Bush can't get what he wants, so he waits until everybody's back is turned, then he does it any way.
Bush appointed John Bolton UN ambassador. But with spring break, everyone's gone, so who's to stop him? Bolton is secured the position until a new Congress comes in, which will be January 2007.
The papers like to tout Kerry as the reason Bolton's nomination was refused, but there were plenty of reasons not to appoint him ambassador besides his connection to Swift Boat.
According to the CNN website, "as undersecretary for state for arms control and disarmament, Bolton tried to get intelligence analysts who disagreed with him transferred or fired." And Senate members accused Bolton of providing false information on the questionnaire when he didn't admit that he had been "questioned by the department's inspector general as part of a joint probe by the State Department and CIA into allegations that Iraq attempted to obtain uranium from Niger in Africa." Oh, he's admitted it since. Last week. And in the "business as usual" category, the administration cited "executive privilege" in not releasing documents the Senate called for during the nomination process.
Bush said that he did this because we couldn't wait to fill this position in this time of war, even though his refusal to release information delayed things.
But Bolton is a harsh critic of the UN, as is his party, so where better to send him than the UN. I guess they think he's really going to clean things up there.
Reading this in the morning paper was not a good start to my day.
Oh, also in the news, the LA Times says that "in a direct challenge to Congress and the way it does business, the White House on Wednesday unveiled an online list of all the pet spending projects lawmakers tucked in the federal budget for the 2004-05 fiscal year."
Interesting way to put that. It makes it sounds like this was all Bush's idea. But it was the Democrats who were pushing for this reform, unable to do anything until they were in control. You'll also notice that the information goes only up to 2005. That may be because according to the Congressional Research Service, "under Republican congressional leadership, the amount of federal funds earmarked has nearly tripled since 1994, reaching $67.1 billion in fiscal 2006." (Quote from related article in the LA Times. Go here to read it.)
Oh, and none of the earmarks requested by the administration were included, so it lists fewer earmarks than other resources. However, the LA Times says that some of this will be addressed next year, "when congressionally authorized earmark disclosure data are released." After Bush leaves office?
Politics. I feel like I need another shower.