« Air America Investigated for Stealing from NYC Kiddie Programs | Main | Democrats For Choice? Not In Massachusetts »
August 01, 2005
Bush Appoints Bolton
In a bold move that no doubt shows the debility of the Senate to do its job in a timely manner, President Bush appointed John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador in accordance with his constitutional duties.
President Bush sidestepped the Senate and installed embattled nominee John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations on Monday, ending a five-month impasse with Democrats who accused Bolton of abusing subordinates and twisting intelligence to fit his conservative ideology."This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about UN reform," Bush said. He said Bolton had his complete confidence.
Bush put Bolton on the job in a recess appointment _ an avenue available to the president when the Congress is in recess. Under the Constitution, a recess appointment during the lawmakers' August break would last until a newly elected Congress takes office in January 2007.
Bolton joined Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the announcement ceremony and said he was honored and humbled by the president's appointment. "It will be a distinct privilege to be an advocate for America's values and interests at the U.N. and, in the words of the U.N. charter, to help maintain international peace and security," he said.
Praise and criticism followed in due course.
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan welcomed Bolton's appointment and steered clear of the controversy over whether Bolton would be weakened by the recess appointment. "We look forward to working with him as I do with the other 190 ambassadors, and we will welcome him at a time when we are in the midst of major reform," Annan said. He said the manner of Bolton's appointment was Bush's prerogative.Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Bolton was a "seriously flawed and weakened candidate." He charged that Bush "chose to stonewall the Senate" by using a recess appointment.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said, "The president did the right thing by sending Mr. Bolton to the U. N. He is a smart, principled and straightforward candidate, and will represent the president and America well on the world stage."
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., sharply criticized the move.
"It's a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility at the U.N," Kennedy said."
Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, a senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, "The president has done a real disservice to our nation by appointing an individual who lacks to the credibility to further U.S. interests at the United Nations."
Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio also said he was disappointed.
"I am truly concerned that a recess appointment will only add to John Bolton's baggage and his lack of credibility with the United Nations," Voinovich said.
Lack of credibility with the United Nations? I think the United Nations has already been lacking credibility sans John Bolton. John Bolton will finally give the UN a bit of stir, and try to make it accountable, perhaps, give it some credibility for a change. If the ambassadorship to the United Nations was so important to these critiques, perhaps the vacancy of the post ought to have more of a concern.
All that a side, a lack of credibilty for Bolton based on a recess appointment is a disgraceful slap in the face to our Constitution, specifically, Article 2, Section 2, clause 2:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
If the recess appointment gives the appointee a lack of credibility, than the critic has a lack of credibility in the Constitution, and the President of the United States. For a senator, any senator, a duly elected legislator and supposed defender of the United States Constitution, showing a lack of confidence in the constitutional process and their consitutional duties of the President is reprehensible.
The Washington Post highlights past recess appointments.
Certainly, the Democrats who will strongly critique this recess appointment by Bush were indubitably silent during President Clinton's 140 recess appointment--including 2 ambassadors and a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge;--62 of these executive and judicial recess appointments were made in the last days of his presidency.
CBC News (Canada) calls Bolton's recess appointment a "legislative loophole." I guess for that matter, "Advice and Consent of the Senate" ought to be considered a loophole? The Constitution is not a loophole, Canada.
More at Blogs For Bush.
Posted by Aaron at August 1, 2005 12:11 PM
Copyright © 2007 by author. May not be copied, published, or otherwise used (except for brief quotes) without express permission of author. Articles published with permission by Pardon My English.
-->Comments
Woo hoo!
Watch out Kofi, here he comes.
Posted by MJohnson ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.pardonmyenglish.com//nav-commenters.gif)
at August 1, 2005 12:41 PM
Kofi "welcomed" Bolton's appointment? Like hell. I hope Bolton goes in and kicks ass and takes names. That'll give Kofi AND the senate libs fits.
Posted by Steve at August 1, 2005 01:07 PM
of course you are absolutely brilliant aren't you?
Posted by whatever at August 1, 2005 01:55 PM
Nah, it's a bad plan. "Lacking credibility" isn't about the credibility of the UN, it's about whether Bolton is a credible threat to the other ambassadors. All the other ambassadors know that the US senate will be evaluating his performance in the next session, if they want to take him out they just have to make him look ineffective, the same way the Democrats are currently making the senate look ineffective. Just use procedural tactics to prevent Bolton from getting anything accomplished in the next few months, and he won't pass final senate confirmation. He's much more exposed now than he was. Before, he was standing on his record. Now, if France wants to take a crack at him, they have a chance and they know that he's not standing on solid ground yet.
Until he's got a permanent appointment, he's going to have about as much authority there as a substitute school teacher. The president can say "listen to this man," but that doesn't mean the children are gonna do so.
Posted by Ert at August 1, 2005 02:14 PM
France indeed. So long as Bolton is the appointed ambassador to the UN, he's got as much power there as any other appointee in U.S. history. I couldn't care less if France "listens" to him or not so long as he represents the interests of the United States....I am not French.
Posted by Sarge at August 1, 2005 02:31 PM
I saw the news this morning and simply laughed, and every moment the news comes to my head i laugh again. It's so funny; that after 4 years of W's administration, a bunch of dumbasses simply don't get the phrase: Don't mess with Texas.
Posted by Alberto Laija at August 1, 2005 03:16 PM
One thing is perfectly clear. If Bolton is a success or not-the buck falls squarely on GW's desk.
Posted by lee at August 1, 2005 03:54 PM
Man....I just read Teddy "Mary Jo" Kennedy's statement.....and he needs to get offa the sauce. Or does he think that those that vote for him are the ones on the sauce? Either way, the man's understanding of the Constitution is seriously lacking......or did he miss WJC's 140-ish recess appointments over 2 terms....or Reagan's 240-ish (I think that's what the number I saw somewhere was) recess appointments over 2 terms.
What a joke the fat-man is. Retire, Senator....or get off the Chivas.
Posted by Sarge at August 1, 2005 04:16 PM
The appointment shows Bushes thoughts on the UN.
I got a kick out his mouthing the correct words about the UN and then appointing Bolton.
Bill
Posted by Little Bill at August 1, 2005 08:12 PM
Bolton may have power now, but he's a lame duck since he can only serve for the duration of this congress. In other words, about another year and slightly less than half. How much impact can he have if everyone knows he's not in for the duration of the Bush presidency?
Posted by Herbert92X at August 2, 2005 08:30 AM
You, of course, assume that an ambassador has something resembling power.... are you crazy?
Did you worry when Eisenhower recess appointed 3 supreme court justices?
Should we not give anyone in the house of representatives and clout since they serve only 2 year terms?
Posted by Epoch at August 2, 2005 08:55 AM
Epoch writes" Should we not give anyone in the house of representatives and clout since they serve only 2 year terms?"
This is a terrible analogy. The members of the House of Reps. serve only two years, but its the entire term that they are allowed under the Constitution. A recess appointment only gets to serve until the next Congress begins, thus cutting his term short that what is allowed, assuming the term to be two years or less. Its not that Bolton has no "clout", its that any foes of his can simply wait him out.
Posted by Herbert92x at August 2, 2005 09:31 AM
....and we all know how much the ineffective UN likes to "wait things out"
Rwanda anyone?
Sudan?
I'd rather have Bolton in there looking out for the interests of the United States until Jan. '07, than to have 3+ years of yet another ambassador that does not.
Posted by Sarge at August 2, 2005 09:41 AM
"Bolton may have power now, but he's a lame duck since he can only serve for the duration of this congress. In other words, about another year and slightly less than half. How much impact can he have if everyone knows he's not in for the duration of the Bush presidency?"
This seems to be the largest and most used argument against a recess apointment of Bolton. In essence, the appointment is bad because 'it won't last very long'.
If he is voted upon and REJECTED by the senate, then you're right. But if the senate is still republican when his term expires, what makes you think the votes will not still remain in his favor?
I ask you this: What happens when his term expires, if the make up of the senate is the same? What will happen if he is filibustered again?
While he is being fillibustered a second time, will he not simply remain in the post until confirmed or denied on a temporary basis? As 'acting' Ambassador?
All this seems to be formalities. I could be wrong...but is he not acting as the Ambassador, from now until such a time that he is rejected by the senate (Which the current senate would not do)? Whether he's offically approved or denied, he's there, and he's doing the job, he's the guy. The rest the senate can argue all they like about, because unless they actually have a vote and reject him it will have no real effect.
Arguing endlessly and making much ado about long drawn out business that has no real practical effect on anything is the favorite business of the Senate.
Posted by MJohnson at August 2, 2005 02:45 PM
Note: Comments once posted become the property of Pardon My English. We therefore reserve the right to make use of such in any manner and for whatever purpose we deem appropriate. Please refer to comment policy for further information.
