This is important that Democrats on the Committee explain what is and is not acceptable, and why. good work by Durbin. We need to see/read/hear more of this.

John Bolton is not trusted by the American people. Nor is Bolton trusted by the international community who understand that he collaborated in falsifying the case for the Bush administration's war in Iraq.

America can and should do better by selecting a stong candidate with proven diplomatic skills; probity in their professional life; and, who is respected by colleagues. Bolton fulfills none of these criteria.

Bolton's "claim-to-fame" is blind loyalty to the Bush gang, and his willingness to pursue whatever "means" are necesssary, irrespective of how dishonest or treasonable, in order to achieve their "ends" even when they result in the death, misery and suffering of innocent human beings.

Bush claimed that we should "err on the side of life"-- yet, Bush erred on the side of death-- with Bolton there to do the dirty work, dredging-up lies to go to war; intimidating underlings who dared to speak the truth; and, undermining those in the U.N. and also the U.S. State Department who sought to protect our national interest.

Bolton is unfit for duty.

"He should not be a part of a Bush administration 50%-plus-one strategy to get controversial nominees in key posts."

I think you've just "named" the Bush strategy for everything: "The 50%+1 Mandate"

Sadly, I am beginnning to fall into the camp that says, Let the administration have it's will, so we can turn around and say Nyaa- Nyaa (or whatever it is we're supposed to say on such occassion as being proven right).
My crappy logic goes further like this: The more the admin. pushes the wrong buttons and still wins the easier to get new officials elected to congress in 2006. They want to kill the fillibuster? Great. It may give a better chance that they become the minority party, then ...whoops, 'Democrats have a simple majority!'.
They want to put someone with no diplomatic skills into one of the most demanding diplomatic roles out there? Great. All the more to show the newspaper clippings come election time. "Folks, we need two party rule. Just look at the inanity of putting that fool Bolton in charge at the UN. Not to mention DeLay and Bankruptcy reform and perpetual war that demands constant yet unprecedented secrecy on our government's part. Not to mention the secret energy plans. Or secret torture camps. Or kowtowing to religious extremists."

I don't like the logic so much - pushing America down so realists can stand up - but the hubris and winning record of this administration in getting what they want are slowly wearing at my synapse. Kill America's position in the world. Kill the middle class in America. Mr. President, you may just be bringing the best reason for a permanent liberal majority than I could have ever expected.

By the way, I only became a registered Democrat in 2004.

“Bolton does not have the confidence of the nation.”

"He should not be a part of a Bush administration 50%-plus-one strategy to get controversial nominees in key posts."

Confidence of the nation? Most people have never heard of John Bolton. The have, however, heard of President Bush---and the polling data show that most trust him on foreign affairs. Moreover, a majority of America’s voters also feel more comfortable with Republicans leading the nation. This political party dominates all of the three elected branches of government, the presidency, the US Senate, and the House of Representatives. Who in hell are the Democrats? Who has time for losers? Sigh, I can sometimes be a very mean person. Do you want to know what Democrats perhaps should fear the most? The odds are that Republicans have locked up the Electoral College and there may never again be another Democrat in the White House.

Is the Bush administration pursuing a strategy of “50%-plus-one?” I sure hope so! This is a compliment. The party in power should do what it can within legal limits to achieve its goals. That’s what winning elections is all about.

David Thomson -

Do you truly believe that "the party in power should do what it can within legal limits to achieve its goals?"

What about the good of the country? This is not a game. If you think it is a game or if you think the party in power has no responsibility other than to achieve its goals then your local school system was seriously deficient in ensuring you had an elementary understanding of civics.

People who go into 'public service' are supposed to be serving the public. That's why it's called 'public service' - get it?

David Thompson,
Unfortunately for you, the president no longer enjoys 50%+1 support of the American people.
And with headlines like: "Wall St. Suffers Worst Day in Two Years" I don't think he'll have many more near that recent high point.

Steve, over at redstate they're saying the vote will be Tuesday, not Thursday. Can you update us on this? Are they rushing the vote to avoid any more explosive disclosures?

We live in a Republic, not a dictatorship as yet, although the Bush gang would like to change that, and are doing so with "legal" [sic] means including the un-patriotic Patriot Act.

Bush's approval ratings are in "free-fall":-- "[O]nly 44 percent approve of the job he's doing, according to a poll released last week by the Associated Press and Ipsos-Public Affairs. Fifty-four percent disapproved of his performance." Source: http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/11396003.htm

Congress is accorded the responsibility to give the President their advice and consent, under the U.S. Constitution, not their "rubber-stamp". This obligation must be taken seriously, and it is clear that Bolton is incompetent to carry out the duties required of a diplomat.

Hopefully, sufficient numbers of citizens (We the People, remember) will express their dissatisifation to Senators Lugar, Hagel and Chafee and the rest of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to give them pause.

http://www.congress.org

In an article entitled "Bush's America not Fascist but National Socialist," author Walter C. Uhler asks: How much more damage will Bush's National Socialism inflict on America and the world before it is tossed on the trash heap of history?

I wonder too. Thanks to Steve for taking on the enormous challenge of opposing John Bolton's confirmation. For all of our sakes, I hope he prevails.

Good god, not another fake post!
"Bush's national socialism" today,
"Zionist Nazis" last night, misattributed to Susan
(last night for sure.
Don't respond to "susan's" last tell---it is almost certainly fake.

“In an article entitled "Bush's America not Fascist but National Socialist," author Walter C. Uhler asks: How much more damage will Bush's National Socialism inflict on America and the world before it is tossed on the trash heap of history?”

Comparing any Republican or Democratic administration with the Nazi Party is utterly ridiculous. I remember will David Rieff’s shock and horror at such vile rhetoric. But this is indeed the mindset of those like the Daily Kos who hold the veto power over the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. One can now more readily understand why this political entity is royally screwed. Sigh, whatever happened to Joseph Lieberman? He would have likely beaten George W. Bush in 2004.

DT,
Once burned, still not shy?
Remember our discussion last night?
Are you in on these fake posts?

The good thing about John Bolton is that he has the right enemies. The bad thing about John Bolton is that he has made the right enemies in the wrong way.
If you steamroll over every opposition, using every hardball tactic at your disposal, and thirst to win no matter what, if you don't play fair (I don't know all these charges are true, I bet some are), if you stick a get-even knife in someone at every chance you get, ... then you make enemies who will hate you for life.
It is why Martha Stewart went to jail. She spent a career steamrolling people, being arrogant, abusing less powerful people ("little people" is the term) and then she misled Congress and lied to prosecutors about having a stop loss order on her Imclone stocks. So when it came time for the system to cut her a break, nobody was ready to stand in front of a truck for her and, in fact, she was absolutely sunk by the testimony of her broker's assistant she had been a jerk to.

Robert Morrow, what do you mean by the right enemies?

Colin Powell, Armitage, 75% of the State Dept, those former ambassadors, the liberals buried in govt. bureaucracy, the UN lovers, the muli-lateralists, the Democrats, the left wing NGOs, Citizens for Global Solutions, the leftist Quakers ...

but his style and tactics are really turning out to be his biggest enemy. That is one opponent you don't want to have.

“DT,
Once burned, still not shy?
Remember our discussion last night?
Are you in on these fake posts?”

I have no idea whether those are Susan’s remarks. Nonetheless, Walter C. Uhler did get his outrageous article published by the Nation magazine. And this publican accurate reflects the attitudes of the far left wing of the Democratic Party.

I'm with DT. The Republicans won the elections which was a confirmation by the American People that they approve of Republican ideology as manifested in our President and the Republican leadership in Congress. It is the Republican ideology that will now be implemented until it is one and the same with being American. Rugged individualism, American know-how, the pioneer spirit, an owership society, absolutely NO socialism, free-wheeling capitalism. This is the only way to become a great nation again after so many years of decay. The people who deserve the best their country has to offer will be rewarded with just that through hard work, while the rest will have to be satisfied with the dregs if they are not up to the task of being responsible people. Economic darwinism, you say? Yup, that what makes a nation great, when the people who are a cut above the rest rule and lead, chosen because they a the fittest to carry forward the nation in its top form. Those who are not so fortunate to be blessed with superior qualities will learn once again to admire those who do; to know that their betters are carrying their nation to greater heights; and to know their place in the hierarchy of men. Also, to call us Nazis is completely off base. We are hard core, no doubt, and we will make you cry. Call us corporatists if you need a label. I'm fine with that, and I'm sure DT would be proud to march under that ideology also, although our true allegiance is to the ideology of the Republican party, the only party that has the best interests of our great nation in mind. GOD BLESS AMERICA!

From reading TWN I have found enough reasons to be convinced that John Bolton has no business representing the United States at the UN. What really has me scratching my head is after the debacle with North Korea is why some genius thought that he deserved this appointment.

This is from an administration that places towing the party line above all else.

I also like the closing paragraph of Durbin's statement "The United Nations is in need of reform, and the United States can be a positive influence in reshaping the UN for the 21st Century." This is a realistic approach, let's use our position of power wisely and kindly.

Conrad,
conraddobling@smashmouth.gov?
Economic darwinism, you say?
I truly feel for you and hope that you manage in your lifetime to acquire all the money that you desire, it would be a just reward.

DT,
I have never heard of Walter Uhrer before.
He is no spokesman for the left. Bill Frist, on the other hand, is the Senate Majority leader, and he is calling for out and out religious war on non-christians.
THAT is scary.

Bring back Andy Young.

Just came across this:--

"Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska signaled Friday that his support for the nomination of John R. Bolton as U.N. ambassador was wavering after new reports that Bolton ordered an intelligence analyst removed from his job." Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bolton16apr16,0,3939442.story?coll=la-home-nation

Please write to Congress http://www.congress.org , particularly Senators Lugar, Hagel and Chafee to request that they reject Bolton.

Thank you Mark for your encouragement and best wishes.

Conrad,

Does the Republican "Economic darwinism" include Halliburton overcharges? It that what you call "hard work"?

I can't answer that question specifically pdub. I'm an ideological purist thinking only about the grand scheme that Republican ideology must impress upon the American People and that the American People by their wise choices wish for themselves. America needs a rebirth, a renaissance of the true spirit that once made this nation great. Those who cheat The People should be punished by the People and if need be with the help of all branches of a right-minded government that strictly follows the Republican ideology that has been given us through the grace of God and his People. Once you understand the righteousness of our freedom loving cause, you will naturally become a willing participant in the transformation of America into the ideal that the Founding Fathers had envisioned for us the U S of A. Have faith in the choice the American People, a wise People beyond their years as a nation. Help with the heavy task to put the nation aright, the People on Nov. 2nd demand that it be done.

conradical,
I wasn't born in time to experience Hitler Youth, so thanks for history lesson.

I think "conrad" is having some fun at some people's expense. Not me. I definitely think we need to head in the direction of Mr. Conrad. It basically sounds beautiful to me.
Charity is fine, but socialism, or forced charity, needs to go. Rugged individualism, freedom, put in reclaim national sovereignty etc. - you need to start writing copy for the White House; they could use thinking like that.

Exactly. Why bridle the boy, Herr Himmler?

Robert Morrow, did you favor invading Iraq?

Here is a little ideological purity for the grand scheme of things: have you ever set out on a bicycle ride and just when you get all hot and sweaty on some deserted back road where you are completely alone, your bike chain breaks, and 1) don't have your tools, 2) you don't have an extra chain, 3) you're alone, 4) you check your cell phone and the battery is dead, 5) i.e. you're all alone without wheels, just your own two feet?

And you realize that you just discovered the meaning of the phrase, "something is only as strong as its weakest link."

The ideological purity of "Conrad", et al, advocates increasing the growth of weak links in favor of strengthening the already limited number of strong links, an ideology that fails to recognize that this country is ONLY as strong as the weakest among us. As a nation, we are only as "great" as the least of us.

It is just the same as the human body. One's health is only as good as its weakness.

A true American patriot wants everyone to gain strength, not just those who "deserve" it.

Alex,
Well stated. One of my favorite quotes is by John Kenneth Galbraith "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness"
No matter how Republicans spin it, it still ends up about greed. I wonder how many of today's conservatives were able to obtain their social status as the result of Roosevelt's New Deal programs or maybe the GI Bill. Funny how a lot of conservatives seem to have a real blind spot when it comes to looking at themselves.

I'm still trying to discern what the "republican ideology" actually is.
It isn't conservatism.
It does seem to have something to do with encouraging great wealth at the expense of middle income wealth. And it has a whole lot to do with debt and deficit spending.
And evangelical Christianity is in there somewhere.
And the refutation of the Constitution seems to be growing.
A little help?

carsick,
I think that it is mostly a John Wayne robber baron persona. You know like Mr. Potter from It'a a Wonderful Life only on steroids.
Just remember that if we're Liberals then we are supposed to bow down in awe of such a manly righteous presence.
p.s. conrad uses a fake email address

Yes, I favored deposing Saddam Hussein. I am a believer in the Bush doctrine of preventive wars. I think Iraq was on the road to becoming a mortal threat to the USA.
Saddam had to go before he became a North Korea.

Hi, Robert Morrow,

Was going to comment a week or two ago that you are very worthwhile to me on this blog even though I disagree with you a lot. You probably are a follower in TX of Ron Paul, and I think you may have mentioned this a while ago, i.e., a libertarian more than anything else, but someone I like because you do have high ethical standards and care about the "little people," i.e., you don't favor war profiteering by corporations or robber barons, i.e., corporations that steal from the government or their workers just to make a buck. But that is the kind of capitalism that is fine with this administration. Capitalism has to be regulated to some degree, and that is not socialism--just common sense. Finding the right balance is where people of good will might differ, but I don't think any of us want to return to the days of child labor, women dying in fires in locked in sweatshops, no labor or minimum wage laws, etc. or of pollution and destruction of our limited natural resources.

If I have misstated your beliefs, please respond, but I think you believe in playing fairly and by the rules.

But I will ask you another hard question, though I don't know your age, something I ask everyone I know who thinks we should have invaded Iraq, i.e., then why aren't you serving, or encouraging your son/daughter/brother/sister/cousin to do so if it is such a noble undertaking as that would be the patriotic thing to do? It is not fair play if only the sons and daughters of the poor serve and risk their lives. And with contractors working for $1000 a day doing jobs that used to be done by regular military, we are a nation hiring others to risk their lives for us, and that not only is ethically wrong but it raises the cost of the military enormously. When U.S. citizenry feels really atttacked and threatned, they volunteer for the military in droves as they did after Pearl Harbor. I don't think many people a couple years ago saw Saddam as an imminent threat. Osama bin Laden was and still is.

Linda,
Bark up at tree as long as you want, but, that coon's outta here.

Ya had ta say it! Just because Mr. Morrow is a conservative African-American, you go and say that. You should be ashamed of yourself. There is no need to make racial slurs against those on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Please keep it civil, and if you have nothing nice to say then its better if you said nothing at all. Thank you.

But Morrow put his finger on it. Who else thinks "preventative war" is a concept of extreme overconfidence and recklessness ?

Thanks, Mark, and that's a great quote. I'll have to borrow it sometime.

hetty,
Clue me in. How do you know someone is of any race, ethnic origin, % of disability, hair color, eye color, height, weight or Any physical property unless you can SEE them, or sometimes talk to them? The expression I stated is a valid expression in reference to what Linda had posted and has nothing to do with race.
I don't recall your name appearing before this post and I suspect someone(you) is playing another dirty trick a la Gordon Liddy and his shining crew. But, just in case you are actually being misguidedly sincere, allow me to explain. Linda asked-more or less-why the people so gung-ho to kill in this country's name don't grab a gun and back up what can be looked upon as cheap rhetoric-you know: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." I have always thought the "why aren't YOU over there?" it a legitimate question and so far the only straight answer I've heard is Dick Cheny's. Of course that goes to his corrupt core. But he probably was honest to a fault.
I don't know if Robert IS Afro-american but if I did know he was I would never have used that expression because back in '68-'70 when I was serving in Viet Nam I looked around for Bush-Cheny and all the neocons and what did I see? I saw a great preponderance of field troops that were black. The level was much oh much higher than the percentage reflected in the the demographics of (white) America. Now, do you think they volunteered to beat the bush any more than the sorry lot(Bush, Cheny, and the neocons) to which I previously referred? Hardly. They were there because their country asked them to be there. I am, and you should be, grateful to them. Does that mean I would be more reluctant of labeling Mr. Morrow a chicken hawk if I knew he was black? Actually, I would. I think black people of this nation have done way more than their share of defending this country considering they largely have been AND STILL ARE treated as second class citizens-if that! It's way beyond time that the privileged white man in this "great" nation contributed to the beneficence of humanity and not its degradation.
So, "if you are going to shoot, Shoot. Don't talk".(Eli Wallach in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly). If you are scared-say "scared"-and make way for the courageous.(And keep your no account opinions real close to your blubbering selves.)

And just in case anyone is still checking this thread, it's a "preemptive" war policy. A "preventive" war would be negated by the fact you just started one!