NYT: Panel in Senate Widening Review on U.N. Nominee

[kskiska]

WASHINGTON, April 26 - In a widening of the inquiry into John R. Bolton's nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee intends to conduct formal interviews in the next 10 days with as many as two dozen people, Congressional officials said Tuesday.

Those to be interviewed include a former deputy director of central intelligence and a former assistant secretary of state. The two officials, John E. McLaughlin and John S. Wolf respectively, have not spoken publicly about Mr. Bolton's nomination, but both have been described by others as having clashed with him on personnel matters related to intelligence.

The list, which Democratic officials said had been broadly endorsed by Republican panel members, also included Thomas Hubbard, a former ambassador to South Korea who clashed with Mr. Bolton over a speech on North Korea.

Prospects for Mr. Bolton's nomination have appeared uncertain since last-minute qualms among some Republican senators forced the Senate committee last week to postpone a confirmation vote. On Tuesday, there were signs that the White House was stepping up its effort to rescue the nomination, with Vice President Dick Cheney placing calls to Republican senators and Mr. Bolton himself visiting Capitol Hill, apparently in a bid to shore up support.

more…
http://nytimes.com/2005/04/27/politics/27bolton.html?hp&ex=1114574400&en=ce59ebcbca2b65fc&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[leesa]

1. Two dozen? Oh, sweet music to the ears.

[Straight Shooter]

2. Bolton visiting Capitol Hill?

Grovel, you bully, grovel.

This Bolton/U.N. situation is clearly becoming a matter of the White House not wanting to lose face. If Bolton loses, they all lose.

[MontageOfFreedom]

3. Apparently the freepers are adamant about this one...

Over at http://www.moveamericaforward.com , they claim to have found irrefutable evidence that shows Melody is a liar and submitted false testimony about Bolton.

Is the Melody story real at all? And if it is, what causes there to be such strong objection here?

[w4rma]

4. Its real. Freepers will push(believe?) anything that supports their warped

world view.

[Frances]

8. When I imagine Bolton chasing a woman down a hall

because she was disagreeing with him, I think that Bolton does not have the temperament to be a diplomat.

However, the main reason I don't want Bolton at the U.N. is that there is evidence he will browbeat intelligence agents to make false intelligence reports.

It's one thing for Bolton to destroy the U.N. which is what his backers want. It's another thing for him to help to get rid of all the honest intelligence agents in this country. That makes us all more vulnerable to real terrorists.

[wallwriter]

5. Screw the Repug thugs

and their sociopathic nominee.

[The_Casual_Observer]

6. The bastard is finished. And so is chimp.

[MontageOfFreedom]

7. Bush will sit there singing like a canary....

"I thought what the cult told me to do was right, I thought this was for jesus. Honest I thought it was real! Please don't bring that out....No, please! It just an honest mistake..."

"Here...you can have half of my ENRON earnings....Sorry I have an unscheduled flight to Tokyo, Japan. Bye!"

The impeachment commences, but then what will become of the men responsible for this? Will the headquarters of the religious wrong dissapear without a trace?

I surely hope not....

[Moderator]

9. kick to combine

[Judi Lynn]

10. Panel will widen review of Bolton

Panel will widen review of Bolton

By Douglas Jehl The New York Times

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2005


WASHINGTON In a widening of the inquiry into the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee intends to conduct formal interviews in the next 10 days with as many as two dozen people. They include a former deputy director of central intelligence and a former assistant secretary of state, congressional officials said Tuesday.

The two officials, John McLaughlin and John Wolf, have not spoken publicly about Bolton's nomination, but both have been described by others as having clashed with him on personnel matters related to intelligence.

Among others on a list agreed to Tuesday by Republican and Democratic staff members on the panel are Thomas Hubbard, a former ambassador to South Korea who clashed with Bolton over a speech on North Korea.

The interviews, to be conducted by Democrat and Republican staff members together, represent a significant widening of the panel's review. Until now, the panel has conducted formal interviews of only about a half-dozen people, including Bolton and Carl Ford Jr., a former senior State Department official who testified against Bolton's nomination.
(snip/...)

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/27/news/bolton.php

[Frances]

11. It's about the intelligence

The Dems need to frame this issue around Bolton's bullying of intelligence analysts

It's because of people like Bolton that 9/11 could happen again.

[Moderator]

12. kick to combine

[redacted]

13. Senate Panel Is Widening Review on U.N. Nominee

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/politics/27bolton.html?hp&ex=1114660800&en=256efcf0a8ff19ab&ei=5094&partner=homepage

April 27, 2005
By DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, April 26 - In a widening of the inquiry into John R. Bolton's nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee intends to conduct formal interviews in the next 10 days with as many as two dozen people, Congressional officials said Tuesday.

Those to be interviewed include a former deputy director of central intelligence and a former assistant secretary of state. The two officials, John E. McLaughlin and John S. Wolf respectively, have not spoken publicly about Mr. Bolton's nomination, but both have been described by others as having clashed with him on personnel matters related to intelligence.

The list, which Democratic officials said had been broadly endorsed by Republican panel members, also included Thomas Hubbard, a former ambassador to South Korea who clashed with Mr. Bolton over a speech on North Korea.

Prospects for Mr. Bolton's nomination have appeared uncertain since last-minute qualms among some Republican senators forced the Senate committee last week to postpone a confirmation vote. On Tuesday, there were signs that the White House was stepping up its effort to rescue the nomination, with Vice President Dick Cheney placing calls to Republican senators and Mr. Bolton himself visiting Capitol Hill, apparently in a bid to shore up support.

Related Article "Battle on Bolton Nomination Could Wound the President, Too" at http://nytimes.com/2005/04/27/politics/27strategy.html

MORE

[SteppingRazor]

14. That could be it...

All it's gonna take is one, just one, Republican on the committee to vote against Bolton, and he's done. There's 10 GOPs there, and at least three have reservations...

[whometense]

15. But we can't afford to get complacent.

To say this story has legs is the understatement of the century. It's starting to look like a goddamned centipede.

Washington Post:

GOP Pushes Bolton Floor Vote

Strategy Frames Nomination as Debate Over U.N. Reform

By Jim VandeHei and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A07

President Bush and Senate Republicans are intensifying their push to confirm John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations and are considering forcing a showdown vote on the Senate floor if the Foreign Relations Committee refuses to endorse the controversial nominee, according to White House and Senate aides.

With Bolton's confirmation jeopardized by allegations that he bullied colleagues who crossed him, Bush is planning a three-pronged strategy to win Senate approval next month of his nominee, aides said.

- snip -

A "nose count that demonstrates majority support for Bolton ensures that any Democratic effort to drag heels again in committee is just struggling against the inevitable," said a senior Senate GOP aide. This marks the first time the GOP has threatened to circumvent opposition to Bolton on the Foreign Relations Committee, which would lessen the impact of having one or more Republicans on the panel oppose Bolton.

- snip -

Based on private conversations, the president's staff is confident the four wavering committee Republicans are prepared to vote for him, the aides said. They are most worried about Voinovich and Chuck Hagel (Neb.) because they have kept their intentions largely hidden.

This is genuinely creepy.

Laura Rozen at War and Piece has this commentary:

If they can't win playing by the rules, then their next move is ... to change the rules. Still a fairly astonishing loss of face with a ruling party majority in both committee and the floor, one that will be noted at the UN and around the world and erode Bolton's legitimacy should he get there, as well as the Bush administration's. And, as Steve Clemons is quite right to point out, the battle's by no means over. After all, it's worth remembering where we were just a week ago on the eve of the SFRC vote -- and how quickly dynamics shift. But people do need to be aware that the situation has moved in favor of Bolton getting to the UN by hook or by crook in the past couple days. Let's see what the Foreign Relations committee investigation turns up.

[gratuitous]

16. "The closer he gets . . . the better you look"

Remember that advertising slogan? What was it? Breck? Alberto VO5? I don't recall who it was offhand.

But somehow, I don't think it applies to John Bolton: The closer you look at his record, the worse he looks as a nominee to be the ambassador to anything.

[Moderator]

17. kick to combine

[chlamor]

18. Blow to Bush as Bolton Panel Widens Its Inquiry

Blow to Bush as Bolton panel widens its inquiry

Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday April 28, 2005
The Guardian

The Senate committee assessing John Bolton's nomination as the next US ambassador to the UN yesterday widened its inquiry to interview several more potentially hostile witnesses, in a fresh blow to the White House.

Only months after re-election, George Bush's authority is being challenged on several fronts. The president has risked his prestige with his adamant support for Mr Bolton, even after some Republicans on the foreign relations committee voiced doubts about his temperament.

According to an official on the committee, most of the two dozen officials and former officials the senators plan to interview in the next 10 days are thought to have clashed with him, or to have witnessed some of the heated rows for which he earned a reputation in his former job at the state department. "Most of them are witnesses to some of the controversies we've been talking about," the official said.

President Bush is taking a similar risk in demonstrating Oval Office backing for an embattled congressional leader, Tom DeLay, accompanying him to a public event on board Air Force One at a time Mr DeLay, a fellow Texas conservative, is facing charges of ethics violations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1471960,00.html

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

19. It really looks like...

The repukes have lost control of this situation, and they did so by attempting to wallpaper it over. Just like another situation about 30 years ago.

The last thng they want is for it to shift the calculus of power like the Rostenkowski thing did. The potential is high that it will, in spite of Hastert slamming on the brakes and throwing the vehicle into reverse.

Perception is everything in politics and right now, the public perceptions are against them in both gross and subtle ways. They are really looking at a hard slog to maintain power in 2006. That said, the dems do not need to go for the jugular.

Yet.

[sendero]

42. I really believe..

... that we are finally witnessing the unraveling of the Bush**/GOP credibility quotient in the minds of the average American.

As the recent Gallup poll suggests, and lets face it Gallup polls are ALWAYS skewed to favor Republicans, fully half of the country believes they were actively deceived on the WMD issue (and of course, they were).

Credibility is a tough thing to regain once lost. Bush** actually believed he was going to spin the war and people are tiring of the spin. Now, Bush** is asking for trust on Social Security and other issues, and is finding that the trust is not there like it once was. Teh benefit of the doubt is no longer in Bush**'s favor.

And the more Fox "News" et al keep up the lies about things that more and more people know about, the more credibility they lose.

People like to point to the power of propaganda, but I have a hard time remembering a time in history when it was effective for long periods of time. I'm sure someone will point one out. :)

[EFerrari]

20. This is great news!

This man is a disaster. Did I miss a hearing yesterday? Was it aired?

[DeaconBlues]

21. I love all this "blow to Bush" and "reversal for republicans" news

It actually gives me a modicum of hope for the future.

[meganmonkey]

22. Headlines that don't make me cringe!

I'm with ya. Makes me smile!

:bounce:

[doodadem]

34. But published in the UK

like this article, doesn't give us the press we need here. All of these negatives need to be a constant drumbeat in the U.S. to do us any good.

[calimary]

51. Yeah, that's the only thing that bothers me, too.

The drumbeat needs to be HERE. It's starting - just barely starting to take place. It hasn't reached the full crescendo we need, though, and these people own the media lock stock and barrel, or else are still able to intimidate it aplenty.

But - if these types of headlines and phrases and pronouncements DO keep coming, it is NOT great for bush. As was posted above (post 19 by Tandalayo S), PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING IN POLITICS. Can't reiterate HOW important and true that is! And if it's perceived that bush and friends are taking on water, there will be lots of people offering them sieves to bail with. Because in their ham-handed bullying way, they've made lots of enemies. Enemies too timid to try anything before this, for fear of what rove, cheney, or pit bulls like john bolton might do. Believe me, EVERYBODY on their side knows what these guys are capable of. They ALL remember Lee Atwater, and they ALL know bush junior and rove were his key disciples back in the day. They ALL know how the game is played. They've seen it draw too much blood and they don't dare...

UNLESS... it starts to become more and more apparent that these guys are turning into paper tigers, or maybe they're still real tigers but with their teeth and claws being removed one by one by one. Do you think the moderates in the more respectable Republican party aren't smarting from being beaten down and terrorized by tom delay and rove and company, people like Christopher Shays and some other fairly reasonable people, who've had to remain mute or had their ideas stomped on or had to endure being treated with derision and haughtiness because they dared to differ from the wee king? Do you think they've forgotten? And do you think for a minute that they WANT to remain silent? Shays has already started speaking out - about tom delay and the way he's dragging the party down to disaster. Shays and other loyal (more conventional) Republicans cringe to see what the neocons and attack dogs have done to their party's good name, and the respectability and reasoned judgment and gentlemanly politicking of traditional conservatives. They're aching to get back to the days when things were civil and there weren't kerosene enemas being forcibly administered or threatened to anyone who didn't toe the line. They're straining at their muzzles and straitjackets. They want out. There hasn't been any opening yet, and they don't want to completely jump ship for the disloyalty that will show in public - they dare not try such a breach. At least for the time being.

But if the PERCEPTION starts to take hold here, those "captives" if you will, will take note, and make use of it. Because they're sick of being intimidated too. And sick of seeing these jackals give THEM and the party THEY knew such a bad name. At least Democrats know to expect such bad treatment. But when you are IN the belly of the beast, it has to be murder. Domestic terrorism.

[reprobate]

43. HOpe for the future? When Bush and cronies do the perp walk in the hague.

[AzDar]

23. George W Bush is on the WRONG side of every issue: Every program,

every promotion, every nomination. I've never really seen anything like it. Everything he touches turns to rubble.

[rodeodance]

25. Yet-Sen Lugar the head of the committee predicts Bolton will win. see

this story

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1428997&mesg_id=1428997

[reprobate]

44. No surprise there. That's his personal history. King George the Wrong.

[Go Eagles]

24. cautiously optamistic

This along with the public not buying Bush's social security sham, the legislative and executive activism with the Schivo debacle, Delay becoming a major albatross for the party and Hastert having to put the breaks on ethics rules changes leaves me cautiously optimistic that the public is waking up to what the Repukes are all about. Wasn't Gingrich's 94 revolution supposed to be about term limits, balanced budgets, and ending the corrupt status quo in Congress? Fast forward ten years later and the pigs in the DC trough make the ones in the closing scene of Animal Farm look mild.

[rodeodance]

26. I am VERY dubious --The repugs want Bolton so much they can taste it-

and will go to any lengths to get it.

[SKKY]

27. Bush is turning into a Lame Duck much quicker than Clinton did...

...that can't bode well for his "God Given" legacy.

[lse7581011]

28. Isn't That A Shame! N/T

[Jo March]

30. Welcome to DU, lse7581011!

Glad to have you here! :hi:

[lse7581011]

37. Thanks!

Am enjoying it tremendously so far!

[Jo March]

47. It's addictive!

Don't know if you need it or not but here's a little primer:

nt = no text as in, no text follows the subject line
IMHO = in my humble opinion
rofl = rolling on the floor laughing
NGU = never give up

As for LIHOP and MIHOP, I still don't know what they stand for!!

You can add smilies by doing this:

When writing your message, click on the link for Smilies lookup table. Simply click on the smilie that you want!

Arnie

[frictionlessO]

48. You're kidding about LIHOP and MIHOP right?? n/t

[Jo March]

49. No - I've never learned what they stand for exactly

I know, in theory, what they mean but not the actual words behind the acronym.

Edited to add this smilie: :blush:

[frictionlessO]

50. Dang yer cute when you blush! this what they stand for

Let
It
Happen
On
Purpose

Made
It
Happen
On
Purpose

I be a LIHOP guy (why do what you can let happen anyway and not be so close to the actual crime?).

I was worried you actually didn't know what they meant as a whole... That would be a mean feat to pull off after being on DU for more than a month or two.

:blush: (so you wouldn't be the only one).

[Jo March]

53. D'oh! I feel so silly!

Well, I'm glad that you have educated me, frictionlessO! I sure do love DU!

[lavenderdiva]

39. Welcome to DU lse7581011!

:hi:

[Jo March]

29. Does anyone know how to contact Colin Powell?

Powell is speaking out against this man, although he is trying to do it quietly. I'd like to contact Powell and thank him for that.

[Dhalgren]

31. The only thing that worries me is that Caligula knows only

one way to regain his power - kill something. Whenever he starts to look like the pathetic loser that he truly is, I worry about whose children and whose parents he will decide to kill...

[Mist]

40. Think maybe the bunker dive yesterday was a dry run for something?

[Dhalgren]

41. It did cross my mind...

[reprobate]

45. Yes, look for another staged attack. This time on him personally.

They need some way to generate sympathy for the doophus.

[ohtransplant]

32. This isn't over by a long shot.

The facts have nothing to do with *'s intention to have John-"The Hammer"-Bolton approved at almost any cost. Tactics don't matter to them either. They will continue to poo-poo detractors and strong arm moderate rethuglicans.

KKKRove was on the hill recently and spouted *'s company line about reforming the UN. This line must have come from Luntz because they're repeating it at every opportunity. I believe Scotty has been using it too.

It seems there's even a way for them to get a floor vote on this without committee approval.

BTW, I still don't trust the House ethics committee to deal with "The Hammer" DeLay (Note a trend?)properly or completely. I'll believe it when I see it!

In the interim NGU!

[Roland99]

33. YES!

[wallwriter]

35. It might not be over

but this process is bad for Bush and Rove

[Arkansas Granny]

36. Shrub is such a spoiled brat!

He doesn't know how to act when people oppose him so he just pretends that nothing's wrong. It's all going his way. La la la la la!

Seriously, he never listens to a dissenting opinion. He lives in a world of his own. If he wants it, he gets it, end of story. He lives in such a cocoon, I doubt if his handlers dare tell him the truth.

[Az_lefty]

38. The problem here is that the shrubs Man-Date

was run out of the White house Press Corps. Now he's all alone and lonely. :cry:

[democrat_patriot]

46. All it will take is another attack

* will be back in the 80's for approval ratings, we will be at war with 2-3 other countries.
Patriot Act III will be approved. 9:00 PM curfews and the like.

The dems would go along - can't look weak.

[Mist]

52. I've always said this would put the * admin. in a bind

they can't claim they're "fighting terror" if yet another attack takes place on their watch.