Bush names Bolton as U.N. ambassador
Recess appointment ends Senate impasse over nomination

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ending a five-month standoff over a controversial nomination, President Bush on Monday used a recess appointment to name John Bolton the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

"This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about U.N. reform," Bush said from the Roosevelt Room at the White House.

The move thwarts Senate Democrats who had blocked Bolton's nomination in a dispute over documents and accusations that Bolton doesn't have the temperament for the nation's top U.N. post.

"A majority of United States senators agree that he's the right man for the job," Bush said. "Yet because of partisan delaying tactics by a handful of senators, John was unfairly denied the up-or-down vote that he deserves."

Senate GOP leaders twice failed to break a Democratic filibuster and move Bolton's nomination to a floor vote.

Although the split was largely along party lines, one Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, joined Democrats in opposing Bolton's nomination.

Under the Constitution, the president has the power to make temporary appointments without Senate confirmation when Congress goes into recess. Lawmakers began their current break Friday.

A recess appointment puts Bolton at the United Nations until at least January 2007.

Standing beside Bush on Monday, Bolton said he was "profoundly honored."

"I am prepared to work tirelessly to carry out the agenda and initiatives that you [Bush] and Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice direct," Bolton said. "We seek a stronger, more effective organization true to the ideals of its founders and agile enough to act in the 21st century.

"It will be a distinct privilege to be an advocate for America's values and interests at the U.N."

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, criticized the recess appointment.

"The abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House continues," Kennedy said in a statement.

"It's bad enough that the administration stonewalled the Senate by refusing to disclose documents highly relevant to the Bolton nomination. It's even worse for the administration to abuse the recess appointment power by making the appointment while Congress is in this five-week recess. It's a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility at the U.N."

Before the official announcement, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, defended the president's move. "It would have been better had he been confirmed, but under the circumstances, everybody at the U.N. will know that he's the president's man," Kyl said.

"Yes, he's a tough guy, but I think they appreciate the fact that the president felt at this time in the U.N.'s history, when it could use a little tough love, John Bolton is the kind of guy to do the job that the president wants done there."

Hints of recess appointment
Democrats have said Bolton, while an undersecretary at the State Department, lacked the diplomatic skills for the post, arguing he dismissed the value of the United Nations and often intimidated subordinates until they agreed with his viewpoint.

A former colleague testified in April that Bolton was "a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy."

Senate Democrats held up the nomination after the White House refused, on grounds of executive privilege, to provide records of communications intercepts Bolton sought from the National Security Agency when he was the State Department's point man on arms control.

In recent days, Democrats also complained that Bolton gave the Senate false information.

The State Department last week acknowledged that Bolton incorrectly told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a questionnaire that he had not been interviewed as part of any investigation within the past five years.

The department said its inspector general interviewed Bolton as part of a joint probe by the State Department and CIA into alleged attempts by Iraq to procure uranium from Niger.

That admission prompted one of the committee's Democrats, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, to call on Bush to pull Bolton's nomination.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan hinted Friday at a recess appointment, saying it was important to have an ambassador by September, when the U.N.'s General Assembly will meet.

"We need our permanent representative in place at the United Nations at this critical time," he said. "There is an effort under way to move forward on comprehensive reform. We have outlined the comprehensive reforms that we want to see put in place to make sure that the United Nations is an effective multilateral organization."

The United States has been without a permanent representative at the United Nations since January when former Sen. John Danforth resigned to spend more time with his ailing wife. Acting Ambassador Anne Patterson is leading the U.N. mission in New York.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/...ent/index.html

It is VERY clear that only the will of the administration has been served here. Nothing more. This administration doesn't care about the will of the people in the least. If they did, Gore would have been president.

I would say the will of one man and the guys wispering in his ears have been served.

If this is true why did the results of the last poll conducted by Zogby regarding the UN and Americans show that the UN only had a 44% approval rating??????

It would seem to me that the majority of Americans look at the UN with disdain, so why should we not send an Ambassador who holds the same feelings as the majority of the American public????

You say that it is very clear that this appointment only serves the will of the administration, however, when compared to the Zogby poll it shows that it may also be the will of the people. Just because liberals oppose this nomination, does not automatically make this against the will of the people, time and again you seem to forget that a majority of the country voted for the re-election of President Bush.

Just because you and those of you who are like-minded oppose this nomination, there are those like me who support it. The UN needs reforming, over the last decade it has produced one failure after another. The UN food for oil scandal is just another in a long list.

Once again because you are in opposition to this administration, in your view it must be against the will of the people. That is laughable and downright arrogant on your part.

dmk

Well apparently most conservtives are against it too, if not, why the recess appointment? Because they know he'll never get by congress.

Why should we not? If we're in the UN, we're in for a reason and obviously if we're staying, we're staying because we want to. What you just said is ridiculously close minded and counter progressive. This man is clearly not qualified for the job, not even in the minds of the people who are supposed to appoint him. I've heard the Constitution argument from you before, mainly towards judicial activism. Recess appointments? Where's your "stick to the Constitution" argument now?


I think you contradicted yourself in this post. You say, hey, if polls show America doesn't care about the UN, why not send a man with the views that Bolton has towards the UN. Then you go and say the UN needs reforming. If the UN needs reforming, then why the hell did Bush appoint a man who doesn't even believe we should belong to the organization?

In my opinion, I think this game between the left and the right has been going on for way to long and we just need a U.N. ambassador to get things cleaned up.

That's true but that person must be selected very carefully. This person will be our voice to the world.

Article 2 Section 2

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

The Senate wouldnot give an up or down vote. Even with the distinguished Senator from Ohio opposing Bolton, a 50 - 50 vote would then go to the President of the Senate, the Vice President. Bolton would have been confirmed.

I said Americans have a disdain about the UN. I have never proposed the US getting out of it. Bolton holds the same disdain, and that is what is needed for change. Bolton will wind up being even more popular by the time 2007 rolls around and he has to be reconfirmed by the Senate. His take no prisoner attitude, and tell it like it is, will go a long way.

Bolton will be the face of the US in the UN, but President Bush and Secretary of State Rice will be the face of the US to other nations, there is a big difference.

dmk

And you can say that intentionally waiting for the Senate to recess is the same thing as having the power to do so while they are not in session? I don't think you can deny he gave him a recess appointment because he would not have been confirmed in the Senate. How then is the will of the people being served?