Bolton in DC Trying to Save His Job
According to Stewart Stogel at NewsMax, Bolton is in DC this weekend pleading with senators for one more chance. But it's too little, too late.
Sources on Capitol Hill tell NewsMax the only feedback Bolton is likely to receive is that his fight (for approval) is over.
Hill operatives also say that the Administration's other "options" for keeping Bolton at the U.N. would badly irritate Democratic and Repubilcan senators and probably won't be exercised.
Time's up.
Advertisement
Comments (9)
In some sense, though, shouldn't we just give on Bolton?
Consider this... our side has opposed him because of his anti-UN past and because he's a documented jerk.
Still... he's been doing the job for awhile now. It's a job that does make policy, but conveys it. While on the job, admittedly knowing he couldn't get confirmed and thus on his best behavior... he hasn't done anything outrageous or crazy. Basically, he's behaved. I'm starting to think we can live with him. Let Bush have him, he's not worth fighting over. Perhaps, even, the opposition to him has changed him to the point where he'll continue to behave.
www.thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
November 12, 2006 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really can't agree with this idea at all. Bolton has a strong role in setting policy for UN reform. And the policy he has been setting seems to be oriented toward disrupting serious efforts to improve the international organization. Leaving him in place guarantees constant setbacks for improving the institution.
November 12, 2006 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're telling me that your not going to look at a place in the U.N. and shut-out everything on the planet, your not going to look at a spot on the open globe and try alittle harder. Trying harder won't give you everything, but if you do have the time, trying harder for that much longer, can give you that time.
November 13, 2006 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but I can't for the life of me, understand your point. If there is any hope for this planet the UN has got to figure in strongly, and our representative needs to be someone who understands the concept of diplomacy, and who has the respect and trust of its other members. Someone with stature and a willingness to be strong -- which is not the same as being a tough-guy bully. It has to be someone who will do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Saying that Bolton (who doesn't really BELIEVE in the UN's mission, by the way) should be confirmed because he has "behaved" (so far, and while on probation) sets the bar pretty low for our country.
Why should we "give" Bush anything? Unlike "nukular," which he has ALWAYS mispronounced, he has taken on the affectation of referring to the "Democrat Party" as an intentional rebuke.
I'd say that Nancy Pelosi, by declaring impeachment to be off the table before any true knowledge is in about origins of this war, the profiteering of Bush & Cheney's friends, and other shenanigans, has already given the ol' boy much more than he deserves.
Jan Knaus
November 13, 2006 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interestingly, in the interest of bipartisianship, the WSJ recommends that Bush appoint Bolton to a non-confirmable State position and assign him the duties of the UN ambassador.
That way Bush circumvents the Senate and is able to pay Bolton a salary.
Bush is not giving up on Bolton. He will have the duties of UN Ambassador.
November 13, 2006 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, since he's already found plenty of ways to get around the Constitution, getting around the expressed powers of the Senate (as in advice and consent for certain appointed positions) shouldn't be too much of a leap. My question is, how could he get away with it? I mean, theoretically he could do that for ANY position. He could appoint Harriet Meyers a judicial advisor, and assign one of her duties to be a Supreme Court Justice! Isn't it flouting the system if you can't get a person approved for a position (TWICE!) and you put him through the back door? Is there no other republican who can do the job? Oh, yeah. I guess not. Most of them are awaiting trial.
This is really low, even for the WSJ!
Jan Knaus
November 13, 2006 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I hear somewhere (I think it was Red State.org) that Joe Lieberman has said he'll vote for Bolton? Seems a bad idea to me, on a number of levels, but that's the rumor I either heard or am making up.
November 13, 2006 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm amazed that the pundits who are so focused now on whether Rep. Nancy Pelosi should wear Armani or Walmart suits have not commented on Bolton's horrendous crime of fashion - what's with the mismatched mustache and hair? The guy looks creepy, definitely not ambassador material.
November 14, 2006 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jan and others
You may want to read a 10 page legal analysis of how the Bush Administration might try to keep Bolton in the lead UN role and their view of the legality in view of the Constitution and US law. It is readable for non-lawyers and shows how hard it is for the Administration to defend such action.
If you want the short version written by Steve Clemons(Wash Note) go to his site here.
November 14, 2006 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink