Steve -

Kick ass, you crazy idealist.

Remember the Doonesbury cartoon, the day after Nixon resigned? The sun coming up behind the White House, the wall around it coming down, and birds chirping in the fresh daybreak?

We could use another one of those...

JF

what titans they could be ..... What a laugh. We are living in an age of moral and mental pygmies.

Steve, I think that the best description of your role in the Bolton affair is "catalyst." All of the ingredients for Bolton's defeat existed in the "solution", but absent your efforts the "chemical reaction" would never have occurred.

The bottom line here is that Biden and the Dems were willing to less Bolton's nomination be rushed through the committee; they knew that there were substantive questions that should have been examined during the public hearings process, yet chose to "compromise" with Lugar in a way that fully examined only a single case of damning behavior. You put their feet to the fire, and (as you put it) "created the space" in which demands for further investigations could be made.

And you know it....so stop being so damned modest :)

Thanks Paul and Jaime -- I am an optimist in this. Catalyst is a good word...and fits perhaps...but there were others in the game early.

And bob h...I sometimes share your view, but more often think it's good to articulate high expectations of our policy leaders. Some could be titans.

best,
Steve Clemons

Yeah, sure, the mainstream media is “sinking its teeth into the story everyday”. Great.

And on that note behold…the complete, and tragic, nihilism of Tom Friedman in today’s Times:

>>>> My biggest problem with nominating John Bolton as U.N. ambassador boils down to one simple fact: he's not the best person for the job - not even close>>>> I have no problem with Mr. Bolton's being given another job or being somehow retained in the job he already has. He's been a faithful public servant. But why would you appoint him to be ambassador at an institution he has nothing but contempt for to do a job he has no apparent skills for?

>>conclusion of my post got cut off. here it is<<<

Sure, give him another job. Reward him for being a “faithful public servant”. Unfortunately, Mr. Friedman does not share with the reader exactly WHO John Bolton was being faithful to. Like Mr.Friedman, I will leave that to the individual to decide. I know where I come down

You want to understand why Washington runs, or does not, as the case may be, the way it does? You want to understand the mentality that predominates? Look at it…go read Mr. Friedman’s column. See it…in all its pathetic form. I salute Mr. Friedman….you set the standard for mainstream journalism today

They really hoped that John Bolton would sneak anonymously by a nation, counting on the ignorance and ambivalence of citizens about this nomination.

They still are counting on the public's ignorance and ambivalence.

If the democratics had any teeth they'd run some anti-Bolton commercials; national in scope and seriously hard-hitting.

Why not?

We've got the creativity and compassion. Moveon.org could run a contest to design some ads. That could be done in an eyeblink.

Here's an idea:

Show Bolton spouting his high hopes for the elimination of 10 floors of the UN. Freeze frame on his colonial moustache. Have Pelosi come in voice-over with her descriptions of various floors. Cut to a jet with the name Bolton on it's side hurtling into the UN.

As the fireball devlops have a stern voice say: "We're Americans. We've always had bigger hearts, braver minds and more generous souls. Contact your Senator: Say NO to Bolton."

That's how you go for the juggler vein. Why isn't this happening?

Because they've got Rove who will do anything, and we've got..... we've got..... we've got...

NOBODY with any balls.

jon,

why put yourself through the pain of reading tom friedman's column and then complain about it? what a laugh.. let's appoint Bush senior, right? boy.... perhaps "the world is really flat after all".

remember the short period during the campaign when then mainstream media played around with the rather interesting notion of being "tone-deaf" ? very apt in this case...

I am reading this from Canada where we have a running scandal in the governing party here and details of which are played on tv. So when I read TWN I am encouraged by how all of you are making sure light shines on the Bolton Affair. Don't give up; the US has lost a great deal of its reputation for good honest government over the years; and only its citizens and help recover some of it. Your government is incapable of doing so.

Hang in there and shine the light on the Bolton nomination process.

BP

One thing that is bothering me is that no one here seems to give the democrats on the committee credit. They're taken for granted or criticized for "not fighting to the end". I mean, if only the views of republicans count, then what is the opposition? I understand that in terms of power, the republican votes and actions are critical--but the dems are critically important, too. They are in the right here. They're the ones who "get" all that Mr. Clemons is saying.

The dems on the committee are not giving in here, they're doing much more than we read about from any of the blogger/pundits, and I think they should be commended for that.

This is interesting reading:

http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200504/POL20050427a.shtml

I've been waiting now for almost a whole day for the mainstream media to connect the dot of the headline NO WMD AT ALL IN IRAQ SINCE 1992 with the dot of BOLTONS MANIPULATION OF WMD INTELLIGENCE either through intimidation of analyst, or his being fed raw intelligence that he exaggerated and fed to the Executive branch who used it to lie the country into war.

After that they can examine Bolton's role in promoting the Niger uranium fake intelligence that resulted in his call to Novak to damage Joe Wilson by ruining his wife, Valerie Plame, career.

Connect the dots, over the next two weeks please.

I wonder to what extent the Bolton nomination and the "nuclear option" issue might be connected? If Chafee and the other GOP moderates can summon up the courage to block Bolton, I worry that they will then calculate that they owe one to the administration and might roll over on the vote to end filibusters. Asking GOP moderates to show some independence and resolve twice in a couple of weeks may be asking too much...

Cathay.....like adlai stevenson once said at the UN (to speak of kind of people we once use to send as our representive) you will be waiting till hell frezzes over before the MSM "connects the dots" That train has left the station. They ain't going there.

Beetree, you are right, to a certain extent. Why do I smell the milk when I know its been in long enough to be sour. But it is what he stands for...and how much respect he gets that kills me. And on some things I argee and like what he writes. But its what he will NOT look at, and NOT write about that gets me. He knows better. He knows a lot better. But he closes his eyes. Tight. I don't respect him anymore...and I once did. A lot.

Steve and everybody, a question. If the WH is resorting to do a head count on the Senate floor about Bolton, is there are any reason to think they have it? And should people then be calling their Senators across the board? Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Pete Domenici, even Richard Shelby, who knows about McCain, plus the Republicans on the SFRC, would not seem sure things for Bolton by any means. Hagel for one has indicated even if he voted for Bolton in committee, he wasn't committed to voting for him on the floor....

I really appreciate this blog -- so very much! You are clear sighted while expressing and supporting the type of Internationalism that I find idealistic, pragmatic and absolutely necessary all at once.

I think your idea of the Senate "Things I Know" contract is brilliant. It has to be very conservative and completely supported by the record. The chief Bolton problem is that he acts without knowledge and that he hides his ignorance by arrogance. A truly explosive quality in an ambassador. Making other Senators admit they understand that will go a long way towards righting the ship should he be confirmed and the sh-t later hits the fan.

Please keep up the excellent, thoughful work.

/s/
Just one fan.

I like Koreyel's idea.
Why hasn't this been implemented? It's perfect agitprop, but very legitimate.

The only way Bolton will be defeated is in the committee. Republican Senators across the board are not going to vote against Bolton no matter what facts are brought out about him. They voted to confirm Gonzales knowing he wrote the legal framework for this administration's torture policy, for God's sake.

For that reason, the WH floor head count is just spin; of course they have the floor votes. Re Peter Jung's concern about Republican moderates 'using up' their opposition vote before the nuclear option showdown: it's not the same set of Senators (with the exception of Chafee) who'll be counted on to support the filibuster. Chafee is on the hottest of hot seats right now, it's true.

Steve, in your sum-up, I'm disappointed that you don't explicitly make twisting intelligence to fit ideology the central issue.

That's the frame that makes a difference, and that's the reason Cheney and his gang are going to the mat on this: They lied and twisted intelligence to get us into a war that is now very hard to get out of. John Bolton was a big part of that lying and intel-twisting.

And not only on Iraq, but North Korea and Iran that are looming disasters EXACTLY BECAUSE of this administration's approach of ideology over facts.

Here's something that hasn't come up yet: Will Bolton find religion before the committee reconvenes? Then he can stand next to Tom DeLay and claim being smeared by anti-Christians.

Thanks Steve for all your good work.

WHOA
Nuclear option on the table today!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/27/111316/548

has a running thread on the debate.

Your analysis is, as always, excellent, especially your discussion of the Administration's multiple personalities. Whatever Cheney was in previous administrations, at this point he is obsessed with control and power, and has evolved a very, very dark vision. At the same time, it is hard to think of an issue on which he has weighed in where he has not been completely, even spectacularly wrong, especially in the field of intelligence and foreign policy.

Thus, whatever these potentially wavering Senators may think of Bush, they should at least understand that Cheney and Bolton are at the heart of the misleading of the Congress and public about both the reasons for and the costs of the Iraq War, which in turn has done such damage to our military and to our position in the world. They must understand that by confirming Bolton they are reinforcing the most distrubed and disturbing and just plain wrong tendencies in this Administration. The consequences of doing that might be pretty substantial.

A side note about Cheney.
He has had 4 heart attacks and 5 bypass operations, by my count. The likelihood that he suffers from serious cognitive deficits is quite high; furthermore, his appearance suggests someone in very poor health.
Maybe he was always batshit crazy, but it's possible that his poor judgment betrays his reduced capabilities.

Last year, Dick Cheney in the Senate chamber told Senator Patrick Leahy to "go f*** yourself."

The Bolton nomination is George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove's way of telling the entire world to "go f*** yourselves."

The Bolton nomination always was a sick joke. Bolton is obviously the worst, most insulting appointment Bush could make to the U.N. post.

One can imagine the smirk on Bush's face and the chortling from him and his entourage as they were contemplating it.

If they want to talk about U.N. reform, people of principle should say the Bolton nomination is about turning our back on the world in the most insulting way possible.

Rove tries to invoke Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the fight over Bolton. But Moynihan was a gentleman. Bolton is a schoolyard bully. There is no comparison.

For our own safety, we need to engage the world, not turn our back on it.

cathay,
thanks for pointing out two lines of inquiry that should definitely be on everyone's front burner. The events you mention are among the most disgusting episodes of the administration's long and abysmal record of epic failures and abuse.

However, not everyone keeps stum about it. Laura Rozen points to a piece in the Boston Globe that addresses the first issue -

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001956.html
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/04/26/bolton_debate_ignores_battle_over_intelligence/

Regarding Plame - if there's truth to the allegation that it was in fact Bolton who leaked Plame's name to Novak, it might end up being flushed out among the cacophony of voices that have entered the ring over the last few days.

Something as lethal as this would not get lost in the clamour but I think it is extremely important that one doesn't get lost in the fog of accusations that cannot be substantiated. What is needed is incontrovertible evidence.

Tom Friedman has been a disappointment since he abandoned his position that a nation should never be taken to war "on the wings of a lie" and came out in support of the war in Iraq. And, while his voice has been important in shaping public opinion, other columinists continue to play a role too. Today he shares the OpEd pages with Maureen Dowd, who, in my opinion, hit one right out of the park:

"Just as Mr. Bolton and Mr. Cheney tried to shovel distortions into Colin Powell's U.N. speech, Mr. Hadley and Mr. Joseph put distortions into President Bush's State of the Union address.

Dick Cheney intimidated C.I.A. analysts before the war. And he and President Bush let North Korea and Iran race ahead with their nuclear programs, and let Osama roam free, while they indulged their idée fixe on Iraq. Their reward? A second term."

Steve, don't sell yourself short. You've been the Chief Whip for the Opposition, and you've made a lot of people (such as myself) believe that Bolton could be defeated. Thanks so much for all your hard work.

Praktike,
You're almost right.
Clearly the driving force in Bolton's upcoming defeat is Bolton himself.

So, when does someone with zero people skills, an abrasive personality, and anger management problems qualify as a reformer (as per the White House)?

Bolton's vision of the UN is to create a low-rise out of a high-rise building. New York City and this country need no more of that, thank you.

A reformer has a vision and skills to bring others along--leadership. The Brits offer evidence that Bolton's leadership has been rejected, not embraced.

The bottom line on this Bolton nomination is that the multilateralists have LOST a big one. The debate over Bolton has been 99% about his alleged personal behavior, management tactics and personality. Basically, he has been fighting tooth and nail with the career State Dept. bureaucracy.
All those Senators who oppose him can't debate on its merits the REAL reason they oppose which is basically he is anti-United Nations. Not that he is for withdrawal from the UN, but because he is generally anti-UN and anti-multilateral agreements and institutions.
Sen. Dodd can't say the real reason he opposes Bolton is because Bolton is anti-Cuba normalization.
Let's presume Bolton gets rejected. A big so what. It will be totally over personal reasons and 0% over policy reasons. That is a BIG loss for the UN-loving multi-lateralists who know they can not win a debate with the American people saying what they really think.
So I think whether bolting Bolton is confirmed is irrelevant; the takeaway is US Sovereignty Forces 1 ; UN-lovers zero.

"...Let's presume Bolton gets rejected. A big so what...."

Robert M, consider this point of view:

"Why the Bolton Nomination is a Very Big Deal
http://markschmitt.typepad.com/

"If I have a core idea about politics, it's that it should be unpredictable and improvisational. In part I'm sure that's an aesthetic preference -- that is, the show's more entertaining if you don't know what's going to happen -- but I think it's more than that. Elected officials are more likely to be honest and honorable if they can't be sure they're going to be reelected, majorities are less likely to abuse their power if they know that they might not hold the same power tomorrow, etc. Often I refer to "open" politics, and what I really mean by that word is something more like "fluid," or "uncertain" politics.

The last five years have offered very few opportunities to witness such improvisation, until this afternoon. I have to commend my colleague Steve Clemons for taking up the issue of the Bolton nomination and sticking with it, and along with many others, for helping to create such a moment. Regardless of the final vote on the Bolton nomination itself in three weeks, if it occurs, a lot happened today and last week that will reverberate over the months to come.

For those who didn't have a spouse or friend to say, "turn on C-SPAN, now," the critical moment came when, after a day of procedural wrangling about whether the Senate Foreign Relations Committee could or could not meet, the committee finally met with the clear intention of voting the Bolton nomination out on a party-line vote. After actually beginning a vote on the nomination, Senator Voinovich of Ohio suddenly spoke up to say that, while he had missed the hearing on Bolton, given what he had heard about Bolton's management style, he wasn't prepared to vote to send the nomination out of committee. That prompted Senator Chafee of Rhode Island to beg for a reprieve from the committee chairman, Richard Lugar: "Mr. Chairman, is there anything in what Senator Voinovich said today that might make you hesitate about going forward with this nomination."

One could so palpably feel that Lugar and Chafee had both made a commitment to someone, somewhere that whatever they themselves thought, they were going to march forward on the nomination without looking back. And just by saying what he thought, Voinovich forced them to look back, look around. It was a spontaneous moment, and it can't be put back in the box.

The one worry I have now about the Bolton hearings is that the issue comes down to very personal matters -- did he harass a USAID contractor in Kyrgyzstan on behalf of a client a decade ago? At that point, it turns into another he said/she said personal, slightly seedy episode. On the other hand, if the focus can remain on Bolton's misuse of NSA intercepts, and the reason he harassed subordinates at the State Department, which was that they didn't dutifully back up his unfounded statements about North Korea, Cuba and Iraq, then the nomination becomes the doorway to the question that has been very deliberately excluded from both the Senate Intelligence Committee report and the Silberman commission -- the pressure to distort intelligence. And it can also be a much broader debate about America's attitude toward the world, as embodied in our U.N. Ambassador. Much like the victory over Social Security privatization, this is more than defense or just a check-mark on the partisan scorecard. Handled correctly, it's an opportunity to make an entirely fresh case for a different set of values.

But it's the spontaneity, the thinking-for-themselves that will really have a lasting impact. This reminded me a little bit of the crazy debate over the Crime Bill of 1994, perhaps because Senator Biden was also involved then and as now, talks a lot. That was really the moment when Democrats' control of the House and Senate, and the agenda, fell apart. The election that year was merely confirmation."

Posted by Mark Schmitt on April 20, 2005 |

Re: Robert Morrow and his "big so what":

There are basically ways in which any entity - an individual, an organization, a country can get what it wants from other parties.

Either it can persuade the other side that what it wants is reasonable and is also in the best interest of the other party. That's negotiation, compromise. In the world of international relations it's usually called diplomacy.

Or the attitude can be, "I don't care what you think, I don't care if your values are different from mine, the only thing I care about is my point of view and getting what I want, by whatever means are necessary: bullying, intimidation, or worse". That's what leads to war.

Do we want to be respected as a country that upholds universal values or do we want to be feared simply because of our strength?

That's what this is about.

brilliant. kudos to you steve. i don't always agree with you. i freely call myself a liberal, and i guess that i am a good deal further to the left than you would describe yourself, but i can't help but thank you for your efforts on this. shine the light. let the bastards hang themselves by their own miseeds. Bolton, of all people. Bolton, whose reptillian aura made my skin crawl just hearing him talk about our North Korea policies. Bolton, who made nuclear war more likely. what a great diplomat. bless your efforts, mr. clemons.

Has anyone heard of the International Relations Center, based in Silver City, NM? Are they legitimate?

http://www.irc-online.org/

They have a long, detailed bio on Bolton called Bolton's Baggage.

Not surprisingly, he tried to thwart voter registration efforts amongst labor and blacks during the 1980's. Also, he is a buddy of Clarence Thomas, going back to their Yale days.

Better still, check out Raw Story's scoop on the GOP talking points in re the ethics standoff.

You would really think that, at some point, all the little God-fearing red-state minions (grunions?) would realize how stupid their GOP masters think they are.

I'm a moderate Republican, usually (ok, ok - there's this occasional flash of Constitutional anarchy...), and *I'm* insulted.

JF

...and for a full dose of said GOP ethical behavior, check out DeLay smoking a Cuban ceegar, here:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1054968,00.html?cnn=yes

You've really gotta love these perfect hypocrits in the theocratic wing of the GOP - I do anyway, but then I've always had a soft spot for perfection.

JF

I couldn't agree more with you that this is not a partisan issue. Hire a guy to represent America at an institution that he disdains isn't very smart, particularly since America is ostensibly tryhing to improve relations with the rest of the world and the guy is, well, not a diplomat. What a dumb thing to do. This administration's understanding of human nature is appallingly cynical and, frankly, poor.

And, contrary to your opinion, while your site may not necessarily drive the story, it keeps the mainstream media and politicians advised and honest. In short, your site is the purest form of democracy and I thank you for it.

FLASH: BUSH HAVING PRIME TIME NEWS CONFERENCE TOMORROW NIGHT.

"You would really think that, at some point, all the little God-fearing red-state minions (grunions?) would realize how stupid their GOP masters think they are."

Or, to put it another way, they are the useful idiots of the Republican party.

You certainly get credit for being the most single minded blogger.

But I still argue that one of the fundamental aspects of Bolton support comes from the situation in Iraq. As an Iraq proponent and general buttwipe, Bolton, Wolfowitz and the other neo-cons were riding high in the first 45 days after the January 30 elections.

The purple ink has since washed off.

What a load of nonsense. We need someone at the UN who will speak the truth. The demos have no case against Bolton on the merits, so you go in for character attacks . . . and particularly ones from partisan sources with suspect credibility.

Face it, the UN is corrupt and we need someone there with integrity . . . not another apologist and suck-up to foreign interests.

Wow - now there's a waste of skin...

There must be word out that some big media outlet is thinking of quoting this blog.

How one must cringe, to spout crap like Mr. Willis' post,

JF

DEAR STEVE,

Can you please advise us what can the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) do to obtain the NSA intercepts???

- Does the SFRC have the power to compel the State Department to provide the NSA intercepts???

- What if the State Department refuses to release the NSA intercepts???

- Is there any power to force the release of the NSA intercepts???

Or, can the Bush administration simply stone-wall the requests for the NSA intercepts???

Alas, Ms. Hallaby, the answer to all of your questions is yes.

Note that the answer to your last trumps the others.

JF

JF,

Question 2 isn't a 'yes/no' question... I should have worded it differently-- and asked if they have a process whereby they can force the State Department to provide the NSA intercepts & what is that process???

Then, what action or recourse can the SFRC take to compel the White House to hand-over the NSA intercepts???

Surely the Executive branch has to be accountable... Remember Nixon???

................................................

Also, Tom Friedman in "The Best Man for the U.N." says that either Bush 41 or Clinton would be better than Bolton...

I never thought I'd say this, but I agree...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/opinion/27friedman.html

Ms. Hallaby -

Ah, forgive me, you're right about #2.

My point, though, was that the checks and balances of our government are no longer functional. Any requirement that the neocons release information that they don't want to release will be met with: a.) stonewalling, b.) the "can't release it because of National Security" ploy, or c.) changing the law by fiat, so they don't have to release anything.

Nixon? I was born in 1951, came out against the war in 1959 (I was somewhat prodigal), was drafted in 1969, and served. I am a disabled veteran - although there's little inconvenience, for me.

Yes, I remember Nixon. And if his button was put in front of me, I'd still push it. But y'know what? Given what we've got today, I kinda miss the piece of walking scum.

JF

Steve, I wonder how many NSA intercepts involving you have found their way to various Republican operatives or to Mr. Bolton himself?

"I kinda miss the piece of walking scum."

The detritus of the scum is still very much with us in the form of Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Steven Willis, if Bolton lied to the committee would you still think he was the right man to bring "integrity" to the UN?

susan -

Yes, you're right - but Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush are not really the sort of enemies one would wish for in life. At least Nixon had a certain Shakespearian aura of tragedy about him - and, I'll confess, nobility. Perhaps it's a bit of transferrence on my part. I sold used cars for awhile, myself.

But I have this political test, you see. I would never vote for anyone I wouldn't sit at a poker table with.

Bush 43, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Kerry, Scalia, Clarence Thomas, DeLay, Ralphie Reed? Nope, never.

Bush 41, Clinton, Powell, Ford, Carter, Kirkpatrick, Hillary, Eugene McCarthy, and yes, Nixon? Ante up boys and girls...

I don't require of myself that I be politically consistent - but I do require that I keep my eyes open...

JF

Bush is not Shakespearean. On the other hand, I see him being the protagonist of the next great American novel.
My god, he's a strange bird, and very dreamy too.
I think he really lacks focus in this second term. He seems to be drifting off into an early sunset, but in his own way.

marky:

Not only is Bush "not" Shakespeare...

Bush is NO Shakespeare...

Bush's "mastery" of language compares with that of my 3 year old nephew...

Renee, I was thinking of him as a character....
for all that you can dislike or disapprove of him, he definitely is one of a kind.
The expressions he gets sometimes are sui generis.

marky -

A strange bird indeed - and one wonders how his physical fitness impacts that 'dreaminess.' There's enough evidence (and testimony by well-qualified medicos) that he's suffered a stroke, or something similar, to cast a certain amount of doubt on what's been released to the public about his current condition. Of course, we'd be unlikely to hear about it any more than we heard, at the time, how close Reagan really came when he got shot...

But honestly, I can't imagine a novel with Bush as the protagonist, that could even aspire to greatness. Please marky - re-consider the nature of greatness.

Not that I guess I'd know - I'm having enough trouble shopping a novel I've written, and my protagonist is certainly a better man, even if a professional criminal...

JF

Jamie,
Great American novels do NOT have heroic protagonists---that's my point.
Anyway, this kind of chit chat is probably boring to Mr. Bolton. If you're reading this, John,
I have a recommendation for you: Please head up the Mars Program, and take George and Dick with you.

"My god, he's a strange bird, and very dreamy too."

Dreamy?

I don't think so; the cocaine and alcohol permanently damaged his brain. Here are some of the symtoms:

Paranoia, impatience, rigid judgmental outlook, grandiose behavior, childish behavior, irresponsible behavior, irrational rationalization, projection, overreaction.

In addition, Bush is a very angry, hostile man. So his handlers are extremely careful to choreograph every move he makes. They don't want him anywhere near protestors, because he would lose his temper. If G.W. Bush isn't certifiably crazy, he sure acts like he is.

Strange bird? A cuckoo maybe. Dreamy? Not in my opinion. I think he's dangerous.

Night, Marky...

You are kidding right?

Bolton was going to get a hard time from day one. He is the reason Bush won FLA and none of you have forgotten that.

Hubbard is a liar about his motives and I can attest that personally. He made nasty comments about Bolton to me about 7 years ago in Manila.

I ran a little shipping company and Hubbard basically lost it when I told him I had met Bolton and liked him.

Wow, you would have thought I had insulted him.

Look, you may not like Bolton, but this is just silly.

And by the way, is this wack job lady the one your going to latch into..

http://www.lynnefinney.com/index.htm

You guys are hopeless...

hmmm. another wingnut heard from. more subtle though, methinks, and better practiced...

JF

Hmmmm.... Bolton "was the reason Bush won Fla...", sounds like Mark is admitting Bush stole the election, which , of course, he did.

From T-Bogg - http://tbogg.blogspot.com/ - This is what the right-wing is sending out to their people:

http://www.confirmbolton.com/contacting-the-senate-foreign-relations-cmte/#more-32

We should call too!