Today's wash post RW idiot column

[n2doc]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901788.html

Why I'll Vote for Bolton
By George V. Voinovich
Thursday, July 20, 2006; Page A23

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have had the rare opportunity to witness firsthand how the diplomatic process works and, in some cases, how it fails. Recently, despite our nation's best efforts, the world -- and particularly the Middle East -- has become a more dangerous and volatile place.

(snip)
I believe Bolton has been tempered and focused on speaking for the administration. He has referred regularly to "my instructions" from Washington, while also displaying his own clear and strong grasp of the issues and the way forward within the Security Council. He has stood many times side by side with his colleagues from Japan, Britain, Canada and other countries, showing a commitment to cooperation within the United Nations.

Ambassador Bolton's appointment expires this fall when the Senate officially recesses. Should the president choose to renominate him, I cannot imagine a worse message to send to the terrorists -- and to other nations deciding whether to engage in this effort -- than to drag out a possible renomination process or even replace the person our president has entrusted to lead our nation at the United Nations at a time when we are working on these historic objectives.

For me or my colleagues in the Senate to now question a possible renomination would jeopardize our influence in the United Nations and encourage those who oppose the United States to make Bolton the issue, thereby undermining our policies and agenda. Should the president send his renomination to the Senate, I will vote to confirm him, and I call on my Democratic colleagues to keep in mind the current situation in the Middle East and the rest of the world should the Senate have an opportunity to vote. I do not believe the United States, at this dangerous time, can afford to have a U.N. ambassador who does not have Congress's full support.

For the good of our country, the United Nations and the free world, we must end any ambiguity about whether John Bolton speaks for the United States so that he can work to support our interests at the United Nations during this critical time.

Comment: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
Just when does this guy come up for re-election?

[NanceGreggs]

1. Yeah, sure.

"Recently, despite our nation's best efforts, the world -- and particularly the Middle East -- has become a more dangerous and volatile place."

Wouldn't that more accurately read: "because of our nation's best efforts"?

US invades and occupies Iraq = Middle East becomes more dangerous and volatile place.

Cause = effect.

Seems pretty clear to me.

[Ninga]

2. I believe it is 2010, Voinovich was re-elected in 2004.

No wonder Ohio is a mess.

[cgrindley]

3. Bolton is an embarrassment

It will be so nice to see the end of that idiot and his tacky moustache.

[babylonsister]

4. Wasn't Voinovich the guy who cried while NOT confirming Bolton?nt

[n2doc]

5. yep, He talks about that too in the article

but then says how "impressed" he is with Bolton's job performance. Makes me ill.....

[babylonsister]

7. Every time I see Bolton I feel ill; he's a warmonger who was

'selected' by the cabal to carry out their PNAC dreams. And we never did find out what was in the papers that was so disturbing that confirmation was denied...

[rodeodance]

6. I thought he was a recess appointment ( but my memory is short).

[babylonsister]

8. He was because the Senate wouldn't confirm him. nt

[n2doc]

9. He was, and his term expires in January

Thus the push to nominate/confirm him by the senate so he can be there for the rest of Bushco's reign. Of course, , * could recess appoint him again, not supposed to be done but no law against it and * doesn't care about laws or decorum or tradition anyway.