Bolton U.N. Vote Delayed

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Mystikalilusion, Apr 20, 2005.

  1. Mystikalilusion

    Mystikalilusion Founding Member

    Jan 21, 2005
    Likes Received:
    After allegations that Bolton tried to use the NSA to apparently spy on a high-ranking state dept official, probably Richard Armitage, who was Colin Powell's chief deputy.

    Democrats on the Committee wanted to go into closed session to be able to discuss those new allegations freely. Republicans voted no. So, open session......and the Republicans only have themselves to blame that it then resulted in us being able to watch them getting bombed live on C-Span (for those of us that watch C-Span).

    Originally, it was thought they had all 10 votes needed.......but then one of them broke ranks near the very end of the meeting! Voinovich -- Republican from Ohio.

    So, with a potential 9-9 vote (which would have effectively KILLED the nomination, rather than passing it), the Repubs had no choice but to tuck their tails between their legs and agree to postpone the vote until after the next recess. 3 weeks, during which time the new allegations will be "thoroughly vetted".

    I would be willing to bet even money that Bolton withdraws his name.
  2. G_MAN113

    G_MAN113 Founding Member

    Nov 10, 2003
    Likes Received:
    I think it speaks pretty well for the Republicans that they were willing to have this all out in the open, rather than behind closed doors. It's supposed to be an open process.

    Again, I think this speaks well for the GOP. Were it a Democrat-controlled committee, with a Democrat candidate and the same accusations, I have absolutely no doubt he would have been passed through committee by a straight 10-8 party-line vote. At least the GOP had a member who had doubts and voted his conscience. With Democrats, it's strictly win, baby, win.
  3. JVincent25

    JVincent25 Founding Member

    Dec 7, 2003
    Likes Received:
    I'm confused

    Put aside politics? Isn't politics what this should be about? He should be sent to the UN because he is a "good man"? This obviously isn't about political parties like Bush would want us to believe, three of the senators that are holding this vote back are republicans. Bush just wants to get back at the UN by sending the most anti-UN guy he could find.
  4. MFn G I M P

    MFn G I M P Founding Member

    Feb 4, 2004
    Likes Received:
    Re: I'm confused

    Good, eff the UN. :usaflagwa

Share This Page