Which nomination is worse: Bolton or Negroponte

[Toucano]

In keeping with the "World Turned Upside Down" adminstration, I find both nominations highly objectionable, and both are evidence of insanity.

However, Negroponte has demonstrated his contempt for the U.S. Constitution and congress before, so making him head of the "spooks" at least follows Republican tradition. Negroponte's history is virtually a letter of reference for intelligence departments.

But the Bolton nomination, his lack of diplomatic skills and yesterday's testimony about him threatening subordinates to cook an intelligence assessment seems really dangerous given the administration's record on intelligence failures. Even for Repubs, this should be a blemish.

If I had to choose only one nomination to fight against, I think I'd choose to fight against the Bolton nomination. What do you think?

[Pirate Smile]

1. Bolton is going to be a disaster. When the other countries don't do

what he wants, he can treat them how he treats subordinates -as a serial abuser - because, of course, he views them as subordinates.

That will work out great because this Administration already has so much credibility and we aren't viewed as a bully or anything. :eyes:

His knack for pressuring/politicizing intelligence will also be a huge asset. :sarcasm:

[GiovanniC]

2. Negroponte Has Sailed Through Confirmations So Many Times

If they were going to get him for, say, the death squad stuff, they'd have done it when he was nominated for UN ambassador, or Iraq ambassador, or any of the other things he's been tapped for.

Whether Bolton is more objectionable or not is a matter of debate, but whether the Dems have a better chance blocking Bolton or Negroponte is not. Bolton all the way.