Talk:John Bolton/Archive 1

message: Can the current administration have someone in this position that will push their views to the end, like putting pressure on others that disagree with their point of view, or must they have someone that the Senate would consider Civil and Diplomatic? The purpose of advice and consent does not give the Senate the right to dictate policy and method. While not stated in the constitution directly, one can ascertain that the intent is that they have the right to withhold consent only if there are definitive reasons, I.e. criminal activity. They may advise, however, this may be used or discarded by the President. They ultimate remedy is trough the ratification of treaties, requiring a 2/3 majority.
Ultimately, it was never the intent to use this procedure as a bully pulpit for political McCarthyism, ala Bork. The character assassination, by using innuendo and false claims to augment their arguments needs to stop. And Senators who have not taken the time to participate in procedure should not hold up the process, using their lack of knowledge of the facts as their excuse. Not only are the statements that a Senator make important, but their vote is critical. A negative vote without justification that meets the Constitutional intent should likewise be considered as a violation of their responsibilities. The current situation is a political ploy that is destroying the fiber of the constitution.
If the Senate wants more power, there is a legitimate method for them to gain it. The Constitution allows for Amendments. However, no Amendment viewed as a power grab would ever have a chance of approval. But there is a method of dealing with Senators that are destroying the fabric. Elections, were an open discussion of these techniques are discussed openly, will give citizens in a Senators State, an up or down choice, as to whether they wish this character assassination to continue for no more than political gain, or, if it could mean political loss. 
To sum up the facts as I see them:
1.	John Bolton (JB) is known to express his opinion, loudly and without sugar coating. Some don’t like what he says, others do.
2.	When undercut, JB fights back, going to extremes to make sure that he comes out on top, although not always successfully.
3.	The UN has problems, but has the potential to be a great organization.
4.	The present Administration is in charge of foreign negotiations, per the Constitution.
5.	The Administration has the right to put a straight talking fighter at the UN to gain a more favorable bargaining position, whether the minority likes the Administrations positions or appointees. 
6.	The President will finish his term in January 2009, due to the Constitution, regardless of who holds the post at the UN.
7.	Historically, the Senate has allowed the President to fill positions with advice. Consent was not denied based on political orientation. (I don't have the actual history, but if someone could post previous Ambassador rejections, with reasons, it would be appreciated.)
8.	There is freedom in speech in the US.
9.      It's the Senate's responsibility as a whole to vote, not just a committee’s.
Vince
:You seem really angry, but I'm not sure why.  If you have specific factual errors in the article, pointing them out would be great.  Most of those facts seem to be in the article already.  By the way, you can sign your posts by typing "~" three times or four times if you also want a timestamp.  Enjoy Wikipedia, Dave (talk) 13:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Dave,
Sorry about that. I just wanted to list the facts. Not really angry, just want to see the process move forward.  Thanks,  Vince 14:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right of the President to Appoint Ambassadors and State Department Positions