Will John Bolton Win Senate Approval to Head US's UN Mission or Embarass Bush? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 05-12-2005, 02:55 AM

John Bolton is coming back from the predicted political grave to win senate foreign relations committee approval vote, on his way to become America's UN ambassador, or is he?

On the one hand....the "cook the intelligence info to alter the facts to justify your invasion du jour" , will love him for this:

Quote:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/12/news/bolton.php
Bolton would speak his mind at UN
By Douglas Jehl The New York Times

THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2005
WASHINGTON In advance of a vote scheduled for Thursday, John 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 those assessments are not supported by intelligence agencies.

The statement by Bolton, which had not previously been disclosed, addresses an issue central to the panel's inquiry into his nomination as ambassador to the United Nations.

The committee has been exploring whether Bolton, as an under secretary of state, improperly sought to pressure intelligence agencies to endorse his views, as well as whether he himself sought to bypass the agencies' objections by describing his own views as those of the U.S. government.

Among newly declassified documents being reviewed by the committee are some from the Central Intelligence Agency expressing vehement opposition to testimony on Cuba that Bolton planned to give in June 2002, on grounds that he was seeking to state as the views of the United States conclusions that had been rejected by the intelligence agencies and could not be supported by the facts.

Bolton said that if confirmed as UN ambassador, he would adhere to rules that require formal clearance of any policy maker's statement that purports to describe intelligence agencies' views.

But when he was asked by Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, whether, as ambassador to the UN, he would "unfailingly use the established procedure" for clearing speeches, testimony and other public remarks with intelligence agencies, Bolton cited an exception.

"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," Bolton wrote.

A copy of his response was provided by congressional Democrats opposed to the nomination who said they would cite it as evidence that he would adopt a loose standard when it came to using intelligence as the basis for pronoucements.

As an under secretary of state, Bolton was known for challenging intelligence agencies' views on Cuba, Syria and other issues and for proposing more hawkish assessments based on his own independent analysis of intelligence, including highly classified documents he obtained from outside the State Department.

Under current practice, policy makers have always insisted on a free hand in discussing policy matters, but generally have deferred to agencies' conclusions when it comes to assessing intelligence.

Among the newly declassified documents provided by the CIA to the committee is a memorandum from June 6, 2002, in which the agency's analytical directorate voiced "serious concerns about the tone and tenor" of the testimony on Cuba that Bolton had proposed, saying that it "misrepresents" the judgments of the intelligence agencies "not only B.W.," or biological weapons, "but also on terrorism."

Another declassified memorandum, sent on June 5, 2002, to George Tenet, then director of central intelligence, by the national intelligence officer for Latin America, reported that a controversy between Bolton's office and the intelligence agencies over Cuba "will not end soon" because Bolton had instructed his aides not to solicit substantive objections to the assertions he planned to make. Bolton never delivered the testimony, scheduled before a subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee. But drafts of the speech and comments about it declassified by the CIA show that intelligence agencies objected strongly to Bolton's plan to assert flatly that Cuba had a biological weapons program.

WASHINGTON In advance of a vote scheduled for Thursday, John 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 those assessments are not supported by intelligence agencies.

The statement by Bolton, which had not previously been disclosed, addresses an issue central to the panel's inquiry into his nomination as ambassador to the United Nations.

The committee has been exploring whether Bolton, as an under secretary of state, improperly sought to pressure intelligence agencies to endorse his views, as well as whether he himself sought to bypass the agencies' objections by describing his own views as those of the U.S. government.

Among newly declassified documents being reviewed by the committee are some from the Central Intelligence Agency expressing vehement opposition to testimony on Cuba that Bolton planned to give in June 2002, on grounds that he was seeking to state as the views of the United States conclusions that had been rejected by the intelligence agencies and could not be supported by the facts.........

.....................Bolton said that if confirmed as UN ambassador, he would adhere to rules that require formal clearance of any policy maker's statement that purports to describe intelligence agencies' views.

But when he was asked by Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, whether, as ambassador to the UN, he would "unfailingly use the established procedure" for clearing speeches, testimony and other public remarks with intelligence agencies, Bolton cited an exception.

"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," Bolton wrote.

A copy of his response was provided by congressional Democrats opposed to the nomination who said they would cite it as evidence that he would adopt a loose standard when it came to using intelligence as the basis for pronoucements.

As an under secretary of state, Bolton was known for challenging intelligence agencies' views on Cuba, Syria and other issues and for proposing more hawkish assessments based on his own independent analysis of intelligence, including highly classified documents he obtained from outside the State Department.

Under current practice, policy makers have always insisted on a free hand in discussing policy matters, but generally have deferred to agencies' conclusions when it comes to assessing intelligence...............

No problemo....so far....just the kind of UN delgation chief Bush, Cheney, and their Christian Right political base can love, right ?????

Well,,,,,not so fast......maybe.....

Quote:

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne...rds_bolton_511
The following court records, obtained by Larry Flynt and provided to RAW STORY, show that Bolton's first wife left him during a two-week trip to Vienna in 1982. More details of Bolton's past, unearthed by Flynt, are included in a separate article.

Hustler says the files are public record.

Image files of the pages of the record follow.

###

V I R G I N I A: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

JOHN R. BOLTON
Complainant

VS.

CHRISTINA M. BOLTON
Defendant

IN CHANCERY NO. 15645

REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMISSIONER IN CHANCERY

The undersigned, ROGER L. AMOLE, JR., a Special Commissioner in Chancery, to whom this cause was referred on the 4th day of December, 1984, respectfully reports as follows:...............

Quote:

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne...ynt_bolton_511
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.

The records show that Bolton's wife left him during a trip to Vienna in two weeks in 1982 and never returned. The records further show that she took most of the couple’s furniture.

The records do not disclose details about Flynt's claims. Bolton's ex-wife was not present at the time of the testimony.

RAW STORY has an outstanding call to the State Department but does not anticipate any response.

###

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.”

Mr. Flynt has contacted the State Department asking that they confirm or deny the allegations of Mr. Bolton’s prior conduct concerning his wife and the alleged paid visits to Plato’s Retreat. He has also called upon the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to conduct an inquiry into the very serious evidence concerning his first wife’s fear of him.

Neither the State Department nor the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has yet responded to Mr. Flynt’s inquiries.

The Hustler magazine publisher demanded an immediate response from Mr. Bolton. Mr. Flynt has personal knowledge about sources corroborating the allegations of nominee Bolton’s misconduct, and he has called upon these persons to publicly come forward with their information.

“First wife Christina Bolton has understandably remained silent on what led her to flee her husband of 10 years and to take the family belonging with hers. A full inquiry would necessarily involve meetings with Mrs. Bolton to uncover the circumstances of her flight and the Committee should subpoena her in private session,” Mr. Flynt said.

Mr. Flynt has no further comment at this time, except to ask that the press examine the attached court document pertaining to Mrs. Bolton flight from her home.

Mr. Flynt is awaiting further leads regarding Mr. Bolton’s private behavior, at which point he will have more information to convey.

If it is true that Bolton intimidated his wife and peruaded her to engage in public group sex, a similar substantiated charge cost the Rebuplicans a serious contender in the Illinois senate race last fall. Obama, the Dem. won instead. If this charge emerged against a Democrat, would the religious right insist on using it to publicly condemn their political opponent? Will the mainstream press succeed in burying this information until after today's scheduled senate committee vote? Is Bolton less susceptible to the risk of blackmail, now that Flynt has released this "news". Will Dobson remain silent and risk the safety and sanctity of the "family", while Bolton the "group sex" fiend squeaks by and ends up representing the U.S. and it's Christian values in front of the entire world? Bush and the Republicans sure know how to pick 'em, don't they?

Before you reactively dismiss all this, note that before Flynt released info last fall that powerful House rules committee charirman David Dreier (R) Cal. was a closet gay who quietly lived with his male chief of staff who was paid the highest salary of any of the 435 people who hold that job in congressional staff offices, at a time when Dreier was observed as becoming the most prominent TV spokesperson for the Republican congressional delegation, as Delay was receiving less TV exposure because of his 3 censures for ethics violations, Dreier neither admitted or denied that he was gay, and he retreated back into the shadows, his media exposure greatly reduced:

Quote:

http://larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=88
Dreier never has been “there” to talk about it, even as homosexuals have been fired, smeared and even murdered for simply being gay.
And that’s the shame of it all.

Elphaba · 05-12-2005, 02:35 PM

I have zero interest in a public figure's sex life. I do have an interest in whether they are competent or not. It appears that while Bolton was politicing for his new job, he failed in a very big way to do the job he has.

www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051105W.shtml

A Nuclear Blunder?
By Michael Hirsh and Eve Conant
Newsweek

Wednesday 11 May 2005

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

"John was absent without leave" when it came to implementing the agenda that the president laid out in his February 2004 speech, a former senior Bush official declares flatly. Another former government official with experience in nonproliferation agrees. "Everyone knew the conference was coming and that it would be contentious. But Bolton stopped all diplomacy on this six months ago," this official said. "The White House and the National Security Council started worrying, wondering what was going on. So a few months ago the NSC had to step in and get things going themselves. The NPT regime is full of holes—it's very hard for the US to meet our objectives—it takes diplomacy."

Diplomacy is just a fancy word for salesmanship—making phone calls, working the corridors, listening to and poking holes in opposing arguments, lobbying others to back one’s position. But "delegates didn’t hear a peep from the US until a week before the conference," says Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "There’s no sign of any coordinated US effort to develop a positive program." One diplomat involved with the conference agrees. "There were a number of the issues Bush raised in his February 2004 speech that needed to be taken up here, like the establishment of a special committee at the IAEA [the International Atomic Energy Agency] to go after [treaty] noncompliers. But painfully little has been done on that a year later."

A spokesperson for the NSC referred all questions about Bolton and its own role to the State Department. Asked to respond to the criticism, a State Department official denied that the United States had been unprepared for the conference or was underplaying it. He said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice couldn’t attend because she was caught in between back-to-back foreign trips to Latin America and to Russia. Bolton himself was preoccupied with his Senate confirmation, and Robert Joseph has yet to be confirmed as Bolton’s replacement as undersecretary, the State official said, adding, "We had several prep conferences for the NPT."

Bolton, who faces a scheduled confirmation vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, has been savaged by critics in recent weeks over his alleged manipulation of intelligence, his sometimes tempestuous efforts to sideline officials who disagreed with him, his statements under oath and other complaints. Throughout the Bolton controversy, his backers in the Bush administration have argued that though he may need better people skills, he has been very effective as a public official. Yet some critics of Bolton say that his alleged mishandling of the NPT conference and other initiatives show that he has sometimes botched the administration’s business as well.

Bolton, for instance, often takes and is given credit for the administration’s Proliferation Security Initiative—an agreement to interdict suspected WMD shipments on the high seas—and the deal to dismantle Libya’s nuclear program (a deal that Bolton had sought to block). But the former senior Bush official who criticized Bolton’s performance on the NPT conference says that in fact Bolton’s successor, Robert Joseph, deserves most of the credit for those achievements. This official adds that it was Joseph, who was in charge of counterproliferation at the NSC, who had to pitch in when Bolton fumbled preparations for the NPT conference, as well. Bush, in his February 2004 speech, also sought to give new powers to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which enforces the treaty. But Bolton, says the former Bush official, "focused much more time and attention trying to deny Mohammed elBaradei a third term" as head of the IAEA. The effort failed, and it was considered another international humiliation for the United States. (Ironically, elBaradei has been one of Washington’s chief allies at the NPT conference, pushing for parts of the Bush agenda.)

Critics of Bolton acknowledge that even in the best of times the ongoing NPT review conference—which lasts for a month—is a "painful mess" at which little of substance is achieved, as one international diplomat involved puts it. And today the negative sentiment against the United States is so strong, one Bush official said, that "not even Metternich could win an agreement here." Mitchell Reiss, the former policy-planning chief at State, says that "one of the real challenges is trying to persuade the non-aligned movement [a caucus of non-nuclear developing countries] that nonproliferation is not a gift to the United States, but that it’s fundamentally in their national-security interests."

Still, in past decades Washington has signaled its seriousness about the NPT by sending heavy hitters—Vice President Al Gore went in 1995, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 2000. At the ’95 conference in particular, Washington won kudos for leading the fight to extend the NPT’s life.

The NPT, perhaps the most successful arms-control treaty in history, has been in effect since 1970. It permits the already declared nuclear states—the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China—to keep their nuclear arsenals while forbidding such weapons to everyone else—as long as all parties strive "in good faith" to achieve nuclear disarmament and the non-nuclear states get access to civilian nuclear power. The treaty has 188 signatories and only a few detractors, among them North Korea and potentially Iran (Israel, Pakistan and India also refuse to sign.) But in recent years the "loophole" in this grand bargain has become more apparent: the treaty contains worrisome ambiguities that may allow states like Iran to legally pursue a nuclear arms capability disguised as a civilian program.

All signs are that by the end of the month, that loophole will remain. The Bush administration has achieved, for the moment, a united front with France, Germany and Britain in seeking to pressure the Iranians to open up and cease uranium enrichment. But now the administration finds itself outflanked at the conference as it seeks to win a wider international consensus in favor of a hard line against Iran. Bush officials have said that if they must eventually confront Tehran, they want to correct the unilateralist mistakes made in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Yet in the last week, as the conference began, the United States found it had to concede a key point on the agenda. It had to drop its demands for a veiled reference to the threats from rogue states and terrorism since 2000, including the covert development of an Iranian nuclear program. Talks have been all but paralyzed since, to the point where the delegates can’t even agree on a basic agenda for the conference.

Iranian officials at the conference say they are happily signing onto the agenda of the "nuclear have-nots" led by the non-aligned movement, which insists the United States and other nuclear states hold to their side of the NPT bargain. This includes supplying civilian nuclear technology and committing to an eventual dismantling of their nuclear arsenals. It is this agenda, one Iranian official involved in the discussions told NEWSWEEK, that is likely to dominate the meeting "despite the US attempt to divert attention by focusing on Iran."

StanT · 05-12-2005, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Will John Bolton Win Senate Approval to Head US's UN Mission or Embarass Bush?

I'm guessing he will do both. I just don't thing he has the tact or political skills to do the job. He is on record deriding the UN. His appointment doesn't seem like a wise choice.

I'm also in the "don't give a shit about his sex life" camp.

soundmotor · 05-12-2005, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanT

He is on record deriding the UN.

That's a bad thing? I can't think of anything they've ever done well.

soundmotor

samcol · 05-12-2005, 04:04 PM

I'm in the get the get the UN out of the US camp. Weak opposition against Iraq invasion, oil for food, sex slave trade. The UN has nothing good to offer the world. So, I guess I really don't care if he or anyone heads UN position.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-12-2005, 04:12 PM

As many here know I'm not a big fan of the UN. The way I keep hearing it is this guy is a hard ass and will shake things up, he's going to put the heat on the UN, and I love that. Hopefully it will work out for everyone and the UN gets sorted out and revamped into something applicable, as it stands right now the organization is a joke.

Elphaba · 05-12-2005, 05:15 PM

Bolton has been passed through committee *without* a recommendation. Another nuclear option for the Senate appears to be in the works.

StanT · 05-12-2005, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soundmotor

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanT

He is on record deriding the UN.

That's a bad thing? I can't think of anything they've ever done well.

soundmotor

Korean War, Iraq War 1? I'm indifferent to the UN in general. It does seem like your choice of UN Ambassador shouldn't have a record of opposing them.

Dwayne · 05-12-2005, 06:21 PM

It is very smart to make someone who hates the UN as ambassador to the Un. (Sarcasm)
I would also like to say, Why does a Politician's sex life mater?

aswo · 05-12-2005, 09:57 PM

Honestly who cares the un doesnt really matter anyway, every country has national sovreignty when it counts and does not really care about the un when their country is being looked upon unfavorably. So i say let john bolton go int here and piss every one off i just hope he pulls a gorbachav (i hope i spelled that somewhat close) and bangs his shoe on the table.

trickyy · 05-13-2005, 12:33 PM

this issue is interesting mainly because we should finally see some white-hot partisan bickering in congress. the newly reintroduced judges (from committee, partisan line vote) to the floor will generate a simliar response. not that i'm looking forward to a fight, but we've been hearing so much about Legislative Showdown '05 it will be interesting actually to see how things pan out.

i'm not sure how much difference this guy would make one way or the other, the administration is already packed with like-minded individuals. however, it wouldn't be too surprising if his diplomatic skills are lacking. while i don't mind someone who is hardheaded and right, it is just as important to be able to convince others of the legitimacy of said position. recalling our last major UN escapade, the war, we held a position that was +/- a good idea...but the flawed presentation of the case failed to yield any converts. the result was not necessarily optimal for either the US or the UN. if bolton, an old school PNAC boy, also pushes ideas without bringing others on board, i don't know how successful he can be.

Elphaba · 05-13-2005, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aswo

Honestly who cares the un doesnt really matter anyway, every country has national sovreignty when it counts and does not really care about the un when their country is being looked upon unfavorably. So i say let john bolton go int here and piss every one off i just hope he pulls a gorbachav (i hope i spelled that somewhat close) and bangs his shoe on the table.

I think the name you're trying to spell starts with a 'K'.

Ilow · 05-13-2005, 04:39 PM

Normally I say whatever someone does in his/ her bedroom shouldn't matter to us, but then when you are a partof the party that declares itself the moral majority etc, there is an element of hypocracy when you don't adhere to your party's own guidelines. More to the point these accusations are as yet unsubstantiated. Given his documented history of treatment of other people, however, I would be more inclined to speculate on an abuse history...
To the point, I believe this will get very contentious in congress and we may begin to see some moderate republicans break party lines and vote against him.
I don't even know what shrub was trying to do with this nomination anyway except further distance the US from the UN and continue to attempt to marginalize the UN. Sadly I fear our standing with the world community will take another hit. Also, considering he's a lawyer, does anyone else find him decidedly ineloquent? Speaking of eloquent, Host, I feel you do a small disservice to Obama when you allude to the allegations against his opponent; while they had an effect, he won by a considerable margin, and is a decidedly eloquent and charasmatic individual.

aswo · 05-14-2005, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I think the name you're trying to spell starts with a 'K'.

What are u trying to say?

trickyy · 05-14-2005, 10:30 PM

i think it's a reference to olden times

Hardknock · 05-15-2005, 12:34 AM

My vote is that he'll win the job and he'll embarass the shit out of us too.

soundmotor · 05-15-2005, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanT

Korean War, Iraq War 1? I'm indifferent to the UN in general. It does seem like your choice of UN Ambassador shouldn't have a record of opposing them.

In any of the UN associated events, the US has done the heavy lifting not coalition troops.

If the US had plans on pulling out of or minimizing the UN in general, it seems unlikely that we would put a reformer into this spot don't you think?

soundmotor

host · 05-15-2005, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soundmotor

In any of the UN associated events, the US has done the heavy lifting not coalition troops.

If the US had plans on pulling out of or minimizing the UN in general, it seems unlikely that we would put a reformer into this spot don't you think?

soundmotor

Please assure us that you are not spreading the Austin Bay talking point,
"Bolton the Reformer".
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...22&btnG=Search

The Bush team minimized the UN for at least the remainder of it's incumbancy when it attempted to use the Blix and UNSCOM to set Iraq up as being unwilling to cooperate with international demands for WMD inspections, as a pretext for a UN approved (as in a "legal") invasion of Iraq.

When the setup for a pretext backfired, because Saddam elected to comply and disclose the status of WMD programs, Bush publicly committed to a final attempt to obtain a pre-invasion UN resolution. When the Bush team pre-determined that the UN votes were not going to go their way, Bush reneged on the commitment to seek a final resolution for war, and stated that a resolution was not even necessary. The UN was manipulated in an attempt to obtain a stamp of legitamcy for Bush's predetermined invasion plan. The Bush administration compromised the UN and itself, and sending a hack like Bolton to represent the Bush team now is not "reform", anymore than "war is peace" or "the Patriot ACT is necessary to preserve our freedom". It is Orwellian doublespeak.

Elphaba · 05-26-2005, 06:05 PM

It would seem we have a little testicular fortitude from both parties on Bolton:

Democrats Win Crucial Bolton Vote
By Tom Curry
MSNBC

Thursday 26 May 2005

Showdown on UN nominee's confirmation now will be delayed for at least a week.
Washington - In a major setback for President Bush, the Senate voted Thursday to delay a confirmation vote on John Bolton, Bush’s choice to be U.S. envoy to the United Nations.

Bolton opponents won on a vote to end debate on his nomination. Under Senate rules, at least 60 votes were needed to close debate, but the final tally was 56 to 42.

Bolton’s confirmation vote will now be delayed for at least a week, until the Senate returns from its Memorial Day recess.

In a last-ditch effort, two Democratic senators, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, had worked Thursday to round up the 41 votes needed to stop Bolton's nomination.

"It'll be very close," Biden had predicted earlier Thursday afternoon.

A victory for Bolton would be a triumphal ending of the week for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

A defeat would add to Frist's woes - and to to Bush's.

It was a week that began with a setback for Frist as a group of bipartisan senators short-circuited his proposal to change Senate rules on using the filibuster delaying tactic to scuttle judicial nominees.

But Frist regained the momentum Wednesday when the Senate voted 55 to 43 to confirm appeals court nominee Priscilla Owen, whose nomination had been stymied for four years by Senate Democrats.

Frist Pivots Quickly

Dodd complained Wednesday that Frist had swiftly pivoted after the Owen vote to the Bolton nomination.

"I’m surprised amid all the controversy about federal judges why we’re not dealing with some of those (judicial nominees) at this particular moment," he said.

But it seemed clear that Frist had made a deft maneuver by quickly moving to push the Senate to vote on the U.N. envoy, right after his victory on Owen.

Democrats Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska each said in interviews late Wednesday they would vote with the Republicans to end debate.

Feinstein said she’d vote against the Bolton nomination itself, while Nelson was undecided as of Wednesday night.

And Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, Bolton’s harshest critic among Republicans, said he, too, would vote to end debate, even though he will vote "no" on Bolton’s nomination.

Voinovich made a passionate speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, portraying Bolton as abrasive, undiplomatic and unfit to serve as U.N. envoy.

"I don't want to take the risk" of confirming Bolton, Voinovich declared, his voice choked with emotion. "I came back here and ran for a second term because I'm worried about my kids and my grandchildren."

Bolton Foe Sees 'Overwhelming Pressure'

Voinovich later told reporters that all senators are under "overwhelming pressure" to "go along with the president" even though "very few people are enthusiastic" about the choice of Bolton to be U.N. ambassador.

Biden and Dodd were trying to use the cloture vote as leverage to force the Bush administration to hand over documents on Bolton's work on Syria and on weapons of mass destruction.

Bolton now serves as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. His portfolio includes preventing the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

For Biden, one of the key questions had been, as he told reporters Wednesday, "Did Bolton attempt to badger or change the views of intelligence officers relating to whether or not Syria had weapons of mass destruction at critical juncture (in July 2003) when all of you and all of us were asking ‘Is Syria next?’"

Dispute over Syria Documents

Biden accused the Bush administration of withholding the Syria documents because the papers and e-mails "will show that Bolton tried to intimidate the intelligence community" into concurring with "an assertion that it was highly probable that Syria had weapons of mass destruction" in 2003.

Biden and Dodd also want information from the National Security Agency on electronic intercepts - phone conversations and e-mail traffic - involving ten U.S. citizens.

"The issue was raised (as to) why did Bolton make so many requests and why was he seeking what is somewhat unusual the names of specific Americans who were identified in the intercepts," Biden said.

"The administration has stonewalled us on both of those requests," he said.

Biden was fuming because administration officials did not invoke constitutional arguments about separation of powers, but merely "concluded that the information the committee was seeking was not relevant to our inquiry."

Referring to Bush administration officials, Biden asked, "Who died and left them boss?"

But Bolton supporter Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, had his own rhetorical question, "Where does legitimate due diligence turn into partisanship? Where does the desire for the truth turn into a competition over who wins and who loses?"

'Elections Matter'

Another Bolton ally, Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said that Bush, having won a second term last November, deserved to have the person he wanted representing the United States at the United Nations.

"Elections matter," Coleman said. "And the president of the United States won the election."

The bad blood between Senate Democrats and Bolton stretches back 20 years.

In 1986, when he served as assistant attorney general in charge of liaison with Congress, he battled Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. over the nomination of William Rehnquist to be chief justice.

The issue then - as now with the Syria documents - was the executive branch withholding information that senators wanted.

Kennedy wanted memos Rehnquist had written while serving in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Despite a scolding from Kennedy in a public hearing of the Judiciary Committee, Bolton rejected his demands.

05-12-2005, 04:12 PM	#6 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	As many here know I'm not a big fan of the UN. The way I keep hearing it is this guy is a hard ass and will shake things up, he's going to put the heat on the UN, and I love that. Hopefully it will work out for everyone and the UN gets sorted out and revamped into something applicable, as it stands right now the organization is a joke. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

05-12-2005, 09:57 PM	#10 (permalink)
aswo Crazy	Honestly who cares the un doesnt really matter anyway, every country has national sovreignty when it counts and does not really care about the un when their country is being looked upon unfavorably. So i say let john bolton go int here and piss every one off i just hope he pulls a gorbachav (i hope i spelled that somewhat close) and bangs his shoe on the table. __________________ People who love people

05-13-2005, 04:39 PM	#13 (permalink)
Ilow Junkie Location: Pats country	Normally I say whatever someone does in his/ her bedroom shouldn't matter to us, but then when you are a partof the party that declares itself the moral majority etc, there is an element of hypocracy when you don't adhere to your party's own guidelines. More to the point these accusations are as yet unsubstantiated. Given his documented history of treatment of other people, however, I would be more inclined to speculate on an abuse history... To the point, I believe this will get very contentious in congress and we may begin to see some moderate republicans break party lines and vote against him. I don't even know what shrub was trying to do with this nomination anyway except further distance the US from the UN and continue to attempt to marginalize the UN. Sadly I fear our standing with the world community will take another hit. Also, considering he's a lawyer, does anyone else find him decidedly ineloquent? Speaking of eloquent, Host, I feel you do a small disservice to Obama when you allude to the allegations against his opponent; while they had an effect, he won by a considerable margin, and is a decidedly eloquent and charasmatic individual. __________________ "Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about" --Sam Harris

05-12-2005, 02:35 PM	#2 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I have zero interest in a public figure's sex life. I do have an interest in whether they are competent or not. It appears that while Bolton was politicing for his new job, he failed in a very big way to do the job he has. www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051105W.shtml A Nuclear Blunder? By Michael Hirsh and Eve Conant Newsweek Wednesday 11 May 2005 Critics say UN Ambassador-designate John Bolton didn’t properly prepare for a key nonproliferation conference, which could be a serious setback in US efforts to isolate Iran. 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 program—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 US 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 US 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. "John was absent without leave" when it came to implementing the agenda that the president laid out in his February 2004 speech, a former senior Bush official declares flatly. Another former government official with experience in nonproliferation agrees. "Everyone knew the conference was coming and that it would be contentious. But Bolton stopped all diplomacy on this six months ago," this official said. "The White House and the National Security Council started worrying, wondering what was going on. So a few months ago the NSC had to step in and get things going themselves. The NPT regime is full of holes—it's very hard for the US to meet our objectives—it takes diplomacy." Diplomacy is just a fancy word for salesmanship—making phone calls, working the corridors, listening to and poking holes in opposing arguments, lobbying others to back one’s position. But "delegates didn’t hear a peep from the US until a week before the conference," says Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "There’s no sign of any coordinated US effort to develop a positive program." One diplomat involved with the conference agrees. "There were a number of the issues Bush raised in his February 2004 speech that needed to be taken up here, like the establishment of a special committee at the IAEA [the International Atomic Energy Agency] to go after [treaty] noncompliers. But painfully little has been done on that a year later." A spokesperson for the NSC referred all questions about Bolton and its own role to the State Department. Asked to respond to the criticism, a State Department official denied that the United States had been unprepared for the conference or was underplaying it. He said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice couldn’t attend because she was caught in between back-to-back foreign trips to Latin America and to Russia. Bolton himself was preoccupied with his Senate confirmation, and Robert Joseph has yet to be confirmed as Bolton’s replacement as undersecretary, the State official said, adding, "We had several prep conferences for the NPT." Bolton, who faces a scheduled confirmation vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, has been savaged by critics in recent weeks over his alleged manipulation of intelligence, his sometimes tempestuous efforts to sideline officials who disagreed with him, his statements under oath and other complaints. Throughout the Bolton controversy, his backers in the Bush administration have argued that though he may need better people skills, he has been very effective as a public official. Yet some critics of Bolton say that his alleged mishandling of the NPT conference and other initiatives show that he has sometimes botched the administration’s business as well. Bolton, for instance, often takes and is given credit for the administration’s Proliferation Security Initiative—an agreement to interdict suspected WMD shipments on the high seas—and the deal to dismantle Libya’s nuclear program (a deal that Bolton had sought to block). But the former senior Bush official who criticized Bolton’s performance on the NPT conference says that in fact Bolton’s successor, Robert Joseph, deserves most of the credit for those achievements. This official adds that it was Joseph, who was in charge of counterproliferation at the NSC, who had to pitch in when Bolton fumbled preparations for the NPT conference, as well. Bush, in his February 2004 speech, also sought to give new powers to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which enforces the treaty. But Bolton, says the former Bush official, "focused much more time and attention trying to deny Mohammed elBaradei a third term" as head of the IAEA. The effort failed, and it was considered another international humiliation for the United States. (Ironically, elBaradei has been one of Washington’s chief allies at the NPT conference, pushing for parts of the Bush agenda.) Critics of Bolton acknowledge that even in the best of times the ongoing NPT review conference—which lasts for a month—is a "painful mess" at which little of substance is achieved, as one international diplomat involved puts it. And today the negative sentiment against the United States is so strong, one Bush official said, that "not even Metternich could win an agreement here." Mitchell Reiss, the former policy-planning chief at State, says that "one of the real challenges is trying to persuade the non-aligned movement [a caucus of non-nuclear developing countries] that nonproliferation is not a gift to the United States, but that it’s fundamentally in their national-security interests." Still, in past decades Washington has signaled its seriousness about the NPT by sending heavy hitters—Vice President Al Gore went in 1995, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 2000. At the ’95 conference in particular, Washington won kudos for leading the fight to extend the NPT’s life. The NPT, perhaps the most successful arms-control treaty in history, has been in effect since 1970. It permits the already declared nuclear states—the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China—to keep their nuclear arsenals while forbidding such weapons to everyone else—as long as all parties strive "in good faith" to achieve nuclear disarmament and the non-nuclear states get access to civilian nuclear power. The treaty has 188 signatories and only a few detractors, among them North Korea and potentially Iran (Israel, Pakistan and India also refuse to sign.) But in recent years the "loophole" in this grand bargain has become more apparent: the treaty contains worrisome ambiguities that may allow states like Iran to legally pursue a nuclear arms capability disguised as a civilian program. All signs are that by the end of the month, that loophole will remain. The Bush administration has achieved, for the moment, a united front with France, Germany and Britain in seeking to pressure the Iranians to open up and cease uranium enrichment. But now the administration finds itself outflanked at the conference as it seeks to win a wider international consensus in favor of a hard line against Iran. Bush officials have said that if they must eventually confront Tehran, they want to correct the unilateralist mistakes made in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Yet in the last week, as the conference began, the United States found it had to concede a key point on the agenda. It had to drop its demands for a veiled reference to the threats from rogue states and terrorism since 2000, including the covert development of an Iranian nuclear program. Talks have been all but paralyzed since, to the point where the delegates can’t even agree on a basic agenda for the conference. Iranian officials at the conference say they are happily signing onto the agenda of the "nuclear have-nots" led by the non-aligned movement, which insists the United States and other nuclear states hold to their side of the NPT bargain. This includes supplying civilian nuclear technology and committing to an eventual dismantling of their nuclear arsenals. It is this agenda, one Iranian official involved in the discussions told NEWSWEEK, that is likely to dominate the meeting "despite the US attempt to divert attention by focusing on Iran."

05-12-2005, 04:04 PM	#5 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	I'm in the get the get the UN out of the US camp. Weak opposition against Iraq invasion, oil for food, sex slave trade. The UN has nothing good to offer the world. So, I guess I really don't care if he or anyone heads UN position.

05-12-2005, 05:15 PM	#7 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Bolton has been passed through committee without a recommendation. Another nuclear option for the Senate appears to be in the works.

05-12-2005, 06:21 PM	#9 (permalink)
Dwayne Crazy Location: New England	It is very smart to make someone who hates the UN as ambassador to the Un. (Sarcasm) I would also like to say, Why does a Politician's sex life mater?

05-13-2005, 12:33 PM	#11 (permalink)
trickyy ►	this issue is interesting mainly because we should finally see some white-hot partisan bickering in congress. the newly reintroduced judges (from committee, partisan line vote) to the floor will generate a simliar response. not that i'm looking forward to a fight, but we've been hearing so much about Legislative Showdown '05 it will be interesting actually to see how things pan out. i'm not sure how much difference this guy would make one way or the other, the administration is already packed with like-minded individuals. however, it wouldn't be too surprising if his diplomatic skills are lacking. while i don't mind someone who is hardheaded and right, it is just as important to be able to convince others of the legitimacy of said position. recalling our last major UN escapade, the war, we held a position that was +/- a good idea...but the flawed presentation of the case failed to yield any converts. the result was not necessarily optimal for either the US or the UN. if bolton, an old school PNAC boy, also pushes ideas without bringing others on board, i don't know how successful he can be.

05-14-2005, 10:30 PM	#15 (permalink)
trickyy ►	i think it's a reference to olden times

05-15-2005, 12:34 AM	#16 (permalink)
Hardknock Republican slayer Location: WA	My vote is that he'll win the job and he'll embarass the shit out of us too.

05-26-2005, 06:05 PM	#19 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	It would seem we have a little testicular fortitude from both parties on Bolton: Democrats Win Crucial Bolton Vote By Tom Curry MSNBC Thursday 26 May 2005 Showdown on UN nominee's confirmation now will be delayed for at least a week. Washington - In a major setback for President Bush, the Senate voted Thursday to delay a confirmation vote on John Bolton, Bush’s choice to be U.S. envoy to the United Nations. Bolton opponents won on a vote to end debate on his nomination. Under Senate rules, at least 60 votes were needed to close debate, but the final tally was 56 to 42. Bolton’s confirmation vote will now be delayed for at least a week, until the Senate returns from its Memorial Day recess. In a last-ditch effort, two Democratic senators, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, had worked Thursday to round up the 41 votes needed to stop Bolton's nomination. "It'll be very close," Biden had predicted earlier Thursday afternoon. A victory for Bolton would be a triumphal ending of the week for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. A defeat would add to Frist's woes - and to to Bush's. It was a week that began with a setback for Frist as a group of bipartisan senators short-circuited his proposal to change Senate rules on using the filibuster delaying tactic to scuttle judicial nominees. But Frist regained the momentum Wednesday when the Senate voted 55 to 43 to confirm appeals court nominee Priscilla Owen, whose nomination had been stymied for four years by Senate Democrats. Frist Pivots Quickly Dodd complained Wednesday that Frist had swiftly pivoted after the Owen vote to the Bolton nomination. "I’m surprised amid all the controversy about federal judges why we’re not dealing with some of those (judicial nominees) at this particular moment," he said. But it seemed clear that Frist had made a deft maneuver by quickly moving to push the Senate to vote on the U.N. envoy, right after his victory on Owen. Democrats Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska each said in interviews late Wednesday they would vote with the Republicans to end debate. Feinstein said she’d vote against the Bolton nomination itself, while Nelson was undecided as of Wednesday night. And Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, Bolton’s harshest critic among Republicans, said he, too, would vote to end debate, even though he will vote "no" on Bolton’s nomination. Voinovich made a passionate speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, portraying Bolton as abrasive, undiplomatic and unfit to serve as U.N. envoy. "I don't want to take the risk" of confirming Bolton, Voinovich declared, his voice choked with emotion. "I came back here and ran for a second term because I'm worried about my kids and my grandchildren." Bolton Foe Sees 'Overwhelming Pressure' Voinovich later told reporters that all senators are under "overwhelming pressure" to "go along with the president" even though "very few people are enthusiastic" about the choice of Bolton to be U.N. ambassador. Biden and Dodd were trying to use the cloture vote as leverage to force the Bush administration to hand over documents on Bolton's work on Syria and on weapons of mass destruction. Bolton now serves as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. His portfolio includes preventing the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. For Biden, one of the key questions had been, as he told reporters Wednesday, "Did Bolton attempt to badger or change the views of intelligence officers relating to whether or not Syria had weapons of mass destruction at critical juncture (in July 2003) when all of you and all of us were asking ‘Is Syria next?’" Dispute over Syria Documents Biden accused the Bush administration of withholding the Syria documents because the papers and e-mails "will show that Bolton tried to intimidate the intelligence community" into concurring with "an assertion that it was highly probable that Syria had weapons of mass destruction" in 2003. Biden and Dodd also want information from the National Security Agency on electronic intercepts - phone conversations and e-mail traffic - involving ten U.S. citizens. "The issue was raised (as to) why did Bolton make so many requests and why was he seeking what is somewhat unusual the names of specific Americans who were identified in the intercepts," Biden said. "The administration has stonewalled us on both of those requests," he said. Biden was fuming because administration officials did not invoke constitutional arguments about separation of powers, but merely "concluded that the information the committee was seeking was not relevant to our inquiry." Referring to Bush administration officials, Biden asked, "Who died and left them boss?" But Bolton supporter Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, had his own rhetorical question, "Where does legitimate due diligence turn into partisanship? Where does the desire for the truth turn into a competition over who wins and who loses?" 'Elections Matter' Another Bolton ally, Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said that Bush, having won a second term last November, deserved to have the person he wanted representing the United States at the United Nations. "Elections matter," Coleman said. "And the president of the United States won the election." The bad blood between Senate Democrats and Bolton stretches back 20 years. In 1986, when he served as assistant attorney general in charge of liaison with Congress, he battled Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. over the nomination of William Rehnquist to be chief justice. The issue then - as now with the Syria documents - was the executive branch withholding information that senators wanted. Kennedy wanted memos Rehnquist had written while serving in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Despite a scolding from Kennedy in a public hearing of the Judiciary Committee, Bolton rejected his demands.