http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/04/bush.ambassador.ap/index.html?eref=rss_politics

It's like, a bad dream

where you wake up

and realize it isn't a dream after all.

4/4/2007 11:28:46 PM

Quote :

"with Congress out of town for a spring break"

I guess Spring Break was more important to Congress than doing their jobs

4/4/2007 11:36:29 PM

its not like a spring break is some unprecedented move

they should have known bush would get around the confirmations though

4/4/2007 11:41:30 PM

sounds like they care more about going on vacation than stopping the war

4/4/2007 11:42:34 PM

i guess the previous congress was more interested in going on vacation than winning the war

after all they worked the least amount of days of any congress in history

4/4/2007 11:43:39 PM

youre probably right

course old baldy isnt gonna name the thread "another thing to bash the govt about"

4/4/2007 11:44:26 PM

President Hillary can slide Barry Obama Barrack into that Belgium job after she's elected...if he hasn't "committed suicide" yet.

4/4/2007 11:47:25 PM

Quote :

"another thing to bash the govt about""

But "the government", whatever that means, didn't side step congress to get a friend into a little position he can play around with.

4/4/2007 11:52:35 PM

"the government" was on vacation instead of worrying about doing their important jobs

and I think it would be more accurate to say Congress sidestepped the President...since the President was in Washington...and the Congress was not

4/4/2007 11:59:22 PM

like when bush was clearing brush on the ranch when he got the memo about terror attacks using planes


this is retarded to argue about

[Edited on April 5, 2007 at 12:02 AM. Reason : /]

4/5/2007 12:01:49 AM

nm

[Edited on April 5, 2007 at 12:05 AM. Reason : thought you meant the phone call on 9/11]

4/5/2007 12:04:42 AM

lol

[Edited on April 5, 2007 at 12:06 AM. Reason : ;]

4/5/2007 12:06:31 AM

I guess that is part of his job right, to read an upside down book to children?

You have some gift to draw the most absurd and illogical connections to any given topic. Look, don't try to throw this on congress that has been working in overdrive since..well, you know, the whole referendum vote on the Iraq war...knowing all along, that whatever they give the President to sign, he'll veto it if it isn't exactly what Rove and the rest of the neoclowns have cooked up.

I just can't fathom allowing these guys to take a break occasionally. They should be required to stay in congress 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year so that the President can't sneak appointments in like this, right?



[Edited on April 5, 2007 at 12:09 AM. Reason : a]

4/5/2007 12:08:48 AM

i've been working hard myself...i havent had a non-holiday off in months, and the work i do isnt nearly as important as the work of congress...but they've been working so hard...you probably think bush's job is easy or something

Quote :

"the most absurd and illogical connections to any given topic"

you mean looking at both sides of the story

[Edited on April 5, 2007 at 12:15 AM. Reason : .]

4/5/2007 12:12:35 AM

Congress is responsible for the President's actions, not the President. DUH

4/5/2007 12:42:04 AM

Congress was busy being responsible for their suntans since those are more important than the whole legislative branch of the federal govt

4/5/2007 12:56:40 AM

You seem to be more concerned with the congress who already denied the ambassador's appointment than the executive who snuck him in under a recess appointment.

4/5/2007 1:02:51 AM

"snuck" him in? where was the entire legislative branch of the federal government to prevent this?

but if you pay more attention to the headline than the article

I know when people at my work take vacation, we always have plenty of people working to keep things running...we dont shut down the company so everyone can go on vacation unless its christmas, thanksgiving, etc...not "spring break"

and like i mentioned earlier, my company's work is not nearly as important as the work of congress

[Edited on April 5, 2007 at 1:10 AM. Reason : .]

4/5/2007 1:05:32 AM

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/04/democrats_outraged_over_fox_re.html

First, its been pretty clear precedent you cant make a recess appointment for a non pending appointment. Fox's nomination had been withdrawn. Whether or not that is legal is up to a court to decide.

Second:

Quote :

"Bush administration's plan to have Fox serve in a voluntary capacity -- receiving no pay for his duties as ambassador. This is an important legal technicality, as federal law prohibits "payment of services" for certain recess appointments. However, if the recess appointee in question agrees that he or she will take an unpaid position and not sue the government at a later date for compensation, then the appointment can go forward, at least as the White House sees it. ... Federal law prohibits "voluntary service" in cases where the position in question has a fixed rate of pay, as an ambassadorship does. ... In other words, according to senior Democratic Senate aides, the salary is a "statutory entitlement" and cannot be waived. While Fox would not be receiving a salary, he would still be entitled to live in government-owned housing and receive other benefits due any ambassador."

This is one of those things that create 'fun' supreme court cases

4/5/2007 1:22:05 AM

Quote :

"Judge Thurgood Marshall, recess appointed to the Second Circuit by President Kennedy in 1961; During Bill Clinton's 8 years in the White House, he made 140 recess appointments, so the use of recess appointments is not only constitutional, but quite common. It was the Democrats use of recess appointments, and Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt's attempt to enlarge the supreme court from 9 to 17 judges, in order to stop the Supreme Court from declaring most of his socialist plans during the Great Depression, that mark the most glaring efforts on the part of a president and/or a congress from trying to circumvent the Constitution's "separate but equal" provisions. "

What's the big deal?

4/5/2007 1:28:59 AM

Quote :

"First, its been pretty clear precedent you cant make a recess appointment for a non pending appointment. Fox's nomination had been withdrawn. Whether or not that is legal is up to a court to decide."

I posted it again so you could remove your head out of your ass.

4/5/2007 2:04:15 AM

Quote :

"First, its been pretty clear precedent you cant make a recess appointment for a non pending appointment. Fox's nomination had been withdrawn. Whether or not that is legal is up to a court to decide.""

I boldfaced some of your words so you can realize what you actually said

4/5/2007 2:44:51 AM

Quote :

"but they've been working so hard...you probably think bush's job is easy or something"

Yea, that must be what I think. Because the congress works hard, Bush must not? Thats it huh?

Quote :

""snuck" him in? where was the entire legislative branch of the federal government to prevent this?"

On a well deserved break.


Btw, just heard on NPR, Bush is on a 6 day break for Easter. Shouldn't he stay there in case the "government" tries to sneak something in on him? Oh I forgot, he is the only one that can sidestep the law.



[Edited on April 5, 2007 at 8:42 AM. Reason : a]

4/5/2007 8:35:24 AM

But but...W. is ALWAYS on the job. Even from Crawford.

And Twista, need someone remind you of the rather lenghty and frequent vacations that W. has taken? So I guess his vacations were "more important than doing his job".

Fucking double standard.

4/5/2007 9:13:02 AM

this is one of the less appaling things bush has done.....at least this time he took advantage of a preexisting parameter in the law, as opposed to making up/twisting a law to fit his agenda.

this is actually on congress imo......

4/5/2007 9:25:04 AM

someone told me since the dems took control of the house its been in session like twice as much as it was with republicans in control

i think a break is deserved

4/5/2007 9:31:43 AM

On Congress how? For going on break? W. knew he couldn't get his Swift Boat cronie in legit so he had to weasel the guy in. Pathetic.

4/5/2007 9:32:43 AM

Yes, he actually withdrew his nomination for the guy a while back because there was no way he could be approved. Instead of taking the high road and putting someone forward who everyone thought would represent the nation well, he acted like a little kid and snuck him in.

4/5/2007 9:35:56 AM

BUT THE CONSTITUTION GIVES HIM THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO!!!!!11

Why do you hate America the Constitution?

Oh and the obligitory Clinton did it!!.

4/5/2007 9:40:37 AM

it amazes me that as much as conservatives despise clinton, they have no problem saying 'clinton did it' and using that as an excuse for bush to do it. so they're saying it's okay for bush to be similar to clinton, even though they hate him? seems like they'd want him to do the opposite......

4/5/2007 9:47:52 AM

Perhaps Bush has gotten to the point where his legacy is no longer salvagable so he decided "what the hell" and doesn't bother anymore.

4/5/2007 9:55:55 AM

Quote :

"this is one of the less appaling things bush has done....."

I agree. This isn't really "big stink" material, and shouldn't garner too much discussion. It's just going to be another little line item in a long and sordid shitty BushRove administration.

4/5/2007 9:59:59 AM

it'll be interesting to see how many of you people don't say shit about a democrat doing shady/stupid shit


this hatred and obsession some of you have is entertaining though

4/5/2007 10:55:52 AM

I'm about sick of this 2 party system. We need to fix it.

4/5/2007 10:57:25 AM

^couldn't agree more, but its never gonna happen when private campaign donations are so imbalanced.

4/5/2007 10:58:33 AM

Quote :

"it'll be interesting to see how many of you people don't say shit about a democrat doing shady/stupid shit "

We talked shit about Pelosi appointing the money freezer to a position. We talked shit about Jim Black and his shadiness.

I've said it multiple times now, as more democrats start getting caught acting shady, we'll start talking more shit.

Do you just ignore all the Dem bashing threads so that you can keep making these kinds of statements?

It's kinda hard to knock the Dems in the Bush administration, you know, because there aren't any.

[Edited on April 5, 2007 at 11:04 AM. Reason : a]

4/5/2007 11:03:27 AM

^

4/5/2007 12:33:34 PM

Don't forget the Starkist tuna scandal!!!1

(or Poland)

4/5/2007 12:35:12 PM

hahaha...

the president is doing things that presidents do..

OH NOES!!!!!!11!!!

4/5/2007 1:06:17 PM

Quote :

"someone told me since the dems took control of the house its been in session like twice as much as it was with republicans in control i think a break is deserved"

If you believe that you should put down the fictional news you read.

4/5/2007 1:34:12 PM

I remember hearing something about that but it just came down to actually staying the entire time they were supposed to be there in the first place. Like all five days during the scheduled hours. Who knows. (and who cares)

4/5/2007 1:38:28 PM

BYE!

4/5/2007 2:00:58 PM

Quote :

"“It's a tough war,'' Bush told the troops today. “American people are weary of this war, they wonder if we can succeed.'' The stakes are important, he said, because failure could allow “chaos'' to reign and “spill out'' into the region, emboldening terrorists. Bush said half of U.S. reinforcements have arrived in Baghdad and the U.S. must “stay on offense'' to help Iraqis. “Defeat, leaving before the job is done,'' would leave the U.S. at risk of further attack, Bush said."

I'm sick of this shit. If defeat is leaving before the job is done, well then what is the job, and how long is it going to take, and how much will it cost? I'm sorry, but, it doesn't make sense to wage a war against an enemy without a country, without a flag, without a uniform, for some undetermined amount of time.

Fuck it...I was gonna post more, but its all already been said.

4/5/2007 2:25:32 PM

Im sure they are pissed in belgium.

I also love the fact he is a swift boat donor. We know nothing else about this man, other than he gave some money to the swift boat campaign. He could have been a diplomat for years...doubtful, I know. It seems to me this is just a political appointment, like brownie, but in a much much less serious position.

4/5/2007 2:34:51 PM

good for bush. The dems are nothing more than obstructionist and will block anything that he does. good for bush

4/5/2007 3:06:06 PM

You're not a very good troll.

4/5/2007 3:08:03 PM

so you agree then that the dems pretty much have an obstructionist approach to bush?

4/5/2007 3:11:36 PM

i liked it better when you had me blocked

4/5/2007 3:12:56 PM

ONE PARTY SYSTEM

4/5/2007 3:15:27 PM

think about what you just said

4/5/2007 3:16:20 PM