Daily Bolton

[whometense]

Just gets better and better, doesn't it?

No. 2 at State Dept. Was Said to Put Restrictions on Bolton

By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: May 10, 2005
WASHINGTON, May 9 - A new portrayal of John R. Bolton describes him as having so angered senior State Department officials with his public comments that the deputy secretary of state, Richard L. Armitage, ordered two years ago that Mr. Bolton be blocked from delivering speeches and testimony unless they were personally approved by Mr. Armitage.

The detailed account was provided to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Lawrence S. Wilkerson, a longtime aide to former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Wilkerson said that Mr. Bolton, who was then an under secretary of state, had caused "problems" by speaking out on North Korea, the International Atomic Energy Agency and other delicate issues in remarks that had not been properly cleared.

"Therefore, the deputy made a decision, and communicated that decision to me, that John Bolton would not give any testimony, nor would he give any speech, that wasn't cleared first by Rich," Mr. Wilkerson said, according to a transcript of an hourlong interview with members of the committee staff last Thursday.

In an e-mail message on Monday, Mr. Wilkerson said of the restrictions imposed on Mr. Bolton that "if anything, they got more stringent" as time went on. "No one else was subjected to these tight restrictions," he said.

[whometense]

1. For 3 GOP Senators, Vote Isn't Just About U.N. Pick

Great analysis of the political calculus each of the borderline republican senators is going through on the BOlton vote. Strong stomach required. Conscience, anyone???

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bolton10may10,0,2563178.story?page=2&coll=la-home-headlines

By Mary Curtius, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — For the three Republican senators who have expressed reservations about John R. Bolton's nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the committee vote set for Thursday is about much more than whether he is the best man for the job.

When they gather with their colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for their final consideration of Bolton, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and George V. Voinovich of Ohio will carry vastly different political calculations and ambitions that may factor as much in their decisions as anything revealed about the nominee by dozens of witnesses and hundreds of documents.

[karynnj]

5. Good article

Bush really insists on his way 100% of the time. I can't believe he is doing this to the Republicans on the committee. If they vote for him, for those with a conscience this has to be something they will ultimately be ashamed by.

I agree that Hagel has the hardest time and I would bet that this is almost a bonus for Cheney, who is likely to support someone more RW. Unfortunately, if he votes on his 2008 aspirations - the anger of the RW, important in the primaries,will last longer than the possible damage of being one of all 10 Republicans 3 1/2 years earlier to vote for a Republican nominee.

I do think that Voinivich has already done the Democrats a favor in keeping this going. The longer it's out there the more political capital Bush is using. I liked the Doonesbury cartoon - it really quickly summarizes what a jerk Bolton is also the obvious perjury should mean something. (Especially because he casually lied on things that weren't important in addition to the big lie that he didn't try to get anyone fired.)

[whometense]

2. And Doonesbury weighs in

[TayTay]

3. Did you happen to catch Stephanie Miller yesterday?

She said there may even be something in Bolton's divorce records that came up. Apparently there were charges in his divorce. I have been unable to verify this, but am still looking. Wow! Now that's personal.

[whometense]

4. Yes!

I did hear that. I scouted around briefly for more info, but couldn't find anything either.

BTW, have you heard her little "Lying Sack of Crap" ditty?? Hilarious.

[whometense]

6. Comments on Washington Note

In the Comments thread for this post. These people really scare me. It's all one big game of high-stakes poker to them. And that includes such possible psy-ops posts as this.

You missed the point completely-- this is, to the White House and the activist base of hte GOP, just a continuation of the 2004 election by sore losers. My brother is a high school and college class mate of one of the modreate GOP Senators on your list. They went hiking-- just the two of them- over the break. John Bolton will be the next UN Ambassador-- if he does not clear the FRC, he will be recess appointed at the next opportunity. If he clears the FRC and the votes are not there to confirm him on the floor, Frist simply will not bring it up and he will still be recess appointed. Only the impending debate over the "nuclear option" kept that from happening over the break. The White House is all in. If the Dems put more chips in, Bush does not care one iota. For him, victory is Bolton at the UN, confirmed or not, period. It did not start out this way-- the UN was not what Bolton wanted, and was not viewed as any great prize award to him by the WH. But, once opposition surfaced, Bush figured he could win, and by his terms he will.

[whometense]

7. Lincoln Chafee is a spineless wimp.

whatever already!

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Profiles in Courage, or rather the lack thereof.

Senator Lincoln Chaffee, Republican of Rhode Island, today says that he will vote in favor of the nomination of John R. Bolton to be the new ambassador to the United Nations. As both the most moderate and independent of Republican Senators on the SFRC, he was long considered the most likely member of the committee to vote against Bolton's nomination.

"I won't deny a lot of information certainly brings great pause, but I fight the administration on so many issues; this is one of those that I've been with them on-- to appoint their team."

Senator John Hagel, Republican of Nebraska was considered the second most likely to vote against Bolton, but he has indicated in recent days that he too would vote for Bolton.

It now appears all but certain that Bolton's nomination will be voted favorably out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he will be confirmed by the Senate.

The only Republican who has not yet publicly to say how he would vote is Senator George Voinovich, of Ohio, who the White House was worried about the most. Of all the Senators considering voting against Bolton, the Ohio Senator has the most to lose. Chaffee is a Republican from the bluest of states, Rhode Island, and in many ways a vote against Bolton would have assisted in his re-election bid by making him more attractive to Democrats and Independent voters. Hagel is so popular and wins by such huge margins in his home state of Nebraska that he also had less to lose by an anti-Bolton vote than most Senators.

Now with Chaffee and Hagel both apparently going to vote for Bolton, it would obviously be much more difficult for Voinovich to be the sole Republican to vote against the nomination.

[whometense]

8. Thinking about what to expect

from tomorrow's hearing...

If none of the republicans plans to vote against Bolton (and Voinovich seems to be the only one in doubt at this point), I'm wondering what will transpire during tomorrow's 5 hour hearing.

Please feel free to disagree, but it seems to me that the dems have very little to lose here by just unleashing in a public forum all the dirt they've so far uncovered (and it appears to be considerable, despite Condi's stonewalling) on not just Bolton, but his ties to Cheney as well as the Grand PNAC Plan for World Domination.

What they stand to gain:

1. At least we'd get a good public airing of this garbage.

2. If there's enough there, it may give Hagel and/or Chafee enough cover to stand up and say, "I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you," and vote against him.

[TayTay]

10. I think this gives the Dems a chance to damage Bolton

at the least. Some of the stuff from State is also coming out today and it is 'sensitive but not secret' so some of that will get out in the public record.

Bolton was part of getting Cheney's dirty little fingers into the UN. (Maybe part of an advance plan to build up rationale to attack Iran.) Everyone now knows about Bolton. These plans, and Cheney's fingerprints will be much harder to ignore. There is a hidden win in here for the Dems.

Chafee is a wimp. RI is against Bolton and *. Chafee should listen to his constituents and vote his conscience. You could see at the last meeting that he was practically begging Lugar to stop the farce of a hearing.

I still anticipate fireworks. I don't think Kerry will ge tthere until late in the day. He has the Commerce Comm hearing on Fake Video News at 10 and will probably show up after he does an intro at that hearing. (It is his bill after all, along with Sen. Lautenberg from NJ.)

[whometense]

11. I do also

anticipate fireworks. At the very least, from Kerry and Boxer. I don't really trust Biden not to back down. I don't think he'll vote yes, but I just feel like he's still often playing by the old (trust your fellow senator) rules.

I agree about the hidden win. Everyone and his dog knows who Bolton is, now, and pretty much all of them hate him. Very helpful.

This is OT, but I'm curious as to what you think about the filibuster stuff. All the feints and parries leave me befuddled. I'm instinctively inclined to think that if senate business grinds to a halt that's a net plus for the country. What do you think of all the attempted compromises? Is Reid playing Frist like a fiddle, or is he sincerely looking to compromise?

The *ies have proved (to me, anyway) over and over that there's no point in giving in. They'll say thank you very much, you owed me that, and then repay you with a knife in the back without so much as blinking.

Edited to add: McCain's reported attempts to force a compromise make me doubly convinced it's a bad idea.

[TayTay]

12. Opinions are all over the map on this one

It is one hellaciously big gamble on both sides.

First has to pull the trigger on the Nuke. He just has to. The Wingnuts are salivating all over this. Heck, even the Boston Globe today had an OpEd from the loathsome James Dobson (of the RW Focus on the Family) that is berating Dems and begging Frist to 'do it.' If Frist doesn't try to pull the Nuke, he has no chance with the Wingnut fundraisers for '08. Wingnuts never forget anything and they hold grudges. There is very little upside for Frist on this. If he pulls the Nuke, he pleases the Wingnuts, but pisses off business interests and other baseline Rethug backers who are making out pretty good in the 109th (weasel) Congress. (Moneywise.)

I think Reid also has no choice. If he compromises on this, then the Dems will piss off their base to an enormous degree and this will have serious repercussions in fund-raising and getting supporters out in '06 for various races. This is an 'eyeball-to-eyeball,' see who blinks first, option.

I think the Dems win, even if they lose. The Dems can slow down the Senate and try and avoid the obstructionist label, which I think they can. The Dems are not threatening to close up shop and go home. They are threatening to slow everything down and to use obscure rules to bring a laundry list of Dem legislation to the floor. (Kerry's KidsFirst, I'm sure will be one of them.) The Dems will face NO real opposition from their base to this. (There will be some opposition from the moderate/conservative Dems, but not that bad.) We (you and me, the base of the party) are in no real hurry for the Senate to resume normal business, since that business has been all bad. (Please, I can wait forever rather than see Part 2 of the Bankruptcy Bill come to the floor.)

Reid has done extremely well. He has given the WH so much angst that Karl Rove recently went to Nevada to meet with people about how to pressure Reid to not be such a pain in the arse for *. (Hahahaha!) Reid can give his guys (the DSCC) a chance at some genuine issues. Senate Dems can campaign on the idea that they tried to preserve the Constitution and the traditions of Senate and were forced to do what they did becuase of extremist winguts. I think Reid has played it well.

See yesterdays E.J. Dionne column. He quoted one of my favorite fighting phrases from last fall. I don't think Reid liked it anymore than I did:

Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform and a leading figure in both the DeLay and Bush political operations, chose more colorful post-election language to describe the future. "Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans," he told Richard Leiby of The Post. "Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant. But when they've been 'fixed,' then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful."

If you wonder in the coming weeks why Democrats are so reluctant to give ground, remember Norquist's jocular reference to neutering the opposition party. Democrats are neither contented nor cheerful over the prospect of being "fixed." Should that surprise anyone?

[whometense]

13. Yeah.

I remember that quote. In spite of everything I've read about Norquist, I was still shocked by it.

Maybe it should be tatooed on wobbly dems' foreheads.

[TayTay]

14. That one stuck in my craw

I must have posted it here about 10 times. It is just so nauseating. I mean I know that Norquist thinks it was funny, but I don't. I think of that quote all the time when I think about what the Dems are doing to stand up to the Rethugs this term. (Well they haven't stood up for everything, but they are trying to pick their battles and are striving to be better and firmer in their stands.)

Neutering the Dems to keep them sedate and stop them from peeing on the furniture. Gawd so I ever despise that man. Go Harry Reid. Make life miserable for those heartless, greedy, obnoxious bastards. You have my blessing. (That said, Harry what the hell were you thinking in some of your votes, like Bankruptcy? We have to have issues and stands as Dems and this vote was a disgrace on your part.)

[whometense]

9. At least Doonesbury's having fun with him...

[rox63]

15. Howzabout a Bolton sex scandal?

As repugnant a human being as Bolton is, women have apparently been attracted enough to him to marry him. Then they run away in fear, after being forced into group sex at swinger's clubs.

If this is what it takes to bring him down, then the Dems will just have to pull on their hip-waders and get to work. It worked on that repuke Ryan from Illinois.


BOLTON FUROR GROWS
Larry Flynt says Bush UN nominee won't answer questions about forced sex
RAW STORY

The controversial Hustler Magazine publisher Larry Flynt has waded into the conflict surrounding the nomination of Bush hawk John Bolton to a UN post by revealing Bolton's divorce records and unanswered questions about his sexual past, RAW STORY has learned.

The following release was issued early this afternoon. RAW STORY will provide more details as they become available. We will be publishing excerpts of the Bolton divorce record shortly.

<snip>

From Mr. Flynt's release:

Corroborated allegations that Mr. Bolton’s first wife, Christina Bolton, was forced to engage in group sex have not been refuted by the State Department despite inquires posed by Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt concerning the allegations. Mr. Flynt has obtained information from numerous sources that Mr. Bolton participated in paid visits to Plato’s Retreat, the popular swingers club that operated in New York City in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

“The first Mrs. Bolton’s conduct raises the presumption that she fled out of fear for her safety or, at a minimum, it demonstrates that Mr. Bolton’s established inability to communicate or work respectfully with others extended to his intimate family relations,” said Mr. Flynt. “The court records alone provide sufficient basis for further investigation of nominee Bolton by the Senate.” These court records are enclosed here as an attachment. Mr. Flynt continued, “The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations must be free of any potential source of disrepute or blackmail.”

See the rest at this link: http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/larry_flynt_bolton_511

[TayTay]

16. I think it was the same club as Ryan's too

Plato's Retreat. Never been there myself, but the name rings a bell. (I think that's where Ryan took 7of9, ah, Mrs. Ryan, right?)

Rethugs can't deal with sex scandals in public. (Except for Jeff Gannon. Odd that, eh?) Maybe this will bring Bolton down. On the other hand, I would pay good money to see that creep Allen have to deal with Dem questions about Bolton and this type of possible unethical or at the least questionable behavior.

Bet the Freepers go into meltdown about how unfair this is. (Right!)

[karynnj]

17. Was the word "sleazebag" created so Bolton could be described in 1 word?

How can the so-called values party have the chutzpah to not withdraw this nomination? Bolton has to be the creapiest person I can remember ever nominated by anyone for anything.

Was it really only about 12 years ago, that Clinton withdrew several nominations because the nominees hadn't paid taxes on wages nannies earned?

[whometense]

18. And there's MORE...A Nuclear Blunder?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7817986/site/newsweek/

Critics say U.N. Ambassador-designate John Bolton didn’t properly prepare for a key nonproliferation conference, which could be a serious setback in U.S. efforts to isolate Iran.

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Hirsh and Eve Conant
Newsweek
Updated: 1:37 p.m. ET May 11, 2005

May 11 - George W. Bush has said it often enough. The No. 1 security challenge for America post-9/11 is to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists or rogue regimes. In a landmark speech at the National Defense University in February 2004, the president called for a toughened Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and other new initiatives. “There is a consensus among nations that proliferation cannot be tolerated,� Bush said. “Yet this consensus means little unless it is translated into action.�

By action Bush meant the hard work of diplomacy, John Bolton, the president’s point man on nuclear arms control, told Congress a month later. For one thing, America needed to lead an effort at “closing a loophole� in the 35-year-old NPT, Bolton testified back then. The treaty’s provisions had to be updated to prevent countries like Iran from enriching uranium under cover of a peaceful civilian which is technically permitted under the NPT—when what Tehran really sought was a bomb, according to the administration.

But if the NPT needed so much fixing under U.S. leadership, why was the United States so shockingly unprepared when the treaty came up for its five-year review at a major conference in New York this month, in the view of many delegates? And why has the United States been losing control of the conference’s agenda this week to Iran and other countries—a potentially serious setback to U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran?

Part of the answer, several sources close to the negotiations tell NEWSWEEK, lies with Bolton, the undersecretary of State for arms control. Since last fall Bolton, Bush’s embattled nominee to be America’s ambassador to the United Nations, has aggressively lobbied for a senior job in the second Bush administration. During that time, Bolton did almost no diplomatic groundwork for the NPT conference, these officials say.program—which is te

[karynnj]

19. But that was Bush's number one priority for national security

At least from debate one. (Where he essentially just agreed with Kerry - maybe because he couldn't think of an answer.)

How any of the Republicans in good conscience can vote for the obnoxious, evil degenerate is beyond me. I wish the Democrats well tomorrow and hope that at least one Republican decides he just can't back him. It scares me that they could look at even the subset of things said by other Republicans and not say that their advise is that this man should never work for the US government again and then withhold their consent.

Kerry is to be commended for his good judgment in picking enemies.

[whometense]

20. Of course, I never

give Smirky the benefit of the doubt, but I'm inclined to believe * couldn't come up with his own answer.

What does he care about? I really am curious. Not his kids - he sure isn't doing anything to try to leave them a better world. I think he's a classic narcissist - can't see anyone or anything except in terms of himself. It drives me insane that so many people in this country can't see that.

As usual, though, Kerry comes through. There are very few pols who I follow without first investigating what they're up to. Kerry is one. (Barbara Boxer and Barney Frank and Teddy have my trust as well.)

[ginnyinWI]

21. there was a poll recently in Wisconsin

They called something like 600 people at random. More people said that the country was headed in the wrong direction than said that they were very unhappy with the president. That means that they aren't blaming him for things like high gas prices, or the economy, or anything. It's crazy. Of course there was an informed 33% who said they were very displeased by the president. They tended to be people with more education--like post-graduate.

It tells me, though, that he's for the most part getting a pass. The "government" is to blame, but not the chimp. Sigh! Argh!

[whometense]

22. Late news from Laura Rozen

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002035.html

Senate Intelligence committee staff send word that tomorrow's Bolton hearings by their fellow Foreign Relations committee should be interesting. Senate Intel committee leadership were briefed yesterday on the NSA intercepts from which on on ten occassions Bolton requested he be provided with the identity of the redacted "US persons." Senators Rockefeller and Roberts were apparently not told the names from the NSA intercepts; but go read the last two graphs of this wire report. An awful lot of fuss from Bolton's crew involving intelligence community resistance to their hype of a Cuba bioweapons threat, it seems.

Update: One legitimate justification for requesting the US identities from NSA intercepts involves counterintelligence concerns. Did Bolton's crew try to portray Fulton Armstrong and/or Christian Westermann as spies for Cuba? There seems to be a bizarre degree of extreme reluctance of Fleitz, Freedman and Bolton's backers now to explain the particular subject at issue or their reason for their heated communications about it or their reluctance to discuss it. Such a witchhunt would constitute an unusually vicious way to attempt to retaliate against intel analysts one disagrees with, wouldn't it?
Posted by Laura at 10:14 PM

[whometense]

23. Wire story

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/05/11/national/w163635D47.DTL

All eight Democrats on the 18-member GOP-led committee oppose Bolton. For weeks, they have tried to raise enough questions about Bolton's conduct and temperament to persuade at least one Republican committee member to defect.

"Democrats continue to feel that Mr. Bolton is the wrong person for the job," said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

A 10-8 party-line vote would send Bolton's nomination on to the full Senate, where Republicans have a larger majority.

The committee's top Democrat, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said it is possible that Bolton's nomination could be blocked by a Democratic filibuster in the full Senate.

"It is not my intention to do that but it depends on how this plays out," Biden said.

Added Dodd: "It's certainly a real possibility."

Among four committee Republicans who have expressed reservations about Bolton, only Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, appeared to remain on the fence.

"At this stage of the game we're going to make that decision tomorrow," Voinovich said.

[whometense]

24. Douglas Jehl, today's NY Times

Top story, front page. Our hero speaks. :loveya:

WASHINGTON, May 11 - With a vote scheduled Thursday on his contested nomination as ambassador to the United Nations, John R. Bolton has told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that a policy maker should maintain the right to "state his own reading of the intelligence" even when it differs from that of intelligence agencies.

Senator John Kerry, who asked John R. Bolton if he would reflect only spy agencies' findings on intelligence.

Mr. Bolton's statement came in a written response to a written question from Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, a leading Democratic critic of the nomination, and was disclosed by Democrats legislators opposed to the nomination. They said they would cite it as evidence that Mr. Bolton would adopt a loose standard for accuracy in making statements based on intelligence.

- snip -

For weeks, the committee has been exploring whether Mr. Bolton, as an under secretary of state, improperly sought to press intelligence agencies to endorse his views, and sought to bypass the agencies' objections by describing his own views as those of the government.

Mr. Kerry asked Mr. Bolton whether as ambassador to the United Nations, he would "unfailingly use the established procedure" for clearing speeches, testimony and other public remarks with intelligence agencies.

In his response, Mr. Bolton told the committee that he would adhere to rules that require formal clearance of any statement purporting to describe intelligence agencies' views. But he also said, "A policy official may state his own reading of the intelligence (assuming the information is cleared for release as a policy matter) as long as he does not purport to speak for the intelligence community."

[TayTay]

25. Good stuff, nice find

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
- Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Sounds like Bolton wanted hs own facts to go along with his singular opinions.

Well, there will be a contrast. Looky who * nominated to the UN. I don't think a different President would have nominated him. That different Pres would have put up an even-tempered and intelligent person who would be a good diplomat for the US, not be seen as some sort of rabid idealogue hell-bent on pushing his own agenda. Nice!

[whometense]

26. A lot of people

(on the left) seem to be resigned to the idea that he will get pushed through, one way or another. I claim no inside info, and have no idea what to expect from this morning's meeting. But no matter what, I feel confident that Kerry's in his prosecutor/avenging angel mode, and he will not give up without an ugly fight. Even if they shove Bolton through (and only god knows what kind of twisted creep you'd have to be to want him at this point), he is permanently damaged goods, and the american people know the truth. There's at least some satisfaction in that.

On edit: See this Clemons post today? He's excited too.

More on its way. Things are really hot now. One hour and eight minutes until the hearing starts.

Got my coffee, and c-span3 running on my computer. I'm ready.