View Full Version : John Bolton To Be Appointed By Bush
Nickdfresh
08-01-2005, 08:55 AM
According to CNN, BOLTON will be appointed as UN ambassador despite his nomination being shit-canned by the Senate. Another arrogent action by a lame duck, fearless leader.
He'll be laughed out of the U.N....
http://www.angelfire.com/weird/knockers/bolton1.jpg
Nickdfresh
08-01-2005, 08:58 AM
Aug 1, 8:55 AM EDT
Bush Reportedly to Appoint Bolton Today
By TERENCE HUNT
AP White House Correspondent
WASHINGTON (AP (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_AMBASSADOR?SITE=NYBUE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-08-01-08-55-05)) -- Frustrated by Democrats, President Bush will circumvent the Senate on Monday and install embattled nominee John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations, a senior administration official said.
Bush has the power to fill vacancies without Senate approval while Congress is in recess. Under the Constitution, a recess appointment during the lawmakers' August break would last until the next session of Congress, which begins in January 2007.
In advance of Bush's announcement, Democrats said Bolton would start his new job on the wrong foot in a recess appointment.
"He's damaged goods. This is a person who lacks credibility," Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, a senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on "Fox News Sunday." Bush, he said, should think again before using a recess appointment to place Bolton at the United Nations while the Senate is on its traditional August break.
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
bueno bob
08-01-2005, 01:28 PM
Can't expect anything better than another "yes" man...
bueno bob
08-01-2005, 01:29 PM
The plus for George is that now he's got somebody who owes him something...
http://www.niklasblog.com/wp-content/2005-03-12-bolton1.jpg
Wow, so now you can get appointed to be the leader of something that you pretend doesn't exist.... by an unelected monkey trying to get around the constitution no less.
Only in Bizarro Chimpland :rolleyes:
ODShowtime
08-01-2005, 08:45 PM
No one's gonna listen to him. He doesn't have the country behind him.
spend that capital gw!!!
blueturk
08-01-2005, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
spend that capital gw!!!
He is! And the GOP will have to deal with his purchases when he's gone. It won't be pretty, but Dubya doesn't care. He's building a "legacy"!
ODShowtime
08-01-2005, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by blueturk
He is! And the GOP will have to deal with his purchases when he's gone.
We all will!
It won't be pretty, but Dubya doesn't care. He's building a "legacy"!
I look back on his legacy so far with shame. I look forward with fear.
blueturk
08-01-2005, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
I look back on his legacy so far with shame. I look forward with fear.
I know what you mean...I guess my point was that by 2008, Dubya can conceivably fuck up enough to move the Republicans out of the White House.
"It's very interesting when you think about it, the slaves who left here to go to America, because of their steadfast and their religion and their belief in freedom, helped change America." —George W. Bush, Dakar, Senegal, July 8, 2003
Warham
08-01-2005, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
He'll be laughed out of the U.N....
http://www.angelfire.com/weird/knockers/bolton1.jpg
Why, do you hold the UN in high esteem?
Warham
08-01-2005, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
I look back on his legacy so far with shame. I look forward with fear.
What a shock!
Warham
08-01-2005, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by FORD
http://www.niklasblog.com/wp-content/2005-03-12-bolton1.jpg
Wow, so now you can get appointed to be the leader of something that you pretend doesn't exist.... by an unelected monkey trying to get around the constitution no less.
Only in Bizarro Chimpland :rolleyes:
Actually, FORD, if he's referring to the way the UN SHOULD be, as opposed to the 'Oil For Food' UN, I think he has a point, doesn't he?
academic punk
08-01-2005, 10:46 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/politics/02diplo.html?hp&ex=1122955200&en=0e36793e9b78a742&ei=5094&partner=homepage
makes sense...
Nickdfresh
08-01-2005, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Why, do you hold the UN in high esteem?
I really don't actually, but what else is there? Why do you hold the UN in low esteem. For being self-serving hypocrites? Pot, tea kettle....
diamondD
08-02-2005, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by FORD
http://www.niklasblog.com/wp-content/2005-03-12-bolton1.jpg
Wow, so now you can get appointed to be the leader of something that you pretend doesn't exist.... by an unelected monkey trying to get around the constitution no less.
Only in Bizarro Chimpland :rolleyes:
He's not my favorite nominee, but there's nothing unConstitutional about what Bush did. It's been done by both parties. Good try tho. :rolleyes:
Nickdfresh
08-02-2005, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by diamondD
He's not my favorite nominee, but there's nothing unConstitutional about what Bush did. It's been done by both parties. Good try tho. :rolleyes:
Making "excess" appointments is nothing new, but for a position of this level, it's very uncommon.
The Chimp did it for two reasons:
1) To destroy the UN.
2) Simply to be a fucking asshole.
Nothing constructive can come from this. Bolton is a lunatic. And soon he'll be an indicted lunatic.
Warham
08-02-2005, 10:10 AM
The UN's already been destroyed.
ODShowtime
08-02-2005, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by Warham
The UN's already been destroyed.
We fucked it up pretty good when we sanctioned Iraq and later when we invaded them.
Saddam is also to blame for that.
Cathedral
08-02-2005, 07:27 PM
Saddam should have been taken out in '91.
That's the only reason i supported the war in Iraq.
I strongly feel we owed them the removal of Saddam.
Had that been done back then there wouldn't have been any sanctions and no war today, at least not the way it is now.
So, we need to get the Iraqi's to stand on their own two feet, and we need to get the fuck out of there ASAP.
He should have just been honest with the people and said that from the start. the Sanction Violations were enough to end the '91 cease fire.
The question was, would we all have supported it?
I would have, but Daddy Bush should have finished what he started back then.
Warham
08-02-2005, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
We fucked it up pretty good when we sanctioned Iraq and later when we invaded them.
Saddam is also to blame for that.
You don't even have to get into the topic of Iraq to discuss the corruption in the UN.
Originally posted by Cathedral
Saddam should have been taken out in '91.
That's the only reason i supported the war in Iraq.
I strongly feel we owed them the removal of Saddam.
Had that been done back then there wouldn't have been any sanctions and no war today, at least not the way it is now.
So, we need to get the Iraqi's to stand on their own two feet, and we need to get the fuck out of there ASAP.
He should have just been honest with the people and said that from the start. the Sanction Violations were enough to end the '91 cease fire.
The question was, would we all have supported it?
I would have, but Daddy Bush should have finished what he started back then.
Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
I hate to agree with Poppy Bush, but the current state of Iraq proves that he was right, and that his simian son was wrong.
ODShowtime
08-02-2005, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by Warham
You don't even have to get into the topic of Iraq to discuss the corruption in the UN.
Yeah but it took a real master scumbag like Saddam to corrupt the place as bad as he did.
That oil money is worse than drug money.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.