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

[Alexander's Horse]

closet ?

[Drake Tungsten]

Bolton's no neo-con. I'd like him better if he were...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The outrage here is the Senate crying foul. I'ld be embarrased as a sitting Senator to make this claim as it truly underscores how inept, incompetant, and generally unfit the Senate body is. What a concept living up to their constitutional comittments. Do their friggin job!

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Bolton's no neo-con. I'd like him better if he were...

well he might say he isn't......but thats the point of being one isn't it, or atleast part of it: myths, outright lies etc?
I think what i'm getting at is that if Bush has appointed him without senate approval, then there has to be some other reason; and it probably isn't that mr.Bolton is a very nice man

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by joncha


Or better yet... The US Congress!

It don't work that way, son. Congress = House and Senate. House has NO say. Senate has advise and consent responsibilities, only (not nomination). Too bad they don't take their responsibilities seriously.

[Mr. Harley]

70% support of Bush's policies. WTF?!

Here's info from the Harris poll between July 12th-18th

A majority (56%) of U.S. adults approve of the president’s position on simplifying the tax code, compared to 28 percent who disapprove. This is down slightly from May when a 59 to 26 percent majority approved of his position on this issue.

A 52 to 37 percent majority approves of President Bush’s position on making tax cuts permanent. This is similar to May when a 51 to 38 percent majority felt this way.

While a significant 23 percent are not familiar with the president’s position on lawsuit reform, the public who are familiar with this issue splits as 40 percent approve of the president’s position and 36 percent disapprove. This has only slightly changed from May when a 42 to 35 percent plurality supported the president’s position on this issue.

On his handling of energy policies, U.S. adults continue to rate the president negatively with a 51 to 35 percent majority disapproving of his policies. This is similar to the 50 to 37 percent negative rating he received in May.

The public’s approval rating of President Bush’s environmental policies has also changed slightly in the past two months. About half (51%) of U.S. adults disapprove of the president’s position, while 36 percent approve, compared to May when 51 percent disapproved and 38 percent approved.

Finally, on Social Security reform, a 59 to 34 percent majority disapproves of the president’s position. This is identical to the rating two months ago.

So let's see - simplifying the tax code. Genuinely good move, except the devil is in the details. Everybody wants to simplify the tax code, unless it is their tax break that gets cut. The new energy bill - guess what - adds tax cuts which means it makes the tax code more complex. Talk is cheap, actions speak volumes.

Making the tax cuts permanent. That's like people being for mothers and children. We are leaving a 300-500 BILLION dollar deficit to our children every year. Yet not even all the Humvees are armored in Iraq. You pay for what you get, and it's easy to appeal to people's lazy instinct and promise them something for nothing. It's like being for school segregation in the South in the 1950's - popular and it will get you elected, but in the long run very harmful for the country.

He has a slight edge on tort reform. Also note that as the poll asks "Do you approve..." that in itself already gives the President an edge, people tend to want to approve things. So this is his result with an already lightly biased poll.

On the other issues, Energy Policy, Social Security, and the Environment, he is clearly in the negatives.

Now, the NBC?Wall Street Journal Poll results for July.

The survey, which was conducted from July 8-11 among 1,009 adults, and which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, finds that respondents, by a 49 percent-to-46 percent margin, disapprove of Bush’s job performance. That’s a drop from the last NBC/Journal poll in May, when 47 percent approved and 47 percent disapproved. In addition, the only time when Bush’s job rating has been worse was in June 2004, when 45 percent approved of his performance.

Furthermore, only 41 percent give Bush good marks for being “honest and straightforward” — his lowest ranking on this question since he became president. That’s a drop of nine percentage points since January, when a majority (50 percent to 36 percent) indicated that he was honest and straightforward. This finding comes at a time when the Bush administration is battling the perception that its rhetoric doesn’t match the realities in Iraq, and also allegations that chief political adviser Karl Rove leaked sensitive information about a CIA agent to a reporter. (The survey, however, was taken just before these allegations about Rove exploded into the current controversy.)

Drake, you are descending into the Nedaverse. Cite, or your pwnded.

[Drake Tungsten]

Did you even read my post? How does a poll of US adults have any bearing on support for Bush and his policies among service members in Iraq?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
70% support of Bush's policies. WTF?!

Read his quote over again he indicated 70% of servicemen support W's policies. Whether he can provide hard data to support said claims is another issue. But don't confuse the issue at hand being servicemen approval rating NOT the general lack of support by the domestics.

His response was towards your initial quote regarding servicemen not supporting W.

Damn - xposted

[Drake Tungsten]

Don't really have time to track down a cite for the 70% figure (don't remember which milblog I saw it on), but here's something a quick google search turned up.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm

Summary: 73% of troops supported Bush to 18% for Kerry. A bit old, but I don't think things have changed much.

[Mr. Harley]

Ogie - the Democrats are doing their job. They asked for info, Bush refused, and they refused the vote, the advice and consent bit. Now before you start frothing at the mouth over filibusters, you are talking about changing the rules midstream. Republicans have used the filibuster for decades, very successfully. So don't whine now when the Democrats use it. Especially when they made it very easy for Bush to end it - supply the papers that show whether Bolton did cook the intelligence for WMD's, and whether he did indeed engage in retaliation/harassment of employees. Legitimate request, and Bush knew the consequences when he refused.

In fact, if you want to be consistant - a dangerous thing to say to a conservative, I know, you want to be consistant only when it is to your benefit - you would pillory the Republicans for essentially putting over two centuries of Senate rulemaking at risk. The so-called nuclear option - named that by the Republican leadership, I might add so they knew exactly what they were doing - was an attempt to change Sentate rules via a backdoor.

Changing the Senate rules requires 67 votes. So rather than let that little item get in the way, Frist et al declared that we aren't changing the rules, just the precedents that the rules apply to. Dishonest, bogus, and dangerous. Once you start tearing down the systems of precedent that make up institutions, you put Democracy at risk. Nelson Mandela commented that a constitution was fine, but what he wants if a series of institutions that protect the people's rights, without those the constitution is so much crap. The current Republican leadership does not understand that, and that is what frightens me.

[Drake Tungsten]

Legitimate request

It wasn't legitimate when they used it against Estrada, it still wasn't legitimate when they used it against Bolton and it won't be legitimate when they use it against Roberts. The Dems need to find a new tactic...

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by GePap


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.

Yep, a tradition started by none other than George Washington:

A recess appointment occurs when the President of the United States fills a vacant Federal position during a recess of the United States Senate. The commission or appointment must be ratified (i.e. approved) by the Senate by the end of the next session, or the position becomes vacant again. Recess appointments are authorized by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

Presidents have sometimes used recess appointments to fill vacancies with individuals who might prove difficult to confirm, or who face staunch opposition within the Senate. The recess appointment is made in hopes that, by the next session, opposition will have diminished. In recent years, however, a recess appointment has tended to harden the attitudes of the opposition party, and confirmation then becomes even more difficult.

Scholars and legal experts disagree as to how long the Senate must be in recess before the President may make such an appointment. President Theodore Roosevelt made several recess apppointments during a one-day recess of the Senate.

Recess appointments have been made since the earliest days of the republic. President George Washington appointed South Carolina judge John Rutledge as Chief Justice of the United States during a congressional recess in 1795. Because of Rutledge's political views and intermittent mental illness, however, the Senate rejected his nomination, and his appointment lapsed.

New Jersey judge William J. Brennan was appointed to the United States Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 through a recess appointment. This was done partly with an eye on the presidential campaign that year; Eisenhower was running for reelection, and his political advisors thought it would be advantageous to place a northeastern Catholic on the court. Brennan was promptly confirmed when the Senate came back into session. Eisenhower made two other recess appointments.

Ronald Reagan made 243 during his two terms in office. George H. W. Bush made 77 recess appointments during his single term.

President Bill Clinton made a recess appointment of Bill Lan Lee as assistant attorney general for civil rights, when it became clear that Lee's strong support of affirmative action would lead to Senate opposition. Similarly, when the Senate did not vote on his nomination of James Hormel to be Ambassador to Luxembourg, Clinton made a recess appointment. Many people felt that the Senate's inaction was because Hormel was an openly gay person, and when he was appointed became the first such person to serve as a U.S. ambassador. Clinton made 140 recess appointments over two terms.

President George W. Bush appointed several judges to U.S. courts of appeals using recess appointments after their nominations were subjected to a Senate filibuster by opposition Democrats. One, Judge Charles Pickering of the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, withdrew his name from consideration for renomination when his recess appointment expired. As of July 31, 2005, Bush has made 105 recess appointments.

On 1 August 2005 Bush made a recess appointment of John Bolton, to serve as U.S. representative to the United Nations. Bolton has also been the subject of a Senate filibuster. The filibuster concerns documents, which the White House refuses to release, which Democrats suggest may contain proof of Bolton's abusive treatment and coercion of staff members, or of his improper use of National Security Agency communications intercepts regarding U.S. citizens.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Recess-appointment

[Mr. Harley]

Sorry, I missed the serviceman bit. So I did a quick Google search, and guess what - he's wrong anyway. From the Stars&Stripes poll in 2003 - note that two years later the results are almost certainly going to be worse - you'll grant me that. So here's the article. Note while it doesn't directly ask about Bush's approval rating - read the answers, and the numbers. If you think on any planet that would give you a 70% approval rating, you're nuts. You should know better than to post numbers without a cite, and then challenge me. Pwnded.

Stars & Stripes poll reveals
Growing anger among US troops in Iraq
By James Conachy
24 October 2003
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

An in-depth investigative report published over the past two weeks by the military newspaper Stars & Stripes provides an insight into the disintegrating state of morale among US troops in Iraq. Moreover, it indicates that the military is wracked with tensions and divisions, not only over the foreign policy of the Bush administration, but between different branches of the armed forces and between officers and enlisted men.

From August 10 to August 31, three teams of Stars & Stripes reporters surveyed 1,935 military personnel in Iraq, observed first-hand the conditions they were living under, and conducted a number of interviews. The paper, which is independently edited, though partially funded by the Pentagon, was given unparalleled access to US troops. Its reporters visited nearly 50 camps, ranging from major bases to relatively isolated outposts.

The survey consisted of 17 questions, which asked troops to assess their living conditions, quality of health care, commanders and morale. It also asked for written responses to questions on whether their mission had changed since arriving in Iraq, how they felt the Iraq war compared to previous US conflicts, and what, short of sending them home, could commanders do to improve their morale. The final question was whether they felt the complaints by rank-and-file soldiers about morale were justified. Many American soldiers have publicly criticized the length of their deployment to Iraq or the war itself.

While the survey’s sample was not considered scientific by the standards of official opinion polls, its results are nonetheless revealing. They indicate that large numbers of soldiers feel the US has no business being in Iraq and that the Bush administration lied to them about the reasons for the war.

In response to the question, “How worthwhile do you think fighting this war was for America?,” 50 percent indicated doubts over the justifications for the invasion. Nineteen percent selected the conditional answer that the war was “probably worthwhile” and 20 percent of troops answered that the war was of “little value,” while 11 percent damned it as “not worthwhile at all.” Only 28 percent responded that it was “very worthwhile” and another 20 percent that it was “worthwhile.”

Thirty-five percent answered that they were either “mostly unclear” or “not clear at all” about why they were in Iraq. A National Guardsman wrote: “In past wars...it seemed as though everyone had a ‘known’ mission. We’re in the dark.” A 21-year-old regular Army infantryman told the reporters: “A lot of the stuff we’re doing here doesn’t make any sense at all. Now that we’ve been lied to, we don’t trust anyone.” One soldier, whose friend was killed, referred to the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction and said: “I just don’t see what we’re doing here that would justify losing someone like Herbert.”

With the White House claiming that the US has liberated Iraq and that things are going well, only 16 percent of troops rated their unit’s morale as “very high” or “high.” Forty-nine percent rated it as “low” or “very low.” Citing military sociologist Charles Moskos, Stars & Stripes noted that “belief in the cause for which one is fighting is one of the most overlooked aspects of morale.”

To the question, “How do you rate your personal morale?,” 15 percent answered “very low” and 19 percent “low.” Just 8 percent chose “very high” and 19 percent “high,” with 37 percent choosing “average.” Soldiers consistently ranked their personal morale as higher than the ranking they chose for their unit. Stars & Stripes commented: “Troops may wish to report what they perceive to be the true morale situation without getting themselves into trouble, a way of saying ‘I’m OK, but the unit’s not.’”

The morale results diverged markedly between different types of troops. Nearly 50 percent of part-time reservists and National Guard ranked their morale as “low” or “very low,” compared with one third of regular Army troops, 14 percent of Marines, and just 6 percent of the few Air Force personnel who were surveyed.

An Army Reserve sergeant wrote: “We are second-class soldiers. We are away longer from our families. We are assigned to jobs we’re not trained to do. Our equipment is lacking.” Fifty-five percent of the part-time soldiers surveyed stated that it was “unlikely” or “very unlikely” they would re-enlist when their time was up.

Another Army reservist wrote on his survey: “I strongly believe that the current administration is more concerned with re-election politics and less on doing the right thing. After this whole ordeal is over, I think you’ll see the ranks of the Army Reserve decimated.” The Defense Department has already been forced to admit that reserve recruitment and re-enlistment is “soft.”

Overall, 49 percent of the respondents in Iraq indicated they intended to leave the military as soon as possible. Only 18 percent said it was “very likely” they would remain.

Some soldiers, however, particularly non-commissioned officers and skilled technicians, are re-enlisting in order to get out of Iraq. One Army helicopter pilot signed up for another term after he was offered an $11,000 bonus and 18 months in Korea, because “at least I’m getting out of here.” An Army sergeant re-enlisted as a recruiter, because in that position he could not be deployed overseas for three years and would leave Iraq before the end of the year. Another signed up for a four-year, guaranteed assignment in Alaska, where he was “hoping for a little bit of a breather.”


Disaffection with living conditions and commanders

The lack of ideological commitment among US soldiers, to either the occupation of Iraq or the Bush administration, is fueling bitterness over the harsh conditions under which they are forced to live.

The Stars & Stripes survey indicates widespread dissatisfaction over existing conditions of personal hygiene and sanitation, recreation, communication with the outside world, and the lack of leave. Sixty-four percent ranked their living conditions as average or worse. Health care services were rated as average or worse by 63 percent. Sixteen percent—nearly one in eight—assessed their personal health as “not good” or “poor” since they arrived in the Middle East.

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the lowest, over 50 percent ranked their toilet and hand-washing facilities, telephone, television and newspaper access, and gym and amusement facilities as “1” or “2.” More than two thirds of the respondents ranked the quality of their morale trips—time out of Iraq—as “1.” Stars & Stripes noted that a response of “1” often indicated that the service was not available to those troops.

According to Stars & Stripes, while most soldiers are now living in buildings of some sort, there are few facilities and often no more than one hot meal per day. Air conditioning and electric lights are often unavailable due to power shortages or lack of generators. Soldiers sleep outside on hot nights. Just 41 percent of the respondents rated their commanders has having an “excellent” or “good” ability to make improvements. Sixteen percent of troops believe their commanders are “not concerned” about their living conditions.

Infantry personnel expressed open resentment over the superior conditions they believe are being enjoyed by senior officers, non-combat units and the Air Force. One infantryman stated: “The leaders live in air conditioning, the lower enlisted live with swamp coolers if they’re lucky.” Another said: “They live in palaces and we live in the sand.” An Army sergeant near Nasiriyah wrote: “Are we fighting the same war as the Air Force or did I miss something? Every day my soldiers wake up covered in sweat with their cots just inches apart, and they know that less than half-a-mile away the Air Force has literally the comforts of home.”

Most Air Force personnel rarely leave their well-provisioned and relatively secure bases, which are generally off-limits to the Army and provide fast-food restaurants, gyms, recreation rooms, fully-equipped shower units and air-conditioned tents. A senior commander at the palace headquarters of the 101st Airborne Division in Mosul confessed: “I don’t want my soldiers coming up here. I don’t want them to see how good the division staff has it.”

The most disgruntled troops are the rank-and-file Army personnel doing most of the fighting—and dying—in Iraq. For the front line infantry units, the threat of attack is constant. A solider in Tikrit reported: “There is no front line here—you walk out of the gate and you’re in the front lines. Even inside the gates, we’re getting mortared every day.”

Units that never expected to be in combat are being shot at regularly. The commanding general of the California National Guard, Paul Monroe, told Stars & Stripes that military planners had underestimated the resistance, and non-combat units, such as his National Guard transport units, were sent to Iraq unprepared: “Transportation companies are no longer just transportation companies. They’ve converted 5-ton trucks to gun trucks, welding 50-caliber guns and welding metal siding to provide protection for that crew. We weren’t prepared for that kind of thing.”

US troops now suffer 25 or more attacks per day and are dying at the rate of 30 to 50 per month, with another 250 to 300 wounded. Hundreds more are falling ill.


Divisions between the military and the White House

The Stars & Stripes investigation thoroughly documents the existence of a serious morale crisis among the troops in Iraq. At the very least, its findings will embolden disaffected soldiers with the knowledge they are not alone. The question arises as to why it has been published by a newspaper that is partly funded by the Defense Department and circulated en masse among the US military.

To some extent, the answer is contained in the final of seven reports on the investigation, published on October 21. It amounts to a blunt warning to the Bush administration that the Army is in a quagmire and measures must be taken to get it out.

Before the invasion of Iraq, a number of leading Army generals, basing themselves on intelligence assessments that resistance would be fierce, warned that an occupation of Iraq would require several hundred thousand troops for a number of years. The Pentagon’s civilian leadership under Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the advice and stated as few as 50,000 would be needed.

Six months after the war, Stars & Stripes warns that soldiers are “worried about an operational tempo that threatens to keep them at war more than at home for years to come...” The initial “good-natured griping” about poor food and no showers, it warns, is giving way to “edgier complaints about inequality among the forces and lack of confidence in their leaders.”

The Army, the paper states, “is stretched to its limit” and “even the greenest soldier can figure out he or she is likely to spend every other year in Iraq until things stabilize and forces can be reduced, a prospect that seems far away...”

Brookings Institution military analyst Michael O’Hanlon states: “Definitely the Pentagon is assuming they’ll suck it up and drive on. If the assumption proves wrong, then you’ve broken the finest volunteer Army in history.”

Stars & Stripes concludes: “Until more foreign troops can be found or the country turns peaceful enough for the American forces to leave, US commanders must do their best to keep their lonely, listless troops motivated. How well they meet that challenge will determine if the Army can weather the war on terror.”

In other words, sections of the US military are approaching a state of mutiny.

The entire Stars & Stripes series can be found at:

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Ogie - the Democrats are doing their job. They asked for info, Bush refused, and they refused the vote, the advice and consent bit.

So by threatenting filibuster (as they did not actually filibuster) they have abdicated their responsibility. Sounds like they lived up to their consitutional responsibility allright.

Now before you start frothing at the mouth over filibusters, you are talking about changing the rules midstream. Republicans have used the filibuster for decades, very successfully. So don't whine now when the Democrats use it. Especially when they made it very easy for Bush to end it - supply the papers that show whether Bolton did cook the intelligence for WMD's,

Information already available to them ad-nauseum via 9/11 report and others.

and whether he did indeed engage in retaliation/harassment of employees.

Bush league (pardon the pun) charge along the lines of who gives a fig.

Legitimate request, and Bush knew the consequences when he refused.

Not really no.

In fact, if you want to be consistant - a dangerous thing to say to a conservative, I know, you want to be consistant only when it is to your benefit - you would pillory the Republicans for essentially putting over two centuries of Senate rulemaking at risk. The so-called nuclear option - named that by the Republican leadership, I might add so they knew exactly what they were doing - was an attempt to change Sentate rules via a backdoor.

Changing the Senate rules requires 67 votes. So rather than let that little item get in the way, Frist et al declared that we aren't changing the rules, just the precedents that the rules apply to. Dishonest, bogus, and dangerous. Once you start tearing down the systems of precedent that make up institutions, you put Democracy at risk. Nelson Mandela commented that a constitution was fine, but what he wants if a series of institutions that protect the people's rights, without those the constitution is so much crap. The current Republican leadership does not understand that, and that is what frightens me.

Sorry wrong on all points. Senate rules have been changed numerous times including the rule change in 1972ish (if my memory holds) by simple majority required a 3/5th majority vs 2/3 majority required to break a filibuster and whats more done by a simple Senate majority.

I've done the research its all laid out in the Gold Gupta report which I believe I have linked to this site any number of times.

No backdoor that hasn't been exploited by the Dems so often that it should be called jackass way. Why do you think the so-called nuclear option has been referred to so often as the Byrd option? Because Dems have used to their advantage the simple majority to manipulate sSneate rules to their advantage.

Regardless when one contemplates the use of filibuster and its consequences which would you rather have,

A deliberative body that gives up and down votes on presidential nominees or

A president that due to the paralysis of the deliberative body has to make recess appointments.

Hmm..... On the one hand you've gotten a whole lot of people giving a YEA or NAY vote on the other you've gotten a single individual assigning the posts. Which do you think makes for the better decision?

Me I'ld rather have the Senate weigh their allegiences/responsibilities to the people as laid out by the constitution as opposed to their loyalties to a dysfunctional organization guided by maleable senate rules (not by the way empowered/legitamized by the people)

[Mr. Harley]

Drake - so the American people have no right to papers in the hands of the Executive. You support an imperial, and secretive Presidency. Again, inconsistant. Look at what the founders of our country supported. Or are you only interested in that when it supports your dislike of SCOTUS decisions, when your President does the same thing, that's different.

Look at what the Republicans in the Senate did in Clinton's first term. Oh, but that's different. Pwned. The Republicans used all kinds of parliamentary rules during the Clinton adminstration to avoid votes and/or block nominees, both when in the minority or the majority. Want to compare numbers of blocked appointees? Pwned. You are being utterly inconsistant, complaining about the current tactics used by the Democrats but not complaining about similiar use of parliamentary rules during the Clinton administration.

Instead of simple smilies, show me a consistant comparison between the Democratic use of parliamentary rules, not just the filibuster, and the Republican use of them during the Clinton administration. Then show me who blocked more nominees. Can't do it, can you.