Wrong... Having "shown" and having "gone on record" that they can not be steamrolled, Senators will cave later... Bolton will be confirmed.. Since Day One you've been entirely too optimistic re the possibility of this numnut being stopped.

My prediction is that the WH says "Go Cheney yourselves" to the Senate, and makes Bolton a recess appointment. What do they care about "the veneer of respectability" anyway? They need a goon in the UN to strong-arm the other Security Council nations into an Iran resolution, and they'll deal with the bad press like they've dealt with all the other bad press.

I'm old enough to remember most of the 60s and all of what followed. It feels to me like these folks want a do-over on Vietnam and the imperial presidency that gave us Watergate, too. Cheney and Rumsfeld advised Ford to veto the Freedom of Information Act back in '74 (Scalia, too). To me, their positions seem to be setting up to refight that fight. If the intercepts and other documents aren't released, what recourse does the Senate have? If the Senate refuses to confirm without the documents and the nomination goes down in defeat, can the fight over the release of documents still be pursued, or does that battle become moot? Same question applies it the Senate abrogates its power and confirms Bolton w/o the documents, the same question applies. If, in either instance, the fight to release the documents continues, who leads it? And if the battle reached the Supreme Court, how would it rule? Will it take a 21st-century Daniel Ellsberg to reveal what's in them? Will we have a New York Times independent enough to publish this time around?

Off topic, but thought I'd ask:

Who represented the United States at the NPT conference that wound up yesterday?

As Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, was Bolton's office responsible for the recent pamphlet summarizing US NPT activities since 1987?

I ask because the US was criticized for not mentioning the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and making no reference to the last NPT conference in 2000.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was highly critical of the pamphlet and titled their release about it "Airbrushing History".

If Bolton and his staff participated in drafting the document, shouldn't this be pertinent to the discussion on his suitability for UN ambassador?

http://bouphonia.blogspot.com/
One of the best posters I've ever seen on the issue of power:

See "Nature's Little Kings":

By contrast, Nature's Little Kings on the Right recall Brecht's line in "As You Make Your Bed":
If somebody's going to be trampled, it's you.
And if someone's going to do the trampling, it's me.
Apropos of which, perhaps one of the things that infuriates conservatives about the theory of evolution is the central role of chance. Absolute power is threatened by blind chance; therefore, many conservatives have apparently concluded not that absolute power is impossible, but that chance doesn't exist. (And it may not, for all I know.)

And yet, even the most powerful people sometimes fall victim to seemingly random events...as, for instance, when their own actions destroy them in a simple instance of cause and effect. Thus, it's reported by Otto Friedrich that when an SS officer lay dying in the mud, after being knifed by a girl he'd raped, he moaned, "What did I ever do to deserve this agony?"

That's the clearest example I know of the authoritarian understanding of power and causality. What isn't under their power, they rule with an iron fist and God's imprimatur, from now 'til Doomsday. What is under their power remains completely out of their hands, and utterly unpredictable.

The point being, I suppose, that if we want to talk about power, we need to bone up on pathology. It may be some time yet before they're prised apart.

Sue:

That was a wonderfully non-intuitive and contradictory line of reasoning - and therefore, as applied to the wingnuts, quite indisputable.

Thank you.

JF

The Bolton fracas puts the GOP moderates in a difficult position. Deep down, they know that the Republican party cannot win elections unless they stay in cahoots with their wingnut faction. They need those votes and that funding base. Years ago Gingrich and Atwater stitched together the disparate elements of the Republican party and created the "big tent", and now they have to live with each other under it. This makes for a lot of excruciating choices, where the moderates are forced to discard their integrity and swallow their pride and vote in favor of party unity at all costs.

If the White House wants to say this is not about providing the documents, but about political partisanship, we must turn the tables on them and ask what is so damning in those documents that the administration would damn the Constitution by withholding them.

The Syria documents undoubtedly tell of a plan the frame Syria as having WMD with the phrase "just like we did Iraq." It's a slam dunk that this is what is contained within, and everybody should say so until we are proven wrong by the release of those documents.

The release of the documents would be tantamount to the administration cutting its own throat, and all of us need to provide the reasons why this is so.

Rumors unto Death; or Release otherwise.

global yokel:

Gingrich and Atwater are remarkable illustration of the how power can sometimes mature people.

Atwater's case was tragic - he surrendered any personal responsibility to the art of the possible. All that concerned him professionally was what he could accomplish, and his effectiveness at that has hurt our country grievously. He was a brilliant man though - and came to understand what he'd done, before he died.

Gingrich was essentially the same - but has had more time to understand his life. There is no more telling fact of his career, than his current alliance with Hillary Clinton.

A Clinton/Gingrich ticket in 2008 would probably be completely unbeatable, in an even marginally honest election.

JF

Steve -

Any word on the likelihood of Bush going through with a recess appointment if the Senate does not back down? I read somewhere that this coming Senate recess is not a 'recess' in the sense that is normally understood for this purpose.

[Not that 'normally understood' counts for anything these days.]

JB (not John Bolton):

I'd imagine that McCain or Frist, or anyone Bush cared to designate (like the hand of benediction, 'twould be...), could make a motion to recess - which doesn't require more than a quorum and would easily carry on a party-line vote.

Then Bolton could be recess appointed, the recesss could be voted over, and life as we know it would continue.

The rules on recess appointments specifically exempt holidays - but, to the best of my memory, make no mention of such an elementary parliamentary tactic.

JF

"A Clinton/Gingrich ticket in 2008 would probably be completely unbeatable, in an even marginally honest election..."

Jaime, do you really think so? I cannot conceive of a worst ticket. With all the baggage they are each carrying, they would need a a platoon of porters to even get through the primaries.

When the train leaves the station, Newt and Hill won't be on it.

susan:

I wasn't commenting on the desirability of a Clinton/Gingrich ticket - only on its effectiveness.

They may both have baggage - but they also have a huge core of unshakable followers. And an alliance between them would give pause to the thoughtful who sit on the fence.

Of such marriages are victories made...

JF

A recess appointment can be made anytime the Senate is in recess-- which it is. The recent case of Judge Pryor confirms that-- he was recess appointed during a short break. Senator Kennedy and some groups challenged his right to sit on the 11th Circuit cour of appeals, but the challenge was denied, and the Supreme Court refused to grant the appeal.

I do not think that Bush will recess appoint Bolton during this break, but he might during the July 4 break. He would use the time in the interim to beat up on the Senate, call for an up or down vote, and see if the Dems back down. Keep in mind that Bush beleives that a victory in any fight, even one that might not have been foreseen, even one that becomes incredibly messy, increases his political capital. Right or wrong, that is his view-- just like poker, if you win the hand either because you had better cards (a majority in the Senate) or your opponent foolds, you get back every chip you put in the pot plus whatever your opposition risked. Anyone that has ever thought that this is not Bush's world view has been run over. Moral-- pick fights you can win, like Condi Rice having to appear before the 9/11 Commission.

Nah, it's not just like poker. Bush can be made to look, after all is said and done, like he was riding his bicycle while eating pretzels. He doesn't leave the wreckage of this battle unscathed.

I agree with Dan, GWBush could make a "recess appointment" of John Bolton, during this 11-day "recess," based on the Pryor case:

Stephens v. Evans (11th Cir, No. 02-16424, October 14 2004) (en banc, 10 judges), certiorari denied, March 21 2005 (U.S., No. 04-828) (11-day recess appointment of William H. Pryor Jr. to the 11th Circuit):
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216424ord2.pdf
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-828.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54919-2005Mar21.html

And see "Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions" (CRS, RS21308, updated March 15 2005):
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS21308.pdf

And I agree with Dan he won't likely do it now, at this particular stage. His own political circle would likely view him to be a coward under fire, politically isolated, ineffectual, willing to further assert the power of a dictator, already well established by the torture memo, and its family of related secret DoJ OLC legal opinions:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/torture-doj-20020801.html

He would first rather try to dictate with his many political allies, before hoisting his Jolly Roger, and making an even more thorough spectacle of himself.

CJHjr:

"He would first rather try to dictate with his many political allies, before hoisting his Jolly Roger..."

Of all possible outcomes involving Bolton going to New York, this would be the most usable against the wingnuts in 2006.

I'd get paid on my bet at InTrade.

The iron fist (and leaden brain) would be revealed.

A petard 'twould be, were that Roger hoisted.

King George has no apparent use for it anyway...

JF

Bolton will be confirmed or receive a recess appointment. To continue empire building, it will be necessary to blow up all international treaties, allies, coalitions, etc. to include the UN. By "blow up" it does not meant physically, it means destroying the alliances. Bolton must be confirmed and the UN disbanded to avoid the violations of international law (first espoused by the USA following the Great War), i.e. see British Memo.

at the end of the day - it would be just desert for the clowny show running this country to send their number one clown to the UN and watch him make an ass of the administration (unfortunately for us, the rest of the united states as well). how does a country like the US elect leaders like bush, or a state like minnesota elect an jerk like coleman?

"It would be just desert ... their number one clown ... watch him make an ass of the administration"

This has long been my view. I would much prefer a person who speaks frankly, to our long tradition of liars, who say one thing and do another.

And that's why it's puzzling, for GWBush&Co to nominate John Bolton, because they are absolute masters at the bald face, bold, lie, wrapped in the flag. I guess they've managed to convince themselves, that what they want to do is not merely expedient, but actually righteous, and they don't have to lie about it too much anymore.

If they confirm him, and leave him be, John Bolton can be the very best medium for demonstrating to the public -- in their face -- the folly of empire and the wisdom of the rule of law. Just let him talk, let the TV cameras run, let the pundits talk, and eventually the penny will drop, in the public's mind.

A view expressed here: James O. Goldsborough, "We Deserve John Bolton" (May 17):
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=euLTJbMUKvH&b=312470&ct=866011

But first, we need to get all the documents and testimony we can, about how this cabal operates.

Well, to clarify, I'm referring to John Bolton's history of advocating the Law of Empire (that we should do what we please, regardless of how unlawful or criminal it is).

When it comes to asserting facts, John Bolton is a proven liar. And that's the best possible Ambassador we could have at the U.N.

GWBush&Co pulled the biggest double-cross in the history of the world on Saddam, and the U.N Security Council will never set foot down that road a second time.

And so when John Bolton starts to proclaim what "we know" about what someone else is doing (Syria, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela), there won't be any resolutions tabled at the Security Council, because every vote would be 13-2 against anything John Bolton proposed.

To the great amusement of a worldwide audience, including, I imagine, most even in the U.S.

And so, ironically, John Bolton is the best possible tool, to curb GWBush&Co. I doubt even the rabid dogs in Congress would stomach yet another solo war, in the teeth of that uniform opposition, again.