President Bush reluctantly accepted the resignation of the United Nations ambassador, John R. Bolton, on Monday, conceding that the envoy could not win Senate confirmation and signaling that the administration was unwilling to make another end run around Congressional opponents in order to keep Mr. Bolton in his job.
Ending more than a year of controversy surrounding the blunt-spoken ambassador, Mr. Bush issued a strongly worded statement excoriating Mr. Bolton’s opponents on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for refusing to send his nomination to the Senate floor for a vote.
“They chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time,” Mr. Bush said. “This stubborn obstructionism ill serves our country, and discourages men and women of talent from serving their nation.”
Mr. Bush went on to praise Mr. Bolton, a fiery conservative and longtime critic of the United Nations, thanking him for his “advocacy of human rights and human dignity.” more
Did you see where John McCain blamed Democrats for John Bolton’s defeat? What happened to John McCain? Remember when he was a straight shooter? Remember when he was a Maverick? Do you remember when you used to respect McCain even when you didn’t agree with him? That John McCain seems to be as gone as Bolton.
A little foolishness from CNN’s Moos on Bolton.
Naw. Let’s see he got tax cuts through Congress 3 or 4 times. The rich are getting richer. He tried to kill Social Security. Um. No Child Left Behind had a great name but really didn’t help either the children or the scholls or the teachers. He environmental policy is laughable. Let’s not forget Iraq. In Afghanistan we are pulling defeat from the jaws of victory. Maybe he is.
Let’s remember that The Rolling Stone had a huge article (May 2006) which was written by Historians which argued that he may be the worst ever. Therefore, this article for WaPo, which is written by a Historian should be no surprise.
From WaPo OpEd:
Ever since 1948, when Harvard professor Arthur Schlesinger Sr. asked 55 historians to rank U.S. presidents on a scale from “great” to “failure,” such polls have been a favorite pastime for those of us who study the American past.
Changes in presidential rankings reflect shifts in how we view history. When the first poll was taken, the Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War was regarded as a time of corruption and misgovernment caused by granting black men the right to vote. As a result, President Andrew Johnson, a fervent white supremacist who opposed efforts to extend basic rights to former slaves, was rated “near great.” Today, by contrast, scholars consider Reconstruction a flawed but noble attempt to build an interracial democracy from the ashes of slavery — and Johnson a flat failure.
More often, however, the rankings display a remarkable year-to-year uniformity. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt always figure in the “great” category. Most presidents are ranked “average” or, to put it less charitably, mediocre. Johnson, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Richard M. Nixon occupy the bottom rung, and now President Bush is a leading contender to join them. A look at history, as well as Bush’s policies, explains why. Continue reading