Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Gopher]

But this is a presidential and not a parliamentary political system.

What we're talking about is, at best, a grey area, not the death of democracy.

[The Bobster]

[Gopher]

[deleted]

[Nowhere Man]

I thought Republicans were "no BS". Why bother with appointing a man who hates the UN to represent us? Is that very different than just saying, "We're leaving the UN"?

Why don't y'all just abandon it?

That's what you want to do, right?

[Gopher]

[deleted]

[Nowhere Man]

Considering the last 4 years, it's a bit of a stretch to name Jesse Helms.

After all, there's also John Birch, who painted my childhood countryside.

We do have a president. And a nomination.

Of course, we also have the privileges of the security council and HOST COUNTRY, which we exercised to bug conversations between nations about Iraq.

How's that for freedom?

The one thing we're lacking is diplomacy.

And, when he seldom comes out for a press conference, George W. Bush could just own up to a fact. His administration has no diplomacy aside from talking down to people.

Kyoto? Nope.

Missile shield? "Hey, we want one. What do you think?"
The world: Nope
Bush: "OK, we're gonna build one anyway."

Iraq: You're either with us or against us!

UN: Get bent!

After-the-fact: We were defending the UN.

Now: We're gonna prove how we were defending the UN by sending the most frothing anti-UN person we can find to represent us.

[Bolton gets blocked]

"Oh, the horror!" My executive rights! It's not fair!

A wimp like this ought to play his cards.

You're either with the UN or against it.

He ought to understand that rhetoric and behave as such.

[Gopher]

[deleted]

[Nowhere Man]

I'm not all that worried about what Bush does.

Remember how he immediately set about fixing those horrible 90's?

I'd rather say, "Let's get it over with", in one fell swoop.

It's not that I want him to give up our PRIVILEGED status in the UN, it's that I'm daring him and his little bleating hearts, who constantly and consistently talk about how terrible the UN is, to DO SOMETHING, if that's truly the case.

No dig on you, gopher.

[Ya-ta Boy]

On one of the Sunday morning talk shows Condi said they wanted Bolton in to get the reforms made that would make the UN strong. On Monday night Tucker Carlson (no raving liberal him) said he was surprised a Republican would use that argument. He said the last thing he wanted was a strong UN. Given that for 60 years many Republicans have wanted the US out of the UN, I believe Carlson. It's another example of the administration being less than forthcoming with their public rhetoric. There is something else going on: the House Republicans have passed a bill that essentially is intended to blackmail the UN into making the changes the GOP wants or funding will be slashed. (The Senate has not taken up that bill yet.)

Someone mentioned that of the 24 UN ambassadors, 22 were appointed with unanimous consent. Andrew Young got in with 6 (?) no votes and someone else got in with 16. (I can't believe I don't remember who, but I don't.) If Bolton gets in, he will be seen as a weak appointment by the other UN members. If he is appointed during the summer recess, Bush will be seen as weak. If the nomination is withdrawn, Bush will be seen as weak.

The Senate has the constitutional power of advise and consent on presidential appointments, just as they do on ratification of treaties. Traditionally, the Senate has laid down and gone along with almost whoever a president wants to appoint. The difference this time is that the Senate is asserting its constitutional power. In a democratic republic it is rule by majority but with certain protections for the minority.

I say, "Hurray for Jemmy Madison and the boys!"

[Ya-ta Boy]

It seems there will be another vote on Bolton. This just appeared on Yahoo News.


Frist Reverses Himself, Pushes Bolton Vote
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
37 minutes ago



Reversing field after a meeting with President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he will continue pushing for a floor vote on John R. Bolton for U.N. ambassador. Frist switched his position after initially saying Tuesday that negotiations with Democrats to get a vote on Bolton had been exhausted.

Talking to reporters in the White House driveway after he joined other GOP lawmakers for a luncheon with Bush, Frist said: "The president made it very clear that he expects an up or down vote."

Just about two hours hour earlier, Frist said he wouldn't schedule another vote on Bolton's nomination and said that Bush must decide the next move. Frist, R-Tenn., had said there was nothing further he could do to break a Democratic stalemate with the Bush White House over Bolton, an outspoken conservative who, opponents argue, would undermine U.S. interests at the world body.

But he changed his tune after talking to Bush.

Frist's abrupt public turnabout underscored the political pressures that the long-running battle over Bolton have heaped upon himself and Bush.

Six months into his final term in office, Bush is struggling to avoid the perception of a weakened lame duck at a time when his proposal for revamping Social Security has made little progress and some lawmakers are calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq. Frist has lost control of the Republican-run Senate in recent weeks in fights over Bush's judicial appointments and earlier attempts to confirm Bolton.

Describing his talk with Bush, Frist said: "The decision in talking to the president is that he strongly supports John Bolton, as we know, and he asked that we to continue to work. And we'll continue to work."

"It's not dead," he said. "It is going to require some continued talking and discussion."

Frist, however, also said that some Democrats, led by Sens. Christopher Dodd and Joseph Biden, had "locked down."

"We'll continue to work to get an up or down vote for John Bolton over the coming days, possibly weeks," he said.

Deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli had greeted Frist's initial announcement with a declaration that Democrats had left Bolton "hanging in the wind."

Frist said the president did not discuss the possibility of going around the Senate and making a recess appointment while they are on break. That would allow Bolton to take the job without a confirmation vote and serve until early 2007.

Before Frist met with Bush, White House press secretary Scott McClellan had said there had been no talk of withdrawing Bolton's nomination. McClellan continued to refuse to rule out a recess appointment, but said only that the White House was pushing for an up or down vote in the Senate.

"It's not that many more that is required to move forward on this nomination," he said.

Asked about Frist's initial comments that he would not schedule another vote on ending Democratic delays, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "We'll continue to work with the Senate leadership."

Earlier, McClellan ruled out withdrawing Bolton's nomination and issued a new call for a vote, accusing Democrats of being unwilling to compromise.

Democrats have demanded that the administration check a list of 36 U.S. officials against names in secret national security intercepts that Bolton requested and received. They also want documents related to the preparation of testimony that Bolton planned to deliver � but ultimately never gave � in the House in July 2003 about Syria's weapons capability.

On Monday, Democrats made clear they weren't budging and most stood together to defeat a GOP effort to force a final vote on Bolton. The Senate voted 54-38, six shy of the total needed to advance his nomination. The vote represented an erosion in support from last month's failed Republican effort.

Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) of Delaware, the lead Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a chief critic of Bolton, said White House Chief Staff Andrew Card had offered to provide some of the Syria information but that "was not sufficient." Rather, Biden said Democrats want the administration to turn over all information they seek.

At a White House news conference Monday, the president left open the possibility of circumventing the Senate when he sidestepped a question on whether he would appoint Bolton to the ambassador's post when Congress leaves Washington for a July 4 recess.

Some Republicans urged Bush to continue fighting for Bolton rather than appoint him on his own during the upcoming Senate break � a so-called recess appointment � for fear of sending a weakened nominee to the United Nations. "That would not be in our best interest," said Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Such an appointment would only last through the next one-year session of Congress � in Bolton's case until January 2007.

Bush has said that Bolton, with a history of blunt talk and skepticism about the U.N.'s power, would be ideally suited to lead an effort to overhaul the world body's bureaucracy and make it more accountable. Critics say Bolton, who has been accused of mistreating subordinates, would hurt U.S. efforts to work with the U.N. and other countries.

*********

It appears to me that Frist got spanked.

I guess the next question is whether the nuclear option is going to be invoked for this issue. The Gang of 14 deal only applies to court nominees. One of the Gang at least, Nelson of Nebraska, voted for Bolton yesterday.

[weatherman]

I like Bolton. The UN needs him!

[guangho]

this is partly sour grapes- on my part anyhow. I wish Clinton had the stones to bypass the Senate and appoint Ronnie White and his other stalled nominees unilaterally.