Posted on 05/31/2005 10:23:59 AM PDT by smoothsailing
TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2005
Playing partisan games on Bolton
Senate Democrats who last week blocked the Senate from taking up the nomination of John Bolton to be this nation's representative at the United Nations have gone beyond the stage of raising responsible questions about the nominee. They are now engaging in partisan obstructionism.
The Democrats say they won't move forward until they obtain sensitive information from the White House about Bolton. But when Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, turned down a White House offer of related documents, he gave away the game.
According to The Associated Press, Sen. Biden wanted to know about instances in which Mr. Bolton, as a senior State Department official, asked the National Security Agency for the names of U.S. officials that had been edited out of intercepted communications. The AP reports that the director of the NSA told the Senate Mr. Bolton was within his rights in asking to see the names, and did nothing wrong. The White House offered to give the edited communications to Sen. Biden so he could see the context for Mr. Bolton's requests. But, reports the AP, the senator said he wanted to see the names, too.
It is difficult to see any justification for releasing that information. The AP reports that NSA removes the names of U.S. citizens from intercepted communications at the request of the Justice Department to safeguard privacy and conform to the law. Authorized executive branch officials are permitted to see the names, under tight restrictions, if they have a legitimate, intelligence-related need.
According to Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., the vice chairman, Undersecretary Bolton was entitled to view the names. Sen. Roberts said Mr. Bolton made 10 name requests to the NSA between 2001 and 2004 out of 499 submitted by the State Department.
But senators now requesting the names lack an intelligence-related justification. They are simply fishing for possible issues to raise against Mr. Bolton. The executive branch is right to turn down such a blatantly political attempt to use sensitive intelligence and privacy data in a partisan battle.
Sen. Rockefeller accused Mr. Bolton of violating NSA rules by sharing one protected name, but Sen. Roberts put the charge in context. He said the State Department's intelligence bureau failed to inform Mr. Bolton and other high officials of the very strict NSA dissemination rules. Mr. Bolton used the information to compliment a subordinate who, said Sen. Roberts, was fully aware of the intercepted communication. There is nothing here to justify further delay of the Bolton nomination.
Grasping at straws, Senate Democrats also want to know about Mr. Bolton's use of U.S. intelligence on Syria, hoping to stir up more controversy about conflicts between the combative Undersecretary of State and more cautious intelligence officials. This could turn out to be a politically foolish fishing expedition, since Syria has increasingly shown hostility to U.S. aims in the Middle East.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., complains that the Democratic filibuster of the Bolton nomination is inconsistent with the policy of Senate cooperation forged by the recent agreement to allow some Bush judicial nominees a vote.
That agreement saved the Senate from deadlock and a possibly fateful showdown on Senate rules. Mr. Bolton enjoys majority support. Senate Democrats should let the vote on Mr. Bolton's confirmation move forward.
Hmmm... 7 nominations, 7 justices, 7 up or down votes.
Nothing less.
I'm more interested in prosecuting Harry Reid for disparaging Henry Saad by referring to information contained in his confidential FBI file. Or maybe the Rebubs should agree to some "in camera" sharing of the docs if and when Bill Clinton releases his confidential file regarding his trip to the Soviet Union during the Cold War and John Kerry signs and files his Form 180.
If true, this guy is a POS.
See? Never provoke a sissy, he'll thcratch your eyeth out.
Senate filibuster compromise was Lott's idea, not McCain's
Can't post the thing because this newpaper whined.
Bush needs to quit playing nice with the Senate.
The Constitution gives Bush the authority to call an emergency session. Bush needs to call an emergency session to vote on his appointments, and not let them go home until they have voted.
Round them up, lock them in, and make them do their jobs.
He has the authority to do it. If he truely believes that the Senate is not fulfilling their Constitutional obligations, he has the responsibility to do it because he swore to protect the Constitution in his oath of office.
Political games sometimes have their place, but this has gone on too long. The President can't force the Senate to vote a particular way, but he can force them to stay in session until they vote on those issues.
LOL!
F = 7 subjected to failed cloture motions in 108th Congress
4 = "1 of 4" that DEMs offered to let GOP choose which 3 to dump
S = Positive mention in Specter's May 9, 2005 speech
M = MOU of 14 will not vote against cloture
m = MOU of 14 makes no promise regarding cloture
R = Reid indicates desire to filibuster
C = Out of committee & on the Senate's Executive Calendar
U = Unanimous consent to debate - date TBD
D = Democrats offer to debate - date TBD
v = Debate and vote scheduled
V = Vote -on the nomination- concluded
--S -- --- Boyle, Terrence W. (4th Cir)
--- -R --- Haynes, William James II (4th Cir)
F4S M- CUV Owen, Priscilla (5th Cir)
F-S -- CU- Griffin, Richard A. (6th Cir)
F-S -- CU- McKeague, David W. (6th Cir)
--S -- -D- Neilson, Susan Bieke (6th Cir)
F-- mR --- Saad, Henry W. (6th Cir)
F4S mR C-- Myers, William Gerry III (9th Cir)
F4S M- CU- Pryor, William H. (11th Cir)
F4S M- CUv Brown, Janice Rogers (D.C. Cir)
--S -- CU- Griffith, Thomas B. (D.C. Cir)
--- -R --- Kavanaugh, Brett M. (D.C. Cir)
Last updated May 29, 2005
Owen: Cloture passed 81-18 on May 24, Confirmed 56-43 on May 25.
Brown: Cloture motion filed May 26. Debate starting 2PM June 6.
Brown: Cloture vote scheduled for noon June 7.
Pryor: Cloture motion filed May 26.
Griffin: Reported out of Committee May 26.
McKeague: Reported out of Committee May 26.
-> Cloture Motions for 108th Congress
-> List of Nominations in the 109th Congress Judiciary Committee
-> Senate Executive Calendar (changes each business day)
-> Senate Roll Call Votes - 109th Congress
-> Specter's Speech of May 9, 2005 (109th Congress - Pages S4632 - S4636)
-> Senators' Memorandum of Understanding - May 23, 2005
-> Reid's agreement of May 24, 2005 (S5857)
-> Brown & Pryor cloture motions of May 26, 2005 (S6061)
-> Order of Business for June 6, 2005 (S6065)
-> AP Report Reid wants to filibuster Haynes & Kavanaugh - May 28, 2005
-> Fox News Report Reid will filibuster Saad & Myers - May 29, 2005
-> Boyle was nominated to 4th Cir. in 1991 too, by GHWB
Just a few days ago they were saying it was Bush who told Frist and Graham to cut a deal because he was afraid they didn't have the votes.
I don't think we are ever sure of the truth.
As for Biden and Dodd, they probably want the names so they can stall longer by calling them each before the committee.
Rush had a good point...after hearing about the new book describing the clinton whitehouse tactics, if they think Bolten doesn't have the temperament to serve how could clinton who wants to run the place???
I doubt that Bush was involved in "cutting a deal" in the Senate. He's been quite clear that he wants the nominations to obtain up-or-down votes. I think too, that he believes if push comes to shove, there are 50 or more Senators who agree. That is, if they had to go on record and vote, they would agree to vote on nominations, rather than institutionalize the DEM-instigated minority veto process.
As for Biden and Dodd, they probably want the names so they can stall longer ...
Stall, and if possible, make the administration look bad, and if possible, make Bolton look bad.
Rush had a good point...after hearing about the new book describing the clinton whitehouse tactics, if they think Bolten doesn't have the temperament to serve how could clinton who wants to run the place?
The DEMs tend to be inconsistent. It comes with situational ethics.
Sending Santorums office a message on this...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.