RSS
Using PayPal
President Bush: Stop Stalling on the Bolton Documents!
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Tuesday, May 31 2005, 4:09PM
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 ConferenceThank 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
« Previous Article - Senator Chuck Hagel's Presidential Aspirations May Hang on Bolton» Next Article - By Popular Demand. . .An Open Thread
But, you forget, President Bush does not make mistakes, therefore his stalling is obviously "inspired."
Two things.
First, I think it is now fair game to call Presidential stalling on information required by the Senate to do their constitionally mandated job presidential filibustering. Tar Bush with the same brush that he's using himself. See how he likes it.
Also, where was the reporter asking Bush, "Senator Voinovich cited other, nefarious reasons for Bolton's appointment, besides his being a 'no nonsense kind of fellow.' Can you explain to the American taxpayers what those nefarious reasons were and why there were sufficiently important to worry Voinovich?"
Is one of the documents being requested Matthew Freedman's list of clients? Frankly, that one burns me up a lot more than the NSA intercepts, and there can be no good state security reasons for denying the info.
What the hell did Bolton need Freedman for to begin with, and what was someone being paid $100,000 and with access to all the info in Bolton's office doing retaining clients, most of whom historically have been foreign governments?
That's a genuine outrage, and I hope Democrats are not the only ones who bring it up in the continuing debate over the nomination.
"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."
Exactly.
"presidential filibustering"
Likewise.
Yeah, and none of that disassembling!
Don't promote Dobriansky. It's a kiss of death with these people--let them come to this as THEIR choice.
I like emptywheel's suggestion. I would take it further, and remind people that the Administration, who is asking that we just trust them that the documents are irrelevant, have proven themselves to be untrustworthy in their analysis of other classified information. Don't just say that the obstruction is on their side. Remind people that they have used that sort of secrecy in the past to terrible ends, and make Bush defensively deal with it again. They stop blabbing about "up or down votes" and start reliving the world of niger-uranium and downing street memos.
If Dobriansky is an anti-global warming liear, I'd be delighted if Steve can give her the kiss of death.
Was that Gannon/Guckert who phrased that question? What a biassed softball that was to try to hit out of the park. "a pervasive attitude of filibustering on behalf of the opposition." Was it a FOX News theocrat reporter? Any follow-up that mentioned the Constitutional responsibilities of the Executive to Senate "advice and consent" nomination proceedings? That question was a scripted set-up extraordinaire.
The SFRC passed Bolton to the Senate without their recommendation. Why in the world would the Senate even consider passing him?
Why doesn't the press challenge the executive branch to demonstrate why Bolton should be approved in spite of the Senate's non-endorsement.
There are many reasons why Bolton should get a no vote, but perjury at the SFRC seems to be the only true disqualifier.
Is it out of the question that Senators look closer at this? "We cannot vote until it has been established that John Bolton did not commit perjury" makes good press and forces Bush on the Bolton-Syria information.
"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."
So here the President is arguing that all his nominees should, essentially, go straight to the floor of the Senate and be approved. Boom. No committee work. No debate. No call for further documents or evidence.
Just "the up or down vote."
This isn't a Presidency with a Congress that he's describing. It's a King with a Council.
The leftcoaster (Steve Soto) seems to have a bit on why the NSA transcripts are being held onto so tightly.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004522.php
According to Wednesday’s New York Times previewed in the International Herald Tribune, it has been leaked by administration sources that what the White House is refusing to release to the committee are reports that Bolton obtained from the NSA by way of a special request. And what is in those reports?
The names of American individuals and companies that may have violated export restriction bans on the shipment of dangerous weapons material to China, Libya, and even Iran. And is it too big of a leap to assume that some or all of these firms may prove to be very damaging to the White House, as campaign contributors?
Here's a somewhat OT question. You think the NYT is going to continue to print all their best stuff in the IHT even after they've put the same stuff behind their new toll gate on the NYT site? As stupid as NYT management has been of late, I wouldn't put it past them. Heh.
I love this line:
"the reason I picked Bolton is he's a no-nonsense kind of fellow who can get things done."
So what has he gotten done, then? Number of nukes North Korea had when he took his job: 0. Number of nukes North Korea has now: 8 or more. Yeah, that's getting it done!
Any thoughts on this, Steve? A link to this site came from Talking Points Memo
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004522.php
Ty
Oops, just read the thread and noticed that ET has already referenced the site - sorry about that. It's very intriguing analysis.
ty
"presidential filibustering" ... is your suggested new meme. Sounds right to me, and I'd like to suggest a catch-phrase as well, to be used whenever anything outrageous comes from this madministration:
"That's Our George!"
Add that to every report of mal/misfeasance, to every disassembling malapropism, to every absurd spin of the news, to every put-down of opponents, to every roadside bomb in Iraq, to every insulting-to-the-world pronouncement, just say,
"That's Our George!"
and over and over again, till it sticks.
Ed
Reader Comments (18) - post a comment