News More on John Bolton

  • Thread starter pattylou
  • Start date
279
0
Bolton told Congress that he had not been part of any congressional inquiry in the past five years.

It now appears that he has testified in the Valerie Plame leak, making his statement above a lie. Also appearing to be in cahoots with an agenda to wage an unjust war.

Earlier in the day, reporters questioned State Department spokesman Sean McCormack on whether Bolton testified before the federal grand jury investigating who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, as MSNBC reported last week.

McCormack recited the questionnaire on whether a nominee "has been interviewed or asked to supply any information in connection with any administrative (including an inspector general), congressional or grand jury investigation, within the past five years, except routine congressional testimony."

"Mr. Bolton, in his response on the written paperwork, was to say "No." And that answer is truthful then and it remains the case now," McCormack said.


<snip>

But Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said he had information Bolton was interviewed as part of a State Department-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.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/28/AR2005072801605.html [Broken]

You really think this is the man for the United Nations???No matter, Bush will probably make a recess appointment of this crook, too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
pattylou said:
But Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said he had information Bolton was interviewed as part of a State Department-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.
Wait a second. I'm not saying he didn't lie, but there's no clear indication in this post that he did. If he was interviewed by the state department and/or CIA, they aren't inspector general, congress, or grand jury. They're part of the executive branch, but are they considered 'administrative?' The wording seems a bit ambiguous.
 
310
2
Who's John Bolton?
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
Bush is trying to appoint him as the new US delegate to the UN.
 
279
0
loseyourname said:
Wait a second. I'm not saying he didn't lie, but there's no clear indication in this post that he did. If he was interviewed by the state department and/or CIA, they aren't inspector general, congress, or grand jury. They're part of the executive branch, but are they considered 'administrative?' The wording seems a bit ambiguous.
I'm awfully tired of loopholes like this. Biden says he was involved in the "yellow cake" issue. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Biden is right. ROve is trying to get off on some technicality, Bush is backpeddling on what sort of action he'll take on Rove, and now we're finding out that Bolton played a part in it too. It all adds up to Bush putting and keeping the unscrupulous warmongers in strategic positions.

Remember Colin Powell? He was a good guy. He had broad support. He had integrity. Bolton looks slimier and slimier.

I'm not anti-republican. But this whole business (all the appointments, with the possible exception of Roberts who we still don't know much about) looks crooked and hell bent and finding loopholes to justify it seems crazy.
 
279
0
Smurf said:
Who's John Bolton?
He's had trouble getting confirmed. It's been big news. It typifies the resistance that Bush has had this term.

The Republicans are calling the democrats obstructionists. I'll tell you why they are being called this: Last term they didn't obstruct. And we went into war and we're still there and will be for 12 years and hundreds of billions of dollars and there was no good reason for it.

THe president was given "a wide berth." Because of his poor judgment last term, and his seeming desire to continue in that general trend (rewarding all the people involved in making the case for aggression), the democrats are considerably more cautious this term. They want to look at records (Bolton, Roberts) before agreeing with the president this time around. The president is refusing to hand over those documents, although the Congress is an equal branch in the government.

Their requests to check Bush's recommendations, given his track record, seems very reasonable. And given a choice between making another Iraq-type mistake and being called names (obstructionist), the choice seems clear.
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
pattylou said:
I'm awfully tired of loopholes like this. Biden says he was involved in the "yellow cake" issue. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Biden is right. ROve is trying to get off on some technicality, Bush is backpeddling on what sort of action he'll take on Rove, and now we're finding out that Bolton played a part in it too. It all adds up to Bush putting and keeping the unscrupulous warmongers in strategic positions.

Remember Colin Powell? He was a good guy. He had broad support. He had integrity. Bolton looks slimier and slimier.

I'm not anti-republican. But this whole business (all the appointments, with the possible exception of Roberts who we still don't know much about) looks crooked and hell bent and finding loopholes to justify it seems crazy.
What does any of this have to do with whether or not Bolton lied? If you're just mad that he may have been involved in this 'yellow-cake' thing, then just be mad at him for that.
 

BobG

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
110
80
Condi Rice said:
Also in the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/28/AR2005072801605.html [Broken]...
Rice, appearing on the PBS News Hour, said that "the president will make that decision" on a recess appointment. "What we can't be is without leadership at the United Nations. ... I'm spending an awful lot of time these days preparing for the high-level meetings that are going to take place in September" on U.N. reforms.
I think I'd disagree with that statement. The acting US ambassador to the United Nations, Anne Patterson, has developed quite a bit of respect since January, when she started filling the job. A quiet never-ending fight over the confirmation of John Bolton might be the best solution for both Republicans and Democrats.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
279
0
loseyourname said:
What does any of this have to do with whether or not Bolton lied? If you're just mad that he may have been involved in this 'yellow-cake' thing, then just be mad at him for that.
I'm not "just mad at him."

I see a trend towards slimier and slimier.

If he didn't lie explicitly (I don't know one way or the other) he was certainly in the same ballpark as lying.

I also raised the issue because we have seen one issue after another - we are being distracted from one issue to another - have been all year.

But all the issues are related! Bush's questionable win (Boxer standing up to question the vote in January.) Rice's appointment (delayed confirmation - based on her less-than-honest role in getting us into an unjust war). Bolton's nomination (and his "kiss up kick down" attitude and - now - his apparent role in the yellow cake thing). Rove's leak of Plame's name. Again, it's related directly to the unjust war. The downing street memo. The Iran-Contra figure (who was guilty of shredding documents) being *hired* by the pentagon as chief of staff to United States acting Deputy Defence Secretary Gordon England. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10335546

So I'm not "just mad at Bolton." I am proactively trying to maintain awareness of the bigger picture. I hope that one or two people read these sorts of threads and say ... "Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that, never thought about it like that before..."

Loopholes for each of these have been put forth (Ex: The DSM has been defended on the grounds that "fixing intelligence around a policy" doesn't mean fixing intelligence around a policy.)

And my point is twofold: (1) John Bolton is not the best man to represent the US to the United NAtions. That is clear. And (2) The pattern of behaviors and nominations and memos, is damning.
 

Informal Logic

pattylou said:
I'm not "just mad at him."

I see a trend towards slimier and slimier.

If he didn't lie explicitly (I don't know one way or the other) he was certainly in the same ballpark as lying.

I also raised the issue because we have seen one issue after another - we are being distracted from one issue to another - have been all year.

But all the issues are related! Bush's questionable win (Boxer standing up to question the vote in January.) Rice's appointment (delayed confirmation - based on her less-than-honest role in getting us into an unjust war). Bolton's nomination (and his "kiss up kick down" attitude and - now - his apparent role in the yellow cake thing). Rove's leak of Plame's name. Again, it's related directly to the unjust war. The downing street memo. The Iran-Contra figure (who was guilty of shredding documents) being *hired* by the pentagon as chief of staff to United States acting Deputy Defence Secretary Gordon England. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10335546

So I'm not "just mad at Bolton." I am proactively trying to maintain awareness of the bigger picture. I hope that one or two people read these sorts of threads and say ... "Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that, never thought about it like that before..."

Loopholes for each of these have been put forth (Ex: The DSM has been defended on the grounds that "fixing intelligence around a policy" doesn't mean fixing intelligence around a policy.)

And my point is twofold: (1) John Bolton is not the best man to represent the US to the United NAtions. That is clear. And (2) The pattern of behaviors and nominations and memos, is damning.
All of Bush's nominations/appointments have been controversial. I agree that this is a very important issue, because it shows this president is more interested in his debts owed and power control than he is in having a united country (or even qualified officials--of course neither is he).

Also, he has used loopholes such as recess appointments more than once to shove his nomination down American's throats, and of course let's not forget his encouragement of Frist, DeLay, etc. to use the 'nuclear option' to remove the right to filibuster. How more divisive can leaders be? Now with John Roberts, Bush went through the motions of calling Dems for their input, but we know it was tokenism and any names suggested went immediately in the 'round file.' Clinton and Hatch (Utah) actually agreed to a nominee in advance--this is true reaching across the aisle.

The GOP leadership that surrounds Bush are working very hard toward a one party state. The Dems are just doing their job and creating debate, etc. per the democratic values of checks and balances. Oh, but they are just obstructionists. :rolleyes:
 
1,675
3
Bolton's got a reputation for being a hothead?

Good. We need someone to crack some heads in the Dictator's Club we call the UN.
 
279
0
Antiphon said:
Bolton's got a reputation for being a hothead?
Why does it not surprise me that this is the first you've heard about this?

Good. We need someone to crack some heads in the Dictator's Club we call the UN.
Yes. This approach has worked so well for us lately. :rolleyes:
 
1,675
3
pattylou said:
Why does it not surprise me that this is the first you've heard about this?
I don't know. Perhaps you have preconceived notions about me or people
who express ideas like mine.


Yes. This approach has worked so well for us lately. :rolleyes:
He hasn't taken the job yet so we don't know how well it will work.
Come on, girl. Get with the program here.
 

Informal Logic

Antiphon said:
Bolton's got a reputation for being a hothead?

Good. We need someone to crack some heads in the Dictator's Club we call the UN.
Yup, them damn dictators, let's git an arsehole to kick some ass! Or, maybe there is already one arsehole too many in the UN...

Stripping the veto power

As the political, economic, and military power of most of the original Security Council members has waned in recent decades, there has been talk about whether or not to disallow the veto power. It is also often alleged that veto power, particularily that of the United States, has undermined the strength and authority of the United Nations Security Council.

Expanding the permanent Council membership and giving new members veto power

...members of the G-4, consisting of India, Germany, Brazil and Japan argue that the present Security Council composition represents the world of 1945 rather than 2005. According to these countries, the Security Council must represent greater number of people otherwise the importance of Security Council might be lost and that the United Nations would have the same fate as that of the League of Nations. All the four countries have launched a massive diplomatic effort to create a general consensus in their favour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Veto_Power#United_States
 
27
0
pattylou said:
I'm awfully tired of loopholes like this.
Then stop manufacturing them. If your boss interviewed you about some screw-up on somebody else's watch, would you consider that sworn testimony? There's a reason why Republicans don't respond forcefully to these sort of accusations. After decades of the Left getting in touch with their inner pussies, there's no reason to take your side seriously on any question of national security.

Biden says he was involved in the "yellow cake" issue. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Biden is right. ROve is trying to get off on some technicality, Bush is backpeddling on what sort of action he'll take on Rove, and now we're finding out that Bolton played a part in it too. It all adds up to Bush putting and keeping the unscrupulous warmongers in strategic positions.
Or, Bush has no intentions of taking these hyped up charges seriously, Biden (along with Wilson, for that matter) is absolutely wrong about "yellow cake", Rove had nothing to do with blowing anyone's cover, and the Plame's immediate supervisor should be immediately questioned as to why someone's well known husband was permited to gather take for which he lacked qualifications to recieve.

Remember Colin Powell? He was a good guy.
Yeah, one of the few Blacks your side couldn't tear down.

He had broad support.
The left also entertained this quixotic belief that Powell was one of theirs; they have since long before the 2000 election and they still can't shake it. Maybe it has to do with their noticable failure to promote Black Americans to national posts of any prominence.

He had integrity. Bolton looks slimier and slimier.
Let's see, Powell went before the UN and testified about weapons you will swear up and down were known to have never existed. He backed the President every inch up over a war that you will swear up and down was based on lies. So either you're buying into your own or somebody else's fiction or Powell is just as slimy as Bolton.

I'm not anti-republican.
We should first start with being honest with each other. You are anti-Republican...

But this whole business (all the appointments, with the possible exception of Roberts who we still don't know much about) looks crooked and hell bent and finding loopholes to justify it seems crazy.
...as evidenced by your disgust with whatever Republicans are up to.

Rev Prez
 

SOS2008

Gold Member
18
0
The U.S. was instrumental in forming the UN. The U.S. has used it's veto power often to thwart majority consensus in the world. The U.S. can never be subject to international laws or UN resolutions because the U.S. is too powerful. How is it then that people think the U.S. needs to be even stronger in the UN with more belligerence from a man like Bolton?

I will say briefly that Powell has completely lost my respect due to his role--if not support, at the minimum failure to condemn the "fixing the intelligence," but this is OT. Moving on...
 
Last edited:
279
0
Rev Prez said:
We should first start with being honest with each other. You are anti-Republican...
No, I'm not. I'm anti- neoconservative christian right.
 

solutions in a box

Bolton's reward

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/AP_Probe_suggests_Bolton_manipulated_Iraq_inspections_to_favor_Wara [Broken]

Even the url to this link tells the story.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
279
0
An anonymous source states today, that Bush will make a recess appointment Monday or Tuesday. :mad:

The entire article is interesting - it specualtes how this will play out in the months ahead for Bush. It also echoes that Bolton appears to have lied in his testimony to the Senate Panel regarding the Plame leak.
World, I'm very sorry. I am ashamed of Bush, and of the image that he projects of the USA.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002410674_bolton30.html [Broken]

The president was expected to proceed despite the disclosure that Bolton had made a false statement to a Senate committee. Democrats made a fresh appeal yesterday that Bush not bypass the confirmation process by using his power to appoint Bolton during the monthlong congressional recess that starts this weekend.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1,675
3
pattylou said:
World, I'm very sorry. I am ashamed of Bush, and of the image that he projects of the USA.
Well I'm not. And there are many more of us that are very pleased
with both Mr. Bush and his choice to clean up the sewer called the UN.

Help is on the way, and his name is Bolton.

SOS2008 said:
The U.S. was instrumental in forming the UN. The U.S. has used it's veto power often to thwart majority consensus in the world. The U.S. can never be subject to international laws or UN resolutions because the U.S. is too powerful. How is it then that people think the U.S. needs to be even stronger in the UN with more belligerence from a man like Bolton?
Simple. Because most of the UN's delegates represent unelected and
unaccountable leaders. Their people are better off with a weaker UN and
a stronger US.
 
Last edited:

solutions in a box

Bush asked for help from that sewer

Antiphon said:
Well I'm not. And there are many more of us that are very pleased
with both Mr. Bush and his choice to clean up the sewer called the UN.
It became a "sewer" because the U.S. wanted it to be. A strong U.N. would never have allowed the U.S. to invade Iraq. It was the U.N. inspectors who proclaimed that there were no WMD in Iraq. We know how that turned out.

Bolton is the guy who stopped another round of inspections in Iraq by OPCW. By 2002 this agencey had become a highly acclaimed global entity.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/cwc/news/97101702_ppo.html

The U.S. now needs U.N. help because the current adminstration has overburdened our military and we are incapable of dealing with; Syria, Iran, and North korea. Or any other global threat, not to mention the can of disaster Bush opened in Iraq.

We also need help from the U.N. in rebuilding Iraq. Just last week $2 billion of U.S. tax payer money was diverted from the rebuilding fund and transferred to "security".

The link below gives a historical pespective to the "can of disaster" mentioned above, and help that we have requested from the United Nations.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0822-01.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
466
4
Simple. Because most of the UN's delegates represent unelected and
unaccountable leaders.
You mean like Bolton, who couldn't even be confirmed by the Senate?
 
38
165
Bolton is like Deja vu

He is bad news all over again. :wink:

Ironically, Bolton in 2002 accused Cuba of transfers of biological weapons technology to rogue states and called on it "to fully comply with all of its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention." [14] According to a Scripps Howard News Service article, Bolton "wanted to say that Cuba had a biological weapons capacity and that it was exporting it to other nations. The intelligence analysts seemed to want to limit the assessment to a declaration that Cuba 'could' develop such weapons." [15] Bolton attempted to have the chief bioweapons analyst in the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research and the CIA's national intelligence officer for Latin America reassigned. Under oath at his Senate hearings for confirmation as Ambassador, he denied trying to have the men fired, but seven intelligence officials contradicted him.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton
 
38
165
solutions in a box said:
The link below gives a historical pespective to the "can of disaster" mentioned above, and help that we have requested from the United Nations.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0822-01.htm [Broken]
From the link,
"Among other things, the force is expected to permit the United States to gradually withdraw some of its own besieged troops, whose death toll has increased to 63 since President George W. Bush declared an end to hostilities in May."

Whether it is a historical perspective or not. It does put one thing into perspective for me. The death toll is now well over 1700 and rising daily. :mad:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads for: More on John Bolton

Replies
30
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
5
Views
719
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Posted
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
6
Views
10K
Replies
5
Views
2K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top