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....
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....
Aug 1, 8:55 AM EDT
Bush Reportedly to Appoint Bolton Today
By TERENCE HUNT
AP White House Correspondent
WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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.
Can't expect anything better than another "yes" man...
Twistin' by the pool.
The plus for George is that now he's got somebody who owes him something...
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
Eat Us And Smile
Cenk For America 2024!!
Justice Democrats
"If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992
No one's gonna listen to him. He doesn't have the country behind him.
spend that capital gw!!!
gnaw on it
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"!Originally posted by ODShowtime
spend that capital gw!!!
I look back on his legacy so far with shame. I look forward with fear.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 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.Originally posted by ODShowtime
I look back on his legacy so far with shame. I look forward with fear.
"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
Why, do you hold the UN in high esteem?Originally posted by Nickdfresh
He'll be laughed out of the U.N....
What a shock!Originally posted by ODShowtime
I look back on his legacy so far with shame. I look forward with fear.
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?Originally posted by FORD
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
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/po...rtner=homepage
makes sense...
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....Originally posted by Warham
Why, do you hold the UN in high esteem?
Originally posted by FORD
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
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.
Making "excess" appointments is nothing new, but for a position of this level, it's very uncommon.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.
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.
The UN's already been destroyed.
We fucked it up pretty good when we sanctioned Iraq and later when we invaded them.Originally posted by Warham
The UN's already been destroyed.
Saddam is also to blame for that.
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.
You don't even have to get into the topic of Iraq to discuss the corruption in the UN.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.
Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):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.
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.
Yeah but it took a real master scumbag like Saddam to corrupt the place as bad as he did.Originally posted by Warham
You don't even have to get into the topic of Iraq to discuss the corruption in the UN.
That oil money is worse than drug money.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote