So, why did we go through all the rigmarole with the Congress about

[patricia92243]

Bolton's appointment to the UN. if all that was going to happen was for Bush to appoint him anyway - I miss the point of any argument about it.

Why the pretense?

[fooj]

1. Just another battle in the onslaught of BS they keep sending our direction

I think we should fight this in a different way. The entire Shrub presidency is a lie. From the top on down. The war was a lie. His "no child left behind" BS was a lie...but we keep fighting all of these little battles---I say go for the big one!

[KoKo]

2. "Washington Note" has some explanation for this. Why it's important.

You can read the whole thing and see if you agree. I'm so bummed it's hard to accept this now...but I've been reading WaNote for awhile and followed Clemons efforts to stop Bolton nomination. Clemons is on vacation now but one of his "prominent" bloggers seems to be trying to answer WHY...WHY...WHY...

For what it's worth here's a snip and a link. It's an interesting read, maybe.

----------------

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

Charles J. Brown: Winners, losers, lessons

President Bush's decision to appoint Bolton this morning only denies those fighting the nomination closure - but not much else. We may have lost the Bolton battle, but it sure looks like we won the war. The events of the past five months, taken together, represent a big victory for those promoting global solutions to and cooperative efforts on those problems that no nation can solve alone.

In addition, the Bolton battle is a model for future efforts to engage the American people on international issues. Those who challenged the Bush Administration stayed on message, supplied timely information, praised allies at every opportunity and avoided berating or denigrating opponents.

As a result, the movement for a constructive, pro-engagement foreign policy is both stronger and more effective. A lot of folks on both sides of the aisle found their backbones over the course of the past five months, and thus are more likely to stand firm on similar questions in the future. Our opponents, who expended enormous amounts of political capital just to keep the Bolton nomination alive, emerge much, much weaker.

The Bolton battle also has been an inclusive effort, one that has brought many unlikely players into the fray. I can't say enough about the importance of the Steve's efforts and those of our NGO partners, the field organizers, and other friends and advocates who independently contributed their time, energy, and resources to this effort above and beyond their jobs. We have all made a difference. As this blog has demonstrated over the past week, this was a battle that crossed ideological and partisan divides.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

[patricia92243]

6. IMHO - that is the biggest bunch of bologna I have heard in a long time.

(But I do appreciate you taking the time and interest to post it Thank you.)

[gratuitous]

3. Number 1, it's not a permanent appointment

But only temporary. Which means that Bolton shows up without any credibility and with no mandate. The other countries can basically ignore Bolton without consequence.

Next, remember that back in June, Bolton's appointment was an all-but-slam-dunk, awaiting only the formality of a Senate rubberstamp of the Dear Leader's latest glorious step forward for his adoring country. Doesn't quite look like that anymore, does it?

Instead of triumphantly entering the UN as Caesar's envoy, Bolton skulks in as the temporary placeholder of a lame duck president. Clearly, any other president would have withdrawn such a mortally wounded nomination. Bush shoved it through just so he could get his way.

[indepat]

5. W always gets his way one way or the other

[EVDebs]

4. All wasn't for naught. This delayed any Iran action for at 2 months

Bolton's job, and as Scott Ritter pointed out the June Iran activity was greenlighted, is to push MIHOP or LIHOP with Iran.