Congrats to John Bolton, new U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.!

[Dr Strangelove]

Refresh my memory, how exactly does waiting until recess allow the president to appoint ambassadors without Congressional approval?

[Drake Tungsten]

And this is precisely the attitude we're talking about.

So you're mad at Bush for engaging in politics?

but remember, all he had to do to get Bolton confirmed was supply some paperwork, you know, the government's paperwork

Yeah, and violate the concept of executive privilege in the process. The Democrats obviously couldn't find much wrong with Bolton, as their argument ended up being "he's mean!" and "Bush won't give us documents no other President in history would give us!" I don't really find those to be charges worth filibustering over, but then again I don't knee-jerkedly oppose anything and everything President Bush tries to do.

If Bush appoints a new deputy postmaster general, all we'll hear is "This guy will damage our postal reputation across the globe, just wait and see."

Indeed.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Refresh my memory, how exactly does waiting until recess allow the president to appoint ambassadors without Congressional approval?

The president has the power to fill any position if Congress is in recess and in theoy is unable to do so. The person then gets one year in office until they must be approved by the Congress.

as a provision it makes sense in emergency situations, but most of the time its just a way fro the President to put someone in they can;t get through Congress.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
but then again I don't knee-jerkedly oppose anything and everything President Bush tries to do.

Correct. You knee-jerkedly support anything he tries to do.

[Drake Tungsten]

but most of the time its just a way fro the President to put someone in they can;t get through Congress.

I doubt that, given that Bush has already made 107 recess appointments and Clinton made 140 in his two terms. Seems like a pretty common way to appoint people, whether they can get past Congress or not.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

but most of the time its just a way fro the President to put someone in they can;t get through Congress.

I doubt that, given that Bush has already made 107 recess appointments and Clinton made 140 in his two terms. Seems like a pretty common way to appoint people, whether they can get past Congress or not.

You mean like judges to lower courts that the President would rather just sail through? I bet you that has been the vast bulk of said nominations.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Winston
Whatever happened to "I strongly disagree with this man."? Nowadays, it's invariably "He'll damage our diplomatic reputation! Worldwide, I tells ya. OMGomg"

Seeing how we just sent someone as UN Ambassador that has said he doesn't believe in the UN may indeed damage our diplomatic repuation... you know as further solidifying that all the Bush administration wants to do to the world is give them a big middle finger?

[q=GePap]but most of the time its just a way fro the President to put someone in they can;t get through Congress.[/q]

Bingo. It's a way to sidestep Congress.

[Winston]

It was the same argument being used over and over against Bush himself during the campaign. "He'll ruin our reputation abroad... Pick our guy, because he'll listen to world opinion." Fortunately, the American voters got the last say in that matter, they didn't buy it.

Politicians should stick to arguments of political differences, and if the can't do that properly, keep quiet.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Winston
It was the same argument being used over and over against Bush himself during the campaign. "He'll ruin our reputation abroad... Pick our guy, because he'll listen to world opinion." Fortunately, the American voters got the last say in that matter, they didn't buy it.

Politicians should stick to arguments of political discourse, and if the can't do that properly, keep quiet.

I would think the nominee for UN AMBASSADOR being someone who is anti-UN and could damage our already crap reputation even worse is definetly within the politcal discourse and is definetly a valid critique.

[Winston]

The only realistic way for an ambassador of alienating other countries, damaging U.S. reputation, is by the political stand he'll be taking, representing the administration he was appointed by.

The only valid criticism would be of those policies, not this crap hysteria being wiped up everytime your chief executive picks up the phone...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Winston
The only realistic way for an ambassador of alienating other countries, damaging U.S. reputation, is by the political stand he'll be taking, representing the administration he was appointed by.

The only valid criticism would be of those policies, not this crap hysteria being wiped up everytime your chief executive picks up the phone...

Hmmmm, lets see the President nominates a person as Ambassador to the UN who is anti-UN and basically thinks it shouldn't exist. What message do you think that the President is sending with that appointment?

If you think that simply his nomination isn't alienating enough, then you've been smoking too much weed.

It'd be like sending over an Ambassador of France who hates the French and wishes they were overrun by the Germans. If you don't think the French would be a bit peeved, you are drinking the kool aid.

[Q Classic]

But Imran... the kool-aid of the Republican Party is remarkably tasty. In fact, it seems drenched in fine alcohol.

Here, won't you have some?

[Winston]

So, you insist on not wanting to see how he'll be managing the position. Great.

Also, I get the feeling Bolton may actually mirror the administration's present general view of the U.N. pretty well. What an outrage, appointing a guy like that!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Winston
It was the same argument being used over and over against Bush himself during the campaign. "He'll ruin our reputation abroad... Pick our guy, because he'll listen to world opinion." Fortunately, the American voters got the last say in that matter, they didn't buy it.

It's not like the international reputation of the US has gone up after that.

[Winston]

What a circus we'd have if countries started electing political leaders based on some fuzzy concept of (alleged) world opinion.

It's just another trick. The Kerry trick - fitting, since it didn't work.