Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News More on John Bolton

  1. Jul 28, 2005 #1
    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.


    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: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 28, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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.
  4. Jul 28, 2005 #3
    Who's John Bolton?
  5. Jul 28, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Bush is trying to appoint him as the new US delegate to the UN.
  6. Jul 28, 2005 #5
    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.
  7. Jul 28, 2005 #6
    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.
  8. Jul 28, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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.
  9. Jul 29, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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: May 2, 2017
  10. Jul 29, 2005 #9
    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.
  11. Jul 29, 2005 #10
    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:
  12. Jul 29, 2005 #11
    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.
  13. Jul 29, 2005 #12
    Why does it not surprise me that this is the first you've heard about this?

    Yes. This approach has worked so well for us lately. :rolleyes:
  14. Jul 29, 2005 #13
    I don't know. Perhaps you have preconceived notions about me or people
    who express ideas like mine.

    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.
  15. Jul 29, 2005 #14
    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...

  16. Jul 30, 2005 #15
    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.

    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.

    Yeah, one of the few Blacks your side couldn't tear down.

    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.

    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.

    We should first start with being honest with each other. You are anti-Republican...

    ...as evidenced by your disgust with whatever Republicans are up to.

    Rev Prez
  17. Jul 30, 2005 #16


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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: Jul 30, 2005
  18. Jul 30, 2005 #17
    No, I'm not. I'm anti- neoconservative christian right.
  19. Jul 30, 2005 #18
    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: May 2, 2017
  20. Jul 30, 2005 #19
  21. Jul 30, 2005 #20
    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]

    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook