Harry Reid Speaks Boldly on Bolton this Morning:

[seemslikeadream]

Harry Reid Speaks Boldly on Bolton this Morning: The White House Will Lose Again Thursday
Senate Minority Leader gave this statement this morning:

BOLTON NOMINATION
~ From the outset of the debate on John Bolton's nomination, Senate Democrats have had a clear and consistent position: If the Administration works in good faith to give the Senate the information it deserves, Senate Democrats are ready to immediately give this nomination an up or down vote.

~ We said this in May and it remains our position today.

~ Despite the Administration's refusal to turn over any of the requested information during this time period, Senator Frist informed me yesterday that he is inclined to seek another vote on the Bolton nomination.

~ While he is certainly within his rights to do so, unless the Administration changes course before this vote is held, the outcome will be the same as it was last month and here is why.

~ The history and precedent in the Senate make it clear that the Senate has a right to information that bears directly on the fitness of a potential nominee to serve. Every other Administration has recognized the Senate's rights and provided the needed information. Every Administration except this one.

~ Many colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stood up for the Senate's right to get information from the executive branch in the past. My colleagues have made it clear with their words and deeds that it was perfectly legitimate for the Senate to withhold action on an executive branch nominee until the executive branch provided certain information, even if the information requested had nothing to do with the nominee in question.

~ In this instance, we are seeking information that bears directly on the fitness of John Bolton to serve as our representative to the United Nations. And we are not engaging in a fishing expedition. We are seeking clearly defined documents and information about two very important issues:

-- Did Mr. Bolton attempt to exaggerate what Congress would be told about Syria's alleged WMD capabilities?
-- Did Mr. Bolton use, and perhaps misuse, highly classified intelligence intercepts to spy on bureaucratic rivals who disagreed with his views or for other inappropriate purposes?


~ The Administration position on these requests has been that political appointees are qualified to see this information but the duly elected representatives of the American people are not. This is unacceptable.

~ Senate Democrats have repeatedly demonstrated our good faith to break the current impasse and give Mr. Bolton a vote. Yesterday, I heard some of my Republican colleagues assert that Democrats have been shifting the goalposts on resolving this issue.

~ They are absolutely right. We have -- toward their goal line. Just last week Senators Biden and Dodd made another effort to resolve the impasse over the Bolton nomination.

~ Everyone in the Senate and outside this body should understand that this offer moved significantly away from our initial request in a sincere effort to resolve this situation. Everyone should also understand that unfortunately, this latest effort to reach an accommodation with the White House has apparently met the same fate as previous efforts to work things out: Silence from the Administration.

~ Even yesterday Sen. Rockefeller, the Vice Chairman offered his assistance to break the impasse and sent a letter to Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte.

~ We have said publicly if this Administration -- like previous Administrations -- respects the requests of the Senate, we will immediately move to grant Bolton an up or down vote. I stand by that pledge today. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle recognize we are following their precedent with our actions today. I also hope this Administration brings an end to its pattern of abusing its powers and treats this co-equal branch of government with the respect it deserves.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

[seemslikeadream]

1. Other key comments made yesterday:

....

Senator Richard Durbin: "Instead of calling a vote, should call the White House. Because if they will produce the basic information which and his staff had access to . . . it's the end of the controversy. Clearly, there is something in those documents which is so damaging to Bolton, they don't want to release it."
White House spokesperson Erin Healy: "This is about partisan politics, not about documents. They have the information they need."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist: "Democrats keep moving the goalposts."

Senator Christopher Dodd: "If the goal posts have been moved at all, they've been moved in the administration's direction"

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid: "As long as the White House is not allowing the information to come forward, there's going to be no change in the vote."


Senator Frist seems to be nuking the Bolton nomination by calling for a second cloture vote which will fail. With Pryor defecting, the White House is losing even more ground on Bolton.

This doesn't mean that those opposing Bolton are sure to win.

The White House could surprise us all by providing generous access to the NSA intercepts and names of redacted identities of U.S. individuals. Condi Rice could say that since the State Department provided other "documents on policy deliberation" to the Foreign Relations Committee on Bolton, she might as well send over the documents on Bolton's planned Syria testimony in 2003. And White House ethics could send over the roster of Matthew Freedman's international clients, which he maintained while pulling down more than $110,000 a year for a part-time gig with John Bolton's office as "Special Assistant."

The White House could provide these three modest packages of information -- and the vote on Bolton would occur very soon after.

TWN hopes that the material is enough to derail a couple of other Senators on Bolton, but the White House could still surprise us with a dose of magnanimity.
more
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

[Terran1212]

2. Most of those people are only opposing Bolton for political reason

Partisanship and trying to take control from the Republicans...

It's not about principles, unfortunately.

Realpolitik.

[Pobeka]

3. The opposing party is SUPPOSED to be partisan, and block bad actions.

What, you WANT Bolton?

[notadmblnd]

5. Thats BS

What were trying to do here, is prevent bolton from dis-assembling the UN and getting us into yet another pre-emptive war on behalf of Oil/Israel. I don't have a unlimited number of children to sacrifice for this reason, do you?

[Just Me]

6. *LOL* Bolton has proven himself a tyrannical dick who doesn't give a shit

about democracy or "the people" of the USA let alone the civility necessary to "play with others"!!!

The man is a totally self-centered, self-absorbed, power-mongering prick. His record PROVES it.

His character stands alone,...no "partisanship" can change that prick's record.

[seemslikeadream]

8. JOHN BOLTON PUSHED NIGER-URANIUM FIASCO AT STATE

just a reminder


JOHN BOLTON PUSHED NIGER-URANIUM FIASCO AT STATE -- Then Tried to Hide his Tracks and Staff Lied to Congress

I just received this March 1, 2005 letter written by House Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman to Representative Christopher Shays who chairs the Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Security.

Waxman is basically blowing the whistle on the administration's extravagant use of "sensitive but unclassified" designations on official acts to block public access to and transparency of government policymaking.

On pages 5-7, Waxman reveals that John Bolton promulgated the Niger-Uranium fiction at the State Department despite rejection of this claim by State Department and CIA intelligence analysts.

Waxman then argues that not only did Bolton and his people then try and conceal Bolton's role in pushing the Niger-Uranium agenda by marking the material "sensitive but unclassified" and blocking it in case of a Freedom of Information Act request, the State Department actually LIED TO CONGRESS about John Bolton's role.

I think Senator Hagel might want to reconsider his support for the Bolton nomination now. . .

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000370.html

Waxman letter

Concealment of a State Department Official's Role in the Niger Uranium Claim

In April 2004, the State Department used the designation "sensitive but unclassified" to conceal unclassified information about the role of John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, in the creation of a fact sheet distributed to the United Nations that falsely claimed Iraq had sought uranium from Niger.

On December 19, 2002, the State Department issued a fact sheet entitled "Illustrative Examples of Omissions from the Iraqi Declaration to the United Nations Security Council." (9) The fact sheet listed eight key areas in which the Bush Administration found fault with Iraq's weapons declaration to the United Nations on December 7, 2002. Under the heading "Nuclear Weapons," the fact sheet stated:

The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger.
Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?

It was later discovered that this claim was based on fabricated documents. (10) In addition, both State Department intelligence officials and CIA officials reported that they had rejected the claim as unreliable. (11) As a result, it was unclear who within the State Department was involved in preparing the fact sheet.

On July 21, 2003, I wrote to Secretary of State Colin Powell, asking for an explanation of the role of John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, in creating the document. (12) On September 25, 2003, the State Department responded with a definitive denial: "Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, John R. Bolton, did not play a role in the creation of this document." (13)

Subsequently, however, I joined six other members of the Government Reform Committee in requesting from the State Department Inspector General a copy of an unclassified "chronology" on how the fact sheet was developed. (14) This chronology described a meeting on December 18, 2002, between Secretary Powell, Mr. Bolton, and Richard Boucher, the Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Public Affairs. According to this chronology, Mr. Boucher specifically asked Mr. Bolton "for help developing a response to Iraq's Dec 7 Declaration to the United Nations Security Council that could be used with the press. According to the chronology, which is phrased in the present tense, Mr. Bolton "agrees and tasks the Bureau of Nonproliferation," a subordinate office that reports directly to Mr. Bolton, to conduct the work.

This unclassified chronology also stated that on the next day, December 19, 2003, the Bureau of Nonproliferation "sends email with the fact sheet, 'Fact Sheet Iraq Declaration.doc.'" to Mr. Bolton's office (emphasis in original). A second e-mail was sent a few minutes later, and a third e-mail was sent about an hour after that. According to the chronology, each version "still includes Niger reference." Although Mr. Bolton may not have personally drafted the document, the chronology appears to indicate that

he ordered its creation and received updates on its development.

The Inspector General's chronology was marked "sensitive but unclassified." In addition, the letter transmitting the chronology stated that it "contains sensitive information, which may be protected from public release under the Freedom of Information Act" and requested that no "public release of this information" be made. (15) In fact, however, the chronology consisted of nothing more than a factual recitation of information on meetings, e-mails, and documents.

This is not a constructive reformer out to promote American interests in a dignified manner in the world's most significant multilateral institution.

There are many administration jobs that John Bolton may be completely appropriate for -- but the one that he has been nominated for is not on that list.




10 times he said Bolton tried to get names, Biden said State Dept. hasn't given them the info he wanted yet.

and there's this

Is Rice Obstructing the Bolton Investigation

cal04 (1000+ posts) Wed Apr-20-05 11:42 AM
Response to Original message

20. Is Rice Obstructing the Bolton Investigation

A very serious allegation buried in a story in today’s Washington Post:

On Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told her senior staff she was disappointed about the stream of allegations and said

she did not want any information coming out of the department that could adversely affect the nomination,

said officials speaking on the condition of anonymity.

The committee released 25 pages of responses yesterday to follow-up questions Bolton had been asked concerning allegations he was abusive to other officials in and out of the State Department, overreached on policy issues and mishandled intelligence. In several instances, Bolton did not directly respond to the questions or left them unaddressed.


Maybe a Plame connection?
more

Is it at all possible that maybe, just possibly,... John Bolten


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3519379

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. The man is a NUT JOB! He has NO BUSINESS

going to head the UN. In fact, he is probably the LAST person who should be the UN ambassador. The reason the WH wants him there is because he will be their puppet and do whatever the hell they want ...THAT is very dangerous in this climate.

It IS about principles.

[Just Me]

4. Good lawd. I didn't realize the Dems are doing a two-front battle.

Both the Bolton Buttwad nomination AND the DSM hearings on one day!!!

The forces are gathering!!!! WE ARE FIGHTING BACK!!!

:kick:

[The_Casual_Observer]

7. Bolton is a dangerous piece of shit. He is in the business of starting

wars that they can't stop later on. He has his sights set on Iraq and Korea next.

[seemslikeadream]

9. The Bolton fight

June 15, 2005
From Journal-World Staff Reports

Now Sen. Pat Roberts is waist-deep in the controversy over John Bolton's nomination to be the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.

Democrats have alleged that Bolton has been abusive to intelligence staffers, and have asked for access to National Security Agency intercepts — sought by Bolton — that contained the names of Americans. That's where Roberts — chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee — comes in.

The Hill reports today: "Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter yesterday to senior Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee dismissing as overly broad the Democrats’ request to obtain classified information requested by John Bolton, the embattled nominee to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

"As a possible compromise for moving Bolton’s nomination forward, Sens. Joseph Biden (Del.) and Chris Dodd (Conn.), the ranking Democrat and a senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, suggested that the administration reveal whether the conversations of any of a list roughly 36 people were intercepted.

"In an accompanying statement, Roberts said: 'After careful review, the Senate Intelligence Committee continues to find no evidence of abuse' by Bolton.

"But Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), the vice chairman of the intelligence panel, flatly contradicted Roberts in a statement released late yesterday.

“'Despite assertions by the Chairman, the Senate Intelligence Committee has not reached any conclusion regarding Under Secretary Bolton’s actions,' stated Rockefeller."

Here is a press release from Roberts' office,

http://roberts.senate.gov/06-14-2005.htm

containing the full text of his letter. "I am prepared to assist in any reasonable effort to examine the facts," Roberts says, "but an examination of upwards of 40 names appears to be an effort to preserve the issue, not to resolve it.”

So where does that leave Bolton? In limbo, according to the New York Times. Democrats say they won't budge until they get the information.

"But Democrats, undaunted, said they would continue to block any vote until the White House provided information they were seeking relating to Mr. Bolton's tenure at the State Department, where he served until recently as under secretary for arms control," the Times reported. "Though there are several sticking points, the central issue is Mr. Bolton's review of names of American individuals and companies mentioned in communications intercepted by the National Security Agency."
http://www2.ljworld.com/blogs/kansas_congress/2005/jun/15/bolton/

[Disturbed]

10. Every Dem should stand with Reid on this!

Dems are suppossed to be the Opposition are they not?