PRESIDENT BUSH was within his rights yesterday to install John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations by recess appointment. Mr. Bolton's nomination has been pending a long time, and a majority of the Senate probably would have voted to confirm him. Yet Senate Democrats denied him an up-or-down vote, . . . . Using that power to circumvent the normal advice-and-consent process is politically provocative and should be quite rare. But having thwarted the usual process under which the Senate gets to vote on a president's nominee, it takes a bit of chutzpah for Democrats now to cry foul at Mr. Bush's decision to exercise his other option.
Mr. Bolton, as we have noted before, would not have been our choice for this job. . . . Moreover, Democrats are correct in noting that Mr. Bolton, by dint of the recess appointment, will go to the United Nations under less than optimal conditions. An ambassador who lacks the explicit support of Congress speaks less securely for the nation than one who enters the U.N. Security Council with the Senate's blessing. But, again, whose fault is that? Democrats had every chance to muster the votes to defeat the nomination; they couldn't do it. If Mr. Bolton is now heading to New York without the Senate's imprimatur but with a figurative asterisk beside his name, that's only because, having failed to defeat him, a minority refused to lose gracefully. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
08/02/2005 09:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is from The Washington Post? The one in Washington, DC? Wonders never cease...
Posted by: Jonathan ||
08/02/2005 9:53 Comments ||
Top||
#5
re: WAPO. It's really strange the way the dem dogs have been chained in over the last several days. Without all their senseless yapping - it's so quiet... it's almost creepy.
#8
I personally love the line about chutzpah, but I would add that it really takes gall to stand there and say that the President is overstepping his authority when clearly he is not. I watched Chris Mathews and the Donk on the show could not come up with one fact or specific reason to hold up the vote. He had a lot of innuendo and rumors but couldnât nail down a specific reason for Bolton not to get a vote. The best he could come up with is that Bolton lacked the âtemperamentâ to be the ambassador to the un. Chris pointed out that Kennedy sent Stevenson to the un to deal with the Soviets and we know how his âtemperamentâ was. I think he was the first ambassador to threaten the Soviets in open session. We desperately need someone just like that today. I really hope they spend the next three years whining, it will really help them in the polls.
#9
2b - that's because they are sill in complete shock after their SUGAR DADDY the AFL/CIO shattered over worthless contributions to Dems.
That's the big story. Note how the privately employeed types (Teamsters, Service Workers Int and others split) while the government emply types with secure jobs -you don't outsource teachers and cops- stayed. Expect to see the CIO turn into a bureaucrats union and sole support of the dems.
#12
Yes Bobby, he was a Democrat when that meant defending your country against dictators. Peace loving Kennedy (Invader of several countries) sent this bulldog to the un and he kicked ass (diplomatically) all over the communists block.
#14
Over at Arianne Huffnpuff she allowed as how Bush was thumbing his nose at the Senate. I replied to her that he wasn't thumbing his nose at the Senate, just the obstructionist Democrats. Someone else corrected me and said it wasn't his nose, but a certain middle finger. Way better than what I said.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
08/02/2005 16:34 Comments ||
Top||
#15
*sob*
Posted by: G. Voinovich ||
08/02/2005 16:57 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Ya know, I used to know there was a Voinovich important in Ohio - Governor, Senator, somesuch.
Buy I freely admit, comment #15 has me confused!
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/02/2005 20:19 Comments ||
Top||
. . . American troop levels [in Iraq] are down from a peak earlier this year, when extra troops were on hand to ensure the January elections went off without a hitch. And the U.S. has long planned to cut troop levels when the Iraqis were able to take over the job of hunting down and battling it out with terrorists and insurgents. Whether the U.S. really will cut its force to just 40,000 in Iraq by the end of 2006, the exit strategy has always been victory. . . .
A persistent chorus, however, continues to sing the praises of retreat. A year ago, as U.S. troops were preparing to clean out Fallujah, and even up to the January elections, this was at least somewhat understandable. After all, war is a tough business. There will always be some voices in a free society to argue that victory isn't worth the sacrifice.
Today the sacrifices have been made, the election is over, a constitution is being hammered out, and all that's left is victory--and victory is inevitable if the U.S. forces continue to stand up Iraqi forces while facing an unpopular insurgency that isn't propped up by a large foreign power. Yet opposition to the war hasn't abated. Indeed, in Congress it's actually gotten more organized. In late June 50 House Democrats formed the Out of Iraq Caucus. . . .
We may come to miss the days when the Kerry campaign was calling the shots for the Democratic Party. At least then, with a national election to win, the party had a reason to stay disciplined, and Mr. Kerry, as the party's standard barer, paid lip service to winning this war. Today Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat and an organizer of the Out of Iraq Caucus, feels no compunction to adhere to anything resembling a national consensus on the war.
The interesting question is where this is all heading for Democrats. There's no election this year, so not much to lose in the short term by opposing the war and plenty of money to be raised by appealing to the Angry Left. But this isn't a cost-free political strategy. One thing that the diminished coverage of the Iraq War indicates is that the U.S. is now making headway and is on the path to winning. Maybe the voters will forget who stood where once the war is won--much the way they did in electing Bill Clinton in 1992, after the Cold War. But that's not a sure bet, nor is it even likely.
One trap Ms. Waters, Mr. Kerry and quite a few Democrats fell into was the idea that the war in Iraq was somehow separate from the war on terror. The American people never really believed that, as polls showed in the run up to the war that many believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with the Sept. 11 attacks. President Bush never made that direct of a connection. Instead the reason for the war in Iraq has long been to transform the politics in the Middle East in our favor.
Saddam is now in prison and awaiting trial at the hands of the people he oppressed. But even once a stable and prosperous democracy is in place in Iraq, the war on terror will not be over. Iraq is a central front, but it's far from the only one. Other battlefields of various sorts can be found in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Iran, Syria, Somalia and other nations in the Horn of Africa. And that's not to mention the low-intensity battlefields found in England, France, Germany and the U.S. It's not called the Global War on Terror for nothing.
Once the battle is won in Iraq, the voters are likely to remember who supported the course to victory there because it will be immediately relevant in deciding who might lead us to other victories on other fronts. The only hope Democrats have of winning support for their antiwar activities is if a large-scale attack--on par with the Tet Offensive in Vietnam--convinces Americans this isn't a winnable war. But with the home front under attack and the history of Tet now well understood as a colossal defeat for the communists, it's not a good bet that the American electorate would turn against the war even then.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/02/2005 06:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Dems hope is that Iraq is resolved one way or the other before spring of 2008. If Iraq goes bad - a "quagmire" or, if the admin itself cuts and runs, then they will probably nominate an Iraq dove, Dean or Gore. If its a victory, then the nod goes to an Iraq hawk, Rodham-Clinton, Biden, or Bayh.
If the situation is unresolved and unclear, then its major internecine bloodletting over the issue, and an attempt to find a candidate (Edwards?) who can paper over the differences, as they tried to do in 2004. And they probably lose, as in 2004.
#2
If things are going as they are now, the Dems are gonna loose in '06 and get pummled again in '08. People preaching the nanny state and the rich are killing your grandma and babies mantra for the last 50 years isn't really appealing anymore.
#3
The most important thing the Internet can do right now is to detail *who* in the US consistently tried to undermine the war effort, and *who* supported our enemies by encouraging terrorism, tyranny, and oppression. Then, when all is said and done, that this collection be compiled into a "Who's Who" of scoundrels, so that in the future when they pretend to reasonableness in an effort to gain support and power, their names shall be easily found. Much like John Kerry's past came back to haunt him, we must remember who betrayed America *this time*.
In the wake of the London bombings, New York City is now searching the bags of subway riders. As you might expect, this is provoking the usual cluster of perverse reactions. Someone on Air America, the liberal talk radio network, suggested that riders carry many bags to confuse and irritate the cops. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, normally a sane fellow, has ordered that the searches be entirely random, to avoid singling out any one ethnic or religious group. So if someone fits the suicide bomber profile--young Muslim male, short hair, recently shaved beard or mustache, smelling of flower water (a preparation for entering paradise)--the police must look away and search the nun or the Boy Scout behind him. What's the point of stopping a terrorist if you have to trample political correctness to do it? Besides, the New York Civil Liberties Union opposes all bag searches. No surprise there. The national American Civil Liberties Union still opposes passenger screening at airports. In a speech at the Brookings Institution, historian Fred Siegel said that the Democrats, pegged as the party of criminals' rights, are in danger of becoming the party of terrorists' rights.
From the first moments after the attacks of 9/11, we had indicators that the left would not be able to take terrorism seriously. Instead of resolve, we got concern about emotional closure and "root causes," warnings about the allegedly great danger of a backlash against Muslim Americans, arguments that violence directed at America is our own fault, and suggestions that we must not use force, because violence never solves anything. "We can't bomb our way to justice," said Ralph Nader.
The denial of the peril facing America remains a staple of the left. We still hear that the terrorism is a scattered and minor threat that should be dealt with as a criminal justice matter. In Britain last October, the BBC, a perennial leader in foolish leftism, delivered a three-part TV series arguing that terrorism is vastly exaggerated. Al Qaeda barely exists at all, the series argued, except as an idea that uses religious violence to achieve its ends. Besides, the series said, a dirty bomb would not kill many people and may not even kill anyone. This ho-hum approach isn't rare. Though evidence shows that the terrorists are interested in acquiring nuclear weapons to use against our cities, a learned writer for the New York Review of Books insists that the real weapons of mass destruction are world poverty and environmental abuse. Of course, world poverty is rarely mentioned by terrorists, and those known to be involved have almost all been well fed and are well to do.
Trade-offs. The "our fault" argument seems permanently entrenched. After the London bombings, Norman Geras of the University of Manchester wrote in the Guardian that the root causes and blame-Blair outbursts were "spreading like an infestation across the pages of this newspaper ... there are, among us, apologists for what the killers do." That has been the case on both sides of the Atlantic. After 9/11, Michael Walzer, one of the most powerful voices on the left, warned about "the politics of ideological apology" for terrorism. In the June 2005 issue of the American Prospect, he returned to the theme. "Is anybody still excusing terrorism?" he asked. "The answer is yes: Secret sympathy, even fascination with violence among men and women who think of themselves as 'militants,' is a disease, and recovery is slow." Though the argument has shifted somewhat, he wrote, the problem is "how to make people feel that the liberal left is interested in their security and capable of acting effectively. We won't win an election until we address this."
Walzer's analysis is a strong one. The Bush administration has botched many things, but large numbers of Americans go along with the president because he displays what the left apparently cannot: moral clarity and seriousness about what must be done. When the ideas of the left come into view, the themes often include the closing of Guantánamo, attacks on the Patriot Act, opposition to military recruitment on campuses, casual mockery of patriotism (a whole art exhibit in Baltimore was devoted to the theme), and a failure to admit that defeating terrorism will require some trade-offs between security and civil liberties. Is this a serious program? Real security, Walzer says, will depend on hunting down terrorist cells, cutting off the flow of money, and improving surveillance at key sites. He writes: "The burden is on us--nobody else--to make the case that these things can be done effectively by liberals and leftists who will also, in contrast to today's Republicans, defend the civil liberties of American citizens." Good argument. How will the left respond?
To hear some on the left tell it, terrorism is exactly what the West deserves for its many sins.
#1
Real security, Walzer says, will depend on hunting down terrorist cells, cutting off the flow of money, and improving surveillance at key sites. He writes: "The burden is on us--nobody else--to make the case that these things can be done effectively by liberals and leftists who will also, in contrast to today's Republicans, defend the civil liberties of American citizens." Good argument. How will the left respond?
Certainly not in the way that any rational person would be expected to respond....
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
