This is experimental and being provided at the request of those who actively support TWN. Stay on the high road.

Impress me.

-- Steve Clemons

President Bush knocked around Democrats today for delaying a vote on John Bolton -- but in fact, it is his own team who has caused the delay.

With one utterance, President Bush could end the efforts by Democrats and moderate Republicans to hold off a Bolton vote by just offering up the documents requested by Senators during their Constitutionally-required investigation of Bolton, his record, and his behavior.

Until Bush concedes defeat to the growing list of Senators who have serious concern (like Senator John McCain) that this battle over requested evidence is not just about Bolton but about the principle of separation of powers in government, then Bolton's nomination will sit in limbo.

Although those opposing John Bolton would love to permanently preempt his confirmation because it is wrong-headed and offends the sensibilities of Americans who believe in "common sense decency" in their engagement with the world, the fact is that George W. Bush could bring this battle to an immediate and decisive vote if the administration complied with Senate requests as it is mandated to do.

If Bolton never comes to a vote, then it is the White House to blame -- ALL THE WAY.

Here is the transcript of President Bush's comments on the John Bolton situation today at his morning press conference:

From the President's May 31 Press Conference

Thank you, Mr. President. On your nomination of Mr. Bolton to the United Nations, it is now, by most accounts, under a filibuster, the Democrats refusing to invoke cloture last week. I wonder if you could address their demands for ongoing documents, in the case of Mr. Bolton's nomination, as well as what many Republicans have now criticized as a pervasive attitude of filibustering on behalf of the opposition on Capitol Hill.

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I thought -- I thought John Bolton was going to get an up or down vote on the Senate floor, just like he deserves an up or down vote on the Senate floor, and clearly he's got the votes to get confirmed. And so I was disappointed that once again, the leadership there in the Senate didn't give him an up or down vote. And the reason it's important to have an up or down vote is because we need to get our ambassador to the United Nations to help start reforming that important organization.

As I mentioned to you I think at the press conference in the East Room, that the reason I picked Bolton is he's a no-nonsense kind of fellow who can get things done. And we need to get something done in the United Nations. This is an organization which is important.
It can help a lot in terms of the democracy movement; it can help deal with conflict and civil war. But it's an organization that is beginning to lose the trust of the American people, if it hasn't already, and therefore, we need to restore that trust. We pay over
$2 billion a year into the United Nations, and it makes sense to have somebody there who's willing to say to the United Nations, let's -- why don't you reform? Let's make sure that the body works well and there's accountability and taxpayers' money is spent wisely. And it's important that people in America trust the United Nations, and Bolton will be able to carry that -- that message.

Now, in terms of the request for documents, I view that as just another stall tactic, another way to delay, another way to not allow Bolton to get an up or down vote. We have -- we've answered questions after questions after questions; documents were sent to the -- to the intelligence committee; the intelligence committee reviewed the NSA intercept process and confirmed that Bolton did what was right. And so it's just a stalling tactic. And I would hope that when they get back that they stop stalling and give the man a vote. Just give him a simple up or down vote.

Q What about the filibuster as a tactic, in general, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's certainly been a tactic that's been used on judges and Bolton, if this is a filibuster. I don't know what you call it. I'm not sure they actually labeled it, filibuster. I'd call it -- thus far, it's a stall -- stall headed toward filibuster, I guess. All I know is the man is not getting a vote, and it's taking a long time to get his vote. And we've -- he's been through hearings and questions and questionnaires. And it's pretty obvious to the American people, and to me, that you can tie up anything in the United States Senate if you want to.

But it also ought to be clear that we need to get an ambassador to the United Nations as quickly as possible. And so I hope he gets a vote soon.

Mr. President, you can have a vote on John Bolton when you provide the transcripts. If there is NOTHING there, then there is NOTHING there. . .but it is not the right of the White House to determine such. It is your office that is "stalling" matters.

Stop the stall, Mr. Bush. Provide the documents.

And in the mean time, TWN will continue to remind a majority of U.S. Senators in the United States Senate that John Bolton's record as it is is completely inappropriate for such an important position.

This appointment demeans the nation, demeans a reformed and improved United Nations, and demeans the many American citizens the White House counted on to remain ignorant of John Bolton and his flawed record.

I think it's time to start showing off Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky, who is the most likely successor candidate if Bolton falls off the shelf.

Stop stalling, Mr. President!

-- Steve Clemons

I have stated before that Senator Hagel would be one of the few U.S. Senators whom I could support in a race for the presidency. But lately, he seems to be determined to shake off those of us who look at him as one of the best hopes for a renewed, enlightened American engagement in world affairs.

Chuck Hagel is failing to cut what should be an admirable profile in his role on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The foreign policy interests he brings to the table are supposed to be one of his fundamental strong suits -- but he is allowing himself to be rolled by 'pugnacious isolationist-nationalists' in the White House and is doing little to maintain an integrity about his decisions on Bolton.

Whereas Hagel was one of the first to articulate serious concerns about Bolton's behavior and say that if any other news emerged about him, Hagel's support would be in jeapordy -- Hagel has nonetheless remained supportive of Bolton despite a long line of disturbing revelations, particularly his active role in attempting to undermine Colin Powell before key meetings.

I have recently met several "high net worth" Republicans in Northeastern states who played active chair and co-chair roles in both Bush-Cheney campaigns, and they have reported to TWN that they are losing hope in a Hagel presidential effort.

Their roster of reasons is interesting. Several of the people with whom I met have had one-on-one or small group meetings with Chuck Hagel.

First, they say that Hagel spends a lot of time thinking about running, discussing the possibility, pondering options -- but has done little to hire personnel or to organize the huge fundraising effort required to mount a credible campaign.

Second, they report that he has a record of asking all the right questions about important foreign policy matters -- but then never carves out a real leadership role to differentiate his wing of the party from that of the Cheney-Bolton wing.

They suggest that although he asked many of the key, insightful questions about the challenges that the Iraq War and aftermath would bring, he nonetheless fully signed on board with the White House's questionable Iraq venture. Full stop.

On John Bolton, they argue that there could be no better a fight for Hagel to wage than one on this disappointing nomination. Getting Bolton to the U.N. is not a high level priority of the White House –- so Hagel could have shored up his foreign policy credentials by demanding better choices when it comes to representing America's interests without alienating the White House too seriously.

The distance between the Cheney position and potential Hagel position on Bolton would have tethered him to a wing of Republicans who very much want to see evidence that he not only occasionally "sounds" like a leader -- but is one in deed.

I think that there is still a chance for Hagel to understand why the vote on Bolton has morphed into something far greater than a vote on "Bolton the person". It has become a test of leadership and vision for the nation. The Bolton vote is consequential across the board, and a vote for Bolton will only further alienate potential Republican support for Hagel that already doubts the seriousness of his presidential aspirations.

There is time for Hagel to shift, but thus far, there is little evidence other than some whispers here and there that Hagel is thinking of shifting course on Bolton and voting NO on him.

TWN will believe that when he out-Voinoviches Voinovich instead of trying (unsuccessfully) to out-Frist Frist.

The following is a letter prepared on May 19th from Senator Hagel to Ambassador Robert White. At the end, he states unequivocally that he will vote for Bolton.

Senator, please change your mind. Be a leader. Reconnect with those who think you are one of the best hopes for your party.

Chuck Hagel -- Nebraska

248 Russell Senate Office Building, United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510-2705

May 19, 2005

Ambassador Robert E. White
President
Center for International Policy
1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 801
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Ambassador White:

Thanks for your letter regarding my speech at the National Press Club and the nomination of John Bolton to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. I appreciate hearing from you.

I share your belief regarding the importance of this position. Over the course of several weeks, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee conducted a very deliberate examination of the concerns, many of which you raise, regarding John Bolton's nomination. I supported this process.

When I met with Mr. Bolton, I told him that protecting U.S. interests and pursuing our objectives depend more than ever on the strength of our relationships. He assured me that he will work hard to strengthen our alliances and carry out the President's policies in representing the interests of the United States at the United Nations.

Based on what I have seen and heard, I voted to send Mr. Bolton’s nomination to the Senate floor without recommendation. The Senate leadership is expected to schedule a full Senate vote in the coming weeks. I will vote for Mr. Bolton.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Chuck H. (signed personally)

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

I have linked this great piece of Boltonesque art previously -- but I feel like doing it again this morning.

I hope one of my regular readers in the White House will share this with Vice President Cheney this morning.

Here is the link.

-- Steve Clemons

Vice President Cheney used his time on CNN's Larry King Live this weekend to do some Bolton cheerleading, asserting that John Bolton would be confirmed.

I have several comments on Vice President Cheney's regular expressions of "confidence" in Mr. Bolton.

First of all, Cheney has been saying that he was 'confident' that Bolton would be confirmed from the very beginning of this process. That just hasn't added much to the Bolton nomination. If anything, Cheney's disregard for moderate Republicans and for Senate authority has undermined Bolton's chances.

Second, Cheney said:

We've got the votes to confirm him. I'm convinced we will get him confirmed. We just need three more and I think we'll get those when they come back.

He hasn't done his mathematics right since the 56-42 vote, which was NOT a vote on Bolton but rather a vote on Senate rights vs. the administration when it comes to making evidence requests of the White House. The Cheney-Bolton wing of the administration have chosen to defy Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar's evidence requests -- which include not only the NSA intercepts but also information related to the employment of Matthew C. Freedman in Bolton's office as well as all material related to Bolton's standoff with colleagues on America's Syria policy.

Senators Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, Dianne Feinstein, and John Thune have all explicitly stated that they will oppose Bolton. Ben Nelson is still an unknown. Joseph Lieberman and John McCain, while the former voted against cloture and McCain in favor, both believe that the White House must yield on the documents requests for there to be a vote.

If the White House now defies John McCain in his deal-making mode, McCain will also oppose cloture on the Bolton nomination.

Senator Susan Collins has made documents requests of the White House regarding base closing decisions. We'll see if the administration is completely compliant, but she too may consider a vote on cloture when it comes to the rights of the Senate to demand materials from the administration that fit within the oversight responsibilities of the Senate.

Cheney's math is wrong. The momentum is clearly AGAINST Bolton getting a vote -- UNLESS the White House yields on the information, which it thus far is unwilling to do.

Lastly, Cheney stated on CNN's Larry King Live:

The information that they've requested basically has been made available to the chairman and ranking member of the Intelligence committees. There's nothing there. This material has been reviewed, the information they're asking for. I think it's just an excuse.

There may be nothing there. There may be a great deal. It is not up to the Vice President of the United States or the White House spokesman to determine whether there is something there or not. The Senate investigators are the ones who can best connect dots between Bolton's objectives and behavior in one arena -- and his interest in U.S. officials' names in NSA intercepts in other arenas.

Cheney's comment is offensive and shows utter disregard for the Constitutional authority and responsibilities of the Senate. If there is nothing there, then show the materials to the Senators of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

These materials have "not been reviewed" until that takes place.

And as stated before, the NSA intercept material was one item among several requested by Senators before the May 19th hearing took place and before the May 12th deadline for such requests. There are others that have not been met -- particularly on Syria policy that Bolton was attempting to up-end and on the role and private client list of Bolton special assistant Matthew C. Freedman.

This Bolton Battle is far from over. In fact, the more "confident" Dick Cheney seems to be, the worse Bolton's chances of nomination seem to get.

-- Steve Clemons

Well, it's early in the day -- and there is always the chance that trolls will distort the poll (at bottom of page) that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is running, but at this point -- it is not distorted.

The paper asks:

Are nominations as U.N. ambassador important enough to merit a filibuster in the Senate?

12.9% No, the ambassador represents the country but doesn't determine policy.

31.5% No, not under normal circumstances. But the administration should give senators documents they want.

54.5% Yes, if the nominee is unqualified.

1.1% Not sure or don't care.

Total Votes: 178

While only a couple of hundred votes, the trends are interesting.

More than a majority believe that a nominee to the U.N. Ambassadorship IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH to be filibustered if unqualified or unfit for the post.

And on top of that 31% think that while the position is not important enough "under normal circumstances" to be blocked by filibuster -- the respondents clarify that the administration should provide the Senate-requested materials and evidence on Bolton. They thus imply that this is not a 'normal circumstance.'

TWN thinks that the editors of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer try a second draft of an otherwise decent editorial.

But yielding on important principles at the heart of the system of checks and balances in our government is not a good thing for important players in America's civil society establishment to be doing.

-- Steve Clemons

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer ran a thoughtful editorial today titled "United Nations: Divulge Bolton Dossier" that I agreed with until I got to the very end.

Here is an excerpt with which TWN concurs:

The Bush administration has been excessively secretive with Congress and the public. Documents detailing Bolton's State Department advice on congressional testimony about Syria are germane to understanding how he might conduct himself at the United Nations. And it's disrespectful for the administration to withhold from senators intelligence information Bolton received as an undersecretary of state.

We believe that Bolton should be rejected as unqualified. As Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich has argued, the United States can do better, much better.

But here is the part that gets my dander up:

But the U.N. ambassadorship is not important enough, in itself, to filibuster Bolton's nomination indefinitely.

Even without more information, Democrats should still consider allowing Bolton to receive a final vote. If Democrats want to filibuster the nomination after the recess, they will have a duty to explain clearly why the information is vital enough to refuse a vote.

Excuse me?!

The Democrats have made reasonable requests for various forms of evidence from the administration -- which has arbitrarily decided not to fulfill the requests.

Bolton's nomination to serve as America's Ambassador to the U.N. is controversial. The nomination proceeded to the floor of the U.S. Senate WITHOUT recommendation. Bolton's behavior has been reckless. There is concern that he was constantly engaged in efforts to try and undermine some of the more delicate diplomatic efforts directed by Richard Armitage and Colin Powell.

The evidence requests are NOT trivial. They have direct bearing on the objectives and administrative behavior and responsibilities of John Bolton.

The reason to hold up John Bolton's nomination indefinitely -- and I mean indefinitely -- is that the White House is engaged in calloused disregard for the operating procedures of government.

Bolton's nomination IS indeed worth blocking until the White House concedes on the evidence documents -- because the battle is no longer over just John Bolton. The battle is about the relative weight of what are supposedly equal branches of government.

The editors at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer make all the right sounds at the beginning of their good piece, and then want to concede defeat to a White House that thinks that the Dems don't have staying power to hold the line on the document requests.

The bottom line is that John McCain has joined the Dems call for requests. Richard Lugar was the person most defied by the White House as he too called for these materials. John Thune, Mary Landrieu, and Mark Pryor have all communicated their intention to oppose Bolton.

Thus, ever since the Thursday night surprise -- the position of those who stopped progress on the Bolton nomination has improved. Why are the editors at this great paper so willing to throw in the towel now?

The fact is that John Bolton will NOT get an up-down vote until the White House respects and complies with the legitimate Congressional information requests that have been made with respect to John Bolton's record.

If the White House fails to yield, then John Bolton will be in permanent limbo.

Editors -- stop conceding defeat when the battle is under way and we are actually gaining ground in securing important principles in the way our government is supposed to operate.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

There is a great stable of folks who have joined up as coffee house chatterers on Josh Marshall's new venture, TPM Cafe. I'm one of the cuprits.

The new site will be up for public access tomorrow -- but we are already debating one another over religion, John Bolton, political tactics, and whatever we get wound up about.

Here is a piece I posted yesterday but wanted to share here as well:

TPMCafe.com, 29 March 2005

Declaring Victory No Matter Whether One is Winning or Losing

by Steve Clemons

I am in Chestertown, Maryland this weekend and while driving down lots of old corn and tobacco plantation roads looking for a dock where friends were tinkering with a tiny sailboat, I discovered St. Paul's Church and its old cemetery.

Tallulah Bankhead is buried there, and I paid my respects. She was a great star from the past, flamboyant about her sexual escapades, ready to take on any bland convention and provoke some memorable conflagration over it. Her grandfather and dad were Senators, and she had politics on her mind and in her blood.

My hunch is that if Tallulah were around today, we'd be working together to try and undo George Bush's wannabe monarchy. She'd be bold -- declaring victory in the worst of odds. She'd stand in stark contrast to many of the leading progressive pundits and pols today who seem genetically predisposed to conceding defeat before the battle had even started.

This has been the case in the battle over John Bolton's nomination to the U.N. which I have been leading part of the charge against at my blog, The Washington Note.

Senator Richard Durbin, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, comedian and political strategist James Carville, and several high placed "off the record" commentators in Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid's office have all stated at various times in the process that John Bolton would get confirmed. But that was about five iterations back in the process -- and since, Durbin has retracted his statement, Richardson recommended that I "stop biting" my friends but still stepped back from what he said, and others have watched in awe as Democrats and Republicans with a conscience have turned the supposedly "slam-dunk" Bolton nomination into the story that won't stop giving.

Unless the White House concedes to Senator Biden, Dodd, and others who have made "evidence requests" of the administration regarding Bolton, his nomination will remain in limbo. Very few imagined such an outcome would be possible. Most thought Bolton was an obscure bureaucrat pursuing a job few Americans cared about.

John Bolton has now become a household name -- and people do seem to think that the U.S. should be sending someone to the U.N. who has imeccable credentials and of whom Americans can feel proud. That is not John Bolton.

Dems need to wake up. The brilliance of the first four years of the Bush White House is that Bush and Rove behaved as if they had won the contested and close election with an 80% mandate. Democrats collapsed.

It's time to turn the tables. Democrats -- and moderate Republicans frankly -- need to start working on their atrophied muscles of political activism and "push back" and begin competing not just for control of the political process but also over the ideas and vision that will drive the nation forward.

It's time to be tenacious and stop yielding to Republicans, who have been all too good at declaring victory even when they are losing -- while too many Dems believe their line.

So, tomorrow -- check out TPM Cafe.

-- Steve Clemons

It's been clear for a long time that Senator Russ Feingold was going to oppose John Bolton, but it was not so from the beginning.

In TWN's considerable work on the Bolton nomination and inquiries with various offices on their stances on Bolton and the rationale for whatever position the Senator was taking, Feingold was one who had very clear views that the Senate should nearly always support the President's nominees. In fact, he voted for John Bolton when he was up for his former position as Under Secretary of State for International Security and Arms Control.

This time, however, Feingold's standards for "rejecting" a nominee have been met -- and he is now convinced that Bolton engaged in behavior harmful to the national interest in his last position.

TWN just wanted to emphasize the points here that those who keep painting this opposition to Bolton underestimate two things: first, the internal discomfort in Republican ranks with Bolton and secondly, that not all Democrats were on board at the beginning or are on board now (but they may all soon be. . .)

Here is an excerpt from Russ Feingold's statement opposing Bolton:

What the Committee found, Mr. President, was not that Mr. Bolton made careless remarks in the heat of a tough bureaucratic dispute. The evidence shows that over a period of many months, Mr. Bolton repeatedly sought the removal of a respected intelligence analyst at the State Department who had raised concerns about language Mr. Bolton wished to use publicly in the course of the standard clearance process -- a process that is there to protect against misleading or inaccurate public characterizations of important security issues.

And Mr. Bolton repeatedly sought the removal of the National Intelligence Officer for Latin America, again pursuing this vendetta for months, not heated minutes, and going so far as to consider blocking country clearance for Mr. Smith to travel abroad. In both cases, the offense that so incensed Mr. Bolton appears to be that the analysts did their jobs -- they presented the facts as they saw them, and declined to keep silent when the facts did not support what Mr. Bolton wished to say.

And in both cases, senior officials with decades of experience in government who were involved in these episodes told Committee staff that Bolton's actions -- his attempts to retaliate against these analysts -- were absolutely extraordinary.

In addition to these disturbing incidents, other interviews conducted by Committee staff revealed a broader pattern of attempting to simply cut those who disagreed with his policy views, or those who he believed disagreed with his policy views, out of the policy-making process entirely. John Wolf, the former Assistant Secretary of State for Non-Proliferation, told Committee staff that Bolton attempted to retaliate against at least two public servants in the Non-Proliferation Bureau because of differences in their policy views.

Mr. Bolton tried to remove a State Department attorney from a case relating to a sanctions issue because of perceived policy disagreements -- the record suggests that Mr. Bolton actually misunderstood where the lawyer in question stood -- and went so far as to suggest that he would not work with the State Department's entire legal bureau on the matter from that point on -- a declaration quickly negated by Deputy Secretary Armitage, who felt compelled to remind Bolton that as a State Department official, he would indeed be working with the State Department's lawyers.

This kind of tunnel-vision, everyone-else-out-of-the-room approach was summed up Secretary of State Powell's Chief of Staff Larry Wilkerson, who told the Committee staff, "when people ignore diplomacy that is aimed at dealing with [North Korea's nuclear weapons development] in order to push their pet rocks in other areas, it bothers me, as a diplomat, and as a citizen of this country." When asked specifically if he thought that Mr. Bolton had done that, Wilkerson said, "Absolutely." Mr. Wilkerson ended his interview with the Committee with the following:

"I would like to make just one statement. I don't have a large problem with Under Secretary Bolton serving our country. My objections to what we've been talking about here -- that is, him being our ambassador at the United Nations -- stem from two basic things. One, I think he's a lousy leader. And there are 100 to 150 people up there that have to be led; they have to be led well, and they have to be led properly. And I think, in that capacity, if he goes up there, you'll see the proof of the pudding in a year. Second, I differ from a lot of people in Washington, both friend and foe of Under Secretary Bolton, as to his, quote, "brilliance," unquote. I didn't see it. I saw a man who counted beans, who said, "98 today, 99 tomorrow, 100 the next day," and had no willingness -- and, in many cases, no capacity -- to understand the other things that were happening around those beans. And that is just a recipe for problems at the United Nations. And that's the only reason that I said anything."

Very powerful and informed statement.

TWN hopes everyone is in the midst of a refreshing Memorial Day weekend -- and also remembering the heroes who sacrificed for this nation.

People know leaders, visionaries, and heroes when they see them. And they know when they don't.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Senator Lieberman voted correctly -- against cloture -- on Thursday and Senator Collins did not.

She underestimated the slippery slope of undermining principle and the Senate's position vis-a-vis the White House.

Now she wants documents from the administration -- but she was missing in action when it came to the Senate oversight responsibilities in the John Bolton nomination. Shame on her.

She has time to modify her stance on Bolton and the documentation issue -- but otherwise her own self-contradicting stances undermine her position and the interests of her constituents on base closings in Maine.

Here is the latest in a CNN piece:

Two senators from New England have sent a letter to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld demanding the release of documents on proposed military base closures.

In a statement Saturday, Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Joseph Lieberman, D-Connecticut, said the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs would subpoena the documents if necessary, including e-mails, memos, handwritten notes and telephone logs.

Collins is chairwoman of the committee, while Lieberman is the ranking member.

The senators represent states "disproportionately affected" by the proposed changes announced this month, their statement said.

It's always hard to make a case on principle, Senator Collins, when you didn't stand by them before. . .

-- Steve Clemons

TWN is trying to assess how firm White House resolve is that it will not concede on the NSA documents and "other" evidence requests, particularly the material Senators Biden, Dodd, and Lugar requested on Syria policy.

This is the line the White House press office is feeding the press:

"John Bolton enjoys majority [Senate] support, and it's a shame that Democrats are stopping a vote," said Erin Healy, a White House spokeswoman. "This is about partisan politics, not documents."

By the time opponents are done, I think that the chorus of Republican opposition will increase against Bolton and the White House is losing ground -- incremental as it may be -- at every single step in the Bolton process. In the end, I think he can be beaten on a floor vote -- but not yet.

The White House was stunned by the action on Thursday night, again completely caught off guard as its legislative team has been at most stages of the Bolton Battle.

Bolton's nomination is dead if the administration does not concede on the documents. The only other option is a recess appointment, which is the President's right, but even the veneer of respectability for Bolton will not be possible then if he takes the Ambassadorship.

Stay tuned.

-- Steve Clemons

Either the White House will have to concede on the principle that the Senate can ask for whatever documents it wants, other than those protected by Executive Privilege or John Bolton's nomination will languish indefinitely.

John McCain joined the chorus of those opposed to the White House position -- though still expressing support for Bolton.

This from the New York Times:

One of John Bolton's leading Republican backers, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, signaled his support on Friday for a compromise in which the White House might allow Senate leaders access to highly classified documents in return for a final vote on Bolton's nomination as U.N. ambassador early next month.

But the White House showed no sign that the administration might change course.

"The Democrats who are clamoring for this have already voted against John Bolton," said Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman. "This is about partisan politics, not documents. They have the information they need."

McCain reiterated support for Bolton on Fox News. Senators calling on the administration to share the documents "have some substance to their argument," McCain said.

Scott McClellan's job description does not include making arbitrary decisions about what documents the Senators can have -- and which they cannot.

McClellan also needs to be reminded that the White House stiffed the REPUBLICAN CHAIRMAN of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar, on the evidence requests he made of the administration.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

This just in from Senator Landrieu's office:

Sen. Landrieu Statement on the Nomination of John Bolton

WASHINGTON -- The following is a statement by U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu, D-La., regarding the nomination of John Bolton as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations:

Sen. Landrieu said:

"As member after member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee shed light on some very troubling aspects of John Bolton's relationships with his peers and subordinates, it became increasingly clear to me that he may very well be the wrong choice for this important post. However, he is President Bush's choice. At a time when international cooperation is more essential than at perhaps any other time in recent memory, it is indeed unfortunate that the president would select a nominee that scores of former diplomats have petitioned this body not to confirm.

"Now is the time when America must reach out and strengthen its relationships with other nations -- not choose as its Ambassador a man who not only once refused to even acknowledge the body in which he is nominated to serve, but who is also alleged to have jeopardized peace talks through his own inflammatory remarks. Further, his total disregard for international institutions raises concerns that he does not grasp the spirit in which lasting peace is achieved.

"In light of this pattern of poor judgment and inappropriate behavior, I intend to vote against his confirmation as Ambassador to the United Nations. But while I share the concerns of many of my colleagues regarding the White House's refusal to share documents relating to his alleged mishandling of intelligence information, I believe the debate on Mr. Bolton's nomination has been thorough and complete. It is time for it to come to an end. As such, I voted tonight for cloture on his nomination."

Tick tock. Tick tock. Time is on our side in this battle.

-- Steve Clemons

Senator Feinstein offered an excellent floor statement opposing John Bolton yesterday -- and voted against cloture on Bolton, which to many of us working this was a much needed and much appreciated surprise. Everyone should thank her -- and frankly, everyone should thank Sentor Lieberman.

Here is the opening to the Feinstein statement which I will post in full at this link:

Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the nomination of John Bolton to be the next United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Simply put, he is the wrong man at the wrong time for what is an important and critical position.

At a time when the reputation of the United States is at an all time low in many parts of the world and our military is stretched thin, we need a representative at the United Nations who can engage and work with our friends and allies to forge multilateral solutions on: the War on Terror, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, global poverty, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and global warming just to name a few. Yet, throughout his career, John Bolton has demonstrated an unrestrained contempt for diplomacy and international treaties.

In a letter to Senator Richard Lugar, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, 102 former American diplomats representing both Democratic and Republican Administrations urged the Committee to reject Mr. Bolton's nomination because of his exceptional record of opposition to efforts to enhance U.S. security through arms control.

The letter notes that Mr. Bolton:

~ Led the effort against ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;

~ Blocked a more robust international agreement to curb the proliferation of small arms;

~ Led the effort to block the Ottawa Landmine Treaty;

~ Led the effort to have the United States withdraw from negotiations to formulate a verification system for the Biological Weapons Convention and;

~ Led the campaign to have the U.S. withdraw from the ABM Treaty.

What sort of message do we send to our friends and allies by nominating an ideologue and not a consensus builder for this leading post at the United Nations?

I, for one, am unaware of another nominee to an international body who has garnered so much opposition from individuals who have served on the front lines of American diplomacy.

Much progress made yesterday -- and more to do.

-- Steve Clemons

At least some parts of the media are getting the story right.

Here is an NPR segment that properly states that the Dems favor a vote on Bolton, which I now think we can win, if the White House yields on the evidence requests made previously.

-- Steve Clemons

While the Senate and White House do battle over whether the administration can defy evidence requests by the Senate, those opposed to John Bolton's nomination can work to remind Senators uncomfortable with but still supporting him why this nominee must be withdrawn.

More later on what all this means -- but a slight nudge to the media:

Who was the State Department official who Bolton sought out to commend after reading the NSA intercepts?

Why would Bolton do such a thing? Was he recruiting someone inside State to be part of his anti-Armitage/Powell network?

Why won't Bolton just tell us and come clean on who this person is?

What more have we not learned about these NSA intercepts?

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Defectors were Landrieu, Ben Nelson, and Mark Pryor.

More -- lots more -- on them later.

Senators Lieberman and Feinstein -- THANK YOU.

Senators Biden, Boxer, Sarbanes, Rockefeller, Dodd, Obama, Levin, and many others -- THANK YOU TOO.

Senator Voinovich, you continue to be ferociously independent -- and though you voted for cloture, your leadership otherwise is appreciated.

Senator Reid -- STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR WHAT HAPPENED.

The "issue here" is the Constitutional responsibilities of the Senate to provided advise and consent on Executive branch nominations.

More later. . .I need a drink.

Thanks to all of you for supporting this blog, flooding TWN with information and your thoughts. And thank you for your financial support in the new "paypal button" on the front of my homepage.

This is a victory...another one.

The media has been CONSTANTLY WRONG.

Ok...I am going for a drink. There is still room for faith in American democracy, the rights of the minority, and standing by principle.

John Bolton is NOT someone America can be proud of at the U.N. He is not someone of the sort of impeccable credentials, standing, and vision that we should be making our Ambassador in the convocation of nations in Turtle Bay on Manhattan.

More later....much, much, much more.

Thanks to all of you who have been supporting and helping this process.

-- Steve Clemons