« BREAK THE SILENCE | Main | Head Into The Wind »
It's A New Day
The nomination of John Bolton to the United Nations suffered a serious setback the other day when three Republican members of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, Senators Voinovich, Chaffee and Hagel, unexpectedly asked for more time to review information and allegations presented during the emotionally charged meeting. We pick up the story from the Washington Post:
John R. Bolton's nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations suffered a setback yesterday when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unexpectedly decided to spend three more weeks investigating allegations that he mistreated subordinates, threatened a female government contractor and misled the committee about his handling of classified materials.
The panel's decision -- spurred by Ohio Republican Sen. George V. Voinovich's change of heart during an emotional meeting -- came after Democrats passionately argued that senators and their aides need more time to check out new accusations against Bolton, now the undersecretary of state for arms control. Panel members said they may ask Bolton, who spent a full day testifying last week, to return for more questioning.
The action was a blow to President Bush, who nominated Bolton, and to Senate GOP leaders who had hoped to move the nomination to the full Senate before new allegations -- some of them vague and unsubstantiated thus far -- could result in greater opposition. Bolton's combative criticisms of the United Nations have endeared him to many conservatives, but liberals and some moderate Republicans say he lacks the temperament for the U.N. job.
The developments, which some aides called stunning, complicate matters for Bolton's backers. "The dynamic has changed," said Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.), who before yesterday's session had said he was reluctantly inclined to vote for Bolton. "A lot of reservations surfaced today. It's a new day."
Yes, it is a new day and clearly people who were once in favor of the nomination, may well be persuaded to change that vote.
If you would like to express your thoughts or thanks to the committee members on their actions last week, click here to link directly to the committee's website. Then just click on the member's name for contact information. Then drop them a line. It's just that easy.
If you are interested in watching yesterday's Senate Foriegn Relations committee hearing, go to http://www.cspan.org and click on the story in the middle of the page called Senate Foreign Relations Cmte. Vote on John Bolton, UN Ambassador Nominee (04/19/2005).
I heard this morning that even Colin Powell is campaigning against Bolton who served with him. Now, that says a lot!
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney warned Democrats Friday that he will cast the tie-breaking vote to ban filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees if the Senate deadlocks on the question.
Republicans are moving the Senate toward a final confrontation with Democrats over judicial nominations. Internal GOP polling shows that most Americans don't support Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's plan to ban judicial filibusters -- a tactic in which opponents can prevent a vote on a nomination with just 41 votes in the 100-member Senate.
"There is no justification for allowing the blocking of nominees who are well qualified and broadly supported," Cheney told the Republican National Lawyers Association. "The tactics of the last few years, I believe, are inexcusable."
"Let me emphasize, the decision about how to proceed will be made by the Republican leadership in the Senate," Cheney said. "But if the Senate majority decides to move forward and if the issue is presented to me in my elected office as president of the Senate and presiding officer, I will support bringing those nominations to the floor for an up or down vote."
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said the White House "has stepped over the line by interfering with the Senate to reduce checks and balances."
"The White House has always wanted to reduce the Senate's power and the fact that Vice President Cheney is encouraging this abuse of power should strengthen the Senate's resolve to resist," Schumer said.
Dick Cheney - a tough guy as VP, a coward during the Vietnam era.
Speaking of the Dickmeister...
Cheney weighs in on Bolton
Known for his own acerbic style, Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday came to the defense of Bolton, trying to turn around accusations that Bolton was not fit for the sensitive diplomatic post because of his blunt — and, according to some critics, berating — style.
“If being occasionally tough and aggressive and abrasive were a problem,” Cheney said, “a lot of members of the United States Senate wouldn’t qualify.”
His thrust seemed partly aimed at Democrats on the committee, who in their effort to block Bolton have made his temperament an issue. The remarks drew chuckles from the audience at the National Press Club, the Republican National Lawyers Association.
“In this time and place, it’s extraordinarily important for us to have a tough advocate at the U.N., and I think John is that advocate,” Cheney said. “I’ve looked at all the charges that have been made. I don’t think any of them stand up to scrutiny.”
Re: Dick Cheney on John Bolton
Mr. Cheney:
With all due respect...
You're lying and you know it. We know it, too. The charges stand up appallingly well to scrutiny, and the fact that you don't care, doesn't mean the rest of the country doesn't care.
John Bolton is a boderline psychotic. IF he struggles out of the nomination process, which I doubt, he won't be able to accomplish SQUAT at the U.N... they've heard what he's said, they've read about his past... you seriously think the members of the U.N. are gonna listen to this guy?
Give. Me. A. Break.
You might want to move on to whatever basement dwelling, knuckle-dragging, slack-jawed, uni-browed freak that was your second choice.
Best wishes always.
Courtesy of Raw Story --
ABC yanks story about Clinton impeachment being Republican revenge for Richard Nixon
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/clinton_impeachment_hyde_abc_yanks_422.htm
Had to laugh last night when Ira said maybe Powell was ready to "sing"
I just put a sign in my window:
HANDS OFF THE SUPREME COURT
Also, don't forget Condi - would love to see this get some traction. Or am I just engaging in partisan bickering?
Rice Accused of Suppressing Information on Terrorism
Democrat Calls for Probe of Handling of State Department Report (AP - don't have link)
WASHINGTON (April 22) - A senior House Democrat who has been sharply critical of State Department reporting on terrorism is accusing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of denying Congress and the public important information about the number of incidents.
"There appears to be a pattern in the administration's approach to terrorism data: favorable facts are revealed while unfavorable facts are suppressed," Rep. Henry A. Waxman of California said in a letter to the department's acting inspector general, Cameron R. Hume.
The question is "whether political considerations played a role in Secretary Rice's decision" to hand off a State Department report to a government counterterrorism center, Waxman said. He requested an inspector general's investigation.
State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said of the request, "it's a matter under consideration." The department is "committed to being responsive to Congress and to contributing to an informed public debate," he said.
Waxman's letter followed an announcement Monday that the department had decided to stop publishing its annual statistical account of terror incidents worldwide, turning the task over to a government center established last year by Congress - the National Counterterrorism Center.
Last year, the department reported a decline in significant incidents of terror in 2003 and then issued a corrected version showing an increase.
The falloff had been used by senior Bush administration officials to bolster President Bush's claim of success in countering terrorism.
Waxman said the Bush administration had "tried to take self-serving political credit" based on inaccurate information.
"The numbers were off," then-Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged, saying the problem would be fixed.
This year, the State Department again plans to make public and provide Congress by April 30 a country-by-country assessment of terrorism and will again list organizations it accuses of supporting terror.
BushCo - liars and bullies, the lot of them.
Victoria Ellen: where in the world do you find these stories. I really don't want to let go of this story and will be emailing it to Ed Schultz. I think its explosive and shows the utter hatred Republicans have for Democratic Presidents. Its as if Republicans feel they have an inherent right, god given right to hold the whitehouse and congress and that when we win the whitehouse back in '08 it will be a preversion of god.
The humiliation of Hyde was well deserved. What they did to Clinton still makes my blood boil.Any other way to drive this story to the media other than via Ed Schultz, Victoria?
"When asked if he would go through with the Clinton impeachment process again, Hyde said he wasn't sure. It turned into a personal and political embarrassment for Hyde when an extra-marital affair he had in the 1960's became public amid accusations of hypocrisy."
Victoria,
Well, surprise surprise! Like does that really surprise anybody? And what a "high crime and misdemeanor" it was; yet we see even worse from this administration and they don't do anything.
When this term is over, all this corruption will unfold, and we'll see the return of real media and then EVERYONE will KNOW that Bush is the reincarnate of Nixon.
The administration spin factory was at the wheel again. This time saying that the democrat's objection to Bolton was "partison" politics. Interesting, that Colin Powell agrees with dems and 3 republicans so far show NONPARTISON objections to his mob style management.
If you hear "partison politics" from this administration, then it's time to change the loads in the dryer to another spin cycle.
Great magazine cover paradies:
http://marktwang.blogspot.com/
Bush's Man-date:
http://www.rawilson.com/images/coulter.jpg
Another comment on the theocracy encroaching on us. The last sentence is the most relevant, imo.
San Francisco Chronicle editorial
The job of a pharmacist
Friday, April 22, 2005
PHARMACISTS SHOULD not be able to pick and choose which medications they want to offer based simply on self-declared moral or religious grounds.
There is an implied contract that anyone going to a pharmacy should be able to obtain medication if it is legal and available -- especially if he or she has a prescription from a doctor.
Instead, pharmacies have become the latest battleground in the "morality wars" over reproductive rights. Some pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth-control pills or to provide emergency "morning-after" contraception, known as Plan B.
California is one of six states which allows pharmacists to dispense the Plan B contraceptive if someone requests it without a prescription -- a "behind the counter" arrangement -- but only if the pharmacist is working with a physician and has received training in its use.
Alarmingly, at least two dozen states have either passed or are considering passing laws granting pharmacists the right to dispense medication based on their versions of morality, rather than putting the health needs of their customers first.
California must not go down this dangerous road. To make sure it doesn't, state Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, has introduced legislation (SB 644) that allows pharmacists the right not to provide a medication they find objectionable. But it also requires them to develop a protocol to ensure a customer gets the medication he or she requests from another pharmacist in the same pharmacy or from a nearby pharmacy in a timely fashion.
This legislation deserves passage, as does a similar bill introduced in Congress by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. Ortiz's bill, which has the support of groups like Planned Parenthood and California NOW, will be heard on Monday in the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee. Those groups have heard disturbing reports of pharmacists trying to persuade women not to use certain contraceptive methods.
Where is all this headed? If pharmacists are allowed to deny women contraceptives, what is there to prevent them from blocking medication -- and dispensing gratuitous personal opinions instead -- to gays, smokers or users of Viagra?
We believe in the free-market system. But if a pharmacist wants to decide which prescriptions to fill based on personal beliefs, rather than the health needs of a customer and the medical decision of a doctor, he or she is in the wrong profession.
Page B - 8
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/22/EDG0NCCQ831.DTL
Can you pass this test?
Dear Friend,
Sure it sounds ridiculous, but you'd be surprised what kinds of things teens are being taught in sex-ed class these days...
Thanks to President George W. Bush, millions of your dollars are being pumped into abstinence-only programs. But what are they really teaching America's kids? Could YOU pass sex-ed according to President Bush?
Break out your number two pencils and find out...
Take the test -- click here:
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/sexed/index.html
Or skip at straight to the to the action. Help us support safe and accurate sex-education by urging Congress to pass the REAL act.
Army clears top brass in Abu Ghraib scandal
Pentagon officials: Sanchez and three others cleared
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Army has cleared four top officers -- including the three-star general who commanded U.S. forces in Iraq -- of allegations of wrongdoing in connection with prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, officials said Friday.
Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who became the senior commander in Iraq in June 2003, two months after the fall of Baghdad, had been faulted in earlier investigations for leadership lapses that may have contributed to prisoner abuse.
He is the highest-ranking officer to face official allegations of leadership failures in Iraq, but he has not been accused of criminal violations.
After assessing the allegations against Sanchez and taking sworn statements from 37 people involved in Iraq, the Army's inspector general, Lt. Gen. Stanley E. Green, concluded the allegations were unsubstantiated, said the officials who were familiar with the details of Green's probe.
Green reached the same conclusion in the cases of two generals and a colonel who worked for Sanchez.
The officials who disclosed the findings spoke only on condition of anonymity because Congress has not yet been fully briefed on Green's findings and the information has not yet been publicly released.
Green had scrutinized the actions of Sanchez and 11 other officers.
Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib were physically abused and sexually humiliated by military police and intelligence soldiers in the fall of 2003. Photos of some of the abuse created a firestorm of criticism worldwide.
Read more... http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/22/abu.ghraib.brass.ap/index.html
I know we've been over this discussion before, back on the Kerry blog, but the suggestion that George W Bush is an incarnation of Nixon has been made again, and I have to disagree completely. GWB is evil incarnate- he is far more evil than Richard Nixon ever was. I can list at least five or ten things that RMN did right during his administration, and which actually improved the environment and the lives of the poor in this country. Yes, he was a crook, and he was a liar, and he presided over an immoral war which Lyndon Johnson had escalated and turned into an un-winnable mess. But the comparisons end there. I cannot think of even ONE thing that W has done to improve the environment or the lives of the poor in this country- he has systematically raped both during his administration, and shown no remorse whatsoever. And Nixon's opening of a dialogue with China was one of the most important events of the 20th century. What positive event has happened during W's presidency? I honestly can't think of a one.
As far as Henry Hyde sugesting that Clinton's impeachment was related to Nixon's (and Nixon was not impeached, by the way, though he was forced out of office, and rightly so), I honestly don't think the Republicans needed revenge over Nixon as a basis for their hatred of Bill Clinton. They hated Bill Clinton because he had ended 12 years of Republican presidency in Washington, and they considered the White House to be their private domain. He was an intruder to them, and they simply never got over his election. They expected Reagan's legacy to continue well into the 21st century, and Clinton was an unwelcome interruption to their power over the White House. They never accepted his right to be in the office in the first place- he wasn't "their" president. I really don't think Nixon had much to do with it- maybe he did in Hyde's mind, but most of the Republicans who voted to impeach Clinton weren't even around during Nixon's time, so I just don't see the relationship. I think Henry Hyde is hunting excuses for his conduct. He knows there was no excuse for Clinton's impeachment, and he's trying to find some justification. But there isn't any.
Good news and bad news on Bolton's nomination...
Good news: the administation is getting worried.
Bad news: they'll step up their propaganda and partisan tactics, even so far as to destroy their own party members who aren't conservative enough.
Delay in Bolton Vote Concerns White House
Administration Fears Postponement May Bring More Public Opposition, New Questions
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has set a vote on John R. Bolton's nomination as ambassador to the United Nations for May 12 -- a delay that Bush administration officials acknowledged yesterday is increasing their anxieties about Bolton's prospects.
The fear, Bolton's backers said privately, is twofold. The new date will give opponents nearly three weeks to fan public reaction against him and to raise new questions about his conservative policy views and alleged bullying management style.
--snip--
Still, White House officials and Senate leadership aides yesterday were nervously canvassing GOP senators, looking for signs of weakening support. There were conflicting signs of whether this was the case.
Republican sources on the Foreign Relations panel said that one of the committee's GOP senators, Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), told colleagues she is particularly troubled by the allegation that Bolton, as a private lawyer in 1994, became so angry at a government contractor that he chased her through a Moscow hotel, hurling objects and verbal threats, and later spread rumors about her. White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said Bolton is the subject of "trumped-up" charges and "unsubstantiated allegations."
--snip--
In a sign of partisan tensions on the committee, Republican staff members yesterday interviewed Thomas Hubbard, a former U.S. ambassador to South Korea, without Democratic staff members present. Hubbard has said he clashed angrily with Bolton.
A senior Democratic committee aide said the interview was unfortunate, because Democrats thought they had an agreement between committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and Vice Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) for proceeding with interviews that would allow both sides to be present, along with a court reporter.
"When we asked to participate, we were refused," the aide said. "We hope this was an aberration, and that from now on they honor the rule that we proceed jointly. The proof will be in the pudding." He added: "We found out five minutes before it happened."
Meanwhile, some conservatives served notice that they are as ready to do battle with Republican opponents of Bolton's nomination as they are with Democrats. Sen. George V. Voinovich (Ohio) was one the Republicans who sought a delay in the committee's vote. Yesterday, the group Move America Forward said it is buying radio spots in Ohio -- it did not say how many or in which markets -- to denounce Voinovich's action.
In the spots, according to the group's release, a wife chatting with her husband reports indignantly that Voinovich missed most of the committee debate on Bolton, "but then shows up at the last minute and stabs the president and Republicans right in the back."
"That's ridiculous," the husband replies. "The United Nations needs reform, we need someone who will stand up for the United States and fight the U.N.'s corruption and anti-Americanism."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10449-2005Apr22.html
Posted by: Ira at April 22, 2005 10:41 PM
Check out this site before you email Ed. ABC has put the original story back on its website with a footnote.
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=699
Quote of the Day
On Crossfire Barbara Boxer's comment:
"John Bolton would be great working with the president in the White House on a political agenda but for this job as UN ambassador, I just can’t imagine. I mean, it’s like making Phyllis Schlafly the head of the Planned Parenthood Federation. It doesn’t fit, you know? It just doesn’t fit."
Linda
Good analysis.
Nixon also opened the door to China.
Bush has closed the door on peace.
Last night, I had an opportunity to watch the entire Foreign Relations Committee meeting via the web link posted above. I have a terrible feeling about the nuclear option vote. If those hearings are any prediction of things to come, it is obvious that most of the Republicans care little about honest discussion and disagreement. Destroying the filibuster is their only reliable means for squelching dissenting opinon. They could care less how it effects America. I feel democracy slipping away. I hope to God I am wrong.
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at April 23, 2005 09:58 AM
Give me Tricky Dick anytime over Psycho George.
Posted by: madame defarge at April 23, 2005 10:14 AM
Barbara Boxer wrote a letter to Condi Rice informing her of her CONSTITUTIONAL obligation to make sure that all people come before the Senate and testify HONESTLY about what they know about Bolton.
Of course, this is the exact ploy this administration uses--keep things under cover until after the fact and then let their constituents just lump it!
Need proof? Take a look at the information leading to the war in Iraq. Or take a look at their secretive files and things revealed after the fact--like Ms. Rice's own nomination. This administration and the current majority party is so full of corruption that our democracy and our personal well being and our children's well-being is at risk.
There is more raw Political power in your local bar and grill, your barber shop, or blog in the DCP, than the halls of Congress.
Your Representative cannot move without tactic support from their boss, the American Voter. And if they stray far enough from their wishes, the Voter will remove the representative. This also works in reverse, supporting representatives is highly important.
Congress and Senate are reacting to the passion from angry voters who have had enough of the attempt to Sell off our government, Bolton is the first casualty. Now we need to press home this movement.
We must give cover to the Representatives that put their necks out for the Constitution, and the rules of the Senate. If we do not support these people, Republican and Democrat alike, they will not be followed. It takes a lot to oppose your own political party, that courage must be honored.
This White House has become very adept at using divisiveness as a surgical tool in Politics. We must take this tool away from them and place solid support behind ALL representatives that stand up for the Constitution.
There is something more important than being a democrat or a republican, progressive or neocon, its being an American. This is what the White House wants us to forget ; a common theme unites this nation and all that live here. We cannot allow this fraud to continue.
The Emperor had no clothes, this President has no Mandate.