Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Again, I ask specific questions and those questions go unanswered.
|
Again, I answer your specific questions and my answers go unchallenged.
Bolton
could not aquire the consent of the Senate, so Bush did an end-run around the constitution. Doing so was as stupid thing. Regardless of anything else,
making a temporary appointment of an important diplomatic position that you do not have the support to get consent for is a stupid, arrogant, idotic thing. The executive branch is required to get the
consent of the Senate, and is obligated to ask
advice from the Senate about such appointments.
If one wanted a UN representative that had credibility,
you don't grand-stand and use a loop-hole in the constitution to appoint him. It wasn't that he was undermined after he was appointed -- he
did not have the support to get appointed in the first place.
He was opposed on a few issues. First, he had made quite dismissive comments about the UN -- and appointing someone who publicly has stated that he considers the position and the organization to be irrelivent is, how d you say, undiplomatic. But that isn't all.
There where some questions about his performance and honesty during his previous job -- issues that the Senate was looking into at the time that Bush did the end-run around the Senate, and did a "recess appointment".