which he volunteered in high school. He went on to be editor-in-chief of the Yale Conservative and a four-year member of the Yale Young Republicans. As one friend points out, Bolton's experience as a conservative at a liberal college prepared him well for his role at the State Department, "Bolton was at Yale in the late 1960s. How different can that be from the State Department today?"
Just for the sake of balancing out the State Department we need someone like Bolton, just not as inflamitory.
While at AEI, he testified in front of Congress and wrote a number of scholarly articles, providing fodder for Democrats to oppose his nomination in the Bush administration and reasons for Republicans to support it. From calling support of the International Criminal Court the product of "fuzzy-minded romanticism [that] is not just naïve, but dangerous" to discussing North Korean policy by saying that "sounder U.S. policy would start by making it clear to the North that we are indifferent to whether we ever have 'normal' diplomatic relations with it," he made it easy for Democrats to find evidence on why this was not the man to lead the diplomatic team negotiating treaties.

The International Criminal Court is unconstitutional to begin with, do we really want our soldiers judged by an unaccountable council of Europeans? If we did, every soldier who set foot in Abu Graib would be locked up like Hess was.

As for North Korea, who cares about trading with them. It's primarily a problem for South Korea, China and Japan, yeah we've got to assist, but again, Bolton's remarks were more inflamitory then helpful. Maybe he's got a future as Assistant Nat. Sec. Advisor, so he's not talking but rather Condi Rice is. At least she knows how to handle herself in front of a camera.

Democrats have vowed to slow Senate business to a crawl if Republicans exercise a rule change to prevent them from using the filibuster to block judges from confirmation. Aides to Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, say he wants to vote on Mr. Bolton after the fight over the judges but before the Memorial Day recess.

But a spokesman for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said Friday that Mr. Reid had not ruled a filibuster out, and Senator Boxer agreed. "Everything's on the table," she said.

Just vote on it already, enough with the childish "I'm gonna take my ball and go home" mentality*. The Democrats are gonna shut down the Senate any way the can, just like the Democrats in the Texas legislature did over redistricting a while back.... who had to be rounded up by the Rangers to do their duty. I'd just vote to inpeach them for running away...

* The Republicans deserve some blame for using the same tactic in the 1990s.

Top two quotes from http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=252671

abudabit
05-14-2005, 01:19 PM
Why is bush still supporting Bolton?

In Face of Opposition, Bush Renews Support for Bolton (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/14/politics/14bolton.html?hp&ex=1116043200&en=0c077f6bf4dc5dbb&ei=5094&partner=homepage)


Cause he's not some bend in the wind president, and he isn't going to succumb to some partisan smear campaign. There are a ton of bad things that can be said about the president, but at least he has this going for him.

Paul808996
05-14-2005, 11:21 PM
Bolton just looks like an prick douch bag whose face i'd like to smash in with a baseball bat

abudabit
05-14-2005, 11:22 PM
Bolton just looks like an prick douch bag whose face i'd like to smash in with a baseball bat

Good, then he is doing his job.

BIV
05-15-2005, 05:29 AM
The real issue is we should have backed out of the UN more than a decade ago. It's a useless, anti-American body with outdated ideals and more concern for the wallet of it's member nations than what I good for the planet. (EI, UN opposed action in Iraq primarily because it hurt the illegal oil trade conducted by many of the members...including France and Russia)

What we need is a hard ass in there. Someone not afraid of conflict and rattling a sabre. It's no wonder the liberals oppose him. Once again they are more concerned with naive ideals then real action to better tha nation.

abudabit
05-15-2005, 07:03 PM
What we need is a hard ass in there. Someone not afraid of conflict and rattling a sabre. It's no wonder the liberals oppose him. Once again they are more concerned with naive ideals then real action to better tha nation.

Amen, God forbid we actually have someone who will hold thier feet to the fire instead of a pro-un sycophant ass kisser.

BeltOfScotch
05-16-2005, 10:40 AM
Personally I could really care less about the guy's politics, but if the question is why is Bush still supporting him, it's because politically it's the only thing that makes sense. They have enough of a majority that he will be confirmed once it gets to a vote, and if the Democrats try and filibuster a executive branch position, they're going to get killed for it. If Bush dropped him at this point, it would be a pretty big negative for the Republicans, and since the guy will get confirmed, there's just no reason to do it.