[ZOMG Politics] Bush gets his first concrete opposition... by a Republican

M

Merranza

Veteran XX
That's pretty interesting. Typical heroic action? Acting thinking of a long term re-election? Potential party jumper?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/10/bolton.congress/index.html

CNN.com said:
his is probably not what President Bush had in mind when he stressed bipartisanship after the Democratic Party's midterm elections sweep.

A key Senate Republican has joined Democrats in opposing one of Bush's initiatives for the lame-duck Congress: John Bolton's nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

With leaders from both parties promising a new bipartisan Washington, Bush began efforts to get two of his most controversial decisions approved before the Democrats take over. (Watch reason to hope for national unity -- 2:16 Video)

Along with Bolton's nomination, Bush said he would like to move forward on legislation to retroactively authorize the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program.

Bush said he would like to see action on both issues before year's end. The Democratic-controlled Congress begins its term in January.

But Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee, who was defeated in this week's election, said he would block Bolton's nomination.

Chafee, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters that he did not believe Bolton's nomination would move forward without his support.

"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," the Rhode Island moderate told The Associated Press.

"And at this late stage in my term, I'm not going to endorse something the American people have spoke out against."

The committee, dominated 10-8 by Republicans, requires a majority vote to send the nomination to the Senate floor. A tie would be the same as a no vote.

After failing to get a Senate vote for Bolton's nomination, Bush made the appointment in August 2005 during a Congressional recess. (Full story)

Bolton's appointment will expire in January unless the Senate confirms him, and the probable next chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee says approval is unlikely.

"I see no point in considering Mr. Bolton's nomination again in the Foreign Relations Committee because, regardless of what happens there, he is unlikely to be considered by the full Senate," said Democratic Sen. Joe Biden, who is set to become the committee's chairman and control the agenda in January.

Last year Democrats launched a heated debate about Bolton as they blocked a vote on his nomination.

They complained he gave the Senate false information when he failed to note on a questionnaire that he had been questioned by the department's inspector general as part of a joint inquiry by the State Department and CIA into allegations that Iraq attempted to obtain uranium from Niger in Africa.

The State Department acknowledged the error in Bolton's statement.

Also, Sen. George Voinovich, an Ohio Republican, took to the floor and read a list of complaints by Bolton's subordinates who said he had a reputation of bullying his colleagues, taking facts out of context and exaggerating intelligence.

Carl Ford, the former chief of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, called Bolton "a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy" and a "serial abuser" of subordinates.
Click to expand...

cliffs:-Dems senate power begins officially in Jan 2007.
-Bush tries to speed up a few *issues* before the Dems take full power
-Some Republicans do not appreciate this sudden pace saying if they didn't have time to fix these before, why now is there time?
-Bolton was appointed as US embassador at UN by Bush during Congress Recess following a denial in 2005.
-Chafee, Rep Sen defeated last week, announces officially he will block Bolton's re-election as US embassador at UN's.


I just hope the Dems won't get too hot blooded with these actions and they won't think they totally dominate everything. They might have control of the House and Senate but they have to remember they didn't win Senate 90 to 10 but more like 51-49... Gotta be careful with upcoming drastic actions.
 
Last edited:
Since the shrub had pushed this through during the last congressional recess, a lot of members were very upset to say the least.
You get what you give.
 
Bolton has already been doing the job, I see nothing wrong with the job he has done so far. Blocking his nomination is all BS at this point.
 
Merranza said:
I just hope the Dems won't get too hot blooded with these actions and they won't think they totally dominate everything. They might have control of the House and Senate but they have to remember they didn't win Senate 90 to 10 but more like 51-49... Gotta be careful with upcoming drastic actions.
Click to expand...

Yeah... that's kinda like winning the popular vote by about 1% and then claiming you have a "mandate," right?
 
You do know that Chafee wanted to block the nomination before he lost right? Oh and that he voted against the war, against the tax cuts and is basically a liberal. You are aware of this right?
 
Stilgar said:
Since the shrub had pushed this through during the last congressional recess, a lot of members were very upset to say the least.
You get what you give.
Click to expand...

I don't see the problem with him being appointed during a recess. Every president has done it at some point and if the dems were going to play dirty by blocking the vote then why couldn't the president fight back?

The arguments against bolton are pretty weak to say the least. This is nothing but a power grab.
 
I just hope that this is the start to a long couple of years of nothing else happening.

Maybe we can start working on an exit strategy to Iraq, change our minds on New Orleans, and then start repairing the deficit.
 
Bolton is the kind of guy who wants to treat the UN with no respect, in line with the bush administration.


He is the type of politician that the election this week denounces.


*shrug*
 
Lockup said:
What so you do?

I don't know if he is a good guy or not but I have not seen any trouble out of him so far.
Click to expand...

I don't really know him either but the article says:

They complained he gave the Senate false information when he failed to note on a questionnaire that he had been questioned by the department's inspector general as part of a joint inquiry by the State Department and CIA into allegations that Iraq attempted to obtain uranium from Niger in Africa.

The State Department acknowledged the error in Bolton's statement.

Also, Sen. George Voinovich, an Ohio Republican, took to the floor and read a list of complaints by Bolton's subordinates who said he had a reputation of bullying his colleagues, taking facts out of context and exaggerating intelligence.

Carl Ford, the former chief of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, called Bolton "a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy" and a "serial abuser" of subordinates.

I won't build a reputation on a couple paragraphs in an article but these are no cool.
 
He's done a pretty damn good job as ambassador so far. He's not bullying anybody and sat down with a bunch of other countries to get them on board regarding the Lebanon/Israel deal and the Iran situation. I fail to see why he should not get the full term nod.
 
Icey said:
He's done a pretty damn good job as ambassador so far. He's not bullying anybody and sat down with a bunch of other countries to get them on board regarding the Lebanon/Israel deal and the Iran situation. I fail to see why he should not get the full term nod.
Click to expand...

Better write your congressman then, instead of trolling a gaming forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top