Recess Time for John Bolton

At yesterday's White House press briefing, on two occasions reporters asked Scott McClellan about the possibility of a recess appointment for John Bolton.

Q Last week you sort of indicated that there was no recess appointment for Bolton in the works. Now there seems to be a change in the atmosphere. Can you clear that up? Is he going to get a recess appointment?

MR. McCLELLAN: Nothing has changed in terms of our views about John Bolton.

Q That you want an up or down vote?

MR. McCLELLAN: We believe he ought to have an up or down vote. Nothing has changed in terms of that view.

Q So he's not going to get one?

MR. McCLELLAN: Nothing has changed at this point.

Minutes later:

Q Scott, following up on Helen's question, it appears that you are at least considering a recess appointment for John Bolton. Is there any concern at all that such a move might poison the waters over at the Senate just in time for the Roberts' confirmation process?

MR. McCLELLAN: So you're asking me a "what-if" question or a hypothetical question? I told you nothing has changed in terms of our view.

When McClellan says that "nothing has changed in terms of our views about John Bolton," I take that to mean the White House continues to believe that he should be the U.S. Ambassador to the UN.

Personally, I think the President should get John Bolton over to the corrupt, floundering UN as soon as possible. Since the Dems chose to obstruct and prevent an up or down vote on Bolton, Bush should counter their filibuster with a swift recess appointment.

The reporter who asked, "Is there any concern at all that such a move might poison the waters over at the Senate just in time for the Roberts' confirmation process?" seems to be making a thinly-veiled threat, warning the White House to make the appointment at its own risk.

There's no denying that the waters are already poisoned at the Senate. To suggest that the Dems would be likely to take vengeance on Roberts if Bush used a recess appointment to give Bolton the UN spot is to reveal the current sorry state of the Democrats and their liberal media mouthpieces.

A story from Reuters on the possibility of a recess appointment furthers that notion. Reuters promotes the Dems' anti-Bolton campaign by highlighting discredited rumors.

The nomination of the blunt-spoken conservative has been held up by accusations he tried to manipulate intelligence and intimidated intelligence analysts to support his hawkish views in his post as the top U.S. diplomat for arms control.

Some critics have also seized on reports he may have been involved in leaking the identity of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, but a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bolton had neither testified nor been asked to do so before the grand jury investigating the leak.

By tossing the Plame story into the Bolton mix, Reuters tries to subliminally connect the demon Bolton to the demon Rove to the demon Bush.

It's all part of their efforts to undermine White House credibility.

There had been questions about whether Bolton would accept a recess appointment, which lawmakers said would send him to the United Nations in a weakened political position.

But Republicans say Bolton has signaled his willingness to accept a recess appointment if another vote by the Senate is unlikely to occur.

More rumors. Reuters seizes on the "weakened political position" idea.

That argument is lame.

First, Bolton's critics consider him to be too tough. The man would not be a wimp at the UN.

Second, the U.S. Ambassador, by definition, cannot be weak. The individual is a representative of the world's sole superpower.

The sliming of John Bolton by weak-kneed senators would be completely irrelevant when he'd assume his position at the UN.

McClellan declined to say whether Bolton would receive a recess appointment.

But when asked in general about possible recess appointments, McClellan said, "If the Senate fails to act and move forward on those nominees, then sometimes there comes a point where the president has needed to fill that in a timely manner by recessing those nominees."

...When asked earlier this month about the prospects of a recess appointment for Bolton, McClellan would only say that the White House was seeking an "up or down vote" in the Senate.

I can just hear David Gregory and Terry Moran attacking McClellan, charging him with standing at the podium and lying to the press.

There is nothing contradictory about saying the White House is seeking a vote AND saying recessing nominees is sometimes necessary.

Sorry, Bush enemies, there's no credibility gap on that.

I hope the President decides to send John Bolton to the UN.

If Bush does appoint him while the Senate is adjourned, do you think George Voinovich will start to cry?