Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Ace...you lose all credibility with this unsubstantiated partisan observation. Sure, you cant prove it because its bullshit.
The Dems did not prevent over 99% of Bush's diplomatic nominees from being approved (they blocked one - Otto Reich, as top State Dept. diplomat for South American affairs and a Repub blocked another - Boyden Gray as ambassador to the European Union).
Bush's two previous ambassadors to the UN - John Danforth and John Negroponte (the current director of national intelligence) , both of whom "were in step with his views" were confirmed with NO dissenting votes.
BTW, it was the Repubs who could not get a majority vote among their own for Bolton in the Foreign Relations Committee. Try sticking to the facts, if you want to be taken seriously.
You probably have another "sophomoric" analogy, but I dont see any need for further discussion on this thread.
|
I recall a great deal of Democratic leadership opposition to Negroponte. I don't remember much resistance for Dansforth, but I don't think he was really in-step with Bush. Dansforth was passed over a few times for what he thought were more important posts than the UN. After Bush picked Rice as SS, Dansforth choose to step down and spend more time with his wife. I think he was also upset with his party.
My comments about sophomoric reactions to Bush are unsubtatiated? Yea, right.
Why continue with personal attacks? If you want to know the basis of my view why not ask, rather than assume there is none? Why do you think I care if you take me seriously? Why do you think I am at all concerned about earning credibility on an anonymous forum? Why would you assume the reasons I post here are the same as yours?
You have proven to be a very interesting character based on what and how you respond to posts and more telling what you choose not to respond to. The above seemed pretty minor to me, I though more important points were on the table.