http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061204/ap_on_re_us/bolton_resigns
i think you can figure the acroymn out.
the middle part is "a."
i think you can figure the acroymn out.
the middle part is "a."
EAD Bolton...
- Thread starter Sleepkyng
- Start date
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
Either vote for him, or don't. I hate that BS.
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='Sleepkyng']
west ham too by the way
[/QUOTE]
Better than being managed by a Frog.
west ham too by the way
[/QUOTE]
Better than being managed by a Frog.
Mr Unoriginal
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 111 (100%)
What a no-talent ass clown.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='dennis_t']That's the reason they have committees, to vet things before they get to the full Senate. I never heard Repubs complain about the system when they were bottling up Clinton's nominees....[/QUOTE]
Right you are. And of course Democrats will be the first to complain when a Republican Congress at some point in the future bottles up a Democratic president's nominees.
Still, I like the idea of giving the president's nominees at least a vote. Firstly, you have to give at least some leeway to the executive in the case of having people working for him. If you're elected president, really Congress should give some consideration to letting you pick who you think is best for the job, unless they are corrupt, grossly incompetent or have some other major reason for disqualification. But again, I'd still give them a vote - there have been times when committees didn't recommend nominees yet allowed them to go to a vote of the full Senate (IIRC Clarence Thomas).
So for Bolton, since clearly there has been no evidence produced that disqualifies him other than some disagree with his ideas/policy/personality, I'd say at least give him an up-or-down vote.
Right you are. And of course Democrats will be the first to complain when a Republican Congress at some point in the future bottles up a Democratic president's nominees.
Still, I like the idea of giving the president's nominees at least a vote. Firstly, you have to give at least some leeway to the executive in the case of having people working for him. If you're elected president, really Congress should give some consideration to letting you pick who you think is best for the job, unless they are corrupt, grossly incompetent or have some other major reason for disqualification. But again, I'd still give them a vote - there have been times when committees didn't recommend nominees yet allowed them to go to a vote of the full Senate (IIRC Clarence Thomas).
So for Bolton, since clearly there has been no evidence produced that disqualifies him other than some disagree with his ideas/policy/personality, I'd say at least give him an up-or-down vote.
bread's done