posted on April 5, 2007 06:51:05 AM
When Bush doesn't get his way he has to use his power to appoint during a recess session. I guess this is the only way a lame duck will get his way during the last couple of years of his term.
Swift Boat donor named ambassador
By Jill Zuckman
Washington Bureau
Published April 5, 2007
WASHINGTON -- First, President Bush nominated Sam Fox, a St. Louis businessman and major Republican fundraiser, to be ambassador to Belgium. Then he withdrew the nomination when he saw it would fail in the Senate. And now he has appointed him while Congress is out of town and can't stop Fox from getting the job.
Fox drew Democrats' ire for his sizable donation to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group created in 2004 that claimed Sen. John Kerry exaggerated his military record in Vietnam. The relentless attacks against Kerry's patriotism and truthfulness are widely considered to have cost the Massachusetts Democrat the presidential election.
Bush's decision to give Fox the ambassadorship, after it became clear the Senate would not confirm him, is bound to inflame already tense relations between the legislative and executive branches.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) called the maneuver "outrageous," "underhanded" and "an abuse of executive authority."
Kerry called it "sad but not surprising that the White House would abuse the power of the presidency to reward a donor over the objections of the Senate.
"Unfortunately, when this White House can't win the game, they just change the rules, and America loses," Kerry said. "Our country would be stronger if this administration spent more time getting body armor for our soldiers in Iraq than it did helping their powerful friends."
Dodd said he planned to ask the Government Accountability Office, Congress' research arm, for an opinion on the legality of the appointment.
"I seriously question the legality of the president's use of the recess appointment authority in this instance," Dodd said.
The White House had little to say about the appointment, but in the past Bush has noted that recess appointments are a president's prerogative. In another instance, after Bush was thwarted by Congress when Republicans were in control, he used a recess appointment to name John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton held the post for 17 months until the end of 2006 and then resigned, realizing he had no chance of winning confirmation from a Democratic-controlled Senate.
During Fox's confirmation hearing before his nomination was withdrawn, Kerry questioned him about why he had given $50,000 to a group that was "smearing and spreading lies" about him. Fox did not apologize for giving the money or for the group's allegations against Kerry.
The Constitution allows the president to make appointments without Senate confirmation when Congress is in recess. The provision was originally intended for instances when Congress was out of session for extended periods, but these days the tactic is often used to avoid messy fights on Capitol Hill.
On Wednesday, the White House put out a news release titled "Personnel Announcement."
"President George W. Bush today announced his intention to nominate ten individuals, appoint twelve individuals, recess appoint four individuals and designate one individual to serve in his Administration," the statement said. In the third-to-last line, it noted Fox's appointment.
Fox is the national chairman of the Republican Jewish Coalition and was a "Ranger" in Bush's 2004 re-election, which requires raising a minimum of $200,000. He has donated millions of dollars to GOP candidates over the years.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 5, 2007 06:58:35 AM
lol classic....I was thinking the same thing when I read his title.
He always makes references to 'back doors'.
==================
And now logansdad doesn't like what the US constitution allows once again.
TOO BAD. It's there and allows ALL Presidents to use it.
They shouldn't have gone on vacation anyway....when our troops NEED their funding.
But no....more important things to do. tsk tsk tsk
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 5, 2007 07:55:47 AM
I thought it would make the two of you jump for joy. Nothing like the typical response from the homophobes on the board.
Classic I bet you miss it. Did the title bring back memories of you days in San Fran?
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 5, 2007 08:50:43 AM
Glad to see your hooked on phonics lessons have taught you how to make sentences, stoney. Perhaps by the end of the year they will help you get your GED.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 5, 2007 09:06:05 PM
RUSH: One more, and that's the recess appointment of Sam Fox. Sam Fox is from my home state, and I know of Sam Fox. He's an immigrant, a Ukrainian-Jewish immigrant whose parents had nothing. When they died, they had nothing.
He is a totally self-made man, a great American, and he was treated horribly by Senator Kerry and others on that committee, simply because he had made a political donation. They essentially told him he did not have free speech in this country, and until he would apologize, 'til he would go up to Kerry and apologize for supporting the swift boats... Now the president has recess appointed him, and of course the Democrats say they're going to investigate this and going to look into this. This is the kind of move that garners a lot of support from the people in the country.
This shows the administration willing to engage these people, and not allow them to get away with this kind of -- well, my term, you don't have to accept it -- "Stalinist behavior" by those people on that committee.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, you're dead on, Rush. I know Sam well. He's a good friend of mine and has been for many years, I think he's a great appointment and he'll do a superb job as our ambassador to Belgium. I was delighted when the president made the recess appointment. He clearly has that authority under the Constitution --
RUSH: You go on vacation, this is what happens.
THE VICE PRESIDENT -- and you're right. John Kerry basically shot it down.
RUSH: Well, you go on vacation, this is what happens to you, if you're the Democrats.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: (laughs) All right.
RUSH: Mr. Vice President, thanks for your time. It really is always a pleasure to talk to you, and we appreciate your candor when you come on the program, very much so. All the best, and have a great Easter weekend, you and your family.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right. Thanks, Rush. I enjoy the show.
RUSH: Thank you. That is Vice President Cheney.
END TRANSCRIPT
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 6, 2007 07:23:48 AM
Linda_K
posted on April 5, 2007 06:58:35 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lol classic....I was thinking the same thing when I read his title."""
What a
mind linduh has....VERY obvious where it's at ....what a filthy pig!
She continues drooling,
"""And now logansdad doesn't like what the US constitution allows once again.
TOO BAD. It's there and allows ALL Presidents to use it.
They shouldn't have gone on vacation anyway....when our troops NEED their funding.
But no....more important things to do. tsk tsk tsk"""
Uh, dope, the Repugs went on vacation, too, or are they still working away at their desks while the Democrats are gone???????
posted on April 6, 2007 07:31:33 AMThey shouldn't have gone on vacation anyway....when our troops NEED their funding.
Congress learns from their leader. You know the one that was on vacation when he learned "Al-Qeada determined to strike the US"
Our troops need a leader that has a plan and is not just staying the course.
Even the troops are realizing Bush will get them killed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17819626/site/newsweek/
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 6, 2007 10:36:37 AM
Thanks for the link, Logansdad.
"The number of soldiers deserting the U.S. Army is rising. A defense lawyer discusses what they're saying about leaving their posts-and whether they're likely to find sanctuary in Canada."
During the last week or so CNN had a story on soldiers that moved to Canada, some during and after Vietnam and some who have been to Iraq and back.
I hope Canada's government allows this new group to stay. They are young and there is no reason for them to be sent to their deaths in Iraq over an illegal war.
posted on April 6, 2007 01:22:41 PM
You are welcome Kiara.
Some people need to wake up and realize it is no longer just the democrats that do not approve of the war. There are more and more Republicans and soldiers that disagree with Bush's policies and handling of this travesty.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 8, 2007 01:14:53 PM
There has been NO war where there weren't deserters/COWARDS. And since these troops are ALL volunteers it makes it more difficult to excuse their actions.
So those of you who LOVE seeing them desert would have loved them in all the wars. shame on you.
Doesn't look like canada IS going to allow them to stay though. And I, for one, certainly hope they don't.
Obligations/committments are something many liberals might not grasp....but most responsible ADULTS do.
===========
On the Fox recess appointment.....no WHINING/CRYING and no double standards allowed.
Finally, Mr. Fox Gets the Job
On June 5, 1999, the New York Times published an editorial praising the president for using a recess appointment to install James Hormel, a gay-rights activist, as ambassador to Luxembourg:
President Clinton took an appropriate stand against bigotry yesterday by giving James Hormel a recess appointment as the nation's Ambassador to Luxembourg.
Mr. Hormel's nomination had been blocked for 20 months by a handful of Senate Republicans disturbed by his sexual orientation.
The credentials of Mr. Hormel, heir to a meat-packing fortune and a former dean at the University of Chicago Law School who has been active in civic, educational and political causes, were not the sticking point. There were sufficient Senate votes to confirm him had Trent Lott, the Senate majority leader, allowed a vote. . . .
Under the constitutional provision that allows Presidents to bypass the confirmation process when Congress is in recess, Mr. Hormel can remain as Ambassador until late next year. His shameful treatment by Mr. Lott and his G.O.P. colleagues will be remembered long beyond that.
The New York Times editorial board, however, seems to have conveniently forgotten the Hormel incident. Today the paper weighs in on another president's recess appointment of an ambassador to a Low Country:
President Bush resorted to an old political trick this week, using recess appointments to evade Senate confirmation votes that he was sure to lose. . . .
The most bitterly resented but least important appointment sent Sam Fox, a major Republican donor, to Belgium as ambassador. Mr. Fox contributed $50,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group whose vicious ads during the 2004 campaign lied about Senator John Kerry's war record and helped win President Bush a second term. It is common for administrations to reward big donors with ambassadorships. But this appointment is a deliberate thumb in the eye of Senator Kerry and fellow Democrats who were poised to reject the nominee. . . .
With nominees of such dubious merit, it is no wonder that Mr. Bush resorted to an end run around the Senate. The American public will almost certainly pay the price.
==
The assertion that Fox "was sure to lose" a confirmation vote in the Senate is either mistaken or dishonest. As we noted yesterday, Sens. Claire McCaskill and Joe Lieberman had both announced they would support Fox, which would give him 51 votes assuming no Republican defections.
The Democrats planned to block Fox's confirmation by bottling the nomination up in committee, just as the Republicans did to Hormel.
Also as in the case of Hormel, Fox's credentials are not in question--or at least the Times does not question them. The only objection it offers to his nomination is that it hurts John Kerry's feelings.
=========================
lindas note:
poor baby [kerry]
the truth being told to americans by many VN vets....hurt his little feelings. tsk tsk tsk
========================
Given the Times's worldview, which is that any opposition to gay rights is invidious, we can understand why the paper found the Republicans' blocking of Hormel worse than the Democrats' blocking of Fox. But no one can dispute that the latter is exceedingly petty. And the Times looks even more risibly partisan than usual in calling recess appointments "an end run around the Senate" when a Republican uses them and a "constitutional provision" when a Democrat does.
Taken from April 6th WSJ - Editorial page
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 8, 2007 01:21 PM ]
posted on April 8, 2007 08:29:54 PMThere has been NO war where there weren't deserters/COWARDS. And since these troops are ALL volunteers it makes it more difficult to excuse their actions.
I would never call these soldiers cowards, Linda_K. Perhaps you failed to read enough articles on them to know that some of them have been to Iraq and back and some more than once. Some even got honorable discharges and were then told they had to return......... again.
Some of the Vietnam Vets that assist these soldiers finished their tours of duty in Vietnam and then after returning to America decided to move to Canada so they aren't deserters or cowards.
posted on April 8, 2007 08:38:29 PMDoesn't look like canada IS going to allow them to stay though. And I, for one, certainly hope they don't.
I don't see how it will affect your life if they stay in Canada instead of possibly being killed or wounded in Iraq, Linda_K. You and your Bush government don't own them. They choose to take responsibility for their own lives and don't want to do unspeakable acts like beating people with axe handles or raiding innocent Iraqis' homes as ordered to do. It goes against their moral conscience and they weren't raised to treat others that way.
From the MSNBC report:
I believe everyone will eventually stay [in Canada] if they want to. It's certainly not 100 percent, and I tell people that. Right now it's being done through the courts, and if they can't decide whether the war in Iraq is illegal or not, I think it will become a political issue. We'll see who wants to be saddled with the burden of being a George Bush supporter. I don't think too many of our politicians are comfortable with that.
If we can't make the argument legally then it'll be a political argument and that depends on the politics of the day. Right now we have a minority conservative government but they're trying to distance themselves from the U.S. conservative government, so it's an open question what they would do... Losing your refugee case does not necessarily mean you'll be removed from Canada.
posted on April 8, 2007 08:45:20 PM
Again you don't know what you're talking about ms. uninformed canadian.
When they sign up the U.S. gov. DOES OWN THEM.
Your lack of knowledge doesn't change a thing.
That's why they're called DESERTERS.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by linda_K on Apr 8, 2007 08:47 PM ]
posted on April 8, 2007 08:55:10 PM
That just goes to show how MUCH you are out of touch with REALITY.
VOLUNTEERS aren't forced to sign up. And when they do....they KNOW what committments they've made.
But it doesn't surprise me kiara that you SUPPORT DESERTERS.
You also support our Nation's enemies.
Nothing new there.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 8, 2007 09:12:16 PM
Yup, like a broken record.
She still has the freedom to volunteer and go fight some terrorists and perhaps release some of her hatred instead of trying to control the lives of others who have their whole lives ahead of them. Bush will take almost anyone it seems. Hopefully, she's not a ......... coward.
then when the liberals are shown how clinton did the same thing....lol....NOT ANOTHER WORD about how terrible it was that clinton did the exact same thing.
Oh....that's right. It's the liberal DOUBLE STANDARD again.
Now they're ranting about the poor DESERTERS.
tsk tsk tsk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by linda_K on Apr 8, 2007 09:27 PM ]
posted on April 8, 2007 09:33:06 PM
Ranting? You're the one with all the caps.
Yup, I'm not as obsessed with a president who's been out of office for 6 years (old news) as I am upset with the slimeball who is now, currently the president.
There's a reason for that, bimbo, which you will never understand.
I've never defended Clinton's misdeeds as you defend the corruption and immorality of the present administration.
posted on April 8, 2007 09:41:54 PMNow they're ranting about the poor DESERTERS.
Yup looks to me like that's what you're doing, Linda_K but no one else. Too bad you always have to become so angry when certain discussions take place.
It's a fact that there is an increase in deserters. It's reality. Harper's government doesn't seem to be saying too much about them as they've distanced themselves from Bush. If any other party gets in power these soldiers will have an even better chance of staying in Canada.
posted on April 8, 2007 10:09:42 PM
You both forget that all my LOLs and is because I'm LAUGHING at what you say.
As usual, kiara, you didn't know what you were talking about.....and as usual mingotree/crowfarm/sybil rants here 24/7.
I set you straight on the FACTS.
Your ignorance is to hard for me to just ignore all the time.
Try and educate yourself for a change before you continue posting FALSEHOODS.
Other than that....I have nothing more to say to you two.
Slap yourselves on the back....PRETEND you got me doing anything MORE than correcting you on both the
Bush going through the backdoor....and a volunteer soldiers obligations to his contract.
I could care less what your continued ANTI-AMERICAN gov opinions are on deserters. Our laws are the same no matter which parties CIC is in office.
Suck it up....pretend you're a grown up for a change.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 8, 2007 10:21:16 PM
And another discussion where Linda_K, an aging and angry woman throws a childish tantrum with childish taunts because she cannot control the lives of the young soldiers or others who freely speak opinions that differ from hers.
posted on April 8, 2007 10:42:24 PM
Where do you come up with this INSANE garbage? LOL
I don't try to control them....our gov. will. They may soon be without a country if canada rejects them and they can't come back here anymore.
THEY controlled their choices you nutcase.
Not I. LOL LOL
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 8, 2007 10:54:45 PMTHEY controlled their choices you nutcase.
Not I. LOL LOL
I've been saying all along that they control their own lives and not you. Your tantrums probably hindered you from realizing that so you should calm down and read more carefully from now on.
posted on April 8, 2007 11:00:36 PM
Your ignorance is too much for me to deal with. It's overwhelming that you can be so mis-informed....and that you actually SUPPORT DESERTERS.
But don't falsely accuse me of things I don't do. I read your nonsense - all of it.
THat's why I laugh at you so much. You are SO very misinformed. And you're positions are in the tiny minority . FEW American's support deserters.
That you do speaks volumns about your ETHICS to many, including myself.
Yeah....look here....kiara supports our troops.....lol lol....she SUPPORTS them DESERTING.
Great.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by linda_K on Apr 8, 2007 11:03 PM ]
posted on April 8, 2007 11:45:35 PM
More of the usual taunts and name calling from an elderly woman having another temper tantrum because she is powerless to deal with the reality of the increasing number of young soldiers going to Canada and other countries for refuge because of Bush's illegal war.
Are YOU a Bunghole?