Bush appoints Bolton as new UN ambassador

How did you al miss this one? One hour after congress went on vacation Bush gave them the finger. ~D

Quote:

---

Bush appoints Bolton as new UN ambassador
www.chinaview.cn 2005-08-02 07:58:34

WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 (Xinhuanet) -- US President George W. Bush sidestepped the Senate and directly appointed John Bolton as the new US ambassador to the United Nations on Monday.

"This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about UN reform," Bush said while appointing Bolton the UN job.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and diplomats said that they looked forward to working with John Bolton, the new US envoy appointed despite past anti-UN rhetoric, as the world body considers crucial reforms.
John Bolton speaks after being installed as the permanent Ambassador to UN for the US by President George W. Bush in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. (Reuters)
Bush used his Congressional authority and used the power of recess appointment to appoint Bolton the job. Under the Constitution, a recess appointment during the lawmakers' August break will last until the next session of Congress, which begins in January 2007.

For his part, Bolton said he was honored and humbled by the president's appointment.

"It will be a distinct privilege to be an advocate for America's values and interests at the U.N. and, in the words of the U.N. charter, to help maintain international peace and security," he said.

Bolton has been criticized for trying to shape intelligence estimates on Cuba, Syria and other issues to reflect his own views and having a history of berating people he worked with and of seeking to remove those who disagree with him. Enditem

---

Good fir him. Way to stick it to them. ~;)

Sums my opinion up nicely..

Quote:

---

By John Gibson

John Bolton is finally U.N. ambassador from the United States. The president got so much flak about Bolton — he's the original blue meanie, evidently — that Bush had to use a recess appointment to get him in there.

It's an embarrassment to Bolton that the U.S. Senate wouldn't or couldn't approve him because Democrats had decided the only way to hurt Bush was to stand in the way of his appointments.

But it's also an embarrassment to the U.S. Senate — or it should be — but senators are so used to embarrassment it just doesn't get you very far in the U.S. Senate.

Anyway, Bolton is on his way to Turtle Bay, which is that spot on the East River in New York where the U.S. headquarters rises majestically and where anti-Americanism is the soup of the day. That's good. I hope Bolton doesn't worry much about diplomacy and he makes some people over there mad.

I hope he doesn't worry much about the Senate ever approving him, and he serves his term as a recess appointment, gets a few things done, and leaves with his head held high.

By the way, it isn't the same U.N. that it was a few years ago.

Now France is leading the way in profiling terrorists, tapping their phones, burglarizing their houses to plant spy chips on their computers and shipping them out of the county at the slightest provocation.

Bolton's job is to remind the world that France is doing those things, and the whining they may engage in about the U.S. in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere is just French hypocrisy. Their attitude is we can do it because we are the French, but you cannot because you are not the French.

The Italians are probably a little more pliable too, realizing they may have been harboring a few terrorists who may just bomb something nearby rather than plot against far away America.

The Canadians need a reminder or two about how they are much too accommodating to terrorists.

The Saudis need a bit of a slapping around because, after all, their official Wahhabi sect is where all this stuff starts.

After a suitable period of mourning for the Saudi king who just died, we expect Bolton to hop to it.

I know we won't be disappointed.

That's My Word.

---

Quote:

---

Stick it to them? By appointing a man totally unqualified to hold any government office; let alone anything to do with foreign relations?

That's not stickin it to 'em. That's being incompetant.

---

Nice talking point. Care to share something more concrete?

Whew. I thought you guys meant that no talent ass clown Michael Bolton.

I think bolton will do adequate...its the side stepping of the senate i don't like checks and balances mean something right????????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

I think bolton will do adequate...its the side stepping of the senate i don't like checks and balances mean something right????????

---

Sure. But remember, Republicans should just be able to say, 'up yours' to the Democrat minority in both groups and do as they please. Bush doesn't want to screw around for weeks while Democrats pontificate on some tiny little point. But for some reason, Republicans won't use their numbers and just ram this down the Democrats throat...so Bush is just circumventing the whole thing.

Azi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Stick it to them? By appointing a man totally unqualified to hold any government office; let alone anything to do with foreign relations?

That's not stickin it to 'em. That's being incompetant.

---

No, he's eminently qualified and perfect for reforming the UN.

Gee, it's easy to debate when I don't need to back anything I say up. ~;)

On a site note, I expect Democrats to try to make this an issue by claiming recess appointments are somehow an abuse of power and unprecedented. Clearly, neither is true- recess appointments have been used hundreds of times in the past by both parties. The claim is made even more absurd when you consider that Bolton would be confirmed by the Senate easily if his appointment were just allowed to come to a vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Stick it to them? By appointing a man totally unqualified to hold any government office; let alone anything to do with foreign relations?

That's not stickin it to 'em. That's being incompetant.

---

Sorry, but he is 'stickin it to 'em.' If by 'em you mean the American people.

For a man who claimed to be a uniter and not a divider, he's sure doing a lot of division. Not the long kind, mind you--that is still far beyond his ken.

Quote:

---

For a man who claimed to be a uniter and not a divider, he's sure doing a lot of division. Not the long kind, mind you--that is still far beyond his ken.

---

That attitude is the reason many Americans want Bolton at the UN. Hopefully he'll slap some of that smug arrogance out of the institution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

That attitude is the reason many Americans want Bolton at the UN. Hopefully he'll slap some of that smug arrogance out of the institution.

---

there´s some smug arrogance going around all right.... not from where you think tough.

right... I have to admit to being a little confused here.

the senate is republican majority right now. if they wanted to, presumably this means the GOP could force a vote. But they haven't.

So it seems likely that though the deomcrats will be obstructing at every turn, it isn't just the democrats that have reservations...

What do republican senators have against the man?

Quote:

---

Bush appoints Bolton

---

As someone who doesn't visit the tavern much, i just had one thing on my mind when i saw this thread.

"please god, not michael bolton."

~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monk

As someone who doesn't visit the tavern much, i just had one thing on my mind when i saw this thread.

"please god, not michael bolton."

~:)

---

LOL ~D
He'd have a nice message though:
"Love is a wonderful thing!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Stick it to them? By appointing a man totally unqualified to hold any government office; let alone anything to do with foreign relations?

That's not stickin it to 'em. That's being incompetant.

---

Lets see is Bolton truely unqualified to hold any governmental office?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Bolton

Quote:

---

Bolton served as Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs at the Department of State (1989-1993); Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice (1985-1989); Assistant Administrator for Program and Policy Coordination, U.S. Agency for International Development (1982-1983); and General Counsel, U.S. Agency for International Development (1981-1982). [18] (http://www.results.gov/leadership/bio_44.html)[19] (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/2976.htm)

Also an attorney, Bolton was an associate at the Washington office of Covington & Burling, where he returned as a member of the firm from 1983-1985. From 1993-1999, Bolton was a partner in the law firm of Lerner, Reed, Bolton & McManus. Bolton received both his undergraduate and law degrees from Yale University." [20] (http://www.results.gov/leadership/bio_44.html)[21] (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/2976.htm)

---

It might be that you are unqualified to make that assement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I think Bolton proved himself incompetent while in those offices. He's a whirlwind of corruption and bad work habits.

I too think we need an ambassador who will stick up to the UN. But we don't need a maniac.

---

Then the senate should of done their jobs and brought the subject about his confirmation to a vote. The senate failed in its responsiblities once again - and left the door open for a Presidential Recess appointment.

One that has been used in the past by many other Presidents, and is allowed by the constitution for just this reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Indeed. Congress is becoming rather unstable on important issues, and I don't like it. And I blame the Bush administration, which I liken to a Big Bad Monarch harassing the poor fledgling Parlaiment (an oversimplification, since Congress' ineptitude of late is in large part their own fault). I truly expect to see them sign off more and more power to the executive branch.

---

Its not the Bush Administration that is doing it however - President Bush and his administration does not make the rules for Congress - only congress makes its rules.

The House and the Senate have been passing its powers to the President and the Judicial Branch for many years - for instance take a good look at the War Powers Act of 1973. COngress passed its war making authority off to the President - and the current adminstration had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Jee, who's responsible for that one? Nixon, right? That son of a bitch did nothing good at all.

---

Nope it was not Nixon - It was the COngress.

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

Quote:

---

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,
November 7, 1973.
The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the resolution (H. J. Res 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections, to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, it was
Resolved, That the said resolution pass, two-thirds of the House of Representatives agreeing to pass the same.

Attest:

W. PAT JENNINGS

Clerk.

I certify that this Joint Resolution originated in the House of Representatives.

W. PAT JENNINGS

Clerk.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 7, 1973
The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections to the House of Representatives, in which it originate, it was
Resolved, That the said joint resolution pass, two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the affirmative.

Attest:

FRANCIS R. VALEO

Secretary.

---

The President I believe at the time tried to veto it - because it was initial thought to limit some of the Presidential powers. However the wording of the act is how Congress justifies itself from not having to declare war to allow the use of troops against another nation - other then in defense of our nation or our allies.

It wasn't congress that stalled. If Bush had released all the documents congress had requested on Bolton, he would have had an up or down vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

It wasn't congress that stalled. If Bush had released all the documents congress had requested on Bolton, he would have had an up or down vote.

---

The senate could of forced the issue and had an up and down vote without the President's documents. However they chose to delay and go on break.

THe senate stalled themselves because they felt they had to wait on the documents. Is this correct, Is this what you are trying to say?

The President did not force them to stall - hell they should of given him a lesson and voted down on his confirmation because the President did not give them the documents - however instead of doing that - they chose to go on break. Giving President Bush one of the options available to him by constitutional authority.

Given that the confirmation hearings started in April - I have more of a tendency to believe that the Senate failed on their own - without any help. They played a politicial game - both sides - and the democratics in the Senate lost - because they failed to reach a decision before the break.

Quote:

---

When the White House refused the request for documents, the Democrats refused to end debate on the nomination and Republicans failed twice to muster the 60 votes necessary to cut them off.

Democratic senators, including Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, today called Bush's decision an ``abuse of power.'' John Kerry of Massachusetts called it a ``wrong decision'' that ``diminishes John Bolton's validity and leverage to secure America's goals at the UN.'' Dodd called it ``a real disservice to our nation.''

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

THe senate stalled themselves because they felt they had to wait on the documents. Is this correct, Is this what you are trying to say?

The President did not force them to stall - hell they should of given him a lesson and voted down on his confirmation because the President did not give them the documents - however instead of doing that - they chose to go on break. Giving President Bush one of the options available to him by constitutional authority.

---

Indeed, if the documents were really such a big issue they should've voted him down. The fact is, if he had been brought to a full vote he would've been confirmed- so they, with the help of a wishy-washy Chafee kept his nomination in committee.

Bolton is a strong critic of the UN and it's inability to tackle any real issues. That alone makes his a good person to spearhead reform.

I have to laugh hearing all this fine liberal whine about this recess appointment. Guess which famous president made a recess appointment to THE SUPREME COURT!!! LOL, none other than John F Kennedy. And to hear these liberla demo-rats whine about this. The UN has the significance as my crusty gym sock hidden under my bed when i was a teenager. Clinton had I belive over 100 recess appointments. Bolton is the man, you hear his rendition of when a man loves a woman. LOL ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

How did you al miss this one? One hour after congress went on vacation Bush gave them the finger. ~D

Good fir him. Way to stick it to them. ~;)

---

Hey, Dubya has been giving the nation (and the world) the finger for a long time. No surprise there. No surprise that he would appoint a fellow incompetent who also has a penchant for yes-men and the diplomacy of a rabid dog for a diplomatic post...

Giving folks the finger would be more charming, if Dubya could actually prove that his actions were the right ones. So far, I've seen a lot of arrogance and strut, and very little success.

Quote:

---

So far, I've seen a lot of arrogance and strut, and very little success.

---

Well if your talking about your posts on Bush this is certainly the case. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Well if your talking about your posts on Bush this is certainly the case. ~;)

---

Personal attack as a redirect? Not very impressive...not even well crafted.

Quote:

---

Personal attack as a redirect? Not very impressive...not even well crafted.

---

THats not a personal attack just a fact. You seem to think that your opinion somehow is better than anyone who dissagress with you and fail to back up your opinions with facts. To me that smacks of arrogance. Besides didnt you see the big smiley? Call it what you like. Hey you can call me arrogant. I wont take offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

THats not a personal attack just a fact. You seem to think that your opinion somehow is better than anyone who dissagress with you and fail to back up your opinions with facts. To me that smacks of arrogance. Besides didnt you see the big smiley? Call it what you like. Hey you can call me arrogant. I wont take offense.

---

Gawain, that is not true and you should know better. Calling a personal jab "fact" is a stretch. The smiley is like like pouring cologne on manure...it's still a pile of...that you are trying to disguise. Your post was a personal attack, mild, but personal. I back my opinions, but some folks have such a distorted sense of reality they can't see anything but what their favorite blogger is spouting. When someone thinks McCarthy was a great man or performing a useful service, their sense of perspective is clearly wonked.

At any rate, your approach is STANDARD fare from your end of the political spectrum: don't debate the subject on its merits, instead attack those who disagree. No wonder you support Bolton, his record indicates that is precisely how he works. As do Rove and Dubya. Hmmm...and here we are, back on topic.

The only thing I've heard from the other side of the political spectrum is that Bolton likes yes-men and wanting personel success too much.

Could you back that up with, I dunno, something more concrete than posts on a gaming forum?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Could you back that up with, I dunno, something more concrete than posts on a gaming forum?

---

It appears that they can't go beyond the talking points doesnt it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

The only thing I've heard from the other side of the political spectrum is that Bolton likes yes-men and wanting personel success too much.

Could you back that up with, I dunno, something more concrete than posts on a gaming forum?

---

I posted a link about his lying...oops, failing to answer accurately on his application if he had been involved in any investigations. Despite the investigation being fairly recent he claims he forgot and would "correct his application." I didn't realize we could revise job applications after the fact once "errors" had been discovered...

The bit about yes-men was also well covered during the hearings. His caustic record with the U.N. and statements he has made have also been covered.

Want the info? Go look it up. I've seen enough already to draw my conclusions about him not being fit for the job from mainstream news sources. You are welcome to your own opinion.

Quote:

---

At any rate, your approach is STANDARD fare from your end of the political spectrum: don't debate the subject on its merits, instead attack those who disagree.

---

Since this seems to be your normal posting habit I dont see how you have the nerve to complain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Since this seems to be your normal posting habit I dont see how you have the nerve to complain.

---

Complain? More of an observation, I'm used to your republican attack dog tactics. Since you swallow the right wing stuff whole, 100%, completely unprocessed, I don't for a minute buy your libertarian line. Doesn't really matter for me who you claim to have voted for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Complain? More of an observation, I'm used to your republican attack dog tactics. Since you swallow the right wing stuff whole, 100%, completely unprocessed, I don't for a minute buy your libertarian line. Doesn't really matter for me who you claim to have voted for.

---

Kettle, meet pot... Anyhoo back to the topic...

The only reason liberals oppose Bolton is that they don't want change from the UN's ineffective way of doing business. Heaven forbid that someone goes to the UN and actually points out the curroption and inneffectiveness of this world body.

Quote:

---

Since you swallow the right wing stuff whole, 100%, completely unprocessed, I don't for a minute buy your libertarian line. Doesn't really matter for me who you claim to have voted for.

---

Seems like everyone dosent agree with you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha
Gawain you shoul stop beeing the president of Conservative Club.When i read your posts here i think You ,Don and Devastating Dave are more moderate then conservatives.

---

Quote:

---

What i mean,is that you reason your arguments.You are not extremist.

---

Thats all I ask of you by the way. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

The only reason liberals oppose Bolton is that they don't want change from the UN's ineffective way of doing business. Heaven forbid that someone goes to the UN and actually points out the curroption and inneffectiveness of this world body.

---

I can't speak for "liberals" but I'm opposed to putting anyone with such poor judgement into such an important post. I don't believe that his stated views (in the public record) are conducive to successful reform of the institution. I actually want reform of the U.N., but from what I've seen of Dubya and his appointee, I don't believe either is qualified to do it. The "go it alone" approach makes no sense in trying to enact reforms of such a large international body. Someone who attempts to have an analyst fired for honesty, and who has an established history of bullying people is not a good choice for an important diplomatic post.

Quote:

---

Someone who attempts to have an analyst fired for honesty, and who has an established history of bullying people is not a good choice for an important diplomatic post.

---

Once more enough of your accusations back what you claim up for once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Once more enough of your accusations back what you claim up for once.

---

Did you not pay any attention to the quotes that were made during the confirmation hearings? Would requoting them change your mind? Go waste your own time doing it. Might be good for you to broaden your horizons. I'm fairly certain they are still out there, one of my own old threads had one of the links.

Dubya= President Bush right? The man that was elected and is Constitutionally in his right to appoint who he wants to appoint correct? Case closed, build a bridge and get over it... If you feel so strongly about it send a check to the dems over here and some suggestions on how to win an election with ideas and actual plans, not just snippish name calling, obstructionist tactics, and overplayed hyprhole rhetoric, then again, I don't see much coming from you besides the same snippish name calling, obstructionist tactics, and overplayed hyprhole rhetoric. I guess its too difficult for people with such ingrained ideological biases to change, no matter where they are located geographically. Lucky for me, my side keeps winning over here!!! ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

The man that was elected and is Constitutionally in his right to appoint who he wants to appoint correct?

---

Hmmm, and I thought we were discussing whether or not he was a good choice. Obviously those representing 48% of us felt otherwise.

Did you vote in the last election? Its an unfortunate thing to not win an election. But that's just the way it is. Don't worry though, you guys still have your courts to run to when you need to overrun the will of the people... BTW, I thought you were Brittish?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Did you not pay any attention to the quotes that were made during the confirmation hearings? Would requoting them change your mind? Go waste your own time doing it. Might be good for you to broaden your horizons. I'm fairly certain they are still out there, one of my own old threads had one of the links.

---

Again and again we hear this argument... Step 1: Make a wild or sweeping claim. Step 2: When asked to back it up, claim it's a waste of time and 'I know what I know and don't need to prove anything to anybody'. If that works for you, fine- but don't expect other people to buy into what your saying if you're not willing to defend your statements. ~:handball:

Quote:

---

I posted a link about his lying...oops, failing to answer accurately on his application if he had been involved in any investigations. Despite the investigation being fairly recent he claims he forgot and would "correct his application." I didn't realize we could revise job applications after the fact once "errors" had been discovered...

---

The only hard evidence you have presented on Bolton..... Why should we believe this was anything other than an oversight? How many hundreds of pages are the questionaires that nominees fill out? I remember hearing Robert's was 157 pages or some such.... What did he have to gain by "lying" as you put it? He was asked a couple of questions by an investigator, don't you think its possible to overlook then when filling out a mammoth questionaire? Are you positive it was a deliberate lie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Did you vote in the last election? Its an unfortunate thing to not win an election. But that's just the way it is. Don't worry though, you guys still have your courts to run to when you need to overrun the will of the people... BTW, I thought you were Brittish?

---

I voted, but I'm in Texas, so there wasn't much point. Still don't see what that has to do with Bolton...

Don't think the brits would take me, my teeth are in too good of a condition. See ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

I voted, but I'm in Texas, so there wasn't much point. Still don't see what that has to do with Bolton...

Don't think the brits would take me, my teeth are in too good of a condition. See ~D

---

Good one!!! ~:cheers:

i feel your pain, I live in Illinois and this state has more dead people voting democrat than anywhere. In fact Abraham Lincoln voted for Kerry this last election...

You're almost at 3000!!! LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Again and again we hear this argument... Step 1: Make a wild or sweeping claim. Step 2: When asked to back it up, claim it's a waste of time and 'I know what I know and don't need to prove anything to anybody'. If that works for you, fine- but don't expect other people to buy into what your saying if you're not willing to defend your statements. ~:handball:

---

No, it's more the standard operation of the Backroom with the right wingers in pack attack mode. Seriously irks me especially the way the comments are couched, and I don't feel I have to justify every damned thing I say with a link. I know the info is out there as I've read it months ago. I'm not out reading the BS blogs that some quote, I'm looking at mainstream sources. If you folks aren't seeing some of the same and act as if several month old stuff like that is a "wild or sweeping claim" then you must be living under a rock.

Quote:

---

The only hard evidence you have presented on Bolton..... Why should we believe this was anything other than an oversight? How many hundreds of pages are the questionaires that nominees fill out? I remember hearing Robert's was 157 pages or some such.... What did he have to gain by "lying" as you put it? He was asked a couple of questions by an investigator, don't you think its possible to overlook then when filling out a mammoth questionaire? Are you positive it was a deliberate lie?

---

Considering the process and the implications, I would be very careful answering the questionaires if it were me. Overlook it? Lie or not? I don't know, I was having a bit of fun with the wording, and gave the various spins: PRO *AND* CON. Not just one side. Personally, I don't see how he could make such a mistake of omisision. It's not like he had a bunch of investigations to keep straight and forgot to mention one--he had a single one and didn't mention it. Talking to an investigator about an investigation that was still making headlines from time to time would seem to be something an average person would remember. To flip your question: Why should I believe it was not a lie? Seems too convenient and a way to avoid questioning.

I don't see why it matters that much, the US wasn't going to be doing much with the UN anyhow.

Quote:

---

The only thing I've heard from the other side of the political spectrum is that Bolton likes yes-men and wanting personel success too much.

Could you back that up with, I dunno, something more concrete than posts on a gaming forum?

It appears that they can't go beyond the talking points doesnt it?

---

The arguments presented in favor of Bolton:

Quote:

---

He has held governmental office

---

Quote:

---

Bolton is a strong critic of the UN

---

Quote:

---

stick it to them.

---

Quote:

---

Bolton is the man, you hear his rendition of when a man loves a woman.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The arguments presented in favor of Bolton:

---

Better than the reasons against him, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Better than the reasons against him, huh?

---

Nope, and certainly not good enough to accuse the other side of not being able to go beyond talking points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Nope, and certainly not good enough to accuse the other side of not being able to go beyond talking points.

---

Have they? Redleg outlined his experience nicely, and he shares the presidents views about UN reform and what roles it should have in the world. The president chose him as a nominee and, if it had been allowed to come to a vote, he would've been confirmed by the majority of the Senate.

What've you got? He was a mean boss? I didn't know that disqualified someone from working in government.

Quote:

---

What've you got? He was a mean boss? I didn't know that disqualified someone from working in government.

---

And only accustaions that he was a mean boss at that. Hey Didnt Madame Hillary fire the entire whitehouse travel staff. Talk about mean bosses. ~D

http://home.earthlink.net/~dare2b/hillary.jpg

Yes Ive posted it twice. Is it any wonder Bill cheated. ~;)

Reminds me of Arnold on Mars.