White House "Concerned" About Bolton Delays
John F. Harris and Robin Wright have a story in the Washington Post this morning that's been a few days in coming. Took a little longer than I thought, but here it is. Headlined with the somewhat boring "Delay in Bolton Vote Concerns White House," it's the subheader that tells the tale: "Administration Fears Postponement May Bring More Public Opposition, New Questions". As I noted last night, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has agreed to hold a vote on Bolton's nomination on May 12, "a delay that Bush administration officials acknowledged yesterday is increasing their anxieties about Bolton's prospects," say Harris and Wright.
According to "Bush administration officials," the White House is concerned that the extra time will "give opponents nearly three weeks to fan public reaction against [Bolton] and to raise new questions about his conservative policy views and alleged bullying management style", as well as debate recent private comments by Colin Powell and former ambassador Tom Hubbard. The Post report says that White House and Senate leadership aides "were nervously canvassing GOP senators, looking for signs of weakening support" on Friday.
In a move clearly designed to send a message to us wayward Republicans who have concerns/oppose the Bolton nomination, VP Cheney on Friday spoke out about his man for New York [Cheney is widely assumed to be Bolton's highest-level patron]. "I have looked at all of the charges that have been made; I don't think any of them stand up to scrutiny," said Cheney, according to the Post piece and another by Douglas Jehl in the New York Times. The LA Times also covers Bolton today.
White House "concern" this weekend. More allegations and questions of Bolton's fitness for duty over the next few days and weeks. Steve Clemons has posted an excellent analysis of what comes next. This isn't over by a long shot, but things just keep looking less rosy for the Bolton choice, and increasingly positive for those who support the nomination of a reasonable and qualified UN Ambassador.
posted by JBD @ 9:18 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I read the "excellent analysis" you recommended. According to this analysis the nearly abusive, immature idiots in our government are pressing the unbalanced, incredible and indecent on this committee to let this nomination be voted upon by the Senate. You are clearly in some sort of bubble. It helps to know that when you say "excellent" you mean "supports my point of view" and not "thorough, unbiased, professional and thought provoking".
Look, if you can find me a "thorough, unbiased, professional and thought provoking" analysis of why John Bolton would make a good UN Ambassador, feel free to post a link. If there's one out there, I'll be happy to read it.
One might wander with a lamp forever looking for an unbiased article on the Bolton nomination. You offer your critics harsh challenges. However I believe that I was able to beat your recommendation in less than 15 minutes: [http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050421-090751-1786r.htm]. Yes, it is in a right paper and not a left, so that will kill it for you right there. From what I see your news and opinion sources are pretty much limited to MSM and left. Also, it pretty much refers to Democratic charges without discussing their merits, so it is not totally balanced. Nevertheless, it does give some credit to Bolton’s critics and presents his candidacy as being more than the crazed antic of a madman.
Well done, and in ten minutes, too ... Austin Bay's column does give some credit to those he calls Bolton's "sincere" critics (which assumes, I guess, that there are "insincere" opponents as well). You're right, it's not totally unbiased, and indeed, finding something that is completely without perspective (a handy euphemism for bias) would likely be impossible.
I get my news from whoever has it, and I read widely from across the political spectrum. I've never made a claim to objectivity ... clearly I have strong viewpoints on things, and making those viewpoints known and available to others who might find them provocative or interesting is the whole point of this little endeavor. I quote from and link to people who are making the same points I am, (if right-wing, or if left-wing, or if from the middle) and I leave it to good people like you to point out the holes in my arguments so that I can defend them against your criticisms.
I'm happy to engage in these exchanges, because I think this is exactly the kind of civic (and civil) dialogue that we're missing in America today.
Post a Comment
<< Home