Democrats to Filibuster Bolton
 

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. (Full story)

NEENER. first the gang of 14 now this. Wouldnt I just LOVE to see Bush lite emasculated? :D


on another note: I have recently begun to believe the UN is evil. I think the UN needs to be taken down a peg in its unilateral quest for world control, and Bolton has the temperment to create waves in the UN. Unfortunately for Bolton, he is a bully and a sexist and a control freak, so he is flawed. If he were reasonable, and fair but was still able to be a brake on the UN, I wouldnt have a problem with him.

in any event, any barrier in Bush's plans is ok by meeeeeeeeeeeee!

Ahhhh - I love it when I can tell you "I told you so" :wavey: I truly believe the UN is one of the main reasons for the Iraq war. I think they had a vested criminal financial interest in preventing it as did France. So, they tried to outmaneuver W and crewe, who, in their own bad way, were not about to back down. Thus, the UN leaves much to be desired and I think they blood on their hands all in the name of money.

It is about time they stopped being so wimpy. :nod:

Well, it is a calculated bet there - some R's broke ranks and the rumor is others will as well. So, the D's smelled the blood in the water. That, my friend, is politics, which RARELY is altruistic in execution - sad - very true.

I thought it was pretty ballsy for them to filibuster RIGHT after the filibuster "compromise" myself..lol..i loved it.

Chris

Ok so I was going through the Senate roll call for the recent vote to end cloture, and it failed as we know...because they only got 56 votes to 42...2 not voting


But my question--some of you political folks can answer--if Frist was against the filibuster to delay Bolton, WHY did he vote with the Democrats as "Nay" to end Cloture?

Makes absolutely no sense to me. Here's a link to the roll call :

CLICK HERE

So why was Frist the ONLY Republican to vote with Democrats to allow them to filibuster Bolton?

Chris

cnn answered my question for me :

"Frist votes with Dems
Frist actually voted with Democrats against cutting off debate in a parliamentary move that allowed him to call for the vote to be reconsidered. A senator can ask for cloture to be reconsidered, but only if they are on the winning side of the vote."

Chris

Yes!!!!!! Please let me be home to watch this on CSPAN when it goes down. :woohoo:

Jason, I wasnt aware that you had a similar opinion on the UN, and I dont recall ever defending them! No, my recent disgust for the UN stems from the fact that I recently learned they OWN a large majority of our public lands, including national monuments and National Parks. AND they are arming and training a cadre of troops to defend them against AMERICANS should we decide to take them back by force of arms.

A very scary prospect IMO....maybe you are thinking of Lux who seems to think the UN is the end all and be all? Certainly not ME........I think the US needs to withdraw AND withdraw its financial support which will most likely cause the UN to collapse from financial insolvency. and we need to RETAKE our public lands.

Interestingly, I think we were going that way until the whole Oil for Food program. I mean we had not paid our dues in years and I think it too a billion or so dollar donation from Ted Turner and a cleverly crafted partisan induced public outcry to get us to even begin to pay them. I think once the Oil for Food program was in place and many people in very, very high places salivated at the prospect of the BILLIONS to be stolen - that campaign started. Interesting,ym the Oil for Food program proabably killed way more people than the liberation of Iraq. Scary stuff indeed, esp

And that is just the tip of the iceberg of the UN craziness - to be fair, it can do and has done a lot of good.

well, I hate the idea of our own national parks and national monuments being owned by outsiders. and I dont see how you "told me so" :confused:
as for the good it has done, I think that is a thing of the past...did you know that a certain percentage of our military is required to serve in the UN forces and if you refuse, you are fined/imprisoned without recourse? E.V.I.L.

I used I told you so because years ago when we were arguing about the Iraq war, I mentioned I thought SH was untimately responsibe for the current war because he invaded Kuwaitt and all of this stems from that and his bad acts since then. I also said the UN was just as guilty as us for the current war because the powers to be there had a vested and illegal monetary interest in SH remaining in power, as did France and Russia. I said I thought that perhaps if France and Russia stood with the US, the UN would have as well and the current Iraq war perhaps could have been avoided by a presentation of a united front. I think in his twisted way, SH thought the US would not act alone because it really never had save for, with England, Clinton sending a few missles every now and then and essentially with the no fly zones though those had a quasi UN backing. I remember many, including you, jumping on me saying W was solely to blame for the Iraq war, etc. I think now the corruption of the UN is known and I am vindicated.

Also, I could not find anything about the UN owning our public lands and having or obtaining an army to defend them against us. Do you have a cite?

I dont recall that particular discussion, I swear, I think you must preserve every argument you ever get into!

I dont have an opinion on whether the UN is responsible for the War, I dont know anything about that. What I said, as I recall, was that W had an agenda before he ever got into office, and I think Ive been vindicated on THAT as well.

as for a site, let me see:
Our National Parks now belong to UN

71 More National Heritage Sites Planned

and finally, a GRAPHIC:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/worldheritage/usa2.gif

Link for graphic

and another thing:
if you see this http://www.cr.nps.gov/worldheritage/wh1.gif it is a clue it is a UN "World Heritage" site

Change UN by US and you've got the exact viewpoint of a lot of non-americans... I just noted the eerie similarity in that. Same goes for some of the other comments on the UN in this thread.

Not that I'm not open to hear criticism on the UN though. No political organisation is free of hunger for power, money etc, whether it's on country-level or above it. Such is the nature of politics.

I object strenuously to an OUTSIDE body owning even a particle of our NATIONAL Monuments, or our Public Parklands.

Personally, I dont give a RATS ASS what the rest of the world thinks They sure needed us not too long ago in WW2.... Im sick of everyone acting like America is evil personified. Regardless of what the Government does, there are a lot of GOOD people here who DONT identify with the crapola being pushed by the forces of W.

Was only stating a fact, no need to explode on me! You totally miss my point! I am not talking about the American people, I'm talking about the political organization, the government.

An outside body owning national monuments, hey, I'd have a problem with that too, I suppose. Well, it depends on what body and what their plans are with it. National bodies have done some real damage (or are still doing) with nature here.

I kind of resent people draggin' WWII into these type of arguments all the time. :mad:
can I rant?
My country was actually liberated by Americans, Polish, British and Canadians. (And who knows, even other nations?) I'm grateful to all of those nations and the people of that time who were so selfeless to give their lives. But just like I'm not calling today's Germans nazis because that is pretty offensive, I don't have to feel grateful to today 's American government. Not the same people!

I don't act like "America is evil personified". There's several people living in the States I call my friends, it's ridiculous in my mind to blame them for what their current government is doing. My own goverment has done some pretty disappointing stuff over the last few years, actually, so I can sympathize.

*sigh* end rant.

I can't even begin to describe how disturbed I am by that. :confused: :distress:

well, you said non-Americans hold the same opinion about America that I hold about the UN and it just hit me wrong. I do NOT want our Statue of Liberty or half dome or the redwoods or Montecello or any other American Landmark owned or controlled by any non American PERIOD. Granted, our Government lately has only cared about exploiting our resources....still, I dont like what is going on.

As for bringing in WW2, it is a FACT that America's entry into the European arena as well as the Pacific theater made the difference in the war. The European forces up to that point werent succeeding. In the end, Im just glad that justice prevailed.

I know American business practices are heinous, I detest them. I abhor the chasing of the almighty dollar as if it were a God. I HATE the current administration and I hate the influence the wacko religious zealots are wielding. I know we are in crisis now, I grieve for our young people and the country they will inherit....for that matter, the state of the world in general (what with global warming and depleted resources everywhere and overpopulation and on and on...) Maybe you young folks can turn things around :angel:

and - may I just note that we have Bill clinton to thank for it - guess he was too busy sending out his people to obstruct justice to care about our national monuments :eek:

couldn't resist

I saw that too....made me wanna strangle the man.......about the only thing I think he was thinking was, it would preserve the resources in a way that the forces after him couldnt touch them....in other words, maybe he thought he was doing us an environmental service of some sort............I know the enviros are ok with it, but Im not :mad:

as for sending out people to obstruct justice, Im not gonna take that bit of smelly bait you rascal :laugh:

I said, "let's change UN for US and look what it says". The similarity is still striking to me. :shrug:

Wasn't talking about the issue of UN owning American landmarks... I made a separate comment about that.

Yes, absolutely right and I never disputed it, but once again.. a figure like Bush has got nothing to do with the brave people who liberated Europe. Or what about the people who voted them? It's been 60 years. You don't hold me accountable for whatever -good or bad- my grandfather did either, or do you?
So it makes no sense at all to bring that in to these arguments.
It would -maybe- if you were thinking I hate all Americans, but that is not the case. I don't think that black & white.

I hope so, I really do. I'll bet it will take a generation at least, though.

The only reason I brought in WW2 was to show that America has something GOOD it can point to, and countries all around the world STILL look to our military to defend them or protect them or to help keep the peace. As for equating that with Bush, I never did and never will. Bush is a bumbler. and the idiots that voted for him are mindless sheep who will do this world a favor by tottering quietly into old age.