RSS
Using PayPal
VP Cheney Needs a Mathematics Refresher Course
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Tuesday, May 31 2005, 9:11AM
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
» Next Article - The Bolton Story Told Through Emoticons Based on Readings from The Washington Note
You might also context Cheney's Bolton comments with this statement he made in the same interview:
"For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously,"
This particular Vice President of the United States has a highly developed ability to say all kinds of things that are either completely removed from reality - that is, fantasy - or utter falsehoods.
This is all of a piece with Cheney's litany of statements about Iraq having WMD's, nuclear weapons and the like.
The man churns out so much of this stuff that you have to admit - at least he's consistent.
Friendly Fire:
AAARRRGGGHHH!
"Context" is a noun! ;-)
Other than that, I take your point, and agree.
JF
I think we need to spend the next week pointing out an important bit from the testimony of Roberts and Rockefeller. Not sure which of them said this (they both said some version of it), but one of them said there was no way to adequately assess the NSA intercepts because they hadn't been a party to the SFRC testimony. Their responsibility, when reviewing the intercepts, was limited to their role as Intelligence Committee chair and co-chair. Which meant they couldn't review them with an eye toward assessing fitness for the UN job. They could only review to assess whether security protocol was violated (and on that they split opinions). The only ones who are empowered to assess the NSA material for the way it impacts fitness for UN Ambassador are the Senators from SFRC. Further, the only ones who can put the evidence together are Senators from SFRC.
I'm not sure whether the WH is trying to maintain a wall between the NSA intercepts information and the rest of Bolton's dossier at SFRC. Or whether they're just trying to be secretive. But there is a case to be made that, so long as they maintain that wall, they're obstructing Senate oversight.
what was the name of that hollywood memoir a few years back? "Hello, he lied" i believe (maybe it was "good morning, he lied").
anyhow, cheney in a nutshell.
While watching Bush's press conference this morning I was hoping a reporter would ask the following questions.
'Mr. President, if, as you just stated, you are fully supportive of the team approach to dealing with the North Korean issue, then what was your reaction when you heard about John Bolton's inflammatory speech on the eve of the renewed talks? Were you upset when you learned from the US ambassador to Korea that the North Koreans were so upset they almost backed out of the talks? Have you considered that the fact that your subsequent nomination of Bolton for the UN ambassadorship gives the impression that you have approved Bolton's attempt to derail the multi-party talks? If this is indeed your view, why have you not been honest to the American people about your North Korean strategy? If this is not your view, why have you nominated Bolton, someone who has, in a very public manner, attempted to misrepresent your administration's N. Korean policy?'
A real nit pick but PLEASE note that there is a difference between arithmetic & mathematics
Arithmetic deals with manipulating digits/numbers (addition, division, subtraction)
Mathematics deals with manipulating symbols that stand for entities & relationships between entities
so the text :
"...He hasn't done his mathematics right since the 56-42 vote, which was NOT a vote..."
should actually have read :
"He hasn't done his arithmetic correctly since the 56-42 vote, which was NOT a vote..."
not that I think this post will actually make any difference but I gotta try...
"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." - Ansel Adams
Hey Mr Frontero....
Webster Dictionary 1913
Context (Page: 313)
Con*text" (?), v. t. To knit or bind together; to unite closely. [Obs.] Feltham.
The whole world's frame, which is contexted only by commerce and contracts. R. Junius.
Friendly Fire:
You'd cite a 1913 edition of a dictionary referring to what was an obsolete definition at that time?
Sheesh.
Next, you'll be telling me that 'militia' in the Second Amendment doesn't mean "the armed body of citizenry..."
JF
Reader Comments (9) - post a comment