Recess
Congress has taken its annual August recess, and on Tuesday President Bush is scheduled to start his. Those folks have been busy the past month, so they probably need a respite. I mean, legislatin' is hard work...hard. Congress has managed to give the president almost everything he has demanded: bankruptcy reform, CAFTA, immunity from lawsuits for the gun manufacturers, an energy bill, and a host of other must-have bills.
The one thing they didn't give him, confirmation of John Bolton as the US Ambassador to the United Nations, will probably be handled by the president himself. CBS News is just one of many outlets predicting a recess appointment:
President Bush intends to announce next week that he is going around Congress to install embattled nominee John Bolton as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, senior administration officials said Friday.
Under the Constitution, a recess appointment during the lawmakers' August break would last until the next session of Congress, which begins in January 2007.
Not just Democrats will be upset if the President makes the appointment:
Critics say Bolton, who has been accused of mistreating subordinates and has been openly skeptical about the United Nations, would be ill-suited to the sensitive diplomatic task at the world body. The White House says the former undersecretary of state for arms control, who has long been one of Bush's most conservative foreign policy advisers, is exactly the man to whip the United Nations into shape.
This week, critics raised a fresh concern, saying Bolton had neglected to tell Congress he had been interviewed in a government investigation into faulty prewar intelligence on Iraq.
Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee said he would vote against Bolton if given the chance — and would oppose a recess appointment if it is accurate that Bolton's form was originally incorrect. "Any intimidation of the facts, or suppression of information getting to the public which led us to the war, absolutely should preclude him from a recess appointment," said Chafee, of Rhode Island.
Also Friday, 35 Democratic senators and one independent, Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, sent a letter to Mr. Bush urging against a recess appointment. "Sending someone to the United Nations who has not been confirmed by the United States Senate and now who has admitted to not being truthful on a document so important that it requires a sworn affidavit is going to set our efforts back in many ways," the letter said.
Still, the Democrats should show some wisdom in framing their inevitable outrage when (if) the President makes the expected appointment. As the article points out, the Constitution does allow for the action. Furthermore, many presidents have exercised that right as noted in this dated CSPAN article.
President Clinton has now made 56 recess appointments in his 6 ½ years, the last being James Hormel as Ambassador to Luxembourg on June 4, 1999.
President Bush made 77 recess appointments during his 4 year tenure, and in 8 years as President, Ronald Reagan made 243 such appointments.
President Carter made 68 recess appointments over 4 years in office.
Democrats need to lean on the fact that Bolton is just the wrong man for the job. The mere fact that he so openly showed his contempt for the UN on several occasions ought to be sufficient evidence that his appointment will weaken the US presence at the UN rather than strengthen it. The fact that he lied on the questionnaire form required for the hearings, a form that requires a sworn affidavit declaring the truthfullness of the nominee's responses is strong evidence that the man cannot be trusted. The fact that he was interviewed in connection with the leak of Valerie Plame's identity and status as a covert agent for the CIA is evidence that he may very well be implicated in that whole sorry and sordid affair and could potentially not be around to serve out even his limited term as ambassador.
Even if the appointment was simply intended to get Bolton out of the State Department where he apparently wreaked a lot of havoc into a less 'sensitive' slot, the rest of the world cannot be happy with the backhanded slap to the United Nations.
And then, when the outrage slows to a simmer, the Democrats should make it a point to take a long, hard look at the nomination of John Roberts, nuclear option be damned.
The one thing they didn't give him, confirmation of John Bolton as the US Ambassador to the United Nations, will probably be handled by the president himself. CBS News is just one of many outlets predicting a recess appointment:
President Bush intends to announce next week that he is going around Congress to install embattled nominee John Bolton as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, senior administration officials said Friday.
Under the Constitution, a recess appointment during the lawmakers' August break would last until the next session of Congress, which begins in January 2007.
Not just Democrats will be upset if the President makes the appointment:
Critics say Bolton, who has been accused of mistreating subordinates and has been openly skeptical about the United Nations, would be ill-suited to the sensitive diplomatic task at the world body. The White House says the former undersecretary of state for arms control, who has long been one of Bush's most conservative foreign policy advisers, is exactly the man to whip the United Nations into shape.
This week, critics raised a fresh concern, saying Bolton had neglected to tell Congress he had been interviewed in a government investigation into faulty prewar intelligence on Iraq.
Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee said he would vote against Bolton if given the chance — and would oppose a recess appointment if it is accurate that Bolton's form was originally incorrect. "Any intimidation of the facts, or suppression of information getting to the public which led us to the war, absolutely should preclude him from a recess appointment," said Chafee, of Rhode Island.
Also Friday, 35 Democratic senators and one independent, Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, sent a letter to Mr. Bush urging against a recess appointment. "Sending someone to the United Nations who has not been confirmed by the United States Senate and now who has admitted to not being truthful on a document so important that it requires a sworn affidavit is going to set our efforts back in many ways," the letter said.
Still, the Democrats should show some wisdom in framing their inevitable outrage when (if) the President makes the expected appointment. As the article points out, the Constitution does allow for the action. Furthermore, many presidents have exercised that right as noted in this dated CSPAN article.
President Clinton has now made 56 recess appointments in his 6 ½ years, the last being James Hormel as Ambassador to Luxembourg on June 4, 1999.
President Bush made 77 recess appointments during his 4 year tenure, and in 8 years as President, Ronald Reagan made 243 such appointments.
President Carter made 68 recess appointments over 4 years in office.
Democrats need to lean on the fact that Bolton is just the wrong man for the job. The mere fact that he so openly showed his contempt for the UN on several occasions ought to be sufficient evidence that his appointment will weaken the US presence at the UN rather than strengthen it. The fact that he lied on the questionnaire form required for the hearings, a form that requires a sworn affidavit declaring the truthfullness of the nominee's responses is strong evidence that the man cannot be trusted. The fact that he was interviewed in connection with the leak of Valerie Plame's identity and status as a covert agent for the CIA is evidence that he may very well be implicated in that whole sorry and sordid affair and could potentially not be around to serve out even his limited term as ambassador.
Even if the appointment was simply intended to get Bolton out of the State Department where he apparently wreaked a lot of havoc into a less 'sensitive' slot, the rest of the world cannot be happy with the backhanded slap to the United Nations.
And then, when the outrage slows to a simmer, the Democrats should make it a point to take a long, hard look at the nomination of John Roberts, nuclear option be damned.
posted by Diane at 5:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home