http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/government_broadcasting
WHy is is that Bush ALWAYS nominates incompetent and criminals to gov't positions? WHY?
This is outrageous, no?
2006-08-31 05:43:43 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well, look at what he did with Bolton (UN Ambassador).
Bush nominated Bolton for the position. The Senate refused to confirm the nomination. So Bush bypassed the Senate, waited until they were on recess, and appointed Bolton anyway.
Technically legal, but it clearly shows he has no respect for the process.
2006-08-31 05:46:38 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
All political appointments are examples of cronyism, payback or reach arounds.
However, in the interest of fairness, Bush nominated the guy in January of 2005, and the Inspector Generals' office released the results of the investigation in August of 2006.
And although Llantos and Dodd are just and righteous men, perhaps allowing Tomlinson a day in court would be appropriate before condemning him. See, there goes that pesky constitution again. Its great when you can use it, its an old piece of paper when it doesn't.
2006-08-31 13:05:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
If it is true (proven thru due process), then he should not be confirmed for the position.... 'nuff said
But you actually think the criminals *Cough Stephanopoulos Cough* put in by Clinton made sense??????
************
Good point Jesi... you are correct, the charges did not come out til after the nomination
2006-08-31 12:57:49 · answer #3 · answered by DiamondDave 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The article you cited only said that he was "accused" of misconduct. That's not enough to call him a criminal... unless you believe he's guilty until proven innocent.
Anyone can accuse anyone else of anything. It's done most often in this forum. If that were enough to convict someone of a crime, you and I would be sharing a cell...
And I would be sleeping on my back.
2006-08-31 13:57:59 · answer #4 · answered by rustyshackleford001 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
So Koo Koo you say this like it is new news. Bush has been nominating criminals and corruption since he was first appointed. One more won't make much difference will it.
2006-08-31 12:53:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
And this surprises you how? Look at the guy who is now running the World Bank. Billions of dollars are missing from the Iraqi Reconstruction fund that he headed. And look at where his incompetence got him.
2006-08-31 12:48:58 · answer #6 · answered by darkemoregan 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
well...would you pick a stranger for your agency head or someone you know from before? Maybe that is why democrates keep loosing elections...they make pisspoor decisions and appoint strangers to high government positions.
2006-08-31 12:50:40 · answer #7 · answered by DAVER 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Sorry but that is all the Skull&Bones has to offer
Go big Red Go
2006-08-31 12:59:50 · answer #8 · answered by 43 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why are you questioning the president, he has always used flawless logic when picking people to work with him. LOL
2006-08-31 12:49:33 · answer #9 · answered by mixwithanything 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Is he someone that Clinton pardoned on his last day in office?
2006-08-31 12:51:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋