Democrats filibuster Bolton, the deal didn't last long

[jersey_guy]

That was sooo predictable. They will do anything to paralyze the Senate and eventually Frist and co. will have no choice but to go nuclear against people who want to debate (meaning: sabotage) forever.

http://nytimes.com/2005/05/26/politics/26cnd-bolt.html?hp&ex=1117166400&en=73afb1eb2af4ab8d&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Jwaksman]

The Democrats didn't break any deal. The fillibuster deal that they made was that they agreed to end their fillibusters on a bunch of Bush's court nominees, in exchange for Republicans agreeing to remove several others from consideration. Also, Democrats still (obviously) hold the right to fillibuster. So, they can fillibuster Bolton if they want. Whether it's in their best interest is a whole other question...

[MoMo]

Excuse me, they didn't filibuster. They delayed the final vote, but by a simple vote calling for more time to look into charges against Bolton. That's not a filibuster -- you don't have senators reading through cookbooks on the floor of the chamber.

And Bolton has plenty of Republican detractors, too. Senator Voinovich was practically in tears when he talked about what a dangerous time this was to tell the world that the United States wants to be represented at the United Nations by an obnoxious bully who hates international organizations.

[Jwaksman]

Yes, yes, yes, Bolton is an "obnoxious bully" :rolleyes:


Democratic tactics on this nomination have been less than honorable. They've constantly accused him of unnamed offenses. The old: "He did horrible things, but they're classified, so we can't tell you what they are" argument. In other words, "Let's just try to drag him through as much mud as we can without having to make a real argument or debate..."


Bolton will get confirmed eventually. Honestly, I don't really care. So, Bolton is the person that you want to send to that position? Well, unfortunately, you're not President. One of the perks of winning the Presidency is getting to pick your staff, and your representatives. If Democrats want different people there then it's quite simple: win back the Presidency.

[exjersey1]

http://www.harolddoan.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3083

[Jwaksman]

Do you realize that there wasn't a shred of actual, logical argument in that ridiculous anger-piece that you linked? Lines like, "the U.S. demonstrably needs to be represented by an extraordinarily skilled envoy and not an egregious yahoo pit bull warrior who excels in the fabrication of banal concepts and bizarre rhetoric" are quite enjoyable. Does this article present any evidence that he's an egregious yahoo pit bull warrier? Any evidence that he excels in the fabrication of banal concepts and whatever else? No, of course not.


There are just a few sentences of an author screaming out in angry about someone, with no real-life examples or evidence to back any of it up.

In fact, it's a perfect example of the leftist hit-attacks against Bolton. Just charge him with being an angry, crazy person - no need to actually provide any evidence. I mean, what is this supposed to be? An intelligent debate???



Now, none of this means that I'm a Bolton defender. I really don't know too much about him. The problem is that no one has really published anything about him. Republicans just say, "He's great, trust us" and Democrats say, "he's horrible, trust us", and no one wants to provide any evidence one way or the other. And unlike some people, I don't just accept opinions because I have to agree with everything that Howard Dean says...

[Biscuit_AQ]

condescension aside, you do realize his most vocal detractor is a republican?

[exjersey1]

Also that linked article is from overseas, and they're pretty clear about what the perception of us would be.

[Jwaksman]

condescension aside, you do realize his most vocal detractor is a republican?



I'm not defending Bolton. I'm saying that all I ever hear are attacks with no merit whatsoever. If there really are major problems with Bolton then I'd like to hear them. But all I ever see are things like exjersey posted, with no backup evidence whatsoever, just with blanket statements about how angry and whatever Bolton is. As if that's supposed to be a pre-assumed fact that we're all supposed to already know.

[mzungu]

in my opinion the democrats are stressing the wrong issues to stake their very limited amount of power on. the bankruptcy bill, the corporate welfare bill from last year, the demand for a full investigation on u.s. torture, medicare, the budget deficit. these are some issues that deserved attention.

[exjersey1]

Some items:

Jesse Helms endorsed Bolton, which ought to be enough for any non-comatose human to oppose him.

From Wikipedia:
Bolton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton)

Here are some tidbits:
Bolton was instrumental in derailing a 2001 bio-weapons conference in Geneva convened to endorse a UN proposal to enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. "U.S. officials, led by Bolton, argued that the plan would have put U.S. national security at risk by allowing spot inspections of suspected U.S. weapons sites."[13] (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-11-30-bolton-usat_x.htm), despite the fact that the US claims not to have carried out any research for offensive purposes since 1969. The US's failure to support the plan ensured it would be meaningless, and to this day there is no practical enforcement mechanism against the spread of biological weapons.

Ironically, Bolton in 2002 accused Cuba of transfers of biological weapons technology to rogue states and called on it "to fully comply with all of its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention."

According to the Washington Post (cited in Alternet [31] (http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/21841/)), Bolton repeatedly withheld information from Secretary Colin Powell and at least once from Secretary Condoleezza Rice. This included a failure to advise Rice before her European trip on the unpopularity of Bolton's campaign to oust Mohamed El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency at the United Nations. Bolton is also said to have pushed to have the fake claim about Saddam's supposed Niger uranium put into the president's 2003 State of the Union Address, and to have pushed for reduced funding for the Nunn-Lugar program to halt the proliferation of nuclear materials [32] (http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/21841/).

Bolton has also led the Bush administration's opposition [33] (http://www.cspan.org/Search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=john+bolton+keynote) on constitutional grounds [34] (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-311.html)to the International Criminal Court, placing heavy pressure on many countries to sign agreements with the US to exempt Americans from any possible prosecution by the Court; around 70 have signed such agreements so far.


Bolton has been a strong critic of the United Nations for much of his political career. In a 1994 Citizens for Global Solutions forum he stated, "There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States."[35] (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1515816,00.html) He also stated that "The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

Also there is the issue of how much specific data on him is still being considered classified.


Personally, I still find it difficult to believe that even Jr. was stupid enough to nominate Bolton as our Ambassador to the UN after his comments above.

[MoMo]

Now, none of this means that I'm a Bolton defender. I really don't know too much about him. ...

For once, a Jwack assertion I can REALLY agree with!

Fella, you simply haven't been paying a lick of attention to this guy if you think there's no THERE there. He was held up in committee by a REPUBLICAN, Voinovich. More State Dept. people -- people from the BUSH State Department -- have publicly spoken out against Bolton than against any high-ranking nominee in memory. Listen, even Colin Powell hasn't endorsed him. He chased a woman down a hallway throwing stuff at her; he tried to get several lowly intelligence analysts fired when they didn't produce the political line he wanted on Cuba, Iraq, etc.; a fellow high-ranking State Department guy called him a "kick-down, kiss-up kind of guy"; another high-ranking State Department guy said he would make an "abysmal" UN ambassador; a Republican senator said he was the "poster boy of what a UN ambassador should NOT be" ... and I could go on.

Sorry, this time you really are blowing smoke.

[Jwaksman]

MoMo, I don't claim to be an expert about something when I'm not. You could learn a good lesson from that.



But the thing is, I don't think anyone in the public really knows much about Bolton. I have not seen any real evidence of any real wrongdoing. If he assaulted someone, then show me a police report. If he attacked some woman then let me see her testimony and Bolton's rebuttal testimony. I want to see facts and serious evidence, not mudslinging.



And, be honest. You know that no matter who Bush nominated you would hate him. That's a big reason I tend to dismiss objections from one party on the nominations of the other, because they're always so predictable.

[mzungu]

you have to separate the good arguments from the bad. it's clear that some in the public know a great deal about him, as proven by the outstanding post from ex-jersey up above. i don't care that he treats his subordinates like crap. what i care about is that he was one of the people responsible for faking wmd stuff and stopping global wmd treaties. and it is pretty incoherent to put a guy who denies the existence of the u.n. and asserts that the u.s. needs to go it alone into the u.n.

[MoMo]

MoMo, I don't claim to be an expert about something when I'm not. You could learn a good lesson from that.
But the thing is, I don't think anyone in the public really knows much about Bolton. I have not seen any real evidence of any real wrongdoing.
And, be honest. You know that no matter who Bush nominated you would hate him.

jwack, when I don't know much about a given topic, I generally don't post AT ALL (I'm no basketball expert, though I love the sport; hence, you won't find much from me on the Steve Nash thread; I'm a great running enthusiast, but don't claim to know anything compared to the real serious runners on here, so I'm very careful and sparing about what I say there, too). You could learn a lesson from THAT.
The fact is, as I said, there is reams of very damning testimony from Bolton's (and others') appearances before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Much of this indicated that many Republicans are VERY unhappy with him. Much of this also indicated that fellow high-ranking Republican State Department officials -- people of the same party who worked closely with him and know him better than anyone -- are so unhappy with him that they have gone on the record saying so. This is EXTREMELY unusual.
And again, you make a patently ridiculous assertion in saying that I would not be happy with anyone Bush named to the UN job. There are plenty of good people that Bush could have named. I'd be delighted with a Powell, a Rice, a Zoellick, a Lugar, a McCain, a Chafee, a Hagel, a Voinovich, a Lamar Alexander, a Baker... (please note: these are ALL Republicans).

Hell, I'd be perfectly happy had Junior named George H.W. BUSH (who did a perfectly respectable job when he was UN ambassador before).

You really can't get it through your thick skull that I don't hate Bush Jr. and everything about him. I've told you over and over that there are things about him I can respect, people in his administration I respect, things about his philosophy I can respect. I know it's easiest for you to dismiss all your opponents by buttonholing us, by labeling us (by thinking we're all the same person). That's really intellectually lazy of you, you know.

I just happen to think this particular appointment was a thumb in the eye of the world (that's exactly the way it's seen overseas); it was nothing but provocative, a way of telling the UN, "You messed with me on Iraq, now I'm getting my revenge." As Voinovich said, it's just not the approach we need at a time when anti-American feeling is as bad as it's been at least since the Vietnam War, possibly even worse.

[Jwaksman]

Thanks for your immature insults, they are enjoyable in their regularity like a sun rising in the east.


Anyway, you still haven't presented any evidence for me to oppose him. Telling me that a couple of Republicans are voting against it doesn't mean anything. There are Democrats who voted for Bush's SS plan, does that make it good? You have to realize that everyone, Republican & Democrat, is playing politics 24/7. Some, like Chafee, have to win re-election in very blue states. Some, like McCain, are media whores that love the attention of bucking their party. Some, like Hagel, have 2008 Presidential campaigns to think about.


So, how about giving me just one of the reams of "damning testimony"?

[MoMo]

You might want to start with the Republican Voinovich's testimony ( http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=853 ), a key excerpt of which follows:

But what message are we sending to the world community when in the same breath we have sought to appoint an ambassador to the United Nations who himself has been accused of being arrogant, of not listening to his friends, of acting unilaterally, of bullying those who do not have the ability to properly defend themselves? These are the very characteristics that we’re trying to dispel in the world community....Additionally, I wanted to note my concern that Colin Powell, the person to whom Mr. Bolton answered to over the last four years, was conspicuously absent from a letter signed by former secretaries of state recommending Mr. Bolton’s confirmation. ... it is my opinion that John Bolton is the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be.

Then you might want to read what the Republican Carl Ford, the former head of the State Department's intelligence bureau said ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-04-12-bolton_x.htm?csp=34 ), an excerpt of which follows:

(Ford) described President Bush's nominee for United Nations ambassador as "a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy" whose attempt to intimidate a mid-level analyst raises "real questions about his suitability for high office."

And you might want to look at the letter by 59 former U.S. diplomats, both Republicans and Democrats, who called Bolton "the wrong man for this position." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8053-2005Mar28.html

I'd go on if I thought it would do any good.

[MoMo]

[QUOTE=Jwaksman] There are Democrats who voted for Bush's SS plan.[QUOTE]

Just curious. Exactly what plan is that? So far he's only put forward some general principles. And when was there an actual vote on anything that could be called "Bush's SS plan"?

Maybe I missed it.

[Jwaksman]

As for SS, there has been no vote, but several Demcorats have expressed support for the basic plan. I'm not sure if any are in the Senate, because the Democratic Senate leadership has done a better job of muzzling differing opinions than the Congressional leadership has been.


Anyway, again, you did not present any actual evidence. I'm thinking that the problem here is that you don't know what "evidence" means. Evidence means a real story, a real fact of something that he did. I read the Voinovich link (I didn't really want to read through everything) and he did not present any actual evidence of anything.


I mean, just look at the paragraph that you quoted. All he's doing is presenting what other people think of Bolton. I don't want to hear that Chirac doesn't like Bolton, or that he's not good friends with Colin Powell. I want to hear, "Last year Bolton did something horrible. It was..."


Of course, there's an obvious reason that Senator Voinovich has no actual evidence. There's a good chance he has never even talked to Bolton. And if he has, he certainly doesn't spend all too much time with him.


The only people who seem to be attacking Bolton are people who don't know him. If he really assaulted some secretary, then let me see a quote from that secretary. Let me see a REAL story, some REAL evidence.




Because the fact that you don't like him doesn't mean anything to me. Your partisanship has ruined any credibility. I mean, it's not really going out on a limb to predict that you will oppose any Bush nominee for any office, you will oppose 100% of his judges, and you will oppose 100% of Republicans running for Senate, Congress, and President in 2006, 2008, and every other election in the conceivable future. So, the fact that you are opposing this nominee is par for the course. I need to see real evidence.

[KenA55]

Jwacks, that balloon expedition tale was just make-believe. I never dreamed anyone would take certain slanders tossed about there at MoMo and myself as Gospel. Our brain damage isn't really quite that comprehensive.

[Jwaksman]

By the way, Ken, to go back to a topic from a couple months ago, Tim Pawlenty seems to be doing quite well for himself. The last poll I saw had his approval rating at 54% (vs. only 38% disapproving).


His name hasn't been mentioned too much as a Presidential contender for 2008 (you can get about 80-to-1 odds for him get the Republican nomination on Internet betting sites), but he could have quite a political future. A strong re-election in 2006 will have his name mentioned as a possible VP candidate in 2008. He probably won't get it, but it will get his name out there so that he can retire after his term ends in 2010 and run in 2012.


There are like 25 Republicans and 25 Democrats that have been mentioned for President in 2008 and 2012, but one by one they are falling out for different reasons. Between scandals, or poor performance, or low approval ratings, Pawlenty is one of the few who is making it through unscathed.

[KenA55]

Yeah, his future may hinge wildly on that next gubernatorial race, it'll be interesting to see how things begin to lean once there is a race underway. Few here dislike the man, he's quite personable- he'd do well to hire a Rove to tell him he needs to grey up those temples or something, if he wants to look like presidential material rather than the next- I can't think of his name- Bush Sr's running mate against Clinton. Even his voice is disconcertingly youthful sounding.

He's aligned himself so completely with our League of Taxpayers people and their no tax increase pledge that he's being lambasted by a few moderate Republicans here pretty regularly; there was some shady stuff with getting elected the first time around where he got dangerously close to some people in his campaign who pushed some limits well beyond normal levels but he seems to have gotten beyond that with few scratches. I think his youthful demeanor buys him some slack with people, sort of along the lines of 'give the young guy a break and let him learn'- and he's now pressing for compromise on budget issues (finally) by proposing new gaming and vice tax increases- so he's getting a bashing from the conservative wing as well for that. Most people here would categorize him as a personable political lightweight who's budgetary positions have him so far off to one edge that he's of little help in achieving compromise in the legislative chambers without cutting his own throat on his earlier promises and positions, and there is some real need of that, the two sides of the aisle have never been further apart and more destructively engaged at one another's throats.

It will be interesting to see who the dems put against him and whether he can translate enough of that poll approval into votes to get himself a first time majority in '06, in the heated election atmosphere. Not that such a majority has been necessary in recent elections, it's been awhile since the gubernatorial election slate here had just two pre-eminent frontrunners. It's a long shot, but I'm rooting for former gov Arne Carlson to decide to act on his angst against today's lack of moderate leadership and throw his hat in the ring in the primaries and maybe oust the young man at that level. Such a thing hasn't been hinted at too much, but he's been grabbing an awful lot of press face time lately. Carlson would win handily over more extreme candidates from either party- and unlike the incumbent he's actually highly respected on both sides of the aisle.

Dan Quayle, that's the name I was groping for.

[MoMo]

jwack, i give up. you win. i have presented no evidence.

you're right: bolton does not have a criminal record. he has never murdered anyone that we know. there's no proof he has engaged in cannibalism. he has not porked an intern before multiple witnesses with video cameras.

the fact that people -- republicans all -- who have worked with him, and for whom he has worked (like colin powell) have no use for him, and in fact are outspokenly opposed to him, obviously has NO relevance here. the opinions of those closest to a job candidate are clearly irrelevant.

he hasn't cut up small children or made soup out of his grandmother.

you're right: he's obviously eminently well-suited for the UN job.

he hasn't ordered any genocides that we know of. nor has he sexually abused small children. yes, his bona fides are simply outstanding.

and you're right, too: the fact that i listed TEN (count 'em) republicans who i think would do a better job at the UN than bolton -- including the president's father -- PROVES that i will "oppose any bush nominee for the job."

it's increasingly obvious that the only "evidence" you would believe would be a big fat 2-by-4 to the forehead.

[Jwaksman]

Yes, you have to physically assault me :rolleyes:



Whatever....


I never said that I was a Bolton supporter. I'm here with an open mind. I asked you to present me with one (ONE) example of something that Bolton did wrong. ONE example of something that he did that makes you believe that he's not qualified to hold office. If you could have presented ONE piece of evidence I would have been willing to oppose his nomination.


Unfortunately, you could not present evidence. It's certainly a good thing you're not a criminal prosecutor. Your evidence that a guy was guilty of a crime would be that you could find 10 people in the town who didn't like his personality.... Good luck winning over a jury with that....

[Jwaksman]

Look, I'm not sure if that post was a little too sarcastic, so you missed my point. So let me just try to emphasize my point more clearly.



I am here with an open mind. I am not a Bolton supporter or opponent. I really don't know much about him. One advantage that he has over some other Bush nominees is that he actually won't try to eliminate birth control from teenagers....


Anyway, you told me that Bolton is an angry person, that he assauls people, or various things. Clearly, you had a very negative view of him. So, I asked you: "MoMo, what did Bolton do that makes you have a negative view of him?"


And you presented me with the fact that a lot of other people don't like him.


Okay....


That's not evidence. You have to present me with an actual fact. Something that Bolton did. Tell me that 3 years ago he screamed out a secretary for putting too much milk in his coffee. Show me something.

I'm here to be swayed. Sway me.

[Jwaksman]

Ken, I'm copying & pasting from Robert Novak's column yesterday. I didn't know about this issue before:


"FALLEN STAR
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, considered a rising star in conservative Republican ranks, may have throttled his chances as a 2008 presidential dark horse by advocating a 75-cents-a-pack "fee" on cigarettes.

Anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist called Pawlenty's proposal a tax increase. A week before the governor made this proposal, Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform had designated Pawlenty as a "Hero of the Taxpayer" for promising to veto any tax increases.

Pawlenty has made friends among influential national conservative circles and is considered a real possibility in a wide-open 2008 GOP presidential race. Norquist is urging the governor to drop the cigarette fee to rehabilitate himself with the anti-taxers."



The thing is, there will be some Republican governors who will contend in 2008. And I bet that one of them will win the nomination, since there are major problems with all of the Senatorial candidates. The same, of course, holds for Democrats. The only problem for them is that Republicans hold the Governor's chairs in every big state. That's why they had to turn to the Governor of Vermont in 2004.

[KenA55]

Yeah, it was just this past week that he put that out there in hopes of getting some movement on a budget compromise before the regular session ended- his previous extreme stances in that regard make it pretty tough for him to try to bring state legislators together without taking some lumps from his own core support.