That's 'Ambassador Bolton' – with no asterisk

What does an asterisk look like when it is attached to the headline of a Washington Post editorial called "Ambassador Bolton"?

It is so large an asterisk that it looks almost like a six-way electronic diagram.

TRENDING: Report: Trump is considering forming a new political party

Why does the Post's editorial department engage in such a print game when the said editorial acknowledged the following:

"Senate Democrats denied him an up-or-down vote, holding out for the administration to release more material related to Bolton's past work. Under the Constitution, the president has the power to appoint officers during congressional recesses without seeking Senate confirmation and to have those officers serve through the end of the Congress – which in this case means until January 2007. Using that power to circumvent the normal advice-and-consent process is politically provocative and should be quite rare. But having thwarted the usual process under which the Senate gets to vote on a president's nominee, it takes a bit of chutzpah for Democrats now to cry foul at Mr. Bush's decision to exercise his other option."

Yes, Post-Toasties – both chutzpah as well as your great big enlarged asterisk!

Has President Bush made a mistake by giving John Bolton a recess appointment as our U.S. ambassador to the United Nations?

Some Democrats are outraged. Is it possible that these resentful folk have forgotten how many times their fellow Democrat, President Bill Clinton, made just such recess appointments without consent of the United States Senate?

The AP reports that Clinton did this 140 times! Repeat: 140 times!

Said President Bush:

"America has now gone more than six months without a permanent ambassador to the United Nations. This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about U.N. reform."

The research department of the Republican National Committee notes that previous recess appointments have had statements of approval from Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, from former Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota and from Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, among others. Biden even supported a recess appointment for the notorious Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun.

The U.S. Senate has had the Bolton nomination for months – during which it was deliberately delayed by Democrats.

Now our new ambassador to the U.N. has been sworn in – and these Democrats can no longer stall. Good! Good for our nation and for the United Nations.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page notes the following:

"Mr. Bush now faces crocodile shouts of outrage for having bypassed the Senate, but the appointment is an entirely appropriate use of his constitutional authority to staff the government. Nor has he shown himself willing to abuse the appointment power, unlike the most recent Democratic president.

"The most bitterly fought case of the Clinton years was the nomination of Bill Lann Lee as assistant attorney general for civil rights. Mr. Lee was given a hearing. But when it became clear that he would be defeated on the floor of the Republican-controlled Senate, it was Democrats who blocked a vote.

"In response, Mr. Clinton decided against a recess appointment that would expire at the end of that Congress. Instead, he named Mr. Lee as 'acting' assistant attorney general, which allowed him to serve until the end of Mr. Clinton's term. Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd protested, and even Mr. Clinton admitted this wasn't 'entirely constitutional.'"

In other words, Slick Willie, it was partly unconstitutional, wasn't it?

Just how large was this "partly unconstitutional" behavior?

And will the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York ever do anything about President Bill Clinton's Pardongate?