RSS
Using PayPal
The Feingold Standard When Rejecting Nominations: Bolton Surpasses What it Takes to Get Feingold "Nay"
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Sunday, May 29 2005, 9:31AM
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
« Previous Article - Senator Collins Should Be Able To Request Decision-Making Documents Just As Senators Deserve to See Bolton Documents» Next Article - TPM Cafe Launch Tomorrow: Tallulah Bankhead and the Pursuit of a "Win"
What can be done to compel the Bush administration to release the redacted information on Bolton in the NSA intercepts???
My understanding is that if Bolton released the names of those US officials, which is supposed to be classified, then he will have violated the law...
Shouldn't McCain and other GOP Senators be concerned that if they don't press the White House, and if such information is leaked, that Bolton could be charged with a Federal Crime, while US Ambassador to the UN-- and that this could back-fire on the GOP who will be asked why they didn't insist on finding-out the truth before voting for him!!!
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.
Which reminded me of this classic statement from Ron Susskind's 10/17/05 article in the NY Times.
If this wasn't Bolton, then it was probably somebody channeling him.
*************
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Now we come at last to the heart of darkness. Now we know, from their own words, that the Bush Regime is a cult - a cult whose god is Power, whose adherents believe that they alone control reality, that indeed they create the world anew with each act of their iron will. And the goal of this will - undergirded by the cult's supreme virtues of war, fury and blind faith - is likewise openly declared: "Empire."
We all need to take a moment this Memorial Day to recharge, and, more importantly, to remember those who have fallen for our highest ideals. We need to do our very level best to protect people, here and abroad, from needless sacrifice due to misguided policies. That's why so many oppose the nomination of John Bolton to UN Representative.
Thank you Steve, for all your efforts in the highest tradition our our country.
. . . "We all need to take a moment this Memorial Day to . . . to remember those who have fallen for our highest ideals. We need to do our very level best to protect people, here and abroad, from needless sacrifice due to misguided policies. That's why so many oppose the nomination of John Bolton to UN Representative."
Really.
Which blue state or blue county are you from? You really think that soldiers would prefer to have some soft diplomat representing the US at the UN? As if soldiers long for the days of Madeline Albright . . . or when Carter was making peace with the North Koreans?
Can we simply honor this Memorial day those brave soldiers who died for the country, and not use it as an excuse to advance political agendas?
There is a Newsweek item on the NSA intercepts that is on the Drudge page. It highlights the difference of opinion between Rockefeller and Roberts on who Bolton handled the intercepts.
"Can we simply honor this Memorial day those brave soldiers who died for the country, and not use it as an excuse to advance political agendas?"
Sean, are you offended that a primary reason Bush took us to war was to advance a political agenda?
Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.
“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761
"The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons."
-- George Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in a speech in Cincinnati.
American Deaths
Since war began (3/19/03): 1657 1302
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list) 1520 1193
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 1190 997
Since Handover (6/29/04): 791 669
Since Election (1/31/05): 225 196
American Wounded Official Estimated
Total Wounded: 12350 15000 - 38000
Latest Fatality May 28th, 2005
Page last updated 05/29/05 12:30 pm EDT
Tell me, Sean, is Bush's political agenda worth this?
Susan,
When I served in the US Army at Ft. Myer, VA, I was surprised by the heartfelt reverence that the military had for deceased soldiers, especially those who died while serving. The soldiers in my unit would spend many, many hours putting flags on all of the headstones before Memorial day.
Before serving in this unit, I like most of you probably took Memorial day for granted. The soldiers at Ft. Myer didn't. And I tend to not take it for granted anymore.
While your extended post about American deaths is probably sincere, I don't see it as a real testimony to the American men and women - risking their life protecting us and instilling liberty in far away lands.
I am not "offended that a primary reason Bush took us to war was to advance a political agenda?"
Almost all war is political. Certainly, Bush's political legacy may include advancing freedom in the Middle East. Regarding the politics of war, I still remember (as a young Democrat in '90/91) being shocked when my party voted overwhelmingly to reject the U.N. authorized war to push Iraq out of Kuwait. I never understood the politics behind the Democratic party, being at the time a proud Kennedy Democrat. (John of course, not Teddy). If not for Gore and a couple of other Democrats breaking ranks, we would not have pushed Iraq out of Kuwait. My thoughts at the time were that Kennedy, Truman, FDR would have rolled over in their graves.
But these soldiers of yesterday and today will risk their life regardless of who is in the Whitehouse. So if you are sincere this Memorial day, don't make a partisan statement. Just honor those who have served, advancing freedom here and around the world.
I also have no problem if Nightline reads the names of soldiers killed this Memorial day.
"... American men and women - risking their life protecting us and instilling liberty in far away lands."
Sorry, I don't agree:
We are in Iraq for many reasons, but protecting us is not one of them. If anything, this war has made the world a far more dangerous place, and American safety has been eroded not enhanced.
As far as instilling liberty in far away lands, Democracy was never Bush's goal in Iraq. The goal was establishing U.S. dominance, not only militarily but also economically. The council Bremer set up was designed to ratify that dominance, not usher in genuine democracy.
Many Iraqis understand this. Their recognition of Bush's cynical motives--along with the brutality and ineptness of the occupation--is spurring the protests in the streets and helping recruit the guerrilla army that even the U.S. military now recognizes it faces.
A big motivation for the war was laid out in the National Security Strategy document known as the Bush Doctrine.
Submitted to Congress, it presents the Bush administration's vision of the US as the world's unchallenged superpower. The Doctrine advocates that the US maintain its position of supremacy by using its military power pre-emptively and unilaterally, refusing to be bound by international treaties or organizations, and preventing the emergence of any economic or military rivals. In short, Bush wants a world in which the US is unrestrained in using economic power and military force to impose its will around the world, and the war on Iraq is the next step.
This doctrine represents an American dream that is dark and dangerous. It runs on oil, blood and raw power. Bolton and the neocons must be stopped; they are a serious threat to our nation. If they prevail, the existance of the true American Dream (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness)will be placed in terrible peril.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8017664/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/
Bolton: Secrets Spilled?
June 6 issue - The bitter debate about John Bolton's nomination to the United Nations may have called unwelcome attention to the spying practices of the National Security Agency. Bolton told Congress last month that he asked the NSA for the names of Americans in raw intel reports. NSA rules prohibit the agency from spying on Americans; if electronic eavesdroppers inadvertently pick up American names, the NSA is supposed to black them out before forwarding reports to other agencies. But analysts and policymakers can make written requests to the NSA for U.S. names, which the State Department says Bolton did 10 times since 2001.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee asked for more information about Bolton's requests, but the administration refused, leading to last week's vote to delay Bolton's nomination. Meanwhile, the Senate intelligence committee's chairman, Pat Roberts, and its top Democrat, Jay Rockefeller, got a closed-door briefing on Bolton's NSA dealings from the deputy intel czar, Gen. Michael Hayden. The senators agreed Bolton's initial NSA requests for U.S. names were legit. But the normally collegial Roberts and Rockefeller couldn't agree on whether Bolton handled the names appropriately once he received them. In dueling letters made public, the senators aired their differences. Senator Roberts argued that Democrats called unnecessary attention to intel "sources and methods" by raising Bolton's NSA dealings publicly. Rockefeller complained that Bolton sought out a State Department official whose name was supplied by the NSA "to congratulate him"—for unspecified reasons—which Rockefeller said was "not in keeping" with Bolton's request for the uncensored NSA report. Roberts said this charge was ill founded.
—Mark Hosenball
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
Susan,
your heartfelt view is why soldiers for the most part don't support liberal Democrats and did not vote for Kerry.
With respect to Steve's comments: "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."
The bitter debate about Bolton reinforces public perception as to which party will stand up for America. Both antagonists and proponents know where Bolton (and Bush) stands. So Steve, even if Democrats win the Bolton battle, don't they probably lose the war?
Sean, i was mostly going to ignore what you had to say, but really, how do you define "the most part?"
Because of the 18% of 2004 presidential voters who had "ever" served in the military, 57% voted for Bush and 41% for Kerry. That's not how i define "most."
Anyhow, if appealing to that 57% requires supporting a man who shouldn't hold an important diplomatic post bercause he talks tough (and stupid) and behaves tough (and stupid) - well, i'll live with losing those votes.
You can't fool all the people all the time, as bush is discovering. Loud and stupid may work for a while, but in the end, the public recognizes (as it is doing with bush) the essential failure of policies based on crap.
Sean, i was mostly going to ignore what you had to say, but really, how do you define "the most part?"
Because of the 18% of 2004 presidential voters who had "ever" served in the military, 57% voted for Bush and 41% for Kerry. That's not how i define "most."
Anyhow, if appealing to that 57% requires supporting a man who shouldn't hold an important diplomatic post bercause he talks tough (and stupid) and behaves tough (and stupid) - well, i'll live with losing those votes.
You can't fool all the people all the time, as bush is discovering. Loud and stupid may work for a while, but in the end, the public recognizes (as it is doing with bush) the essential failure of policies based on crap.
Susan,
American soldiers like war, and love Bush, Republicans, and all that contribute to send them to wars. You damned stupid liberals want peace! That's the biggest laugh ever. The world is made of war; people are constantly in their lives everywhere at war with something. Our nation's interest is to dominate others or they will dominate you. And yes WE NEED OIL, and need to control its flow to keep you all, our countrymen, from becoming economic slaves. You just don't really understand how the world works. We have the greatest most powerful Armed Forces in the history of the World and must use it to advance our ideals abroad while ensuring our dominance over all other nations as our way is God's way. Get patriotic soon Susan because another test of it is very near. My only problem with our President is that he does not show the draped caskets of our fallen during this heroic struggle against Evil in Iraq. Our president should roll every one down Pennsylvania Ave. on a casion with the fullest of military honor guards. That would shut the un-American amongst us up! GOD BLESS AMERICA, AND A REVERENT MEMORIAL DAY TO ALL.
Susan,
how do I define "the most part?" I mean most or the majority. Please note that when I said soldiers, I meant soldiers. Not "former" soldiers who served when Democrats were strong on defense. I have not seen reliable data that supports your view regarding current soldiers, or those who served under Carter, Reagan, Bush or Clinton. And certainly, subtle efforts to suppress military ballots (make it difficult for them to be counted) in Ohio and Washington by Democrats would not occur if soldiers voted majority Democrat.
Luchinsky, bravo! Jonathan Swift couldn't have said it better. Have a good Memorial day!
"Luchinsky, bravo! Jonathan Swift couldn't have said it better...."
Swift, near the end of his life, became insane. I think your friend, Luchinsky, shares this affliction with him.
Sean:
"The bitter debate about Bolton reinforces public perception as to which party will stand up for America."
This is true.
But to my mind, the issue is whether one wants liars and cheats standing up for us with guns, and taking what we want from the world by force - or we pay for what we want, fairly and equitably. I'm not terribly concerned about our short-term security within our own country. It's the long-term fallout from our behavior that worries me. The historical cycle of weaponry has been tilting toward offensive weapons for quite some time.
And even in the short term, we're closing the world to ourselves, and living inside a security wall. It's a lousy way to live. When I was young, I travelled the world and enjoyed the spectacle. Tangier is beautiful, this time of year. Would you send your child there today? How many countries are there in the world where an American is safe - as safe as a Canadian or a Frenchman?
We're doing something wrong. That hasn't always been the case. A certain amount of self-examination is in order here.
JF
Jaime, appreciate you post. Self-examination is always in order - or I might still be a Democrat. Might not the Democrats lose, even if they win with respect to Bolton?
The long-term fallout from our behavior is difficult to discern. But if I sent my child to Tangier this year, I would probably hope he would wear a maple leaf on his back. But 20 years from now? I am an optimist and hope the world will be a better place.
Sean:
Optimism is good - you'll live longer with that point of view, if nothing else. However, I believe in entropy - because it believes in me.
But I do favor planning. And planning to correct a problem with a previously functional system starts with one question - whether you're a doctor looking at a ailing body, a network admin (as I was) looking at a crash, or a plumber looking at a leak:
What's changed?
So. What's changed with us, from 50 or a hundred years ago? How is the system different?
JF
"What's changed with us, from 50 or a hundred years ago? How is the system different?"
50 years ago we were the world's champs, bar none. Today, we're struggling to keep our dominance because of bad management.
100 years ago we were waking up to the robber baron capitalism, today we are falling asleep to it.
One can be an optimist and still see problems with our political system. But this includes cheats, liars on BOTH sides of the political aisle. What has changed with the US? Really, not much. Even in World war II, there was a significant faction of pacifists, but their side didn't win. Money has always controlled the political process. Character assasinations have always been part of the political landscape. Both parties have had crooks, cheats and liars. But news was not as available in the past, and therefore the public could be lead/mislead more easily than today. Really, things are better today. You can watch CNN. (I can watch Fox and CNN but MSN really is boring). You can have your blogs, and I can have mine!
And to some extent, I am bored by the one-sidedness of the Bolton debate on this blog. Where did Berti ever go! But partisan ownership of Memorial day should be avoided, leading to my comments above.
But back to Steve's original post: what are long term political ramifications from Bolton's defeat? If one believes that this fight is more about Bush than Bolton, what will come from Bolton's defeat? (Or what might come from his confirmation?)
And 50 years ago, all was not well. We had just begun the cold war. We had just finished the active phase of the Korean war, which is still not finished. (Wasn't this war supported by the UN?) Did the French like us any better in 1955? And Israel was still hated by its recently defeated neighbors.
Are things that different today?
Yeah. Vietnam is at peace.
Sean:
I'm unconvinced that the long term political ramifications are much different, whether Bolton's nomination passes or fails. He's an inconsequential man at this point - and given the way he's been leashed by his handlers in the past, he's obviously always been regarded as such. I'd certainly rather not see him at the UN, though: he's an incompetent boor.
But yes, it's much more about Bush. We've reached a point of no return with him, I think - too much information has come out, and too many processes have been set in motion. Bush is looking like a dumber but more malevolent and opportunistic Nixon, and his Presidency will probably be recorded as an equally egotistic failure.
I think the consensus about this battle is essentially correct: at Bush's first major loss he starts quacking like a duck; and he's been willing - even eager - to do much more than any previous two-term President I'm aware of to avoid that. There is no question that he's broken the law, and violated the trust of the country. He doesn't even pretend to represent everyone - not even many of those who presumably elected him - any more.
As to the nuts and bolts of the ramifications of his actions? Look to 2006. Bolton, Social Security, the Supreme Court? He'll get one out of three, unless Rehnquist can stop himself from dying. Maybe not even that. We're on to Bush - all of the people some of the time.
I expect 2006 to be a remarkable election year - and I hope more parts of the country follow Dade County's lead in beginning to figure out how to get rid of the Diebold voting machines. We really need some measure of confidence in the process - and I am surely not one of a small minority in having very little, where those theocrat-owned machines are forced upon us.
And Sean - as to all those TV stations you mentioned? I don't watch TV. At all (except SNL). It's all terribly slanted and crappy - just bad. I get all my news from the 'net, and do my own fact-checking and filtering, thank you. I've been on the 'net since it was text-only - in UNIX. And you know what? I can't imagine how we existed before the internet: it's the finest tool of freedom ever invented. It did in the Soviet Union, and it's working well on the Chinese. It'll do us in too, if we need it.
JF
sean, you misread last night: it wasn't susan who questioned you on military voting, it was me.
And no, for the most part shouldn't mean a "majority," any more than, for the most part, americans voted for george bush in the 2004 election.
as for the numbers, they are the only exit polling data i've got. do you have any actual data at all on current-duty soldiers (since i think - you're a little vague - that that's your metric)? or are you simply blowing smoke, which is what i suspect (for years, we've been hearing about how heavily the military votes for republicans, but where, exactly, is the evidence?).
as for "suppressing" military votes, please, you surely aren't going to waste our time with that canard on any day, much less memorial day, are you?
the long-term ramifications of bolton are very simple: you've got a bunch of people supporting an incompetent lying thug for UN ambassador because a shallow little man in the white house wants him. He may get through or he may not, but supporting what george bush wants is a minority position in america today, and at some point, even some gop senators will notice. Even if they don't, my very, very certain bet is that no one will run on bush's record in 2008, and bolton will just be one tiny piece of a disastrous reign of uunfitness.
This editorial from the Minneapolis-St Paul Star Tribune gets it exactly right:
Editorial: Memorial Day/Praise bravery, seek forgiveness
Published May 30, 2005
"Nothing young Americans can do in life is more honorable than offering themselves for the defense of their nation. It requires great selflessness and sacrifice, and quite possibly the forfeiture of life itself. On Memorial Day 2005, we gather to remember all those who gave us that ultimate gift. Because they are so fresh in our minds, those who have died in Iraq make a special claim on our thoughts and our prayers.
In exchange for our uniformed young people's willingness to offer the gift of their lives, civilian Americans owe them something important: It is our duty to ensure that they never are called to make that sacrifice unless it is truly necessary for the security of the country. In the case of Iraq, the American public has failed them; we did not prevent the Bush administration from spending their blood in an unnecessary war based on contrived concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don't expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse..."
http://www.startribune.com/dynamic/story.php?template=print_a&story=5427823
Speaking of Joe Lieberman, this morning's Washington Post had a most interesting Novak column on the Bolton vote in the Senate, with the following paragraph:
AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, assured Republicans that Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Dodd's Connecticut colleague, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein would back Bolton. But Feinstein was lobbied ferociously by her California colleague Sen. Barbara Boxer. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pleaded with Feinstein over the telephone, but the senator said she was under too much pressure to vote against Bolton.
Why is AIPAC so interested in getting Bolton confirmed? Could it have anything to do with a desire to attack Iran?
Reader Comments (30) - post a comment