For the second time in less than a month, the White House failed to make do on legitimate document requests, which resulted in Senate Democrats blocking a vote on Monday evening on the nomination of John R. Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations.
The neocon led, Republican controlled Senate came up six votes short of the 60 required to break a filibuster that the Dems used to prevent a final vote (54-38).
I'm sure this is going to be all over the blogosphere, so here is my commentary:
John Bolton is absolutely the wrong person for the job.
George Bush wants Bolton at the UN because Bush wants to reform the UN. It’s as simple as that. "The American people know why I nominated him-- because the U.N. needs reform, and I thought it made sense to send a reformer to the United Nations," said Bush Monday morning at a press conference while in the company of leaders of the EU.
Bush wants to reform the UN to the image that he thinks it should have. Never mind that the UN is a world body and not an American one. Bush, along with most neocons, and quite a few conservatives, thinks the UN should be put out of service. Neocon hatred of the UN goes back a long ways. Most Neocons, along with a lot of conservatives, view the UN as a liberal think tank that constantly searches for ways to undermine US power. Their distorted thinking is just as wrong as their hasty reformation.
Sen. Frist (R-Tennessee) knew the cloture vote on Monday would not garner enough votes to proceed with the final confirmation vote. Frist, however, still demanded the cloture vote. There are a number of reasons for this.
The main item the Republicans are going to do is use the filibuster as a way to paint the Dems as obstructionist-- I’m sure Fox News has already begun their assault. The reality is that the White House failed to turnover legitimate documents made by senators from both parties. It wasn’t just the Dems who were requesting the documents it was Repubs also. So if the Republicans want to use the term obstructionist, then they must include themselves in that reasoning, which makes the claim baseless.
The second and probably most important reason to call for the vote was to ensure that the filibuster would succeed, thus allowing Bush the opportunity of the recess appointment. Because after failing to receive a confirmation vote that is the only way Bolton can report to the UN, at least until January 2007. The recess appointment could backfire and would easily be another example of Bush trying to manhandle everything. If Bush sees fit to send a beleaguered nominee who failed to get confirmation in a Republican controlled senate to the UN, then that is his choice, but a very risky one. It will be interesting to see how the White House handles this.
No matter if Bush uses his recess appointment or not, this is a definite black eye for Republicans, maybe the first since 2000. It must be noted, though, that the obstruction started with the White House failing to deliver on the requested documents, not with the filibuster. If Bush wants his nominee confirmed then comply with senate requests and he will get his up or down vote.
6.21.2005
White House Fails To Release Requested Documents, Dems Block Bolton Again
Posted by Chris at 12:12 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
MJ,
I agree the White House should have handed over the documents requested, but the only reason they were requested was to stall longer on the nomination. And even though the republicans own the senate, during a filibuster they need at least 60 votes, five short than what they have in the senate.
It is true that they fell one short of confirmation if it was taken to a normal vote, but I am sure one republican would change to confirm Bolton.
I think America and the Bush Administration has full right to put who they want in the UN. The US gives a majority funding, most of the military, and alot of other resources to ta organization that is quickly proving itslef useless. If Bush wants to send someone that will hopefully turn it around, what can seriously be the harm? That is will dissolve. After Annan and the Oil for Food fiasco, I don't Bolton is the worse thing that could happen to the UN.
Maybe there are more people qualified for the job than Bolton. But the most qualified doesn't always mean the most employable.
Do you not think that when it comes to the UN, most qualified should take precedence over most employable? After all it is not McDonalds.
Craig I understand your reasoning. And believe me, this is as partisan as I have been in quite some time. But on some things, I have to stand my ground. And I do support the filibuster of Bolton.
I too think presidents should have their appointments, but in the 90s obviously the Republicans didn't feel that way, because they blocked nearly everything Clinton sent them.
I'm not saying that Bush shouldn't get his appointment of Bolton, I'm just saying that Bush should release the documents that the senate has requested. If Bush turns over legitimate documents, then he'll get his vote.
If this is truly about the Dems only wanting the documents in order to stall longer, wouldn't it make sense then for the White House to release the documents so they could prevent the hold up? But it's not just about Dems wanting documents, and it's not just Dems who want the documents, it's Repubs too. There's something in those files that Bush doesn't want out, or he would release them and have this all in the past.
I too think America doesn't get enough credit for all the propping up it does for the UN. And I think Annan is a waste. But, after Bush being wrong about Iraq and WMD, and constantly insisting that Social Security should be phased out, and all the scandals surrounding Tom DeLay-- which is just as every bit as serious as the oil for food-- why should we just take Bush at his word this time that Bolton is right for the job?
Everything Bush sees he wants to reform. If something doesn't jive with his thinking, then it must be wrong and reformed. It's all so old.
Senate confirmation hearings are like a job interview. If the employer wants to see more info, turn it over or don't get the job. You just can't walk in demanding things.
Alice, I agree with you totally.
Thanks to both for reading and commenting.
This isn't about reforming the UN. That's a red herring. This is about Bolton bringing Iran to the UN security council (like Iraq) and planting the seeds for war (like Iraq).
Yeah, I snorted when Bush nominated Bolton...it was like nominating Jerry Falwell to head a gay activist group. But on the other hand, I am kind of gleeful about it, because I wouldn't mind seeing the UN change...although putting Bolton in wouldn't lead to that. It would just mean more head-butting. Just like we don't like being told what to do, the UN will cut off its nose to spite its face, when it comes to anything to do with America trying to tell it what to do. I personally think that since Bush doesn't seem to have too much respect for the UN, he should just ignore it, put in some UN friendly ambassador, and leave it to those who have more faith in it, like Europe. But he seems to like being an elephant in a china shop...and it must be the whole "upbeat" in me that enjoys watching him. The world will certainly be a different place once he gets out of office, and it will be for each individual to decide whether it is better or worse. I think that world politics will be vastly improved, while perhaps domestic politics will have been ignored (that would be a socialist point of view...the conservative in me thinks everything is hunkey dorey)...but with Clinton it was somewhat the other way around. (I am sure you are going to bitch slap me for this).
Calivalleygirl makes a good point: "I personally think that since Bush doesn't seem to have too much respect for the UN, he should just ignore it, put in some UN friendly ambassador, and leave it to those who have more faith in it, like Europe." Let's just hit the UN where it needs us most. Cut all funding, no more American troops, put the HQ in another country, and simply sit on the council as veto power.
However, this was the brainchild of FDR, and everything he thought of was so great it must never be wrong. Some ideas need to be reviewed to update their usefulness. Social Security is this way, unemployment is this way, and so now is the UN.
I tend to agree with MJ and CalValleyGirl on this. The president doesn't need Bolton if he merely wants to ignore the United Nations and if he wants to change it he can find someone he can pick Bolton or someone less controversial with similar views but that is his call as president and he could choose whoever he wants to choose for the job.
Provided Bush eventually does give the Democrats the information and Mr. Bolton did nothing criminal or use his position to silence those with different viewpoints then Democrats should acquiesce and give the president his man.
However, "advice and consent" at minimum requires those charged with the advising and confirming to have the information they request. Should they abuse it, we can punish them at the polls.
Mark, I hope you are wrong. I really hope so, because I don't see how we can possibly do another war. What you say does make sense though. That explains why Bush has been so quiet on Iran. Please be wrong.
OK Dem, you make a very good point. These are allegations, and both Republican and Democratic senators want to see documents that could either prove or disprove allegations. Bush has a Nixon-like stronghold on everything right now. When Nixon refused to handover documents, it led to his downfall. We'll see what happens.
CVG, you crack me up. I love the Falwell comparison. It is very true to a sense. I've heard people say it would be like David Duke to head the NAACP. I like your sense of humor.
I'm not going to hit you on the Clinton thing, cause I'm just not that partisan, plus I agree with ya :) I just don't understand why Bush thinks he has to reform everything.
Craig, you are very right about the FDR comment. Most Americans hold anything that FDR did with very high regards.
I'm curious though as to what in the UN do conservatives think needs to be reformed. I know the UN isn't the greatest functioning forum on earth, but neither is our own congress. It seems to me that Bush wants to do away with anything that he doesn't agree with. Maybe I will do a post on the main page about the UN and the reforms. I would like to hear what about the UN needs to change.
Heretic, that is the best explanation I have heard yet. Damn, you always do me one better.
Thanks to everyone for reading.
Post a Comment