Long ago and far away

Sunday, April 17, 2005

The Bolton Hearings

Shades of high school, the criticism of John Bolton at his confirmation hearing has not centered on any meaningful problem, but instead on whether he was once mean to a lower level federal employee (who had lied to Mr. Bolton). This leads to Mark Steyn being awarded the "Bolton Comment of the Week" for this paragraph from this:
If the Senate poseurs and the media wanted to mount a trenchant critique of Bolton's geopolitical philosophy, that would be reasonable enough. But there's not even a pretense of any of that. Instead, his opponents have seized on one episode -- an intelligence analyst in a critical position with whom Bolton and others were dissatisfied -- and used it to advance the bizarre proposition that every junior official should be beyond reproach, and certainly beyond such aggressive ''body language'' as putting one's hands on hips. Or as Peter Beinart, editor of the New Republic, complained to the BBC the other night: Bolton was ''disloyal to his subordinates.''


Of course, that brilliant shining light of legislative purity, Senator Boxer is involved...
To the esteemed "just say no" Democrats on the committee, the EagleSpeak Dodo award:



Earned for their failure to carry out the people's business in a sensible manner.

Hat tip to: PowerLine

Update: Add this to the list.
A few days ago, I referred to statements by Jonathan Turley, a self-dscribed social liberal law professor, about the judicial nominees being blocked by Democrats. Interviewed by Brit Hume, Turley found little merit to the claim that these judges were outside of the conservative mainsteam, as Democrats, led by Senator Schumer, have claimed....However, taking Turley's judgments to be on the mark, it seems clear that the Democrats are abusing the process by preventing votes on nine nominees as to whom even a liberal law professor can find no principled basis for blocking.

No comments:

Post a Comment