|
Bush's bipartisan message to new Congress: Up yours
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
Funny, I could have sworn Bush said something about working in a bipartisan way with this newly elected Democratic Congress.
Well first there was the attempt to re-nominate Bolton, when even the Repubs. say that just ain't gonna happen.
Now this:
| quote: | After calling for bipartisanship, President Bush surprised Senate Democrats with plans to renominate a controversial list of judges - some of whom may be unacceptable even to a few Republican senators. "It's an unfortunate signal," said one senior Democratic Senate aide.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has not received the nominations yet. As word spread about the nominations, however, the committee's Republican Chairman Arlen Specter told reporters: "It is obvious they cannot move during the lame-duck session." After January, he added, questions about the fate of the nominees should be "directed to someone else." [...]
Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat slated to become the Judiciary Committee chairman in January, said in a statement that "the president is choosing partisanship over progress and division over unity, at the expense of a fair and independent judiciary. This is exactly the kind of political game-playing that prompted Americans to demand change and a new direction in Washington. The signal the president is sending by renominating these controversial candidates is regrettable. But I hope the president will work with us in charting a new direction in the next congressional session, by choosing consensus nominees who unite instead of divide America."
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/...icial-nominees/ |
Ahh yes, bipartisanship, Karl Rove and Dick "Go yourself" Cheney style.
What a dumb ass nutsack. Didn't the elections tell Bush anything about what the voters wanted here? Nice ing change of direction you stubborn, recalcitrant .
Oh, one more thing - seems like our little "change of direction" on Iraq with Baker's new Commission isn't gonna pan out to me much of a change at all:
| quote: | Question: You were opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Do you feel vindicated now that we see chaos there? How do you see the situation as it is today and what do you see for the future?
Scowcroft: No, I don’t have any feeling of satisfaction. Regardless of how we got there, we are there, and it is a difficult situation. Far more difficult than the administration expected. And it will be increasingly hard to stay in because it has become an unusually important issue in domestic U.S. politics. But I think we have to stay and try and manage the situation to get some kind of a resolution where we can have an Iraq that is relatively stable.
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/...p?ed=semih_idiz |
Nice job boys. Business as usual. Stay the ing course on everything you do. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Nice job boys. Business as usual. Stay the ing course on everything you do. |
Full-steam ahead! |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Full-steam ahead! |
woot! woot! lol :p |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Full-steam ahead! |
I don't know if you guys have looked at the Congressional layout for '08 yet, but it does not do you any favors at all. There's an even greater number of Republican seats at stake in '08 compared to this year's election. So if you're wanting more of the same bull, by all means go right ahead..... |
|
|
| Shakka |
| My comment was laced with sarcasm. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
My comment was laced with sarcasm. |
Oh.
Little slow lately. Bear with my old age..... |
|
|
| Q5echo |
i don't know the last time i checked it was the exclusive Constitutional right of the Pres. to nominate Judges.
i think it's brilliant. Opus' feckless party has a majority now and their still gonna deny a vote? yeah that's democracy woot woot:rolleyes:
...and to turn it around and piss and moan about it? woman. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i don't know the last time i checked it was the exclusive Constitutional right of the Pres. to nominate Judges. |
Was there any dispute of his Constitutional rights?
Or was there a dispute on his supposed "bipartisanship" claims?
| quote: | | i think it's brilliant. Opus' feckless party has a majority now and their still gonna deny a vote? |
Two things:
1. Feckless? Hmm, could you point out any race last week to which a Democrat lost a Congressional chair? If you can, then perhaps we can discuss which party was "feckless".
2. Perhaps you can explain the logic behind being in the majority and denying Bush's obvious partisan judges whom were turned down when even the GOP controlled the Senate as somehow being a "bad" thing for the Democrats.
| quote: | yeah that's democracy woot woot:rolleyes:
...and to turn it around and piss and moan about it? woman. |
Again, is this a conversation about the Constitutional powers of either the President or Congress? Or was it more of a conversation about the rhetoric of the President and his actions that are clearly demonstrating otherwise? |
|
|
| Renegade |
| Just posting to say that I love the word "feckless". |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
2. Perhaps you can explain the logic behind being in the majority and denying Bush's obvious partisan judges |
sure. were these judges ever given the benefit of an up or down vote?
Chaffee's gone.
Voinavich has flipped his script on Bolton.
give him a vote. what are you afraid of?
if Bolton truly is the loser you and your party believe him to be then put it to a vote just like we've done from day one.
Bolton is a no-brainer for this job and you should know it.
you got the majority. give him a vote, or get the f**k out of the way.
these are the fundamentals of democracy. nothing new here. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
sure. were these judges ever given the benefit of an up or down vote?
Chaffee's gone.
Voinavich has flipped his script on Bolton.
give him a vote. what are you afraid of? |
I dunno. I guess my Democratic bones "shudder" the same way your GOP brethren "shuddered" when they deliberately blocked some 60 of Clinton's judicial appointees in the 90's for absolutely no reason thereby blocking a full up or down vote for his appointees.
Gee, something tells me your argument here has been debunked in the past, right here in this forum no less........
| quote: | if Bolton truly is the loser you and your party believe him to be then put it to a vote just like we've done from day one.
Bolton is a no-brainer for this job and you should know it.
you got the majority. give him a vote, or get the f**k out of the way. |
Ahh yes, he really is a terrific diplomat:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93633,00.html
A terrific record of true diplomacy skills:
One who seems perfect for the job:
| quote: | | "The (U.N.) Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference," |
Always seeming to be one who runs with strong evidence presented to him:
| quote: | In spring 2002…Using evidence described by three knowledgeable intelligence officials as ambiguous, Bolton planned to announce the existence of a secret bioweapons program in Cuba during a speech that May to the Heritage Foundation.
But he was blocked by Christian Westermann, the chief bioweapons analyst at the State Department, who refused to clear the speech unless the language more accurately reflected the intelligence assessments. Bolton summoned Westermann to his office and berated him, officials with knowledge of the encounter said, and then tried to have him fired….When [Carl] Ford backed up Westermann, Bolton refused to speak with him again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2005Apr10.html |
One who never has pre-conceived beliefs and deems it necessary to have the evidence support such pre-conceived conclusions. No sir, he runs with the evidence presented to him and has a terrific ear for any evidence that may run counter to his beliefs:
Moderate minds loved him all around:
| quote: | "Do I think John Bolton would make a good ambassador to the United Nations? Absolutely not.… He is incapable of listening to people and taking into account their views. He would be an abysmal ambassador."
-Colin Powell
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/p...print&position= |
Even the guy pulling on Bush's heart strings for Iraq seemingly loved him in all aspects:
He really was a shiny beacon of light in the intelligence community:
| quote: | " For example, on multiple occasions, Bolton refused to forward information vital to U.S. strategies on Iran to Powell, delaying intelligence from getting through for weeks or, in some instances, at all. Career officials at the State Department report Bolton's decisions often left Powell "uninformed and fed the long-running struggles inside the agency."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2005Apr17.html |
But enough about the past. Let's look at his lovely record and some people's thoughts about him now:
| quote: | Greece’s U.N. Ambassador Adamantios Vassilakis: “He is not an easy man to get close to. … Some people have the possibility to build consensus. Others operate in other ways.”
Algeria’s U.N. Ambassador Abdullah Baali, after a disagreement with Bolton: “The U.S. stand that ‘you take it or you leave it is not helping the Security Council, and is not helping the cause of peace in the Middle East.’”
Peru’s U.N. Ambassador Oswaldo de Rivero: “He lives in another world, with this belief that he is morally superior and the U.S. is more moral than all the countries around the world. It is a pity.”
Michael Doyle, former special adviser to Kofi Annan: “Sometimes he [states U.S. policy] in a manner that is grating. But it is the policy that is most of the problem, even though the personality doesn’t help.”
An ambassador with close ties to the Bush administration: “My initial feeling was, let’s see if we can work with him, and I have done some things to push for consensus on issues that were not easy for my country. … But all he gives us in return is, ‘It doesn’t matter, whatever you do is insufficient.’ … He’s lost me as an ally now, and that’s what many other ambassadors who consider themselves friends of the U.S. are saying.”
A European diplomat: “A lot of us wonder what his real agenda is. First, we think maybe he wants things to fail because then he can say, ‘We cannot reform this place.’ The other question is, does he really reflect the position in Washington? That is always the question: Is it Bolton or is it Washington?”
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/24/bolton-report/ |
Now that's not right? Surely there's more love for the guy? I guess a closer look at his record should change their minds:
| quote: | • Bolton isolated the U.S. from its allies on the Human Rights Council. Because Bolton was unable to negotiate favorable terms on the creation of a new Human Rights Council, the U.S. was one of four nations to oppose the creation of the Council, while 170 nations voted for it. Out of 30 or so negotiating sessions over the creation of the Council, Bolton attended just one.
• Bolton blocked the Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide from briefing the Security Council on Darfur. “Bolton said he had objected to the briefing to make the point the council should be ‘talking more about the steps it can take to do something about the deteriorating security situation’ in Darfur. [But] he gave no new proposals.”
• Bolton unable to build consensus on U.N. reform. Kofi Annan’s deputy Mark Malloch Brown said that there is global consensus on the need for U.N. reform, but that international perception of U.S. motives are hindering those efforts. “There is currently a perception among many otherwise quite moderate countries that anything the U.S. supports must have a secret agenda aimed at either subordinating multilateral processes to Washington’s ends or weakening the institutions, and therefore, put crudely, should be opposed without any real discussion of whether they make sense or not,” he said. Bolton has not been able to breakthrough the deadlock, but has instead reinforced the perception.
• Bolton blocked and delayed approval of funding for U.N. renovation plan. The United States was the lone holdout on a U.N. committee that tried to approve an estimated $1.6 billion renovation plan for the U.N. The U.N. building violates New York safety and fire codes; it is packed with asbestos, has no sprinkler system, and leaks about a quarter of its heating. Bolton’s position provoked “an America-versus-the-world standoff.” Ultimately, Bolton’s obstruction caused Louis Frederick Reuter, the official in charge of the renovation, to quit his post.
• Bolton sought to undermine the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDGs aimed to convert rhetoric into hard numbers on such issues as reducing poverty and hunger, enrolling children in primary school, etc. Just days after he arrived in New York after a recess appointment, Bolton released over 700 edits to the draft document for the summit, excising all mentions of the MDGs. Bush and Rice later had to backtrack from Bolton, reassuring the U.N. of its commitment to the agreed upon goals.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/27/bolton-failure/ |
And is efforts on Darfur had really been stellar:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/27/bolton-sudan/
I'm sorry, you were saying something about this douchebag being a no-brainer?
You're right, it is a no-brainer indeed.
| quote: | | these are the fundamentals of democracy. nothing new here. |
Hmm, perhaps you can tell me where the Congressional right to block judicial nominees via Committee or filibuster is not a fundamental of democracy defined by our Constitution? Then when you're finished with that, perhaps you should point that hypocritical finger at your own GOP for blocking Clinton's appointees (more than 10x as many blocked versus Bush's appointees, by the way). And then when you're finished with that, you might want to tell my Senator Brownback to stop being such a librul obstructionist:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5060601740.html
Same ing argument by Q, different day. |
|
|
|
|
