Frist and McCain press conference on now CSPAN Bolton

[seemslikeadream]

just saw it I don't know how long it's been on


Frist & McCain Raise Ante on Bolton Cloture Vote
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.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

[tanyev]

1. "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."

Hmmm...Maybe that's why progress has been made.

[Coexist]

2. so then, the administration will be releasing the necessary information

so the vote can take place?!

[candy331]

3. Will this be another one of those brokered deals where Dems cave and

give away the farm?

[Chipper Chat]

4. Bolton is sorely needed at the UN

because the custodial staff at UN Headquarters has run out of brooms. (You might have to think a minute)

[seemslikeadream]

5. 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

[Poiuyt]

6. I think America is better off not being represented in the UN than

being represented by Bolton. Certainly the world is.

[seemslikeadream]

7. 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/