Sweet R&B at the White House
By Vincent Fiore (08/07/05)
A few weeks ago, there was a bit of a stir over what President Bush listened to over his iPOD while at his ranch in Texas. Artist like Joni Mitchell, Van Morrison, and John Fogerty were some of the president’s favorites. As Joe Levy, deputy editor of Rolling Stone magazine, said: “This is basically boomer rock 'n' roll.”
Still, Crawford, Texas, isn’t the only place that Bush is enjoying some rhythm and blues favorites; he’s tapping his foot to them at the White House as well. There’s plenty of R&B in Washington these days, and the names of the tunes are Roberts and Bolton.
On July 19, 2005, President Bush exercised his authority as the nation’s chief executive officer and nominated Judge John Roberts of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to the Supreme Court of the United States.
On that day, 1,767 days after being sworn into office, Democrats had to come to grips with the fact that they, as individuals and as a party, could not stop the president from making his choice.
Nearly a fortnight later, President Bush appointed John Bolton as his ambassador to the United Nations, thereby sidestepping the Senate. Like the pick of Roberts for the Supreme Court, Bush reminds the minority party in Washington that winning elections is a mandate in itself.
The constitutional right of Bush to make court selections and recess appointments is an enumerated power that is beyond the obstructionism that has been the Democrats principal weapon of choice.
So it is any wonder that, faced with an obstruction in his path in regard to appointing John Bolton, Bush went around the Senate?
For Bolton, it has been a tumultuous five months since being nominated by the president in March of this year. While with the State department, Bolton is credited with moving Libya and Moammar Kadafi to give up its arms programs and nuclear ambitions. Bolton was also key in exposing the network of the world’s premiere arms and technology seller, A.Q. Khan of Pakistan.
Perhaps Bolton’s most impressive work is his involvement in the Proliferation Security Initiative. As stated by the Wall Street Journal in a recent editorial: “The Proliferation Security Initiative he helped engineer and run has proved more effective than any other multilateral organization in stopping the flow of WMD.”
With a resume like this, John Bolton is as natural a choice for the dysfunctional United Nations as green is to grass. Democrats did not, and do not, see it that way.
Bolton, who would have been sent to the United Nations by the Senate if a vote had been allowed to take place, was labeled by Democrats as a “bully.” Bolton has been accused of mistreating subordinates as well as improperly using intelligence to intimidate government officials who disagreed with him.
Further, Bolton has been accused of hyping intelligence data against Syria. More recently, Bolton now stands accused of misleading the Senate. Upon filling out a questionnaire, he neglected to mention that he had been interviewed by investigators in 2003 in relation to Iraq’s documented attempts at trying to purchase uranium from Niger.
None of the above has proven to be true, with the exception that Bolton did indeed omit his interview on a questionnaire by State Department investigators. Though this may seem implausible to Bolton’s Senate detractors, it is entirely reasonable that what happened was what Bolton said happened, which boils down to “I forgot.”
The warning shot aimed at the White House was fired by Senator Chris Dodd, who even before Bolton was appointed, labeled him as “damaged goods” and a person who “lacks credibility.”
Democrats wasted little time and even fewer words after Bush appointed Bolton to try to bring some reality to the diplomatic fan dances that take place daily at Turtle Bay.
Senator Ted Kennedy boiled over concerning the “abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy” by Bush, and fretted over the “devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent.”
Senator John Kerry brooded over John Bolton having “been rejected twice by the Senate to serve as our ambassador to the United Nations.”
Senate minority leader Harry Reid balked at sending “a seriously flawed and weakened candidate to the United Nations,” calling the Bolton appointment “the latest abuse of power by the Bush White House.”
Senator Frank Lautenberg grieved over the president’s bending of “the rules” and circumventing the “will of Congress in appointing our representative to the United Nations.”
Finally, the New York Times called the appointment of Bolton “terrible news for the United Nations” in a scathing editorial that reaches new heights in journalistic drive-bys. Throughout the 450-word tantrum of the Times, it never once mentioned how the appointment of Bolton would affect U.S. policy, but lamented long and hard over how it would affect the United Nations.
One has to laugh when hearing these Democratic leaders and institutions talk about “constitutional requirement of Senate consent” and the like. It is as though Kennedy and company think that the Constitution changes its words and meaning when the occupant of the White House changes from Democrat to Republican.
It is also an indication of just how thick-witted they think you, the voters, really are.
Winning elections has consequences for the victor, and the defeated. Bush has, to date, made some 110-plus recess appointments, well on his way to eclipsing President Bill Clinton’s 140 in eight years, and possibly equaling President Ronald Reagan’s 240.
What will be argued is that President Bush abused his executive power and that of the recess appointment. What should be acknowledged is that the Constitution provides a way around obstructionist tactics and those who would use them.
To conservatives, that is sweet, sweet, music to the ears.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Vincent Fiore
