Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, who originally opposed John Bolton's nomination/appointment as U.N. Ambassador, now supports Bolton, and explains why in an editorial appearing in the Washington Post:
Ambassador Bolton's appointment expires this fall when the Senate officially recesses. Should the president choose to renominate him, I cannot imagine a worse message to send to the terrorists -- and to other nations deciding whether to engage in this effort -- than to drag out a possible renomination process or even replace the person our president has entrusted to lead our nation at the United Nations at a time when we are working on these historic objectives.
For me or my colleagues in the Senate to now question a possible renomination would jeopardize our influence in the United Nations and encourage those who oppose the United States to make Bolton the issue, thereby undermining our policies and agenda.
Should the president send his renomination to the Senate, I will vote to confirm him, and I call on my Democratic colleagues to keep in mind the current situation in the Middle East and the rest of the world should the Senate have an opportunity to vote. I do not believe the United States, at this dangerous time, can afford to have a U.N. ambassador who does not have Congress's full support.
Read the whole thing.
Posted by Matt at July 20, 2006 03:42 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/whitehouse.cgi/7542
Comments
Is that crickets in here I hear?? Where are the Bolton haters now?
Posted by:
Reverend Scaramonga at July 20, 2006 05:09 PM
Bolton has been kicking arse since his recess appointment, with tact and diplomacy. He's one of the best I can remember. Voinovich was just putting on an act last time.
Scar, I really detest the left. Is there a cure for my condition?
Posted by: LFFGF SGSPN NE... at July 20, 2006 05:28 PM
Signs of common sense on the part of a Democrat. What will be next, manna from heaven?
Posted by: kjstrouble at July 20, 2006 05:45 PM
Scar, I really detest the left. Is there a cure for my condition?
Your condition is a normal one and is the result of not having lost your mind. You should worry if you ever think the left is anything but the evil spawn of Satan.
Posted by:
Reverend Scaramonga at July 20, 2006 06:07 PM
Ambassador John Bolton, rocks!
Posted by: Freedom1 at July 20, 2006 06:23 PM
John Bolton is "human scum". 6000, Iraqi civilians have died in the last to months in random attacks. If the US military was not in Iraq, would more or fewer people have died? Peace
Posted by: steve at July 20, 2006 07:16 PM
kjstrouble...unfortunately, he's a Republican..well, he's really a RINO...we can't stand him!!!!
Posted by:
Xango Annie at July 20, 2006 07:52 PM
Voinovich certainly makes some good points. There's only one problem with his statement...
Everything he said was just as valid a year ago when Bolton was first nominated, if not more so.
Better late than never, I suppose.
Posted by: LNC at July 20, 2006 08:17 PM
My whole problem with the whole Bolton thing was that he was confirmed without a senate vote (recess appointment).
You may think that it's a silly reason, but that is one of the things that Congress is supposed to do...
And by the way, I can't look at your next post.
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at July 20, 2006 08:30 PM
My whole problem with the whole Bolton thing was that he was confirmed without a senate vote (recess appointment).
Was it illegal? If not, it it part of the way our system of democratic government works? If so, do you want to change it? If so, do you know how to go about it? Hint: sell, sell, sell. and no whining.
Posted by:
Reverend Scaramonga at July 20, 2006 10:42 PM
Rev-
I don't believe that I was whining, but I don't blame you for thinking that a liberal would whine. I tend to think of myself as a moderate (albeit a left-of-center moderate) and try not to whine (bitchy people are annoying...).
Anyways, on to your points...
It's not that I think that it's illegal or that it really should be. There just seems to be no room for actual debate on the floor of the congress. Old guys read speeches (that were usually prepared by their aides) and then go home. Perhaps if congressmen had to defend their ideas in a real debate setting, not as much crap would wind up on the President's desk.
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at July 21, 2006 12:21 AM
Frawg Fawg,
RE: "My whole problem with the whole Bolton thing was that he was confirmed without a senate vote (recess appointment)."
Your problem isn't really with recess appointments -- which are specifically provided for by the Constitution. Your problem is with President Bush. Just like the rest of the liberal [progressive] left, you try to paint anything that President Bush does as wrong or bad!
Did you know that: President Clinton made 140 recess appointments; President Reagan made 243 recess appointments; President Bush (the elder) made 77 recess appointments (single term); and President Carter made 68 recess appointments (single term)?
Did you know that President Kennedy, appointed Thurgood Marshall to the bench during a recess because he feared opposition from Southern senators?
It looks like you have a problem with the Constitution!!!
AAR
Posted by: AAR at July 21, 2006 12:51 AM
not that ........steve....deserves a reply to that stupid post...but....stupid is , as stupid does. and ......steve......with SH still in power, how about hundreds of thousands who were eliminated every year...and ,of course, he did it in such a humane manner.....peace....
Posted by:
Xango Annie at July 21, 2006 01:18 AM
There just seems to be no room for actual debate on the floor of the congress. Old guys read speeches (that were usually prepared by their aides) and then go home.
Just noticing that? Its been going on longer than you or I have been living.
Perhaps if congressmen had to defend their ideas in a real debate setting, not as much crap would wind up on the President's desk.
I don't see how. The whole process of generating bills is pretty much a foregone conclusion. Sometimes some pol trying to swim against the stream introduces an amendment or bloviates for a long time at the podium, but these unapproved excursions are mostly humored and then voted down.
It ain't like "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" and it has probably never been. That's why its important to get into the majority where your pols can pass laws you want and reject the stuff from the other side.
All in all, its still a pretty good system. There are some ways it could be improved, but can you imagine that wimpy Reid trying to actually stand up and debate against a skilled debater? Should his ability to get laws passed be based on his debating skills? If so, Reid's toast. Try to remember ANYTHING he said that got more publicity than "We Killed The Patriot Act" which of course he did not do.
Posted by:
Reverend Scaramonga at July 21, 2006 12:53 PM
Post a comment
Is that crickets in here I hear?? Where are the Bolton haters now?
Bolton has been kicking arse since his recess appointment, with tact and diplomacy. He's one of the best I can remember. Voinovich was just putting on an act last time.
Scar, I really detest the left. Is there a cure for my condition?
Signs of common sense on the part of a Democrat. What will be next, manna from heaven?
Scar, I really detest the left. Is there a cure for my condition?
Your condition is a normal one and is the result of not having lost your mind. You should worry if you ever think the left is anything but the evil spawn of Satan.
Ambassador John Bolton, rocks!
John Bolton is "human scum". 6000, Iraqi civilians have died in the last to months in random attacks. If the US military was not in Iraq, would more or fewer people have died? Peace
kjstrouble...unfortunately, he's a Republican..well, he's really a RINO...we can't stand him!!!!
Voinovich certainly makes some good points. There's only one problem with his statement...
Everything he said was just as valid a year ago when Bolton was first nominated, if not more so.
Better late than never, I suppose.
My whole problem with the whole Bolton thing was that he was confirmed without a senate vote (recess appointment).
You may think that it's a silly reason, but that is one of the things that Congress is supposed to do...
And by the way, I can't look at your next post.
My whole problem with the whole Bolton thing was that he was confirmed without a senate vote (recess appointment).
Was it illegal? If not, it it part of the way our system of democratic government works? If so, do you want to change it? If so, do you know how to go about it? Hint: sell, sell, sell. and no whining.
Rev-
I don't believe that I was whining, but I don't blame you for thinking that a liberal would whine. I tend to think of myself as a moderate (albeit a left-of-center moderate) and try not to whine (bitchy people are annoying...).
Anyways, on to your points...
It's not that I think that it's illegal or that it really should be. There just seems to be no room for actual debate on the floor of the congress. Old guys read speeches (that were usually prepared by their aides) and then go home. Perhaps if congressmen had to defend their ideas in a real debate setting, not as much crap would wind up on the President's desk.
Frawg Fawg,
RE: "My whole problem with the whole Bolton thing was that he was confirmed without a senate vote (recess appointment)."
Your problem isn't really with recess appointments -- which are specifically provided for by the Constitution. Your problem is with President Bush. Just like the rest of the liberal [progressive] left, you try to paint anything that President Bush does as wrong or bad!
Did you know that: President Clinton made 140 recess appointments; President Reagan made 243 recess appointments; President Bush (the elder) made 77 recess appointments (single term); and President Carter made 68 recess appointments (single term)?
Did you know that President Kennedy, appointed Thurgood Marshall to the bench during a recess because he feared opposition from Southern senators?
It looks like you have a problem with the Constitution!!!
AAR
not that ........steve....deserves a reply to that stupid post...but....stupid is , as stupid does. and ......steve......with SH still in power, how about hundreds of thousands who were eliminated every year...and ,of course, he did it in such a humane manner.....peace....
There just seems to be no room for actual debate on the floor of the congress. Old guys read speeches (that were usually prepared by their aides) and then go home.
Just noticing that? Its been going on longer than you or I have been living.
Perhaps if congressmen had to defend their ideas in a real debate setting, not as much crap would wind up on the President's desk.
I don't see how. The whole process of generating bills is pretty much a foregone conclusion. Sometimes some pol trying to swim against the stream introduces an amendment or bloviates for a long time at the podium, but these unapproved excursions are mostly humored and then voted down.
It ain't like "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" and it has probably never been. That's why its important to get into the majority where your pols can pass laws you want and reject the stuff from the other side.
All in all, its still a pretty good system. There are some ways it could be improved, but can you imagine that wimpy Reid trying to actually stand up and debate against a skilled debater? Should his ability to get laws passed be based on his debating skills? If so, Reid's toast. Try to remember ANYTHING he said that got more publicity than "We Killed The Patriot Act" which of course he did not do.