in his own words

[Sabre]

And 7 votes for and 1 abstention is still a pretty strong endorsement.  As for the State Department spokesperson, you are correct.  He is not Powell's spokesperson (my bad, and I apologize for my error).  Nonetheless, I must again make my point, i.e. Powell himself hasn't said anything against Bolton in regards to his fitness for the office; others are instead telling us what they believe Powell thinks of him.  Inuendo and unsubstantiated mud-slinging.

One final bit of food for thought.  No one, even democrats on the committee have made the charge Bolton is unqualified for the job.  All the negative accusations revolve around his supposed "temperment."  Since Bolton's never done anything that was bad enough to be charged with (regarding alleged browbeating of underlings or otherwise), I have to ask, what bearing should his temperment have on this?  It may just be that one of the reasons the President choose him is eactly because of his temperment.  If that's the President's preference, that he have a firebrand in the job, then that's his privilage.  So long as the man's qualified, and remains within the bounds of the law, what right does Congress (or almost half of it, anyway) have to tell Bush different?  Different situations call for different temperments.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Sabre
I have to ask, what bearing should his temperment have on this?  

I guess the prevailing theory is that if he can't work well with the people in his office how the hell is he gonna work with the rest of the world.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Sabre
I have to ask, what bearing should his temperment have on this?  

diplomacy - Tact and skill in dealing with people.

[Sabre]

I understand your point guys, but I think you may have missed mine.  Which is that it's the President's choice if his strategy for dealing with the UN requires an approach he deems Bolton most suitable for, not Congress'.  Congress' job in this case is to determine if the guy is qualified and capable.  That does not appear to be in dispute, and no one has yet provided any evidence to the contrary, AFAIK.  That is the spirit behind their "advise and consent" responsibility.  Foreign policy is the pervue of the executive branch, not the legislative branch.  Of course, I still maintain the Democrats objections are all about partisan politics, and nothing to do with real concern about foreign policy.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Sabre
I understand your point guys, but I think you may have missed mine.  Which is that it's the President's choice if his strategy for dealing with the UN requires an approach he deems Bolton most suitable for, not Congress'.  Congress' job in this case is to determine if the guy is qualified and capable.  That does not appear to be in dispute, and no one has yet provided any evidence to the contrary, AFAIK.  That is the spirit behind their "advise and consent" responsibility.  Foreign policy is the pervue of the executive branch, not the legislative branch.  Of course, I still maintain the Democrats objections are all about partisan politics, and nothing to do with real concern about foreign policy.

I think you just made the point. That the job of congress is to make sure he is capable? I kinda think that is what they are doing. lol