Cycloptichorn wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:McGentrix wrote:The only reason I have seen for his not being confirmed is that Bush appointed him. That doesn't seem to me to be a good way to move forward.
Which again, is unconstitutional. The senate has the power of fillibuster, (even though their fillibusters are fake) they have the right to confirm or deny, they
do not have the right to choose the presidents nominees, which is exactly what DODDgery & biden are trying to do.
No, they most certainly are not.
The president can choose whoever he wants; if that candidate can't make it out of committee, it isn't the fault of the Democrats. The Senate is working exactly as it is supposed to.
You really should be bitching about Chaffee, not the Dems...
McG:
Quote:
The only reason I have seen for his not being confirmed is that Bush appointed him. That doesn't seem to me to be a good way to move forward.
He isn't going to be confirmed for two reasons:
1, there were some questions of illegal NSA intercepts which held up his confirmation last time, if you recall. The same senators have promised to demand the info on the same intercepts, and the Bush admin most definately doesn't want to be talking about it.
2, he's a bully, and doesn't present an image of working together with other nations. Now, since you Republicans all have a little bit of a bully in you, you see this as strength instead of weakness. This is quite dangerous for America and won't be tolerated under a Dem congress.
Cycloptichorn
I have done plenty of
bitching about Chafee & look where
Mr Chafee is now, out on his a$$ where he belongs.
Look, when Dodd said that the prersident should nominate someone that could get a bi-partisan vote, what do you think he was talking about? There was a bi-partisan vote on the floor for Bolton. Dodd wants to choose the nominee, plain & simple. Plus Dodd is running for the presdents job, wait'll those skeletons come marching out of the closet.
LoneStarMadam wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:McGentrix wrote:The only reason I have seen for his not being confirmed is that Bush appointed him. That doesn't seem to me to be a good way to move forward.
Which again, is unconstitutional. The senate has the power of fillibuster, (even though their fillibusters are fake) they have the right to confirm or deny, they
do not have the right to choose the presidents nominees, which is exactly what DODDgery & biden are trying to do.
No, they most certainly are not.
The president can choose whoever he wants; if that candidate can't make it out of committee, it isn't the fault of the Democrats. The Senate is working exactly as it is supposed to.
You really should be bitching about Chaffee, not the Dems...
McG:
Quote:
The only reason I have seen for his not being confirmed is that Bush appointed him. That doesn't seem to me to be a good way to move forward.
He isn't going to be confirmed for two reasons:
1, there were some questions of illegal NSA intercepts which held up his confirmation last time, if you recall. The same senators have promised to demand the info on the same intercepts, and the Bush admin most definately doesn't want to be talking about it.
2, he's a bully, and doesn't present an image of working together with other nations. Now, since you Republicans all have a little bit of a bully in you, you see this as strength instead of weakness. This is quite dangerous for America and won't be tolerated under a Dem congress.
Cycloptichorn
I have done plenty of
bitching about Chafee & look where
Mr Chafee is now, out on his a$$ where he belongs.
Look, when Dodd said that the prersident should nominate someone that could get a bi-partisan vote, what do you think he was talking about? There was a bi-partisan vote on the floor for Bolton. Dodd wants to choose the nominee, plain & simple. Plus Dodd is running for the presdents job, wait'll those skeletons come marching out of the closet.
This doesn't make a lick of sense.
There was not a bi-partisan confirmation vote for Bolton on the floor by any means.
Cycloptichorn
he had 58 confirmed votes, not all repubs, what do you call that?
LoneStarMadam wrote:he had 58 confirmed votes, not all repubs, what do you call that?
I call that 'someone saying that they had confirmed votes,' not that he actually received 58 votes.
You hear all the time people say that there are enough votes for one thing or another.
Besides, does he not need 60 votes to get confirmed? You may have noted that 58 isn't 60.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:he had 58 confirmed votes, not all repubs, what do you call that?
I call that 'someone saying that they had confirmed votes,' not that he actually received 58 votes.
You hear all the time people say that there are enough votes for one thing or another.
Besides, does he not need 60 votes to get confirmed? You may have noted that 58 isn't 60.
Cycloptichorn
Well, one thing certain, because of dodd & bidens unconstitutional actions, we'll never know now. They, dodd & biden, pulled every trick in the book to hold up the committee vote & you know that's true. You believe that biden & dodd
had the right, that doesn't make it right. They knew that Botlton had the votes on the floor & still held it up,
that is what is unconstitutional.
I have
the right to say that all dems are crooks & degenerates, but that doesn't make it right.
McGentrix wrote:The only reason I have seen for his not being confirmed is that Bush appointed him. That doesn't seem to me to be a good way to move forward.
Really? That's the ONLY reason you've heard? That doesn't make any sense. If that were the only reason it surely would not have been enough to keep him from being confirmed in a Republican congress and forcing Bush to give him a recess appointment.
Rightly or wrongly, he has a reputation as a divisive influence who doesn't respect the UN body at all and thinks that it shouldn't exist. That's the reason why so many opposed him being the ambassador, among them Republicans.
LoneStarMadam wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:he had 58 confirmed votes, not all repubs, what do you call that?
I call that 'someone saying that they had confirmed votes,' not that he actually received 58 votes.
You hear all the time people say that there are enough votes for one thing or another.
Besides, does he not need 60 votes to get confirmed? You may have noted that 58 isn't 60.
Cycloptichorn
Well, one thing certain, because of dodd & bidens unconstitutional actions, we'll never know now. They, dodd & biden, pulled every trick in the book to hold up the committee vote & you know that's true. You believe that biden & dodd
had the right, that doesn't make it right. They knew that Botlton had the votes on the floor & still held it up,
that is what is unconstitutional.
I have
the right to say that all dems are crooks & degenerates, but that doesn't make it right.
Okay, let's look at your last post one sentence at a time for clarity.
Well, one thing certain, because of dodd & bidens unconstitutional actions, we'll never know now.
What actions, exactly, did they perform, which were unConstitutional?
They, dodd & biden, pulled every trick in the book to hold up the committee vote & you know that's true.
What tricks did they perform to hold up the committee? Last time I checked, it was Chaffee who said he wouldn't vote Bolton out of committee.
You believe that biden & dodd had the right, that doesn't make it right.
What did they do that was wrong?
They knew that Botlton had the votes on the floor & still held it up, that is what is unconstitutional.
First, 58 votes is not the same thing as 60 votes. Therefore, even by your imagined count of votes, Bolton didn't have enough.
Second, No, it isn't unConstituitonal to hold up legistlation that you don't agree with within the agreed upon framework of rules in the Senate.
I have the right to say that all dems are crooks & degenerates, but that doesn't make it right.
True, but immaterial to the current conversation.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:he had 58 confirmed votes, not all repubs, what do you call that?
I call that 'someone saying that they had confirmed votes,' not that he actually received 58 votes.
You hear all the time people say that there are enough votes for one thing or another.
Besides, does he not need 60 votes to get confirmed? You may have noted that 58 isn't 60.
Cycloptichorn
Well, one thing certain, because of dodd & bidens unconstitutional actions, we'll never know now. They, dodd & biden, pulled every trick in the book to hold up the committee vote & you know that's true. You believe that biden & dodd
had the right, that doesn't make it right. They knew that Botlton had the votes on the floor & still held it up,
that is what is unconstitutional.
I have
the right to say that all dems are crooks & degenerates, but that doesn't make it right.
Okay, let's look at your last post one sentence at a time for clarity.
Well, one thing certain, because of dodd & bidens unconstitutional actions, we'll never know now.
What actions, exactly, did they perform, which were unConstitutional?
They, dodd & biden, pulled every trick in the book to hold up the committee vote & you know that's true.
What tricks did they perform to hold up the committee? Last time I checked, it was Chaffee who said he wouldn't vote Bolton out of committee.
You believe that biden & dodd had the right, that doesn't make it right.
What did they do that was wrong?
They knew that Botlton had the votes on the floor & still held it up, that is what is unconstitutional.
First, 58 votes is not the same thing as 60 votes. Therefore, even by your imagined count of votes, Bolton didn't have enough.
Second, No, it isn't unConstituitonal to hold up legistlation that you don't agree with within the agreed upon framework of rules in the Senate.
I have the right to say that all dems are crooks & degenerates, but that doesn't make it right.
True, but immaterial to the current conversation.
Cycloptichorn
I posted a link that names the things that biden & dodd did to hold up the vote.
My comment about dems was an example of right & then
right.
LoneStarMadam wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:he had 58 confirmed votes, not all repubs, what do you call that?
I call that 'someone saying that they had confirmed votes,' not that he actually received 58 votes.
You hear all the time people say that there are enough votes for one thing or another.
Besides, does he not need 60 votes to get confirmed? You may have noted that 58 isn't 60.
Cycloptichorn
Well, one thing certain, because of dodd & bidens unconstitutional actions, we'll never know now. They, dodd & biden, pulled every trick in the book to hold up the committee vote & you know that's true. You believe that biden & dodd
had the right, that doesn't make it right. They knew that Botlton had the votes on the floor & still held it up,
that is what is unconstitutional.
I have
the right to say that all dems are crooks & degenerates, but that doesn't make it right.
Okay, let's look at your last post one sentence at a time for clarity.
Well, one thing certain, because of dodd & bidens unconstitutional actions, we'll never know now.
What actions, exactly, did they perform, which were unConstitutional?
They, dodd & biden, pulled every trick in the book to hold up the committee vote & you know that's true.
What tricks did they perform to hold up the committee? Last time I checked, it was Chaffee who said he wouldn't vote Bolton out of committee.
You believe that biden & dodd had the right, that doesn't make it right.
What did they do that was wrong?
They knew that Botlton had the votes on the floor & still held it up, that is what is unconstitutional.
First, 58 votes is not the same thing as 60 votes. Therefore, even by your imagined count of votes, Bolton didn't have enough.
Second, No, it isn't unConstituitonal to hold up legistlation that you don't agree with within the agreed upon framework of rules in the Senate.
I have the right to say that all dems are crooks & degenerates, but that doesn't make it right.
True, but immaterial to the current conversation.
Cycloptichorn
I posted a link that names the things that biden & dodd did to hold up the vote.
My comment about dems was an example of right & then
right.
No, you didn't. The only link you've posted in this thread was to a New Republic Editorial from 2005. It doesn't say what Biden and Dodd did to hold up the vote, only that they had problems with Bolton that the writers of the editorial didn't agree with.
Cycloptichorn
I am still waiting for some examples of Bolton being a bully Cycloptichorn.
Dear Sir:
I'm writing to urge you to consider blocking in committee the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN.
In the late summer of 1994, I worked as the subcontracted leader of a US AID project in Kyrgyzstan officially awarded to a HUB primary contractor. My own employer was Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly, and I reported directly to Republican leader Charlie Black.
After months of incompetence, poor contract performance, inadequate in-country funding, and a general lack of interest or support in our work from the prime contractor, I was forced to make US AID officials aware of the prime contractor's poor performance.
I flew from Kyrgyzstan to Moscow to meet with other Black Manafort employees who were leading or subcontracted to other US AID projects. While there, I met with US AID officials and expressed my concerns about the project -- chief among them, the prime contractor's inability to keep enough cash in country to allow us to pay bills, which directly resulted in armed threats by Kyrgyz contractors to me and my staff.
Within hours of sending a letter to US AID officials outlining my concerns, I met John Bolton, whom the prime contractor hired as legal counsel to represent them to US AID. And, so, within hours of dispatching that letter, my hell began.
Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel -- throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and, generally, behaving like a madman. For nearly two weeks, while I awaited fresh direction from my company and from US AID, John Bolton hounded me in such an appalling way that I eventually retreated to my hotel room and stayed there. Mr. Bolton, of course, then routinely visited me there to pound on the door and shout threats.
When US AID asked me to return to Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan in advance of assuming leadership of a project in Kazakstan, I returned to my project to find that John Bolton had proceeded me by two days. Why? To meet with every other AID team leader as well as US foreign-service officials in Bishkek, claiming that I was under investigation for misuse of funds and likely was facing jail time. As US AID can confirm, nothing was further from the truth.
He indicated to key employees of or contractors to State that, based on his discussions with investigatory officials, I was headed for federal prison and, if they refused to cooperate with either him or the prime contractor's replacement team leader, they, too, would find themselves the subjects of federal investigation. As a further aside, he made unconscionable comments about my weight, my wardrobe and, with a couple of team leaders, my sexuality, hinting that I was a lesbian (for the record, I'm not).
When I resurfaced in Kyrgyzstan, I learned that he had done such a convincing job of smearing me that it took me weeks -- with the direct intervention of US AID officials -- to limit the damage. In fact, it was only US AID's appoinment of me as a project leader in Almaty, Kazakstan that largely put paid to the rumors Mr. Bolton maliciously circulated.
As a maligned whistleblower, I've learned firsthand the lengths Mr. Bolton will go to accomplish any goal he sets for himself. Truth flew out the window. Decency flew out the window. In his bid to smear me and promote the interests of his client, he went straight for the low road and stayed there.
John Bolton put me through hell -- and he did everything he could to intimidate, malign and threaten not just me, but anybody unwilling to go along with his version of events. His behavior back in 1994 wasn't just unforgivable, it was pathological.
I cannot believe that this is a man being seriously considered for any diplomatic position, let alone such a critical posting to the UN. Others you may call before your committee will be able to speak better to his stated dislike for and objection to stated UN goals. I write you to speak about the very character of the man.
It took me years to get over Mr. Bolton's actions in that Moscow hotel in 1994, his intensely personal attacks and his shocking attempts to malign my character.
I urge you from the bottom of my heart to use your ability to block Mr. Bolton's nomination in committee.
Respectfully yours,
Melody Townsel
Dallas, TX 75208
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Dear Sir:
I'm writing to urge you to consider blocking in committee the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN.
In the late summer of 1994, I worked as the subcontracted leader of a US AID project in Kyrgyzstan officially awarded to a HUB primary contractor. My own employer was Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly, and I reported directly to Republican leader Charlie Black.
After months of incompetence, poor contract performance, inadequate in-country funding, and a general lack of interest or support in our work from the prime contractor, I was forced to make US AID officials aware of the prime contractor's poor performance.
I flew from Kyrgyzstan to Moscow to meet with other Black Manafort employees who were leading or subcontracted to other US AID projects. While there, I met with US AID officials and expressed my concerns about the project -- chief among them, the prime contractor's inability to keep enough cash in country to allow us to pay bills, which directly resulted in armed threats by Kyrgyz contractors to me and my staff.
Within hours of sending a letter to US AID officials outlining my concerns, I met John Bolton, whom the prime contractor hired as legal counsel to represent them to US AID. And, so, within hours of dispatching that letter, my hell began.
Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel -- throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and, generally, behaving like a madman. For nearly two weeks, while I awaited fresh direction from my company and from US AID, John Bolton hounded me in such an appalling way that I eventually retreated to my hotel room and stayed there. Mr. Bolton, of course, then routinely visited me there to pound on the door and shout threats.
When US AID asked me to return to Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan in advance of assuming leadership of a project in Kazakstan, I returned to my project to find that John Bolton had proceeded me by two days. Why? To meet with every other AID team leader as well as US foreign-service officials in Bishkek, claiming that I was under investigation for misuse of funds and likely was facing jail time. As US AID can confirm, nothing was further from the truth.
He indicated to key employees of or contractors to State that, based on his discussions with investigatory officials, I was headed for federal prison and, if they refused to cooperate with either him or the prime contractor's replacement team leader, they, too, would find themselves the subjects of federal investigation. As a further aside, he made unconscionable comments about my weight, my wardrobe and, with a couple of team leaders, my sexuality, hinting that I was a lesbian (for the record, I'm not).
When I resurfaced in Kyrgyzstan, I learned that he had done such a convincing job of smearing me that it took me weeks -- with the direct intervention of US AID officials -- to limit the damage. In fact, it was only US AID's appoinment of me as a project leader in Almaty, Kazakstan that largely put paid to the rumors Mr. Bolton maliciously circulated.
As a maligned whistleblower, I've learned firsthand the lengths Mr. Bolton will go to accomplish any goal he sets for himself. Truth flew out the window. Decency flew out the window. In his bid to smear me and promote the interests of his client, he went straight for the low road and stayed there.
John Bolton put me through hell -- and he did everything he could to intimidate, malign and threaten not just me, but anybody unwilling to go along with his version of events. His behavior back in 1994 wasn't just unforgivable, it was pathological.
I cannot believe that this is a man being seriously considered for any diplomatic position, let alone such a critical posting to the UN. Others you may call before your committee will be able to speak better to his stated dislike for and objection to stated UN goals. I write you to speak about the very character of the man.
It took me years to get over Mr. Bolton's actions in that Moscow hotel in 1994, his intensely personal attacks and his shocking attempts to malign my character.
I urge you from the bottom of my heart to use your ability to block Mr. Bolton's nomination in committee.
Respectfully yours,
Melody Townsel
Dallas, TX 75208
Reduced to making stuff up, are ya? lol
That's your proof?
I gave even you more credit than that, sorry, my mistake. It's hogwash.
Actually I didn't offer any proof, I offered an example as requested.
You're right though I am so good at making stuff up I even do it for USA today.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-04-20-whitehouse-bolton_x.htm
another example.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/03/news/bolton.php
actually if you google john bolton bully you will find 259,000 references, all of which I'm sure are hogwash, fantasy and baseless.
I'm sure we can all think of 259 thousand people who would attest or swear that we are bullies.
LSM,
While you are entitled to your opinion about Biden and Dodd, they didn't do anything wrong at all; the documents they wanted to see were within their right to ask for and should have been delivered.
It really strikes me how much of a hypocrite you are. Seriously. I mean, the Republicans have used every trick in the book to get what they want out of Congress for the last 6 years; they lock Dems out of policy meetings completely. They never allow a Dem amendment to make it to the floor, ever. They restructure the Ethics committee to keep their members from being investigated. They completely re-write bills during Conferencing. They reduce the time actually spent in the House and Senate so there is no real discussion or debate between people anymore. They submit 1000-page bills and then demand a vote on them that same day before anyone has a chance to read them.
In short, the Republicans have done each and every single thing they possibly could have done to keep the Democrats from having any say whatsoever in the policy and bill-writing proccess. For you to say that Dodd and Biden were in the wrong is downright ludicrous. The people you support rely upon dirty tricks to get what they want.
Cycloptichorn
ps. just because you declare something hogwash... doesn't really make it so, now does it?
