WP: No Progress on Bolton Effort (Nomination May Be Losing Ground)

[kskiska]

Nomination May Be Losing Ground, Key Democrat Warns

A key Democratic senator warned yesterday that the Bush administration may be losing ground in its bid to confirm John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, as the White House continued to rebuff Democrats' request for documents related to the nominee.

Senate GOP leaders, acknowledging no apparent progress on Bolton, said they will call for another vote to end debate in a renewed effort to portray Democrats as obstructionists, probably this week. But one of the three Democrats who sided with them on an unsuccessful "cloture" vote on May 26, Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.), said he may abandon the Republicans, leaving them farther from their goal than they were three weeks ago.

If Democrats "continue being reasonable and the White House won't provide the information, I want to reserve the right to change my vote," Pryor told reporters.

Some Republican lawmakers expressed dismay that the effort to confirm Bolton, an outspoken conservative who has sharply criticized the United Nations, remains so difficult. Critics have cited his beratings of State Department subordinates who differed with him, but the most recent sticking point has involved Democratic requests for documents concerning Bolton's work activities.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401462.html

[Hand]

1. Good!

After the judicial rollover, it's time to quit being "reasonable" about this. Bolton is a fucking violent psychotic and needs to be bitch-slapped out of the running.

Of course, there are plenty of others about whom I could say the same, and some of them are now on the federal bar for life... :grr:

[xray s]

2. As usual, the WP glosses over the real story.

"Critics have cited his beratings of State Department subordinates who differed with him, but the most recent sticking point has involved Democratic requests for documents concerning Bolton's work activities."

Does anyone think the reason Voinovich was crying about the danger of allowing Bolton to go to the UN was he might yell at his employees?

[woodsprite]

3. No, I think with Bolton in their, the threat of nuke attack goes way up.

[acmavm]

5. That's because the Washinton Post is a piece of shit written by hacks

and whores. No one can hold a conversation with anyone from that paper because you can't understand a word any of them say. That's because it's hard to talk plainly while having your lips firmly planted on bush**s ass.

[getmeouttahere]

4. Dammit, Dems need to stand firm on this fu**er!!!

they've already been dry-fu**ed on the judicial noms, they need to stand up and tell the repugs to shove their Bolton!

Sorry, this is an especially sore issue for me. We may not be able to save the U.S. from more BushCo bullshit, but we can certainly spare the UN and the world from this asshat!!!

[Ouabache]

6. I think Bolton's NSA intercepts involved Plame and Wilson

I thnk it is so obvious, since the NSA, State, and the White House won't turn over the records. We know some of the records involve him asking for NSA intercepts of various people, and for some reason these are 'radioactive' for the adminsistration to release. It seems to me that the only reason this could be so is that they involve Plame, Wilson, and/or someone high in the pecking order like even possibly - Powell.

He would come out a traitor if it involved Plame, don't you think, and so would whomever enabled his little peek at those.

[grytpype]

7. Hahahahaha!

Way to lead, Duhbya! You can't even get a UN ambassador confirmed, you nitwit! Hahahahahaa!

[Edgewater_Joe]

8. Yet Another Embarassment For Joe Biden (D-Nutless)

Remember when he was on Stephanopolaopolous before he girl-slapped Dean that he was convinced the Bolton nomination couldn't be stopped?

What a dimwit.

[FormerOstrich]

9. Here is some additional nuggets of information

about Mr. Bolton. I posted this a week or so ago (emphasis are mine). Here is the link to the original thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1530292


....snip

"We're willing to lift our objections under certain conditions," one of the officials said. "Namely, get tougher on Iran."

The Bush administration's vigorous but solitary campaign -- including a complete halt of intelligence sharing, recruitment of potential replacements and eavesdropping on ElBaradei in search of ammunition against him -- won not a single ally on the IAEA board.

ElBaradei, who repeatedly challenged U.S. assertions about Iraq's weapons programs, does not need Washington's backing to be reappointed. He is supported by the 34 other countries on the IAEA board.

....snip

Bolton was the driving force behind efforts to oust ElBaradei -- whose stance on Iraq and cautious approach on Iran put him deeply at odds with the White House. But Bolton's efforts ran into trouble in December after revelations that U.S. officials were culling intercepts of ElBaradei's phone conversations for material to use against him.

....snip

Publicly, the administration has said its efforts to remove ElBaradei were motivated solely by a desire to see U.N. executives adopt term limits. "Our feeling on the director general is that we support the long-standing policy of two terms for director generals," Bolton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April when it was reviewing his nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations. "That's been the policy. Currently, there are no candidates to oppose him, so we'll have to see how that policy plays out," he said.

But many allies viewed the campaign as retaliation against someone who questioned U.S. intelligence on Iraq and was vindicated when no weapons of mass destruction were found.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8135142/

[teryang]

10. The longer jackass Bolton is in the news the better

The man is a walking diaster area. I don't care whether he gets confirmed or not. I hope this controversy drags on and on.