Colin Powell doesn't like Bolton, either...

[Tiger Al 0]

Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell is emerging as a behind-the-scenes player in the battle over John R. Bolton's nomination as ambassador to the United Nations, privately telling at least two key Republican lawmakers that Bolton is a smart but very problematic government official, according to Republican sources.

Powell spoke in recent days with Sens. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.) and Chuck Hagel (Neb.), two of three GOP senators on the Foreign Relations Committee who have raised concerns about Bolton's confirmation, the sources said. Powell did not advise the senators to oppose Bolton, but offered a frank assessment of the nominee as a man who was challenging to work with on personnel and policy matters, according to two people familiar with the conversations.

"General Powell has returned calls from senators who wanted to discuss specific questions that have been raised," said Margaret Cifrino, a Powell spokeswoman. "He has not reached out to senators," and considers the discussions private.

A spokesman for Chafee confirmed that at least two conversations took place. Bolton served under Powell as his undersecretary of state for arms control, and the two were known to have serious clashes.

Powell's tenure as secretary of state was often marked by friction with the White House on a range of foreign policy issues, disagreements that both sides worked to keep from surfacing. It is not Powell's style to weigh in strongly against a former colleague, but rather to direct people to what he sees as flaws and potential problems, former associates say. Powell's views are highly influential with many Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Those who know Powell best said two recent events provide insight into his thinking. Powell did not sign a letter from seven other former U.S. secretaries of state or defense supporting Bolton, and his former chief of staff, Lawrence B. Wilkerson, recently told the New York Times that Bolton would be an "abysmal ambassador."

"On two occasions, he has let it be known that the Bolton nomination is a bad one, to put it mildly," a Democratic congressional aide said. "It would be great to have Powell on the record speaking for himself, but he's unlikely to do it."

With a final committee vote delayed until next month, Chafee is studying Bolton's record and withholding judgment, his spokesman said. Chafee told reporters Wednesday he is "much less likely" to support Bolton because of questions about his credibility.

President Bush yesterday accused Democrats of blocking Bolton's nomination for political reasons, as the White House intensified its campaign to confirm Bolton and discredit his critics.

LINK

The world could be disintegrating around Dubya and he'd simply be looking for someone to blame. Chaffee, Hagel and Voinovich have all three expressed concern for this nominee and Bush blames Democrats??? I guess, depending on the day, either they blame "the media," Democrats or liberal college professors. Oh yeah, blaming Clinton is always an ace in the hole.

[Tigermike 3,031]

Powell's tenure as secretary of state was often marked by friction with the White House on a range of foreign policy issues, disagreements that both sides worked to keep from surfacing.

So a former Secretary of State who was at odds with the Presidents goals and current State Department officials who want to keep on doing things the way they always have are against a man (Bolton) who is in agreement with the President. Oh and don't forget the Democrats whose only foreign policy ideas are to disagree with anything and everything that President Bush wants.

Is it your contention Al that the foreign policy of the United States should be dictated by bureaucrats within the State Department or the sitting President and congress? Should the minority party in congress dictate to a sitting President what foreign policy should be?

Tell us Al what has Bolton done that should preclude him from being the UN ambassador?

[AURaptor 1,125]

Anyone else here think that Tiger Al should take a big gulp from that mug in his sig?

[TexasTiger 12,897]

Powell's tenure as secretary of state was often marked by friction with the White House on a range of foreign policy issues, disagreements that both sides worked to keep from surfacing.

So a former Secretary of State who was at odds with the Presidents goals and current State Department officials who want to keep on doing things the way they always have are against a man (Bolton) who is in agreement with the President. Oh and don't forget the Democrats whose only foreign policy ideas are to disagree with anything and everything that President Bush wants.

Is it your contention Al that the foreign policy of the United States should be dictated by bureaucrats within the State Department or the sitting President and congress? Should the minority party in congress dictate to a sitting President what foreign policy should be?

Tell us Al what has Bolton done that should preclude him from being the UN ambassador?

157326[/snapback]

I have no problem with someone who wants to shake the UN up. I just don´t think a guy with his people skills can do it. It is pretty obvious the guy is an assh@le, not a diplomat. For example, a guy like Reagan may have had the same ideas. He wouldn´t be running into so much opposition because he was a nice, likeable guy who didn´t necessarily piss off everyone who disagreed and even some who agree.

[Tiger Al 0]

Powell's tenure as secretary of state was often marked by friction with the White House on a range of foreign policy issues, disagreements that both sides worked to keep from surfacing.

So a former Secretary of State who was at odds with the Presidents goals and current State Department officials who want to keep on doing things the way they always have are against a man (Bolton) who is in agreement with the President. Oh and don't forget the Democrats whose only foreign policy ideas are to disagree with anything and everything that President Bush wants.

Is it your contention Al that the foreign policy of the United States should be dictated by bureaucrats within the State Department or the sitting President and congress? Should the minority party in congress dictate to a sitting President what foreign policy should be?

Tell us Al what has Bolton done that should preclude him from being the UN ambassador?

157326[/snapback]

Piglet used a pretty good analogy about Bolton. Here's another one: Sending him to be an ambassador at the UN would be like electing you to head up the teachers union. As TexasTiger also said, Bolton's history of not playing well with others makes him too abrasive to be a diplomat. You can advance your country's best interests without always ticking people off and making them resistant to your goals. Put another way, you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.

[Tigermike 3,031]

Powell's tenure as secretary of state was often marked by friction with the White House on a range of foreign policy issues, disagreements that both sides worked to keep from surfacing.

So a former Secretary of State who was at odds with the Presidents goals and current State Department officials who want to keep on doing things the way they always have are against a man (Bolton) who is in agreement with the President. Oh and don't forget the Democrats whose only foreign policy ideas are to disagree with anything and everything that President Bush wants.

Is it your contention Al that the foreign policy of the United States should be dictated by bureaucrats within the State Department or the sitting President and congress? Should the minority party in congress dictate to a sitting President what foreign policy should be?

Tell us Al what has Bolton done that should preclude him from being the UN ambassador?

157326[/snapback]

Piglet used a pretty good analogy about Bolton. Here's another one: Sending him to be an ambassador at the UN would be like electing you to head up the teachers union. As TexasTiger also said, Bolton's history of not playing well with others makes him too abrasive to be a diplomat. You can advance your country's best interests without always ticking people off and making them resistant to your goals. Put another way, you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.

157356[/snapback]

Here's a better one Al. Sending Bolton to the UN would be just like defeating John Kerry in the presidential election.

And all that "honey" the State Dept has been slathering all over the world has worked so well hasn't it?

Face it the Democrats in general want a touchy feely kind of guy. Someone who looks good and does nothing. John Kerry wants someone who wants the US to be more like France, someone who is willing to be subservient to the UN. The bureaucrats at the State Dept want someone to keep the status quo and continue their inept policies.

Personally I think the UN needs a shake up. Someone who will look them in the eye and say enough of the slave trade! Enough of the food for oil scam! Enough of the placing a nation like Sudan on the Human Rights panel! Enough of high ranking UN delegates raping and stealing!

You say Bolton does not have the people skills to be a diplomat? Is the job of the US Ambassador to the UN to be a people person or to advance the foreign policy of the President who appoints him?

[Tiger Al 0]

Powell's tenure as secretary of state was often marked by friction with the White House on a range of foreign policy issues, disagreements that both sides worked to keep from surfacing.

So a former Secretary of State who was at odds with the Presidents goals and current State Department officials who want to keep on doing things the way they always have are against a man (Bolton) who is in agreement with the President. Oh and don't forget the Democrats whose only foreign policy ideas are to disagree with anything and everything that President Bush wants.

Is it your contention Al that the foreign policy of the United States should be dictated by bureaucrats within the State Department or the sitting President and congress? Should the minority party in congress dictate to a sitting President what foreign policy should be?

Tell us Al what has Bolton done that should preclude him from being the UN ambassador?

157326[/snapback]

Piglet used a pretty good analogy about Bolton. Here's another one: Sending him to be an ambassador at the UN would be like electing you to head up the teachers union. As TexasTiger also said, Bolton's history of not playing well with others makes him too abrasive to be a diplomat. You can advance your country's best interests without always ticking people off and making them resistant to your goals. Put another way, you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.

157356[/snapback]

Here's a better one Al. Sending Bolton to the UN would be just like defeating John Kerry in the presidential election.

And all that "honey" the State Dept has been slathering all over the world has worked so well hasn't it?

Face it the Democrats in general want a touchy feely kind of guy. Someone who looks good and does nothing. John Kerry wants someone who wants the US to be more like France, someone who is willing to be subservient to the UN. The bureaucrats at the State Dept want someone to keep the status quo and continue their inept policies.

Personally I think the UN needs a shake up. Someone who will look them in the eye and say enough of the slave trade! Enough of the food for oil scam! Enough of the placing a nation like Sudan on the Human Rights panel! Enough of high ranking UN delegates raping and stealing!

157363[/snapback]

Blah, blah, blah, blah.....blah.

You say Bolton does not have the people skills to be a diplomat?  Is the job of the US Ambassador to the UN to be a people person or to advance the foreign policy of the President who appoints him?

Both. It shouldn't be an either/or proposition. Those who can't multitask need not apply.

[Tigermike 3,031]

Powell's tenure as secretary of state was often marked by friction with the White House on a range of foreign policy issues, disagreements that both sides worked to keep from surfacing.

So a former Secretary of State who was at odds with the Presidents goals and current State Department officials who want to keep on doing things the way they always have are against a man (Bolton) who is in agreement with the President. Oh and don't forget the Democrats whose only foreign policy ideas are to disagree with anything and everything that President Bush wants.

Is it your contention Al that the foreign policy of the United States should be dictated by bureaucrats within the State Department or the sitting President and congress? Should the minority party in congress dictate to a sitting President what foreign policy should be?

Tell us Al what has Bolton done that should preclude him from being the UN ambassador?

157326[/snapback]

Piglet used a pretty good analogy about Bolton. Here's another one: Sending him to be an ambassador at the UN would be like electing you to head up the teachers union. As TexasTiger also said, Bolton's history of not playing well with others makes him too abrasive to be a diplomat. You can advance your country's best interests without always ticking people off and making them resistant to your goals. Put another way, you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.

157356[/snapback]

Here's a better one Al. Sending Bolton to the UN would be just like defeating John Kerry in the presidential election.

And all that "honey" the State Dept has been slathering all over the world has worked so well hasn't it?

Face it the Democrats in general want a touchy feely kind of guy. Someone who looks good and does nothing. John Kerry wants someone who wants the US to be more like France, someone who is willing to be subservient to the UN. The bureaucrats at the State Dept want someone to keep the status quo and continue their inept policies.

Personally I think the UN needs a shake up. Someone who will look them in the eye and say enough of the slave trade! Enough of the food for oil scam! Enough of the placing a nation like Sudan on the Human Rights panel! Enough of high ranking UN delegates raping and stealing!

157363[/snapback]

Blah, blah, blah, blah.....blah.

You say Bolton does not have the people skills to be a diplomat?  Is the job of the US Ambassador to the UN to be a people person or to advance the foreign policy of the President who appoints him?

Both. It shouldn't be an either/or proposition. Those who can't multitask need not apply.

157379[/snapback]

Multitasking is not what your guys are saying.

[Tiger Al 0]

Powell's tenure as secretary of state was often marked by friction with the White House on a range of foreign policy issues, disagreements that both sides worked to keep from surfacing.

So a former Secretary of State who was at odds with the Presidents goals and current State Department officials who want to keep on doing things the way they always have are against a man (Bolton) who is in agreement with the President. Oh and don't forget the Democrats whose only foreign policy ideas are to disagree with anything and everything that President Bush wants.

Is it your contention Al that the foreign policy of the United States should be dictated by bureaucrats within the State Department or the sitting President and congress? Should the minority party in congress dictate to a sitting President what foreign policy should be?

Tell us Al what has Bolton done that should preclude him from being the UN ambassador?

157326[/snapback]

Piglet used a pretty good analogy about Bolton. Here's another one: Sending him to be an ambassador at the UN would be like electing you to head up the teachers union. As TexasTiger also said, Bolton's history of not playing well with others makes him too abrasive to be a diplomat. You can advance your country's best interests without always ticking people off and making them resistant to your goals. Put another way, you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.

157356[/snapback]

Here's a better one Al. Sending Bolton to the UN would be just like defeating John Kerry in the presidential election.

And all that "honey" the State Dept has been slathering all over the world has worked so well hasn't it?

Face it the Democrats in general want a touchy feely kind of guy. Someone who looks good and does nothing. John Kerry wants someone who wants the US to be more like France, someone who is willing to be subservient to the UN. The bureaucrats at the State Dept want someone to keep the status quo and continue their inept policies.

Personally I think the UN needs a shake up. Someone who will look them in the eye and say enough of the slave trade! Enough of the food for oil scam! Enough of the placing a nation like Sudan on the Human Rights panel! Enough of high ranking UN delegates raping and stealing!

157363[/snapback]

Blah, blah, blah, blah.....blah.

You say Bolton does not have the people skills to be a diplomat?  Is the job of the US Ambassador to the UN to be a people person or to advance the foreign policy of the President who appoints him?

Both. It shouldn't be an either/or proposition. Those who can't multitask need not apply.

157379[/snapback]

Multitasking is not what your guys are saying.

157384[/snapback]

And there are enough of your guys saying the same thing that they have postponed confirming him.

[Piglet 0]

I'm not convinced Bolton's philosophy is even in line with President Bush. It's certainly not how Bush presented himself during the election.

If Bolton and Bush really are of one mind, then more shame on Bush.