Who knows but if people ask for your classified information do you give it out freely?
There comes a time when you have to say enough is enough.
Originally posted by: BBond
AFAIK, the U.S. Senate can request information necessary for them to advise and consent on nominations from the president.
There are Senators with classified clearance, I'm sure.
What is Bush hiding about Bolton (and probably himself as well)?
Provide the documents requested and let the Senate vote on Bolton. Or keep the documents and have no vote. The choice is Bush's.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: BBond
AFAIK, the U.S. Senate can request information necessary for them to advise and consent on nominations from the president.
There are Senators with classified clearance, I'm sure.
What is Bush hiding about Bolton (and probably himself as well)?
Provide the documents requested and let the Senate vote on Bolton. Or keep the documents and have no vote. The choice is Bush's.
Who knows but if people ask for your classified information do you give it out freely?
There comes a time when you have to say enough is enough.
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: BBond
AFAIK, the U.S. Senate can request information necessary for them to advise and consent on nominations from the president.
There are Senators with classified clearance, I'm sure.
What is Bush hiding about Bolton (and probably himself as well)?
Provide the documents requested and let the Senate vote on Bolton. Or keep the documents and have no vote. The choice is Bush's.
You are sure right?
ok
This is a witch hunt plain and simple.
Who knows but if people ask for your classified information do you give it out freely?
There comes a time when you have to say enough is enough.
If the U.S. Senate asks the president for information to make an informed judgement on one of his nominations they must be provided with the information. There is no excuse to not provide the information. There are Senators who have Top Secret clearance, I'm sure.
Providing my personal information to anyone who asks is a boneheaded analogy.
Members of Boltons staff have already seen thee documents. How classified can they be?Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: BBond
The Republicans refuse to produce documents at the request of the U.S. Senate that even Bolton's STAFF had access to.
No documents, no vote.
I have a feeling that those documents contain more than info on Bolton and that's why Bush is so vehement about NOT releasing them. Another smoking gun???
Bush will be sorry he ever considered this nut Bolton for UN Ambassador.
Vote to end debate on Bolton fails
Senate move delays decision on controversial U.N. nominee
Thursday, May 26, 2005 Posted: 7:19 PM EDT (2319 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After hours of heated exchanges, the Senate failed Thursday evening to close off debate on President Bush's nomination of John R. Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations.
The cloture vote would have paved the way for a vote on whether to confirm the controversial nominee.
Republicans needed 60 votes to cut off the debate; they fell short by four, with a 56-42 breakdown.
The debate on Bolton's nomination will now likely resume next month after senators return from their weeklong holiday break.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist had said he wanted a vote on the nomination before the weeklong Memorial Day holiday.
"It does disappoint me," Frist said after the vote. "It looks like we have, once again, another filibuster."
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid took issue with Frist's comment.
"This is the first filibuster of the year, and maybe the last. (I) hope so," the Nevada Democrat said.
After cloture, Bolton would need a simple majority to be confirmed by the Senate, which has 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent.
Two key Democratic senators -- Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Joe Biden of Delaware -- asked their Democratic colleagues Thursday to vote against closing the debate.
The two said they wanted more time for the Bush administration to turn over requested documents relating to Syria and to 10 instances of communications intercepted by the National Security Agency.
The senators said Bolton had once sought those intercepts as the undersecretary of state for arms control.
In a letter to their peers, the two Democrats said the administration's refusal to provide the documents "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 senators said. "The only means of forcing the administration to cooperate is to prevent a final vote on the nomination today."
On the Senate floor, the debate was passionate on both sides of the aisle.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, pointed to negative comments Bolton has made about the United Nations.
Bolton said during a Federalist Society forum in 1994: "If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."
Boxer asked: "What kind of credibility does he have walking onto the floor of the United Nations?"
Sen. Ted Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, added: "The United Nations is the one and only organization where the nations of the world can link their unique strengths in a realistic hope of building a peaceful future for all humanity.
"We need a representative at the United Nations who supports that vision and is committed to that future for us all," he said. "John Bolton is not that person for that job."
But Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, said Bolton would represent the nation well.
"The United Nations needs the presence of a tough, hard, dedicated individual that has been already, already confirmed in various posts four times by this body," he said.
Sen. Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, called for Democrats to allow Bolton's nomination to come to a vote.
"I hope we will move forward to a final vote on Mr. Bolton this afternoon and people who think he is the wrong choice and may have policy differences with the president on how we are pursuing liberty and democracy across the globe can vote against him on that basis," Gregg said.
At least one Republican, Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, has said he will not vote for Bolton because he believes the State Department official could undermine Bush's foreign policy.
But the offices of other Republican moderates -- Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska -- indicated they would support Bush's pick.
Democrats have charged Bolton lacks the diplomatic skills for the job.
At his confirmation hearings last month, senators heard testimony that Bolton bullied subordinates and tried to get intelligence analysts who disagreed with him fired or reassigned.
One of Bolton's former State Department colleagues testified last month that Bolton was "a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy."
He also was accused of manipulating intelligence to fit his preconceived notions and misleading the committee.
Bolton's supporters, including the White House, argue he is a seasoned government official who can spearhead reform at the United Nations.
The Republican-dominated Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10 to 8 along party lines two weeks ago to send the Bolton nomination to the full Senate. But the committee withheld its endorsement, something rarely done.
I find it funny liberals like you are up in arms about things like the patriot act yet think it is just fine if classified documents are shown to people without clearence just to satisfy a witch hunt.
Originally posted by: HomerJS
Members of Boltons staff have already seen thee documents. How classified can they be?
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: HomerJS
Members of Boltons staff have already seen thee documents. How classified can they be?
Exactly!
They aren't cleared and they shouldn't have seen these reports. And Bolton had no business seeing or even requesting to see them.
This is another smoking gun that the Bush administration is trying to hide by refusing to supply document to the senate that the senate has every right to see. They're so desparate to keep their secret they'll probably drop Bolton before complying.
BTW - Frist has also request the same documents. I guess everyone who asks for these is witch hunting.Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: HomerJS
Members of Boltons staff have already seen thee documents. How classified can they be?
Exactly!
They aren't cleared and they shouldn't have seen these reports. And Bolton had no business seeing or even requesting to see them.
This is another smoking gun that the Bush administration is trying to hide by refusing to supply document to the senate that the senate has every right to see. They're so desparate to keep their secret they'll probably drop Bolton before complying.
Right and when this witch hunt proves to be nothing then what?
Originally posted by: HomerJS
BTW - Frist has also request the same documents. I guess everyone who asks for these is witch hunting.Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: HomerJS
Members of Boltons staff have already seen thee documents. How classified can they be?
Exactly!
They aren't cleared and they shouldn't have seen these reports. And Bolton had no business seeing or even requesting to see them.
This is another smoking gun that the Bush administration is trying to hide by refusing to supply document to the senate that the senate has every right to see. They're so desparate to keep their secret they'll probably drop Bolton before complying.
Right and when this witch hunt proves to be nothing then what?
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: HomerJS
Members of Boltons staff have already seen thee documents. How classified can they be?
Exactly!
They aren't cleared and they shouldn't have seen these reports. And Bolton had no business seeing or even requesting to see them.
This is another smoking gun that the Bush administration is trying to hide by refusing to supply document to the senate that the senate has every right to see. They're so desparate to keep their secret they'll probably drop Bolton before complying.
Right and when this witch hunt proves to be nothing then what?
Originally posted by: piasabird
I think the Democrats Fear Bolton, because he knows how to do his job and can get the job done, and they dont want to vote for anyone who makes the present administration look good. Democrats vote party line at the detriment of the country and the people they are sworn to protect.
Originally posted by: Czar
My guess is that there is absolutely nothing in these documents that matter, its more of a fight for power. The democrats go on and on about the importance about this document, the Gov says no to letting them see it and when they do see it (it will happen) it wont change a thing, will seriosly discurage people from requesting any documents again in fear of embarisment.
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: gallivanter
Originally posted by: BBond
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was the only Republican to vote against ending the delays, but he only did so because that gave him the procedural right to force the Senate to vote again on the issue.
Not that I doubt you're all experts in the minutiae of senate procedure but really, anyhone who read the news this morning or would know that.
For example, Democrats win crucial Bolton vote.
And everyone seems to be ignoring Bush's bloody nose, no matter what advantage Frist used in senate procedure . And this from the party that wants to change centuries old senate rules for their own short term advantage.
*edit*
Should have said procedures. And please excuse any typos. I haven't located my glasses yet.
Except that I posted last night, but that is probably irrelevant. There is no point to, or possibility of, proving that which can not be proven.
On a related, but larger issue, perhaps some here are growing increasingly tired of others pontificating and hurling barbs and thinly veiled insults from some self-perceived high perch on subjects and issues that they have no basis for which to do so, and in many cases, possess an obvious lack of understanding and true knowledge.
As for the particular case here, there was no minutiae of Senate procedure involved. Any individual concerned with our ways of government who has read a book or two on the subject of the Constitution and the Senate would have known this, as would any person who even semi-casually watches C-Span.
But what do I know. I guess I'll go back to googling now, but before I do, I would like to comment on the President. It is true that this was a temporary setback for him, for Senator Frist. There should be no spin regarding that. It does not even matter how Senator Frist was lied to by a couple of his counterparts from the other side of the aisle. Even with all of that though, Mr. Bolton will be confirmed, and in the end the biggest bloody noses will belong to the real leaders of the Democrats in the Senate and to the compromising fourteen led by John McCain.
We're discussing politics and news to the best of our meager abilities and relying the putrid U.S. press in many cases as our only source of information. I read foreign press as well. I do the best I can.
I struggle on with the unswerving knowledge that everything we told you people would happen if you allowed Bush to go off on this unjustifiable aggression has happened and is happening.
If the left is so incapable of remarking on these subjects, how do you describe the mess all of Bush's "experts" have made out of Iraq?
Maybe you people should disregard the ideologue "experts" of the Bush administration who lied to you to advance their secret agenda and defer instead to people whose insights were absolutely correct.
If you want to discuss these issues with experts you should join the Bush administration. You will be free to be as wrong there as you are here. And of course there will be no accountability whatsoever, quite probably a promotion, and perhaps even a Medal of Freedom.
:roll:
Originally posted by: conjur
Maybe the documents are worse than his actions show in this video
Originally posted by: mribnik1
You know what I was thinking would be hilarious? Let's say Frist wants to run for president in '08. If I were the democrats, I would use this ruling to say Frist is a flip-flopper. "He voted against John Bolton before he voted for him!"
At least this DLC Dem is seeing the bigger picture."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."