Somebody had to be the Democrats’ postelection pinata, and it turned out to be John Bolton.
After President Bush nominated Bolton on Thursday to be U.N. ambassador, Democrats essentially told him not to bother. Sen. Joe Biden, top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Bolton’s confirmation won’t be allowed to come to a vote. Rightly or wrongly, Democrats consider Bolton an undiplomatic bully who is prone to disparaging the United Nations.
Another Bush nomination, that of Robert Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense, may face some tough sledding over his role in the Iran-contra affair. But don’t expect it to drag out too long: After all, Rumsfeld has promised to stick around until his replacement is confirmed.
Posted by Dave Knadler
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
46 Comments
The milk lobby is still pushing for Bolton since he wears a permanent milk moustache.
A little more FAT on him and he would be a dead ringer for a Teddy Roosevelt.
Let’s not nominate anyone, the UN never listens to us anyway. Think of all that money we’d save.
Put Madeline Albright back into that position. John Bolton was a bad choice, one of MANY made by our fearless leader.
Bolton is finished.
Umm, the one who killed this nomiation was Sen. Chaffee who is a republican. Please try and keep up with current events.
Bolton is a PNACer. Last week he was the only veto on a UN Resolution to condemn Israel for murdering those 19 Palestinians in Gaza, half of which were children.
Now, wonder why the world hates the United States?
Bush wants to reappoint Bolton.
bush needs several good firm smacks on the nose. This is a good first start.
I’d say he shouldn’t get anybody confirmed for much of anything for a good long time.
he needs to learn that he is not the boss anymore.
there’s talk of appointing Bolton as Deputy UN Sec. This would keep him in place and bypass the confirmation process.Bush just wouldn’t appoint anyone into the top job.Sneaky.Bolton is a neocon. He needs to go.
How dare Israel think they have the right to defend attacks on their population. They just keep doing this and Iran just keeps saying that they are going to wipe them off the face of the earth. The Isralies are still waiting for the soldiers kidnapped when they were patroling the border between them and Lebanon. The Isralies should know to just take the attacks and do not fight back. Did anyone by the way actually see why they were bombing that paticular building. John Bolton is exactly what we need at this time in history. Although Albright could step in and fix things like she did in North Korea. Lets see the way that one worked was we gave them nuclear technology, lots of money for Little Elvis’s cigars and favorite liquor and in return now years later we are watching him take pot shots with his nuclear weapons. What a diplomat.
What Congressional Democratic leaders need to do with future nominations is to let revenge evaporate from their dialogue and planning, and to begin to run this country as responsible leaders. That means killing the Bolton nomination, of course (Bolton could not even be confirmed when the Republicans controlled the Senate), but other nominations need to be handled with an eye towards the future, and with an eye on 2008. We won the election last Tuesday because independent voters, and parts of about every demographic group, believed that change in Washington was desparately needed. Governing ourselves like we are still a minority party will only make sure that we become a minority party again.
ksgrm,
“we gave them nuclear technology, lots of money for Little Elvis’s cigars…”
Nope. The deal was we provided heavy fuel oil until a light-water reactor was on-line — in exchange for shutting down their graphite-moderated plant, and allowing IAEA monitoring.
Construction of the LWR’s was halted in 2002.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework
No Bush supporter has ever been swayed by genuine facts. These people only need to hear what their beloved GOP leaders say and nothing else matters.
This is why the country is in the shape we are today – the stupid leading the blind.
Priceless.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/11/the-2006-election-a-comedic-roundup/
I cannot believe anyone puts stock in the ‘news’ that comes out of closed societies, like North Korea. Or wikipedia for that matter. You do realize people just make entries. Factual basis is not required. Much like N. Korea.
Next thing you know people will try to tell you how great the life is down in Cuba. If it wasn’t for all the refugees in Florida I might believe them.
Is this the example of the bi-partisianship we can expect with the new Democratic majority?Democrats = Liars
ProudMan,
Are you claiming that all 18 EXTERNAL links at the wiki link I gave have NO “factual basis”?
Try to PROVE this one is inaccurate,http://www.isis-online.org/publications/dprk/book/af.html
I do not blindly trust wiki — I cross-check them against other sources.
I have reconsidered my position. The libs won. Let them think what they want about why the election came out the way it ded.
I hope they think it’s a victory for the radical liberal agenda. All of it.
And that America can’t wait for more.
Wood-head,
We are going to show just as much bipartianship to them as they gave us.
Republicans = liars.
Outlander–
Remember when you used to sign off, “and that’s why Democrats can’t win elections”?
Remember that?
HA HA!
Bolton’s main qualification for UN ambassador was his help in stopping the recount in Florida.
Bush doesn’t forget someone willing to commit election fraud for him.
You gotta admire that kind of loyalty.
Time to turn one of the bushbots favorite phrases bck on them.
“Elections MEAN something. When you win elections you get to lead.”
Yeah, heh, JR, good one.
I had forgotten that.
But not now. NOW it’s burned forever into my memory.
Can’t wait to use it, hehehe.
Sour grapes.
Right, Cosmos. Proudman forgets that the people who right “real” articles in “real” encyclopedias aren’t experts in everything either.
I have specialized knowledge in a few areas, and so far everything I’ve read on Wiki has been rock-solid.
Also, as I understand the process, inaccurate entries can be flagged and re-written.
write not right, duh . . . what was I thinking . . .
Cut and run time for Bush:
Bush’s advisers adopt new tone on IraqBEN FELLERAssociated PressWASHINGTON – Responding to a humbling election, White House aides said Sunday that President Bush would welcome new ideas about the unpopular war in Iraq, even from Democrats he had branded as soft on terrorism.
As Bush planned to meet Monday with a key advisory group on the war, his advisers adopted a new tone, days after a dissatisfied public handed the White House a divided government.
“Full speed ahead” in Iraq, as Vice President Dick Cheney put it in the final days of the campaign, was replaced by repeated calls for a “fresh perspective” and an acknowledgment that “nobody can be happy” with the situation in Iraq.
“We clearly need a fresh approach,” said Josh Bolten, Bush’s chief of staff, making the rounds of morning talk shows.”
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/breaking_news/15997579.htm
maybe we will finally see the war fought with some intelligence. Im not saying the Dems will do the best job in the world, but it has to be better than Shrubs job for the past 6 years.
I think we should take Joe Bidens (sp) (i think its him) plan of allowing the country to split into 3 different areas each controlled by their own faction. True, one of them will probably become a state loyal to Iran, but tough. That’s what THEY want.
The entire country was the product of Britain’s colonial patchwork. How about letting them decide how they want to live…
Interesting thought huh?
Bolton is scum but the truth is that most leftist demorats would gladly bend over and grab their ankles for the UN!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Ian–
You seem to be obsessed with who’s grabbing their ankles . . . Freud called it projection.
Look it up.
As for “the Dems have no plan,” from the same people who got us into this mess over the liberals’ objections, check this out–
http://www.harpers.org/TheWayOutOfWar.html
George McGovern’s article on “The Way Out of War” is up on the Harpers’ site.
CapnGalahad,
You are a fucking liar; the vast majority of dems went along with the war so as not to be out of favor with the jews! The dems are, now, as we speak mending fences with AIPAC, hypocrite!
Viva La Revolucion Blanco!!
Tell ya what fleets enema, you put up a decent candidate, and we’ll support him/her.
Not some crony hack.
Note to self — stop reading racist assh*les.
“Cudgel thy brains no more about it, for his dull ass will not mend its pace with whipping.”
“I hope they think it’s a victory for the radical liberal agenda.”
Actually, it’s a victory for America.
Senator Hillary Clinton: All Show and No Substanceby Sibel Edmonds & William Weaver
Recent surveys measuring public opinion and confidence in congress all arrived at the same conclusion: over seventy percent of Americans have lost faith and confidence in the United States Congress. The public no longer trusts this body of politicians who were elected to represent the people and the peoples’ interests. Instead, they now view these “representatives” as servants of special interest groups, corporations and high-powered lobbyists. Americans are tired of watching and listening to elected officials who refrain from taking a strong stand on crucial issues, and who almost never state their positions with conviction and sincerity. In the eyes of the nation these senators and representatives are nothing more than programmed publicity puppets, competing for face time in the media. Common adjectives used by our citizens to describe these officials clearly reflect their sentiments: “spineless,” “phony,” “corrupt,” “out of touch,” “timid,” “all show and no substance,” and the list goes on. Why have we Americans lost confidence and faith in those elected? Where and when did we go wrong; or perhaps more correctly, they go wrong? What have these representatives done, or, failed to do, that arouses such anger and loathing in the very same constituents who voted them into office?
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is a perfect example; an elected senator who has served six years in her seat, never taking a strong stand in support of her constituents on any serious or controversial issue; a senator who has used her record-breaking TV public appearances to say “nothing”; a senator whose senate office adheres strictly to a motto of “See no Evil, Hear no Evil”; an elected official who has no record of conducting investigations into cases that are matters of great concern to her constituents and to our nation; a senator who has consistently stood quietly on the sidelines when the issues at hand demand public hearings ‚Äìwaiting to determine the direction of each blowing wind; a politician who has spent all her focus and energy on a campaign of shallow publicity glitz and her PR empire behind it. Here are some documented illustrative examples:
James J. DiGeorgio and Carl Steubing died in ways no war veteran should. They were subjected to illegal drug experimentation by employees of the Stratton Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Albany, New York; killed by servants of the very government they fought to protect. Scores of other veterans were injured in these experiments, and only by the courage of whistleblowers Jeffrey Fudin and Anthony Mariano was any measure of justice achieved for these misdeeds. One person was convicted of manslaughter, but investigations into other officials collapsed because of a lack of institutional nerve to follow the investigation to the end. A scape-goated employee went to prison, while those who supervised, facilitated, and reaped the benefits of the lucrative, illegal drug testing went on to other VA positions with promotions and raises.
Between 2000 and June 2006, numerous contacts with Senator Hillary Clinton over the Stratton tragedy went unacknowledged, or glossed over, or shuffled around to various offices with no substantive action. No less than five Clinton staff members heard presentations and received documentation about the experiments, and Senator Clinton herself is personally aware of the detailed facts of the case. This personal knowledge did not translate into action, for though Senator Clinton carefully scripts her numerous public appearances to give the impression of caring and concern, her actions speak otherwise. She noted “our nation made a pact with those who serve their country in the Armed Forces ‚Äì a commitment that those who served would have access to quality health care through the VA hospital system . . . and they deserve to be treated as the best.” But while Senator Clinton was issuing such lofty statements and mugging for photo opportunities with active duty military, she did nothing about the systematic abuse and murder of veterans within her own constituency. The Veterans Affairs Whistleblowers Coalition, and more recently the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, sent numerous letters and e-mails and copious documentation, pleading for help from the Senator to investigate and address the crimes committed at Stratton, including unrelenting retaliation against the whistleblowers who brought these matters to public attention
Notably, the VAWBC recognized that the motivations and incentives that led to abuse at Stratton were present at many hospitals throughout the VA system, and that greed and poor management in the VA guaranteed that the events of Stratton would be repeated elsewhere. The most vulnerable people, the sick and dying with nowhere to turn but to the VA, were exploited and killed by those tasked with their medical care, and their suffering and death were ignored by Senator Clinton. It is doubly offensive that this woman sits on the Armed Services Committee, which, along with the Veterans Affairs Committee, has the duty to provide for the well-being of current and former military service members. For all her posturing; for a senator who advertises herself as a hawk and pro military; how does she show it in action? By abandoning our veterans and war heroes in need!
Senator Clinton’s failure concerning Stratton is not an isolated event; it is part of a pattern of studious avoidance of principled action in the face of serious government misconduct, and the refusal to come to the aid of those people who expose that misconduct. When Bunnatine Greenhouse exposed extraordinary graft and impropriety in government contracting with Halliburton, when Sergeant Samuel Provance reported prisoner abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib, when Russ Tice disclosed violations of the Constitution by the National Security Agency, and when Jay Stroup, Thomas Bittler, Jim Griffin, and Ray Guagliardi exposed serious defects and negligence in the Transportation Security Administration that puts travelers at risk, Clinton did nothing. No words of support, no calls for investigations, no efforts to prevent the lives and careers of whistleblowers from being destroyed. Documents on numerous cases were shared with her office, offers to brief her and her staff have been made on many occasions, pleas for her to live up to the words she so casually utters, have all been ignored, or even ridiculed.
In her six years as senator she has done nothing but attempt to position herself for the presidency, done nothing but avoid acting out of principle and justice, done everything to offend no one. We respect our opponents in much greater measure than we respect Senator Clinton, for with our opponents at least the fight is joined; at least they have the courage of their convictions, at least they place their bets in public. But Senator Clinton, by trying to be something to everyone ends up being nothing to anyone. Where she cannot act safely, she does not act. The current times call for politicians to act with conviction and intelligence, not with cynical, calculated action in response to what opinion polls indicate. If Senator Clinton cannot even come to the aid of constituent veterans being killed through grotesquely immoral and illegal medical experimentation, if she cannot commit herself to call for investigations of national security vulnerabilities that risk national catastrophe, if she cannot offer even moral support to those who disclose outrageous government incompetence and impropriety, is there anything that would prompt her to take a stance out of conviction? Such a person has no business representing the people of this country. Nothing stirs her soul except for her own selfish ambitions; ambitions that she places in front of the nation’s welfare.
Two weeks from today, New Yorkers will cast their vote to determine their upcoming democratic candidate. We hope that they will ask themselves a few hard questions and consider their answers before they cast their vital votes. Are they among those who are tired and disgusted with the current Congress, which has abdicated its duty and responsibility to the public at large? Are they going to have “needed change and reform” in mind when voting for their next candidate? Will they vote for someone with an established record of failure? Or will they take a chance on new blood? Are they going to take into consideration this incumbent’s misuse of “national security and terrorism”? Will they reflect on her failures when presented with real issues threatening our security – brought to her by those on the front lines? Will they consider having raised more money than any other democratic candidate a plus or a minus – questioning all she had to promise and everyone she had to sell out in order to raise those millions? Will they simply ask, isn’t six years long enough? Isn’t it time for a change? Isn’t it time to give another democrat the opportunity to step up and become what we all long for ‚Äì a true representative of the people?
We have confidence in the sophistication of our New Yorkers. We believe they’ll say: “Ms. Clinton, fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice shame on us.”
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0828-24.htm
Will, as much as I’d like to say we tried it your way and it sucked, now please just hush while we have a go at it, but to be honest, I’d still give my opinion too.
That being said, I’ve been disappointed in some of the things Hillary has done too. But I firmly believe she’s doing the right thing by moving toward the center. I liked life under Bill, and I like the idea of that kind of government again.
Y’know who I’d like to see as our ambassador to the UN? Someone who obviously learned some hard lessons since his last appearance there- Colin Powell.
John Bolton is Cheney’s boy. Given that Rumsfeld is gone, and if Bolton is turned away, I am thinking that we will see the last of Cheney’s footprint on this failed adminstration. In Cheney’s stead, I wonder if we will see more of GHWBush’s old chronies – like Baker and Gates.
Hillary who?
You are right capn – Daddy is taking charge. Again …
sorry – Steven …
cosmos,
Congratulations, you have linked to the agreement that meant nothing to a dictatorship. The ‘pie in the sky’ hopes are different than reality. What is being implied is that North Korea followed the agreement until the Bush Administration came along. Which is false.
Proudman,
So you believe energy means “nothing to a dictatorship”? NK got fuel oil in exchange for shutting down their nuclear power plant. SK and Japan WANTED NK to have the LWR’s, and funded those projects.
You think reducing “barriers to trade and investment” meant “nothing to a dictatorship”? The U.S. failed to do that part of the agreement.
btw, I proved that wiki is right, and ksgrm’s post was wrong.
cosmos,
The ‘wiki’ entry goes far just discussing the framework. Which yes, you may have shown correct. The article paints blame on a Republican Congress and ultimately Bush Administration officials for the ‘failure’ of the agreement.
What I am saying is that North Korea never intended to abide by the treaty and was just toying with the US. The diplomatic failure was due because one of the parties never kept the agreement, as was their intention all along.
The dems ought to at least allow a vote on the Bolton nomination.I’m surprised that Knadler didn’t express any outrage that Biden won’t allow one.I find that jaw-dropping.