OnTheRocks Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 What is the main arguement against having John Bolton named US Ambassador to the UN? is it because he is a meanie? "The president has the right to make this recess appointment, but it's the wrong decision. It only diminishes John Bolton's validity and leverage to secure America's goals at the U.N. John Bolton has been rejected twice by the Senate to serve as our Ambassador to the United Nations. This is not the way to fill our most important diplomatic jobs." - Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. This isn't entirely true. When did the Senate vote to approve or disapprove? Kofi seems to be really looking forward to working with Mr. Bolton. "We look forward to working with him as I do with the other 190 ambassadors and we will welcome him at a time when we are in the midst of major reform. I think it is the president's prerogative, and the president has decided to appoint him through this process." - U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan
GG Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 This isn't entirely true. When did the Senate vote to approve or disapprove? 396540[/snapback] They voted for him before they decided to vote against him.
RkFast Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 I think it is the president's prerogative, and the president has decided to appoint him through this process." - U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan Sad state of affairs when Kofi Annan has a better grasp on the American political process than a lot of American congressmen and others do.
boomerjamhead Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 Sad state of affairs when Kofi Annan has a better grasp on the American political process than a lot of American congressmen and others do. 396960[/snapback] This is the last guy on the planet that Annan wanted appointed to this post. Standby... because sh-- is going to get interesting in a hurry.
Reuben Gant Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 What are Bolton's qualifications anyway, sure he does a mean Otis Redding cover, but Ambassador?
Gavin in Va Beach Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 The argument is that since the Democrats have no ideas to run on anymore, they want to show their core that at least they blocked the opposition from doing what they wanted. I think that's about it in a nutshell...
Recommended Posts