Frist & McCain Raise Ante on Bolton Cloture Vote (TWN)

[swag]

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000722.html

This morning, Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist and Senator John McCain held a press conference in the Mansfield Room of the U.S. Capitol in order to "urge" their colleagues "to allow the nomination of John Bolton to serve as Ambassador to the United Nations to come back to the floor of the Senate for an up/down vote."

Senator Frist said that the position that John Bolton has been nominated to fill became vacant 200 days ago and that since that time, "a velvet revolution broke out in the Ukraine and Lebanon. Democratic progress has been made in Iraq, Egypt, and Palestine. . .and yet these last 200 days, America has not been represented in the U.N."

Frist reiterated that it is time to get to the work of reforming the U.N. and that he wants to bring the Bolton vote back to the floor "in the next several days" and put cloture to a test again. He said that if Democrats want to continue their "filibuster -- and I will call it that," Frist said, then let their votes be counted.

When pressed as to whether or not he was scheduling an actual vote, Frist said "no." He wanted to wait a few days to see how negotiations between Senators Biden and Dodd and the White House went -- to give them time for something to work out.

. . . much more

[meganmonkey]

1. Ha! Democracy is on the march everywhere!

And the US doesn't have anyone in the UN to sabotage it all!

:rofl:

[dchill]

10. Yup -

Time's a'wastin!

[The White Tree]

12. I thought the same thing

Do these guys listen to themselves speak. If anything, Frist made the case against Bolton. If Peace is breaking out on it's own, the last thing you need is a boisterous, knowitall coming into the process to try to tell everyone how they now need to do it his way.

That could derail those processes.

[maddezmom]

2. watching the reply on CSPAN2 now

:eyes:

[merwin]

3. Go a head and call it a filibuster. We'll call you obstructionists.

[napi21]

4. If the WH releases ANYTHING, you can be sure it won't incrimanate

ANYONE! I'm positive that's the reason they haven't released the requested docs so far. If the Dems get anything at all, it will either be redacted, or something they never asked for.

I detest this admin., but I will say they aren't stupid! We'll never see anything released that they later have to ask "Why did we let THAT out?" Accusations and rumors can't really hurt you, and they know that!

[Roland99]

5. I was thinking last night (dangerous, I know)...let Bolton in.

Put this asshat in front of the UN and watch him go berserk in meetings. You think anyone in the UN will take him seriously at this point? Esp. considering the US track record of late?

If someone else gets put in, they may get the benefit of the doubt by the rest of the UN. I can't imagine Bolton will be seen as nothing less than a bully.

[bemildred]

6. "the White House has not yielded on a single evidence request"

As in:

"It was made clear to Senator McCain by other members of the press that the White House has not yielded on a single evidence request -- all of which had been lodged in April 2005. McCain said that he was "hopeful" that the negotiations would lead somewhere and that a balance could be struck between protecting the rights of the Executive Branch while at the same time addressing the concerns of Senators Biden and Dodd."

[BR_Parkway]

21. What rights of the Exec branch? They fucking work for us (I know

that's how it's supposed to work).

[MrPrax]

7. Idiots...Jeez...don't they watch FAUX

MrPrax asking a question at the news conference: "Ah Sir,--the velvet revolution was in Czechoslovakia under Vaclav Havel--it was the Orange and Cedar revolutions in the Ukraine and Lebanon, respectively. Do you think having a UN ambassador would do anything to improve YOUR lack of even basic recall of media propaganda ?"

Frist responds : "Well if we had a UN Ambassador, vital Intelligence like that wouldn't have been missed...what are you, a terrorist cat lover?

[olddad56]

8. In Bushise, Reform always means Repress.

[seemslikeadream]

9. 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

[donkeyotay]

14. So Bolton's nomination is linked to the Downing Street Minutes

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?

There is an excellent article by Neil Mackay from the Sunday Herald, July 13, 2003, Niger and Iraq: the war’s biggest lie?

<<<snip>>>
The IAEA says it sought evidence about the Niger connection from Britain and America immediately after the US issued a state department factsheet on December 19, 2002, headed 'Illustrative Examples of Omissions from the Iraqi Declaration to the United Nations Security Council'. In it, under the heading 'Nuclear Weapons', it reads: 'The declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger. Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?' But the IAEA, despite repeatedly begging the UK and US for access to papers, wasn't given any documents until February 2003 -- six weeks later.

The article also has this:

The fact that the documents were forged matters less than the purpose to which they were put. On September 24, 2002, Blair's dossier Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government said: 'There is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Iraq has no active civil nuclear power programme of nuclear power plants and, therefore, has no legitimate reason to acquire uranium.'

On January 28, 2003, Bush, in his State of the Union address, said: 'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.' Bush didn't stop there -- later, there was talk of 'mushroom clouds' unless Saddam was taken out.

It was the International Atomic Energy Agency which rumbled the documents as forgeries -- a task that their experts were able to complete in just a matter of hours. Here are just four examples of how easy it was to work out the documents were, as one intelligence source said, 'total bullshit':
· In a letter from the President of Niger a reference is made to the constitution of May 12, 1965 -- but the constitution is dated August 9, 1999;
· Another letter purports to be signed by Niger's foreign minister, but bears the signature of Allele Elhadj Habibou, the minister between 1988-89;
· An obsolete letterhead is used, including the wrong symbol for the presidency, and references to state bodies such as the Supreme Military Council and the Council for National Reconciliation are incompatible with the letter's date;
· It wasn't until just before the war began that Mohamed El Baradei, IAEA director-general, told the UN Security Council on March 7 that his team and 'outside experts', had worked out that ' these documents ... are in fact not authentic'. <<<end>>>

(Although the article states the UK and US were informed 2 weeks before El Baradei's address to UN)

[UCLA Dem]

11. Here we go again. I can't wait until we've got control again....

I can hear the whining now.

[insane_cratic_gal]

13. Biden and Dodd?

"When pressed as to whether or not he was scheduling an actual vote, Frist said "no." He wanted to wait a few days to see how negotiations between Senators Biden and Dodd and the White House went -- to give them time for something to work out."


"Frist also said that he had tried to be helpful in some of the documents requests but had been rebuffed by Senators Biden and Dodd, whom both Senator McCain and Frist kept complimenting repeatedly despite differences on Bolton and the evidence requests."


So is Biden and Dodd, pushing for the rest of the information they requested? Or are they about to bully Dems into voting without out it? Sometimes with these two its hard to see who's side they are on.

[0rganism]

15. In the last 200 days, we haven't been in the U.N....

...and all these good things are happening, right? "Democratic progress", "velvet revolution", all kinds of fantastic freedom-luvvin' stuff.

So let's send a real asshole in there to shut it all down.

[AaronforAmerica]

16. StopJohnBolton.com

Hi,

I just thought some of you may be interested in helping with a petition site that several of us former Wes Clark campaign staff members just put it. Its an email petition to Senators urging them to vote against John Bolton. I hope you check it out:

www.StopJohnBolton.com

Thanks!
take care,
Aaron

[xxqqqzme]

17. Thanx and signed

kick

[Straight Shooter]

24. Thanks for the link. My comment to the "stopjohnbolton" petition:

The last thing I would want is for John Bolton's face at the U.N. to be the face of U.S. diplomacy. Has everyone gone totally nuts that they would even consider this megalomaniac?

Who will the Repubs choose if Bolton loses? Will they just take Charlie Manson out of jail and send him to the U.N.?

[seemslikeadream]

18. Senate Dems Say Frist Has His Bolton Story Backwards. . .

Senate Dems Say Frist Has His Bolton Story Backwards. . .
TWN has talked with a number of leading Senate players in the Bolton battle today, and the general response that Senate Dems have for Bill Frist's Bolton press conference are the following:

1. Senator Frist has the story "exactly backwards." The only way the "goal posts" have been moved is in the direction of the administration.
2. The three outstanding document requests each go back at least six weeks -- all of them made in April 2005. Nothing has been added to these requests. No one has repeatedly asked for more information. To the contrary, the Senators making requests have narrowed the requests on Syria and the NSA intercepts to be accommodating -- even though the Senate is fully entitled to all the information requested.

The Administration has never claimed "executive privilege" and has offered no legitimate rationale for not providing this material.

3. The request for the NSA intercepts was made by Senator Dodd orally on April 11 at Mr. Bolton's hearing and then in writing a few days later. The administration has stonewalled ever since.

more
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

[formercia]

19. and thats a good thing

Senator Frist said that the position that John Bolton has been nominated to fill became vacant 200 days ago and that since that time, "a velvet revolution broke out in the Ukraine and Lebanon. Democratic progress has been made in Iraq, Egypt, and Palestine. . .and yet these last 200 days, America has not been represented in the U.N."

Gee, and they did it without us. You would have never thought they could do it.

[brooklynite]

20. So, what's the hurry?

"a velvet revolution broke out in the Ukraine and Lebanon. Democratic progress has been made in Iraq, Egypt, and Palestine. . .and yet these last 200 days, America has not been represented in the U.N."

Looks like things are going pretty well without Bolton. Why change things?

[NNN0LHI]

22. Frist, McCain call for vote on Bolton

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/14/bolton.nomination/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and fellow Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona joined forces Tuesday to portray Democrats as obstructionists to the nomination of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, pressing the urgency of filling the post with the president's pick.

"Now we're at a point where the filibuster against Bolton -- and yes, I'll call it a filibuster until we get an up-or-down vote -- is continuing," Frist said.

The Democrats' actions, he said, "demonstrate that the other side is unreasonably and irresponsibly filibustering this nomination."

Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, and Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut, have demanded the Bush administration produce 10 National Security Agency communication intercepts that Bolton, the State Department's undersecretary for arms control, had requested since 2001.

[gademocrat7]

23. Just look at the smirk on frist's face.

I am hoping that bully bolton wont get confirmed. Can Biden and Dodd stall this fiasco??

[me b zola]

25. Ha! Dodd just said that the repubs are fillibustering their own nominee!!!

...OOOHHH, he's tearing it up, he's on fire!!!

[applegrove]

26. A velvet revolution broke out in Lebanon because of an assassination.

I'm still waiting for Bush to take ownership of that.

A velvet revolution broke out in Ukrane because of the policies of Bill Clinton and organizations like Freedom House. They funded and trained the Ukranian demonstrators. And they used what happened in Serbia as the model.

Had nothing to do with Bush. Soft power works!!

[seemslikeadream]

27. Lindsey Graham says

I spoke to Lindsey Graham quickly and told him that we were on opposite sides on John Bolton -- and the Senator quickly said, "Well, Bolton's gonna improve fast, or he'll be out."
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/