Sen. Roberts: Bolton Recess Appointment Would ‘Weaken the United States’

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1131

Sen. Roberts: Bolton Recess Appointment Would ‘Weaken the United States’
President Bush continues to dangle the possibility of a recess appointment for John Bolton over our heads. (According to Steve Clemons, the next opportunity for such an appointment would be the July 4th recess).

But in today’s Washington Post, Pat Roberts (R-KS), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says President Bush would be harming American interests if he heads down that path:

Recess appointments allow a president to temporarily seat a nominee while Congress is out of session. They invariably ignite charges of partisan abuse, and Democrats complained bitterly when Bush used recess appointments to place nominees on federal courts in his first term.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), a Bolton supporter, said a recess appointment “would weaken not only Mr. Bolton but also the United States” because the international community would see the new ambassador as lacking bipartisan support.

<</SNIP>>

[aden_nak]

1. A tiny part of me hopes that he DOES recess appoint Bolton.

You know that arrogant pick won't be able to keep his manners for more than a week. Before a month is out he'll have said or done something to completely torpedo any chance he'll ever have at a visible office (whether elected or appointed). Something that not even moderate Republicans can let slide. I'd rather have him there for the recess than have him there until 2008.

[swag]

2. Fred Kaplan cast it a bit differently in Slate, but concluded likewise

http://slate.com/id/2121207/

excerpt . . .

Will Bush escalate this battle to the next level and simply brush aside the Senate? My guess is, he will. Otherwise, why would he have taken the fight as far as he has? Why would he have kept today's cloture vote on the schedule? Surely he and his whips knew they didn't have enough support to win. The Senate Democrats had made a case against cloture on two grounds—not just on Bolton's dreadful qualifications for the job, but also on Bush's refusal to turn over documents relevant to the Senate's investigation. It was clear that, since last month's motion, the White House had lost—not gained—ground. Most likely, the president and his spokesmen will now repeat, with renewed intensity, what they've been saying for a while now—that the Democrats are obstructionists, that a majority of the Senate favors Bolton, and so he should simply be placed in the job if need be.

Still, President Bush might want to reassess the situation, and not just because Bolton is a lousy pick—a judgment that Bush does not share, in any case. He might want to consider the following question: At a time when he is touting the glories of democracy, does he want his ambassador at the United Nations—America's global spokesman—to have come by the job through such undemocratic maneuvers?

[Totally Committed]

3. Like I just said on another thread:

* doesn't give a rat's ass what we think, or want, or anything. It's all about him, and what his "base" wants. He'll do it if he thinks he'll get away with it.

TC

[wiggs]

6. That's right

There's no "victory in principle" here for the democrats if Bolton gets in through appointment. Bolton is not there to be a diplomat and problem solver. He is there to mess things up and piss people off, which he will do well.

Democrats (and the public) win if Bolton nomination is defeated or if dems successfully appeal the recess appointment through the courts, because the recess appointment process is really only for vacancies CREATED during recess.

I'm tired of victories in principle...bottom line is what counts. Anyone talking now about the victory for the dems in Ohio when a couple of congressmen voted not to certify Ohio electoral votes?

[melissinha]

7. AHHH

Wiggs- You have come across the best argument (IMHO)


Democrats (and the public) win if Bolton nomination is defeated or if dems successfully appeal the recess appointment through the courts, because the recess appointment process is really only for vacancies CREATED during recess.

BUT...in the following article in Slate:
The provision was originally created to fill vacancies that actually occurred during a recess, but it has since morphed into an all-purpose executive tool to counter Senate intransigence.

As I am not as knowledgable as you all are.... my question is this..

Has this been done before? Yep, our guys have done it.. of course not as often as they have...

http://slate.msn.com/id/1002994/

We wouldn't have had Thurgood Marshall if it weren't for recess appoinments.....

[CityDem]

11. A different take

While I dislike Bolton and oppose his nomination, I doubt the UN could be any more screwed up than it is right now. The leaders are on the take and peacekeepers are raping the people they are supposed to protect. This world is so screwed up -- at times I wonder if it can be fixed.

[gratuitous]

4. Roberts has it right: Recess appointment = no credibility

As cynical as I am about the corrupt Bush administration, and as disgusted as I am about their dictatorial antics, this little snit by Chimpy has again some real world consequences, and I don't think a majority of the Senate is all that interested in holding the U.S. up to further ridicule and losing more prestige on the world stage.

The Bolton nomination should be withdrawn, and Chimpy should work with the Senate in coming up with an acceptable nominee. But the "win at all costs" mentality of the White House crowd will probably foreclose that avenue.

[Gothmog]

5. A recess appointment would be a victory for the Democrats

Bolton would be so weak that he would have to fail.

[melissinha]

8. I see it differently

I think that Bolton is so volatile, he'll come out swinging and really ruin an threads of diplomacy that we have left....

[dansolo]

9. Then maybe the UN will finally stand up to the US

I'm actually hoping that Bolton gets appointed by a recess appointment. The UN Security Council could have put a serious crimp in Bush's march to war by forcing a second resolution, which not only would have been vetoed, but wouldn't have even gotten a majority vote. There was no reason that the vote couldn't have occurred. It would have taken Bush's so-called legitimacy from the UN Resolution 1441 away. Perhaps if Bolten arrives to the UN, he might piss off enough people to have the UN finally serve as a check to the US, instead of having them meekly acquiesce every single time.

[zulchzulu]

10. I hope Bush appoints Bolton during the recess

It would prove that Bush is a pussy (again), Bolton isn't good enough to actually get legitimate acceptance and would certainly hurt the GOP congrssional races in 2006.

All the Democrats would need to do is hammer that message OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

Other obvious issues will hurt the GOP in 2006 if we play it right. Getting Bolton in on authoritarian whims as well as the Iraq civil war getting worse will only hurt the GOP.

Mobilize!

[jmcon007]

12. I wish Kofi Annan would call a press conference and say...

"The President of the United States needs to remember who the Secretary General of these United Nations is and that John Bolton is not going to just waltz in here and shake anything up. My responsibility in this position is to the membership as a whole, not to just one member.
"If Mr. Bolton is recess-appointed and thinks that his mission is to come in here and intimidate anyone, I say, 'Bring it on.'"

"That's all. Have a nice day."

[ginnyinWI]

13. Bush doesn't care about America's interests, really

He is on to better things, like being King of the World. Some very astute writer said during the campaign that Bush constantly referred to the best interests of the world, while Kerry repeatedly talked about the best interests of America. Kerry knew which country he would have been president of. Bush doesn't. It's not about America with him, it's about gaining power; the more, the better.