John Bolton's nomination is on hold again, according to the Denver Post [May 26, 2005, "Vote delayed on controversial U.N. nominee"]. From the article, "The material, which Democrats have sought for weeks, involves Bolton's use of government intelligence on Syria and instances in which he asked for names of fellow U.S. officials whose communications were secretly picked up by a spy agency. Boxer read out a litany of allegations about Bolton that she said show he is ill-suited to be the nation's top representative at the world body. She also accused Bolton of misleading the Senate committee that wrangled over Bolton's nomination for weeks without offering him its endorsement."
Blogs for Bush: "All kidding aside, the Democrats are doing the political things which are done in the run-up to civil war. In a democratic republic, the first requirement is that the losing side quietly accept their defeat and only work towards changing the outcome at the next election. We cannot have a functioning democratic government if a minority can stop all action when they lose. What we must do, as Republicans and in defense of bedrock American political principle, is somehow break this Democratic logjam on the levers of power. We have to force them to back down."
Come now Mr. Noonan, civil war? Really?
Kicking Ass: "Let's make one thing clear. Democrats aren't blocking John Bolton's nomination, no matter what Republicans would like you to think. Democrats delayed the Senate vote on Bolton for one reason: the Bush administration refuses to release important information about Bolton's record in the State Department."
The Moderate Voice: "Political scientist Steven Taylor, aka Poliblogger, has a superb, stand-back, take-a-deep-breath thoughtful piece pondering the meaning - and importance - of the controversial nuclear option compromise."
Category: 2004 Presidential Transition
7:17:16 AM 
|
|
