You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Bush stands firm on Bolton nomination
2005-06-01
Of course, that's not how the NYT phrased it.
WASHINGTON, May 31 - President Bush criticized Senate Democrats on Tuesday for "stalling" a vote on John R. Bolton's nomination as ambassador to the United Nations, and indicated that he would not grant them access to intelligence documents they have demanded to see before allowing the confirmation to go ahead.

Mr. Bush's statements, at a news conference in the Rose Garden, suggested that he was intent on winning the battle over Mr. Bolton on his own terms when the Senate reconvenes next week, rather than negotiating a deal with Democrats and some Republicans who have been advocating a surrender compromise.

Democrats delayed a vote on the nomination on Thursday night, saying they wanted access to classified information about Mr. Bolton's conduct that the administration has refused for weeks to provide. "Now in terms of the requests for the documents, I view that as just another stall tactic," Mr. Bush said, "another way to delay, another way not to allow Bolton to get an up or down vote."

Democrats gave no indication they would back down. "Mr. Bolton's fate lies with the president," said Jim Manley, the spokesman for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader. "If he agrees to turn over the requested information about his nominee, then Mr. Bolton will get his up or down vote. The Senate is entitled to the information. It's really that simple."

President Bush's comments came on the day the White House and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice marked the second anniversary of the White House program to slow nuclear proliferation, in which Mr. Bolton was a key player. The targets of the program include North Korea, Iran and Syria. Mr. Bush said, "We've got a lot of work to do with the North Korean," apparently referring to Kim Jong Il, the president, "because he tends to ignore what the other five nations are saying at times." The United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia have been engaged in more than two years of talks aimed at persuading the North to end its nuclear arms program.

He added at another point: "It's either diplomacy or military. And I am for the diplomacy approach."
For which the left has been criticizing him ...
Posted by:Steve White

#9  Recess appointment for Bolton, perhaps?
Posted by: Pappy   2005-06-01 19:02  

#8  I have this fantasy of Ann Coulter riding a Harley into the UN general assembly outfitted in black leather and riding crop. She dismounts, saunters up to the microphone, and panning her finger across the assembly yells: "You are all NOW my bitches." At that point Voinich has a heart attack while watching on CSPAN (after crying for 10 minutes straight). Kennedy is found under his desk, in the fetal position, and sucking his thumb. Kofi Annan runs from the un building and begs for asylum in Canada. Hillary has a note passed to Ann from a third party that reads: “I like your style honey.” Oh and I forgot sometime during this fiasco France surrenders to Micronesia.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2005-06-01 17:52  

#7  Imagine..... Coulter as U.N. Amb.....
Posted by: CrazyFool   2005-06-01 17:34  

#6  Walter Williams is at least as qualified as Coulter.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-06-01 17:31  

#5  Keyes and Williams aren't qualified - Keyes especially is a light weight.

But Coulter would leave blood on the walls ....
Posted by: too true   2005-06-01 16:23  

#4  1) Alan Keyes
2) Walter Williams
3) Ann Couter


Make my day!
Posted by: Senator Chris Dodd   2005-06-01 11:24  

#3  Bush should tell them that if they reject Bolton his next three picks are:
1) Alan Keyes
2) Walter Williams
3) Ann Couter
All would do a much better job of telling the un exactly what Americans think about that organization. Confirm him now or else!
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2005-06-01 11:17  

#2  I think the plan is for Boulton to make NK a UN problem. He will be a moonbatmedia/left wing lightening rod such that the real activity will be hidden unreported behind the door of Condi's office.

Am I correct in saying that the original Korean War (circa 1950) was supported by a UN resolution, and was only stopped by a cease fire agreement, not a truce or surrender? WMD's? Check. Starving Children? Check. Immenent Threat to national security? Check. Support of Al Quaida? Check. I think we have been here before.
Posted by: john   2005-06-01 09:22  

#1  The irony is that, if Bolton doesn't go to clean up the U.N. mess, he'll go to some hotter spot like the North Korean "negotiations". This administration is not going to compromise with idiot senators or nuclear maniacs, thank God.
Posted by: Tom   2005-06-01 08:15  

00:00