injudicial nominations

BOLTON STUFF
* " Richard L. Armitage, ordered two years ago that Mr. Bolton be blocked from delivering speeches and testimony unless they were personally approved by Mr. Armitage." LINK

* " Bolton differed from other consumers of the intelligence, according to two senior government officials familiar with the matter, in that when the intercepts proved all but useless to his cause to oust ElBarbadei from his IAEA post, he privately encouraged more aggressive intelligence gathering operations against the IAEA, the United Nations, and other international organizations." LINK

* here's a dissection of bolton's greatest hit - revoking the 'zionism is racism' resolution. LINK

* " the White House has very effectively lobbied potentially wavering Republican Senators on the SFRC by arguing that a vote against Bolton would also endanger the Bush administration's agenda on social security, judicial nominations, and crucial foreign policy issues. One congressional staffer sums up this very effective White House lobbying stratagem this way: "A vote for or against Bolton is not about Bolton."" LINK

* "The White House showed its cards some time ago when it failed to withdraw Bolton's nomination, and he failed to step back. That was a signal that Cheney's wing of the White House and Republican Party -- the "win at all costs" wing -- was ready to gamble it all to win on Bolton -- in part because of the fear that a loss would trigger a decline in their own influence. That decline now seems somewhat assured no matter what the outcome because they have overpaid and over-invested in the Bolton nomination.
But the real achievement of those who have worked hard to oppose John Bolton's nomination on the grounds that we should be sending someone with impeccable credentials, someone with a brilliant vision of an effective and reformed United Nations, and someone that Americans can feel instantly proud of is that John Bolton is now part of pop-culture. John Bolton is a household name." LINK

clemons has it exactly right - i picked this story line way back when. i argued then that it doesnt matter if bolton gets confirmed (the shitehouse had declared its intentions for the UN simply by nominating bolton) and the only thing that mattered was the damage that would be done during the confirmation - damage to the egadmin, and damage to the process. there has been so damage done so far, i'd almost prefer if bolton actually got confirmed (altho the longer it takes the better) - in many ways it would be worse if bolton got booted, and some other moderate-looking stealth nomination slipped through and then went ahead and tried to implement the same strategies/objectives under the radar.
whenever the radmin has found itself under the hammer - DeLay, Bolton, socsec, more wars, terryschiavo. filibuster etc etc - they only have one response: hit the accelerator. as ive said repeatedly - they must either have a megaplan, or are suffering supreme hubris. im not sure i wanna know the answer - they'll do a whole lotta damage to all of us along the way. (tradesports still has confirmation at 88)

the other thing the dems need to do, ragardless of the bolton outcome, is to start painting the pattern of bad nominations - kerik and bolton first, and then gonzales, (and to a lesser extent, rice).

ideally, of course, biden would kick up a stink about the incomplete info (and the delays) from Rice, and push back the hearings another few weeks, generating more exposure. its unlikely he'll get a friendly response from lugar - but more delays would have to be politically beneficial to voinovich and/or chafee and/or anyone else who is considering voting against bolton - cos theres bound to be more dirty washing laundered in the interim, helping them justify their no-vote.

again, the fun would really start if lugar pushes through a vote, even knowing that he doesnt have the numbers, and then throws it up to the senate anyway - cos then we (might) get to test frists promise/policy on the filibuster for non-judicial nominations...