Interview with Aristide from South Africa this morning on Democracy Now.

Apparently, while the US had an arms embargo against Haiti Bolton arranged to get 1000 rifles and a million rounds of ammo into the country.

At least, arms control was his bailiwick at the time?

The report comes from the GIS out of Geneva.

I have never received the impression that the DLC really cared about the Haitians, certainly DLC sponsors in the Koch family don't.

It would not shock me if it did turn out that James Kelly was the one that approved the "human scum" speech for Bolton.

Steve -

"We have lots and lots and lots of facts."

Indeed we do. Unfortunately, when dealing with those who take pride in being members of some other community than the reality-based community that most of us here belong to, facts don't have the impact that they would in, say, a scientific debate.

Oh, wait. Facts don't have much impact in scientific debates either, these days - do they?

I've pretty well written off the Senators Lugar and Hagel, for obvious reasons. I don't think Lugar would vote against confirmation if he were the last to vote - and the entire SFRC was on record as having already voted against confirmation. I think it would take at least three prior, on-the-record Republican 'no' votes for Hagel to vote no.

Chafee is a study in contradictions - but I believe he'll vote for confirmation simply as a matter of expediency. Will he really be running? And if he does, will he do so believing he can win?

Voinovich loves the role of Devil's Advocate - but is a party hack at heart. He's had his fifteen minutes this year, and no doubt enjoyed them immensely. He might well have the courage to cast the second vote against confirmation.

It's Senator Murkowski, I think - who is most likely to break ranks. I hope so. It would be a terribly effective thing for her to do. It could save her several years at building up what promises to be an open-ended career. I like her, and I'd like to see her explore the nature of courage as a valid political tool.

JF

Steve,

You've been doing heroic work on the Bolton issue, but I don't think there is a chance in hell that those GOP Senators are going to do the right thing. Consider this; a guy who supported the practice of torture at Abu Gihrab and Guantanamo won the endorsement of the Senate to be our Attorney General. What are the odds that they are now going to turn against Bolton and Bush for a post (UN Ambassador) that they care significantly less about?

Again, you deserve enormous credit for your dedication to this issue-- but I'd bet my last nickel that the only thing being accomplished here is that you are laying the groundwork to be able to say "I told you so" when Bolton makes a mess of things at the UN. The Republican party is rotten to the core, and you are far too optimistic in hoping for a display of courage and integrity among their members on the SFRC.

Re Tom's 8:41 post above,
from Glenn Kessler's report in today's wapo:

Wilkerson said the North Korea speech, in which Bolton referred to leader Kim Jong Il by name more than 40 times, made Armitage "very mad." He said, "Rich was very angry -- that's to put it mildly" with Assistant Secretary James Kelly because Kelly approved the speech "in a moment of, shall we say, fatigue."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/09/AR2005050901155.html

The more and more I read sobering reports of loose canon Bolton, the more I wonder why Powell or Armitage didn't fire him. For all the damage he regularly caused to the President's foreign policy, why didn't he disappear a long time ago?

excellent content, movement, & spirit

However, it would be great to allow a resize on the pop-up window here (at least on Firefox) ... a lot of times, there are posts which contains lines which don't break within the preset width of the window.

Keep up the good work Steve!

eric

Steve - I checked out the blog you linked to - Whatever Already! - and he/she has this:

>>John R. Bolton, President Bush's designate to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was one of more than a half dozen senior Bush administration officials who received highly classified NSA intercepts of conversations of private phone conversations of Mohammed ElBarbadei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, according to government officials familiar with the matter. The IAEA is the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency.
......
But Bolton differed from other consumers of the intelligence, according to two senior government officials familiar with the matter, in that when the intercepts proved all but useless to his cause to oust ElBarbadei from his IAEA post, he privately encouraged more aggressive intelligence gathering operations against the IAEA, the United Nations, and other international organizations. [end]

Do you have any confirmation of this account? Or is this something we already know?

Great job as usual, man!

So Steve, reconcile your opening remarks on your latest observation ("ignore the material at great peril") with the observations from the blog you recommended at the end of the story. I am interested in your opinion. It looks like Bolton's nomination getting out of the SFRC is a slam-dunk and another wound on our nation. At 46, even if I live another 40 years, I doubt that I will see the damage this administration has wrought fully repaired. Thanks for all of your hard work on this issue.

Dude, you have got Bolton tagged! Sounds like he is much worse than Saddam ever thought about being. Hell, release Saddam...give him his country back...and put Bolton in prison. I don't know what the charges would be but we can figure that out. Geez, this man rivals Hitler.

Well we will find out how Senator Hagel feels about being lied to. Time to grab your balls Senator!

Charlie's snarky comment pegs it perfectly. The only realistic defense of Bolton that can be mounted at this point is that he is not worse than Saddam.

Bolton is better than Saddam---but is he better than Tariq Aziz? I'd say it's a close call.

It is important to always remember, when considering the doings of the Bush administration, that their purpose is to dismantle the past 70 years of policy decisions of all and sundry US administrations that have come before. They're doing it any area you'd care to think of - environment, social security, judicial selection, house rules, election regulation, medicare/medicaid, bankruptcy protection, international treaties and agreements...everything...and United Nations participation. The *entire agenda of the Bushites is based on destroying that which has come before*.

It is important to always remember, when considering the doings of the Bush administration, that their purpose is to dismantle the past 70 years of policy decisions of all and sundry US administrations that have come before. They're doing it any area you'd care to think of - environment, social security, judicial selection, house rules, election regulation, medicare/medicaid, bankruptcy protection, international treaties and agreements...everything...and United Nations participation. The *entire agenda of the Bushites is based on destroying that which has come before*.

It's too early to say if the Bolton confirmation is a sure thing. That is the spin, only.

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
Ovid

SEE - http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200505090005

"Folks, the US Mainstream Media worked hand-in-glove with the Neocons to sell you this war. It stands to reason they will never run a story that makes it obvious that the people were lied to because it only underscores the fact that the media was a part of that lie."

"This is an historic first. Wars have been started with lies. Indeed it is hard to find one that was not. But for the first time in history, the fact of the lie is known to a major portion of the public while the war is still ongoing. The blogs did that, not the mainstream media. And that same 50% which according to a recent Gallup Poll knows the lies about Iraq were deliberate by extension has to know that the mainstream media was a party to that lie. There is no way that the mainstream media can report on the exploding evidence of a monstrous lie that sent your kids off to be killed and crippled in war without implicating themselves, because each exposed lie is a lie that could have been, should have been (and in the case of the blogs WAS) easily exposed."

"The US Mainstream media cannot report in the lies that sent your kids off to fight a war for a foreign power without admitting they them selves were a part of that lie. They cannot point back to any front-page stories that ever once questioned the claims about Iraqi WMDs, the much claimed and later discredited link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, or the claim that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11."

"There is nothing the Washington Post CAN say about the leaked memo that does not translate to 'WE LIED TO YOU" to the reader."

This administration must be brought down starting Thursday. Big headlines need to be made by Biden that cannot be ignored. This is not about Bolton anymore, it needs to be about being Lied into War. Bolton is only an accessory to the crime which is TREASON.

THIS IS OUR COUNTRY'S LAST BEST CHANCE TO GET IT RIGHT.

The technical problem Eric mentioned (difficulty reading comments in the popup window) can be avoided by clicking on "permalink" -- which displays both Steve's post and all the related comments.

I have no words of wisdom to add to the Bolton discussion -- just just encouragement to keep working against him and thanks for all the work that has already been done.

NDCIT -- Thanks for your post. One of the few things that heartens me in these dark times is the surprising (to me) reaction of the public to certain recent events and situations.

In spite of the non-stop propaganda barrage of right-wing drivel on all cable and network news outlets, the vast majority of the public (including a majority of fundamentalists!) was completely repulsed by the Schiavo circus. The more Bush talks about Social Security, the more the public realizes he's touting a huge scam. Again, that's IN SPITE OF dreadful media coverage calculated to help Bush shovel his horse manure. As you point out, 50% of the public has come to the only obvious conclusion, that we were INTENTIONALLY lied to about Iraq. It wasn't a case of poor Bushie receiving "flawed" intelligence. As you point out so well, these 50% awakening out of their coma is a phenomenon most remarkable for happening in the face of continued media-driven lies.

More and more, mainstream television news is resembling Pravda. We may yet reach the level where the percentage of the population which believes the propaganda being peddled matches the percentage of the Soviet public which believed its own "mainstream" press.

The instincts of the public are much, much better than I had once hoped for. The disturbing part of this picture is the possibility that the thugs in power believe they have the same death-grip on the corrupted ballot box that every totalitarian government has/had.

Mr Frontero,
Can I call you JF? Why do you think Murkowski might break ranks? Are you aware of any matter of politics in which she has showed herself to be, say, iconoclastic?
I have to admit I'm not particularly aware of Senator Murkowski's record, since she rarely speaks on the floor, but I find it hard to believe a freshperson (I went to an ultra-PC college) Senator who hasn't made any public differences with the Bush administration making waves over a nomination. I don't know of any argument which suggests this is an issue where her home state concerns might justify breaking ranks?

Thanks in advance,

JoshNarins:

Senator Murkowski is the Chair of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs and, I'm told, has mentioned her awareness of John Bolton prior to the current imbroglio. She is also capable of being quite diplomatically blunt about her distaste for the current administration's penchant for unbridled federalism, leaning fairly strongly toward a states rights point of view. In addition to what news coverage about her that hasn't scrolled off the internet, you should read the position statements on her web site - she actually verges on the disdainful, when referring to the "No Child Left Behind" garbage that Bush has new-speaked into our educational system.

I also expect that Bolton's bullying behavior - especially as directed toward women - leaves a more personal impression on her than on, say, Hagel.

I further have seen evidence in her speeches and position papers that her somewhat unique position - representing our sole remaining frontier, as she does - leaves her a bit less susceptible to bullshit than the average Senator: who typically showers in the stuff as a part of morning ablutions.

You should watch that PC stuff - I'm told a 'freshperson' is someone who makes untoward advances...

JF

Steve wrote:
"We have lots and lots and lots of facts."

JF wrote:
"Unfortunately. . . . facts don't have the impact that they would in, say, a scientific debate."

Chuck Hagel sez:
"I have not seen anything that would keep me from voting for him, but I have said I will reserve that vote until I hear all the facts."

Lincoln Chafee sez:
"his standard for voting no 'would be legal and ethical improprieties,' and that so far he had seen no evidence of that."

George Allen sez that:
"Senator Voinovich is, I think, a fair-minded individual. He'll look at the charges and see they're not based on facts."

While I understand the need and utility of playing their cards close to the vest, someone really needs to call these guys out publicly on these assertions.

Chafee and Hagel in particular are acting as though that giant rotten fish carcass plopped on their agenda is all petunias and freshly fried perch. A real hear-no-evil, see-no-evil spectacle.

After awhile the act is not plausible. And the alternative explanation indicates that yes, even United States Senators were aware that Bolton and Bush were "fixing the intelligence 'round the policy."

And that's no surprise, given how little respect these senators have shown for the Constitution. Yes, yes, honorable men each one -- but consider --
- they're all making up their own definitions of "advise and consent," just as fast as they can.

Murkowski said she was:"hoping to interview Mr. Bolton, to assure herself that he is 'the right person for the task at hand.'"
(wonder if she'll get that face time)

Voinovich has a " 'kitchen table test': would he want that person to join him for dinner at his kitchen table?"

Well-intentioned all, I'm sure. Yet only Voinovich seems to have any sense of reality here. The others have gotten so turned around they can't tell truth from falsehood.

Publicly insisting they recognize facts as facts is a crucial step. Otherwise they hold themselves above the public dialog and factual fray, and feel able to behave unresponsively, inconsistently with their Constitutional obligations, and dishonestly.

From Stolberg, NYTs, 5/11
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/11/politics/11bolton.html

JF
thanks for the info re Murkowski.
R

Steve, You say "Senators will ignore the [Wilkerson interview] material at great peril..."

Well, you're Half Right: "Senators will ignore the material." (Let's just wait and see.)

Of course, you're also Half Wrong: "At great peril." (If you meant peril to their careers & reputations, anyway.)

Steve, I predict you will recognize, post-mortem, that Senators indeed studiously ignored this and other material. You will also then note that where studied ignorance became impossible, Senators glossed, trivialized and mis-represented the import of the Wilkerson (and other) material.

I predict that you will observe this to have been the case for Senators that you have previously described as "serious," "fair," "reasonable," "not ideological," etc.

What I am unable to predict is whether or not that outcome will cause you to re-evaluate the positive views you have about the character of those Senators...

In case the above is not clear enough:

What I am asking you, Steve, is whether you will, should the outcome warrent it, call out these Senators.

You have heretofore been, in my estimation, far too generous in your estimation of these Senator's motives and characters. That may well have been the most 'diplomatic' approach in your attempts to provide information and, god willing, change minds.

But that time will pass, soon.

You've said Senators will be in "peril" should they ignore the Wilkerson interview material. You've intimated similar sentiments with regard to other of the Bolton confirmation 'revelations.'

So I ask, Are you going to be a part of that "peril," or are you going to find a way to continue to describe these Senators in glowing terms even after this 'show confirmation' is wrapped?

From a reliable source: The "Compton 10" will be assigned to protect Bolton at the UN, this even though he plans to wear several bandoliers and pack a couple of six shooters. He says u can never be too sure about those F@%^&* peace activists.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-chase11may11,0,2783528.story?coll=la-home-headlines