More on the John Bolton Drama: 2nd Recess Appointment Means No Pay or Legal Challenges

-

bolton_un.jpg
The President’s team ‘has a plan’ regarding the seemingly irrational obsession with keeping John Bolton working at the United Nations.
We just don’t know what that plan is. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote Bolton down, decisively and definitively, if called to vote this week.
Senators Bill Frist and Norm Coleman will probably then stomp around on the floor of the Senate bemoaning what Dems and a wayward Republican voice, calling for a revived centrist ethic, did to their poster child for crude, pugnacious nationalism.
Then, the White House — angry at the rejection of Bolton — could call an end to the bipartisan dance, accuse the Dems of obstructionism and try to “re-appoint” Bolton to his current job as a recess appointee — thwarting not only the Senate that the White House strongly controlled this past year — but also thwarting the next Congress that they control less well and with which they will have a tougher time finding common ground with this type of strident behavior.
Scott Paul has posted a useful short synopsis of a legal analysis of the President’s options on Bolton — prepared by Arnold & Porter. The analysis is here — and should be read carefully.


I need to consider the implications of this analysis a bit more closely — but essentially, here are the options as I see them now.
Bolton could be recess-appointed to his current position, but he would have to work for no pay.
Alternatively, Bolton could be “nominated” to a lesser position at the United Nations — and some are suggesting that in such a Deputy role, Bolton could be made the “Acting Ambasssador.” The fact is that all of the deputy jobs that Bolton might be appointed to are ‘encumbered’ — meaning people hold those positions. In addition, that appointment would also have to be submitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for action, which would certainly be negative.
Another bizarre but possible White House strategy is to appoint John Bolton Deputy National Security Advisor to the President, a position NOT subject to Senate confirmation, and then make him “Acting Ambassador to the United Nations.”
Some believe that this is the strategy that White House General Counsel Harriet Myers is trying to cook up.
However, this would cross many legal lines and certainly be litigated and challenged by a number of U.S. Senators.
When President Clinton played these games with the recess appointment and then “acting role” designation for Bill Lann Lee, the then-Republcan controlled Congress shut down the loopholes that allowed these kinds of appointment shenanigans.
John Bolton, if appointed to a non-confirmed position, does not fit one of the three allowable categories to be given an “Acting” role designation because the only role in his work history that would allow him to serve as “acting” UN Ambassador is his current role as UN Ambassador, which he received by recess appointment.
Arnold & Porter concludes that Congress did not write law that intended to give the President to circumvent the Federal Vacancies Reform Act that tied up such past loopholes.
Fascinating stuff — and as long as the White House wants to push Bolton, there are a lot of us who are there ready to respond to every twist and turn to this increasingly stale and pathetic campaign.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

66 comments on “More on the John Bolton Drama: 2nd Recess Appointment Means No Pay or Legal Challenges

  1. pauline says:

    “John Bolton, resident bull in a china shop at the United Nuthouse, reportedly delivered an “outburst” over a UN resolution expressing regret over the loss of innocent lives in Gaza. It seems that “Israel can do no wrong” is the all but official policy of the United States.
    And frankly, considering what we are doing in the Middle East, it might appear hypocritical for the United States to join in expressing regret over the loss of innocent lives there.
    It appears that, with the Democrats in control in the Senate, Bolton’s days at the UN are numbered. I am tempted to say “Good riddance,” but in a way, Bolton’s departure would be a loss of candor for this administration, which clearly has little to spare. No one, save possibly Dick Cheney, more accurately represents the face and the heartlessness of the hollow men of this “compassionate conservative” regime than John Bolton.”
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/kenny/kenny42.html

    Reply

  2. pauline says:

    MP:
    You missed the biggest point here.
    “However, “hate-crimes” bills pander in ways that violate the 14th Amendment by creating unequal standing in law.”
    MP wrote:
    “But I think it’s undeniable that here in America certain kinds of crimes are intended not just to hurt an individual, but to attack a group and oppress that group.”
    If you want to make lawyers smile while allowing politicians to pander to their biggest lobbyists, why stop there? Why not support similar legislation for a similar anti-hate law in both in Israel and Palestine.
    Then look in the mirror and ask yourself if these types of laws will honestly help the peace and security in MidEast, as well as here in the U.S.

    Reply

  3. MP says:

    Pauline,
    I guess I would also say this…
    Any law can be manipulated and perverted and misused.
    But I think it’s undeniable that here in America certain kinds of crimes are intended not just to hurt an individual, but to attack a group and oppress that group.
    This law is one solution to this problem. I would challenge you and POA and others to find alternative solutions to this problem.

    Reply

  4. MP says:

    Pauline writes: “I’m just so certain MP has read the “hate crime” bill line by line, right? But how much of your money do you want to bet that whatever you’ve looked at won’t be in the final bill? What makes you think you know the wording of the final bill that’s not even out there yet?”
    What makes you think that YOU know the wording of the final bill if it’s not out there yet? How can you pin the bill on the ADL if it’s not even out there yet? But let’s take a closer look at one of your quotes:
    “If a homosexual is assaulted, a hate-crime will have been committed in addition to the crime of assault. But if a heterosexual is assaulted, it will merely be an act of assault. Similarly, if a black is assaulted, robbed or murdered, a hate-crime charge will be added if the assailant is white. Rape itself can become a hate crime.
    I say: A “mere” act of assault is an assault and punishable under law. If the law treats any assault by a white person on a black person as a hate crime, I would say that that is a problem with the law and it should be changed. But frankly white on black violence has a long, ugly history in this country, and the possibility that this is a hate crime should be considered.
    “Hate does play a role in some murders, but usually it is hatred of a person, not of a race or gender or sexual orientation. Most cases of assault result from the workings of alcohol or from anger. Robbery results from a desire for money, and rape is driven by lust.
    I say: Bullshit and tendentious. Synagogues with swastikas on them are NOT acts committed by folks who hate “a” person. They are committed by folks who hate a group. Shepard wasn’t left to die on lonely fence because someone hated him; they hated who he was as a gay person. There needs to be a strong public stance that we won’t put up with that kind of acting out of prejudice.

    Reply

  5. pauline says:

    I’m just so certain MP has read the “hate crime” bill line by line, right? But how much of your money do you want to bet that whatever you’ve looked at won’t be in the final bill? What makes you think you know the wording of the final bill that’s not even out there yet?
    This “hate crime” bill is full of nonsense. If enacted, it’s a law that will end up doing the following. Again, the lawyers are hungry for this kind of crap.
    from Paul Roberts —
    Federalizing crimes is a taboo, because it encroaches on the rights of states, clogs federal courts and conflicts with the courts’ traditional functions. And it can result in double jeopardy and duplicate punishments.
    These sound arguments are now being abandoned as Republican Senator Orrin Hatch joins with Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy to expand the federal government’s power to prosecute “hate-crimes.”
    “Hate-crimes” are defined as violent acts motivated by prejudice based on race, gender, disability or sexual orientation. A senate staffer told the Washington Times that one purpose of the bill was to place the weight of the federal government on the side of the homosexual lifestyle. [Hatch joined Kennedy to push hate-crimes bill – November 13, 2003 The Washington Times]
    There is nothing new in politicians pandering to special interests. However, “hate-crimes” bills pander in ways that violate the 14th Amendment by creating unequal standing in law.
    Hatch’s bill assumes that women need protection from men’s hatred, blacks need protections from the hatred of whites, the disabled require protection from being hated by the able-bodied, and homosexuals need protecting from heterosexuals.
    The effect of Hatch’s bill is to divide the population into a victim class and a perpetrator class: White, heterosexual, able-bodied males (WHAMs) are the perpetrators, and everyone else their victims.
    If a homosexual is assaulted, a hate-crime will have been committed in addition to the crime of assault. But if a heterosexual is assaulted, it will merely be an act of assault. Similarly, if a black is assaulted, robbed or murdered, a hate-crime charge will be added if the assailant is white. Rape itself can become a hate crime.
    Hate does play a role in some murders, but usually it is hatred of a person, not of a race or gender or sexual orientation. Most cases of assault result from the workings of alcohol or from anger. Robbery results from a desire for money, and rape is driven by lust.
    Once the new law is on the books, there will be demands that it be enforced. In the majority of cases, prosecutors will have no basis but presumption for the hate-crime charge. If the victim is in a “protected category” (blacks, females, disabled, homosexuals) and the perpetrator is a WHAM, a hate-crime can be presumed.
    This pattern is already established. Prosecutors did not presume a hate-crime when two black males raped and sodomized two white couples, afterward shooting each in the head. Neither were two homosexuals charged with hate-crime when they sodomized and killed a 13-year old boy, nor were the black gangs that, acting out rap lyrics to “beat a white boy into the *#!*# ground,” attacked and brutalized white University of Virginia students.
    However, Lonnie Rae, a WHAM, was charged with a hate-crime in Idaho when his temper got the best of him and he used the n-word when confronting the black male who assaulted his wife. White Michigan housewife Janice Barton was jailed when a deputy sheriff overheard her using the word “spic” in a private conversation with her mother.
    The Hatch-Kennedy bill will set the double standard in federal concrete.
    The Hatch-Kennedy bill means that WHAMs will have to suffer abuse, verbal or otherwise, from “protected categories.” A WHAM who stands up for himself or his wife risks being charged with a hate-crime. WHAMs who cannot accept the double standard will end up in jail.

    Reply

  6. winnipeger says:

    save your breath, MP.
    pauline can’t get it; i don’t think she has the cognitive ability.
    for the simple-minded it’s easier living in a world of absolutes.

    Reply

  7. MP says:

    Pauline writes: “Or sue Piper for “hate”. A million lawyers are salivating for such a bill!
    But the hate crimes bill pertains to ACTS not SPEECH nor the written word. No one can, nor will they be able to, sue Piper for writing anything. The thought police criticsm is baseless.
    Christ, the ACLU has gone to bat for the KKK’s right to march.

    Reply

  8. pauline says:

    a knucklehead wrote:
    “no defense from pauline about her anti-semitic, americanfreepress.net sourcing. i guess she has nothing to say in that regard.”
    I quoted author and investigative journalist, Michael Collins Piper, whose article was posted on americanfreepress.net.
    Period.
    If you don’t like the writings of Michael Collins Piper, then take your silly complaints to all the book reviewers ar Amazon who have almost universally given his material 5 star ratings.
    Or sue Piper for “hate”.
    A million lawyers are salivating for such a bill!

    Reply

  9. winnipeger says:

    funny.
    no defense from pauline about her anti-semitic, americanfreepress.net sourcing. i guess she has nothing to say in that regard.
    additionally, there’s no point in debating her about the israeli/palestinian conflict. she has completely demigogued the israelis and isn’t willing to critique the actions of palestinian leadership through the years.
    and what’s even funnier is that after months of crazed rhetoric about “dancing israelis” arrested on september 11, POA has for once shut his mouth. what’s wrong, vern, can’t substantiate your claims that the 20-somethings were actually mossad agents who orchestrated the 9-11 attacks?!

    Reply

  10. MP says:

    A bit on the Hate Crime Bill from hrc.org to POA’s and Pauline’s notion that this is about “thought police”:
    “Hate crimes laws punish violent acts, not beliefs or thoughts – not even violent thoughts. LLEEA does not punish, nor prohibit in any way, name-calling, verbal abuse or expressions of hatred toward any group even if such statements amount to hate speech. The Act does not punish thought, speech or criticism of another person. It covers only violent actions that result in death or bodily injury.
    Doubts about the constitutionality of hate crimes laws were squarely addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the early 1990s in two cases, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul and Wisconsin v. Mitchell. These cases clearly demonstrate that a hate crimes statute may consider bias motivation when that motivation is directly connected to a defendant’s criminal conduct. By requiring this connection to criminal activity, these statutes do not chill protected speech nor violate the First Amendment. In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court made clear that “the First Amendment … does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent.”
    Nothing in this act would prohibit the lawful expression of one’s deeply held religious beliefs. People will always be free to say things like, “Homosexuality is sinful;” “Homosexuality is an abomination” or “Homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.” The act would only cover violent actions committed because of a person’s sexual orientation that result in death or bodily injury.”
    I do find it interesting and disturbing that Pauline identifies this bill as the ADL bill when so many other folks and groups support it, too, including law enforcement. I guess it’s just another example of the perfidious influence the Lobby has on America. Here is what she wrote (above):
    “With Democrats now in control, such freedom-saving clout no longer exists. ADL’s federal thought crimes bill, “The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act,” will be reintroduced soon after January 1.”
    But as anyone can see, it has nothing to do with “thought crimes,” but real bodily crimes. And not just ANY crimes, but crimes whose purpose is to intimidate whole minority groups in their daily life. If there is a Jewish caste to any of this it would be this: Jews know only too well what it means to be a hated minority, persecuted, and even killed, for our thoughts and beliefs.

    Reply

  11. MP says:

    POA writes: “I got news for you idiots that think you can legislate hate away. You can’t. And any human being with half a brain cell realizes that. The ONLY reason to have such a bill is to supply a police state with yet another tool designed to quell dissent.”
    Same argument that was used by ardent segregationists and the right wing against ALL the civil rights legislation. As I recall, ole Bull Connor complained about the police state too.

    Reply

  12. pauline says:

    “No one is guilty in Israel. There is never anyone guilty in Israel. The prime minister who is responsible for the brutal policy toward the Palestinians, the defense minister who knew about and approved the bombardments, the chief of staff, the chief of command and the commander of the division who gave the orders to bombard – not one of them is guilty. They will continue with the work of killing as though nothing has happened: The sun shone, the system flourished and the ritual slaughterer slaughtered. They will continue to pursue the routine of their daily lives, accepted in society like anyone else, and remain in their posts despite the blood on their hands.”
    Before any knuckleheads here go postal, they’d better read the source. Somehow one knucklehead thinks our criticism is always anti-semetic and hateful, and he needs a hate law to solve all.
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/786549.html
    Israel’s current leaders have shown that continued war/violence is their preferred choice instead of a Palestinian settlement. If war/violence continues, they continue to get all the US taxpayer’s money and weapons for continued killing — and they stay in power.
    I must absolutely keep Ralph Nader’s comments front and center. imo, it makes bushwacker’s “war on terrorism” and selling of fear as phony as a three dollar bill.
    Mr. Nader —
    “This is an eminently resolvable conflict. There’s a lot of former Israeli military and intelligence people who know how to do it, people in the Knesset who know what needs to be done. But as long as the US basically says to whoever is in charge, “You can do whatever you want over there, and we’ll still pump $3 – $4 billion and cluster bomb weapons, etc.,” there’s not going to be a resolution. As long as there’s no resolution, there’s going to be an inflammation increasing all over the Islamic world, and our national security will be compromised.”

    Reply

  13. winnipeger says:

    The lying sack of shit comes here ONLY to insult ANY who dare criticize Israel’s policies, he flagrantly and transparently lies to this forum, misrepresenting his nationality, his place of residence, and the circumstances of his “discovery” of this blog.
    you’re wrong and you know it. i don’t insult all who dare criticize israel’s policy. i only insult those who print GARBAGE like you, carrol and pauline.
    why don’t you tell us more about the dancing israelis? why don’t you substantiate your claims that they were celebrating mossad agents? why don’t you deny that americanfreepress.net is filled with anti-semitic bias and prejudice?
    what do you say, poa? not much, huh? you remind me of the people you decry–the republicans. attack, attack, attack.
    and now this BS:
    “he (winnipeger) flagrantly and transparently lies to this forum, misrepresenting his nationality, his place of residence, and the circumstances of his “discovery” of this blog.”
    what the F$&K are you talking about?! where have i lied? how have i “misrepresented my nationality and the discovery of this blog”?!
    Who the F&$k are you to claim any knowledge of who i am??!! do you have my social security number?!
    you’re completely unhinged and it’s obvious to all.

    Reply

  14. Pissed Off American says:

    If “hate speech” is outlawed, 3/4’s of the Religious Right is going to jail.

    Reply

  15. Pissed Off American says:

    Who the hell will decide what constiutes
    “hate speech”? Some perjuring piece of shit White House advocate like Gonzales? Or maybe some asshole like “winnepeger”, who counters EVERY criticism of Israel with the kind of “hate speech” we see him leveling against Carroll and I constantly and unrelentingly? And would this legislation make a criminal out of this buffoon in the Oval Office for his “evil axis” commentary? Or maybe that raging bigot Trent Lott might fall victim to Bush’s thought police, eh?? And what of the bitch Coulter? Limbaugh? O’Reilly?? Who has not seen each and every one of these right wing rabid asses spew hate and venom over our airwaves, directed at Muslims, gays, liberals, and any other practioner of a credo or ideal that doesn’t meet with thier twisted sense of morality or justice?
    Read Winnipeger’s comments on this thread and many others. Who the hell is he to wave the flag of civil discourse? The lying sack of shit comes here ONLY to insult ANY who dare criticize Israel’s policies, he flagrantly and transparently lies to this forum, misrepresenting his nationality, his place of residence, and the circumstances of his “discovery” of this blog.
    I got news for you idiots that think you can legislate hate away. You can’t. And any human being with half a brain cell realizes that. The ONLY reason to have such a bill is to supply a police state with yet another tool designed to quell dissent. you

    Reply

  16. winnipeger says:

    “Bush has said he will sign a “modified” hate bill and if he does, free speech in America will quickly come to an end.”
    you must be smoking crack, pauline. i don’t believe that threatening speech should be free speech, and protecting people from it certainly does not mean “free speech in america will quickly come to an end.
    following from http://tinyurl.com/y65su2
    “Hate speech legislation criminalizes the denigration, ridicule, or expression of hatred against a person or group on the basis of the victim’s race, religion, etc.
    These types of legislation do not offer any special protections to any group. They usually include religion and sex as protected classes. They protect Christians, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, and others alike; they protect both men and women. Those laws which include sexual orientation as a protected class shield everyone equally, whether they be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.”
    sounds damn good to me. let’s hope that someday there won’t be a need…

    Reply

  17. pauline says:

    MP wrote:
    “But I would be more interested in hearing if you oppose the anti-hate bill and, if so, why you oppose it…”
    I am libertarian enough to say I would not want any legislation. This is a “thought police” bill in disguise and bad, bad, bad for free speech.
    With the Democrats now in control, “The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act,” hate bill will be reintroduced after January 1. Since no Democrat in Congress has ever voted against the hate bill, it will probably pass. Bush has said he will sign a “modified” hate bill and if he does, free speech in America will quickly come to an end.

    Reply

  18. MP says:

    “It is amazing how certain knuckleheads around here equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and how they use it as a way of intimidating public criticism of Israel.”
    You know what, sometimes they don’t go together, and sometimes they DO go together and I have no problem pointing that out.
    But I would be more interested in hearing if you oppose the anti-hate bill and, if so, why you oppose it…

    Reply

  19. winnipeger says:

    So who are you talking to, puline??? who on any of these threads supports john bolton?!
    i’ve been against his nomination from the beginning. his appointment and much of his public service has, in my opinion, done a serious disservice to our country.
    i don’t think anyone around here would disagree.

    Reply

  20. pauline says:

    from Wayne Madsen this morning —
    “However, neo-cons, including Cheney, are toying with the idea of appointing Bolton to the third ranking position at the UN mission, which does not require Senate confirmation. By not filling the vacant ambassador position, Bolton would serve as an unconfirmed acting ambassador. It is well known that following Donald Rumsfeld’s ouster at the Pentagon, Bolton is one of Cheney’s sole remaining allies. Bolton is also vehemently anti-Iranian and opposed to the Baker-Hamilton committee’s outreach to Tehran. Therefore, it is important for Cheney to keep Bolton at the UN to rattler sabers at Iran. Bolton is also supported by the Israeli lobby in Washington that does not want to see any Washington-Tehran talks dedicated to working together on Iraq.”

    Reply

  21. winnipeger says:

    correction
    “the fact that the **americafreepress.net** url is even posted here is an affront to mr. clemmons and to this entire community and their ain’t NOTHING legitimate about some of the rhetoric and ideas that you guys parrot.”

    Reply

  22. winnipeger says:

    “It is amazing how certain knuckleheads around here equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and how they use it as a way of intimidating public criticism of Israel.”
    Posted by pauline at November 16, 2006 11:05 AM
    legitimate criticism of israel?! do me a favor and resist your desire to hit enter, pauline. much of your rhetoric and many of your beliefs and theories, along with those of POA, and Carroll are simply beyond the pale and completely representative of your collective prejudice and ignorance.
    as marky and others have pointed out, your sourcing is unacceptable. the fact that its url is even posted here is an affront to mr. clemmons and to this entire community and their ain’t NOTHING legitimate about some of the rhetoric and ideas that you guys parrot.
    classic, run-of-the-mill, blatant anti-semitism.
    you doth protest WAY too much.
    And don’t tell me that anyone around here is not open to offering and debating legitimate criticism of israel. that is simply NOT TRUE.
    many israelis AND arabs in the middle east are making a multitude of bad decisions and policy errors EVERY DAY.
    Just quit with the crackpot, virulent BS. it’s embarrasing.

    Reply

  23. pauline says:

    MP wrote:
    “Pauline illustrates how anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism and a false love of a false freedom often intermingle.”
    It is amazing how certain knuckleheads around here equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and how they use it as a way of intimidating public criticism of Israel.

    Reply

  24. MP says:

    To some degree, this is the nature of the beast. In the online world, posting a link or two that tells a story is considered to be offering “facts.” Or at least “well-informed opinion.”
    Its speed and ease of use makes the internet a great medium for communication…and also for spreading lies, half-truths, and innuendo…and it has the “visual authority” of the printed page, even though no editor, second pair of eyes, or fact-checker has looked at it.
    Caveat emptor…toujours.

    Reply

  25. winnipeger says:

    thanks, marky. i agree with you, wholeheartedly.
    but if you read this thread and others, you’ll see that i don’t start this “shit,” i merely respond to it. i feel that IS in the best interests of this blog and this community that we DO refute this anti-semitic garbage and intellectual laziness.
    i will not be silent when pauline posts articles from a blatantly anti-semitic website such as americanfreepress.net, or when POA offers various articles about some israelis arrested on immigration violations directly after the 9-11 attacks and turns that into a completely unsubstantiated theory that they were mosaad agents who played a part in executing the attacks! as if clandestine service agents would be working as movers and dancing and celebrating publicly in the streets after pulling off their biggest false flag operation on foreign soil?! c’mon!!! it’s pathetic that anyone would seriously believe this.
    and as far as our friend carroll, please remember that she is the kind soul who not too long ago threatened to “rip out the intestines” of israelis who she and others regularly accuse of wholesale genocide. if noone else in this community sees fit to admonish this type of rhetoric i think thats unfortunate. but i refuse to be silent.
    i hope that you and others understand.

    Reply

  26. marky says:

    No reason for this comment except to stir up the hornet’s nest some more, but I’ve had it with the unsubstantiated “Israel controls everything” conspiracy theory shit.
    No one is convinced of anything except that several people here are seriously unhinged.
    Stick to the FACTS.
    P.S., on a slightly different tack, POA, your 9/11 conspiracy shit is.. well, shit.
    You cite too many dubious sources—e.g. Steven(?) Jones from Utah.
    I guess there is a reason I’m writing this.
    There is just no reason that almost every single comment thread should end up dominated by a discussion of whether Israel is the Great Satan, or just a little bit bad.
    Try sticking to the topic of the post every once in a while.
    Winnipegger, POA, Carroll, Pauline—why don’t you start you own blog.. something like the “Swords Crossed” blog of a while back, where right and left clashed.

    Reply

  27. winnipeger says:

    by the way,
    the adl is a completely autonomous, federally incorporated 501(c)3 non-profit organization.
    if you want to see the 990’s yourself look here:
    http://tinyurl.com/y3baye
    download a copy of the adl’s annual report here:
    http://www.adl.org/main_about_adl.asp

    Reply

  28. winnipeger says:

    i wrote a post earlier that, for some reason, didn’t make it online.
    here is my response to pauline’s wikipedia “i told you so” comment:
    first of all, there is a reason that wikipedia is not allowed to be used as source material in Fargo, ND public schools. well, i do use it in on occassion, it must be read with a critical eye and open mind. information is often incorrect and very often misleading. regardless of what you read on wikipedia about the adl and bnai brith, it is INCORRECT.
    but before i highlight the factual errors of pauline’s post, allow me to address it’s spirit. it’s adversarial and it’s scary. how in the heck can any decent person disagree with this mission statement:
    “The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.”
    you’ve got to be kidding me, pauline!!!
    “reason,” “conscience,” and appeals to law?” are these principles which you find threatening??
    now to the factual corrections–
    you wrote:
    “The Anti-Defamation League (or ADL) is an organization founded by B’nai B’rith in the United States whose stated aim is “to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people.”
    this a misleading statement. the adl was not founded by bnai brith. here’s the story:
    “Hang the Jew, Hang the Jew.”
    Trial of Leo Frank, 1913.
    This was the cry of the furious mob outside the Atlanta courthouse where Leo Frank, a Northern Jew, stood trial after his arrest in 1913 for a murder he did not commit. Anti-Semitism hung heavy in the courtroom as Frank was found guilty and sentenced to death. Though a courageous governor later commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, Frank never did serve the term. In August 1915, the “Yankee Jew” was lynched by a mob calling themselves a “vigilance committee.”
    The brutal murder of Leo Frank did not occur in a vacuum. As the 20th century dawned, anti-Semitism was rampant in an American society where resorts commonly advertised, “No dogs! No Jews!” and magazines featured “humorous” caricatures of Jewish people.
    It was in this atmosphere that the Anti-Defamation League was established in 1913 by a lawyer and fearless visionary by the name of Sigmund Livingston. Starting with only two desks in Livingston’s Chicago office, $200 and the sponsorship of the Independent Order of B’nai B’rith, Livingston spelled out the League’s ambitious, compelling mission: “to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience, and if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. . . to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike. . . put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.”
    read more
    http://tinyurl.com/ubehx
    here’s some info on b’nai brith:
    Mission Statement
    B’nai B’rith is an international Jewish organization committed to the security and continuity of the Jewish people and the State of Israel, defending human rights, combating anti-Semitism, bigotry and ignorance, and providing service to the community on the broadest principles of humanity. Its mission is to unite persons of the Jewish faith and to enhance Jewish identity through strengthening Jewish family life and the education and training of youth, broad-based services for the benefit of senior citizens, and advocacy and action on behalf of Jews throughout the world.
    About
    Founded in 1843, B’nai B’rith International is universally recognized as one of the world’s largest and oldest Jewish human rights, community action, and humanitarian organizations. A constant source of innovation and charity for populations around the world, B’nai B’rith has founded hospitals, orphanages, senior housing communities, disaster relief campaigns, libraries, anti-hatred programs, and countless other initiatives in the public interest. B’nai B’rith is also a tireless advocate for Israel and the Diaspora in a variety of governmental and political arenas. With more than 180,000 members and affiliates in more than 50 countries, B’nai B’rith truly spans the globe in its efforts to make Jewish communities better for all their inhabitants.”
    read more here: http://tinyurl.com/yx2nex
    AND PISSED OFF A$$HOLE–
    CHILL THE F%&K OUT!
    …and talk about not rebutting arguments! look in the mirror old man! your “dancing israelis” mean NOTHING. but it says ALOT about you! what i see are a bunch of vague news clippings about a non-event. but, ohhh… they’re israelis!!! let’s “rip their intestines out” as your friend carrol says. surely they must be murderous, genocide committing, false flag, terrorist planning devils! right, POA?!
    …and pauline’s anti-semitism is CLEAR AS DAY!
    American free press isn’t anti-semitic?!?! c’mon, pops, don’t insult our intelligence and demean this blog!!!
    by the way, i’ve got a busy stretch coming and i don’t have the time or the inclination to further respond to this thread.
    be well and see you soon.
    open your eyes

    Reply

  29. Pissed Off American says:

    Winnepeger, who has been shown, irrefutably to be a liar who has misrepresented himself here, now says that the link about the five dancing Israeli’s “is bullshit innuendo, not news.”
    Yet every piece of information contained in the link is backed up by sourcing, which includes ABC, Fox News, CNN, and the actual press statements of various governmental agencies.
    Note that once again, this asshole Winipegger jumps into the debate with NO CREDIBLE REBUTTAL or substantive argument. Instead, once again, he just launches personal attacks on myself, Carroll, and now Pauline.
    If anyone is “pissing on threads” as Carroll has been accused of doing by one of Winnepegger’s “identities”, it is this lying idiot Winnipeger, who can’t even keep track of his own bullshit, resulting in a dishonesty that is embarrassingly transparent.
    Perhaps the insipid little pissant troll will someday gift us with an actual rebuttal based on facts and sourcing, but such a likelyhood is highly doubtful, considering “its” posting history.

    Reply

  30. MP says:

    I can’t speak to whether ADL was founded by BB or whether they still have direct organizational ties. But here is a fuller excerpt of their mission statement:
    “”The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.”
    I wonder if Pauline (or others) have a problem with this?
    Here’s a snippet from ADL’s own online history, which shows the BB connection such as it is, though frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with ADL being connected to BB–do you Pauline?
    It was in this atmosphere that the Anti-Defamation League was established in 1913 by a lawyer and fearless visionary by the name of Sigmund Livingston. Starting with only two desks in Livingston’s Chicago office, $200 and the sponsorship of the Independent Order of B’nai B’rith, Livingston spelled out the League’s ambitious, compelling mission: “to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience, and if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. . . to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike. . . put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.”
    So here’s the bit Wikipedia somehow left out… “an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.”
    BTW, I hold no brief for right wingers in Israel or here, especially religious ones. I don’t know if Nader’s judgement is correct as a matter of fact, but I do believe Israel could be doing a lot more to bring peace. Whether Hamas or Hezbollah is interested in peace is another question to which I don’t have the answer. I do believe–because they aren’t shy about saying so in explicit terms–that members of Hamas and Hezbollah don’t simply want a homeland for Palestinians, they want the destruction of Israel. Again, because they have said so in no uncertain terms. So naturally, I find it hard to support them.

    Reply

  31. pauline says:

    MP:
    I try to further a serious discussion here with actual sources (wikipedia in this case) to openly show your apologist buddie, winnipeger, that his last post was 110% wrong, and what do you offer in return?
    I go back to a Ralph Nader interview shortly after the election on Democracy Now! that both of you will certainly find “fault” with. When are you two going to start showing some actual sources instead of bold, misplaced speculation and opinion? Are you planning on turning Ralph Nader into the ADL? hmm?
    AMY GOODMAN: What about what’s happening in the Middle East, in Israel, Palestine, Lebanon? The latest attack on Beit Hanun has killed something like eighteen people, thirteen of one family. You certainly spoke out over the Israeli bombing of Lebanon. Will this ever become a major issue in the US Congress?
    RALPH NADER: Certainly the Democrats are not going to make it a major issue. Nancy Pelosi and others have been with the pro-Israeli lobby for years. Certainly Bush and Cheney aren’t. They don’t understand that the greatest move toward national security in our country and in the so-called effort against terrorism would be to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The majority of both people would like a two-state solution. There are extremists in Israel that would like to continue to dominate the West Bank and harass Gaza and block an exit of the people there for traveling and for export of goods. So it’s just –it’s now a steady state, destruction every day of innocent people, as you say, thirteen in one family. The Israeli military know how to pacify Gaza. They know they could take over that town, where these primitive rockets that are wildly inadequate are fired. But it serves the interest of certain political interests in Israel to continue this kind of conflict.
    This is an eminently resolvable conflict. There’s a lot of former Israeli military and intelligence people who know how to do it, people in the Knesset who know what needs to be done. But as long as the US basically says to whoever is in charge, “You can do whatever you want over there, and we’ll still pump $3 – $4 billion and cluster bomb weapons, etc.,” there’s not going to be a resolution. As long as there’s no resolution, there’s going to be an inflammation increasing all over the Islamic world, and our national security will be compromised.

    Reply

  32. MP says:

    Yes, I have to agree with you Winnipeger: Pauline seems to be IN FAVOR of hate. Or she doesn’t want hate to be labeled as hate, but rather as a “different point of view” or even “the truth” as god-fearing Christians see it.
    She seems to oppose the stated aims of the ADL which is, as she quoted, “to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people.” Why would anyone oppose this unless they were in favor of hatred of Jews? Moreover ADL has worked to eradicate hatred of ALL minority groups, not just Jews.
    Pauline illustrates how anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism and a false love of a false freedom often intermingle.

    Reply

  33. pauline says:

    winnipeger wrote:
    “i’d ask you to get your facts straight”
    Nice try, but I’m certain you will claim that wikipedia is somehow wrong here. If not, then write them your own version and see how long others allow your misguided facts to remain on wikipedia.
    “The Anti-Defamation League (or ADL) is an organization founded by B’nai B’rith in the United States whose stated aim is “to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League

    Reply

  34. winnipeger says:

    what a glutton for punishment you are pauline.
    reprinting reverand ted pike, huh? you really do plumb the depths for your “info.” it’s pathetic really.
    i didn’t make it past the first paragraph before i found a significant factual error:
    the ADL is NOT affilitated with b’nai brith. they are completely autonomous organizations.
    i’d ask you to get your facts straight, but i know that may prove nearly impossible for you

    Reply

  35. pauline says:

    “Democrat Control Means Hate Bill Will Pass”
    For the past eight years, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith has tried unsuccessfully to pass its Orwellian federal “anti-hate” bill. It has failed largely for one reason: Republican control of Congress.
    Repeatedly, Republican opponents of their hate bill, such as Rep. Roy Blunt and Sen. Bill Frist have been able, with Republican congressional backing, to block passage.
    With Democrats now in control, such freedom-saving clout no longer exists. ADL’s federal thought crimes bill, “The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act,” will be reintroduced soon after January 1. Since no Democrat in Congress has ever voted against the hate bill, it will pass. Pres. Bush has said he will sign a “modified” hate bill. If he does, free speech in America will quickly come to an end.
    http://www.rense.com/general74/HATEBILL.HTM

    Reply

  36. winnipeger says:

    pauline, pauline, pauline.
    how do you think it makes you look when you post content from americanfreepress.net?
    silly? stupid? embarrassed? intellectually insecure?
    americanfreepress.net is a compendium of garbage masquerading as news. not unlike the national enquirer or any other “rag.”
    but hey, if you’re interested in reading about bogus, zionist conspiracies, go for it. if so, i also suggest “the protocols of the elders of zion.”
    pauline, POA, and carroll represent the worst that this blog and community has to offer:
    unbridled anger, intellectual laziness, and blatant anti-semitism.

    Reply

  37. winnipeger says:

    POA:
    c’mon, kid. the link above is bullshit innuendo, not news.
    5 twenty-something israelis working for moisheh’s (a large moving company in nyc) arrested on a rooftop in jersey for:
    “puzzling behavior. They are said to have had been caught videotaping the disaster and shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery.”
    and what’s really damning? they were filming the burning towers?! oh the horror. half of new york city was filming the burning towers that horrible day. and yes, emotion is emotion. anger. horror. digust and humor are all natural reactions to disaster.
    but to make such inflammatory accusations, as you do when you allege israeli complicity in the september 11 attacks, is WELL beyond reason.
    and yes, it’s very hard to take anything that someone who would continue to diseminate such bullshit says seriously.

    Reply

  38. winnipeger says:

    POA wrote:
    “Take a moment to consider the ramifications of Israeli complicity in a “modern Pearl Harbor” that set the stage for the invasion of Iraq. If complicit with high ranking members of the United States government, can you imagine the pressure that could be brought to bear on those members to adhere to the desires of Israel? Blackmail, I believe it is called.”
    what are you talking about here, POA? are you insinuating that israel played a part in orchestrating the september 11 attacks?!

    Reply

  39. Mickey says:

    Arrgh! I just don’t get it. Why would Bush and Cheney go to this much trouble to do something absolutely nobody wants them to do – like push John Bolton? It just seems like either the height of arrogance, or part of some super-devious plot they’re cooking up. Maybe just beating them in the midterm elections isn’t enough, because there’s absolutely no clear rational reason for them to be doing this. I suggest that Congress refuse to recess until the new Congress is sworn in. You can’t make a recess appointment if there’s no recess! No matter what their reasons for pushing this thing, Bush and Cheney need to be stopped by whatever means necessary. They just cannot stand for anyone to say “no” to their assertion of absolute power. And John Bolton is a blight!
    Somewhere, we need to say a “no” that they can’t get around without being impeached. Bolton’s appointment is as good a place as any…

    Reply

  40. pauline says:

    ISRAEL LOBBY SAYS PENTAGON “INFILTRATED”
    By Michael Collins Piper
    http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/pentagon__infiltrated_.html

    Reply

  41. MP says:

    POA: “Take a moment to consider the ramifications of Israeli complicity in a “modern Pearl Harbor” that set the stage for the invasion of Iraq. If complicit with high ranking members of the United States government, can you imagine the pressure that could be brought to bear on those members to adhere to the desires of Israel? Blackmail, I believe it is called.”
    Are you saying that Israel was complicit in the 9/11 bombings?
    If so, in what ways?
    And what factual support do you have that assertion?

    Reply

  42. MNPundit says:

    Both sides will keep on saying “Bipartisan” the next two years and that’s fine.
    Dems should be smart enough to know that George Bush hates them and respond accordingly to his actions.

    Reply

  43. dweb says:

    Hate to say I told you so Steve….but I just knew in my gut that the white house would not, could not let this lay fallow. They HATE to lose, whether it be Social Security, ANWR or Bolton. Like the Monty Python knight with no arms and legs, they keep crawling toward THEIR goal, regardless of what others think.
    New bipartisanship in the wake of the elections? Hell, the luncheon coffee wasn’t even lukewarm after the lovemaking with Nancy Pelosi before they were in the Rose Garden pushing everything from Bolton to warrantless wiretapping to offshore oil drilling AND promising to take up Social Security again after the next session of Congress convenes.
    Sure it is totally out of touch with reality, but hey…that’s what got them to where they are today. Out of favor, out of power and out of options.

    Reply

  44. Frank says:

    Bush once again folds to the desires of Israel in renominating Bolton. Israel needs an extraordinary Israel loving champion like Bolton to defend it in the UN security council, after Israel bombs Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities. I wrongly thought it would happen before the midterm election. The amplification of legacy legacy legacy is now the primary meme in all of Bush’s actions. He needs a widened war to wallow in, so as to perpetuate his boasting and cherished title of “war president”. Phasing out the troops in Iraq diminishes that title, altho Afghanstan is no slouch in supporting that self proclaimed title.
    The surprising words in Bush’s weekly address:
    “Whatever your opinion of the outcome, all Americans can take pride in the example our democracy sets for the world by holding elections even in a time of war.”
    reveals much. If ever a chilling revelation of what lies in Bush’s mind it is in that statement.
    As usual for Bush’s lack of perspicacity, the remark ignores the melieu in which the Iraqi elections were held.

    Reply

  45. Pissed Off American says:

    Here we have the lying piece of shit, Tony Snow, continuing to advance pure unadulterated KNOWN horseshit today at the press briefing..
    “MR. SNOW: And furthermore — no, in Iraq. That’s right. They’re trying — in Iraq you had a situation where you had a dictator who was contributing to the terror network, and who in the process was murdering hundreds of thousands of his own people.”
    If you read the transcript of today’s briefing, and you have a reasonable amount of brain cells, (more than two), you can see that these lying fuckers are treading water furiously. I am ENRAGED that Pelosi and Conyers have taken such a conciliatory tone towards these criminals. If you are an American citizen of even moderate patriotism, Tony Snow’s waffling, desembling, and downright LYING should prove to you, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that they are a DANGER to our Democracy, and should be IMMEDIATELY removed from office.
    Read it and weep…….
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061113-4.html

    Reply

  46. Pissed Off American says:

    I see a lot of people here pondering the reasons for this tenacious campaign to keep Bolton in his seat at the UN. Perhaps the bunch of you should consider the possibility that it is simply a matter of Israel squeezing White House balls.
    Take a moment to consider the ramifications of Israeli complicity in a “modern Pearl Harbor” that set the stage for the invasion of Iraq. If complicit with high ranking members of the United States government, can you imagine the pressure that could be brought to bear on those members to adhere to the desires of Israel? Blackmail, I believe it is called.
    “Conspiracy theory”??? Well, take a look at the last six years. Six years ago would you have believed that this nation would have invaded a soveriegn nation, based on KNOWN LIES??? Would you have believed that Habeaus Corpus would be flushed down the crapper? Would you have believed we would be TORTURING HUMAN BEINGS? Would you have believed that our so called “Representative Government” would have abandoned an entire city to hurricane Katrina?
    http://cnnexposed.com/story.php?story=24
    CNN editors pull Palestinian quotes, replace with US
    CNN editors replaced all Palestinian quotations with quotes from US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton and the Isaraeli military, in its story ‘U.S. vetoes U.N. condemnation of Israel’s Gaza strikes’. The replacement article begins with the exact same wording as the original, but all Palestinian remarks are gone.
    Posted Nov 12, 2006 05:23 PM PST

    Reply

  47. sam1 says:

    Could this be a game of chicken? It should be apparent that the Administration cares little for the law.

    Reply

  48. Pissed Off American says:

    Cindy Sheehan: Open Letter to Reps Pelosi and Conyers; We the People are Setting the Table Now
    Submitted by BuzzFlash on Mon, 11/13/2006 –
    by Cindy Sheehan
    Dear Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Conyers,
    I am writing this open letter to you both on the day after Veteran’s Day. A day that has so much more meaning to me since my son Casey was KIA in Iraq for absolutely no reason but to line the pockets of the war machine. I cried in front of his symbolic tombstone at Arlington Northeast in Philadelphia and I dreamed of him before I awakened. Casey’s “tombstone” was planted in the ground directly across from Liberty Hall which was the birth place of our Republic. How tragic it was to see 2842 tombstones of our brave young people who have been killed by people who are trampling all over our Constitution and making a mockery out of the separations of power and the original intent of that document. 2842 citizens who were willing to volunteer for service and were killed by people who lied to the world to send them to invade and occupy a country in a war of aggression that has killed almost a million Iraqi citizens. How tragic it is that you both, our newly elected Democratic leadership are already talking about abrogating their Constitutional responsibilities, again.
    We the people are shocked that you two are already stridently saying over and over again that impeachment is “off the table.” Since the historic Nov. 7th elections, I have talked to a boat-load of Americans who want impeachment on the table. We activists worked hard to make these elections about national issues, like the illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq, and the culture of corruption that, especially you, Ms. Pelosi have been railing against for months now. And you, Mr. Conyers, have already written a brilliant and detailed indictment of BushCo. We the people are definitely puzzled by your rhetoric.
    We the people put the Democrats back into power because we want to see a change in this country and a rejection of politics as usual. We want politics as unusual. We want to see the issue of impeachment and a speedy and safe withdrawal of our troops from Iraq de-politicized and brought into the realm of “right and wrong” where these issues belong, not “right and left.”
    We the people are here to tell you that we are the ones that are going to be setting the table, now. For too many years, we have allowed you people, who are just like us and elected by us and from us, to tell us what the agenda will be. Like I told George in a recent letter to him (no response yet, hmm), a sleeping giant has been awakened in this country and we are not falling asleep again just because the Democrats, only with grassroots involvement and commitment, are back in power in Congress.
    It turns our stomachs when you talk about “working” with the Republicans. First of all, these people have allowed BushCo free rein in committing their high crimes and misdemeanors and crimes against humanity. Why would you want to work with murderers, liars, and crooks? When one works with criminals, one becomes complicit and culpable for those crimes. We elected you all to be different, not more of the same.
    Secondly, and more importantly, BushCo have openly committed egregious crimes which they have all admitted to. The question really isn’t: should they be impeached, but why haven’t they been impeached, removed from office and criminally charged and tried for these crimes, yet? I believe that when Congressional Representatives and Senators are sworn into office they take an oath to protect the constitution, not to protect, aid, and abet criminals. The investigation and eventual rubber stamp to begin impeachment proceedings against Nixon was a bi-partisan effort and Nixon wasn’t even investigated for the level of crimes that BushCo should be investigated for.
    We realize that you have a tremendous and daunting task before you both. We know for six years that your governmental body has been busy giving its power away to a maniac who has abused and misused that power so incompetently and tragically. However, to say that impeachment can’t be one of the issues that Congress begins immediate work on is not giving you all enough credit. We know that you can do it! We have confidence in your abilities. Impeachment has been done before in our country and it has never before been so urgent.
    How many times has George said that the troops aren’t coming home while he is president? How many times has BushCo lied to us and admitted those lies? Or been caught in those lies? How many people have they killed for greed of money and power and how many lives have been destroyed by them? How many laws have BushCo broken and admitted to breaking? How many people have they physically and mentally wounded by torture and by sending our brave young people wrongly to Iraq and not supporting them when they get there? How much longer will you allow them to violate and desecrate everything that we hold dear as Americans and human beings?
    We the people demand that you do your duties as officers and protectors of our Constitution and we demand that you do your duties as members of humanity to call a halt to the crimes against humanity of the Bush regime.
    When the 110th Congress is seated on January 3rd, we the people, who also have a duty to our Constitution (We the People is the first line) and a duty to humanity will be walking the halls of your offices to tell you what our agenda is and what we want on the table.
    I admire and respect both of you and I know you will do the right thing, but you better heed the will of we the people, or we will find other people who will. I hope you do believe that we want you to represent us and not the special interests of the war machine.
    We the people are serious about true change this time and we are willing to walk, work, sit, stand, write, travel, sweat, freeze, be arrested, and scream for these changes.
    Impeachment and removal from office are not for the squeamish or faint of heart, but we are neither of those things. We are all brave and (p)(m)atriotic Americans who realize that healing of the political divide that has characterized the Bush regime will only begin when our young people and the people of Iraq see justice for all of the death and misery that they have afflicted humanity with. Our children who have been sent to early graves or have to live the rest of their lives with PTSD or missing limbs, and the people of Iraq (not to mention the victims of Katrina) are crying out for this justice. Justice is meted out everyday in our world and if BushCo are not brought to justice then justice loses its meaning and effectiveness.
    Do it for Casey, do it for his buddies, do it for the people of Iraq, do it for the people who were devastated by Katrina, do it to bring legitimacy back to Congress and our Constitution, do it to raise our reputation in the international community, do it just because it is the right thing to do.
    See you on January 3rd.
    Peace soon,
    Cindy Sheehan
    Activists can contact the potential Madam Speaker at:
    sf.nancy@us.mail.gov
    and the potential Chairperson of the Judiciary Committee, Hon. John Conyers, or your personal Congressional Representative at:
    http://www.house.gov/writerep/
    A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

    Reply

  49. Pissed Off American says:

    “Perhaps the Neocons should all infiltrate Tehran with explosive belts and do what’s best for their worldview, i.e. take matters into their own hands instead of being a bunch of ninnies sitting around pontificating in togas and pink panties while drinking scotch, smoking stogies, and pinching the asses of young male pages?”
    Posted by God
    Oh my. Yet another poster that speaks my language. Well said, God.

    Reply

  50. EasyRider says:

    It has been floated that John Bolton may be appoint to some lower level position to bypass the Senate.
    This would be a clear violation of Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution:
    He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
    Thus a clear and blatant violation of the President’s Oath of Office; Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution:
    Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
    That too is an Impeachable Offense.

    Reply

  51. ciao!ciuck says:

    Interesting indeed. It certainly seems that Bush is setting up some for some reaction, but what? For starters, he is making it clear that he doesn’t have to be bipartisan. But when the appointment is nixed, he can then take to blaming the Democrats for not being “bipartisan”. War? I don’t think that’s going to happen with Gates as SecDef (but I guess Bush could go ahead with it just for spite). Kathleen raises another interesting possibility: The UN could decide to not accept Bolton’s credentials. (Bush could then respond that the UN is no longer pertinent anyway.) He can’t accommodate the Dems on this or anything else, because he will not want to be called a wimp. Wouldn’t that be the ultimate insult.
    Bottom line: Bush could be very dangerous right now.

    Reply

  52. pauline says:

    Easy E wrote:
    “Bolton is what Cheney’s neo-cabal needs to help facilitate attack on Iran in reshaping entire Mideast. With Israeli/Olmert threats intensifying, Bush calling for global isolation of Iran and the ever-present influence of “The Lobby” on Congress (both Dems & GOP), is it any surprise that Bolton is being promoted so hard by these criminals?”
    I think Wayne Madsen gave us important details over the weekend —
    November 10/11/12, 2006 — According to Washington insiders, there are moves afoot to dump Vice President Dick Cheney and replace him with either John McCain or Rudolph Giuliani prior to the 2008 presidential election. Whoever succeeds Cheney will be able to campaign for the presidency with the perks that come with being an incumbent Vice President.
    Since the increasingly-besieged Cheney has signaled he has no intention of voluntarily stepping down, the strategy by the Bush camp may be to force him out by presenting evidence before Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald that it was Cheney who was responsible for the compromise of CIA non-proliferation covert officer Valerie Plame Wilson and her Brewster Jennings & Associates cover firm.
    Observers note the unusual professional relationship between Fitzgerald and Karl Rove’s defense attorney Robert Luskin. Insiders believe that Fitzgerald may be proffered a carefully crafted deal by Luskin whereby Rove will testify to Cheney’s primary role in the outing of Mrs. Wilson and her firm. The sealed indictment of Rove will then be retired permanently. If such a deal is worked out, Fitzgerald may then offer a deal to Lewis I. “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s former Chief of Staff, to also testify against Cheney. With such double-barreled testimony, President Bush will then be compelled to ask Cheney for his resignation or face a very nasty and public indictment.
    Cheney is next on the chopping block.
    The game plan appears to be what DC insider Sally Quinn foresaw in her Washington Post op-ed last month, an article that suggested she has spoken extensively to a Donald Rumsfeld who was aware of his impending firing. The op-ed stated that Rumsfeld would not be the scapegoat for Iraq and planned to resign shortly after the election. Quinn, seemingly channeling Rumsfeld, stated that after Rumsfeld left, there will be only two scapegoats left: Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. The article concluded by asking which person would be served up as the official scapegoat for Iraq.
    This editor wrote, “based on the arrival of James Baker and a coterie of George H. W. Bush old hands on the scene to bail out Dubya, it is clear that the Bush family does not intend to allow one of its own to be declared scapegoat.”
    With word from White House sources that Cheney was opposed to the sacking of his old mentor Rumsfeld and even more resistant to the naming of Bush family loyalist Robert Gates to take his place, it is clear that Cheney does not want to be placed in a position of exposure. However, even Cheney neo-con allies like Richard Perle and Ken Adelman, sensing that Cheney is the designated scapegoat, have bellowed about the Iraq war being a mistake and are now distancing themselves from the Cheney group, once the most powerful operating cell within the Bush administration.

    Reply

  53. Marcia says:

    I can’t help thinking they are trying to create a tempest in a teapot so they can carry out dirty deeds behind the washhouse.
    At this particular moment an operation with Bolton for pure stubborness is a wild idea even for them, so why would they decide such an action now ? They may want everyone to be occupied with this appointment to control the agenda or to provoke a conflict on presidential power on this subject rather that some other, or they could be using it as a stalling process for some other operation.
    With Iraq, the election etc. Bolten cannot possibly be the most important item on the list.
    Their prime obsessive objectives have always been control and power–will they admit or accept any reduction? This whole Bolton idea seems insane.
    Is Syria the target? Wasn’t that the original plan, Iraq-Syria-Iran?

    Reply

  54. pauline says:

    from The Jerusalem Post back in March, 2006 —
    “Bolton’s tough remarks on Iran were welcomed warmly by the members of AIPAC, an organization that has made fighting Iran’s nuclear ambitions one of its top priorities. Its annual policy conference will deal with ways to convince the US lawmakers and administration to remain tough on Iran and to lead the world effort to stop Teheran’s nuclear project.”
    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395541402&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

    Reply

  55. God says:

    Easy E: Appears that stage continues to be set for “War On Iran”.
    War on Iran may be kind of difficult, though, without the support and interest of the US military which just put Sect Rumsfeld through the political equivalent of the `Blood Eagle’ .
    Judging by the well-timed leaks of super juicy material, it is clear that US military has had enough of the Neocon bullshit about transforming the ME.
    Perhaps the Neocons should all infiltrate Tehran with explosive belts and do what’s best for their worldview, i.e. take matters into their own hands instead of being a bunch of ninnies sitting around pontificating in togas and pink panties while drinking scotch, smoking stogies, and pinching the asses of young male pages?

    Reply

  56. Dan Kervick says:

    I’m inclined to agree with those who think this portends military action against Iran – sooner rather than later: before the new Congress is sworn in. Bush wnats to keep the nomination barely alive until then, and then is counting on the fact that currently anti-Bolton forces will want a aggressive and uncompromisingly hawkish voice in the UN wants the bombs start falling.

    Reply

  57. Dalivision says:

    This appointment is strictly political. This would allow Bush to submit Santorum as UN Representative to keep him in the spotlight for a possible WH run and to politicize the dems actions and what to expect for the next two years.

    Reply

  58. Kathleen says:

    The UN General Assembly has the option of rejecting John Bolton’s credentials. The UN Charter requires that member nations appoint representatives that uphold the UN Charter, for starters and secondly the UN Charter specifically requires that representatives of member nations do not make false statements to the International body. John Bolton fails both those criteria, in my book and I think we should register our objections to the UN Credentials Committee and to the Secrtetary General of the UN, if he is forced down our throats.

    Reply

  59. Carroll says:

    Doesn’t matter. No one any longer gives a damn about Bolton’s US “pronouncements” at the UN.
    Arab League to US, “Fuck Off”
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061112/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictgaza

    Reply

  60. Easy E says:

    Bolton is what Cheney’s neo-cabal needs to help facilitate attack on Iran in reshaping entire Mideast. With Israeli/Olmert threats intensifying, Bush calling for global isolation of Iran and the ever-present influence of “The Lobby” on Congress (both Dems & GOP), is it any surprise that Bolton is being promoted so hard by these criminals?
    Also, see article “Cheney’s Revenge”
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15582.htm
    “The US and NATO countries have recently amassed the largest military armada in the Middle East…”
    Appears that stage continues to be set for “War On Iran”.

    Reply

  61. Corinne says:

    I wouldn’t worry about Bolton not getting paid. His BFF Pamela from Atlas Shrugs is one step ahead:
    “Or, what do you say about taking up a collection so that he [Bolton]can take the job but not get paid, which I understand is an actual option, and then have the collected funds go to him. I bet we could raise the money if we had to. I’ll have to check the legality, of course.”
    Via tbogg, who’s already looking forward to the bake sale (http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2006/11/bake-sale-diplomacy-brownies-are.html)

    Reply

  62. Mrs. K8 says:

    Hmmm.
    What could this stubbornness portend, but that an attack on Iran and/or Syria is still in the works? That the neo-cons have not REALLY been de-fanged.
    Hmmm.
    Bolton has to be definitively defeated, once and for all time. Nothing he does serves the true national interest.
    Thanks, Steve, for staying on top of this. Will be checking back often to see if there’s anything we citizens can do to help in the fight against the insanity of Bolton.

    Reply

  63. john o. says:

    W was for bipartisanship before he was against it. Still can’t understand why he insists on pursuing this fight at this time as to this nominee.

    Reply

  64. Anwar al-Solzhenitsyn says:

    Bolton, such a bizarre curiosity. Why would George Bush be so enamored of Bolton? Maybe it’s just that Delirious Caesar can’t take “no” for an answer. Maybe Bolton has some sneaky inside information that he’s holding over Bush’s teeny tiny head? Maybe Bolton is the “secret lover” of Condo the diplomatic cannibal? Hmmm, according to the “inside source” working deep covert secret in Orrin Hatch’s office, this is in fact the case.
    That does explain a lot of it.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *