Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Lieberman Endorses John Bolton

Ned Lamont expresses support for Dodd's opposition.

Senator Joe Lieberman has endorsed making Bush appointee John Bolton's post at the UN permanent. This puts him at odds once again with his own party, most notably with Chris Dodd who has led the opposition to Bolton's confirmation.

Lieberman made these statements in a meeting with the NY Daily News editorial board.
Article.

This afternoon Democratic Candidate Ned Lamont decried Lierberman's support for both John Bolton and the Bush administration's foreign policy.

From Lamont's statement:

Once again, Joe Lieberman has broken with the people of Connecticut . A year ago, he opposed John Bolton's nomination to the United Nations because he was unqualified. At that time, he had the power of a bipartisan majority behind him. Today, when the political winds shift in the other direction, Senator Lieberman is supporting John Bolton, who has no more experience or qualifications for the job. That's not leadership.

Today it seems as if Lieberman's only constituents are George Bush and Dick Cheney. His support for the administration's foreign policies is wrong for America and wrong for Connecticut . The world is in crisis, and we need a UN Ambassador who's respected and effective at the UN. With major threats to this country such as Iraq , Iran , and North Korea , we need to have someone there who can deal diplomatically with our allies, advance our interests effectively, and keep America safe. That description does not fit John Bolton.

Because of the Iraq war and the administration's cowboy diplomacy, America is more hated than ever in the world, and Bolton just pours kerosene on the fire. He helped doctor intelligence to better suit his needs, and when security analysts protested, he fired them. After his recess appointment, he's had a year to prove himself as a diplomat, but he's failed.


Lamont also expressed support and agreement for Chris Dodd's leadership regarding the Bolton nomination, further suggesting that Lieberman's endorsement had more to do with politics than principle.

Senator Dodd is right when he said on the Senate floor last month that John Bolton is "an ineffective bully," and "he can't win the day for the United States when it really counts."

Lieberman's flip flop on Bolton as well qualified and deserving of the position further shows that he'll do anything to get re-elected. We need real leadership, not someone who for 18 years sticks his finger in the political winds and goes only where the wind is blowing, even when it's against Connecticut 's interests. Lieberman previously opposed Bolton 's nomination, but has now embraced him because George Bush asked him and Alan Schlesinger challenged him.


If this is in fact a political move I'm not sure what, if anything, Senator Lieberman gains from it. I don't think the Bolton nomination is a priority for conservative voters in Connecticut, and going against Dodd won't win him any favors with Democrats.

Politics aside, confirming Bolton is just a lousy idea. He is the personification of America as an international bully. Joe Lieberman is always calling for civility and cooperation, two words that aren't in John Bolton's vocabulary.

Source
Kennedy, Helen. "Lieberman likes Bolton for UN job". New York Daily News. 10/17/06

Lamont, Ned. "LAMONT STATEMENT ON LIEBERMAN FLIP FLOP ON JOHN BOLTON". 10/17/06

13 comments:

Shadow said...

Exactly. There's not even a halfway decent reason to possibly justify such a counterproductive decision. Lieberman doing this cements fears among independent CT voters that he is in Bush's pocket, and that will play well for Lamont.

CC said...

Dodd is a complete embracer of thug/antisemitic/antiAmerican dictator Hugo Chavez. That pretty much undermines his entire view on international affairs and whom in our government is best fit to serve as our ambassador to the UN.

Anonymous said...

Have you seen some of the clips of John Bolton at the UN? He is the sort of individual we need there.

He represents the USA, not the UN as it should be.

We throw over a billion a year at that pesthole of dictators and petty crooks, I would like to see the whole place razed to the ground.

Oil for food scandle... worthless scum breaking the law and claiming immunity left and right... genocide in africa.. mass rape and theft.

Anonymous said...

Just for a little perspective that BILLION we spend on the U.N. is equal to the same BILLION we spend EVERY 4 DAYS in IRAQ!!

Are Republicans really so stupid as to make this argument or any other where money is concerned.

Anonymous said...

"Just for a little perspective that BILLION we spend on the U.N. is equal to the same BILLION we spend EVERY 4 DAYS in IRAQ!!"

I'm sorry, what was your point?

It's ok for petty crooks and tyrants to abuse us on our own soil while we pickup the bill?

Anonymous said...

If the point has to be explained to you the question has been answered.

justavoter said...

If you cannot get his point I did how dense can you be.

Its clear the difference.

Anonymous said...

ccg

Did you miss this line in the NDN report: "Lieberman had not publicly taken a position on Bolton before."

Don Pesci said...

Dodd's public reasons for opposing Bush ambassadors and UN delegate choices change according to the nominee. Dodd earlier opposed Otto Reich, a fervent anti-Castroite, for reasons other than his bullying. Bolton now has a RECORD as delegate to the UN that includes persuading China to condem North Korea's Kim Jong Il, a client and dependent of China. Not bad for a bully. The senate, in voting whether to approve Bolton, should skip the partisan rhetoric and consentrate on the record. For an earlier account of Dodd vs Bolton, see here: http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2005/04/understanding-dodd.html

Anonymous said...

Of course, Lieberman hadn't taken a position on Bolton before publicly. He was holding out as long as he could and waiting to see when to take his position to get the most votes. This position plays to the Republicans because going against Bolton wouldn't get him anymore votes form the Democrat side. If he had had to take a position before the primary he would have been against Bolton. Lieberman's positions, or votes, are about him getting enough votes to keep his government job. The man's only principle is himself.

Anonymous said...

Joe on both sides of Social Security too.

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-joerecord1018.artoct18,0,594701.story?coll=hc-headlines-home

bluecoat said...

So, in May and June of 2005, Lieberman joined with Democrats to block the vote on Bolton and then Bush made the interim appointment once the session was over. Joe hadn't made up his mind but he blocked the vote?

Anonymous said...

"If you cannot get his point I did how dense can you be."

LOL!

Were talking about the UN and what a huge waste it is and you drag in.... Iraq.

Glad to see were on the same page.