Sen. Roberts dismisses Democrats' Bolton compromise proposal

[Justice]

Sen. Roberts dismisses Democrats' Bolton compromise proposal
By Alexander Bolton

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/061505/roberts.html

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter yesterday to senior Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee dismissing as overly broad (36 Names) the Democrats’ request to obtain classified information requested by John Bolton, the embattled nominee to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

In an accompanying statement, Roberts said: “After careful review, the Senate Intelligence Committee continues to find no evidence of abuse” by Bolton.

“Despite assertions by the Chairman, the Senate Intelligence Committee has not reached any conclusion regarding Under Secretary Bolton’s actions,” stated Rockefeller.

[merwin]

1. They're hiding something BIG

[Norquist Nemesis]

3. Yes, buy why isn't Rockefeller saying anything?

:grr:

[Justice]

4. Rockefeller doesn't have the names

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. Got it!

More secrecy. Even though Rockefeller is not ranking member, he's in the position with the title 'co-chair'.

By all appearances, they're hiding and covering up something.

[seemslikeadream]

5. Niger? Plame?

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

[Jack Rabbit]

11. What they're "hiding" is Bolton's persistent misuse of intelligence

Bolton finds nothing wrong with twisting data to fit a preconceived policy. Not only is he wrong, but such behavior is criminal.

I have been arguing on other threads that any Bush regime official who fixed (to use the word from the DSM) facts and intelligence to fit the predetermined policy of invading Iraq should be charged under the War Crimes Act of 1996 or, failing that, brought before an international tribunal convened for the purpose of hearing charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity arising out of the invasion of Iraq and the so-called war on terror.

The Niger document made a good chapter in a bad work of fiction several regime members were writing about a brutal Middle Eastern dictator seeking to build nukes. If Bolton was advocating that this obvious forgery be used regardless of its authenticity, he should be charged as a war criminal.

We don't really know if Bolton did this. Nevertheless, it is plausible. Bolton on other occasions attempted to push dubious reports and theories to justify a hard line policy. His silly accusations about Castro attempting to build biochemical weapons went nowhere, but they fit the pattern.

Perhaps Bolton's habitual misuse of intelligence is what an unnamed White House official meant when he told journalist Ron Susskind that empires like Bush's America create their own reality. Those of us who move in the saner realm of the reality-based community know that statesmen do not have the luxury of creating their own reality and that only an irresponsible tyrant would make such an assertion.

Bolton's misuse of intelligence is wrong. It is dangerous and possibly criminal. It disqualifies him from holding the ambassadorship to the United Nations or any other position of responsibility or public trust that touches on the realms or either diplomacy or national security. He is the kind of person who would tell a deliberate lie to embroil the United States in an unjustified war of aggression. There are already too many such people in this regime and they should be weeded out, not rewarded.

[LightningFlash]

2. Why don't they just unlease the files.....

There's nothing to hide now Condaleeza Rice, surely the files must be released.

[getmeouttahere]

6. Fu** 'em, then....Dems must continue....

to block the nomination, no matter what!

If this guy were among the general public, he would be either in jail or a mental health facility!

[Triana]

7. No files. No Bolton...

..I think they should hold on NO Bolton no matter what, actually.

[Lerkfish]

9. I agree...sadly, though, I don't think THEY"LL agree.

I see a cave-in on the horizon.

[FormerOstrich]

10. more Bolton

Here is some additional nuggets of information
about Mr. Bolton. I posted this a week or so ago and then again yesterday on a different thread. I think it's very interesting and I think it illustrates he was acting on someone else's orders (or that would be my guess) and that he blatantly, in-your-face lied to Senate Foreign Relations Committee (what else would you call saying that term limits prompted eavesdropping).

(emphasis are mine). Here is the link to the original thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


....snip

"We're willing to lift our objections under certain conditions," one of the officials said. "Namely, get tougher on Iran."

The Bush administration's vigorous but solitary campaign -- including a complete halt of intelligence sharing, recruitment of potential replacements and eavesdropping on ElBaradei in search of ammunition against him -- won not a single ally on the IAEA board.

ElBaradei, who repeatedly challenged U.S. assertions about Iraq's weapons programs, does not need Washington's backing to be reappointed. He is supported by the 34 other countries on the IAEA board.

....snip

Bolton was the driving force behind efforts to oust ElBaradei -- whose stance on Iraq and cautious approach on Iran put him deeply at odds with the White House. But Bolton's efforts ran into trouble in December after revelations that U.S. officials were culling intercepts of ElBaradei's phone conversations for material to use against him.

....snip

Publicly, the administration has said its efforts to remove ElBaradei were motivated solely by a desire to see U.N. executives adopt term limits. "Our feeling on the director general is that we support the long-standing policy of two terms for director generals," Bolton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April when it was reviewing his nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations. "That's been the policy. Currently, there are no candidates to oppose him, so we'll have to see how that policy plays out," he said.

But many allies viewed the campaign as retaliation against someone who questioned U.S. intelligence on Iraq and was vindicated when no weapons of mass destruction were found.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8135142 /

[mediaman007]

12. How about this: Did Bolton "out" Plame?

He would be vindictive enough. Is Plame's name on the list of 56? Maybe Wilson's name is there too!

[Bozita]

13. this Senator Roberts?

[Supersedeas]

14. Alex Bolton is framing the John Bolton nomination for the hill?

Uh-oh, looks like someone's name popped up on the list!!!

Charge the Dems with obstruction -- we will never concede to THEIR requests!!!


Wait...so who is being obstructionists here, Mr. Bolton?

[0007]

15. Pat Roberts is a first class loony tune charactor...

his looks, his insipid voice is a dead give away. How could anyone from Kansas voted for this so-called man, Pat Robert's best effort is to dress up like a human being.

[xxqqqzme]

16. Whatever happened 2 Maxine Waters'

allegations that bolton sold rifles & hand guns to Haiti SS thereby violating sanctions?