Home » Blogs » Bob Fertik's blog

Bolton's nomination is dead - will he take Bush and the GOP down with him?

Submitted by Bob Fertik on April 21, 2005 - 2:03am

On Tuesday, John Bolton lost the support of three Republican Senators: George Voinovich (R-OH), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Lincoln Chafee (R-RI).

Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) is far too terrified of Karl Rove to openly announce his opposition to John Bolton. But he quietly made it clear that he will vote against Bolton.

Chafee, a Republican from Rhode Island, "is much less likely" to support Bolton after allegations arose yesterday about his credibility, Chafee spokesman Stephen Hourahan said today. Before yesterday's session, Chafee said he was likely to back Bolton.

Like the coward he is, Chafee needs all his friends at his side to break the news to Rove.

When reporters in the Capitol asked Chafee yesterday whether Bush should withdraw Bolton's nomination, he said: "It's too early for that. We all need to talk." When asked the same question later by CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Chafee replied: "We have to discuss that among ourselves, Republicans, I think," and he named the committee's GOP members. Blitzer said, "And you might pass a quiet message to the White House after a discussion like that?" Chafee replied: "Yes, I think that would be advisable."

Of course, Karl Rove never accepts defeat gracefully - or at all. The key to Rove's power is the perception that he cannot be beaten. For Rove, even the slightest defeat is a sign of mortal weakness.

So the interesting question is: whose head will Rove cut off to pay for Bolton's defeat?

Rove could take it out on Chafee, but Chafee is up for election in 2006, and he's already trailing in the polls. If Rove gets too rough, Chafee could easily follow Jim Jeffords out of the Republican caucus, which could deal a fatal blow to the "nuclear option" strategy, which requires 50 solid Republican votes.

Alternatively, Rove could take it out on Voinovich and Hagel, but they have real guts and would fight back.

This isn't Bush's first nomination defeat. Linda Chavez was supposed to be Secretary of Labor in the first term until it turned out she employed an illegal immigrant. And Bernie Kerik was supposed to head the Homeland Security Department, until his mob ties and Ground Zero "love nest" were discovered.

When Bernie Kerik turned out to be un-confirmable, Rove manufactured a convenient "nanny problem" to give Kerik an excuse to "withdraw." But Kerik's position was of little importance in the neocon master plan to create a World Empire, so it was easy to throw him overboard.

Bolton, on the other hand, would play an important role in the World Empire plan. His job would be to coerce the U.N. into accepting further U.S. conquests, starting with Iran. Without Bolton, it will be much harder for Bush to coerce the U.N.

Of course, Bush is losing many other battles at the same time. His Social Security privatization plan is dead even before arrival. Tom DeLay is melting like the Wicked Witch of the West. Alan "Hack" Greenspan is complaining about massive GOP deficits. There is even a revolution is brewing against Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program.

Could Bolton's defeat signal a turning point in Bush's plan to conquer the world? Could it be the beginning of the end of our long national nightmare?

Stay tuned...

Update: The cold war between Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sec. of State. Condi Rice is heating up again, after Rice reportedly told everyone in the State Dept. to scrub any complaints they might have about Bolton. According to President Boxer, Boxer smacked Rice around with a letter telling her the Constitution gives the Senate power to investigate nominees, including issuing subpoenas for witnesses. You go, Barbara!

Update: As Holden points out, Scottie McClellan has one simple response to all the charges against Bolton: they are "unsubstantiated." Memo to the White House press corps: Bush invaded Iraq because of "unsubstantiated" charges. So the obvious follow-up question to ask Scottie is: why did Bush believe "unsubstantiated" charges against Iraq but not against Bolton? And here's the key difference: those who are making the charges against Bolton have testified under oath to the Senate, unlike the "Curveball" liar who got Bush into Iraq.

Will Cheney go lame duck hunt

Submitted by Visitor on April 21, 2005 - 3:03am.

Will Cheney and Rove go lame duck hunting with Scalia?

Chaffee and Bolton

Submitted by thirlstane on April 21, 2005 - 12:01pm.

I don't give a damn if Chaffee comes out against Bolton or not. I only care how he votes. I'm not sure I would tell either; there would be immediate retaliation. However, if he later votes against Bolton and Bolton's nomination fails, there will be a LOT of people Rove would have to retaliate against, and he would first go after those who clearly said they would vote against Bolton, especially the first one, because that did Bu$hCo the most harm. It could be argued that if he came out against Bolton, it would encourage others to do the same, but he DID come out against the nomination. He just did it in Senate-speak. Every Senator knows what he means.

I'd rather he weasled before and voted against Bolton after rather than coming out against Bolton before, and then voting for him anyway. We see this all the time.

Yellow Dog Blues Hound, this is very encouraging.

Submitted by kwahlf on April 21, 2005 - 11:41am.

It's one step at a time and one day at a time.

Speaking of Bernie Kerik...

Submitted by CactusPat on April 21, 2005 - 3:25pm.

Seems the Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement is after him over his mobbed up connections...

Abyssmal ambassador, Powell did not sign pro Bolton resolution

Submitted by stinger on April 22, 2005 - 9:47am.

WP

Powell Plays Behind the Scenes Role in Bolton Debate

Submitted by CactusPat on April 22, 2005 - 3:46pm.

Here's a snippet of the WaPo piece "Powell Plays Behind the Scenes Role in Bolton Debate"

Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell is emerging as a behind the scenes player in the battle over John Bolton's nomination to the United Nations, privately telling at least two key Republican lawmakers that Bolton is smart, but a very problematic government official, according to Republican sources.

Powell spoke in recent days with Sens. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), two of three GOP members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who have raised concerns about Bolton's confirmation, the sources said. Powell did not advise the senators to oppose Bolton, but offered a frank assessment of the nominee as a man who was challenging to work with on personnel and policy matters, according to two people familiar with the conversation.

"General Powell has returned calls from senators who wanted to discuss specific questions that have been raised," said Margaret Cifrino, a Powell spokeswoman. "He has not reached out to senators" and considers the discussions private. A Chafee spokesman confirmed that at least two conversations took place....

Powell has stayed out of the confirmation fight in public, but influenced it in direct and indirect ways, according to several Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill. It is not Powell's style to weigh in strongly against a former colleague, but rather direct people to what he sees as flaws and potential problems, they say. Powell's views are highly influential with many Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Those who know Powell best said two recent events provide insight into his thinking. Powell did not sign a letter from seven former US secretaries of state and defense supporting Bolton, and his former chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson recently told the New York Times that Bolton would be an "abysmal ambassador."

"On two occasions he has let it be known that the Bolton nomination is a bad one, to put it mildly," said a Democratic congressional aide. "It would be great to have Powell on the record speaking for himself, but he's unlikely to do it."...

Another nail in his coffin today

Submitted by golfmonkey on April 24, 2005 - 11:25am.

In this weeks' upcoming Newsweek, Colin Powell had personally yanked Bolton off of two key diplomatic efforts in Iran and Libya.

Colin Powell plainly didn't like what he was hearing. At a meeting in London in November 2003, his counterpart, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, was complaining to Powell about John Bolton, according to a former Bush administration official who was there. Straw told the then Secretary of State that Bolton, Powell's under secretary for arms control, was making it impossible to reach allied agreement on Iran's nuclear program. Powell turned to an aide and said, "Get a different view on [the Iranian problem]. Bolton is being too tough."

Unbeknownst to Bolton, the aide then interviewed experts in Bolton's own Nonproliferation Bureau. The issue was resolved, the former official told NEWSWEEK, only after Powell adopted softer language recommended by these experts on how and when Iran might be referred to the U.N. Security Council. But the terrified State experts were "adamant that we not let Bolton know we had talked to them," the official said.

[snip...]

But the London story is further evidence that Bolton and the White House have their work cut out for them. On several occasions, America's closest ally in the war on terror, Britain, was irked by what U.S. and British sources say were efforts by Bolton to undermine promising diplomatic openings. Perhaps the most dramatic instance took place early in the U.S.-British talks in 2003 to force Libya to surrender its nuclear program, NEWSWEEK has learned. The Libya deal succeeded only after British officials "at the highest level" persuaded the White House to keep Bolton off the negotiating team. A crucial issue, according to sources involved in the affair, was Muammar Kaddafi's demand that if Libya abandoned its WMD program, the U.S. in turn would drop its goal of regime change. But Bolton was unwilling to support this compromise. The White House agreed to keep Bolton "out of the loop," as one source puts it. A deal was struck only after Kaddafi was reassured that Bush would settle for "policy change"—surrendering his WMD. One Bush official called the accounts of both incidents "flatly untrue."

[snip...]