President Bush will not relent in his defense of John Bolton, his nominee for U.N. ambassador, despite unwavering opposition from Democrats who view Bolton as too combative for international diplomacy, aides said Sunday.
Two of Bush’s top advisers said the White House is not backing down from a fight to win Senate approval for Bolton to continue in the job. Bush gave Bolton the job temporarily in August 2005, while Congress was in recess. That appointment will expire when Congress adjourns, no later than January.
This seems like an enormous insult to me. Bush nominated this totally inappropriate man, an anti-U.N. idealogogue to the U.N. Even with his control of Congress, he couldn’t get him confirmed. So he appointed him during a recess of Congress, saying it was an emergency appointment because we needed someone there immediately. That was a lie. He appointed him because he can’t hear "no!" Now he’s resubmitted him. His confirmation has been blocked at the committee level by a lame-duck Republican, 
Lincoln Chaffee. And Bush still is pushing this contentious, idealogogue from the American Enterprise Institute who has written for years that the U.N. is only useful as a means to further American agendae.What is wrong with George W. Bush? There’s no reason in hell to stubbornly push this man. He is certainly undistinguished except as a widely known asshole. I tried all afternoon to try to think up a reason Bush would persist with Bolton. I can think of absolutely no reason except that Bolton is about the only person in Washington who might present a war in Iran to the U.N. Otherwise, Bolton is an embarassment, a liability, and an insult to the rest of the world. Nothing more.
If this is to be Petulent George’s game, let the carnage begin…
[…] Then, the White House — angry at the rejection of Bolton — could call an end to the bipartisan dance, accuse the Dems of obstructionism and try to "re-appoint" Bolton to his current job as a recess appointee — thwarting not only the Senate that the White House strongly controlled this past year — but also thwarting the next Congress that they control less well and with which they will have a tougher time finding common ground with this type of strident behavior. Scott Paul has posted a useful short synopsis of a legal analysis of the President’s options on Bolton — prepared by Arnold & Porter. The analysis is here — and should be read carefully. I just don’t get it. Why would Bush and Cheney go to this much trouble top do something nobody wants them to do? It just seems like either the height of arrogance [see enough already…], or part of some super-devious plot they’re cooking up. Maybe just beating them in the midterm elections isn’t enough, but I don’t know what is enough. There’s absolutely no clear rational reason for them to be doing this. I suggest that Congress refuse to recess until the new Congress is sworn in. Bush and Cheney need to be stopped by whatever means necessary. They just cannot stand for anyone to say "no" to their assertion of absolute power. We need to say a "no" that they can’t get around without being impeached. Bolton’s appointment is as good a place as any… […]