John Bolton

News Flash! Bush Judge Does the Right Thing!

dlindorff — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:32:30 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

A federal district judge appointed by President George W. Bush to
the bench has done the right thing, ruling definitively this morning
that the President’s claim of absolute immunity for his advisors from
Congressional oversight and subpoena is “entirely unsupported by
existing case law.”

The ruling, by Judge John Bates, is as important as much because of
who issued it as it is for its impact upon Congressional investigations
into presidential wrongdoing.

Certainly the ruling will open the way for Democrats in Congress to
move harder to investigate the abuses of the current administration,
which have been stymied by administration refusal to provide witnesses,
even to come in and plead the Fifth Amendment protection against
self-incrimination.

In the specific case under consideration here, the House Judiciary
Committee had been attempting to force the appearance of Josh Bolton,
the president’s former chief of staff, and Harriet Miers, former White
House legal counsel, to testify about the White House role in the
firing of a number of federal prosecutors around the country who were
reportedly deemed insufficiently political in their unwillingness to
“go after” Democratic elected officials, or to interfere with the
election process.

Bush had asserted that all such aides have blanket immunity from
Congressional inquiry under the concept of “executive privilege.”

But Judge Bates disagreed, saying that the White House had failed
to show a single case in which the courts had held White House aides to
be immune from Congressional subpoenas. In a strongly-worded 93-page
ruling, he not only said that no such blanket immunity existed, and
that aides had to respond to congressional subpoenaes. He also ordered
that the White House must hand over requested documents—something that
the White House for both of the president’s two terms, has been
unwilling to do.

Of course, it is a certainty that the Bush administration will
appeal Judge Bates’ ruling to a higher court, and the process could end
up dragging on beyond the end of Bush’s term of office, which ends on
Jan. 20. But with this ruling, Congress should feel much more confident
about going after those, like Miers, Bolton, Karl Rove (recently cited
for contempt of Congress himself) and others, who refuse orders to
appear and testify. Congress should also be more willing to consider
using its own power of inherent contempt to go after such witnesses by
having their own officers arrest and jail recalcitrants.

The other important thing about Judge Bates’ ruling is that it
suggests, happily, that there are principled Republicans, even among
the slew of so-called conservative “constructionist” judges that Bush
has been larding the federal bench with, from the district level to the
Supreme Court. At least some of these judges, apparently, once
confirmed in their lifetime offices, do take their oaths of office to
uphold the Constitution seriously. Judge Bates (who, though I didn’t
know him personally, attended Wesleyan University in Connecticut at the
same time I did, graduating in 1968) worked as a deputy independent
counsel in the Whitewater Investigation of President Bill Clinton,
which was an obvious political plus in his gaining a federal judgeship
nomination by the Bush White House. In 2006 he was also appointed by
Chief Justice John Roberts to serve on the secret Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court that is supposed to oversee domestic spying
activities of the National Security Agency.

I am assuming the best of Judge Bates, i.e. that he ruled based on
his reading of the Constitution and court precedent. But of course it
could also be that this ruling is a sign that Bush judicial appointees
are reading the political handwriting on the wall: that the Bush era of
seeking to aggrandize absolute executive power is coming to an end.
With the president’s public support dwindling to just 21 percent, and
with all signs pointing to a big Democratic win in upcoming
Congressional elections, not to mention a possible Democratic president
in the White House this November, we may start to see at least some
Bush-appointed judges concluding that supinely acceding to the wishes
of the Bush/Cheney White House may not be the wisest career move for
anyone hoping to move up to a higher court.

Whatever the reasons for this important decision, I commend Judge
Bates for upholding the Constitution, and its all-important
establishment of three separate, co-equal branches of government.

Now if only Democrats in Congress would do the same thing.
______________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback edition). Because of a clerical error and his own inattention to bureaucratic detail, he graduated from Wesleyan University in 1972. His work is available at
www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/35170';
digg_title = "News Flash! Bush Judge Does the Right Thing!";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n A federal district judge appointed by President George W. Bush to the bench has done the right thing, ruling definitively this morning that the President’s claim of absolute immunity for his advisors from Congressional oversight and subpoena is “entirely unsupported by existing case law.”\r\n\r\n The ruling, by Judge John Bates, is as important as much because of who issued it as it is for its impact upon Congressional investigations into presidential wrongdoing.\r\n\r\n Certainly the ruling will open the way for Democrats in Congress to move harder to investigate the abuses of the current administration, which have been stymied by administration refusal to provide witnesses, even to come in and plead the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.\r\n\r";
digg_skin = 'standard';

John Bolton's Astonishing Neo-Neo-con Rewrite of History

Bob Fertik — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:11:52 -0400

On March 25, John Bolton was interviewed by BBC Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman (video here). I don't know why this interview didn't get noticed by U.S. bloggers, because Bolton's claims are simply extraordinary. When the history of the Iraq debacle is written, this interview will stand out for its astonishing claims:

Saddam did have WMD, we just haven't found them yet.
It didn't matter if Saddam had WMD or even a WMD program because he had 1000 "Nuclear Mujahadeen" who could build a nuclear weapon at the drop of a hat without any equipment or materials.
Iraq wasn't an "imminent threat" and the U.S. never said it was - blame the stupid British for that.
America's only interest is "making sure no part of Iraq be used by terrorists as a base against us."
Even though Saddam Hussein was doing that job to perfection (albeit dictatorially), it was "unquestionably" right to overthrow him.
Even though it's a "failed state" and a "haven for terrorists," Iraq is now a better place to live than it was under Saddam, because it's not a "dictatorship."
The only mistake the U.S. made was not turning Iraq over to the Iraqis while they were looting stores, museums, hospitals, and weapons depots.
If we had immediately invited all Iraqis to run their government, they would have magically done so, and with civility.
Now that we have created anarchy and civil war, the U.S. has no responsibility to ensure Iraqis are not murdered.

Beyond Bolton's claims, we can also draw a few inferences:

Every U.S. soldier who died after the overthrow of Saddam died for no reason.
All of the time we spent creating an Iraqi government (including Iraq's purple-finger elections) was a waste of time.
All of the money we spent trying to rebuild the economy we destroyed was a waste of money.
The only mission for our 150,000 soldiers should be to fight 1-2,000 Al Qaeda.
If Iraq's civil war turns into genocide, that's not our responsibility or concern.
If Iraq's civil war creates a regional conflagration involving Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, that's not our responsibility or concern.

3/25
BBC Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuqNWG9sbuE&embed=1

Iraq 4 Years On: A Neo-con Rethink?

Way back in 1998, he was arguing for removing Saddam Hussein by force. As Undersecretary of Defense in 2001 he played a key role in Pres Bush's policy towards Iraq and the so-called Axis of Evil. He said the only language rogue states understood was the language of force: regime change. He had little or no time for multilateral negotiations...

But when discontent over Iraq led to Republicans losing control of Congress and it was clear he wouldn't be confirmed, he walked.

Since then some of the neo-conservatives have begun to quewastion whether the Iraq streategy was right after all.
and some of their number are considering a different approach to Iran and Syria.

So has John Bolton too had a chance of heart?

Q. I asked John Bolton whether 4 years ago when he was drumming up support for the invasion of Iraq he imagined things would become as bad as they are in the country.

A. I did not because I imagined largely that well before this point the U.S. would have turned responsibility for the governance and security of Iraq back over to Iraqis.

Q. SO that was the big mistake was it?

A. Analytically there are two questions here to look back on and to learn lessons from.
The first quesiton was it right to overthrow Saddam Hussein. That seems to me to be yes unquestionably knowing everything we know now.

The second question analytically is What do after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein
and there's where I think reasonable people can disagree about the consequences. Where we are today is because of the second question.

Q. And that was absense of planning for what would follow the invasion

A. No there were lots of plans. I think the real problem was in not relying more on Iraqis. The basic difficulty under a dictatorship is there is no political culture. To have stability in Iraq you have to have Iraqis dealing with each other in a civil way. By imposing the Coalition Authority for a year we denied the Iraqis at least a year of learing how to live with each other. I don't think you breed political maturation by making decisions for other people. So in 20-20 hindsight - and I confess it's hindsight - that was a mistake obviously.

Q. Of course there's no culture of democracy under a dictatorship but what you do have under a dictatorship is a great apparatus of the state. Was it a mistake to de-Baathify or try to de-Baathify the whole apparatus and thereby dismantle it?

A. No I don't think that part was the mistake. I think the decisions that were made in retrospect such as dismantling the army that have caused so much difficulty may or may not have been handled differently if Iraqis themselves had been making the decisions.

That's why I don't think there's an American interest in what kind of Iraq emerges from the present circumstance.

I think the American strategic interest is in making sure no part of Iraq be used by terrorists as a base against us.

That's what we should focus on, not how to structure the country. That's what we should have left to the Iraqis...

Q. So when you said the U.S. remains committed to a unified, democratic and prosperous Iraq, you were just spouting the party line were you?

Haha...

Q. Is there not an American responsibility, having invaded a country, dismantled all the apparatus of government, to ensure the citizens of that country are not murdered?

A. I think it's the responsibility which we've tried to fulfill to turn it back over to the Iraqis... We made a mistake in hindsight not turning it over to them earlier.

But we don't have a responsibility to make the government of Iraq succeed, that's their responsibility.

Q. Do you have a responsibility to keep the peace or not?

A. I think that's their responsibility too. I think we're all agreed the sooner the Iraqis can decide whether they're gonna do that or not the the better off everyone is.

Q. You sound as if you're washing your hands of the whole affair?

...

A. What I would have done differently is much earlier, much sooner after the overthrow, given it back to the Iraqis, and I'll exaggerate for effect here, but given them a copy of the Federalist Papers and said good luck.

Q. What do you say when people turn to you and say, ok Saddam Hussein was a dictator
but Iraq was not then a failed state and it was not a haven for terrorists and that's precisely what you've created in Iraq?

A. [Angry] That's great, you'd rather live in a dicatatorship than a failed state. That's your preference that wouldn't be my preference. And What you had in that dictatorship was a person who had accumulated and used chemical weapons... had kept together over a thousand scientists and technicians to rebuild his nuclear weapons program, a group he called his "Nuclear Mujahadeen."

Q. Except Of course he didn't have any WMND did he?

A. Well let's be clear what he was doing. I mentioned before he kept a thousand Nuclear Mujahadeen together, that's what you need for a nuclear weapons program - the materials, the technology all flow out of the intellectual property those scientists possess.

Q. But this claim turned out to be a lie Mr. Bolton didn't it?

A. No no no you're quite wrong on that. The capability that Saddam kept was not physical pieces of equipment but the intellectual capability...

Q. Hold on - we were told by no less a person than your own Secretary of State that he had an active and ongoing program for acquiring and developing WMD.

A. And I fully believe that all of the evidence on that is not yet in. And it was never the American claim - it was your British problem - that Saddam's WMD programs constituted an imminent threat.

What we said and what was approved by broad majorities of both parties in both houses of our Congress that the threat of the regime itself.

Q. Do you at least accept that what has happened in Iraq has done immense damage to your attempts to deal with other states which definitely do have a program for developing and acquiring WMD.

A. It has caused damaged because there are some faint hearts in places nearer to where you're speaking from than where I'm speaking from that have allowed themselves to be intimidated by the claims and by the programs of these other countries. Some of that intimidation has even occured here in Washington but it hasn't intimidated me.

John Bolton Must Support Feingold-Reid Plan for Iraq

Bob Fertik — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:58:55 -0400

John Bolton gave a truly remarkable interview to the BBC.

Q: Is there not an American responsibility, having invaded a country, dismantled all the apparatus of government, to ensure the citizens of that country are not murdered?

A. I think it's the responsibility which we've tried to fulfill to turn it back over to the Iraqis... We made a mistake in hindsight not turning it over to them earlier.

But we don't have a responsibility to make the government of Iraq succeed, that's their responsibility.

Q. Do you have a responsibility to keep the peace or not?

I think that's their responsibility too. I think we're all agreed the sooner the Iraqis can decide whether they're gonna to do that or not, the the better off everyone is.

If that's not clear enough, Bolton also said:

I don't think there's an American interest in what kind of Iraq emerges from the present circumstance.

I think the American strategic interest is in making sure no part of Iraq be used by terrorists as a base against us.

Bolton believes we have no responsibility to help the Iraqi government succed - only to fight Al Qaeda?

So why do we need 150,000 U.S. troops to fight 1-2,000 Al Qaeda?

Clearly Bolton must support the Feingold-Reid bill:

(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

Will someone ask Bolton if he supports Feingold-Reid, and if not why not?

John Bolton's Greatest Hits by Ian Williams

CactusPat — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 07:14:48 -0500

The Nation's Ian Williams counts the ways and assesses the damage done by John Bolton during his tenure at the United Nations...

John Bolton's Greatest Hits by Ian Williams
posted December 4, 2006
In a rare midterm election in which foreign policy was a major issue, it is not too much of a stretch to say that American voters put UN Ambassador John Bolton out of office. Bolton's resignation from his unconfirmed recess appointment at the UN removes the residual fear that the Bush team had something up its sleeve to bypass senatorial resistance to his confirmation. The White House had claimed the support of a bipartisan silent majority for his appointment--even though it was vociferous defections from GOP ranks that helped thwart his confirmation... (more)

In fact, Bolton's determination to hang on up to this point suggests that his obsession with the United Nations is as serious as Ted Haggard's with sin: He just can't keep away from it. For three decades of work at conservative think tanks and at the State Department, Bolton has angled for appointments that would in some way keep him grappling at close quarters with the organization even if they sometimes involved him in contradictory positions.

Even when the Bushes were out of office, Bolton filled in his time working with former Secretary of State James Baker when he was appointed UN special envoy for the Western Sahara. The Moroccan annexation of the territory has been on the UN agenda for more than thirty years and a standing invitation to complaints about the organization's ineffectiveness; Bolton has been remarkably reticent to highlight it.

Bolton's other job in exile was to advise the Taiwanese government on how to get into an organization that he had spent decades advising the United States to get out of. No sooner had he arrived at the UN in 2005 than he cooked up a deal with Beijing's ambassador to scuttle the efforts of Germany, Japan and India--all US allies--to get permanent seats on the Security Council. He may have had a point about the undesirability of the changes--but a more diplomatic envoy would not have left American fingerprints so messily obvious.

From the White House point of view, Bolton's appointment appeased the know-nothing foreign policy crowd while rewarding his longstanding loyalty to the Bush dynasty. That loyalty had been shown most memorably in 2000, when the man who has spent the past year preaching democracy to the members of the United Nations strode into a library polling place in Florida yelling, "I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count."

To be fair, while Bolton's tenure has from the standpoint of any rational diplomacy been a disaster, it has not been an unmitigated one. He has been a very well-trained attack dog, always coming to heel when the White House wanted and chewing his own words when necessary.

One of his proudest achievements in his previous job at the State Department was to "unsign" the treaty that committed the United States to the International Criminal Court, and then to bully and browbeat small countries across the world into signing agreements not to extradite US citizens to its seat in the Hague. And then this year he had to allow a Security Council resolution setting the Court's prosecutors on the perpetrators in Darfur.

As pious commentators talk about how effective he was, it is worth remembering that while he was in charge of arms control, North Korea joined the nuclear club and that, according to him and Bolton and his allies, Iran is about to. It is an achievement--but of a dubious sort for an alleged arms control maestro. To be fair, within the Administration, he reportedly opposed the US-Indian nuclear deal, although he remained silent on Israeli nuclear capabilities.

Otherwise, Bolton's most memorable "achievement" occurred while he was in charge of arms control at the State Department before moving to the UN. He was a major saboteur of Congressional efforts to improve and tighten the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If these measures had been passed, countries would not have been able, as North Korea did, to drop out of the treaty after reaping its dual-use benefits, and the voluntary protocols on inspection that Iran stopped observing would have been compulsory.

However, his greatest legacy may be his semi-successful attempt to wreck the UN reform proposals last year. By introducing hundreds of unilateral amendments after long months of painstaking negotiations between the members, he certainly managed to destroy the efforts of Kofi Annan to persuade the Third World members that managerial reforms were not some form of American and Western plot. In fact, almost every public statement he made pretty much confirmed their suspicions.

Bolton leaves unfinished business at the UN. His attempt to enforce on Iran an international law in which he professes disbelief comes to nothing as Security Council members try to insure that Washington has no excuse to take military action. The resolution is stalemated and diluted.

Although he is now implying personal credit for the appointment of Ban Ki-moon, the incoming Secretary General, Ban is astute enough to know that he was far from Washington's first choice for the position. Ban differed from Bolton on issues ranging from the International Criminal Court to how to deal with Pyongyang.

Bolton has clearly relished his role at the UN, and one nightmare scenario would be intense White House pressure on Ban to grant him a senior UN appointment. If that sounds farfetched, just consider the recent appointment of Bush supporter and former Washington Times editor Josette Sheeran Shiner as head of the World Food Program.

One cannot help but suspect that Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman will soon have competition in xenophobic grandstanding. Bolton's media prominence, his longstanding credentials as a Goldwater supporter and his newly acquired status as a martyr for conservatism would certainly equip him for a political career in the GOP's new confederate heartland, where tough talk regularly obscures lack of achievement.

Senate Democrats on Bolton Resignation

Bob Geiger — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 09:03:12 -0500

Realizing that he would go down in flames if he went before the full U.S. Senate for a vote, United Nations Ambassador John Bolton resigned yesterday and will step down after the recess appointment George W. Bush used to place him at the U.N. expires in early January.

Bush appointed Bolton in August of 2005 while the Congress was on break after it became obvious that even some Republicans were going to vote against the combative Bolton's confirmation to be America's chief diplomat at the U.N.

Here's some Senate reaction to the Bolton resignation:

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

“President Bush has made the right decision in accepting Ambassador Bolton’s resignation. Hopefully this change marks a shift from the failed go-it-alone strategies that have left America less safe. President Bush should now nominate a UN Ambassador who is ready and willing to work with our allies around the world, and who understands the pressing need to change course in Iraq.”

Chris Dodd (D-CT)

“I’m glad to see the Bush Administration has decided not to press Mr. Bolton’s nomination any further. I would encourage the Administration to put forward an individual who believes in diplomacy and has strong bipartisan support.

“From day one, I’ve had reservations about Mr. Bolton. The most fundamental reservation is rewarding someone who has done serious harm in attempting to skew intelligence at the very time when our nation needs careful and accurate information and analysis. That’s what Mr. Bolton did when he attempted to intimidate two U.S. intelligence analysts. In addition, I don’t understand how someone who disdains the UN as much as Mr. Bolton did and does can be an effective representative for U.S. interests in that international organization. I would hope that the President would select from a wide bench of qualified career diplomats or political appointees who are committed to pursuing diplomacy to advance U.S. interests.

Joe Biden (D-DE)

“It is unfortunate that the White House continues its false claim that consideration of Mr. Bolton’s nomination was blocked by Senate Democrats. In fact, Mr. Bolton did not have the votes to secure the recommendation of the Foreign Relations Committee under Republican leadership. Last year, Mr. Bolton did not receive a vote in the full Senate, not because of opposition to him, but because the Administration refused to provide the Senate with documents directly relevant to his nomination. These included National Security Agency intercepts Mr. Bolton asked to see in order to learn the identity of American citizens referenced in the intercepts.

“The President now has an opportunity to nominate an ambassador who can garner strong bipartisan and international support and effectively represent the interests of the United States at the United Nations at a time of extraordinary international challenge. If the President nominates such a person, I look forward to scheduling hearings promptly in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.”

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

"With Ambassador John Bolton’s resignation, President Bush has an opportunity to signal positive change in America's foreign policy. This is a chance for America to once again become a true leader in the world community, setting the stage for peace and stability for generations to come."

John Kerry (D-MA)

“Like Secretary Rumsfeld’s departure, Ambassador Bolton’s resignation offers a chance to turn the page at a critical period. With the Middle East on the verge of chaos and the nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea increasing, we need a United Nations ambassador who has the full support of Congress and can help rally the international community to tackle the serious threats we face.

"This is an opportunity for the President to appoint a United Nations ambassador who enjoys the support necessary to unite our country and the world and who can put results ahead of ideology. There are many qualified candidates from across the political spectrum with the respect and experience necessary to be effective in this crucial post. The President should act quickly to nominate a United Nations Ambassador who can be confirmed with broad bipartisan support.”

Mary Landrieu (D-LA)

"With Ambassador Bolton's resignation today, I hope that we can now put to an end the divisive debate over his background and move forward with a nominee that represents the effective diplomacy needed to advance America's interests and foster better relationships around the world."

Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

“John Bolton has been a divisive figure and a cheerleader for the White House’s ‘stay the course’ approach to the disastrous war in Iraq. His legacy is part and parcel with the squandered opportunities, mismanagement and flawed policies that produced and that have worsened the debacle there.

Our past role as a leader and consensus-builder has been damaged, minimizing our ability to act on a wide variety of matters that are important to our interests and to our security around the world. We face a lengthening list of pressing issues that require careful, constructive and collaborative solutions, and it is time for a new voice and a new direction for us at the United Nations.”

Bolton is Unconstitutional, among other things...

CactusPat — Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:33:52 -0400

I had commented on Smirk's felonious abuse of authority in the wake of his arrogant installation of Bolton last week. Now it seems that lay opinion is backed by at least one legal one... Via the American Constitution Society (the progressive counterpoint to the treasonous Federalist Society) blog, acsblog.org, comes a legal opinion posted by Marty Lederman over at Bakinization blog...

John Bolton is Unconstitutional
Well, his so-called 'recess nomination' to be U.N. Ambassador is unconstitutional, at any rate—at least in this writer's humble opinion. And so is the recess appointment on Tuesday of Peter Flory to be Assistant Secretary of Defense... The Bolton appointment, and others like it, was ostensibly made pursuant to the Recess Appointments Clause (Art. II, sec. 2, cl. 3), which provides that the President "shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session"... There are two basic arguments as to why the Clause does not apply here. The first is discussed in great detail in several briefs that my co-counsel and I filed on behalf of Senator Kennedy in cases dealing with last year's "recess appointment" of U.S. Court of Appeals Judge William Pryor... The basic argument is that the term "the Recess" refers solely to recesses between "Sessions" of the Senate, and not to intra-session adjournments, such as the one the Senate began last Friday. (Indeed, as Senator Frist's statement demonstrates ("I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 225. Thereupon, the Senate, at 8:35 p.m., adjourned until Tuesday, September 6, 2005, at 12 noon."), the current Senate break is not even a "recess" of any kind under governing legislative rules: It's an adjournment, which is another animal entirely, at least for internal congressional functions and possibly for constitutional analysis, as well.)

I won't bore you with the details of the argument—interested readers can find much more in those linked briefs—except to note that this was the accepted understanding of the Executive Branch itself for the first 132 years of practice under the Constitution...

Second, even if the Senate break that began last Friday were deemed "the Recess," the vacancy in the office of U.N. Representative did not "happen" during that recess—it occured instead while the Senate was sitting. This argument is discussed in footnote 11 of our Stephens amicus brief, and it is the principal basis of Judge Barkett's thoughtful dissent from the court of appeals' decision in Stephens. ...

Bolton's Installation is Bush's Supreme Hubris on Display

CactusPat — Thu, 04 Aug 2005 23:14:13 -0400

I witnessed Bush's felonious abuse of power first hand , even though I rarely listen to a garbled word that spews from his blowhole lest I risk suffering permanent brain damage. It was surely supreme hubris on display. In our Mis-Leader's addled mind this arrogant of abuse of authority is a PERMANENT one.

"From the text of Smirk's prepared remarks at Bolton's Appointment - "...I know that Jack and Virginia Bolton would be proud today to see the boy they raised in Baltimore appointed to serve as our permanent representative to the United Nations."

After the pronouncement from "God's messenger" on Earth and a short statement by Bolton they marched off, taking no questions from the assembled corporate media stenographers... In other words our Supreme Mis-Leader told the Senate, the American public and the rest rest of the world to "GO CHENEY YOURSELVES!"

Truthout snagged yet another example of Bush's delusions of grandeur yesterday -

Bush Makes Second Recess Appointment
President Bush again invoked a constitutional provision enabling him to bypass the Senate and install directly a nominee who had been blocked in the Senate. This time, he named Peter Flory to be an assistant secretary of defense...

One can only hope Bush' supreme hubris will come to bite him in the butt...

For "official reaction", check out dems.com member colors' post over in the forum.

Bush Appoints Bolton, and War With Iran and China Draws Near

Bob Fertik — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:22:51 -0400

In open contempt of Congress and the world, on Monday Bush appointed John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations.

Pundits wondered why Bush was so fixated on Bolton, since he could have chosen lots of other obnoxious neocons for the job. The answer is simple: Bolton is a man with a mission, and that mission is to engineer a US/UN war against Iran.

On the same day as Bolton was appointed, Iran delivered an "angry letter" to the IAEA "throwing down the gauntlet" with European negotiators over its uranium enrichment program.

Iran insists it has the right under international law to enrich uranium for nuclear power. (Just last week our very own Republican Congress adopted an energy bill which heavily subsidizes nuclear power.) But Europe insists Iran must stop its nuclear program. (Read this excellent summary of the situation by Henry Adams.)

"Everyone knows" Bush has threatened war against Iran if the negotiations fail. In February, Scott Ritter said Bush had "signed off" on plans to secretly bomb Iran as early as this past June. We know from the Iraq War that Bush launched a secret bombing campaign in the spring of 2002 to provoke Saddam into an act of retaliation that Bush could seize upon as justification for war. (In that case, Saddam didn't take the bait, so Bush went through an inspection charade at the U.N. before invading Iraq unilaterally on March 18, 2003.) But Iran's President-Elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not hiding in palaces dreaming of publishing a novel; he is an aggressive reactionary nationalist who has just as much contempt for the West as Bush has for the Near East.

Iran can thumb its nose at the West because it has developed close ties with the world's newest superpower, China. China is desperate for oil, and one reason for (and consequence of) the U.S. conquest of Iraq was to keep Iraq's oil from China. As a result, Iran's oil is now far more important to China, and China is willing to sell advanced weapons to Iran to help secure its supply.

By all indications, Bush is heading towards war with Iran and possibly China too. Of course, the U.S. is in a weak position to fight a country whose military is probably 10-20 times stronger than Iraq's. We have nearly 150,000 troops bogged down in Iraq, and military recruiters can't meet their quotas.

Of course, there's one way to solve the manpower shortage: by imposing a military dictatorship. And Bush took a giant step in that direction on June 24, when Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England approved the Pentagon's "Strategy for Homeland Defense and Support." Even FOX News is nervous about this totalitarian plan!

And there's one easy way for Bush to get around his problem finding "boots on the ground" to put in Iran - using nuclear weapons.

Will Bush start a nuclear war with Iran? Clearly Bush isn't the least bit chastened by the catastrophic war of lies in Iraq. And if he unleashes a global nuclear war, he's convinced he (and his supporters) will fly up to heaven in the Rapture. So what does Bush care about the billions who will be "left behind?"

If we go to war with Iran, it will not happen overnight. It will be just like Iraq - a wardrum struck here, another there, and pretty soon a new round of propaganda and lies will dominate the airwaves.

But the real action will be in the U.N., where Bush will have to isolate Iran from the rest of the world. So keep your eyes on John Bolton in the next two months as he breaks arms in the U.N. to isolate Iran and provoke it into war...

Update: It looks like the Intelligence community has no intention of helping Bush sell a war against Iran. In today's Pentagon Post, Dafna Linzer reports on the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran. NIE's are major events in the government, especially since they can provide the basis for starting a war. But NIE's are now under intense scrutiny, since the Iraq NIE was so full of lies. The new NIE on Iran undercuts neocon arguments for war with Iran in the immediate future.

A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal. The new estimate could provide more time for diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. President Bush has said that he wants the crisis resolved diplomatically but that "all options are on the table."

The new National Intelligence Estimate includes what the intelligence community views as credible indicators that Iran's military is conducting clandestine work. But the sources said there is no information linking those projects directly to a nuclear weapons program. What is clear is that Iran, mostly through its energy program, is acquiring and mastering technologies that could be diverted to bombmaking.

Bolton Lied to the Senate, Dictator Bush Will Install Him Anyway

CactusPat — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 03:25:00 -0400

Yep, John Bolton perjured himself by submitting a false affidavit to the Senate. State Dept. claims he "DIDN'T REMEMBER" testifying in a joint State Dept/CIA investigation into the false claims and forged documents concerning Iraq attempting to buy Uranium from Niger. You know? The little sixteen words in Dim Son's '03 State of the Dis-Union Address? That ultimately led to PlameGate/ RoveGate? Doesn't matter, old news, our Tin Horn Texas Dictator's gonna install Bolton's lying carcass anyway. At least that's what all the "un-named sources" have been floatin' to the corporate mediawhores... First up, a couple takes on the perjurious statement...

(AP) - State Dept. Now Says Bolton Interviewed
John Bolton, President Bush's nominee for U.N. ambassador, neglected to tell Congress he had been interviewed in a government investigation into faulty prewar intelligence that Iraq was seeking nuclear materials in Africa... Democratic senators said the admission should forestall Bush from using his authority to give Bolton a temporary appointment to the U.N. post, without Senate confirmation, when the Senate goes on vacation in August. Bolton was interviewed by the State Department inspector general in 2003 as part of a joint investigation with the CIA into prewar Iraqi attempts to buy nuclear materials from Niger... His statement came hours after another State Department official said Bolton had correctly answered a Senate questionnaire when he wrote that he had not testified to a grand jury or been interviewed by investigators in any inquiry over the past five years... The reversal followed persistent Democratic attempts, led by Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., to question Bolton's veracity just days before Bush could make Bolton's a recess appointment, meaning he could occupy the U.N. post until the end of next year when the current Congress ends. "It seems unusual that Mr. Bolton would not remember his involvement in such a serious matter," said Biden, "In my mind, this raises more questions that need to be answered. I hope Bush will not make the mistake of recess appointing Mr. Bolton."

Next is Reuters take -

(Reuters) - State Dept admits Bolton gave inaccurate answers
The State Department reversed itself on Thurs. night and acknowledged that Bush's U.N. ambassador nominee gave Congress inaccurate information about an investigation he was involved in. The acknowledgment came after the State Department had earlier insisted nominee John Bolton's "answer was truthful" when he said he had not been questioned or provided information to jury or government investigations in the past five years. "When Mr. Bolton completed his form during the Senate confirmation process he did not recall being interviewed by the State Department inspector general...," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. Earlier, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said he had information Bolton was interviewed as part of a State Dept- CIA joint investigation on intelligence lapses that led to the Bush administration's pre-Iraq war claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. Biden, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said that should have been noted on the questionnaire, for which nominees swear out affidavits stating the information is true and accurate. "It now appears that Mr. Bolton's answers may not meet that standard," Biden wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Here's three pieces on the plans to "install" Bolton, all based on "un-named sources", of course... Sounds like a lot like trial balloonage, or, more likely, psychological preparation for the public of the blatant abuse of power to come...

Officials: Bush Plans to Install Bolton
(AP) - Administration officials say President Bush is preparing to use constitutional powers rarely employed for major appointments to bypass the Senate and install - if only temporarily - John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Bush intends to use a recess appointment to put the controversial conservative in the post before leaving Washington on Tuesday to spend August at his Texas ranch, said two officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because Bush has not made the announcement... "It's the wrong thing to do. John Bolton is the wrong person for the job," said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a member of Foreign Relations Committee. "The president is entitled to take that action, but I don't think it will serve American foreign policy well." Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said a recess appointment of this "badly flawed, ill-suited candidate" would be an abuse of power.

(CBS/AP) Bolton's Recess Appointment On Tap
President Bush intends to announce next week that he is going around Congress to install embattled nominee John Bolton as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, senior administration officials said Friday. Mr. Bush has the power to fill vacancies without Senate approval while Congress is in recess. Under the Constitution, a recess appointment during the lawmakers' August break would last until the next session of Congress, which begins in January 2007. An end run around the Senate confirmation process would certainly annoy senators — particularly Democrats — at a time when Mr. Bush's nomination of John Roberts to serve on the Supreme Court hangs in the balance. It also could hamper Bolton at the United Nations, by sending him there as a short-timer without the Senate's backing. "There's just too much unanswered about Bolton and I think the president would make a truly serious mistake if he makes a recess appointment," Sen. Joseph Biden...

LA Times -Bush Plans to Bypass Senate, Appoint Bolton
Bush will sidestep Democratic opposition to his nomination of John R. Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations by making a recess appointment not subject to Senate confirmation, a senior administration official said Friday. The appointment, which is likely to further roil relations with congressional Democrats, will be announced before the president leaves Washington on Tuesday for a five-week working vacation at his Texas ranch, said the official, who requested anonymity because Bush had not yet publicly disclosed his intentions. The (Tin Horn Texas Dictator) was expected to proceed despite the disclosure that Bolton had made a false statement to a Senate committee. Democrats made a fresh appeal Friday that Bush not bypass the confirmation process by using his power to appoint Bolton during the month long congressional recess that starts this weekend. The White House and State Department said the incorrect information Bolton submitted to lawmakers was an unintentional mistake...

Officials: Bolton Provoked Unlawful Firing

Ted Kahl — Sat, 04 Jun 2005 22:18:10 -0400

(AP) John R. Bolton flew to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a U.N. tribunal has since judged unlawful, according to officials involved.
A former Bolton deputy says the U.S. undersecretary of state felt Jose Bustani ``had to go,'' particularly because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. That might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war.

Bustani, who says he got a ``menacing'' phone call from Bolton at one point, was removed by a vote of just one-third of member nations at an unusual special session of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), at which the United States cited alleged mismanagement in calling for his ouster.

[...]

Bolton's handling of the multilateral showdown takes on added significance now as he looks for U.S. Senate confirmation as early as this week as U.N. ambassador, a key role on the international stage, and as more details have emerged in Associated Press interviews about what happened in 2002.

A spokeswoman told AP Bolton, keeping a low profile during his confirmation process, would have no comment for this article.