How do you feel about this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4735529.stm

Would you say that "shameful delaying tactics" were not in the interest of the USA because the position was vacant for too long already. Wouldn't that state hamper ability to contribute to the UN?

Yes, I can understand why an extended vacancy would not be in the best interests of the United States because it prevents the U.S. from exerting its influence in the UN.

However, the whole point of checks and balances is to prevent any one branch of the government from having too much say in how the country is run and how public policy is governed. The Senate was not delaying for the sake of delaying or to harm U.S. interests, but because they do not approve of Bolton for the position. The delays were as much a function of trying to make sure Bolton got the position as trying to make sure he didn't. Forcing a vote would have led to a rejection of his appointment.

By moving forward without the approval of the citizens' represenatives, Bush makes clear to me that he cares more about his own administration's agenda than that of the people. But prior moves such as the declaration of war without Legislative approval were already indicative of this.

"Forcing a vote would have led to a rejection of his appointment."
That's an interesting fact. Well, I guess the American people can hold out for a few more years. At that time, I'm curious as to how many Bush related officials will leave office with him.

Well, many people in the current administration are ones that have been around for a while. In some cases, their influence was balanced out by the Clinton administration. What was interesting to me was the number of people that left the Bush administration once he was re-elected.