Bolton’s nomination is in trouble:
President Bush is left with few options for reviving his stalled nomination of John Bolton to be U.N. ambassador. And all carry potential political liabilities, including what might be his last resort: an end run around the Senate with a recess appointment.
Increasing pressure on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for an up-and down vote, as the president did on Tuesday, seems unlikely to pay off and could keep the Senate bogged down.
Vice President Dick Cheney, upper right watches as Republican members of Congress leave the White House after attending a luncheon meeting with President Bush, Tuesday, June 21, 2005. Reversing field after a meeting with President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, center, said he will continue pushing for a floor vote on John R. Bolton for U.N. ambassador. Frist switched his position after initially saying Tuesday that negotiations with Democrats to get a vote on Bolton had been exhausted. Left to right Sen. Robert Bennett, R, Utah, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., Frisk, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Others are unidentified (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds) (Ron Edmonds – AP)
“He asked that we continue to work,” Frist said after lunch with the president. “And we’ll continue to work.”
Yet there was no indication Bush or Frist could pick up support to end the Democratic blocking tactics. Instead, the trend seemed heading the other way.
Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, who voted last month to break the filibuster, sided with Democrats on Monday’s 54-38 vote. That was six short of the 60 required to break a filibuster.
Bush could bow to Democratic demands and turn over more material on Bolton. But that would be seen as a stinging concession by the president _ and there’s no guarantee Democrats would drop their delaying tactics.
Is there no way to provide the documents they want? I thought they just wanted a select few people to access them. Anyone know what the scoop is?
Christopher Galas
Its another smoking gun. Why hide documents, which only 3 of the most trusted Senators would be able to see, when quite likely over a 100 people have already seen them. Something stinks here, and the Dems are sensing this…
Stormy70
It would not accomplish anything. Dodd did not like Bolton’s stand on Cuba, and Biden is an idiotic blowhard. This is just bitter partisan politics on the Democrats side. Can’t be mean to the UN, it is such a stellar organization. Plus, the last thing “leaky” Dodd needs is access to our intelligence papers. It would be on the front page of the Times, poste haste.
Stormy70
Ok, I meant “leaky” Senator Leahy, up there, not Dodd. I am not comfortable with most Senators having acces to intelligence, on both sides of the aisle.
ppgaz
Won’t work, Stormy. Without access, oversight is a sham. Without oversight ….. well, we could always live in Egypt. They don’t have pesky lawmakers asking for papers over there.
CaseyL
Two scoops:
1. The Bush Admin operates in a degree of secrecy unseen since the Nixon years. It hides information and it lies about information. It has never cooperated with the other branches of government without protracted struggle and/or recourse to court action – and often not even then. Refusing to turn over data requested by the SFRC and Intelligence Committee takes its place alongside Cheney’s secret energy policy meetings, stonewalling the 9/11 Commission, lying to Congress about ther true cost of its Medicare plan, and even Bush’s refusal to offer a detailed SocSec plan.
2. One reason the Bush Admin operates in secrecy is because much of what it does is illegal. Another reason is that the Bush Admin seems to have carried out two foreign policies: an official, public foreign policy (under Colin Powell and Condi RIce) of diplomacy and negotiation, and an ideologically-driven policy (under John Bolton and Dick Cheney) of obstruction and confrontation. These two were diametrically opposed, and the Bolton/Cheney side repeatedly undermined and sabotaged the Powell/Rice side.
What does this have to do with the NSA intercepts? The best guess about the WH refusal to turn over the NSA intercepts Bolton got copies of is that Bolton was using them to spy on the people – our people – involved in the N Korea talks, as part of his (and Cheney’s) strategy of sabotage.
AlanDownunder
SFRC’s republican chair sought the documents on behalf of SFRC – part of its ‘no recommendation’ deal to get him out of committee and onto the floor.
This is not Dems v Repubs – it’s House v Administration. The only mystery is why so many Senators are still aiming to betray their institution.
I don’t see Bush’s problem though. The only way to give the UN the bird better than a conventional Bolton appointment would be a Bolton recess appointment.
Maybe the SFRC chair didn’t realise what dynamite he undertook to acquire, or maybe it’s just a macho thing. I wonder whether Voinovich knows or whether it’s just a character thing with him.
p.lukasiak
Is there no way to provide the documents they want? I thought they just wanted a select few people to access them. Anyone know what the scoop is?
What the democrats are demanding is three things:
1) Access to the national security intercepts that Bolton requested to find out what Americans were saying, and which Americans were saying it.
2) Information regarding Bolton’s involvement with the public presentation of intelligence estimates regarding Syria
3) A list of international clients of a Bolton crony who maintained those clients while being paid in the six figures out of taxpayer funds as a consultant to Bolton.
What the Democrats would settle for is limited access to the intercepts…. but, of course, if there is anything potentially damaging or questionable about what appears in those intercepts, the Democrats will (rightfully) demand far more access and investigation of what appears in the intercepts themselves before allowing a vote to go forward.
Since the ultimate goal of the Democrats is to keep Bolton out of the UN, I think we can confidently predict that regardless of what is in the intercepts, the Democrats will find a way to say that they “raise questions that must be answered” before they allow a vote on the Bolton nomination.
It should be noted that at this point, the Democrat’s request for these documents is completely legitimate — these questions were raised during the committee hearings, and Biden and Lugar to postpone a committee vote pending the release of these documents. Lugar reneged on his promise, and forced a vote on Bolton in the FRC without the committee gaining access to these documents.
Whether the release of the intercepts — and the inevitable Democratic demands for “further investigation before a vote” would be mere obstruction or the legitimate demand for answers to critical questions, will depend upon what is in the intercepts themselves.
Of course, as an opponent of Bolton, I’m sure that whatever appears in the intercepts will, from my perspective, raise “legitimate” questions. Your mileage at that point, however, may vary. :)
Aarpn
Put Kerry in the UN and be done with it. I’m losing patience and wish to give in on all fronts to the Dems.
Then we can see the rewards we’d reap.
p.lukasiak
Its another smoking gun. Why hide documents, which only 3 of the most trusted Senators would be able to see, when quite likely over a 100 people have already seen them. Something stinks here, and the Dems are sensing this…
perhaps, but this administration is so obsessed with secrecy for its own sake — and is insanely committed to its own perceived right to operate without being challenged in any fashion — that there might be nothing there, and Bushco is just acting like the cabal of power-crazed jerks we have come to know and despise….
Stormy70
I like Bolton, the UN needs to be reformed, or closed down, and we don’t need some milquetoast of a diplomat in there. As to secrecy, some Senators leaked intelligence right after Sept. 11th to the media. The Adminstration’s been burned, and the Senate, as a whole, cannot be trusted, period. Bolton would pass an up or down vote in the Senate, so the Dems are using this as an excuse to keep the vote from going to the floor. The Dems protect their beloved UN.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Lukasiak nails it. It isn’t enough for the Bush Administration to win: they must destroy their opponents. Does anyone believe that Bush’s first SCOTUS appointment will be a moderate? No, he’ll pick someone outrageous. He needs to show us who’s boss. Bolton’s a wretched appointment but the GOP minus Voinovich will line up behind their prez even if Bolton is heard planning a rub-out of Katie Couric.
p.lukasiak
I don’t see Bush’s problem though. The only way to give the UN the bird better than a conventional Bolton appointment would be a Bolton recess appointment.
and the UN might just give Bush the bird right back.
Consider this possibility — a legal challenge to Bush’s right to a recess appointment of Bolton to the UN by a Senator.
It is clear that the original intent of the “recess appointment” powers was to make it possible for the President to fill critical vacancies during the extended recesses of Congress envisioned by the founding fathers — the power was provided because there would be times when Congress could not consider critical nominations because it was not in session for months at a time. The power was not conferred on the President to enable him to appoint people during short recesses because Congress would not, or had not yet, exercised its “advise and consent” powers under the Constitution.
Ambassadors don’t represent administrations, they represent the United States Government, and such a legal challenge would raise serious issues as to whether Bolton was a legitimate representative of the US government. Under those circumstances, the UN could choose not to accept Bolton as a legitimately credentialled ambassador to the UN….
Jon H
Bolton can’t reform the UN, he’s incompetent.
Just recently, since Bolton’s been out of the way, the State Department has started making lots of progress on important nonproliferation goals. For instance, securing Russian nukes.
Bolton was the roadblock, even though he was supposed to be State’s guy in charge of nonproliferation.
Just because he’s a jackass doesn’t mean he’ll be effective. Reforming the UN is not something the US can do by itself. It is going to require cooperation, whether we like it or not. So putting Bolton in isn’t going to accomplish reform, it’s only likely to make things worse.
Most likely, if Bolton goes to the UN, representatives of other countries will simply start excluding him from meetings whenever they can.
Just like our own government has been doing.
Stormy70
Actually, I think the UN is ineffective, and useless. It does not do enough good to justify it’s continued existence, so Bolton in there rattling cages is no skin off my back.
p.lukasiak
I like Bolton, the UN needs to be reformed, or closed down, and we don’t need some milquetoast of a diplomat in there.
but we do need someone there that the international community considers credible. Simply put, UN reform will require an ambassador whom the international community believes is operating in good faith, and consistent with the UN’s stated mission. UN reform is going to require an ambassador who can work as an “honest broker” between the wingnuts in the Bush administration who want to destroy the UN, and the international community. And since Bolton is part of the wingnut faction in the White House that wants to cripple the UN, there is absolutely no way that anyone is going to believe that any reform proposals that he brings to the table are designed to strengthen international institutions and make them more effective.
Anyone who sincerely believes in the need for UN reform recognizes that Bolton is about the most inappropriate person to send to bring about needed reform. Indeed, Bolton’s most vorciferous supporters are those who want the US out of the UN entirely, and would like nothing better than to see the UN and its role in international affairs completely destroyed.
When both Bolton’s supporters and detractors recognize that the end result of a Bolton ambassadorship would be a less effective United Nations, its pretty damned stupid to claim that you think Bolton will help bring needed reform to the United Nations….
ppgaz
Well, Stormy, take a step back. The UN said it couldn’t find WMD in Iraq, and cautioned against war.
Your government insisted that there were WMD, and went ahead anyway.
Your government was wrong.
Putting aside differences over the war itself … you know, things like the fact that it cannot be shown to be making anything or anyone in the world safer, the fact that your government told us in March 2003 that we’d be greeted as “liberators” and be out of there in a short time (oops, wrong again!) …..
Are you sure that the UN is organization you hate, and the US government is the one you want to keep?
I’m just asking.
Jon H
Bolton might make sense if he were an asshole with a good track record. There are plenty of famous, highly successful assholes. Bill Gates. Steve Jobs. etc. Any of these would likely sail through a nomination.
But Bolton? He’s an abject failure.
His area of responsibility has been nonproliferation. How’d that work out? North Korea? Worse. Iran? Worse. Libya? Better – but only because Bolton was excluded from negotiations.
Who really thinks it would be a good idea to put such a feckless asshole in any position of responsibility?
Even if you think the UN is a safe place for him, where he can’t do any harm and might do some good, it seems like a rather stupid idea to take the risk when our military is already stretched thin, increasing the importance of diplomacy.
We don’t actually have the luxury of making asses of ourselves at the UN. Putting Bolton there as our ambulatory middle finger might make sense if this were 1999, when everything seemed wonderful. Instead, it’s 2005, and there’s a number of not-too-unlikely economic and military scenarios that could play out in the next few years, which could leave us very much in need of assistance.
Jon H
Stormy writes: “Actually, I think the UN is ineffective, and useless. It does not do enough good to justify it’s continued existence, so Bolton in there rattling cages is no skin off my back.”
Even if he pisses everyone off, so that next year when the shit hits the fan someplace, there is no “coalition of the willing” and we have no choice but to reinstate the draft?
Rick
Don’t everybody go getting all excited. Bolton’s got the job, one way or another. So he’ll have a recess appointment. Big deal. It’s not like the U.N. position is truly important.
Cordially…
Stormy70
Please, countries will always line up with the US, because it is in their best national interests to do so. Poland knows that being the US’s ally will keep their country safe. Japan and India keep the military alliance with the US, because it is their best bet against a power hungry China. The US is the most powerful country on Earth, as well as the wealthiest. We will always have willing allies. We formed our own “Coalition of the Willing” for disaster releif while the UN held parties.
The Us could have gone alone into Iraq, because it is in our national interest, and the rest of the world could not have stopped it. Iraq needed doing in a post September 11th world.
Bush would not have been reelected if he left Iraq alone. Take a look at the massive amounts of hardware, and troops we have smack dab in the middle of the Middle East. You think Iran doesn’t notice the ring of bases we have around their country, or Saudi Arabia? Haven’t you guys ever played Risk? I wonder why the wind of democratic reform is striking the Middle East at this particular time in history. And we are winning the battle of Iraq, but it is going to take time. Wars take time, and we cannot see the entire picture from our limited view. There are so many things happening under the radar, partly because the media is mostly incompetent.
ppgaz
Sorry, Stormy … I missed it. What is it we are “winning” in Iraq, again?
I’d rather believe you than my lying eyes, so just a smidgen of explanation would help.
Tim F
For all the talk I hear about Bolton ‘reforming’ the UN, I haven’t heard about any actual reform. What does he plan to do, shout at them? Chase the Bolivian consul around with a desklamp? Maybe when he wants attention he’ll take his shoe off and slam it on the lectern.
People who like Bolton cling to this word ‘reform’ like a security blanket. Give it up guys. If there’s reform needed then we should try doubly hard to find somebody capable of doing it.
Rick
ppgaz,
Try this: http://www.windsofchange.net/
Of course, if only President Josiah Bartlett were running the show, everything would be tidied up even more.
Cordially…
John Cole
A UN Reform plan can be found here.
Mithrandir
You don’t really want answers to your questions, ppqaz, we all know that. You’ve made up your mind and we’re not going to change it. I’m glad you believe everything you read in the papers. :-/
I’ll go on anyway … We are winning in Iraq: a democratically elected gov’t, more hospitals & schools open now than when Saddam was in power, and we ARE seen as liberators by a majority of the Iraqis. Just because the MSM reports the minority story doesn’t make it the ONLY story. Democracy spreading and terrorist-supporting dictator on trial for crimes against humanity (including use of WMD against his own people). Those are two pretty good “wins” to me.
But back to Bolton: it’s true that one ambassador from the US will not make a difference at the UN. I place the blame for that more on the UN than on Bolton: 1) It isn’t a place where one voice (even of the “largest” member) can have a real affect on anything that goes on, and 2) the UN doesn’t/won’t like Bolton, giving him less credibility than he might have had if he were a quick confirmation in the Senate.
He will not, however, be a recess appointment. GWB has at least said that much.
Jon H
Mithrandir writes: “It isn’t a place where one voice (even of the “largest” member) can have a real affect on anything that goes on”
Well, then. Wouldn’t it be useful to have an ambassador able to make friends and allies, so that he isn’t just one voice shrieking in the wilderness?
TM Lutas
On John Bolton’s record, I believe he was the guy largely responsible for reversing the whole “zionism is racism” idiocy passed in the early ’70s. It was supposed to be impossible to do, yet he did it.
ppgaz
Believe what you read in the papers? Pot, kettle, go screw yourself.
Why did you leave out “the insurgency is in its last throes”, as long as you are cutting and pasting from rightwing websites? I mean, the president said it, it must be true.
Look, it does little good to have “most” Iraquis praising the occupiers who have life and death power over them,
(as if they are going to express their true feelings),
when an aggressive minority is intent on keeping the country in a state of chaos and violence, and (here’s the beauty part) we have essentially NO WAY to stop them.
You think you have a “democratically elected government” in Iraq right now? Really? Tell me exactly how they are governing, how they would enforce any mandates or keep law and order in the face of the ongoing violence? We can barely keep the suicide bombers out of the Green Zone.
Don’t lecture me about believing what I read in the papers, son.
Mike S
It would not accomplish anything.
Sure it would. Bolton would get that “up or down vote.” 53 or so Senators would vote in lockstep and Bolton would be confirmed. Or they would get information that proves Bolton is the exact wrong man for the job.
Mithrandir
Well, then. Wouldn’t it be useful to have an ambassador able to make friends and allies, so that he isn’t just one voice shrieking in the wilderness?
Not at the detrement to our national interests, no. At this point in history, I think we cannot go into the UN and “make nice” with these “representatives” by doing anything. We could physically kiss asses on the floor and we still wouldn’t get agreement out of them. So we may as well stand up (against?) to them, and point out their hipocracy, etc. and make a stand for what we feel is “right.”
ppqaz – I’m glad to see you conform to a stereotype by resorting to name-calling. I’ll not address your comments because you obviously don’t care to “discuss” it. And I am not your ‘son.’
ppgaz
What makes you think you are having a “discussion?”
Cutting and pasting GOP talking points is not a “discussion”.
Kimmitt
I like Bolton,
Okay, do you know him personally, or do you juat have a soft spot for abusive thugs?
Andrew J. Lazarus
Ah, Stormy, Poland is reducing its troop commitment in Iraq by about 25 percent this summer, and intends to withdraw all their troops next year. Maybe you should have picked a better example of how persuasive the US foreign policy is.
You did, however, give a good, honest explanation of the central theme: we are the biggest baddest mutha country on Earth and we make the rules: UN weapons inspections, toast. Imminent threat doctrine, toast. Geneva Conventions, toast. Funny thing, though, the doctrine seems to be failing. Maybe playing solitaire wasn’t such a brilliant, audacious, bold idea. Those were the preferred Bush Admiration Society euphemisms for “reckless”. Remember, we were supposed to be down to 30K troops by Xmas 2003. Now the same leaders tell us that the insurgency is in its last throes. Yeah, right.
p.lukasiak
He will not, however, be a recess appointment. GWB has at least said that much.
I just read the link, and I could find nothing that suggests that Bush has ruled out a recess appointment (indeed, the article makes it clear its still an option, while noting that the White House has ruled out “withdrawing the nomination”)
Tim F
If I wanted to ‘reform’ the Republican party, I wouldn’t hire Michael Moore to do it.
Randolph Fritz
“Is there no way to provide the documents they want? I thought they just wanted a select few people to access them. Anyone know what the scoop is?”
I see three possibilities: (1) that the documents are damning, (2) that Bolton is being abandoned by the Administration, or (3) that the Administration wishes to weaken the Senate’s control over appointments.
Mithrandir
He will not, however, be a recess appointment. GWB has at least said that much.
I just read the link, and I could find nothing that suggests that Bush has ruled out a recess appointment (indeed, the article makes it clear its still an option, while noting that the White House has ruled out “withdrawing the nomination”)
I read this:
Frist said, “The president made it very clear that he expects an up-or-down vote.”
… as meaning that GWB will not accept doing a recess appointment.
SeesThroughIt
So we may as well stand up (against?) to them, and point out their hipocracy, etc. and make a stand for what we feel is “right.”
Isn’t that exactly what the Democrats are doing to the Bush administration in general and with regard to the Bolton nomination in particular? And yet the right wing tars anybody who dares suggest that Bolton, based on past behavior and track record, might not be the best person for the job.
BTW, my favorite bit of right-wing outrage over Bolton is how, because the White House won’t release important requested documents, the Democrats are being “obstructionist.” Classic “black is white” logic there.
M. Scott Eiland
Bored now. GWB should just recess appoint Bolton and snicker at the whines of the Dems when their favorite toy is taken away from them.
Kimmitt
… as meaning that GWB will not accept doing a recess appointment.
That’s not what he said though — not even vaguely. He said he expects and up-or-down vote, but gives no information on what he will do if he does not get what he expects.
GWB should just recess appoint Bolton and snicker at the whines of the Dems when their favorite toy is taken away from them.
Congressional Oversight?
Jon H
“I see three possibilities: (1) that the documents are damning, (2) that Bolton is being abandoned by the Administration, or (3) that the Administration wishes to weaken the Senate’s control over appointments.”
(4) The administration is just letting the Democrats wear themselves out fighting this, giving the GOP an excuse to complain about “obstruction”.
Jon H
Mithrandir writes: “Not at the detrement to our national interests, no. ”
Given Bolton’s performance in the nonproliferation area, it’s clear that he isn’t working in our national interest. Things have gotten much more dangerous for us during his tenure.
If it were up to Bolton, Libya would still have their nuclear program.
M. Scott Eiland
Congressional Oversight?
Yeah, like a demand from a defense attorney for a plaintiff to turn over dental records from 1965 in a breach-of-contract case is “a legitimate discovery request.” A majority of the Senate is ready to move on, and the committee chairs have already seen the documents in question–enough is enough. Recess appoint and move on.
Kimmitt
A majority of the Senate is ready to move on,
How’s this — since you’ve got ironclad discipline on your guys, why not find a guy who’s at least mediocre so you can peel a half-dozen Party-hating Dems over to your side (Lieberman-CNN and Biden-MBNA come to mind). Instead of trying to ram through the most controversial legislation, why not try governing and forming coalitions? You know, as a change of pace?
Recess appoint and move on.
Heck, forget it; let’s just pretend the Senate’s oversight role over Presidential appointments does not even exist and have Bolton show up at the office and start punching interns.
CaseyL
The Right’s already pretending that, Kimmit. The Right was champing at the bit for Frist to trigger the Nuclear Option, which would have effectively ended all Senate rules and let Frist make up ad hoc ones as he liked.
The Right is happy to not only destroy what remains of the separation of powers and establish government by diktat, but to salt the earth to keep things that way. The Right acts as though permanent One Party Rule is not only desirable (as long as it’s their Party) but is already here.
Considering how Bush and the Single Party Congress are free-falling in approval ratings – in all categories, on all issues, from the war in Iraq to economic policies – I wonder why the Right is so confident that their grip on power is permanent.
I thought part of their confidence lay in expectation that Bush would start another crowd-pleasing war, most likely with Iraq, in time for the 2006 US elections (one reason he’s so anxious to get Bolton to the UN). But with most Americans now turning against the war in Iraq, that seems less reliable a strategy: it is quite possible Americans won’t be fooled again.
So what’s left? Vote fraud?
Rick
CaseyL,
Confident, in large measure, because we read assessments like yours. Brings grins, it does.
Cordially…
The Disenfranchised Voter
“Just Give Them The Documents”
Exactly what I have been saying. If the Republicans want a vote, just turn the freakin’ documents that they have been asking for, for the past two months, over!
It is that simple.
Steve
Does anyone relly believe a recess appointment would in any way end the dispute ? Just imagine all the hostility and ill will that would follow Bolton to the UN; he’d be toast in 5 months, unable to accomplish anything and the subject of tirades from those member states with nothing to lose.
As for the effectiveness/ ineffectiveness of the UN it’s the only game going; throwing the baby out with the bath water makes no sense. Since it’s inception it has served America’s – and the wider world’s – interests, although maybe imperfectly. To claim otherwise is a crock of shit.
The end game for all of this will be some form of compromise on the legitimate request by the Democratic and 1 Republican Senator for the information requested. It makes no sense that Bolton can see the info but the Senate committee members can’t ? If there is anything troubling in the information then Bolton’s nomination should be withdrawn. If it’s a lot of hooey then he’ll quickly get his up or down vote and probably be nominated.
Makes me wonder why the WH is so adamant about his nomination. Clearly Frist was willing to abandon the nomination the day before and surely there must be more than 1 Republican qualified for the post who can effect change at the UN ? So why the “take no prisoners” approach ?
My last comment is that I’m pretty disappointed with a lot of the poters here. Too many are willing to abandon the principles of seperation of powers in government and the vision of the founding fathers to slavishly accommodate a President who was re-elected with a thin majority, and is now facing sagging poll numbers and surging opposition to most of his policy proposals. He’s our elected representative and head of state, not an imperial monarch.
Stormy 70
The UN really helped Rwanda out, as well as all the little raped children in the Congo. Er, wait…that was the UN members who did the raping. Yes, a real stellar operation, the UN.
Stormy 70
The UN really helped Rwanda out, as well as all the little raped children in the Congo. Er, wait…that was the UN members who did the raping. Yes, a real stellar operation, the UN.
Stormy 70
Sorry about the double post.
Crank
Look, ask anyone familiar with litigation – the Democrats are using classic plaintiff-lawyer tactics here, using endless demands for information as a stalling tactic. They don’t care about any particular documents, as long as they keep some requests open that they can point to and say, “see, we need more information.” They’ve used this tactic endlessly in these confirmation fights. Sometimes, as in the case of Miguel Estrada, they deliberately sought documents that the Administration, for reasons of bipartisan principle (i.e., they were supported in this by Democratic ex-Solicitor Generals), simply had to refuse, thus ensuring a permanent stall of the nomination.
The Democrats would never agree that a particular set of documents would be the last they request on a nominee, or if they did, they’d then say they saw something in them that required further investigation.
In short, take none of their requests at face value. This is just an excuse for a filibuster.
Crank
Look, ask anyone familiar with litigation – the Democrats are using classic plaintiff-lawyer tactics here, using endless demands for information as a stalling tactic. They don’t care about any particular documents, as long as they keep some requests open that they can point to and say, “see, we need more information.” They’ve used this tactic endlessly in these confirmation fights. Sometimes, as in the case of Miguel Estrada, they deliberately sought documents that the Administration, for reasons of bipartisan principle (i.e., they were supported in this by Democratic ex-Solicitor Generals), simply had to refuse, thus ensuring a permanent stall of the nomination.
The Democrats would never agree that a particular set of documents would be the last they request on a nominee, or if they did, they’d then say they saw something in them that required further investigation.
In short, take none of their requests at face value. This is just an excuse for a filibuster.
akaoni
Crank:
‘They don’t care about any particular documents, as long as they keep some requests open that they can point to and say, “see, we need more information.”‘
In this case I believe you are incorrect. The request for these documents has been around since before the Bolton nomination left the SFRC for the floor. They have not been changing their request, except to make it easier for the Bush Administration to release the documents. Admittedly, their goal is to defeat the nomination, but that does not mean that the release of these documents is not important. If the Senate’s oversite role is to have any meaning, they must be allowed to see documents germane to the nomination. I think that it is for this reason Republican Senators Lott, Collins, Chafee, Alexander, McCain, and Voinovich have all stated that the documents should be released.
The Disenfranchised Voter
“In short, take none of their requests at face value. This is just an excuse for a filibuster.”
Ok, well if that is the case, and it may be, then why not just turn the documents over? If the documents are just a delay tactic then why not prove it by giving them these documents? If the Democrats still delay then you have every right to call them on it. The truth of the matter is that these documents are what the Democrats want.
You and I both know it is not a delay tactic and that is EXACTLY why the White House won’t turn over the documents. There is obviously something in those documents that the Bush Administration does not want to come out. This whole theory that this is just a delay tactic is bogus rhetoric and most Americans know it.
Sojourner
“Confident, in large measure, because we read assessments like yours. Brings grins, it does.”
I’m sure W’s dropping poll numbers also bring a big grin, as does the military’s inability to meet its enlistment goals, right? Still smiling, Rick?
How about the ballooning deficit and the lack of allies to help us with the war against terror? Still smiling, Rick?
How about a country that is so thoroughly divided that we’ve lost the strength that comes from a united front? Still smiling, Rick?
If so, I feel really sorry for you because the only thing this administration is succeeding at is progressively reducing the number of friends it has. An incredibly stupid thing to do considering all the challenges we face. But for those who REALLY like bullies, well, yeah, there’s a lot to smile about.
Of course, most people don’t like bullies and secretly cheer for their downfall. The only question is how much damage the country will have to experience before things get sorted out and we have some real national and international leadership.