Bush may sidestep Congress on Bolton for U.N.

[Giant Saguaro]

Right man for the job, I just wish there had been an easier way to get him there. I hope he is confirmed, as now more than ever we need a person least likely to appease and least likely to be soft in that position and others.

[Giant Saguaro]

See, I think Bolton's "character" or whatever choice of words one wants to use is just the easiest avenue of attack for the Dems. Anyone else, I think, ideologically similar would be blocked, the reasoning would just be different. He's extremely hawkish. If it's personally him they won't accept, fine - and they would accept another like him ideologically, fine. But I don't think that's the case. The Dems want someone much, much more agreeable to the UN status quo.

Now if he's rejected, he's rejected. Find someone less controversial, but don't back down.

[Giant Saguaro]

Since he is so scared of making the documents public & to let the senate  see them, he is going to pull this crap??

Much as I don't really like Bolton, the Framers did put this provision in the Constitution for a reason. Bush is merely checking and balancing the powers of the Senate; it's a perfectly justified and legitimate action on his part.

What a bunch of bullsh**t. The framers put it in because it took weeks for Congress travel to the nation's capital in those days.

Haha. That's good! It's pretty rare and underhanded, huh? Seeing as how Reagan, I read, appointed over 200 people to various posts this way in his 8 years and Clinton around 150 in his 8 years...

But Ted Kennedy and that crowd has the nerve to call this appointment "devious" and an abuse of power. Goodness sakes. No wonder that some of the labels that get applied do.