Thanks, Steve, for all you do!

That's great news. The battle rages on, and just the passage of time will make things ever harder for the administration. They're trying to keep way too many juggling balls in the air.

And the public is catching on to their juggling act.

The Democrats should still demand the NSA intercepts and other documents. The White House will try to frame voting against Bolton as a vote against UN reform, and try to pick up 6 or 7 Democrat votes.

I'm with Doug. Although this originally was about Bolton's lack of qualifications for the job it has morphed into something much bigger. There must be some really damning evidence in the NSA intercepts.

thanks for pulling back the floorboards on bolton and his nomination - this is just another in a long list of cheney's mistakes.

were bolton to be appointed, can you imagine the SOB going to the UN and asking for help from the rest of the world were the US to be hit by catastrophic terrorism in the future - and getting any response other than a collective "you asked for it..." ?

Given the White House's typical strategy of (a) sanctimonious soundbite + (b) repetitious ad hominem attack, we can see how this will unfold: the White House will put themselves in the position of UN lovers while attack the Democrats as against UN reform.

This is a precarious position -- not only will they alienate the John Bircher base, but if Democrats don't let the White House define them, this Bolton strategy will weaken and collapse just like every previous Bolton strategy so far.

It stands to reason that Senate Democrats and moderate Republicans are a natural coalition for genuine UN reform -- and the idea that John Bolton has a role to play in 'fixing by breaking' is laughable.

Bolton's historic bureaucratic strategy is to 'fix by breaking,' that's what he did to the ABM, it's what he did to Nunn-Lugar, it's what he did to the intelligence process, it's what he did to US-North Korea talks, it's what he tried to do to US-UK-Libya talks, and the idea that it's what he won't do at the United Nations is a crock.

The Bolton nomination didn't gain much traction among Republican voters. The GOP may have decided that there is more support for UN reform than for Bolton himself, and they'll try to combine the 2 as a package. Bolton isn't too popular with mainstream Republicans; veterans don't appreciate his insubordination towards Powell, while women don't like the bullying.

Any thought if l'affaire Bolton is nothing more than sideshow to keep everyone's attention away from a situation more damaging to the administration? Like the Plamegate or ???

Cheers,
MEC

There's something wrong with this picture. Bush is down in the polls, the war is going badly, his speech caused massive eye rolling and even fellow republicans are starting to turn (albeit politely) on him. So why is he beating up badly needed allies in the Senate with this Bolton thing?

Something's not right here.

There's Just Gotta be a Conspiracy!

Great job with this, Steve - as usual. I've just posted a new entry on this, and have coopted Bush's old mantra: "Bring it on." We're ready to respond to anything they let fly at us with this, and we can only hope they don't chicken out now and do a recess appointment. Where's the fun in that? Let's keep talking about it for a few more weeks, see if they can reverse the downward spiral of support.

I think they can't; they're running scared. No let-up from us now, let's all keep the pressure on.

The Democrats should still demand the NSA intercepts and other documents.

Almost correct: the Republicans should still demand the NSA intercepts and other documents. (And the Democrats shouldn't allow them to take "no" for an answer.)

"There's something wrong with this picture. Bush is down in the polls, the war is going badly, his speech caused massive eye rolling ... Something's not right here."

The "something" that is "not right" is your vision of Bush's politics as rational and fair-minded.

Bush is neither of these.
And a recess appointment will not satisfy him--because quite frankly--, Bush likes to win his battles with a metaphorical punch to the face.

Running Bolton through a back door does not mollify his sense of spite.

Like it or not, when thinking about Bush you must always remember he is a mean little prick with a huge chip on his shoulder.

Deep down inside he knows he has never earned a damn thing in life (neither his money, his education, nor his name)--and so he is forever attempting to body-slam every political opponent to prove his manhood.

No-- this bristling bully won't run Bolton through the back door. (Until he has exhausted all other possiblities.)

That little boy voice deep inside him keeps saying over and again: I'm a man. I'm a man. I'm a man.

Thus we have a president who is hostile to the outside world because he feels so small within his inner world.

That's the very anatomy of a bully.
And that's what is in charge of your country.

Somehow, a vastly inferior man has risen to the most superior political position on the planet.

So expect continued hostility and irrationality towards all who oppose him.

It may not be readily apparent to you, or Steve, or anyone reading my words, but I maintain history will show Bush to be a deeply troubled man, and a deeply unhappy one.

In other words, the guy is basically mentally ill.
He's a wacko.
Believe it.

Steve:

Your work here has been so inspiring to us all ... I,for one (life-long pessimitic cynic) have taken from your formidable, thoughtful, EFFECTIVE work some small measure of hope. I cannot ever dream of achieving the level of 98% of your commenters (whom I wish to compliment as well), but I send you heartfelt deepest gratitude from the tongue-tied, yet FULLY aware, among your readers.

PanD

All the comments are both right and wrong.

The appointment of Bolton will happen the minute the Bush malAdministration wants a situation of "chaos" to begin and prevail. That is how Bush survives as nothing is discernible in that situation.

koreyel-

Regarding the psycho-analyzing of Herr Bush: I appreciate your comments. I have a clinical background myself professionally. I agree with most everything you say...I don't agree with the mental illness or actually with the unhappiness, in his own world. What he is, is a fundamentalist, and that goes along way to understanding him. He's not a politician; he can't stand the tension required to tolerate opposing views while the best answer percolates to the top. The only thing he knows is to impose, to impose his views, and that is not leadership. He is the opposite of leadership. Small inner world, absolutely. How painful the lack of character in his family when his daughters took the national spotlight and showed the world what they had inside....Before 9/11 he was rapidly headed for a nervous breakdown as President...he has absolutely none of the requirements as noted. But that event was the fundamentalist dream he needed to organize his world and give it meaning. Good vs. evil. Simple. I feel he takes no pleasure in this job and can't wait to be done with it in his heart. He is other people's President, Cheney, Rove, etc. not his own. He's in so far over his head, and knows it at some level, and who hasn't had that feeling....

Keep up the good work!

And while you're at it, why not apply for the job yourself? Visit www.stopbolton.org to send a message that you would be a better choice than Bolton (anyone would).

Paul

adding to the possibilities offered by mec and vachon, the WH mafia is waiting for Rhenquist's retirement announcement. Anticipating rejection of their Chief Justice nomination, the PR rhetoric will stir up the fundamentalists in a tizzy screaming about the obstinate Democrats. and imagine how that will play out, combining that with UN reform?

outlawred -- I have to say I disagree with some of what you conjecture about Dubya's psyche.

I think he has a mental illness, but not an affective disorder, instead it's something more thoroughgoing and next to impossible to treat -- a personality disorder. I believe he's a sociopath.

There are a number of clues to this condition in his history. As a child, one of his favorite things to do was to catch frogs, insert firecrackers into their mouths, light the firecrackers, and toss them into the air to watch the frogs explode. He found this extremely "funny." This was reported on in serious newspapers, in interviews with childhood friends of his back when it first became known he would campaign for president.

Then when he was an undergraduate student at Yale, he got into trouble with the school, trouble which was even reported in the New York Times (because his father was a congressman in those years). I read the article, which is still available in their archives. Dubya came under scrutiny by university officials for what he did to pledges in his fraternity -- out of metal hangers he fashioned a "brand," heated this device to a white-hot temperature in a fireplace, and "branded" blindfolded, unwitting pledges on their bare backs. There are ex-pledges from Yale who today still have the scars to prove it. This was (rightly) considered quite shocking behavior at the time. At least one of the pledges had to be talked out of filing charges with the police.

One of his professors in graduate business school has stated that Dubya found the plight of the poor in this world to be "ridiculous" and unworthy of anyone's attention.

During W's first term in the WH there was an academic (whose name escapes me at the moment) who was contracted to write a "humorous" book on how Dubya mangles the English language. To do research, he assembled a huge collection of video recordings of all sorts of public speaking events featuring Dubya. Very quickly into the research, this academic discovered something which sent a chill down his spine: whenever GWB speaks about topics requiring empathy and "compassion," he becomes remarkably incoherent. But conversely, when he discusses topics related to destruction, death, chaos and mayhem, capital punishment, revenge, physical suffering of all sorts, he switches into a mode of speech which is much, much more animated and fluent and coherent.

This researcher quickly changed the direction of his study, and instead put forth the argument that the President of the United States is deeply, deeply sadistic, and most likely a full-fledged sociopath, incapable of any empathy or sympathy for others. He merely "pretends" to feel those things.

I agree with that assessment. It also explains his body language, and his attitudes, and his "sense of humor" quite well.

Pray tell Mrs. K8, give us the links and or references to the studies and articles you mention.

Since we're on the topic of GW's psyche, I will pass this along. They are comments from yesterday's Dow Theory Letter which is written by Richard Russell. He is a very respected market watcher and has been in the business since the 50's. You can check his site here:

http://www.dowtheoryletters.com/dtlol.nsf

I personally think he is pretty spot on:

My old friend, Elliott Janeway (former business editor of Time magazine) once told me, "Dick, when the President of the United States is in trouble, the nation is in trouble and the stock market is in trouble." I never forgot Elliott's warnings.

I know a lot of my subscribers are Bush fans, and they don't want me to talk about politics or the President. But the presidency has a lot to do with the economy and the future of the US, so my view of this President might be worth something.

To begin, I believe that George Bush Jr. has very mixed feelings about his father. Look, his dad was a genuine WW II hero. But his father didn't go after Saddam when he could have. I think Jr. was obsessed with becoming "a man" in the eyes of his father and the world.

Bush Jr. decided that he was going to do what his dad failed to do. Furthermore, I remember that Jr. complained, "Saddam tried to kill my father." Bush was bent on outdoing his war-hero dad by getting rid of Saddam.

Furthermore, I firmly believe that Bush Jr. was intent on being remembered as "a war president." I believe that Bush planned for months on attacking Iraq, and his rationale for the attack would be that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. When it turned out that this was baloney information, Bush decided that he could put in the public's mind that Iraq was somehow connected to 9/11 and therefore a danger to the US.

We're dealing with an obsessional President who was first an alcoholic and then a born-again Christian. I believe Bush is very insecure. I think Bush is basically smart, but very neurotic -- with an inability to think clearly and rationally. Bush is chronically afraid of being wrong or even admitting that he's wrong. Bush states openly that he gets his inspirations directly from God. "Gold told me to do it," he says of the war in Iraq. God can't be wrong, so if Bush gets his inspirations from God, then it follows that Bush can't be wrong.

Bush claims that he doesn't read any newspapers. I find that weird. Of course, newspapers offer many different opinions, even conservative newspapers do. I think Bush is fearful of reading opinions that even mildly question his own.

My own instinct is to think that Bush's second term in the presidency will end badly. The nation is being led by an insecure neurotic, a man obsessed with outdoing his father. To my mind, it's a scary situation. I just don't see how it can end well, I really don't.

I find it significant, by the way, that we never hear anything from Bush Sr. Why is the ex-President so silent? Ex-Presidents tend to have a lot of power and a wide audience. Don't fathers tend to boast about their son's "accomplishments"?

I, too, have a background in psychotherapy. I recently posted this comment on TPM Cafe about our current president's speech earlier this week:

"In order to understand tonight's speech, it might be helpful to understand this administration's motivation to extend the war to Iraq after Afghanistan. Picture the Junior High kid (Dubya) on the schoolground who's been kicked by one of school's most rebellious bullies (Al Qaeda). The kid at first goes after the bully, but changes his mind. He attacks one of the bystanders cheering the bully on, because the bystander is a little third grader (Iraq) who's a cinch to knuckle under without much of a fight. But that doesn't take care of the bully; it just causes the bully and all his friends to go to the aid of the third grader. The fight gets exponentially bigger and more dangerous for everyone on the playground."

I find all this analysis of Bush's personality amusing. Why go to so much trouble figuring out Bush when it's Bush's Brain that's really running the show?

Here's how I see it. It's Rove who wants to win at all costs, and he's trying to use his preferred tactic of making allegations (this time of obstruction by Democrats) and letting them build over time until he has an advantage. But this hasn't worked, not least because the WH no longer has the credibility. The fallout from the Iraq war saw to that.

So I think it's basically correct that Rove's next move is to tie UN reform to the Bolton nomination in a package deal and then cry "Obstructionists!" again. That, or he's figuring that such a package somehow gives Reps skeptical of Bolton cover to confirm him. I think this effort will fail too because the WH has little credibility any more, especially when Dubya's approval rating is in the tank and moderate Reps are slowly coming out from under Bush's shadow to make names for themselves.

Jacob Matthan -- I agree with your chaos theory on how BushCo survives. I wish someone would design a multi-column website that would track the news and propaganda stories this crew drums up to keep our collective head spinning. So much of their game seem based in our inability to keep our eyes on all the balls in the air at one time.

Steve, are you of the belief that, regardless of what happens to Bolton, the Dems and mod Repubs will still continue to ask for the documents (spy intercepts, Syria-WMD, Matthew Freedman) to which they are entitled to as a matter of principle?

I also agree with Vachon:
"There's something wrong with this picture....
Something's not right here."

I also have a feeling that Bolton, the Val Plame issue, and the truth found in the Downing Street Memos and minutes are all repadly coming to together to reveal: a) a coverup to destroy Joe Wilson, and 2) the bad intel spread by the Office of Special Plans and Doug Feith.

Since BushCo does it dirtiest work in the summer, I wouldnt be surprise if Bushco has plans to "let" another 9/11 disaster happen again.
This event would enable them to completely change the landscape and circumstances again: Poll numbers will change, false patriotism runs wild, and UN reform AND Bolton get lost, while Bushco and Bolton continue their march thru Countries/Markets in the middle east.

With three years left, Bush needs a hail mary pass from somewhere to shake it up.

Bush is sliding so fast on every issue

Yeah, and Sandra Day O'Connor just retired.

ok, off-topic: weren't the rest of the Abu Ghraib photos supposed to be released by yesterday? Or should we expect a patented Friday Night Document Dump tonight?

THANK YOU STEVE FOR ALL THAT YOU DO.

AS A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, I FEEL THAT WE ARE SOMETIMES LEFT OUT IN THE COLD AND THE PUBLIC IS LEFT WONDERING WHAT WE DO.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK AT THE NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION. THANK YOU ALSO FOR YOUR WORK WITH PETER BERGEN. THE TWO OF YOU MAKE AN EXCELLENT TEAM. I HOPE THEIR WILL BE ANOTHER SEMINAR SUCH AS THE ONE LAST DECEMBER ON CSPAN WITH YOUR DISTINUGISHED PANEL.

Yes, O'Connor retirement just announced. But as CS said, need to overcome inability to KEEP OUR EYES ON THE BALL!

Rove & BushCo spinmeisters will do everything to detract. Stay focused.

GET THE DOCS TO CONNNECT THE DOTS...NSA Intercepts...Syria-WMD...M.Freedman...OSP-Feith...Plame Notes...etc...etc...etc.

Are things starting to unravel? Time will tell...

Now back to more news on SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR.

For the person who requested citations on the incidents I mentioned:

Regarding the "branding" incident:

New York Times, November 8, 1967 article "Branding Rite Laid to Yale Fraternity"

and

Yale Daily News, "No Intervention for Fraternities," by Jonathan Lear, November 7, 1967

Sorry to say I won't have time over this holiday weekend (which begins for me and my husband NOW) to dig up the other citations on the other incident and linguistic analysis. I'll try to track them down ASAP, but it may not be for several days.

Let me take this opportunity to wish Steve and all the other excellent posters here a wonderful Fourth of July! Let's meditate on "The Declaration of Independence" and what it meant and still means for Americans to reject out of hand any sort of "imperial executive."

Mrs. K8 NYT reference can be found at http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/87373003.html?did=87373003&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=Nov+8%2C+1967&author=&pub=New+York+Times++(1857-Current+file)&desc=BRANDING+RITE+LAID+TO+YALE+FRATERNITY

You will have to purchase the article to view it.

"Pray tell Mrs. K8, give us the links and or references to the studies and articles you mention."

I can't speak for Mrs. K8, but this book is interesting:

Bush on the Couch

by Justin A. Frank