This is experimental and being provided at the request of those who actively support TWN. Stay on the high road.

Impress me.

-- Steve Clemons

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 Conference

Thank 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

I have stated before that Senator Hagel would be one of the few U.S. Senators whom I could support in a race for the presidency. But lately, he seems to be determined to shake off those of us who look at him as one of the best hopes for a renewed, enlightened American engagement in world affairs.

Chuck Hagel is failing to cut what should be an admirable profile in his role on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The foreign policy interests he brings to the table are supposed to be one of his fundamental strong suits -- but he is allowing himself to be rolled by 'pugnacious isolationist-nationalists' in the White House and is doing little to maintain an integrity about his decisions on Bolton.

Whereas Hagel was one of the first to articulate serious concerns about Bolton's behavior and say that if any other news emerged about him, Hagel's support would be in jeapordy -- Hagel has nonetheless remained supportive of Bolton despite a long line of disturbing revelations, particularly his active role in attempting to undermine Colin Powell before key meetings.

I have recently met several "high net worth" Republicans in Northeastern states who played active chair and co-chair roles in both Bush-Cheney campaigns, and they have reported to TWN that they are losing hope in a Hagel presidential effort.

Their roster of reasons is interesting. Several of the people with whom I met have had one-on-one or small group meetings with Chuck Hagel.

First, they say that Hagel spends a lot of time thinking about running, discussing the possibility, pondering options -- but has done little to hire personnel or to organize the huge fundraising effort required to mount a credible campaign.

Second, they report that he has a record of asking all the right questions about important foreign policy matters -- but then never carves out a real leadership role to differentiate his wing of the party from that of the Cheney-Bolton wing.

They suggest that although he asked many of the key, insightful questions about the challenges that the Iraq War and aftermath would bring, he nonetheless fully signed on board with the White House's questionable Iraq venture. Full stop.

On John Bolton, they argue that there could be no better a fight for Hagel to wage than one on this disappointing nomination. Getting Bolton to the U.N. is not a high level priority of the White House –- so Hagel could have shored up his foreign policy credentials by demanding better choices when it comes to representing America's interests without alienating the White House too seriously.

The distance between the Cheney position and potential Hagel position on Bolton would have tethered him to a wing of Republicans who very much want to see evidence that he not only occasionally "sounds" like a leader -- but is one in deed.

I think that there is still a chance for Hagel to understand why the vote on Bolton has morphed into something far greater than a vote on "Bolton the person". It has become a test of leadership and vision for the nation. The Bolton vote is consequential across the board, and a vote for Bolton will only further alienate potential Republican support for Hagel that already doubts the seriousness of his presidential aspirations.

There is time for Hagel to shift, but thus far, there is little evidence other than some whispers here and there that Hagel is thinking of shifting course on Bolton and voting NO on him.

TWN will believe that when he out-Voinoviches Voinovich instead of trying (unsuccessfully) to out-Frist Frist.

The following is a letter prepared on May 19th from Senator Hagel to Ambassador Robert White. At the end, he states unequivocally that he will vote for Bolton.

Senator, please change your mind. Be a leader. Reconnect with those who think you are one of the best hopes for your party.

Chuck Hagel -- Nebraska

248 Russell Senate Office Building, United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510-2705

May 19, 2005

Ambassador Robert E. White
President
Center for International Policy
1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 801
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Ambassador White:

Thanks for your letter regarding my speech at the National Press Club and the nomination of John Bolton to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. I appreciate hearing from you.

I share your belief regarding the importance of this position. Over the course of several weeks, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee conducted a very deliberate examination of the concerns, many of which you raise, regarding John Bolton's nomination. I supported this process.

When I met with Mr. Bolton, I told him that protecting U.S. interests and pursuing our objectives depend more than ever on the strength of our relationships. He assured me that he will work hard to strengthen our alliances and carry out the President's policies in representing the interests of the United States at the United Nations.

Based on what I have seen and heard, I voted to send Mr. Bolton’s nomination to the Senate floor without recommendation. The Senate leadership is expected to schedule a full Senate vote in the coming weeks. I will vote for Mr. Bolton.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Chuck H. (signed personally)

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

I have linked this great piece of Boltonesque art previously -- but I feel like doing it again this morning.

I hope one of my regular readers in the White House will share this with Vice President Cheney this morning.

Here is the link.

-- Steve Clemons

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

Well, it's early in the day -- and there is always the chance that trolls will distort the poll (at bottom of page) that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is running, but at this point -- it is not distorted.

The paper asks:

Are nominations as U.N. ambassador important enough to merit a filibuster in the Senate?

12.9% No, the ambassador represents the country but doesn't determine policy.

31.5% No, not under normal circumstances. But the administration should give senators documents they want.

54.5% Yes, if the nominee is unqualified.

1.1% Not sure or don't care.

Total Votes: 178

While only a couple of hundred votes, the trends are interesting.

More than a majority believe that a nominee to the U.N. Ambassadorship IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH to be filibustered if unqualified or unfit for the post.

And on top of that 31% think that while the position is not important enough "under normal circumstances" to be blocked by filibuster -- the respondents clarify that the administration should provide the Senate-requested materials and evidence on Bolton. They thus imply that this is not a 'normal circumstance.'

TWN thinks that the editors of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer try a second draft of an otherwise decent editorial.

But yielding on important principles at the heart of the system of checks and balances in our government is not a good thing for important players in America's civil society establishment to be doing.

-- Steve Clemons

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer ran a thoughtful editorial today titled "United Nations: Divulge Bolton Dossier" that I agreed with until I got to the very end.

Here is an excerpt with which TWN concurs:

The Bush administration has been excessively secretive with Congress and the public. Documents detailing Bolton's State Department advice on congressional testimony about Syria are germane to understanding how he might conduct himself at the United Nations. And it's disrespectful for the administration to withhold from senators intelligence information Bolton received as an undersecretary of state.

We believe that Bolton should be rejected as unqualified. As Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich has argued, the United States can do better, much better.

But here is the part that gets my dander up:

But the U.N. ambassadorship is not important enough, in itself, to filibuster Bolton's nomination indefinitely.

Even without more information, Democrats should still consider allowing Bolton to receive a final vote. If Democrats want to filibuster the nomination after the recess, they will have a duty to explain clearly why the information is vital enough to refuse a vote.

Excuse me?!

The Democrats have made reasonable requests for various forms of evidence from the administration -- which has arbitrarily decided not to fulfill the requests.

Bolton's nomination to serve as America's Ambassador to the U.N. is controversial. The nomination proceeded to the floor of the U.S. Senate WITHOUT recommendation. Bolton's behavior has been reckless. There is concern that he was constantly engaged in efforts to try and undermine some of the more delicate diplomatic efforts directed by Richard Armitage and Colin Powell.

The evidence requests are NOT trivial. They have direct bearing on the objectives and administrative behavior and responsibilities of John Bolton.

The reason to hold up John Bolton's nomination indefinitely -- and I mean indefinitely -- is that the White House is engaged in calloused disregard for the operating procedures of government.

Bolton's nomination IS indeed worth blocking until the White House concedes on the evidence documents -- because the battle is no longer over just John Bolton. The battle is about the relative weight of what are supposedly equal branches of government.

The editors at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer make all the right sounds at the beginning of their good piece, and then want to concede defeat to a White House that thinks that the Dems don't have staying power to hold the line on the document requests.

The bottom line is that John McCain has joined the Dems call for requests. Richard Lugar was the person most defied by the White House as he too called for these materials. John Thune, Mary Landrieu, and Mark Pryor have all communicated their intention to oppose Bolton.

Thus, ever since the Thursday night surprise -- the position of those who stopped progress on the Bolton nomination has improved. Why are the editors at this great paper so willing to throw in the towel now?

The fact is that John Bolton will NOT get an up-down vote until the White House respects and complies with the legitimate Congressional information requests that have been made with respect to John Bolton's record.

If the White House fails to yield, then John Bolton will be in permanent limbo.

Editors -- stop conceding defeat when the battle is under way and we are actually gaining ground in securing important principles in the way our government is supposed to operate.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

There is a great stable of folks who have joined up as coffee house chatterers on Josh Marshall's new venture, TPM Cafe. I'm one of the cuprits.

The new site will be up for public access tomorrow -- but we are already debating one another over religion, John Bolton, political tactics, and whatever we get wound up about.

Here is a piece I posted yesterday but wanted to share here as well:

TPMCafe.com, 29 March 2005

Declaring Victory No Matter Whether One is Winning or Losing

by Steve Clemons

I am in Chestertown, Maryland this weekend and while driving down lots of old corn and tobacco plantation roads looking for a dock where friends were tinkering with a tiny sailboat, I discovered St. Paul's Church and its old cemetery.

Tallulah Bankhead is buried there, and I paid my respects. She was a great star from the past, flamboyant about her sexual escapades, ready to take on any bland convention and provoke some memorable conflagration over it. Her grandfather and dad were Senators, and she had politics on her mind and in her blood.

My hunch is that if Tallulah were around today, we'd be working together to try and undo George Bush's wannabe monarchy. She'd be bold -- declaring victory in the worst of odds. She'd stand in stark contrast to many of the leading progressive pundits and pols today who seem genetically predisposed to conceding defeat before the battle had even started.

This has been the case in the battle over John Bolton's nomination to the U.N. which I have been leading part of the charge against at my blog, The Washington Note.

Senator Richard Durbin, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, comedian and political strategist James Carville, and several high placed "off the record" commentators in Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid's office have all stated at various times in the process that John Bolton would get confirmed. But that was about five iterations back in the process -- and since, Durbin has retracted his statement, Richardson recommended that I "stop biting" my friends but still stepped back from what he said, and others have watched in awe as Democrats and Republicans with a conscience have turned the supposedly "slam-dunk" Bolton nomination into the story that won't stop giving.

Unless the White House concedes to Senator Biden, Dodd, and others who have made "evidence requests" of the administration regarding Bolton, his nomination will remain in limbo. Very few imagined such an outcome would be possible. Most thought Bolton was an obscure bureaucrat pursuing a job few Americans cared about.

John Bolton has now become a household name -- and people do seem to think that the U.S. should be sending someone to the U.N. who has imeccable credentials and of whom Americans can feel proud. That is not John Bolton.

Dems need to wake up. The brilliance of the first four years of the Bush White House is that Bush and Rove behaved as if they had won the contested and close election with an 80% mandate. Democrats collapsed.

It's time to turn the tables. Democrats -- and moderate Republicans frankly -- need to start working on their atrophied muscles of political activism and "push back" and begin competing not just for control of the political process but also over the ideas and vision that will drive the nation forward.

It's time to be tenacious and stop yielding to Republicans, who have been all too good at declaring victory even when they are losing -- while too many Dems believe their line.

So, tomorrow -- check out TPM Cafe.

-- Steve Clemons

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

Senator Lieberman voted correctly -- against cloture -- on Thursday and Senator Collins did not.

She underestimated the slippery slope of undermining principle and the Senate's position vis-a-vis the White House.

Now she wants documents from the administration -- but she was missing in action when it came to the Senate oversight responsibilities in the John Bolton nomination. Shame on her.

She has time to modify her stance on Bolton and the documentation issue -- but otherwise her own self-contradicting stances undermine her position and the interests of her constituents on base closings in Maine.

Here is the latest in a CNN piece:

Two senators from New England have sent a letter to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld demanding the release of documents on proposed military base closures.

In a statement Saturday, Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Joseph Lieberman, D-Connecticut, said the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs would subpoena the documents if necessary, including e-mails, memos, handwritten notes and telephone logs.

Collins is chairwoman of the committee, while Lieberman is the ranking member.

The senators represent states "disproportionately affected" by the proposed changes announced this month, their statement said.

It's always hard to make a case on principle, Senator Collins, when you didn't stand by them before. . .

-- Steve Clemons

TWN is trying to assess how firm White House resolve is that it will not concede on the NSA documents and "other" evidence requests, particularly the material Senators Biden, Dodd, and Lugar requested on Syria policy.

This is the line the White House press office is feeding the press:

"John Bolton enjoys majority [Senate] support, and it's a shame that Democrats are stopping a vote," said Erin Healy, a White House spokeswoman. "This is about partisan politics, not documents."

By the time opponents are done, I think that the chorus of Republican opposition will increase against Bolton and the White House is losing ground -- incremental as it may be -- at every single step in the Bolton process. In the end, I think he can be beaten on a floor vote -- but not yet.

The White House was stunned by the action on Thursday night, again completely caught off guard as its legislative team has been at most stages of the Bolton Battle.

Bolton's nomination is dead if the administration does not concede on the documents. The only other option is a recess appointment, which is the President's right, but even the veneer of respectability for Bolton will not be possible then if he takes the Ambassadorship.

Stay tuned.

-- Steve Clemons

Either the White House will have to concede on the principle that the Senate can ask for whatever documents it wants, other than those protected by Executive Privilege or John Bolton's nomination will languish indefinitely.

John McCain joined the chorus of those opposed to the White House position -- though still expressing support for Bolton.

This from the New York Times:

One of John Bolton's leading Republican backers, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, signaled his support on Friday for a compromise in which the White House might allow Senate leaders access to highly classified documents in return for a final vote on Bolton's nomination as U.N. ambassador early next month.

But the White House showed no sign that the administration might change course.

"The Democrats who are clamoring for this have already voted against John Bolton," said Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman. "This is about partisan politics, not documents. They have the information they need."

McCain reiterated support for Bolton on Fox News. Senators calling on the administration to share the documents "have some substance to their argument," McCain said.

Scott McClellan's job description does not include making arbitrary decisions about what documents the Senators can have -- and which they cannot.

McClellan also needs to be reminded that the White House stiffed the REPUBLICAN CHAIRMAN of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar, on the evidence requests he made of the administration.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

This just in from Senator Landrieu's office:

Sen. Landrieu Statement on the Nomination of John Bolton

WASHINGTON -- The following is a statement by U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu, D-La., regarding the nomination of John Bolton as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations:

Sen. Landrieu said:

"As member after member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee shed light on some very troubling aspects of John Bolton's relationships with his peers and subordinates, it became increasingly clear to me that he may very well be the wrong choice for this important post. However, he is President Bush's choice. At a time when international cooperation is more essential than at perhaps any other time in recent memory, it is indeed unfortunate that the president would select a nominee that scores of former diplomats have petitioned this body not to confirm.

"Now is the time when America must reach out and strengthen its relationships with other nations -- not choose as its Ambassador a man who not only once refused to even acknowledge the body in which he is nominated to serve, but who is also alleged to have jeopardized peace talks through his own inflammatory remarks. Further, his total disregard for international institutions raises concerns that he does not grasp the spirit in which lasting peace is achieved.

"In light of this pattern of poor judgment and inappropriate behavior, I intend to vote against his confirmation as Ambassador to the United Nations. But while I share the concerns of many of my colleagues regarding the White House's refusal to share documents relating to his alleged mishandling of intelligence information, I believe the debate on Mr. Bolton's nomination has been thorough and complete. It is time for it to come to an end. As such, I voted tonight for cloture on his nomination."

Tick tock. Tick tock. Time is on our side in this battle.

-- Steve Clemons

Senator Feinstein offered an excellent floor statement opposing John Bolton yesterday -- and voted against cloture on Bolton, which to many of us working this was a much needed and much appreciated surprise. Everyone should thank her -- and frankly, everyone should thank Sentor Lieberman.

Here is the opening to the Feinstein statement which I will post in full at this link:

Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the nomination of John Bolton to be the next United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Simply put, he is the wrong man at the wrong time for what is an important and critical position.

At a time when the reputation of the United States is at an all time low in many parts of the world and our military is stretched thin, we need a representative at the United Nations who can engage and work with our friends and allies to forge multilateral solutions on: the War on Terror, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, global poverty, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and global warming just to name a few. Yet, throughout his career, John Bolton has demonstrated an unrestrained contempt for diplomacy and international treaties.

In a letter to Senator Richard Lugar, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, 102 former American diplomats representing both Democratic and Republican Administrations urged the Committee to reject Mr. Bolton's nomination because of his exceptional record of opposition to efforts to enhance U.S. security through arms control.

The letter notes that Mr. Bolton:

~ Led the effort against ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;

~ Blocked a more robust international agreement to curb the proliferation of small arms;

~ Led the effort to block the Ottawa Landmine Treaty;

~ Led the effort to have the United States withdraw from negotiations to formulate a verification system for the Biological Weapons Convention and;

~ Led the campaign to have the U.S. withdraw from the ABM Treaty.

What sort of message do we send to our friends and allies by nominating an ideologue and not a consensus builder for this leading post at the United Nations?

I, for one, am unaware of another nominee to an international body who has garnered so much opposition from individuals who have served on the front lines of American diplomacy.

Much progress made yesterday -- and more to do.

-- Steve Clemons

At least some parts of the media are getting the story right.

Here is an NPR segment that properly states that the Dems favor a vote on Bolton, which I now think we can win, if the White House yields on the evidence requests made previously.

-- Steve Clemons

While the Senate and White House do battle over whether the administration can defy evidence requests by the Senate, those opposed to John Bolton's nomination can work to remind Senators uncomfortable with but still supporting him why this nominee must be withdrawn.

More later on what all this means -- but a slight nudge to the media:

Who was the State Department official who Bolton sought out to commend after reading the NSA intercepts?

Why would Bolton do such a thing? Was he recruiting someone inside State to be part of his anti-Armitage/Powell network?

Why won't Bolton just tell us and come clean on who this person is?

What more have we not learned about these NSA intercepts?

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Defectors were Landrieu, Ben Nelson, and Mark Pryor.

More -- lots more -- on them later.

Senators Lieberman and Feinstein -- THANK YOU.

Senators Biden, Boxer, Sarbanes, Rockefeller, Dodd, Obama, Levin, and many others -- THANK YOU TOO.

Senator Voinovich, you continue to be ferociously independent -- and though you voted for cloture, your leadership otherwise is appreciated.

Senator Reid -- STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR WHAT HAPPENED.

The "issue here" is the Constitutional responsibilities of the Senate to provided advise and consent on Executive branch nominations.

More later. . .I need a drink.

Thanks to all of you for supporting this blog, flooding TWN with information and your thoughts. And thank you for your financial support in the new "paypal button" on the front of my homepage.

This is a victory...another one.

The media has been CONSTANTLY WRONG.

Ok...I am going for a drink. There is still room for faith in American democracy, the rights of the minority, and standing by principle.

John Bolton is NOT someone America can be proud of at the U.N. He is not someone of the sort of impeccable credentials, standing, and vision that we should be making our Ambassador in the convocation of nations in Turtle Bay on Manhattan.

More later....much, much, much more.

Thanks to all of you who have been supporting and helping this process.

-- Steve Clemons

We are waiting for the votes in the Senate requesting cloture on the matter of John Bolton's confirmation to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Democrats and some Republicans are voting against cloture -- not on the matter of Bolton but on the principle that the administration has not complied with Senate evidence requests about John Bolton's record.

The White House and Bill Frist need 60 votes to get cloture. If the Bolton proponents do get cloture, then there will be a second vote on Bolton's nomination right away.

If they fail to get cloture, then this process will extend until after the Memorial Day recess.

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs --- 56

Alexander (R-TN); Allard (R-CO); Allen (R-VA);
Bennett (R-UT); Bond (R-MO); Brownback (R-KS);
Bunning (R-KY); Burns (R-MT); Burr (R-NC);
Chafee (R-RI); Chambliss (R-GA); Coburn (R-OK);
Cochran (R-MS); Coleman (R-MN); Collins (R-ME);
Cornyn (R-TX); Craig (R-ID); Crapo (R-ID);
DeMint (R-SC); DeWine (R-OH); Dole (R-NC);
Domenici (R-NM); Ensign (R-NV); Enzi (R-WY);
Graham (R-SC); Grassley (R-IA); Gregg (R-NH);
Hagel (R-NE); Hatch (R-UT); Hutchison (R-TX),
Inhofe (R-OK); Isakson (R-GA); Kyl (R-AZ);
Landrieu (D-LA); Lott (R-MS); Lugar (R-IN); Martinez (R-FL); McCain (R-AZ); McConnell (R-KY);
Murkowski (R-AK); Nelson (D-NE); Pryor (D-AR);
Roberts (R-KS); Santorum (R-PA); Sessions (R-AL);
Shelby (R-AL); Smith (R-OR); Snowe (R-ME);
Stevens (R-AK); Sununu (R-NH); Talent (R-MO);
Thomas (R-WY); Thune (R-SD); Vitter (R-LA);
Voinovich (R-OH); Warner (R-VA)

NAYs --- 42

Akaka (D-HI); Baucus (D-MT); Bayh (D-IN);
Biden (D-DE); Bingaman (D-NM); Boxer (D-CA);
Byrd (D-WV); Cantwell (D-WA); Carper (D-DE);
Clinton (D-NY); Conrad (D-ND); Corzine (D-NJ);
Dayton (D-MN); Dodd (D-CT); Dorgan (D-ND);
Durbin (D-IL); Feingold (D-WI); Feinstein (D-CA);
Frist (R-TN); Harkin (D-IA); Jeffords (I-VT);
Johnson (D-SD); Kennedy (D-MA); Kerry (D-MA);
Kohl (D-WI); Lautenberg (D-NJ); Leahy (D-VT);
Levin (D-MI); Lieberman (D-CT); Lincoln (D-AR);
Mikulski (D-MD); Murray (D-WA); Nelson (D-FL);
Obama (D-IL); Reed (D-RI); Reid (D-NV);
Rockefeller (D-WV); Salazar (D-CO); Sarbanes (D-MD); Schumer (D-NY); Stabenow (D-MI);
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 2

Inouye (D-HI)
Specter (R-PA)

-- Steve Clemons

I just arrived back in Washington from New York.

Will we get more time to undo Bolton tonight and demand that the White House respect the Senate's constitutional responsibilites and powers?

Or will the Bolton Battle end? What does it mean that the White House wants such a damaged nominee to go to the United Nations on behalf of America's citizens? Will "Bolton Watch" start as of tomorrow?

Lots at stake here. . .

-- Steve Clemons

If Senators fail to defend the rights of their Chamber of Congress vis-a-vis the White House this evening, then they will have spotty luck in getting other "evidence requests" filled by the administration.

This story by Lolita C. Baldor on AP just broke reporting that a group of Senators now want the administration to provide ALL information related to base closing (BRAC) decisions.

From the AP report:

Senators scrambling to head off proposed military base closings in their states are pressing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to release all the data used to decide which facilities to shut down.

Nearly two dozen senators from Maine to Nevada signed a letter to Rumsfeld, saying they need to know how the Pentagon ranked the bases and determined their military value.

Governors from 14 states, meanwhile, sent a similar letter to President Bush Thursday asking him to direct Rumsfeld to release all the information and request a delay in the base closing process until the data is made available and there has been time for review.

Federal statute, said the governors, requires that the information be delivered no more than seven days after the list of proposed closings is released. The list was made public May 13.

Some of these same Senators think it's just fine that the administration not comply with the constitutional requirement that it provide the Senate-requested evidence and information on John Bolton, but not when it comes to base closures.

If the Senate starts yielding on principle, on the integrity of the institution, then there's a "slippery slope" towards a pathetic and impotent reality. And this is what the Cheney-Bolton White House crowd wants.

-- Steve Clemons

There is a diligent soul over at DailyKos posting segments of all of the Bolton speeches on the floor of the Senate. It's a great archive to have available for those of you who may have missed Voinovich, Levin, Boxer, or Biden yesterday -- or Senator Pat Robert's miserly response -- or Obama's fantastic speech today.

It's worth checking these out now that "Alias" is over for the season.

On another front -- I've mentioned this several times, but I am so tired of hearing that the "President deserves the team he wants." The constitutional responsibilities of the Senate include providing advise and consent to the White House -- because the White House sometimes gets decisions wrong. The President is not infallible and is not a monarch -- and this is a process that should be celebrated and robustly embraced.

Bolton is wrong for this U.N. Ambassadorship. Full stop. The Senate should tell this to the White House because national interests will be undermnined by this appointment.

I find it hilarious that even current White House official Elliot Abrams has apparently written to the President opposing the possible nomination of C. Boyden Gray to serve as America's Ambassador to the U.K. Other neocons -- the same ones pushing Bolton -- are knocking down Boyden Gray!

Double standards galore -- they are proliferating. More on this later. . .but just remember that what our Democracy is about is good public policy (or should be about) and that the next person that says that the "President deserves the team he wants" is angling for monarchy.

Enough of that. Make the case for Bolton -- and hear the case against him. That's what the Senate is for -- and it ought not to be timid of or fear that role.

-- Steve Clemons

Does it seem mind-boggling to anyone else that whereas the "Super 14" were so focused on preserving Senate institutions in the judicial case that they oddly seem to have little respect for that same issue in the Bolton matter?

Dianne Feinstein has actually said that she may support cloture on the Bolton nomination -- but vote against him. Ben Nelson has made similar soundings.

But the cloture vote is not about John Bolton; it is about the integrity of the Senate as an institution vs. the Executive Branch of government.

Read the "Dear Colleague" letter below by Senators Dodd and Biden making the case that this battle is now about the failure of the administration to supply information requested by the legislative branch of government.

Dianne Feinstein better figure out what principles she is fighting for. I remember when she was on the floor of the Senate petitioning my then-boss, Jeff Bingaman, to sign on to a charity postage stamp dedicated to breast cancer research. We were a bit worried that such efforts would lead to lots of "fad-funding" of illnesses and produce market failures in the more obscure or less well-visible diseases. I think we signed on anyway -- but Feinstein really pushed her colleagues on this important, but nonetheless pet project of hers.

Bolton is far bigger than that -- and the issues involved in his nomination and confirmation even greater than Bolton's appointment to the United Nations. Feinstein and other Dems better get off the notion that this is politics as usual and that America is not paying attention.

We are. This is a consequential vote.

Here is the Dodd/Biden letter which makes the case:

Dear Democratic Colleague:

We write to urge you to oppose cloture on the Bolton nomination tonight. We want to make clear that this is not a filibuster. It is a vote to protect the Senate's constitutional power to advise and consent to nominations.

For more than a month, we have been requesting two types of information from the Executive Branch. First, materials related to the preparation of congressional testimony on Syria and weapons of mass destruction that Mr. Bolton planned to give in July 2003 and ultimately gave that September. We think this will show Mr. Bolton's continued effort to exaggerate intelligence information. It may also show that he misled the Foreign Relations Committee when he told us that he was not personally involved in the preparation of the testimony. Second, information related to National Security Agency intercepts and the identity of U.S. persons on those intercepts.

During the past four years, Mr. Bolton requested the identity of U.S. persons on ten occasions. There may be nothing improper in this; or there may be something highly improper. But we won't know unless we see the very same information shown to Mr. Bolton. So far that has not occurred. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence were shown the intercepts, but not the identities of the U.S. persons.

In refusing to provide the information about the Syria testimony, the State Department has asserted that it does not believe that the request is "specifically tied to the issues being deliberated by the Committee." In other words, the Executive Branch is deciding what it thinks is relevant to the Senate's review. That's unacceptable. In the case of the NSA intercepts, no one in the Executive Branch has even tried to explain why the chairman and ranking member of the Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees are not allowed to see information that was made available to Mr. Bolton and even to his staff. That, too, is unacceptable.

The refusal of the Executive Branch to provide information relevant to the nomination is a threat to the Senate's constitutional power to advise and consent. The only way to protect that power is to continue to demand that the information be provided to the Senate. The only means of forcing the Administration to cooperate is to prevent a final vote on the nomination today. We urge to you vote no on cloture.

Sincerely,

Christopher Dodd

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Stygius is offering good hourly updates on the speechifying on Bolton while I dig into questions on the endgame.

If Bolton squeaks through -- which I plan to fight til the end -- then watch for a new "BOLTON WATCH" feature on the TWN website.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

During Senator Lugar's opening statement on the very first day of hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he established a three point test of the "fitness" of any nominee for a position when considering the nominee's past record and statements.

Let me remind readers what those three essential issues, in Lugar's mind, were:

1. Is the statement true?

2. Is the statement consistent with the policy positions of the President of the United States and Secretary of State?

3. Is there a rational expectation that the statement furthers American objectives and interests?

Senator Lugar should know that Bolton has (1) made statements that misled Congress -- not only his his confirmation testimony but throughout much of his career; (2) made statements that undermined the policy positions of the President and Secretary of State as then articulated by them -- including on North Korea, Syria, and Cuba; and (3) stretched to absurd levels any rational expectation that Bolton was promulgating American objectives and interests while he was engaged in ideological crusades and the manipulation of intelligence instead of remaining focused on tying down the potential nuclear and WMD proliferation threats which were his direct line responsibility.

Bolton FAILS Lugar's tests.

In addition, Lugar has been rolled by this administration and pushed aside by the administration's defiance of Lugar's own evidence requests from the administration -- and the subsequent letter by John Negroponte to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Committee Members needed to grovel before the Senate Intelligence Committee on any questions related to the NSA intercepts.

Lugar's Committee is one of the great Committees of the U.S. Senate -- and he is a "fair and balanced" leader -- but Lugar is allowing his stature and that of the Committee to be undermined by the White House, and he would be wise to stop flakking for Bolton and for these outrageous behaviors by the administration.

Lugar should be able to answer his own question posed today in an AP story:

"Where does legitimate due diligence turn into partisanship?" asked Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Where does the desire for the truth turn into a competition over who wins and who loses?"

The turning point would normally be when there has been a credible and real effort by the administration to comply and cooperate with the Senate's constitutionally mandated responsibilities of oversight over the Executive Branch.

The administration has failed to provide the requested and important e-mail and other related information that pertained to Bolton's role on Syria policy statements, the NSA intercepts and redacted U.S. officials' names, information related to the employment and consulting activities of Matthew Freedman, and other matters.

And who is this Matthew Freedman -- a guy paid a six-figure annual salary as a temporary "management consultant" to Bolton who was previously a registered lobbyist and agent for Nigeria and the Marcos family? Why don't we have a roster of any of his current private clients? If he is listed in the State Department directory of personnel as he was, and he is conducting business on behalf of American citizens -- why are his private lobbying/consulting activities not disclosed?

Freedman's clients have tended to be foreign governments, foreign firms, and foreign individuals. Are any of his current clients foreign interests?

If they are, then Bolton has demonstrated yet another monumental case of poor judgment in his last position.

Lugar knows that the Bolton file is packed with material that makes him a flawed candidate -- but besides that point, his colleagues more than he are demanding that the administration fulfill its Constitutional responsibilities as a matter of principle.

Lugar should be making the very same demands.

-- Steve Clemons

Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff have a nice overview on how the NSA intercepts controversy is surfacing like a semi-concealed submarine in the Bolton debate.

This story has been percolating for weeks, but few have serious journalists have looked at the triple layer chess confrontation that is being waged by multiple players in this process.

On one front, the White House has defied Senate Foreign Relations Committee CHAIRMAN Richard Lugar -- a Republican and supporter of Bolton -- on his request for the NSA intercepts.

On another, John Negroponte flipped off Senator Biden by stating that to get information on the NSA intercepts, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would have to grovel before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for further information.

On yet another front, Senator Pat Roberts prevented Senators Lugar and Biden from attending the NSA intercepts briefing two and a half weeks ago given by Deputy Director of National Intelligence Michael Hayden.

But today, finally, these battles have erupted and have had political impact -- though all of this was brewing for a very long time with little reporting.

Isikoff and Hosenball report that because of the failure of the administration to comply with Senate evidence requests, the Bolton opposition may appeal for and actually get yet another delay on the Bolton vote.

This would be useful as there is more on the Bolton story to tell the nation, and a few more days could be important.

From the story:

On Wednesday, the Senate opened floor debate on the Bolton nomination. But two Bolton critics on the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Dodd and ranking Democrat Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, announced that unless the administration turned over additional information about the uncensored NSA intercepts to the committee, they might insist that the Senate hold a cloture vote, which would require 60 senators to approve a motion to halt debate, before calling a final vote on Bolton's confirmation. Several Senate Democratic aides said that they believed that Senate Republicans would have trouble finding 60 votes to cut off debate on Bolton's nomination if the administration failed to turn over additional information.

Democratic congressional sources said that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist had indicated that he was pressing the administration for more information about Bolton's dealings with the NSA. If Bolton's nomination does not clear the Senate this week, the earliest a final vote could be held on his nomination would be after a weeklong Memorial Day recess.

All Senators need to study the Bolton file and ask themselves whether a vote in favor of Bolton is something that he or she can strongly defend given all of the evidence that has been gathered against the nomination. Ignorance will be no excuse. Trusting the judgment of President Bush in this case will be no excuse.

A vote in favor of John Bolton -- given all that we now know -- is a vote of considerable consequence for any United States Senator who agrees to confirm him. It will matter. And those who fail to read the material -- who just go with the pro-Bolton flow -- will be faced with challenges when the opportunities present themselves.

There are no excuses good enough to support Mr. Bolton -- not anymore. Not given what any reasonable person who has studied this situation knows.

-- Steve Clemons

Senator Joe Biden also gave one of the many excellent statements on the floor of the Senate today opposing the Bolton nomination.

His commentary was well organized, methodic, empirical and well substantiated, and seductive. This combined with statements by Dodd, Rockefeller, Voinovich and others has created a tangible momentum against Bolton's nomination. Those speaking in his favor have not provided any compelling construct of support that makes sense -- other than that the monarchial-tilting White House should have the team it wants.

The fact is that the Senate has a constitutional responsibility to make sure that the Chief Executive is advised when he or she is making a bad decision, and this is such a case.

Biden's entire statement is worth a read and helps remind readers of a substantial portion of the Bolton investigation and dossier (but there is always more. . .just check the last couple of months of TWN archives).

Although Biden offers substantial support for each of the four pillars of his key arguments -- these are the central themes of his opposition:

1. The first reason is that Mr. Bolton repeatedly sought to remove intelligence analysts who disagreed with him. Mr. Bolton was not content to fight the normal policy battles. He had to crush people -- even if they were just doing their jobs.

2. The second reason to oppose Mr. Bolton is that he frequently sought to stretch the available intelligence -- to say things in speeches and testimony that the intelligence would not support.

3. The third reason to oppose Mr. Bolton is his abusive treatment of colleagues in the State Department, and his frequent lack of judgment in dealing with them.

4. The fourth reason to vote against Mr. Bolton is that he gave testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee that was misleading.

Biden also echoes the logic of Senator George Voinovich who has done much to underscore the discomfort that many moderate Republicans feel while being forced to choke down this offensive nomination choice.

Biden states:

Is this nominee really the best that we can do?

The record presented by the Foreign Relations Committee is clear:

the documents we have uncovered;

the interviews with those who had to pick up the pieces in INR, in CIA, in the office of the Secretary of State, and in South Korea

the testimony of former Assistant Secretary Carl Ford, a conservative Republican if ever there was one.

All of this record has given us clear warning that Mr. Bolton is the wrong man for the job.

Mr. Bolton's appointment is not in the national interest. In such a case, our duty is as clear as the many warnings before us. I urge the Senate to reject his nomination.

Again, don't take my word for it.

Listen to Robert Hutchings, the Chairman of the National Intelligence Council from 2003 to 2005.

He said that, in the summer of 2003, Mr. Bolton prepared a speech on Syria and weapons of mass destruction that "struck me as going well beyond. . .where the evidence would legitimately take us. And that was the judgment of the experts on my staff, as well."

Now remember, this is 2003. We have 150,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. There was all sorts of talk about invading Syria next. There was talk that the missing WMD in Iraq had been smuggled into Syria. A very delicate moment. And if a senior official like Mr. Bolton said Syria had WMD, that might provoke a war. This is not minor stuff. Mr. Bolton wanted to say things that went beyond the facts.

Hutchings said that Bolton took "isolated facts and made much more of them to build a case than I thought the intelligence warranted. It was a sort of cherry-picking of little factoids and little isolated bits that were drawn out to present the starkest-possible case."

Listen, also, to Larry Wilkerson, a military man himself, who served as Secretary of State Powell's chief of staff. He told us that because of problems with Mr. Bolton's speeches not always being properly cleared by other State Department offices, Deputy Secretary Armitage "made a decision that John Bolton would not give any testimony, nor would he give any speech, that wasn't cleared first by Rich [Armitage]."

That is truly remarkable.

Mr. Wilkerson later told the New York Times that "if anything, the [restrictions] got more stringent" as time went on. "No one else was subjected to these tight restrictions," he said.

The leading Dems in this battle have conceded nothing -- and as best I can tell, this nomination continues to be on a razor's edge.

The combination of Democrats like Biden, Dodd, Rockefeller, and Boxer digging in and embedding themselves deeply in this debate combined with the inspirational leadership of Voinovich SHAMES those who are not in touch with their constitutional responsibilities to honestly tell the President that his choice is wrong-headed and bad for the nation. They SHAME those Senators who don't really want to know what disqualifying issues lie in the Bolton record. They SHAME those Senators who are not deeply concerned that the White House has defied Senator Lugar and Biden in not providing the evidence requests made by the Senate.

More to do. More people to call. Again, many thought that this debate was over -- and yet again, they were wrong.

-- Steve Clemons

Senator Rockefeller, along with many of his Republican and Democratic colleagues, gave a compelling and powerful roster of reasons to reject Bolton and to encourage the President to reconsider this nomination.

I am attaching Senator Rockefeller's floor statement in full here but am excerpting the opening key statement below (the statement will appear in tomorrow's Congressional Record):

As the Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I oppose the nomination of John Bolton to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. I purposely highlight my position on the Intelligence Committee because it is Mr. Bolton's pattern of attempting to distort and misuse intelligence that is the primary reason I am opposing his nomination.

Senator Biden and the other members of the Foreign Relations Committee have walked through the facts related to Mr. Bolton so I will not go into all of the details, but I do intend to provide some background and expand on one critical issue. And I want to explain why this issue should matter to my colleagues and why Mr. Bolton's actions disqualify him from this position.

As my colleges know, beginning in June 2003, the Senate Intelligence Committee undertook an exhaustive inquiry into the intelligence concerning Iraq prior to the war. After more than a year, the Committee unanimously approved a scathing 511 page report describing the Intelligence Community's systemic failures, particularly on issues related to Iraq's WMD programs.

One of the issues central to the Committee's review was the question of "whether any influence was brought to bear on anyone to shape their analysis to support policy objectives." It was a question so important and so fundamental to our Committee's oversight role that answering it was one of the four specific tasks laid out by Chairman Roberts and me at the beginning of this inquiry.

The issue of maintaining objectivity goes to the heart of intelligence and intelligence oversight. Our intelligence agencies are charged with gathering information around the world and then objectively analyzing that information and providing it to the rest of the U.S. government. Intelligence consumers then rely on that information for a variety of activities.

Often that information forms the foundation of the national security policies we depend on to keep our country safe.

Consequently, it is absolutely essential that our intelligence is objective, independent and accurate. If it is not, the system does not work, we waste billions of dollars a year, and we end up making critical national security decisions based on flawed assumptions.
In the extreme, intelligence that is manipulated or shaped to fit preconceived notions could lead the country into a war we should not be fighting.

This, of course, was the concern that many of us had when we began our investigation of pre-war intelligence. It was a central point of the Committee's review and was a something we pursued aggressively.
In that case, the Committee did not find evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to specifically change their judgments related to Iraq's WMD. I supported that finding, although in my additional views I described what I thought was a more pervasive environment of pressure created prior to the war to reach conclusions that supported the Administration policies.

I describe this effort now, however, not to revisit the issues we investigated, but to impress on my colleagues and the public how serious it is when policy makers are accused of attempting to manipulate the intelligence process. This is behavior that we can not tolerate. And this is the pattern of behavior Mr. Bolton has exhibited during his tenure as Under Secretary of State.

Moderate Republicans and Democrats are finding their atrophied muscles still work and are challenging the monarchial tendencies of the Cheney-Bolton axis.

More to come.

-- Steve Clemons

This is the latest from a Senate source on what is expected tomorrow (Thursday) in the Battle over Bolton:

following is the expected procedure for the bolton votes tomorrow:

debate will continue until 6 pm tomorrow. final arguments will focus on the fact that the administration continues to stiff-arm the senate with respect to legitimate requests for documents relevant to the foreign relations committee's review of john bolton's fitness to serve as u.s. ambassador to the u.n.

for several weeks the administration has refused to comply with the committee's request for materials pertaining to syria policy and for the names on the nsa intercepts.

at 6pm tomorrow there will be a cloture vote. if there are 60 votes in favor of cloture, the senate will move without any further debate to an up or down vote on john bolton's confirmation. if there are not 60 votes in favor of cloture, the question of john bolton's confirmation will be carried over until after next week's recess.

there will be no filibuster, but a majority of democrats insist that the administration provide the senate with all materials required to make a sound judgment about whether john bolton should or should not be confirmed.

the 6pm vote will reveal whether a majority of the senate believes the legislative branch is equal to or subservient to the executive branch.

Ignore the absence of caps. This is a great preview of what lies ahead.

This is now being framed in one of the ways it should: Are the Executive and Legislative branches equal and have mutual obligations and duties to fulfill rowards each other?

Or is the legislative branch subservient to the White House?

There is great tumult and angst on the Senate floor today, this evening, and will be tomorrow.

TWN will report what it thinks is critical in the debate. TWN commenters are doing a great job of reporting the micro-twists and turns in the Comments section of the blog.

ChargingRhino and others are also doing some excellent live-blogging. (I will provide hyperlinks to these sites later.)

Stay tuned.

-- Steve Clemons

Senator George Voinovich has made the enticing offer to his Senate colleagues that he will share with them "what he knows" about why Bolton was nominated to the U.N. Ambassadorship position but is unwilling to state publicly on the floor.

He has invited his colleagues to ask him what he knows in private.

TWN has no idea -- yet -- what Voinovich is sharing but intends to learn more.

-- Steve Clemons

Senator Rockefeller comes through with a letter on the NSA intercepts.

He has concerns and is speaking on the floor of the U.S. Senate this very moment about his concerns about John Bolton. What is fascinating about the letter that follows below is that you can sense Rockefeller's frustration with NSA and with the process involved that he was unable to pursue further questions he has about Bolton and how he used the NSA intelligence information.

Rockefeller has been forced to draw some conclusions from an incomplete data set. He was not allowed to see the names of those U.S. officials that had been provided to Bolton -- and he was not able to investigate whether or not there were "other cases" of misuse of information -- other than that where Bolton sought out an individual to "congratulate him" based on the intelligence Bolton had seen.

But Rockefeller points to behaviors that further underscore Bolton's reckless disregard for procedure and process and which collectively amount to the undermining of U.S. foreign policy initiatives and objectives.

Here is the letter:

May 25, 2005

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar

Chairman

Committee on Foreign Relations

United States Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Ranking Member

Committee on Foreign Relations

United States Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senators Lugar and Biden:

I write in response to the Chairman's April 28, 2005 letter asking that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence examine a number of intelligence-related issues that were raised during your Committee’s consideration of the nomination of Under Secretary John Bolton to be the United States Representative to the United Nations.

As you may be aware, I wrote to then-Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), Lieutenant General Michael V. Hayden, on April 20, 2005, requesting any documentation related to Mr. Bolton's requests for the identity of a U.S. person included in classified intelligence reports produced by the NSA.

In response, General Hayden provided Chairman Pat Roberts and me the opportunity to review all ten NSA documents containing the references to U.S. persons that generated Mr. Bolton's requests. We were not permitted to retain these intelligence reports and other members of our Committee were not permitted access to them. Additionally, the actual U.S. identities provided by the NSA to Mr. Bolton were not shared with us.

In response, General Hayden provided Chairman Pat Roberts and me the opportunity to review all ten NSA documents containing the references to U.S. persons that generated Mr. Bolton's requests. We were not permitted to retain these intelligence reports and other members of our Committee were not permitted access to them. Additionally, the actual U.S. identities provided by the NSA to Mr. Bolton were not shared with us.

State Department records indicate that Mr. Bolton requested the minimized identities of nineteen U.S. persons contained in ten NSA signals intelligence reports. These requests were processed by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). In each instance, the INR request to the NSA, on behalf of Mr. Bolton, included the justification that the identity of the U.S. person(s) was needed in order to better understand or assess the foreign intelligence value of the information contained in the intelligence report. This is the standard justification required by NSA in order for officials to request the identity of a U.S. person contained in a signals intelligence report.

Based on my personal review of these reports and the context in which U.S. persons are referenced in them, I found no evidence that there was anything improper about Mr. Bolton's ten requests for the identities of U.S. persons.

It is important to note, however, that our Committee did not interview Mr. Bolton, so I am unable to answer directly the question of why he felt it was necessary for him to have the identity information in order to better understand the foreign intelligence contained in the report.

Furthermore, based on the information available to me, I do not have a complete understanding of Mr. Bolton's handling of the identity information after he received it.

The Committee has learned during its interview of Mr. Frederick Fleitz, Mr. Bolton's acting Chief of Staff, that on at least one occasion Mr. Bolton is alleged to have shared the un-minimized identity information he received from the NSA with another individual in the State Department. In this instance, the NSA memorandum forwarding the requested identity to State INR included the following restriction: "Request no further action be taken on this information without prior approval of NSA." I have confirmed with the NSA that the phrase "no further action" includes sharing the requested identity of U.S. persons with any individual not authorized by the NSA to receive the identity.

In addition to being troubled that Mr. Bolton may have shared U.S. person identity information without required NSA approval, I am concerned that the reason for sharing the information was not in keeping with Mr. Bolton's requested justification for the identity in the first place. The identity information was provided to Mr. Bolton based on the stated reason that he needed to know the identity in order to better under the foreign intelligence contained in the NSA report. According to Mr. Fleitz, Mr. Bolton used the information he was provided in one instance in order to seek out the State Department official mentioned in the report to congratulate him. This use of carefully minimized U.S. person identity information seems to be not in keeping with the rationale provided in Mr. Bolton's request.

An interview of Mr. Bolton by your Committee may provide a more complete understanding of the extent to which he may have shared with others the nineteen U.S. person identities he requested and received from the NSA. I believe it is a matter that deserves more thorough attention.

I hope this information is of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

John D. Rockefeller IV

Vice Chairman

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Many thanks to those of you who have already contributed to TWN's fundraising efforts this morning.

Just wanted to report that the new link is working well, and that I look forward to personally thanking those who have made contributions.

-- Steve Clemons

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) does not support confirmation of John Bolton as America's Ambassador to the U.N.

The only problem is that he knows more about Bolton than nearly any other Senator and can't do much with what he knows.

Rockefeller and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Pat Roberts (R-KA) received a classified briefing over two weeks ago from Deputy Director for National Intelligence Michael Hayden on the NSA intercept material that Bolton requested during his four year tenure as Under Secretary of State for International Security and Arms Control. Specifically, Bolton requested to know the 'identities' of U.S. officials' names that are routinely scrubbed from top-secret NSA intercepts.

TWN has learned that most of the intercepts are clustered around two periods of time in 2003 and 2004. Speculation abounds that the intercepts may show patterns of serious misjudgement on Bolton's part and a 'personal vanity' trying to learn what others were saying about him -- not an appropriate justification for delving into the nation's 'most secret' secrets.

Since the Hayden briefing of Rockefeller and Roberts, others have been called to the Committee for further investigation of this matter -- including the Bolton-victimized State Department INR analyst Christian Westermann and Bolton's former chief of staff, Fred Fleitz.

Interestingly, Fleitz never gave up his portfolio of responsibilities at the CIA while he was working for Bolton -- which thus helps explain why so much unpackaged intel was constantly coming from certain corners of the CIA to bolster Bolton's crusades. Interestingly, Fleitz, on Bolton's behalf, was playing the CIA and State INR off of each other, constantly cherry-picking the intel that fit Bolton's needs and rarely respecting either CIA intel packaging procedures, or State Department INR procedures.

The Intelligence Committee also met other intelligence analysts as well -- and there is an ongoing "inquiry" into what Bolton and Fleitz did with the intelligence they lifted from the NSA intercepts. Some might even call this an "investigation" into Bolton.

However, the SSCI does not have jurisdiction in matters related to the confirmation hearings of John Bolton -- but it does have powers to consider whether laws were broken -- even the spirit of the law when it comes to potential breaches of national security-related intelligence protocols.

Media with intelligence shops need to dig further into this SSCI investigation and learn what state the Bolton investigation is in.

Senator Pat Roberts does not want to proceed, but Rockefeller has failed to give his consent to any letter to the Foreign Relations Committee about Bolton that white-washes what was learned from the NSA briefing.

And note: Senator Roberts and Rockefeller did not receive the list of "names" that Bolton received. Thus, there was enough that was worrisome in the Hayden briefing to warrant further inquiry.

It seems to me to be highly unusual and wrong-headed for Frist to push a vote on Bolton when in fact there is an active investigation underway about Bolton and his former Chief-of-Staff in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Frist should speak with Senator Pat Roberts to see "how bad" things are on Bolton. That should not be a classified revelation by Roberts.

But the worst case for the country -- for both sides of the aisle frankly -- is that Bolton makes his way forward, possibly squeaking by with a narrow confirmation -- and then leaks begin to occur about these NSA intercepts that indict Bolton and Fleitz's recklessness with sensitive national security intelligence.

Rockefeller knows more than most. I speculate that he is keeping Senator Roberts from white-washing what they have found, but Rockefeller cannot easily reveal his concerns. What needs to be nudged forward is that a real inquiry on Bolton is still in process.

That inquiry should be completed before any United States Senator considers the Bolton nomination. They may not wait.

But those who failed to consider the national security questions involved before rushing to support Bolton may find themselves on very fragile ground if the forthcoming leaks tell the story that many suspect.

-- Steve Clemons

Greetings TWN readers. Many of you have asked how you might support TWN and its blogging efforts. We haven't yet started to run ads, but we have put up a Paypal link (finally) on the site (upper right hand corner of the home page).

Many thanks to those of you who feel inclined to support what TWN does.

Thanks very much to A.S. for helping me to set this up.

More to come.

-- Steve Clemons

Doug Jehl captured the rarity of a Senator like Voinovich breaking not only once with his party -- but essentially THREE TIMES -- given his "Dear Colleagues" letter today on Bolton.

Jehl's article begins:

The Ohio Republican whose opposition to John R. Bolton as United Nations ambassador nearly stalled his nomination in committee took a new swipe at him today, circulating a letter urging colleagues to vote against Mr. Bolton when his name reaches the Senate floor, possibly this week.

The letter from Senator George R. Voinovich was sent to all senators, but it was aimed particularly at fellow Republicans in a chamber in which the party holds a 55-44 majority (with one independent). At least five Republicans would have to join Mr. Voinovich in opposing Mr. Bolton if the nomination were to be defeated.

In the letter, Mr. Voinovich said that while he had been "hesitant to push my views on my colleagues" during his years in the Senate, he felt "compelled to share my deep concerns" about Mr. Bolton's nomination.

"In these dangerous times, we cannot afford to put at risk our nation's ability to successfully wage and win the war on terror with a controversial and ineffective ambassador to the United Nations," Mr. Voinovich wrote. He urged colleagues to "put aside our partisan agenda and let our consciences and our shared commitment to our nation's best interests guide us."

Senator Frist has "hotlined" the Bolton nomination, calling for a vote with 40 hours of debate -- 20 hours for each side. This means that a vote is possible this week, or just after the Memorial Day recess.

Senator Boxer has agreed to remove her "hold" on Bolton as Frist can remove the hold with a "motion to proceed" which requires only a simple majority to win.

While the Dems and a couple of Republicans probably have enough votes to sustain a filibuster of Bolton, the fact is that the deal on the judges reached last night has made the caucus less eager to engage in that kind of brinksmanship -- though they seem eager to stand relatively united against Bolton.

There are rumors that even Senators Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu are reconsidering their semi-positive leanings on Bolton.

There are fundamental issues unresolved in the Bolton Battle.

First, the administration has defied Congress in failing to provide the controversial and important "unedited" NSA intercepts which Bolton requested during his tenure.

Secondly, there are rumors that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is actually investigating Bolton's use of this NSA intercept material and attempting to ascertain whether Bolton compromised national security by mishandling and inappropriately using the intelligence information he gathered from these intercepts. It is remarkable that the Senate would consider a vote on any nomination in which there was such a major outstanding concern.

So, the vote grows close. . .perhaps.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

George Voinovich is reminding his colleagues to remember that their sacred contract is with the citizens of their states in this nation -- and not with a political party boss or some party machine -- when it comes to the manner in which American diplomacy and international conduct are managed.

Here is the original Voinovich "Dear Colleague" letter, which I have also posted in full below.

May 23, 2005

Dear Colleague:

Throughout my time in the Senate, I have been hesitant to push my views on my colleagues. However, I feel compelled to share my deep concerns with the nomination of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the United Nations. I strongly feel that the importance of this nomination to our foreign policy requires us to set aside our partisan agenda and let our consciences and our shared commitment to our nation's best interests guide us.

At a time when the United States strives to fight terrorism globally, to build a stable and free Iraq, to find a peaceful resolution to the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, to spread democracy in the place of oppressive regimes, and to enact needed reforms at the United Nations, it is imperative that we have the support of our friends and allies internationally. These strong international relationships must be built upon robust and effective public diplomacy.

I applaud our President for understanding this and for his leadership on U.S. public diplomacy. He and Secretary Rice have taken important steps to reach out to the international community and strengthen relationships. Additionally, I applaud the President's decision to appoint Karen Hughes to enhance U.S. public diplomacy at the State Department, and recently to get even the First Lady involved in these important efforts to promote public diplomacy.

However, it is my concern that John Bolton's nomination sends a negative message to the world community and contradicts the President's efforts. In these dangerous times, we cannot afford to put at risk our nation's ability to successfully wage and win the war on terror with a controversial and ineffective Ambassador to the United Nations. I worry that Mr. Bolton could make it more difficult for us to achieve the important U.N. reforms needed to restore the strength of the institution. I strongly believe that we need to reform the U.N., make it a viable institution for world security, and remove its anti-Israel bias. However, I question John Bolton's ability to get this job done.

I know that you are very busy, but I would appreciate it if you would review my edited statement before the Foreign Relations Committee as to why I think we can do much better than John Bolton at the United Nations. In my closing words, I stated the following:

"Mr. Chairman, I am not so arrogant to think that I should impose my judgment and perspective of the U.S. position in the world community on the rest of my colleagues. We owe it to the President to give Mr. Bolton an up or down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate. My hope is that, on a bipartisan basis, we send Mr. Bolton's nomination to the floor without recommendation and let the Senate work its will. I would plead with my colleagues in the Senate, if this nomination gets to the floor, to consider the decision and its consequences carefully, to read all of the pertinent material, and to ask themselves several pertinent questions: Is John Bolton the best possible person to serve as the lead diplomat at the United Nations? Will he be able to pursue the needed reforms at the U.N., despite his damaged credibility? Will he share information with the right individuals and will he solicit information from the right individuals, including his subordinates, so that he can make the most informed decisions? Is he capable of advancing the President and Secretary of State's efforts to advance our public diplomacy? Does he have the character, leadership, interpersonal skills, self discipline, common decency, and understanding of the chain of command to lead his team to victory? Will he recognize and seize opportunities to repair and strengthen relationships, promote peace, and uphold democracy -- as a team -- with our fellow nations?"

If you have any comments or questions in regard to my deep concerns about this appointment, I would welcome them.

Sincerely,

George V. Voinovich
United States Senate

This is the frame that most Senators should be crowding towards in the Bolton vote.

We'll all be watching and listening to see which Senators stand by principles like Voinovich and which believe in the absurdity of America flipping off the rest of the world and standing alone.

-- Steve Clemons

The White House is losing its grip because it's losing its moderates.

This today in a very thoughtful article in the Washington Post today by Jonathan Weisman and Jeffrey Birnbaum:

"I'm inclined to support the Republican Party, but the question becomes, how much other stuff do I have to put up with to maintain that identification?" asked Andrew A. Samwick, a Dartmouth College economics professor who until recently was chief economist of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.

"I don't know a single business group involved in the judicial nominees," said R. Bruce Josten, an executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "Nada, none, zip."

A group of senators announced last night that they had reached a compromise designed to avert a showdown over the judicial nominees.

Economic conservatives grew restless during the first Bush term, when federal budget surpluses turned to yawning deficits, federal spending soared and the Republican-controlled Congress passed a Medicare drug benefit that marked the largest new federal entitlement since Lyndon B. Johnson was president.

Concern eased after the 2004 election. The president's stated priorities were to control spending, address Social Security's long-term financing problems and simplify the tax code. But since then, the drive to restructure Social Security has stalled. Efforts to rein in federal spending have been upended by a highway bill that exceeds Bush's promised price tag and a budget resolution passed Congress that rebuffed the toughest entitlement cuts demanded by the White House.

Instead, Washington's focus has shifted from fiscal issues to more narrow concerns backed vociferously by social conservatives: the Terri Schiavo case, the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations and, most of all, the fate of the Senate's ability to filibuster judicial nominees.

TWN has shared this view for some time.

-- Steve Clemons

Here is the actual text of the "deal" between 7 Republican and 7 Democratic Senators:

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Ried, This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.

This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate's Judiciary Committee.

We have agreed to the following:

Part I: Commitment on Pending Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees: We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Prisiclla Owen (5th Circuit).

B. Status of Other Nominees: Signatories make no commitment vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Meyers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit)

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations:

A. Future Nominations: Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

B. Rules Changes: In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

We Believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word "Advice" speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive Branch of government to consult with member of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practice of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate seek to uphold.

It does strike me as somewhat sad that many Americans only begin to learn about the system of checks and balances and rules within that system when our method of democracy is under attack.

That said, it is impressive watch civil society in action on this filibuster issue -- particularly these students who launched "Filibuster for Democracy" protests at colleges and universities throughout the nation.

Now, back to Bolton.

Because the NSA intercepts were never provided to the Senate Committee with jurisdiction in the matter, there is ample room to beat back this nomination.

-- Steve Clemons

and maybe the Republican Caucus Lunch also.

Today, the Senate Democratic caucus is having its weekly lunch session, and the topic of the day is John Bolton.

I'm sure that a number of Senators will communicate the long roster of reasons that Bolton should be withdrawn by the President -- but will also lay out the pending questions including the unresolved NSA intercepts evidence requests and questions about potential conflicts of interest that Matthew Freedman had when working as a special assistant to Bolton but also maintaining a roster of private lobbying clients.

Senator Reid's strategy on Bolton should become more clear after the lunch today. Senator Frist still has not notified the minority of his intent to file cloture.

However, earlier Senator Boxer informed Frist of her intent to object
to the nomination -- so the only way Bolton will get 'done' this week is if Frist wins a cloture motion.

Who will concede? Who will blink? On the one hand, the Dems may think that they got a win in the filibuster compromise and may not want to dig in as ferociously against Bolton.

On the other hand, Frist has a handful of public Republicans -- and many private ones -- who really despise the Bolton nomination. They may not want to immediately go back into hand-to-hand battle with the Democrats after just relieving the pressure on the judges.

If it were my choice, Dems and moderate Republicans should stand strong against Bolton -- if not for the many reasons he is wrong for the job then also because the White House has defied Senate requests for information -- EVEN FROM THE REPUBLICAN CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE.

That alone should be enough to scuttle the Bolton nomination -- particularly given the odd way that the nomination came to the floor of the Senate with no recommendation from Committee.

More to come.

-- Steve Clemons

This is an excerpt from the public statement issued last night be Senator Harry Reid in the wake of the filibuster deal:

We have sent President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the radical arm of the Republican base an undeniable message: Abuse of power will not be tolerated, and attempts to trample the Constitution and grab absolute control are over. We are a separate and equal branch of government. That is our founding fathers' vision, and one we hold dear.

I offered Senator Frist several options similar to this compromise, and while he was not able to agree, I am pleased that some responsible Republicans and my colleagues were able to put aside there differences and work from the center. I do not support several of the judges that have been agreed to because their views and records display judicial activism that jeopardize individual rights and freedoms. But other troublesome nominees have been turned down. And, most importantly, the U.S. Senate retains the checks and balances to ensure all voices are heard in our democracy and the Supreme Court make-up cannot be decided by a simple majority.

I would remind Senator Reid and others worried about those who trample on the Constitution -- John Bolton misled and lied to Congress, and the administration is still defying Senator Lugar's and Biden's request for evidence on Bolton. The administration decided that enough evidence had been provided but as Biden reminded the administration then and Reid does above, the Senate does not work for the White House. It is a co-equal branch of government.

-- Steve Clemons

Surprisingly, the filibuster showdown over President Bush's judicial nominations has been averted.

This throws the Bolton battle into new territory -- and TWN does not yet have a fix on how conciliatory both sides want to be in choking down a nominee to the U.N. that seems such a mismatch for the job.

One of the issues that still lies outstanding is the failure of the administration to provide the NSA intercepts as requested by Senators Lugar and Biden. Chris Dodd started the intercepts request process more than a month ago -- and still nothing has been received.

Rumor has it that Senator Rockefeller and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence staff have discovered patterns of conduct by Bolton and Fleitz that raise red flags. They are now "looking into" how Bolton and Fleitz used the intelligence from the NSA intercepts -- or better put, "misused it."

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been standing by waiting form some sort of communication from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which Negroponte said would be communicating with SFRC on the intercepts. This has not happened.

Some senators on both sides will not vote to confirm Bolton simply on this issue -- all of the necessary information needed to make a decision is not in.

-- Steve Clemons

The fascinating thing about the John Bolton fight is that Bolton is a second priority on most lists when compared to the fight over Bush's judicial appointments.

Whereas Dick Cheney's wing of the White House doesn't realize that good diplomacy and a sustainably winning strategy requires losing the less important battles, many in the Senate -- on both sides of the aisle -- see it that way.

If the Republicans overpower the Dems tomorrow on the first judicial standoff on the floor, then there are a number of Republicans willing to join up with George Voinovich's team opposing Bolton. Interestingly, whereas Voinovich has stated publicly that he will not try and whip up an anti-Bolton vote among his colleagues, TWN has learned that he is doing just enough to keep this race interesting.

If there is a deal on judges, then the chances are high that Reid and the Democratic leadership will give the Republicans Bolton as a gesture of good will, damaged goods though he will be. But so far, it looks like a collision over judicial appointments and a collision over Bolton.

In the case of Bolton, because there is so much Republican discomfort with him, the high-handedness of the push on Bolton is actually encouraging Republicans to defect from the pro-Bolton camp.

We have a minimum of two days to continue to fight this -- and perhaps many more if Frist changes course. Senator Reid's office reports that they have had no official communication from Senator Frist that he will indeed push to move to Bolton on Wednesday.

But stay tuned. This is getting extremely interesting.

For those of you who want to follow what the "Stop Bolton Activists" are up to, they have a new notification and alert board up here.

More shortly on the NSA intercepts.

-- Steve Clemons

Most who have been watching the battle over John Bolton's nomination to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations have been surprised at the ferocity exhibited by Dick Cheney and others supporting him as well as by the many opposed.

The American Prospect's Mark Goldberg has a superb article, out just today, that looks at the battle in a bit more distant way. He considers what the Bolton struggle tells us about future combat between choices promulgated by the radical right and opposed by progressives -- with moderates finding their way through the process.

I am going to reprint the entire article here:

This article is reprinted from The American Prospect (June 2005).

Bolton From the Blue

by Mark Leon Goldberg

Bush's UN pick may yet be headed for First Avenue, but the movement that opposed him emerges from the fight in better shape than he does.

About halfway through Senator Richard Lugar's droning opening statement in the May 12 confirmation hearing of John Bolton to become the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, a yawn made its way around the press table. And it lingered -- until Lugar ceded the floor to the incalculable senator from Ohio, George Voinovich, when our listless eyes turned lively and the laptops fired to life. Would Voinovich break ranks and vote with the Democrats? Or would he duplicitously express his reservations before buckling to the administration's will?

As we now know, it was something in between. Voinovich may have enabled Bolton to scrape his way through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and move to the full Senate for a floor vote, but he nevertheless made himself an ally of those seeking to defeat Bolton's nomination. "Once we lost [Lincoln] Chaffee and [Chuck] Hagel, there was never a possibility of killing it in committee," said Don Kraus of Citizens for Global Solutions, a membership organization that provided key grass-roots opposition to the nomination. "I think what Voinovich did took guts. Sending it to the Senate floor without a recommendation means we can still fight it."

At press time, Bolton's fate was unclear. But even if he passes, progressive Washington accomplished several things in this fight. Democrats who were initially reluctant to go to the mat on the Bolton nomination were forced to do so via pressure exerted by an extremely active private and public grass-roots campaign. Once Democrats chose to fight, they did it effectively. And finally, the ensuing controversy has badly damaged the nominee and, by extension, the hard-line elements within the administration that he represents.

* * *

On March 7, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice first announced Bolton's nomination, progressives and moderates let out a collective groan. Almost immediately, a group of civic-minded intellectuals and activists decided to dig in. At the center was a close-knit group -- which managed to stay out of the newspapers the entire time -- of about seven individuals who, by their professions or experience, were in a position to get in contact with a bipartisan cadre of former cabinet members, ambassadors, and other high-ranking officials concerned with the damage Bolton could inflict on U.S. interests at the UN. Just before the committee vote, I spoke to one, who described to me how the group quickly mapped out a congressional strategy that paired individual senators on the committee with influential ex-officials whose opinions the senators were known to trust.

Complementing that inside strategy was an outside strategy led by a large network of organizations such as Citizens for Global Solutions and MoveOn. They began staging weekly meetings to mobilize grass-roots pressure against the nomination. On the front lines of that battle from the very beginning was Steve Clemons, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and the proprietor of The Washington Note blog. From Bolton's nomination onward, Clemons ran a one-man whip operation, relentlessly pressuring Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to state their opposition to Bolton for the record.

But Democrats were initially reluctant. "At first, no one on the Hill thought that this was a battle worth fighting," Clemons told me. "It was as if the Democratic political class was on this autopilot function where if the White House wanted something, they would simply roll over and let the White House have its way." A former government official who also made early contact with Democrats on the Hill to gauge their readiness for a fight lodged a similar complaint. "[Senator Joseph] Biden had to be pushed to take on the Bolton nomination, she complains." "We asked high-level people in Biden's office, 'Are you guys going to do something about the Bolton nomination?' And we were told they were not going to touch it."

Slowly, the grass-roots strategy started to pay dividends. According to one Senate source, Barbara Boxer was particularly buoyed by the show of concern from the grass roots and decided that there was nothing to be lost in confronting the nominee full force. Still, most of her fellow Democratic committee members were less receptive to grass-roots pressure. Then, the minority staff's phone rang. It was Carl W. Ford.

Ford, the former chief of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), clearly wanted to vent his frustrations over Bolton's behavior toward INR professionals. And just as the minority staff learned of Bolton's bizarre actions against individual analysts at the INR from Ford, the Senate Intelligence Committee forwarded information to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that had been drawn from an inquiry into bureaucratic browbeating of career intelligence analysts. Bolton's name emerged. "At that point, chips started falling into place," a Senate source told me.

* * *

Even if Bolton assumes his post at Turtle Bay, the battle over his nomination has irreparably undermined any radical agenda he would have brought there; as Dick Cheney's hard-line proxy at the UN, he's been effectively neutered. The moment that Bolton reverts to his abusive managerial style or advances an agenda independent of his erstwhile supervisors at Foggy Bottom, Clemons will collect more leaks than my old bathtub. As has been the case throughout the nomination saga, they'll quickly spread from his blog to the traditional media outlets.

"One of the great things about the Bolton fight is that it reminds the Democrats that political struggle is not always about the win," a Senate Democratic aide told me, "but about fighting the good fight." To their credit, the Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee tried as best they could to fight this nomination on its merits and keep the partisan rancor to a minimum; for each interview conducted by the minority staff, Biden requested the presence of a Lugar staffer. It was the White House, from a defensive posture, that sought to turn this nomination into a referendum on raw presidential power, spending enormous political capital on a fight that may end up as technically successful but that has come at a high price.

"Our battle sends a strong message to the White House not to put extremists forward," a senior Senate aide told me following the vote. And if or when it does, its hand will only be weakened by the Bolton battle.

Thus, it may have taken some prodding from friendly groups off the Hill, but the Senate Democrats seem poised to adopt a new fighting faith. Another Senate aide gleefully waxed poetic: "Even when you face the analytic judgment that Bolton may prevail, the mark of your character is whether you accommodate, lay down, and resign yourself to the inevitable, or do you pull a Dylan Thomas and 'Rage, rage against the [dying] of the light.'"

This time, at least, the Democrats did not go gently.

Mark Leon Goldberg is a Prospect writing fellow.

This article is available on The American Prospect website.

Copyright 2005 by The American Prospect, Inc.

Preferred Citation: Mark Leon Goldberg, "Bolton From the Blue", The American Prospect Online, May 22, 2005. This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author. Direct questions about permissions to permissions@prospect.org.

Many thanks to the American Prospect for alloowing TWN reprint rights.

I think that Mark Goldberg has nicely defined the importance of the Bolton standoff: that radical moves by the administration will now be vigorously resisted by progressives -- and to win, the administration will have to alienate its own moderates, which in the long run, is not winning at all.

The only slight difference I have with one of the people whom Goldberg quoted in the piece is that I always found the senior staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee helpful and sincere in their concerns about Bolton -- even at the beginning -- but what was in question was going to be the robustness of the challenge they posed rather than doing nothing at all -- which one of Goldberg's commenters suggested.

In the end though, there were Republican and Democratic staffers on the Committee and in Senator's personal offices who did things, and shared information, in such a way as to expose John Bolton's shortcomings. This effort would not have been possible without quite solid Republican complicity.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Just when everything was looking so clear.

There are rumors swirling now that Frist may push the Bolton nomination on Wednesday this week. Since Barbara Boxer has a public hold -- and there are also private holds -- on the Bolton nomination, Frist would call for a "motion to proceed" on Bolton, which he can win on a simple majority.

I still think it is doubtful that this will occur because as I've called offices today -- particularly among the "undecided Dems" and the "wobbly Republicans," it is clear that the White House has not done its homework. The votes are far from certain -- and staffers are begging for digested versions of material against Bolton to make the case for their bosses as to why the nomination makes little sense.

No staffer -- not Republican or Democrat -- has asked if there is a roster of reasons to confirm Bolton. And I have talked to some of the most hard core offices predicted to support John Bolton.

TWN is helping as much as possible in this "public education" activity.

In any case, we will keep you posted if these rumors develop legs -- but folks should keep in mind that calls to Senator Ben Nelson, Olympia Snowe, Chuck Hagel, Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Arlen Spector, Pete Domenici and others of your choice are well worth it today, Tuesday, and Wednesday.

If Frist does push Bolton on Wednesday, look for a debate on the motion to proceed unfolding on Wednesday and Thursday morning -- with a vote scheduled for Thursday.

So much for the Bill Kristol call to Senator Frist that Democrats and Republicans agree to unlimited floor debate on John Bolton's merits and shortcomings for this important position in the United Nations.

More to come.

-- Steve Clemons

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar must be steaming about the fact that the administration stiffed him on the Bolton-related NSA intercepts as well as that John Negroponte has reported to the Ranking Member of the SFRC that if the Committee wants anything more on the NSA intercepts, it will have to go through the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

I posed the following questions to Senator Lugar's office recently:

My questions for Senator Lugar are:

1. Does DNI Negroponte's stand, which is clearly at odds with the request by the SFRC Chair, harm the oversight function of the SFRC in nomination matters?

2. Does Senator Lugar plan to take any more action or make any statements regarding the failure of the administration to comply with his own requests -- not to mention those made by Senator Biden?

3. Does Senator Lugar believe that the SSCI has any jurisdiction in the Bolton matter?

I received the following response from Andy Fisher, Senator Lugar's spokesman:

Roberts and Rockefeller have not corresponded to Lugar regarding their briefing on the intercepts. Not much to say beyond that.

Senator Ben Nelson indicated this weekend on CNN's "Late Edition" that he was inclined to support Bolton's nomination -- but was looking forward to learning more. I can't believe that Nelson is as poorly informed as he pretends to be -- and that he still needs more information or would even venture a comment such as this before reading the materials on Bolton prepared by the Democratic staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

But when Lugar himself is being stiffed and made to grovel before Senators Roberts and Rockefeller for information that should be compelled from the administration and given to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then Ben Nelson should really tread carefully before commenting further.

TWN plans to share other views on Senator Nelson's position shortly.

-- Steve Clemons

Scott Malcomson has given Michael Lind's new book, What Lincoln Believed: The Values and Convictions of America's Greatest President a terrific review.

Whereas Malcomson picks up on the important point in Lind's book that in the time of Lincoln, democracy as model of government was disappearing from rather than proliferating through the world.

Malcomson writes:

"IN 1863," Michael Lind begins, "the democratic republic as a form of government was rare -- and in danger of extinction." He then looks around the world at the governmental forms prevalent in that year. This seems an odd way to start a study of Abraham Lincoln, but such indirection is Lind's way of saying: if you want to read my book, you're going to have to do it my way. Happily, Lind is not just demanding; he is intellectually bold and an enthusiastic researcher.

In large doses, "What Lincoln Believed" can get claustrophobic. But taken a little at a time and in a generous spirit, it will almost certainly change the way you think about America and one of its greatest presidents.

Malcomson continues this commentary on Lind's theme:

Among the world's ruling classes, Lind shows, opinion was running against democracy in 1863. Republics had been coming and going since the French Revolution, but mostly they had been going, and it looked possible that the form might soon be gone. For Lincoln, "government of the people, by the people, for the people," as he put it in his speech at Gettysburg, was the essential promise of the American Revolution and of the United States.

If the Union could be pulled through this civil war, democracy might endure. If the Union fell, democracy might fall with it.

This zeal to secure democratic government as a covenant for future generations, against the political tide of the times, is what Lind finds most worth celebrating in Lincoln.

He calls him the Great Democrat. This picture is set against three previously prevalent images: the Great Commoner, the Savior of the Union and the Great Emancipator.

I highly recommend Michael Lind's book on Lincoln because it makes one think about what it takes to preserve a functioning democracy -- even in the worst of times.

Whereas Lincoln helped to revitalize and restore the American form of democracy in the 1860s, it is disconcerting that American leadership today seems reckless with the ecosystem of our democratic republic today.

Gary Hart made a similar point at a conference in New York on Wednesday sponsored by the Security and Peace Institute. He was directing his concerns at the tension between empire and democracy and said that "if America does fashion itself in the shape of empire, then it will no longer be a republic."

-- Steve Clemons

Most people consider John Negroponte to be an astute inside the beltway player, but he may be harming his record by holding up NSA intercepts and other information from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as "payback" for the tough time some of the senators gave his nomination.

One observer reports to TWN that it is:

"important to recall that John Negroponte is not exactly a disinterested observer when it comes to the proceedings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. When his own nomination for UN Ambassador was before the Committee in 2001, the Democratic Members, led by Senators Dodd and Biden, turned it into a very long and grueling process by demanding voluminous records on Negroponte's service as U.S. Ambassador to Honduras in the mid-80's to determine his role in and awareness of El Salvador death squads operating out of Honduran territory."

Negroponte was eventually confirmed 92-0, but it was not a pain-free process.

Accordingly, as Negroponte stiffs Biden, Dodd, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on these NSA intercepts, one must wonder if personal motives are coming into play here.

It would be a big misstep by Negroponte because he did, in fact, get confirmed -- overwhelmingly. If he is using Bolton to fight old wars, then Democrats will be out to return the favor in the future.

-- Steve Clemons

We know little about the controversial NSA intercept materials (and roster of redacted names of U.S. officials mentioned in the transcripts) which were requested and reviewed by John Bolton.

What we do know through sources is that the bulk of the material dealt with incidents in 2003 and 2004. This could mean that Bolton was spying on his colleagues' North Korea diplomacy, on the International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, or other cases.

But one of the biggest issues that has eluded the mainstream media and venues like TWN is what Bolton did with the intelligence he reviewed.

Anyone observing the brewing NSA intercepts controversy and the impact on Congress's role in investigating Executive Branch appointments and in the principle of "separation of powers" in general must be impressed by the administration's enormous efforts to keep these intercepts from falling into public hands -- so much so that the Director of National Intelligence believes that he has the right to defy the Congressional mandate of U.S. Senators conducting an investigation of an Executive Branch official.

But John Bolton could get the intercepts easily. And then he was able to ask the National Security Agency for the redacted names of U.S. officials that had been routinely scrubbed from the intercepts. Bolton did this ten and perhaps more times; more if the requests were made by analysts working in Bolton's department but made in the name of other officials.

What TWN has just learned from a source -- a single source -- is that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is now looking into whether or not Bolton misused the super-secret information he retrieved from the intercepts.

Given the paranoia about Joe Biden, Richard Lugar, or Christopher Dodd seeing the intercept material -- one would only imagine that Bolton seeing this information and then DOING SOMETHING WITH IT, or better yet, SHARING THE INFORMATION WITH OTHERS, may have crossed some serious legal lines.

TWN has no information that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has decided that any criminal activity occurred -- nor has information that the Committee is doing anything other than "looking into these questions."

But this set of circumstances raises the obvious question: What did John Bolton do with the NSA intercept material?

Given the obsessive concern over sources and methods being revealed, and about the protocols involved in managing compartmentalized intelligence (as referred to in the last letter of this Biden letter to John Negroponte), if Bolton did share information or revelations from the intercepts, then American national security may have been undermined by Bolton's actions.

Without the intercept material, it is very difficult to compare Bolton's base of knowledge about the people and circumstances of some target the NSA was watching and what Bolton did either publicly or privately with the information he learned. In other words, if he shared such information with the Vice President's office, or with other officials across the government, then serious violations of protocol occurred.

More later, but the NSA intercepts continue to be of vital importance in the Battle over Bolton.

-- Steve Clemons

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar and Ranking Member Joseph Biden both sought from the administration the names, contextual information, and, if possible, the unedited actual intercept material that John Bolton reviewed during his tenure as Under Secretary of State for International Security and Arms Control.

Lugar's request was rebuffed by the White House, but thus far he seems not to have made any public comment about the fact that his evidence requests regarding John Bolton were not complied with.

In addition, it turns out that there is significant confusion about whether Deputy Director of National Intelligence Michael Hayden did in fact show the intercept material to Senators Roberts and Rockefeller -- as previously reported.

TWN was very surprised to learn from two sources that the intercept material was not provided to the Senators -- but that a two hour long briefing and discussion was had that did reveal some contextual information, dates of the relevant intercepts -- but did NOT provide any of the names of U.S. officials that Bolton had requested the National Security Agency to provide him.

General Hayden apparently has been quite concerned that had he provided the actual intercept material to the Senators in either the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence or the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the content would be "leaked" to the media.

On May 13, Senator Biden wrote to John Negroponte making clear that the Foreign Relations Committee had jurisdiction in the Bolton nomination and that the failure of the administration to comply with the Committee's request had impeded the Bolton investigation.

In Biden's letter, it is clear that the Senator does believe that Hayden provided the 'edited' (names redacted) transcripts to Rockefeller and Roberts. He writes:

I have been told (although I have not yet been informed officially) that you provided the intercepts, but not the U.S. person identities, to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I trust that the Intelligence Committee will, in turn, provide that information to the Committee on Foreign Relations, or at least to Chairman Lugar and me, pursuant to its responsibilities under Senate Resolution 400 (94th Congress). I join with Chairman Lugar, however, in the belief that we need to be informed of the U.S. person identities as well, in order to properly fulfill our duty to the full Senate.

Here is the Biden letter to Negroponte.

What is clear is that as of today, Friday, the 20th of May, Senators Biden and Lugar have not received any official word or statement from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence or any information related to the NSA intercepts from the administration.

What Biden did get back from National Intelligence Director was a rather rude, "insulting" note instructing Biden to go the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- NOT NEGROPONTE -- for any information on the intercepts.

Does Negroponte really have such a misinformed view of government bureacracy that one Senate Committee would subordinate its Constitutional responsibilities and prerogatives to another Committee. There are really important issues of precedence at play here -- and what Negroponte seems to be asserting is that he can play one Senate Committee off of another when it comes to the intelligence activities of diplomats engaged in the blurry world of intelligence and foreign policy.

Here is the Negroponte letter.

An excerpt:

Because of scheduling challenges and the Senate recess, General Hayden was not able to brief Senators Roberts and Rockefeller until late in the afternoon of May 10. His presentation was in great detail, lasting just over two hours, and -- we believe -- met the requirements of the SSCI. It is our understanding that the SSCI leadership has, or will shortly, inform the leadershiop of the Foreign Relations Committee of the results of this session.

Someone please inform John Negroponte that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has no jurisdiction when it comes to Foreign Relations Committee action in the investigation, discourse, and confirmation reports on diplomatic nominees.

Whether or not Negroponte satisfied the needs of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is irrelevant to the question of whether the evidence requests by the Foreign Relations Committee of the "Bush Administration" were met.

The Foreign Relations Committee should not have to work out separate deals with the State Department, the Department of Defense, the CIA, or other branches of government when conducting an investigation. It is acting on behalf of the United States Senate -- as a whole.

Likewise, administration departments -- even the Directorate of National Intelligence -- are part of the Executive Branch of government which is expected to comply when the United States Senate makes evidence requests of it in the constitutionally mandated roles and responsibilities that the Senate has.

Negroponte, after just starting in his job, is engaged in dangerous brinksmanship with the Congress over information and evidence compliance.

He is already losing the good will of many who would otherwise have been predisposed to be supportive of him by failing to construct some method to be helpful to Senators Lugar and Biden (as well as Chris Dodd who started the process of requesting the NSA intercepts).

There is more cooking on the NSA intercepts -- including a very troubling potential revelation, still just a rumor from a single source -- that I plan to write about later.

-- Steve Clemons

The Battle over Bolton lurks just behind the showdown between Republicans and Democrats on the slate of contested judicial appointments. The major similarity in both cases is that there are some Republicans who oppose changing Senate filibuster rules -- and there are Republican Senators who find the Bolton nomination disagreeable and offensive.

The head count is very close when votes are actually called.

There are some Democrats, including Senator Joseph Lieberman, who are still studying the Bolton matter -- and who have not yet weighed in on the debate or studied the excellent work of the minority staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- or have not read the interviews of senior Republicans who object to Bolton's appointment to the U.N. -- or have not considered yet what Colin Powell's conspicuous absence among those supporting Bolton means.

Senator Lieberman is a co-chair of the Committee on the Present Danger, and many of those who populate the list are 'friends' of John Bolton. But still, Lieberman should be able to maintain his objectives and interest in the national security agenda he cares about and still make the judgment that John Bolton will do more harm than good to American national interests in a UN Ambassadorship.

Lieberman is Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security & Government Affairs Committee and will need to keep in mind the signals it will send if someone like Bolton -- who has lied to Congress and who has actively tried to sabotage the diplomatic efforts of his boss, Colin Powell -- were allowed to proceed to a post as important and visible as the U.N. Ambassadorship.

Lieberman has not made up his mind on the matter yet, but TWN encourages him to read George Voinovich's statement, read the staff report on John Bolton, consider the evidence, and consider the politics of the situation.

In doing battle with other major stakeholders on U.N. reform, we need someone who is effective, someone who can push or 'seduce' other nations to go a bit farther than they might as well as someone who can sell a package of reforms to the American government and to U.S. citizens so that trust can be reestablished in the institution of the United Nations.

John Bolton is not credible selling the President's agenda -- and America's reform agenda for the U.N. (though TWN would certainly like to know what the administration wants the U.N. to look like in the future) -- to either other major players in the U.N. or to the American public.

Many have written to ask me what Bolton's chances are now. They got much worse when Senator Frist decided to pursue the judges conflict before Bolton. The White House tried to push Frist to do Bolton first -- and he bucked the White House's legislative team.

Frist knows that his caucus is much more 'crumbly' on Bolton than he wants to show before the showdown on judicial appointments, and Bolton's political survival is not something he is willing to invest his own presidential aspirations in. Frist sacrificed Bolton to some degree to get contested conservative judges moved forward.

The best outcome for John Bolton right now would be that a "deal" is struck between Democrats and Republicans on the contested judges and on the filibuster rules.

Such a deal, if accomplished next week will perhaps lead Democrats to not filibuster on Bolton even though there are fundamental problems with the administration's failure to provide the NSA intercepts and other requested evidence to Senators before the vote. TWN hopes this is not the case -- but to be fair to the process, the Dems may yield if they win something from Frist on this showdown.

On the other hand, if Frist steamrolls on, and the nuclear option is triggered -- as seems to be happening next Tuesday as a vote has been called for that day on one of the contested judges -- then we need to see how the votes will fall on ending the ability of Dems to filibuster judicial confirmation votes.

If the Democrats and various Republican allies lose that vote, then TWN sees Bolton's nomination being indefinitely held. The White House will then have to go to a recess appointment, or withdraw his nomination.

And as I have written before, there are Republicans considering voting against Bolton and taking cover beneath George Voinovich's heroic and important commentary on the consequences of this important Ambassadorial appointment.

If Lieberman or other Dems waiver after the act of conscience by Voinovich -- and the clear "concern" about the appointment expressed by Hagel, Chafee, and Lisa Murkowski -- then they may be seriously underestimating how offended much of America is by the Bolton appointment.

The reason that this debate on Bolton is even taking place as it has is because nearly ALL players in the debate -- in Dick Cheney's office, on Senator Chafee's staff, even among Democrats -- have underestimated the political consequence of this nomination.

-- Steve Clemons

TWN has received a copy of the minority views in the Bolton Nomination Report filed by the Foreign Relations Committee with the U.S. Senate.

Here is one excerpt of a report very well worth reading in full:

VI. MISLEADING THE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE

The record before the Committee demonstrates that Under Secretary Bolton did not live up to his reputation as a "straight-talker" during his testimony to the Committee. He made several statements to the Committee that were contradicted by others, at odds with available evidence, and may be fairly described as misleading, disingenuous or non-responsive.

A. Mr. Bolton says he did not try to have INR analyst Christian Westermann disciplined.

Mr. Bolton insisted, on several occasions, that he did not try to have Christian Westermann, an analyst in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), removed from his position or disciplined.

This testimony was contradicted by four other witnesses, including his Chief of Staff.

Mr. Bolton's essential argument -- that seeking to remove an officer from his portfolio does not constitute any effort to discipline or punish him -- is too clever by half. Mr. Westermann was the State Department's lead analyst on chemical and biological weapons issues. Changing his portfolio would result in discarding years of experience and training, and force Mr. Westermann to either seek employment with another intelligence agency or be retrained for a new position in INR. Either way, it would have put Mr. Westermann's career at the State Department off its normal track.

During the nomination hearing, Mr. Bolton said as follows:

~ "I never sought to have Mr. Westermann fired, at all."

~ "I in no sense, sought to have any discipline imposed on Mr. Westermann."

~ "I didn't try to have Mr. Westermann removed--."

~ "But I did not, look, I didn't try to have disciplinary action imposed on Westermann."

Testimony contradicting Boltons account

Mr. Bolton's testimony was contradicted by four witnesses.

Carl Ford, the former Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence said:

I remember going back to my office with the impression that I had been asked to fire the analyst. Now, whether the words were "fire," whether that was "reassign," "get him away from me; I don't want to see him again," I don't remember, frankly, exactly what the words were. I do remember that I came away with the impression that I'd just been asked to fire somebody in the intelligence community for doing what I considered their job.

Senator Obama later asked Mr. Ford whether he was "quite certain" that "Mr. Bolton actively sought to have this gentleman removed from his position?" Mr. Ford answered in the affirmative.

Testimony from other INR managers to whom Bolton spoke about Westermann provided similar accounts. Tom Fingar, at the time Mr. Ford's deputy, said that [Bolton] [s]aid that he wanted Westermann "taken off his accounts." Neil Silver, an office director in INR, said that Mr. Bolton "asked, or indicated, that he would like me to consider having [Westermann] move to some other portfolio, something of -- to that effect."

Even Frederick Fleitz, an aide to Mr. Bolton, understood from his conversations with Mr. Bolton that he wanted Westermann removed:

"All I can remember, and this is from Mr. Bolton, is that he spoke [to Mr. Fingar] to express his concern over what happened, and said that Mr. Westermann had lost his confidence, and he should be given a new portfolio."

B. Mr. Bolton says he did not try to remove or discipline a CIA employee.

Mr. Bolton took great pains to leave the Committee with the impression that he made no effort to seek to discipline or to fire the National Intelligence Officer for Latin America. In response to Senator Chafee, he said "I didn't see[k] to have these people fired, I didn't seek to have discipline imposed on them, I said, 'I've lost trust in them,' and are there other portfolios they could follow, it wasn't anything to me that I followed at his great length, I made my point and I moved on." To the extent that he did concede speaking to the Acting Chairman of the National Intelligence Council about the NIO, Mr. Bolton said that his intervention was "one part of one conversation with one person, one time . . . and that was it, I let it go."

As with the case of Mr. Westermann, Bolton's effort to minimize the significance of his efforts is disingenuous. The NIO was a career officer who had developed expertise on Latin America; he held the senior Latin America intelligence analyst position in the U.S. government. Removing the NIO from his job, discarding years of experience and training, would have been a black mark on the officer's career; it certainly would not have been career enhancing.

As discussed at length in Section III. B., above, it is clear that senior CIA officials believed that Bolton sought to remove the NIO. Likewise, the documentary evidence provided to the Committee confirms that Mr. Bolton and his staff actively discussed efforts to punish and remove the NIO for several months in the summer and fall of 2002. One State Department e-mail states that Mr. Bolton planned to talk to Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet about the matter.

Another indicates that Mr. Bolton had lost patience with the delay in seeking the removal of the NIO and that he did not "want it to slip away further." Mr. Bolton's office worked over a four month period on proposed letters -- that would be sent from Mr. Bolton and/or Assistant Secretary of State Otto Reich -- to CIA officials to seek removal of the NIO. The letters contemplated blocking the NIO's access to the State and Defense Departments and his official travel in the Western Hemisphere (by blocking country clearance by U.S. embassies).

Even Mr. Fleitz, the aide to Mr. Bolton, understood that Mr. Bolton believed the NIO should be given a different portfolio, and had "at least one meeting with an Agency official where he relayed his concerns."

The scramble continues.

The report prepared by the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is excellently prepared.

It makes it crystal clear that Bolton is not someone with impeccable credentials and character and not someone who as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Americans can feel proud of.

-- Steve Clemons

In the most recent May 23rd edition of Newsweek, Howard Fineman writes in his article, "Ready to Blow":

Still this is the Moderates' Moment, and for a paradoxical reason. With the rest of the Washington machinery in GOP hands, conservative activists understandably expect results.

But leaders such as Bush and Frist can't deliver without the help of the Senate's eight or nine unpredictables; the GOP's 55-45 majority simply isn't enough to obliterate the habit of cumbersome caution. Nominees can get ground up in that machinery.

One could be John Bolton, the president's controversial choice for ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton survived the Foreign Relations Committee only because of the acquiescence of Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and George Voinovich of Ohio.

But if the GOP succeeds in watering down the filibuster rule for judicial nominations before Bolton comes up, Democrats will yak him into oblivion. (emphasis added)

Fineman makes an interesting point that I had not myself considered but which makes perfect sense.

While TWN suspects that Frist bucked the White House on the timing of pushing a Bolton vote because it would weaken his hand in the looming battle over judges, it also becomes clear that if the Republicans actually win the battle on judges, Democrats will never yield on Bolton. They will filibuster forever on his nomination -- and time buys even more potential Republican defectors who are uncomfortable with the high-handed tactics of the White House.

Bolton becomes the battle to lose so that Republicans can play nice with Democrats on some front.

I'm not advocating that the Democrats yield on judges. I think it's important, however, to think through scenarios that could play out from this point forward.

Odd thing is that whether or not Dems win or lose in the battle over the judges, Bolton's chances of confirmation have seriously deteriorated today.

But don't worry, TWN is SURE that the "White House is still confident that John Bolton will be confirmed." The White House is always confident -- even when losing.

It's an attribute Democrats might learn from.

In any case, the tide remains positive for those opposing John Bolton's nomination to the U.N.

-- Steve Clemons

TWN's earlier post about the likely timing of the Bolton vote seems to be holding.

The Hill reports that Bill Frist and the White House split on the preferred timing of the Bolton vote. The White House wants Bolton confirmed "before" the nuclear option is triggered by Frist and the Dems over judicial nominations and the filibuster. Frist disagrees and reserved the right and privilege to set the Senate's agenda as he sees fit.

Here is an excerpt of Alexander Bolton's illuminating report:

A split has opened between the White House and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) over the timing of the "nuclear option."

The Bush administration would prefer the Senate to deal with the nomination of John Bolton to be U.N. ambassador before it gets down to the issue of filibustered judicial nominations.

Although Eric Ueland, chief of staff to Frist, denied that the administration wants Bolton's nomination to take precedence, GOP aides said White House lobbyists have pushed for quick action on Bolton.

Ueland told The Hill that White House aides only expressed a sense of "ardor" that the Senate confirm Bolton. "They have made it crystal clear that scheduling decisions are with the leader," Ueland said.

At the same time, Erin Healy, a White House spokeswoman, said, "The Senate leader is the one who sets the floor schedule."

But GOP Senate sources said White House aides told Frist they would like to see Bolton's nomination considered first. A GOP aide said Frist "pushed back within minutes and that was the end. It was immediately rejected."

Another GOP aide said, "In hall conversations, it was expressed as a preference" by the White House that Bolton come up before the Senate considers the nomination of Texas Judge Priscilla Owen to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The GOP aide said, "The feeling is that time is not on our side" because it's expected that it would take several days to move Bolton's nomination through the chamber. In addition, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has put a hold on Bolton's nomination.

The aide said the issue was resolved Monday night when Frist decided to move ahead on the long-stalled judicial nominations instead.

Alexander Bolton (no relation to John Bolton) then offers some comments from Senator Richard Lugar whose general "vibe" on Bolton seems certainly to have waned:

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of Foreign Relations, said that he has not heard that the White House would prefer that the Senate confirm Bolton before battling over judges. But Lugar said that Frist has made clear that the Senate will complete action on judges before moving to Bolton.

"Dr. Frist has indicated that we'll take the judges up tomorrow and move it through to a conclusion," Lugar said. "The leadership wants to complete the judicial question before we get to Bolton."

Lugar said he did not think acting on Bolton after the judicial nominees would make it more likely that Democrats would filibuster his nomination.

"If he's going to be filibustered, he's going to be filibustered," Lugar said.

The Senate confirmed Bolton as the State Department's undersecretary for arms control and international security in 2001 by a vote of 57 to 43, three votes shy of the 60 needed to end a filibuster. Republicans have since expanded their majority to 55 seats.

Clearly, the Republican leadership places higher priority on the fight over judges than on confirming Bolton -- which some Republicans oppose anyway. Given that the Republican caucus will be under some stress in maintaining unity on Bolton, it is a "smart move" by Frist to hold off on Bolton. He knows that there is a real risk of Bolton being blocked, and even voted down.

A loss or hiccup over Bolton on the Senate floor would weaken Frist in the battle over judges.

So, we learn two things from this.

First, Senator Frist knows what he is doing; he's very smart. He's also willing to buck the White House when it comes to establishing priorities.

Secondly, while Bolton opponents see their hand strengthened by a Bolton vote delay -- Frist's bigger investment is in the judges, not Bolton.

This can be used by the Dems and moderate Republicans in taking down Bolton. He is the likely casualty of the bigger battle -- and it's now clear that Frist is betting big on other gambles, but not on John Bolton.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

I have heard lots of "non-denial denials" in the past, but George Galloway's rejection and "full-body denial" of all accusations posed by Norm Coleman yesterday was as clear and resolute as could be imagined.

Coleman and Senator Carl Levin clearly have access to some intelligence that makes them think that Galloway is guilty of some complicity in the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal, but if Galloway is correct, which he declares boldly himself to be, then there is something deeply wrong with the intel we are getting out of Iraq.

Coleman's career may go right down the drain after this if Galloway's position holds. He has been strident not only on the question of U.N. corruption but then turns a blind eye to John Bolton's poor judgment calls.

What I found most amusing was Coleman's comment regarding lying to a Senate Committee:

If in fact he lied to the committee, there will have to be consequences.

Senator Coleman, you must know that under oath before the full Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Bolton said that he had never tried to have anyone fired and that he had never had disputes with State Department INR staff over intelligence estimates -- but rather about management style. He said that he had asked for revelations of redacted names from NSA intercepts two or three times -- when in fact he had requested these ten (or more) times.

John Bolton lied. Even Lisa Murkowski in her statement before the last Senate Foreign Relations Committee stated that she believed that Bolton was not 'forthcoming' and that many of his statements did not stand the light of day.

So, what of that Senator Coleman?

If Galloway is in fact being flamboyantly truthful, how ironic that bad intel and bad judgment yet again took the Senate down the road of demonizing someone who declares his honesty and turns a blind eye to the one who clearly did lie.

-- Steve Clemons

Today it is likely, though not certain, that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will "report on the Bolton hearings" to the U.S. Senate "without recommendation."

Such an action has only occurred six times in the entire 216-year history of the United States Senate, and only three of those cases have gone on to confirmation by the full body of the Senate.

The nomination will be filed "at the desk" for further action by the full Senate.

Normally, it takes a few days to "ripen", or bring the nomination to the floor of the Senate, but this waiting period can be waived with a "resolution of unanimous consent." However, that won't happen in this case.

If Frist tries to bring up the Bolton nomination, Senator Barbara Boxer will object. That will slow things down a bit.

TWN has also learned that other Senators may have placed "private holds" on Bolton.

While Senator Boxer has been very public about her intention to put Bolton's nomination on hold until the administration complies with key information requests made by Senators during their investigation of Bolton, this process is normally fairly opaque and private. While most of the media have focused on Boxer, nearly none of the media have discovered that there are, in fact, other holds on Bolton. These are behind-the-scenes and important.

These holds actually make Frist's decision more complex as he not only has to steamroll Boxer to proceed on Bolton but other as-yet-unnamed Senators.

Frist will eventually seek to nullify Boxer's hold, and perhaps other holds, with "a vote to proceed." Boxer and other Senators will seek to delay through various parliamentary tactics.

While Frist does have the means to override these holds, he has a lot of balls in the air.

Frist will be juggling BRAC irritation in Senate ranks, the Defense Appropriations bill, a showdown with the Democrats over judicial nominations, and Bolton.

Bolton is in the mix of it all, and to TWN it seems highly unlikely that a vote can be mustered next week, though it's not impossible.

If the Republicans are going to lose something in their battle with Democrats, Bolton will be the one they want to lose given their obsession with judicial appointments. Likewise, Dems have positioned themselves to be willing to spend a lot of political capital to hold the line on the filibuster and block some outrageous judicial nominations. There always exists the possibility that Dems will trade Bolton for some judges.

TWN would oppose that tactic -- but to be fair, it is a possible outcome.

On the other hand, Frist doesn't have many reasons to give the Dems much value for allowing Bolton to survive. Too many in his own caucus dislike the Bolton nomination -- and it may be to Frist's advantage to let Bolton get lost in the scuffle with Democrats over other matters.

TWN will keep you posted -- but right now, the vote is possible next week and Frist will keep trying to bring it next week. The reality is that Bolton will probably be voted on after June 3rd if the White House presses on with this deeply troubled choice.

-- Steve Clemons

Ken Jarboe alerted me to this important point made by Alan Greenspan on Sunday during a commencement address at the Wharton School:

I do not deny that many appear to have succeeded in a material way by cutting corners and manipulating associates, both in their professional and in their personal lives. But material success is possible in this world, and far more satisfying, when it comes without exploiting others.

The true measure of a career is to be able to be content, even proud, that you succeeded through your own endeavors without leaving a trail of casualties in your wake.

Our system works fundamentally on trust and individual fair dealing. We need only look around today's world to realize how valuable these traits are and the consequences of their absence. While we have achieved much as a nation in this regard, more remains to be done.

One can't imagine that the Chairman would be implicitly critical of abusive and reckless captains of industry and not of the same type of behavior among politicos.

On Bolton, I think it's clear that Greenspan would also offer -- in the cryptic way he does -- his sense of 'concern'.

-- Steve Clemons

There are too few great moments in our democracy lately.

We are collectively jaded, too prone to spin, and too willing to forgive our Senators and House Members' sacrifice of principle to curry favor with loyalty-obsessed White House.

George Voinovich startled the nation and the world with his eloquent rebuke of John Bolton. And today, George Galloway just tore the smug triumphalism and conceit of Senator Norm Coleman away in one of the great orations of the year.

Watch it again.

-- Steve Clemons

James Wolcott does a great job not only of picking on something that TWN worked up on the anti-U.N. intentions of Bolton supporters but gets right at the key questions about Iran, WMDs, and the impact on America, its allies, and the U.N.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

I have been flooded by people's emails today asking "what next on John Bolton?"

The news has been focused on the Newsweek retraction, on the "nuclear option" in the Senate regarding judicial confirmations, and the battle today between British Parliament Member George Galloway and Norm Coleman over the wrong-headedness of U.S. foreign policy.

But lurking through most of this commentary and news analysis is the question of what to do with John Bolton.

At first, Senator Frist said that he wanted Bolton's confirmation vote to occur after the battle over the filibuster and judges but before Memorial Day recess. Then he said he wanted the Bolton vote before things got hot with the judges. Now, it's unclear since Frist said today that he is going to push for a vote on one of the judges tomorrow, Wednesday, and there is no way that the Bolton vote can occur until after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee "report" is filed with the Senate which has not yet happened but is likely to happen tomorrow.

Usually, a few days -- at minimum -- elapse for the nomination to "ripen" after the Committee report is filed with the Senate. That would take us into next week.

If Democrats and Republicans are squaring off over judicial nominees -- and the Senate really does cease to function because of the Democrats' ability and willingness to stop all business functions of the Senate, then the Bolton vote is seriously stalled.

Opponents will then be able to continue to surface the material they have, make their cases to moderate Republicans and any questionable Democracts, and keep this campaign going.

If the judicial/filibuster train wreck is avoided, then it raises the question of John Bolton's fate. I think the situation is 50/50.

Voinovich has staked out the highest ground and offered the most inspirational language in the debate -- and he has created a problem for Republicans who vote for Bolton.

It's kind of like Chuck Hagel can't "out-conservative" Frist right now in a pre-presidential scramble. Hagel would be wise staking out a position moderates can embrace as a way to outflank Frist.

Likewise, no Senator is going to be able to declare a more compelling and inspired moral message about American engagement in the world that George Voinovich. Lots of Senators want to be exactly where Voinovich is, and TWN has the sense that a number of them are going to hang out under Voinovich's banner.

The White House has not done its home work in all Republican offices in the Senate. I have my own count -- and while the White House now has Base Reallignment and Closing Commission (BRAC) assets to negotiate with anti-Bolton tilting Senators -- there are numerous Senators who want to nonetheless 'stick it' to the Bush team on the Bolton vote.

This is sort of like what Democrats did to Bill Clinton when they defeated the Clinton-supported "fast track" trade vote. Fast track didn't have a lot of constituents pulling for it then, and the Dems saw it as a way to kick Clinton in the knees.

THE CONSTITUENTS FOR BOLTON are not the mainstream of this country, and smart Republicans may soon realize that a vote against Bolton is a way to regain identity, dignity, and leverage vis-a-vis the White House after being taken for granted so long.

Voting no on Bolton is an easier vote to push through than the media or the White House are willing to acknowledge.

-- Steve Clemons

Media....wake up.

The White House, Richard Lugar and others were confident that John Bolton would be affirmatively voted on by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week. The weekend talk shows last week were filled with this kind of psychological warfare commentary that made some Democrats and moderate Republicans think that the Battle over Bolton was over.

GEORGE VOINOVICH -- AND NEARLY LISA MURKOWSKI -- SHOWED WHAT MISINFORMATION THE WHITE HOUSE WAS FEEDING THE PRESS.

The White House is doing the same thing again -- and let me assure all players that ever more revelations on Bolton misjudgments in his last position as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security -- and during other points in his career -- are on their way.

This battle is nowhere near being over -- and TWN has enjoyed demonstrating how wrong-headed and misplaced "White House confidence" in Bolton and support for him has been.

So, don't be duped. Wait for the evidence and reaction from credible, thoughtful Senators before picking winners in this battle.

-- Steve Clemons

Bruce Ackerman has just published a powerful piece in today's Financial Times and TWN has secured permission to reprint the piece in full.

While Ackerman does not address questions related to the cynical efforts by the White House to steamroll independent action and inquiry by Senators regarding the John Bolton nomination, he makes his case on judicial appointments and the filibuster question:

Here is Ackerman's piece:

Financial Times, 16 May 2005

A threat to impartiality in the American Senate

Bruce Ackerman

During the coming week, the US Senate will be struggling with a question that will affect the path of American constitutional law for decades. While senators are battling over Democratic efforts to filibuster George W. Bush's nominees to the courts of appeal, this conflict will set the stage for a larger struggle in June, when William Rehnquist is expected to announce his retirement as chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Mr Rehnquist's retirement will be the first of a series. Eight of the court's nine justices are over 65. Depending on the new appointments, the court may continue down its present course or launch revolutionary changes in constitutional principle. Under existing rules, it takes 60 senators to terminate debate, enabling Democrats to filibuster judicial nominations that pander too obviously to the religious right. But rightwing activists are pressing the 55 Senate Republicans to allow a simple majority to confirm the president's judicial nominations.

Their prime target is Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader. As a leading candidate for the presidency, Mr Frist is especially eager to pacify his religious constituency. But the Senate rules do not make this easy. A special provision requires "two-thirds of the senators present and voting" to end debate on rule changes and Mr Frist will fall far short of the 67 senators this requires. His predicament is exacerbated by another provision stipulating that no rule may be changed except as "provided in these rules".

Faced with this unambiguous command, the Republican leadership has manufactured a constitutional objection to the rules themselves. The constitution says each house "may determine the rules of its proceedings", and for two centuries the Senate has exercised this power in a distinctive fashion. As only one-third of its members enter with every election, the Senate has viewed itself as a continuing body. Unless there is a challenge at its opening session, the Senate continues to operate under its established rules.

Mr Frist is urging his fellow Republicans to repudiate this understanding. He claims that the Senate has the constitutional right to be like the House of Representatives, which approves its rules each session by simple majority vote. Conservatives do not often insist on repudiating a practice dating from the founding fathers. In any event, Mr Frist's analogy to the House does not get him where he wants to go. Once the House organises itself at its opening session, it must follow its own rules if it wants to change them later. In contrast, Mr Frist claims that a Senate majority may simply repudiate the rules at any time. This raises the question, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Reference Service, of wheth-er the Senate will become "a chaotic environment in which a temporary majority could change precedents any time it wanted to". The constitution gives the Senate the power to "determine its rules", but nothing gives it the authority to ignore them.

Nevertheless, the Republican leadership wants change before the Rehnquist vacancy opens. Mr Frist plans this week to make a pending judicial nomination into a test case. He is counting on vice-president Dick Cheney, as president of the Senate, to declare the key Senate rules unconstitutional, and to end debate on the basis of a simple majority vote. Unsurprisingly, he is having trouble rounding up 51 votes to support this manoeuvre, leading Mr Cheney to offer further assistance. As Senate president he has the power to break tie votes and has said he would cast the deciding ballot to destroy the rules.

There is more at stake than sheer lawlessness. The filibuster permits the Senate to play a moderating role within the constitutional system of checks and balances. Except when there is a decisive landslide, it requires the majority party to moderate its initiatives to gain the support of at least a few minority Senators. Mr Cheney's role in destroying the moderating role of the Senate is particularly problematic. For two centuries, the Senate president has been the pre-eminent guardian of the rules. Thomas Jefferson first put them in writing when he served as vice-president. His aim was to prevent political manipulation by the presiding officer, and Senate presidents have consistently served as impartial arbiters. In breaking with this tradition, Mr Cheney has a clear conflict of interests. As president of the Senate, he owes the institution fidelity to its rules, but as vice-president to Mr Bush, he wants to see his boss's judicial nominations confirmed. By allowing his executive interest to trump his duty to the Senate, Mr Cheney is undercutting the separation of powers.

Constitutional tragedy turns to farce in the light of Mr Cheney's professed aim: to appoint judges who will return to the original understanding of the constitution and the rule of law. Physician, heal thyself.

The writer is Sterling professor of law and political science at Yale University.

Ackerman makes the important and correct argument that there is an attempted radicalization of institutions and methods right now by the far right that could threaten the system of checks and balances that makes America's template of democracy work.

I have been very impressed by students at Princeton University who have taken their campaign to preserve the filibuster around the nation. This material is a great source to get informed on the subject.

And for those who want to understand how Americans think Washington "should" operate, go rent Mr Smith Goes to Washington and see why the filibuster worked for Jimmy Stewart -- a Republican by the way.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm in Denver for the weekend -- out here for a conference on U.S.-China-Taiwan Relations organized by the Center for China-U.S. Cooperation and the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver. It seems that the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office based in Kansas City was a significant sponsor of this event -- so I was suprised to see so many Taiwanese government officials here express to me that they could easily constrain their enthusiasm for John Bolton.

Bolton did have some probable fans in the room, though I'm not sure. There was one blustery local political representative who seemed to hammer various speakers with 'demonization of China' rhetoric every chance he got. All that said, the discourse at this meeting was excellent, thoughtful, and balanced.

But on Bolton, Denver surprises me. I've discussed Bolton not only in this great city where Gary Hart lives -- but also in small, undeveloped rustic parts of the state -- particularly Cotopaxi, Colorado.

I highly recommend stopping in at the Cotopaxi General Store, situated in this small nook on the Arkansas River, and checking in with the folks who hang out and stop in there.

Virtually everyone I've met -- from liberal internationalist to classic conservative to hard core libertarian -- thinks that John Bolton is either "damaged goods" at this point or is the wrong person to represent American interests in the U.N.

I have one friend who is a realtor and rancher down near Cotopaxi who doesn't give a damn about politics and wants Washington to stay as far away from him as possible. He feels that citizens have delegated to their representatives responsibilities to see to the welfare of their constituents -- and even he has heard how reckless and abusive John Bolton is. My friend in Cotopaxi said that to him "Bolton sounds dishonest and would be an embarrassment to the country and president."

I had nothing to do with the brilliant editorial, "Lessons for John Bolton," that appeared in the Denver Post this morning, but the timing could not be better.

Here is the link, but I want to reprint in full:

Denver Post -- 16 May 2005

Lessons for John Bolton

In the melodramatic fashion of a classic Washington soap opera, John Bolton's nomination for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has moved from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for consideration by the full Senate.

During the weeks when his nomination was stuck in committee, we learned much about Bolton - especially his high-handed way of dealing with others and his contempt for the U.N. Perhaps the most serious concern was that Bolton tried repeatedly to twist intelligence to fit his policy positions, including findings on North Korean, Cuban and Syrian weapons of mass destruction programs.

For those reasons, Bolton could not win a majority in committee, and he suffered the indignity of seeing his nomination go to the Senate floor without recommendation, and with the harsh criticism of a well-regarded Senate Republican ringing in his ears. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, spoke for many when he said Bolton was not the best candidate for a job in which relations with American allies are critical.

Nevertheless, Bolton is the president's choice, and Voinovich allowed his nomination to go to the Senate floor where there is a chance he will be confirmed. If that's the case, we hope he has learned some lessons along the way.

In some quarters there will be high expectations that as ambassador, Bolton would improve his diplomatic bearing, yet there's a risk that he will misread the approval of senators who are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. They might not mind much if Bolton deploys his prickly personality against the U.N. bureaucracy, but they expect him to provide constructive diplomacy when dealing with policy matters on behalf of a president who has made it clear he intends to work more closely with other nations in his second term.
Voinovich called Bolton "the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be." He was one of four Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee who expressed concerns about Bolton, clearly with the president's best interest at heart.

Bolton's nomination is now mixed up in the partisan showdown over judicial appointments, with some Republicans claiming that Democratic opposition is more political than anything else. Bolton's support by Senate Republicans -- if it holds -- could end up being a vote aimed as much at dominating the Democrats, having less to do with the nominee's fitness to represent the United States in the Byzantine halls of the U.N.

Great editorial.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

We know the answer, and so does Paul Light: Blind Loyalty.

However, Light's article today in Newsday posits some very interesting questions about what the personnel appointment/screening process does and does not do when on automatic pilot.

Here is the core of the piece:

Bolton was nominated almost entirely on the basis of his loyalty to the president, his ideological intensity and membership in the professional class of appointees who await the next plum to add to their resumé. Having held four appointments under three Republican presidents, Bolton was named for the UN assignment largely because he was available, not because he had shown the leadership skills needed for such an important assignment. To the contrary, as Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) said Thursday, his sometimes abusive behavior as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security would have earned him a pink slip in the private sector.

The question is how a candidate with a flair for intimidation made it so far. The answer will not be found in the 60 pages of forms Bolton filled out as part of the nomination process. Bolton had to list every address he has lived at in the past 15 years, every school he attended, every employer and supervisor, country of birth, citizenship of his mother, father, siblings (full, step, or half) and in-laws, all foreign countries he visited, including short trips to Canada or Mexico, any arrests, traffic fines of more than $150, illegal drug use and alcohol abuse dating back to age 18 and any psychological counseling he might have received.

But none of the more than 200 questions asked about Bolton's definition of leadership, his approach to managing people, problems he might have had with subordinates, his commitment to public service, his definition of ethical conduct, or his own supervisory behavior. The only question that comes even remotely close to such issues is in the White House Personal Data Questionnaire, and it is nearly impossible to answer: "Is there anything about you or your family that would embarrass the president?"

The answer will not be found at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which reviewed all Bolton's answers, nor at the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, which searched his financial records for possible conflicts of interest. And it will not be found in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee questionnaire, which asks dozens of questions about policy, but none about leadership and management.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

This morning's Providence Journal has an excellent political column looking forward to the next Senate race in Rhode Island and assessing the impact of Lincoln Chafee's decision not to stand by John Bolton -- but rather to stand by Bush's decision -- on John Bolton.

Here is an excerpt from the piece by M. Charles Bakst:

It remains uncertain whether John Bolton, George Bush's embattled nominee as United Nations ambassador, will be confirmed by the full Senate, and who knows how he'd actually do in office, or how many Rhode Islanders will care about any of this next year, or cared even last week.

But the topic certainly was in the news, and on Thursday morning, the day Chafee's Senate Foreign Relations Committee took up the nomination, your local newspaper published this front-page headline:

Chafee will Defer to Bush, Vote for Bolton for U.N. Post

The headline captured the story fairly, and the story captured the situation fairly.

And that's Chafee's potential problem.

In proceeding to join his fellow Republicans in a 10-to-8 party-line vote to send the unpopular nomination to the full Senate, Chafee played directly into the hands of Democratic opponents who charge he'd rather knuckle under to a right-wing GOP president than use his brain and represent the interests of Rhode Islanders.

There is a great deal about Senator Chafee that I like -- but in something I learned years ago from one of my political science professors, Hans Baerwald, one can never really know the real norms of a political system unless observed under stress.

In this case, if the centrist Senator Chafee is "centrist" only when things are calm, what does that matter? It's only in times of stress that Senator Chafee's real tendencies will appear -- and those seem to be that in the end he'll choose to keep Vice President Cheney happy over the concerns of his constituents.

The party over citizens' interests; Another superpower in America's not so distant past used to operate that way.

Dana Milbank wrote about Senator Chafee during the most recent Foreign Relations Committee meeting on Bolton:

Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), who took a political risk by backing Bolton, stared at his water glass and looked as if he were about to cry.

If Chafee is going to develop a political profile anything along the lines that his father used to display, then the notion of giving "reluctant support" to anything needs to be purged from his DNA. When he votes in favor or against something, he needs to know why -- and needs to articulate those reasons.

But to go to voters and say that he was forced to vote for Bolton by the tough, mean team in the White House is a sure way to lose the respect of one's constituents. As I wrote the other day, when Voinovich began his oration at the business meeting, he framed the issues about Bolton and the "big issues" that this nomination was about in a way that earned TWN's respect even if he had supported Bolton's confirmation.

Chafee's spokesman had told TWN that after the Foreign Relations Committee business meeting in which the Bolton vote had surprisingly been delayed, Chafee planned to take the stance of being visibly aggressive and investigating issues on Bolton in a serious and vigorous manner. According to Stephen Hourahan, Chafee's spokesman, the Senator planned to pursue this hard until "either the cloud was lifted over the nomination -- or the nomination ended."

Hourahan and Chafee's excellent staff know what is in the best interests of their boss -- and that was to have pulled a Voinovich. Even if Chafee had known all along that he was going to support Bolton -- and was just flirting with the Bolton opposition to get them off of his back -- he should have been far more dramatic and compelling in his reasons to support Bolton.

The problem is -- there are so few credible reasons to support John Bolton for the important role as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Part of leadeship is knowing when the right moments are to strike or act. Proactive efforts are praised more than reactive or passive behavior. And thus far, Lincoln Chafee has chosen to be passive and reactive -- not proactive.

He has an opportunity, slight but still there, to re-craft his stance on Bolton. He could investigate more. Run through every item in Bolton's professional history and orate about it on the floor of the Senate and tell Americans why either these issues are irrelevant in this confirmation vote -- or do matter.

Chafee could still lead in this Bolton imbroglio -- but just "staring into the water glass" is the worst option for him.

So far, he appears a victim of consequences -- not a good thing for a United States Senator.

Chafee better rise above it fast, or John Bolton will bring him down.

-- Steve Clemons

Finally, some honesty from Bolton supporters is making its way out of the muck.

Whereas much of the support for Bolton has had the veneer of being about United Nations reform, what Bolton proponents really want is a ferocious show-down with Iran and North Korea through the United Nations -- not because the U.N. is a good venue for such a battle but because the weaknesses of the U.N. and the problem of getting Security Council unity behind resolutions may allow Bolton to kick apart the institution.

As reported today in the Financial Times:

Conservative hawks backing John Bolton as the next US ambassador to the United Nations are looking forward to their champion taking on North Korea and Iran in the Security Council as the Bush administration takes the next steps to deal with their nuclear programmes.

The White House said on Friday it expected Mr Bolton to be confirmed after the Senate foreign relations committee took the rare decision on Thursday to send his nomination to the Senate floor without endorsement.

While I disagree with the objectives of the pro-Bolton crowd, I respect much more the notion that they want to have a show-down with Iran and North Korea in the U.N. arena -- than I do their false claims that they are "real believers" in an improved and reformed U.N.

Here is the problem though.

Now that we know that Frank Gaffney, David Frum, Gary Bauer, and others at ConfirmBolton.com are worried about North Korea and Iran -- what is their strategy -- other than sending Bolton to the U.N.?

The fact is that they have no strategy -- that is apparent to TWN yet -- on how to credibly confront and/or preempt the further creep of North Korea's and Iran's nuclear pretensions.

Their goal is to focus on blowing up the United Nations by using North Korea and Iran confrontations that run the risk of yet again dividing the U.S. and Europe.

Their goal is not to look at the combination of policy initiatives, including efforts at the U.N., to deal with the substantive threats posed by North Korea and Iran.

It's all about kicking apart the United Nations, reformed or not.

-- Steve Clemons

Newsweek's Michael Hirsh and Eve Conant have reported another aspect of John Bolton's delinquency during his last job.

Virtually all players in the current review of the Non-Proliferation Treaty blame Bolton for not preparing the U.S. position.

However, here appears to be MORE to the story according to a source, since confirmed, that TWN has recently contacted. According to this source:

Bolton's failure to "prepare" for the NPT review conference goes far beyond "dropping the ball."

Starting two years ago, other senior officials wanted to go around to various countries to work out common positions to take on revisions at the NPT conference, but Bolton wouldn't let them go.

Although the source would not identify the individual, TWN speculates that at least one of these senior officials was Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation John Wolf.

Willful negligence? Tick Tock. Tick Tock. Tick Tock.

The dossier gets more and more heavy with the negative.

-- Steve Clemons

Here is the opener to a long column I wrote today for my good friend, Martin Walker, who is Chief Editor of UPI:

Outside View: GOP Ranks Shaken by Bolton Nomination

by Steven C. Clemons

The battle over John Bolton, President Bush's pick for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is not a competition between Senate Democrats and Republicans. It's actually a brewing civil war inside the Republican foreign-policy establishment. None of the dramatic events of the four public hearings to date on Bolton's nomination would have been possible without the active complicity of a large swath of the GOP establishment.

Nine senior U.S. government officials -- some, like Carl Ford, known to be heavyweight Republican politicos and lobbyists -- all nominated by a Republican President and confirmed by a Republican Congress collectively made the argument that John Bolton's record of service and behavior make him "unfit" for the U.N. post. And behind the scenes -- lurking unofficially but offering cryptic signs of their own discomfort with Bolton -- have been former Secretary of State Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, and even Brent Scowcroft.

On the record, these three titans of the Republican foreign-policy world will not attack Bolton. They all say he's smart, knows a lot about the U.N. and is qualified. But as Scowcroft so cleverly put it: "What matters most about John Bolton are the instructions he is given -- and whether he 'chooses' to follow them." Suffice it to say that despite an occasional nod to Bolton's intellectual fortitude, none of these three has signed a letter or statement endorsing him -- and privately they have made their concerns known to any senator who asks them.

The White House too is making this battle over Bolton not about him and not really about the United Nations. Once Bolton's opponents (including TheWashingtonNote.com) pre-empted the State Department from having his hearings fast-tracked before the Easter congressional recess -- and then the testimony of Carl Ford and victimized intelligence analyst Christian Westermann made their way into the second day of hearings -- the White House made this a war over executive-branch power. A loss on this nomination somehow morphed into the question of whether un-bolting from Bolton would trigger the true beginning of a Bush lame-duck presidency.

The White House became stuck on the need to win at all costs. They never thought Bolton would matter to the American public. The White House counted on public ignorance about Bolton, who to most people is just an obscure government official dealing with the remnants of old Soviet nuclear stockpiles -- if they know that at all. GOP Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island remarkably stated publicly that he could support Bolton because Rhode Islanders didn't know who he was and weren't that concerned about who sat at the U.N. as envoy for U.S. policy.

The rest of the piece is here.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm impressed with Doug Jehl's audio show on the Bolton hearing this week.

Someday, TWN will have this sort of capacity. I think it's an interesting way to reach people who wantt interesting audio snippets.

Enjoy.

-- Steve Clemons

Chris Nelson is having some fun today and just did a nice job reporting on White House Spokesman Scott McClellan not correcting or modifying Condoleeza Rice's assurances to Senators that they need not worry about Bolton's behavior -- as she would "supervise him."

From the ever-wonderful Nelson Report:

SUMMARY: Washington is in hilarity over Secretary Rice's presumably unintentional gaffe, trying to "reassure" Republican senators that they need not worry about John Bolton's bad manners, because she will "supervise" him to make sure he doesn't blow-up the UN, just when the Administration is desperate for Security Council backing against Iran and N. Korea.

If you need a good laugh on an overcast Friday afternoon, check the White House press briefing today and enjoy spokesman Scott McClellan's absolute refusal to "correct" Rice's "supervision" remark, despite the joyful hectoring of intrepid ink-stained scribblers.

It's long been known that Rice didn't trust Bolton and didn't want him around the building. . .she had watched him work to sabotage the Korea policy of her predecessor, Colin Powell, and knew exactly what she was in for.

That's why she resisted pressure from VP Cheney to make Bolton her Deputy, and Rich Armitage's successor, even though she may well have agreed with his views. As we all learned at the infamous Bush press conference two weeks ago, it turns out that Bolton spoke for Bush as well as Cheney, on "negotiating" with N. Korea's Kim Jong-il.

In any event, it's clear that for all of Rice's "good soldier" support of Bolton for the UN, Condi isn't any more enthusiastic about Bolton now, than she was last winter, when she successfully fought for her personal choice as Deputy, then-USTR Robert Zoellick.

Insiders warn that among many private concerns are that wavering Republicans will come to learn more about Bolton's lack of performance in carrying out such critical non-proliferation activities as properly supporting the Nunn-Lugar program to remove nuclear armaments from the former Soviet Union, and the general view that he completely dropped the ball in preparing for this week's non-proliferation conference in New York, despite the Iran and N. Korea crises.

Whether the accumulating "evidence" that Bolton's performance should be disqualifying on its merits is an interesting question, and it furthers the Democrat's apparent plan. . .to keep to the facts, and to avoid purely "partisan" opposition to Bolton because he's a conservative.

So watch to see if today's inept White House performance is a window into a growing realization that Bolton's nomination was a mistake, and whether the "candidacy" of Undersecretary for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky, as a sensible "conservative option", starts to develop legs.

For now, Sen. Boxer is using a "hold" to try and force State to come up with the requested documents which, so far, Rice has refused (or been afraid?) to release. So when Bolton will get his Floor vote now gets more complicated, as time would seem to be the enemy of this nomination.

And if Boxer sticks to her guns, she can force a "cloture" fight. . .one where the White House would have to find 60 Senators to vote against enforcing Senate information prerogatives. . .a "principle" which conservatives and liberals alike can sometimes use to agree, while saving face by avoiding the specifics of the argument.

Here is the fun exchange with Scott McClellan this morning over whether the President also thought John Bolton needed to be supervised:

Q Does the President agree with his Secretary of State when Secretary Rice said that Bolton, if approved, would need to be supervised at the U.N.?

MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things on that. One, you ought to direct that question to the Department of State, because I'm not sure that they would characterize that exactly the way it was characterized by others. So I think you ought to ask the Department of State about it. But Secretary Rice --

Q But this is the White House, you could set us straight here.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm glad you brought that up. Secretary Rice is another person who believes strongly that John Bolton is the right person at the right time to be at the United Nations. And, again, I'm not going to work off media reports, but in terms of --

Q Did she not say that? I mean, I assume the White House knows whether she said it or not.

MR. McCLELLAN: You can talk to Department of State about that. They're briefing here very shortly, and I'm sure they'd be glad to respond to it.

Q Does the President believe he needs to be supervised?

MR. McCLELLAN: But anytime --

Q Just answer that question for us.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- you have ambassadors, ambassadors report to the President through the Secretary of State. That's just the process that's set up. And when you have an ambassador at the United Nations, I think it's long worked that way, that the ambassador reports through the Secretary of State to the President of the United States.

Q But does this guy, with his temperamental history, does he need to be supervised?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't agree that that's an accurate characterization, in the first place.

Q You're not saying, "no"?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you ought to talk to Department of State, and I'm sure they'd be glad to respond to that. So I don't think you should take --

Q He's the President's pick.

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think you should take it as that.

Q I don't think foisting it upon the Department of State is what you --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, look, if you want to keep trying to jump in here, that's fine, but I'm going to keep moving on to other questions, David.

Several more weeks of this kind of exchange are predicted.

-- Steve Clemons

Sources in the White House tell TWN that there is genuine shock and disbelief among the Executive Office ranks about the difficulties of getting Bolton confirmed for the U.N.

One source reported that "this all seems so unprecedented. Who knew who John Bolton was before all this began anyway?"

While the White House has not rolled out a statement supporting Bolton that was as robust and strong as after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's last business meeting, there is no formal comment that the White House is reconsidering him.

Beneath the surface, however, some in the Executive Office of the President think that "this Bolton hand may have been overplayed." Everyone agrees that there was serious underestimation of the concern about Bolton's record and behavior. They seem to know that even though they compelled the votes to get Bolton moved out of Committee that their caucus is extremely uncomfortable.

TWN thinks the political team and/or communications team that let this Bolton matter become taxi-cab-driver-discussion and a topic of household chats are going to be in trouble with the boss.

This from Doug Jehl this morning:

Eric Ueland, chief of staff for the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, said the Bolton nomination would probably come to the full Senate after lawmakers resolved a dispute over confirmation votes for President Bush's judicial nominees, which is expected to be taken up next week. He said Republicans hoped that would leave time for a vote before the Memorial Day recess.

Later Thursday, however, Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, placed a hold on the nomination, according to her spokesman, David Sandretti. He said she wanted to get State Department documents that Democrats have been seeking involving Mr. Bolton's dealings with American intelligence agencies over Syria. In rejecting the request several days ago, Ms. Rice said disclosure of the documents could have a chilling effect on debates within the administration.

By placing the hold on the nomination, which is a privilege that any senator can invoke, Ms. Boxer can prevent it from going to the Senate floor for a vote. Under Senate rules, it takes 60 votes to overturn a "hold."

Bolton won't get a vote before Memorial Day recess. This marathon has a long way to go, and I've been training.

This is all looking quite good.

-- Steve Clemons

Lynne Cheney, the Vice President's wife, has spoken incessantly about the need to provide good moral examples for children and teens in America.

But now her husband and others are arguing that Bolton-style bullying "is just what the U.N. needs."

I can see the ads being developed now.

Picture a big, burly kid, hand in a fist (or menacingly pointing as Christian Westermann mentioned in his interview commentary), and a young dark-skinned child -- perhaps from Iraq or India or Indonesia -- cowering on the ground afraid of the bully.

Around them are youths from South Korea, Germany, Sweden, Ghana, Malaysia, Portugal, Mexico, Brazil, China, and Israel. Their eyes are wide open and fixed on the fist of the bully -- scared.

And the caption has the bully saying "I want to grow up and be just like John Bolton."

Bolton is not someone who can be a credible champion for U.N. reform. He can't seduce other nations to go the extra mile to make real reform happen, and he doesn't have the credibility at this point to come back and sell to Americans or the Congress anything he might have achieved.

We need someone who has impeccable credentials, for whom Americans can feel proud, and who has a good sense of American interests, diplomacy, and the fragile state of affairs in the U.S. foreign policy portfolio right now.

President Bush -- withdraw Bolton, and suggest someone who will inspire children to be better than the example John Bolton would set.

-- Steve Clemons

Ron Brownstein's survey of today's Bolton drama is very lucid and fair. He outlines the importance of Voinovich's move, the angst in nearly every other political faction, and the willingness of the White House to do nearly anything to win.

TWN wants the White House to do nearly anything to win. In so doing, the White House loses.

Here is the opening to Brownstein's insightful piece:

The tumultuous Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote to advance the nomination of John Bolton today distilled the polarizing political dynamics of George W. Bush's presidency into a single illuminating day.

Like so many of Bush's initiatives, the nomination of the blustery Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations energized conservatives, outraged Democrats and squeezed moderates in both parties.

And as he has many times before, Bush won the legislative fight by the narrowest of margins -- maintaining just enough support from Sen. George V. Voinovich of Ohio and other conflicted Republicans on the committee to overcome uniform Democratic opposition and move the nomination to the floor on a party-line vote.

In that way, the vote demonstrated again Bush's willingness to live on the political edge -- to accept achingly narrow margins in Congress and at the ballot box to pursue ambitious changes that sharply divide the country.

Bolton survived today in really bad shape.

And what the opponents got to his nomination was the same thing that they got at the last business meeting when the vote got delayed -- time.

There will be more time to tell the entire story of John Bolton.

I want to reconnect with Bill Kristol who called on Senator Frist some time ago to allow unlimited debate on the floor of the Senate to debate John Bolton's qualifications to serve in this role.

Let both sides lay it all out.

TWN embraced Kristol's proposal then -- and is ready to go with it now.

Senator Frist, Senator Reid -- what say you?

-- Steve Clemons