Counselor to the President Dan Bartlett has reported that the White House intends to power on and doesn’t consider Voinovich’s stand a “no vote” yet.
Just in case anyone at the White House is reading (and I’ve been informed that they are), no problem.
I think that we actually do need more time to consolidate the case against John Bolton, to bring out the other stories which are now developing, and to have a conversation with Senators and the American public about four questions:
1. Should “Serial Abuse” of subordinates be not only tolerated in government but be rewarded?
2. Should ideologically driven public servants have the ability to play it to the edge, and even over the edge, in generating their own intelligence, trying to predetermined intelligence outcomes, and have the latitude to undermine delicate Bush administration national security initiatives?
3. Should senior level Bush administration officials be able to access the nation’s most secret secrets so as to spy on colleagues, their conversations, and their comments about him? (this is what some suspect the infamous NSA intercepts may show)
4. Should a senior Bush administration official be able to get away with such “flagrant lying” about these issues to Congress?
There is a long list that can be added — but let’s stop there.
Just a note to my friends in the White House, this is not a partisan game. Many, many Americans — Republicans, Democrats, and Independents — do not think we should be sending someone to the UN of whom we cannot be proud.
John Bolton may be useful in other capacities — but he is remarkably divisive for this important U.N. role.
If the White House wants to continue to battle, so does TWN and the many who oppose John Bolton.
In fact, I’m still quite a fan of Bill Kristol’s proposal to Senator Frist that we have unrestricted debate about John Bolton from now until exhaustion sets in. The more time we have on Bolton to make the case against his nomination, the better. . .
— Steve Clemons