user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
no.
Once they are released the Democrats will find another way to obstruct or will use the documents for political haymaking.
They don't want Bolton, and if they had any political guts they would stand up for the principle that they are skirting.
I have not heard one thing about Bolton that would make me feel he is not qualified for the job.
If someone is abusive/rude to underlings then 99% of the Senate and all Presidents should never have been there.
If temper was an issue then Howard Dean shouldn't be the Chair.
etc.
You get the point.
Seems like simple common sense to do so. But I forget- these are the Beltway Boyz. Who NEEDS simple common sense, when good political capital will do?
WHOA. I just read the list of names more carefully the second time around. LOTT signed on to this? Satan must be ice-skating now...
Why wouldn't you release the documents?
Okay, inter- I'll grant you your point on abrasiveness, as I consider that one of my many talents. The same with his qualifications. The issue that disturbs me, and maybe a few others, is whether Bolton used his intimidation tactics in order to force intel analysys to shape the focus of intel reports in order to justify our move toward war post 9/11. And further, to a smaller degree, I'm disturbed by Bolton's "my-way-or-the-highway" attitude. Bringing that kind of mindset into an organization where, according to a famous leader of this country of ours, we're "seeking to build coalitions" among nations for this war on terror, is NOT exactly conducive to coalition-building. Now that I think of it, such a mindset is eerily reminiscent of that aforementioned leader.
inter: Let me see if I understand this ... you are not in favor of teh Whitehouse releasing information to the Senate that it has requested ...?
Are you thinking of the precedent this sets? Or only of the immediate desired results?
It is not a secret that I support the confirmation of Bolton.
I have noticed a definite, obstinate obstructionism on the part of Senate Democrats.
Cathexis, Schumur of NY has all but said that he will not allow a Catholic to be sat on the Supreme Court. That is outrageous.
So when people like him try to convince me of their purity I don't even pay attention.
When Durbin makes the comments he does, unchallenged by his Party, I feel he lacks the judgment with which to demand any documents. Fallacious guilt by association applies to the party. The Dems are currently in a dither about Rove comments (innocuous as they were) but are silent about Rangel's comments, Byrd's comments, and Schumur's anti-Catholic sentiments.
It is not about expediency for me. The US NEEDS an ambassador to the UN RIGHT NOW.
The Democrats aren't inspiring me to their view. Clinton did. Mario Cuomo did. Former Senator Nunn did. Former Senator Breaux did. It is not that I never agree with Dems, just that I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING from the Democrats in the past 4-5 years.
inter: Then the rational thing to do woyuld be to release the documents and deal with any perceived obstructionism.
To withhold the information places the executive branch in a position of trying to trump the legislative branch.
Instead of political mudslinging, how about we release the documents and get on with it? If there's nothing to hide, I honestly don't see what the problem is. Just release the documents. Release the documents. *shhhhh-release the documents...
Nope. It is not about releasing documents as both you two know. If it were that simple I would agree.
The Senate's purview is to advise and consent. That doesn't mean the Senate gets to vete or obstruct the President for political reasons.
The President has the Constitutional right to put the policy and policymakers into place that he sees fit.
Once these documents were/are released one of two things will happen:
1. They will find a "smoking gun".
2. They will find another reason to say that the President is withholding information that they vitally need.
So AR and Cx be rational.
None of us can accurately predict what is going to happen if and when the documents are released. There's only one way to find out.
What solution do you have?
...It's really about finding the right guy for the job, is it not? Forget about the words "democrat" and "republican" for a moment. The things I've heard about him do not inspire confidence in his skills as an international diplomat, particularly at this very delicate time, when the image of the United States is really in the toilet. Some people don't seem to care about that, but it is my belief that our relationship with the outside world is vital for safeguarding the welfare of the people of the United States. It's also an extraordinarily complex situation.
Really the only things I "know" about Bolton are that he has exhibited the qualities of a bully, has expressed disdain for the United Nations, and is going to go in there and "shake things up." (?) But that doesn't mean I know he's the wrong person for the job. If I had a more specific idea of how and what it is he will do once appointed, then I could make an informed decision, (not that my decision really matters).
^^(I'm sorry if I sounded rude in my first comment.)^^
inter: What is rational is that if the Senate requests info in order to come to an informed decision as to advising, it should be acceded to.
To do otherwise is a power play by the executive branch.
Think beyond the immediate, inter, to the precedent! This goes way beyond Bolton.
In the future, if some "liberal" is preseident, then you're advocating that he can refuse to send the Senate documents, if the situation is reversed?
I think not.
Here's the difference, IMO: If the situation were reversed, I would still stand behind my stance.
Would you?
What does that tell you about your stance?
Listen Cathexis (and Applerod) you both are trying to imply that I am irrational and that the Sen. Dems are acting rationally. I don't agree with either assertion.
Should the Repubs have shot down Ginsburg for the court? She was/is an extremist.
I lived through Clinton doing nothing about Janet Reno.
It is not about precedent, but if it is:
Then the next Dem that gets elected don't bitch when the Sen Repubs hold up every damn thing that the President puts forward.
You want to sound as if you are "looking beyond the immediate", but you are just playing the willing dupe to the Radical Senate democrats like Kennedy, Boxer, and Schumur. YOu conveniently ignore those points don't you?
The next time democratic representatives refuse to release documents that will provide insight into the character of a nominee, I'm actually more likely to criticize them, particularly after having had this experience. I'd be a total hypocrit of I somehow approved of this type of action because it was being done by people I tend to agree with on most social issues.
Anyways, it's so easy to deviate from the point of what it is that we're trying to accomplish. Apparently, we're at some sort of stalemate. So until someone changes their mind (the horror), we're just going to be spinning our wheels.
-I did hear about some sort of power the president has to circumvent this process. I think it's temporary (..?) Maybe someone can tell me what that's about.
Applerod, the President can use the "recess appointment" to seat justices, ambassadors, etc. Clinton did it with James Hormel ambassador to Lumembourg.
If Bush did this, he would seat Bolton after the Senate convenes, then Bolton would be the UnAmbassador until Congress reconvenes in January.
Not a great solution because noone at the UN would really have to take him all that seriously.
And now that I think about it, that is a great "recess". From July to January? Wow, great benefits.
Got it.
|
|
