Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
Again, I answer your specific questions and my answers go unchallenged.
|
I thought I responded in post #33
Quote:
|
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.
|
Bush, at that time, would have gotten the same response from Democrats regardless of who he nominated. Sure I can't prove it, but you have to agree that Bolton was in step with Bush and odds are if he nominated someone else in-step with his view he would have received the same sophomoric response from the Democrats.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Bush was not playing partisan politics alone.
Quote:
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".
|
I have made dismissive comments about the UN also. I don't have a problem with honest comments about ineffective, and sometimes corrupt organizations.
I am not aware of the past "issues" concerning Bolton.