You know, I honestly don’t recall. Not that it matters It’s not like he was a model of bipartisanship from 2000-2004, though - and this is one more data point indicating a distasteful pattern of behavior and thought that he, at one time, claimed to eschew.
Looking to reform the U.N. on it’s face seems laudable, but like many things with this administration, what’s on the face is not the reality. The UN detractors are using the oil-for-food scandal to try to 1. Put in management reforms, etc, that are designed to remedy/prevent that sort of thing. This is good. 2. Make it easier to withhold funds if the UN say, disagrees that we should invade and occupy Iraq.
There’s a cowboy element that says “we don’t want no damn ferinners telling the By God USA what to do”. And that probably brings cheers from the cheap seats, but the reality is we’ve had better luck reforming/influencing the UN when we’re not withholding/threatening to withhold our payment. From the article you linked:
So, all in all, I’d give it one thumb up and one thumb down.
Just wait a cott’n pick’n minute there, buckaroo. Ain’t no world government no way no how. Ad hoc, post hoc, propter hoc… don’t make no difference.
Back to the OP. I don’t think Bolton is a good pick for the UN. There has to be some hard ass out there who doesn’t have the baggage this guy does-- someone who can satisfy both Bush and enought Dems to prevent a fillibuster. Having said that, making a recess appointment is just as “legitimate” as a fillibuster is. It’s done all the time, and keep in mind that it does expire at some point-- IIRC, end of '06.
Tomato tomahto. The UN Security Council can vote for a binding resolution which a member state must carry out, if necessary via armed force. That’s what governments do to those they govern, in my book (although there are many governments who cannot act against the most powerful of their ow members. We still call them ‘governments’, however limited.)
I guess it depends on what the meaning of “is” is. The UN is certainly “the closest thing we have” to a world government, but to say it “is” a world government stretches the meaning of that word beyond what my own usage would be.
Now wait a cotton-pickin’ moment here. What is all this talk about a Bolton “filibuster”? I thought that I was paying attention to his confirmation hearings, and I know that some Democrats were slowing down the confirmation process in an effort to force the State Department to provide certain documents that Bolton wrote, but I had never heard that a filibuster was threatened by the Democratic leadership. Got any cites for it outside of links to Rush Libaugh and the like?
Chance, you might try living in the real world for a while.
If the Senate had done its job properly, it would not have been necessary for the President to do this. Instead, the Democrats have screwed up the nomination process to suit their own ends through the filibuster process, which is flat-out wrong. This should have gone to an up-or-down vote months ago.
Kudos to Mr. Bush for taking the initiative.
My word as a gentleman.
Also this quote from the link provided by the OP:
Sorry, I’ve known too many gentlemen.
Dang. For some reason I can’t reach yahoo links from work. But I’m sure others would speak out if you had somehow misquoted the article.
bolding mine
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/filibuster.htm
It’s a pretty broad definition.
John Bolton is a perfect representative for the Bush 2 presidency: a bombastic bully with the tact of a sledgehammer, appointed to office by clandestine methods without the support of the America people, a bull-headed clod who believes the world community’s only purpose is to rubber-stamp the United States’ demands and who uses “reform” as a euphemism for “destroy.”
Anyone stupid enough to believe this excuse at face val-- oh, hi, Clothahump, didn’t see you there… 
When is your brain cell going to divide? There is nothing more wrong about delaying tactics or a filibuster than there is with a recess appointment. They are all completely within the rules of the game.
Greetings from the real world. As Maeglin observed above: what’s the point in our having a parliamentary system if all we’re going to do is fall back on majority votes?
According to my reading of the Constitution, the Senate’s job is to advise and consent—not one or the other, but both. To suggest that the Senate has to kowtow to the White House is symptomatic of the arrogance that often comes to those who belong to the party that happens to control the White House and both houses of Congress. [Insert unnecessary note that the same thing applies to any party that happens to find itself in such a position.]
I would agree with much of that post, except there’s nothing clandestine about what Bush is doing, and it’s not clear to me that the American people don’t supprt him. On these issues, you tend to get a mixed message in polls-- Americans want the Senate to have a say, but they also think appointees deserve a clear vote one way or the other.
I don’t see any way this can be seen as anything but a victory for the Democrats. No President wants to resort to recess appointments if they can avoid it. This is an admission that Bush incapable of working with the opposition, and it weakens any claim to leadership for future endeavors. Quack, quack!!
Bolton could revitalize the UN, as old adversarys set aside their differences in distrust and disdain for the US.
And unanimously approve a motion to request the formation of a comittee to investigate whether a non-binding, politely-worded expression of mild displeasure should be sent to the United States?
Until it’s vetoed by the Security Council.
With 2 votes and five abstentions.
I’m sure that’s what Norm Coleman is trying to reform. :rolleyes: (aimed at Norm)