Ambassador John Bolton?
According to the AP, next week, President Bush is going to appoint John Bolton as ambassador to the UN. That's right, appoint, without Senate approval. Apparently, it is infact legal for the President to appoint an ambassador on a temporary basis.
I hope that Bush isn't going to do this, because it's crazy. John Bolton could not even get 2/3rds Senate approval. He should not be our ambassador because he does not speak for us. Everybody at the UN knows that he doesn't speak for us, so he isn't going to be very effective.
posted by Marie Antoinette at 12:46 AM
7 Comments:
A recess appoint puts someone in the position so it doesn't go empty for prolonged period, but I wonder if the White House thinks the Senate will approve him later just because "oh, well, he's already there."
True. That is probably Bush's reasoning on this. I just hope that nobody buys it.
I celebrate his entire collection.
Sorry, that's Michael Bolton.
Very funny fp! The only funny thing so far about this eegit being appointed.
Gawd, compared with John Bolton, Michael Bolton is freaking great.
without senate approval, because there was no vote.
maybe you liberals in sunny la la land haven't heard of the oil for food scandal. do a yahoo search.
we needed an UN ambasssador to clean the corrupt house Koffi built.
fools.
In regards to Anon,
'Course I've heard of the oil for food scandal. I know we need an ambassador, I just don't think we need John Bolton. We don't need somebody who hates the UN to represent us at the UN.
Post a Comment
<< Home