Note to Richard Lugar: The Country Deserves Its Say in This

-

Senator Lugar is now considering options on how to manage action on John Bolton’s renomination to serve as Ambassador to the United Nations — requiring confirmation by the United States Senate.
Technically, Bolton was renominated last September when his recess appointment went into affect. What is different now is that the White House seems ready to push again for confirmation.
As Tony Snow said today, Bolton’s “renomination” is now pending. Little birds have informed me that there is a hearing already planned for next Thursday morning, 9:30 a.m., in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
John Bolton will be the witness.
Snow’s remarks today:

Q Do we have any kind of a time frame when the President will make a permanent appointment, if he’ll make a permanent appointment of Ambassador Bolton?
MR. SNOW: Well, he’s already — the nomination of Ambassador Bolton is still before the United States Senate. He was renominated right after the recess appointment. So that is a nomination that is pending before the United States Senate, and the question now is whether you move through the committee and have another set of hearings, or you go to the floor. So it’s a technical question. So he’s already done that.

I have now been informed by Senate-savvy lawyers that Bolton’s “renomination” is in the Committee.
It CANNOT go to the Floor of the Senate unless it is “discharged” from the Committee or voted out. It is unlikely to be discharged from the Committee without action as that would require a unanimous consent agreement.
That means that the fireworks begin again in the Committee — and attention comes back to the players and how they voted last round.
Senator George Voinovich has now flipped his vote. The question is who may flip the other way.
My answer is this.
IF SENATOR LINCOLN CHAFEE WANTS TO WIN in Rhode Island, he better reconsider his qualified support of John Bolton last round. The BOLTON VOTE will be blaringly large in the eyes of Rhode Islanders — all of the other votes on judges and Supreme Court appointments are a blur now — but Bolton is NOW and Bolton is news.
Lincoln Chafee better get ahead of this one. Last time he was dragged through and became a victim of his indecision — caught in a vice between Vice President Cheney and the many who were trying to speak to the more enlightened sides of him.
TWN will have much more on Chafee, his statements on Bolton, and why this matters to Rhode Island soon.
More later.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

33 comments on “Note to Richard Lugar: The Country Deserves Its Say in This

  1. acomplia weight loss says:

    Acomplia represents one of the latest and indeed a most novel method for controlling body weight. Acomplia operates by being a cannabinoid receptor antagonist. This means that Acomplia prevents the normal action of endogenous cannabinoid in the brain from stimulating the so-called CB1 receptors.
    http://www.onlinepharmacy.ws/cart.php?action=view&id=672

    Reply

  2. Kathleen says:

    Susan,
    Thank you. I had a feeling Coingate was in the mix with Voinovich’s switcherooo. Bolton may be a shoe in, but I think we need to fight every inch of the way to prevent it.
    It’s time the SFRC fought for its right to oversee, and to obtain documents requested before rendering a decision. It’s a matter of principle in preserving the separation of powers between the three branches of gov’t, not just one nomination.
    If the Senate is Constitutionally required to Advise AND CONSENT, then this is the right place to take a stand. The SFRC should refuse to hold any hearings on Bolton untill they receive the documents they requested last time round. Americans should be indicating their objections to proceeding before the administration complies with the committee request for dox.
    Dems should refuse to particpate in any more farce at the hands of Repugnicans and walk out, like Russ Feingold did when Arlen Spector played procedural games. They can rubber stamp, but Dems can forcefully object by denying him legitimacy.
    Caroll: Thanks for the Hague info.

    Reply

  3. RichF says:

    There is exactly ZERO chance that Lincoln Chafee will vote against Bolton.
    We know the track record. We saw the befuddlement.
    I highly recommend the NYTs (maybe WaPo) profile of Sen. Chafee not tooo long ago, in which he complained long and loudly that he had no friends. That no one liked him.
    Interviewed as he shoed horses on his immaculate estate, Chafee recounted how neighbors and friends would drop by and apply excruciating peer pressure.
    Seems it was utterly incomprehensible to them that Chafee would move oh so very far to the extreme left.
    I couldn’t quite tell whether Chafee was bitter, put upon, or just whining, but it was clear he thought all just so unfair.
    Alone. Misunderstood. Poor Lincoln! He’s not worried about losing support from Democrats — quite the opposite! He’s worried because he’d already lost all the friends in the only social circle he knows.
    And that was after he caved on Bolton the first time.

    Reply

  4. erichwwk says:

    URL for NYTimes article should not include the “?”
    http://tinyurl.com/gnkl5

    Reply

  5. erichwwk says:

    Frank wrote:
    “Looks like big changes of US involvement in the ME prior to the election is indeed on its way.”
    Indeed!
    Steve. While of course you are right about Bolton, please consider what keeping a dog in this fight implies for diluting your efforts towards stopping World War III. Do you see efforts opposing the nomination as a major vehicle (whether the arena is MSM or Congress) in achieving this larger goal? While I commend you for your level headed and inclusionary approach to foreign policy, please reassure us that you do not seriously underestimate the ruthlessness of Rumsfeld and Cheney, much as most folks did with Hitler in the 1930’s.
    If you think the Iraq War has diminished the determination for world domination, and the desire that policy MUST be manipulated to ensure that there CAN BE NO RETREAT from this position prior to the 2008 elections (and to some extent the 2006 elections), you share more of the naivety of the general public than I had hoped. Rumsfeld is much too old and committed to back down at this late stage – he has no other options. Next time you’re in Berlin, do spend some time on the early Hitler period at the Deutsches Historisches Museum (Zeughaus), educating yourself on the foundations of current US tactics. Imagine Bush’s face/voice/signature in place of Hitler’s, and you’ll be struck at how little deviation there is from the past. Does not the fact the Bush openly now calls himself “The Decider” tell you anything? Is “Decider” a stronger or weaker declaration of authority than ”Leader”? And how is a view of the US as seeking peace compatible w/ NYTimes http://tinyurl.com/gnkl5? Is Condi going to the ME to promote peace or to promote war?
    And Carroll, please try again to post the URL’s as you previously suggested:
    “Alternatively obtain from here a pdf version of the above letter and print – remember to insert your address, email, date and name To read the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court Website” ??? This may be our best hope.
    “Fighting for Peace is like Fucking for Virginity”

    Reply

  6. Jim H from Indiana says:

    Sen. Voinovich is indeed to be critized for his flip-flop and for no apparent reason, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t see what’s in it for him, unless his supposed presidential aspirations are coming back to life (and, like Sen. McCain, must go through the Crawford ranch). Surely, he’s smarter than that but I’ve seen stranger things happen.
    As for Sen. Chafee, I’m not sure it is a big issue for him in his race but if I was his Democratic opponent, I would sure try to make it one. He is undoubtedly in a difficult position and one, I believe, where there is no winning hand to play. If he flips to oppose Bolton, the Republicans further marginalize him, hampering his re-election bid even more. If he goes along to support Bolton, the Democrats can (and rightly should) make much hay in the campaign against him, putting him even further behind. A non-issue today can be a campaign killer in the fall mid-term (if played right and exploited).
    But one person who has not been criticized and absolutely should is my own Sen. Lugar. He has absolutely caved to the Administration and enabled Bolton to be brought forth. I don’t want to say Sen. Lugar enabled Bolton’s recess nomination but his unwillingness to stop the original nomination in its tracks and his apparent willingness to restart the process shows an absolute lack of spine.
    Yes, Senators Voinovich, Chaffee and others are certainly to blame for the mess we find ourselves in with Bolton but Lugar has allowed all of it to happen. And if he had run the committee like he should have, Bolton might still have been recess-appointed but he would be absolutely dead in the water at this point, period.

    Reply

  7. Aunt Deb says:

    The Republicans are not a monolith. Mr. Kaplan is conflating the Republican National Party and the current administration with everyone in the country who thinks of him or herself as a Republican. This is a serious mistake. Exposing the moral paucity of John Bolton will make all those who care about principle take pause. And some will take action.

    Reply

  8. Joe says:

    Having a symbolic flamethrower is a trivial matter? I think not. It is said he is but a symptom. Sure. But, a rather glaring one, and a defeat can have real effect. Who represents the U.N. is far from completely a fungible position, as if anyone there is equally dangerous.
    Likewise, of course, the nomination serves as means to hit bigger game. Again, a defeat (or vote to confirm with conditions) has broader effect. Nominations like this can be used to affect a lot more than the immediate case at hand. To suggest the recess path forced last time was of no harm to the administration seems to me dubious at best.
    As to the effect on Chaffee, I can’t say, but it surely has potential to mean something in a close race in RI. Thus, I find Zathras’ scorn a tad bit overplayed.

    Reply

  9. anon says:

    Masden is not a credible source.

    Reply

  10. JL says:

    Yesterday Bolton seemed to indicate the death of an Israeli was of greater sympathy because it was caused by terrorists while the killing in Beirut was self defense. That statement alone created a picture that we don’t care about the people of Beirut. What a shame.

    Reply

  11. pauline says:

    here’s from Wayne Madsen today with Bolton as the one who’s already foretold the neocons’ “Clean Break” policy. If Madsen is right, WW IV is about to begin.
    July 21, 2006 — Informed sources have told WMR that arch-neocon Michael Ledeen, who acts as an unofficial foreign policy adviser to Karl Rove, was at the White House yesterday with a group of Iranian opposition figures. Among the topics discussed was a promised $25 million grant by the Bush administration to the Iranian insurgents. The money is to be used to plant Desert Storm-vintage biological and chemical weapons shells, confiscated by U.S. forces in Iraq, on the Iranian side of the Iraqi border. The weapons will be used as “proof” of Iran’s plan to “attack” U.S. troops in Iraq. That will be used to justify, ex post facto, the coming U.S. attack on Iran. Our sources report that George W. Bush dropped by the White House meeting to offer his support to the Iranian opposition operatives.
    Pretext for war with Iran: White House plans to move chem-bio weapons from Iraq into Iranian side of this desolate border.
    —————————————-
    July 21, 2006 — The current Israeli assault on Lebanon was stage-managed between the government of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and neocons in the Bush administration, according to well-connected sources in the nation’s capital. The Bush administration had prior knowledge of and supported Israel’s planned attacks on Gaza and Lebanon, the sources have revealed. In addition, there was no move by the Bush administration to warn Americans in the Occupied Palestinian Territories or Lebanon to leave the areas before the Israeli invasions. No travel warnings were issued to U.S. citizens in an attempt to mask Israeli attack plans, an action that resulted in last-minute Dunkirk-like sea evacuations of foreigners from Lebanon.
    The first indication that Israel pre-planned its assault on the Palestinians came early this month when the Israelis began denying entry to the West Bank to Palestinians holding U.S. passports. The U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv and the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem refused to intervene with Israel, claiming it was the decision of a sovereign nation. The denial of entry to Palestinian-Americans was a violation of the Oslo Accords and the Geneva Conventions. The United States does not officially recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
    Washington insiders report that the Bush administration’s coordination with Israel in the attacks on Hamas and Hezbollah involve the official adoption of the white paper, “A Clean Break: New Strategies for Securing the Realm,” as U.S. policy. The “Clean Break” document, authored in 1996 by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and other neocon operatives, was written at the same time the program for the invasion and occupation of Iraq was drawn up by the same neocon players.
    Carrying out the next phase of the neo-con “Clean Break”: Netanyahu, Perle, and Ledeen still call the shots on U.S. and Israeli policies. First it was Iraq, then Palestine and Lebanon, next is Syria and Iran.
    The current U.S.-Israeli strategy of bombing and invading Lebanon is a follow-up to four years of covert activities by the Pentagon, White House, and Mossad in Lebanon that involved the car bombing assassinations of top Lebanese officials in order to clear out Syrian forces from Lebanon. The assassinations of Elie Hobeika, George Hawi, and Rafik Hariri were all carried out to destabilize Lebanon and force the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon. Syria was blamed by the Bush administration for all the car bombing assassinations in Lebanon.
    Israel’s border exercise that saw the capture by Hezbollah of two Israeli soldiers on the Lebanese side of the border and the contingency plans involving the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier by Hamas in Israel, near the Israeli-Gazan border, provided a pre-text for the Israeli attack on Gaza and Lebanon. Similar plans have been drawn up to respond to a Syrian “capture” of Israeli troops in Lebanon near the Syrian border or from the Golan Heights. That will be used to justify a joint Israeli and American attack on Syria, with Israel entering from Lebanon and the U.S. entering from Iraq.
    The carrying out of the joint Israeli-U.S. attack plan for Lebanon, Syria (and eventually, Iran) is the reason why the United States has stymied UN attempts to seek an immediate cease-fire. The intent of the Bush administration is to see a widening of the conflict. Unconfirmed UN ambassador to the UN John Bolton, appearing on Fox News, laid out the future blueprint for the joint U.S.-Israeli regionalization of the war in the Middle East when he stated, “I think that if you look at the support that Iran and Syria have given groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad that really the reckoning we need here is a reckoning, not just with the terrorist groups, but with the states that finance them.”
    WMR has also learned that top Israeli and U.S. military officers are adamantly opposed to the Clean Break policy. Many Israeli generals, remembering Israel’s bloody occupation of Lebanon in the 1980s, favored negotiating a prisoner swap with Hezbollah. The Olmert government is purging the last remnants of the Yitzhak Rabin elements who favored negotiations from the Israeli military and intelligence agencies much in the same way that opponents of the Bush regime have been purged from the U.S. military, CIA, and State Department.
    ———————————
    July 21, 2006 — The son of David Gribben, Vice President Dick Cheney’s boyhood friend and his chief of staff at the Pentagon and Vice President for Corporate Affairs at Halliburton, has reportedly joined Cheney’s White House staff as an assistant. The elder Gribben is an active player in the corporate-religious tax dodge known as The Fellowship, an Arlington, Virginia-based contrivance that uses religious tax-exempt status to lobby the U.S. and foreign governments on behalf of the military-industrial complex. With the carrying out of the Clean Break by Israel and the United States, profits for companies like Halliburton are bound to skyrocket. The Israeli attack on Lebanon is already estimated to have resulted in $2 billion in damage to Lebanon’s infrastructure. WMR previously reported that Jacobs/Sverdrup has been promised a lucrative Pentagon contract to build a large U.S. airbase in northern Lebanon.
    The stage is set for Halliburton to move into U.S. and Israeli-occupied Lebanon.
    —————————————

    Reply

  12. Ian Kaplan says:

    Dear Aunt Deb:
    Both you and Steve seem to miss the point.
    Yes, it’s true that the United States should be
    ashamed to be represented by Mr. Bolton. The
    citizens of the United States should also be
    ashamed that they are so cowardly and ill informed
    that they elected G.W. Bush in 2004 because
    they were afraid of terrorists.
    The problem is not Mr. Bolton. He is simply a
    symptom of the problem. The problem is the
    administration of G.W. Bush and the Rubber
    Stamp Republicans. They have lead our nation
    into a morass of problems that are so dire that
    Bolton is really not worth spending time and
    energy on. Bolton, for what ever reason, seems
    to be Steve’s obcession. But Steve also seems
    to believe that there are still Republicans that
    are capable of reason, policy and doing something
    that is good for the nation, not just Republican
    control. I regard this view as mistaken.

    Reply

  13. Carroll says:

    Meanwhile….Who do you call when your goverment doesn’t listen to you? Ghost busters?…NO,..you call the:
    International Criminal Court
    Destruction of Lebanon July 2006
    Something that we can do – please, if you can, copy, insert your address (including email), insert the date, sign, and mail the letter below.
    The International Criminal Court will have to respond to each signatory. The organiser of this website, Janine Roberts, has already faxed her appeal to the Court. Please join her by faxing or posting your own.
    The Rome Statute and other information sources are listed below.
    To the Office of the Prosecutor,
    International Criminal Court
    PO Box 19519
    2500CM, The Hague
    The Netherlands
    Tel.: +31 70 515 85 15 or Fax: +31 70 515 85 55
    Dear Sir or Madam, 19th July 2006
    I understand that under the Rome Statute members of the Public may refer to your attention alleged major war crimes for investigation and possible prosecution.
    I note that under the Rome Statute you are empowered to consider such crimes. I further note that the very existence of your court helps to prevent such crimes by serving notice that these cannot in future be carried out with total impunity.
    I note that the Rome Statute directs your consideration to “the most serious crimes of international concern,” and that Article 8 of the above Statute stipulates: “The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.”Furthermore that ‘for the purposes of this Statute, “war crimes” means …(iv) ‘Extensive destruction … not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.” And that furthermore “other serious violations” include “intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives,”
    I further note that these actions are, as the Statute requires, part of a “plan”. Israeli military authorities have publicly stated this, saying their plan requires many more days or weeks of continuing military action and destruction. Their plan has already resulted in what the Lebanese government have called a ‘catastrophe’ inflicted on their civilian population, one that is continuing to create havoc and grave suffering, driving hundreds of thousands from their homes, destroying much of the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon.
    I am therefore convinced that these crimes meet the requirements for action of the Rome Statute. I thus urgently ask that you immediately initiate research with a view to seeing if a prosecution is called for, into the current devastating bombing and shelling of the state of Lebanon, including of its roads and road traffic, power stations, airports and sea ports, bridges and homes, by the political and military leadership of the State of Israel.
    I further request that if you decide to consider this, you make this immediately public. I ask in the hope that this will help in a small way to deter further crimes and help bring about a cessation of the current hostilities.
    I am persuaded that t, given your previous actions relating to war crimes committed elsewhere, no politician or general engaged in war crimes would wish to be submitted to your scrutiny.
    I am aware that the State of Israel signed the Statute setting up your court.
    I look forward to your response,
    With respect
    (insert your own name here, change the date appropriately, then print out and mail to the Court).
    Alternatively obtain from here a pdf version of the above letter and print – remember to insert your address, email, date and name
    To read the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court Website

    Reply

  14. formerDoDlogmgr says:

    Think about the fact that Bolton has to be renominated RIGHT AWAY. What does this say about
    Republican beliefs about their chances of retaining the Senate if they have to try and push Bolton through before the summer recess and the reelection campaigns start in earnest? I’d say the GOP is hedging it’s bet that they will still be in control come January when Bolton’s appointment expires.

    Reply

  15. Aunt Deb says:

    John Bolton is not capable of carrying out the real work that any sane solution to the current situation requires. He is, in fact, part of the intractable nature of the current situation. If ‘renominating’ this man is such a shoe-in, I think this is something to be ashamed about rather than resigned to. Rather than tell Mr. Clemons that it’s a task doomed to failure to attempt to educate and exort our fellow citizens on the necessity for true diplomacy and humane relations in the Middle East, things Mr. Bolton is adamantly and absolutely opposed to, we should all be writing and calling our representatives, senators, newspaper editors to voice our strong opposition to Mr. Bolton.
    I think it’s really remarkable that anyone should think he has performed reasonably at the UN; his remarks regarding the superior worth of American and Israeli lives in comparison with those of Lebanese civilians reveal a mind neither measured nor moral. Mr. Bolton should be fought not on his performance at the UN but on his beliefs. He is where he is because he does not support the UN’s mission. He is where he is because he can veto those resolutions the current US government wants vetoed. He is where he is because he perfectly embodies the unilateralist, supremacist, racist views of the Republican base.
    We might not defeat his ‘renomination’ but we cannot stand by and resign ourselves and our country to such undemocratic inhumane hands without fighting.

    Reply

  16. Linda says:

    Wish it wasn’t so, but I think one year of probation and not acting out too badly will be enough to get Bolton confirmed, especially with the current crisis. I remain very cynical, i.e., Condi isn’t going to ME Sunday–maybe next week. If there is any diplomacy, it’s way too little and way too late. There may be hope for diplomacy again around 1/09.

    Reply

  17. vachon says:

    If it’ can’t be explained in 30 words or less, it’s a non-issue, Steve.

    Reply

  18. Frank says:

    Yeah, mustachio is a shoe in…The Lebanon war in the ME muddies the picture, and couldn’t come at a more opportune time for Bolton. (The horses in mid stream syndrome rears its head just like the Iraq war being used to support Bush’s reelection misguided reasoning). Voinovitch, that stalwart of “principle”, mapped out that very talking point rationale for his flipflop. Israel was always Bolton’s “god father”, and has come through for him bigtime. They need him there for sure. Watch AIPAC earn its money on this one…
    Looks like big changes of US involvement in the ME prior to the election is indeed on its way.

    Reply

  19. marcus alrealius alrightus says:

    I think it’s time for a new strategy because it’s become obvious after 6 years of these thugs that what we’re doing isn’t working. And they plan on slamming us with Social Security phase out again.
    Sorry profmarcus but I don’t agree with your last statement. I think that if Bush only had a 5% approval rating that things wouldn’t be any different.

    Reply

  20. profmarcus says:

    now that the mustache of serial abuse has amply demonstrated his complete and total unsuitability for the post, now that bushco’s foreign policy has been completely and totally discredited, and now that the united nations is increasingly being recognized (even in the u.s.) as a necessary tool for world peacekeeping (as opposed to world war-mongering), only the most rabid, mindless, and deluded of bush’s precious few remaining supporters can, in any conscience, support this pathetic excuse for a diplomat…
    http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

    Reply

  21. km4 says:

    The Armageddon Man
    http://www.alternet.org/story/21730/
    No wonder Bush choose fellow lunatic Bolton.

    Reply

  22. susan says:

    “Why did Georgie V. of Illinois change his mind?”
    Maybe this has something to do with it:
    “Voinovich Administration Approved Ohio’s $25 Million Investment in Noe’s Coin Scheme. “In the 1990’s, Mr. Noe, 50, was chairman of the Republican Party in Lucas County, which includes Toledo. His wife held the same position until last year. He was a friend of Gov. George V. Voinovich, now a senator, whose administration first approved a $25 million investment in Mr. Noe’s rare-coin funds in 1998.” Noe also, has given $21,000 in the past two years to Voinovich. [Columbus Dispatch, 4/28/05]”

    Reply

  23. Sankatylighthouse says:

    After reading Jane Mayer’s article in The New Yorker about David Addington (week of July 4,2006), Bolton is Cheney’s boy!!!! One would have to be certifiably insane to confirm him. Remember,
    when Kindasleeza promised to keep an eye on him during his last go-round with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings?
    Why did Georgie V. of Illinois change his mind?

    Reply

  24. gq says:

    This is part of Rove’s strategy. Hawks want Bolton so Bush/Rove need to do something to make them eager to vote in November. That is all that this is about.
    The GOP needs their base to come out and vote–they are losing and Rove knows it. Hence the stem cell veto. Hence Bolton.
    This election is no longer only about fear. The only way the GOP stands a chance is if their supporters come out and the critics don’t.

    Reply

  25. matt says:

    “If our Attorney General can blatantly and irrefutably commit perjury during his confirmation hearings, yet still get in, I see no reason a rabid arrogant ass with the diplomatic skills of a hyena cannot piss all over the process as well. ”
    I hate to say it, but I think this comment pretty well sums it up.
    Think about it, outside of the very slowly increasing acceptance of reality on the part of the press/media in acknowledging what a complete cluster**** our foreign policy has become, what possible indication is there that the “deciders” on this issue (Senate Foreign Relations Committee) have decided to assert their institutional authority/responsibility?

    Reply

  26. Easy E says:

    Forget this schmuck. He’s a shoe-in.
    Word to the wise: THINK LONG TERM. CHOSE YOUR BATTLES ACCORDINGLY!

    Reply

  27. Den Valdron says:

    Oh hell, Bolton’s going to slide through like shit through a goose. Let’s face it, there’s no one in the Senate with the stones to face up to him a second time around, and not enough votes to make it matter.
    Everyones going to be focused on the crisis du jour. The Republicans will pull rank, and that will be it.

    Reply

  28. Zathras says:

    I think that perhaps Steve Clemons ought to stick to foreign policy. No vote on confirming an Ambassador to the UN has ever been decisive in a Senate race, and most Rhode Island voters don’t know who John Bolton is.
    If it were up to me, I’d vote against confirmation because I think American foreign policy needs new blood at the senior levels. But I’m realistic to know that this is a minority, indeed a somewhat idiosyncratic view; moreover, in a situation like Bolton’s all the stuff that happened before he went to the UN is bound to be regarded as water under the bridge even by Senators who voted against him last time. To say nothing of voters, who would think a campaign ad, say, about their Senator’s vote on confirming a sitting UN ambassador as just strange.

    Reply

  29. Friendly Fire says:

    It’s a fucking given that Bolton will remain. Democrats are an opposition party…….. ha ha ha all the way to Bedlam.

    Reply

  30. Ian Kaplan says:

    Bolton will be confirmed by the Senate.
    While neither G.W. (the gropenator) Bush or
    John Bolton would be my choice to represent
    the United States, the fact remains that Bolton
    has not lived up to his maniac reputation.
    His Republican detractors are not going to vote
    against Bolton this time. A few of them have
    said as much.
    Really, given all of the important issues that
    are before our nation, I don’t see this issue
    as worth of consideration. Let Bush appoint
    Bolton. I recommend moving on and concentrating
    on other issues, like the US violation of the
    Geneva convention, wire tapping, out of control
    budgets, war in Iraq and the Middle East and
    what may be a looming economic meltdown. Next
    to these issues, Bolton really doesn’t matter.

    Reply

  31. Matthew says:

    Steve: If the Bolton nomination (“re-nomination”) isn’t challenged, POA isn’t going to be the only America wearing that moniker. Could you give us some insight into why the Senate is so prostrate? Where is the loyal opposition?

    Reply

  32. Pissed Off American says:

    Here we go again. We will be sold the fallacy that Bolton’s confirmation is the process of a democracy, when in fact its a fuckin’ done deal. Anyone that thinks his confirmnation can be blocked wasn’t watching the Gonzalez or the Alito charades. If our Attorney General can blatantly and irrefutably commit perjury during his confirmation hearings, yet still get in, I see no reason a rabid arrogant ass with the diplomatic skills of a hyena cannot piss all over the process as well.
    The guy is a shoe-in. Done deal. End of story.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *