Bolton to go forward
May. 12th, 2005 12:11 pmhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051200414.html
Apparently Sen. Lugar has a different standard.
That's the standard? A negative standard of not being a criminal or someone bereft of morals? You can have bad judgement, but the only real requirement is that you not be atrociously bad?
I find that many of the members of the Republican Party I used to think of as moderates or at least people I was capable of respecting are losing that integrity that made them tolerable to me. How true it is that success is as great a test of character as adversity.
Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio agreed on Thursday to let the contentious nomination of John Bolton as United Nations ambassador go to the full Senate for a vote. But he issued a scathing attack on Bolton.
Voinovich portrayed Bolton, now the top arms-control diplomat at the State Department, as "arrogant" and "bullying."
"John Bolton is the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be," Voinovich said. He said Bolton would be fired if he was in private business.
...
"After hours of deliberation, telephone calls, personal conversations, reading hundreds of pages of transcripts, and asking for guidance from Above, I have come to the determination that the United States can do better than John Bolton," Voinovich said.
Apparently Sen. Lugar has a different standard.
The Republican chairman of the panel, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, defended the nomination in opening remarks, while conceding that "Secretary Bolton's actions were not always exemplary."
Bolton misjudged the actions of subordinates and sometimes clashed with superiors in his current job as the State Department's arms control chief, Lugar said. But weeks of intense Senate inquiry turned up no evidence that Bolton did anything that would disqualify him as President Bush's choice for the United Nations job, Lugar said.
"The picture is one of an aggressive policy-maker who pressed his missions at every opportunity and argued vociferously for his point of view," Lugar said. "In the process, his blunt style alienated some colleagues. But there is no evidence that he has broken laws or engaged in serious ethical misconduct."
That's the standard? A negative standard of not being a criminal or someone bereft of morals? You can have bad judgement, but the only real requirement is that you not be atrociously bad?
I find that many of the members of the Republican Party I used to think of as moderates or at least people I was capable of respecting are losing that integrity that made them tolerable to me. How true it is that success is as great a test of character as adversity.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-12 09:32 pm (UTC)God bless Voinovich for taking a public stand. It's not often I get to feel good about an Ohio Republican!