Powered by TypePad

« It's Libby, It's Libby Not... | Main | Not Exactly A Contradiction, But... »

July 29, 2005



An even better sentence: "During May and June, certain Democrat and Republican senators denied Republicans the 60 votes they needed to end a Democratic and Republican filibuster so that the Republican majority could then confirm Mr. Bolton to the United Nations post."

Those are the actual facts.

Jim E.

Right you are, TM.

But wasn't Bumiller the one who said she was too scared to ask Bush a tough question in his last prime time press conference before the war? She frequently pens non-newsy pro-Bush fluff pieces, so I wouldn't be too hard on her.



"During May and June the White House refused to supply information requested by Senators considering the nomination."


Since you know some Dems (e.g. Landrieu) voted to end the filibuster and some Repubs supported it (e.g. Thune).

I admit it was a Dem filibuster but facts is facts.

Jeff Hauser

Whatever. Tom, your site is becoming ridiculous.

Were you concerned about the following, when support was 16-2 in committee and bigotry was the basis for no vote, as just one example of hundreds:

"With his partner, former wife, and five children looking on, James Hormel, JD’58, former dean of students at the Law School, was sworn in as U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on June 29. His appointment makes him the first openly gay ambassador in U.S. history.
President Bill Clinton first nominated Hormel to the Luxembourg post in October 1997. Later that year, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the nomination by a 16-2 vote. The Senate itself, however, never voted on the nomination—mainly because of Hormel’s sexual orientation. For nearly two years, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) stalled the vote, following assertions that Hormel was anti-Catholic." http://magazine.uchicago.edu/9910/html/newsmakers1.htm


Confirm Bolton now.

Go over to foreignpolicy.com. Take a good look at "The Failed States Index."

July/August 2005

"About 2 billion people live in countries that are in danger of collapse. In the first annual Failed States Index, FOREIGN POLICY and the Fund for Peace rank the countries about to go over the brink."

We need a tough-minded, tough-talking presence at the UN. We ain't living in a Kumbayah World.


There will be no "confirmation" Lesley.

As for the recess appointment, don't forget Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) has said that that a Bolton recess appointment "would weaken not only Mr. Bolton but also the United States."

And that was before it turned out Bolton lied to Congress. This is truly a pitiful spectacle.


Hmmm...could that have been THE Jeff Hauser? If so, are you still picking fights?

Steven J.

I gave up on Bumiller when she said one simply couldn't call the President a liar.

Steven J.


Psycho-fuckwit Bolton shouldn't be employed by the government. PERIOD.


If the Senate had any self-respect they'd pull Bolton's vote up today and vote him down. I won't hold my breath.


Well, the standard for "ridiculous" seems to be pretty high - I can't mention Bolton in passing without providing a full history of Hormel?

Or, the Times is right on the Constitutional requirment that 60 votes are needed to confirm becuase I didn't mention Hormel?

Better go tell Josh Marshall and plenty of others that they are ridiculous, too.


Martin, you are correct. I should have said something about recess appointment.

Steven, we shall have to agree to disagree.


What's curious TM is that you castigate the NYT more harshly for an inaccurate sentence then you do Bolton for a lie he told to me you and me via Congress.


Is John Bolton the only person qualified to be permanent representative at the UN? Or the only person that Dick Cheney will allow to go there?


If John Bolton leads our delegation at the UN, there will either be major improvements there or we will finally be in a position to withdraw from the UN. Without Bolton, the State Department internationalists will make sure that nothing will change.


I certainly hope the Republicans are going to be ready to fight every single piddly ridiculous appointment like this (wow, ambassador to the UN. *yawn*) when Hillary is elected in '08.

Clay Waters

Bumiller is hardly pro-Bush. Just one example: She wrote three stories last fall on the left-wing conspiracy theory about the bulge on Bush's back during the presidential debates, and wrote this ludicrious passage, using a phony "bulge" as a metaphor for Bush's intolerance for dissent, or somesuch nonesuch:

"The bulge is in many ways related to the bubble, which is the word Mr. Bush himself uses to describe the isolation of the presidency. In this case, Mr. Bush's critics argue that he has so walled himself off from dissent in his bubble that he was ill-prepared to take on the challenge of Senator John Kerry in their three debates. Therefore, Mr. Bush had to make use of the bulge, which is most popularly rumored to be a radio receiver that transmitted answers from an offstage adviser into a hidden presidential earpiece. In the last two weeks, the bulge has taken on a life of its own to become a symbol to Mr. Bush's critics of all that is wrong with his presidency."



Okay, I have trouble taking as serious people who describe Elizabeth Bumiller as pro-Bush.

Please go back and start again.

Jeff Hauser

It's simple -- think Hormel too obscure, what about Bill Lann Lee http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DXK/is_n20_v14/ai_20411997
and a host of federal judges (e.g., Richard Paez: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0305-29.htm )?

Or -- how about Abe Fortas for the obscure position of Chief Justice?

Tom -- "deviancy?" 51 votes used to be what you needed? Tom, any basic econ style analysis would say that all nominees have always faced a potential 60 vote hurdle, and the increased partisanship of Bush's Presidency (cf. treatment of Max Cleland w/Reagan's relationship w/conservative Dems) is why that number is now more obvious & prominent.


Exactly right. The thing is -- regardless of which side of the political spectrum anybody's on -- we don't win when journalists don't write more precisely and accurately. This is one great example, but there are many. Thanks!


So Bush will recess appoint Bolton.

You Bush supporters are certainly a despicable lot.


So who is not advising and consenting? Recess appointments are constitutional. Is that document despicable, too?

And again, what don't you like about Bolton? What do you like about the UN?

We haven't talked about the UN, lately. Lets.

How about the Anzac/Big Tiger accord on greenhouse gases that is so much better than Kyoto? You are looking at the skeleton of an effective world government that will make the UN look like someone's ugly fantasy.


It's not the recess appointment itself that bothers me Kim-it's the lying scumbag being appointed, the lying and inept "war president"(his words) doing the appointing, and the craven lapdogs not raising a peep despite the fact they have every other attribute of sheep.

Paul Zrimsek

There's something so fitting about opening up a post about filibusters and seeing 7 comments from Martin.


Chicks peep,
Sheep don't bark,
nor curl on laps.

Bush is the CEO of the world, adding value faster than any predecessor, and a war President of the United States, successfully prosecuting a difficult, dangerous and critical war.

Bolton is an iconoclast; his record at the Stste Department indicates that he may be the last chance for the United Nations to be saved as an instrument of American policy.


Well-Bolton now represents all of us at the United Nations.

Since he'a a dishonest liar, I'm sure he will represent some of you very well.

The comments to this entry are closed.