The Hearing. Order of speakers agreed by Lugar/Biden after some discussion: Lugar, Voinovich, Biden? That doesn't sound so great.

Voinovich is up.......Since our last meeting, I have poured over hundreds of pages of testimony,...Most importantly, I once again met with Mr. Bolton this week to share my concerns and to listen carefully to his thoughts. After great care and consideration, frankly there is a particular concern I have about this nomination, big picture of US public diplomacy. It was not long ago that when America was loved by the world...Today the world is criticized for arrogance,.....allies alienated, London, NATO meeting in Italy, things have really changed.

It troubles me deeply that US is perceived this way....steeper challenge in achieving this objective without their support. If we cannot work together as a team, our goals will be more difficult to achieve....

It is clear the costs of this war are rising all the time and are not expected to go down any time soon.

There are not many allies standing up to join us in bearing these costs, part. in Iraq.

Key to this is public diplomacy. I applaud the president, Sec. Rice for reaching out to our friends. I also applaud the President's decision to appoint Karen Hughes to lead this effort...

But what message are we sending to the world community when in the same breath we appoint a US ambassador to the UN who bullies those....these are very characteristics that we are trying to send to the world community....

I am afraid his confirmation will tell the world ...

I do believe in UN reform. But it will take a special individual to succeed in this endeavor. I have great concerns about this nominee and his ability to get this done.

There are many other people qualified to go to the UN.

Tendency to act without the view of others, and tendency to not respect the chain of command.

In fairness, those sources say - once reprimanded, Bolton got back in line, and he will be kept on a short leash.

Who is to say that he is not going to stray at the UN?

I was informed by Sec. Rice that she is aware of all these concerns....

My question to her is: Why in the world would you want to send someone up to the UN who has to be supervised?

I am also concerned about his interpersonal skills.

His challenge now is to inspire, lead a new team. We have all witnessed testimony (that he's abusive, bully....)

I have concerns about Mr. Bolton's ability to inspire and lead a team. and I am not the only one. I understand that 59 US diplomats have signed a letter saying Mr. Bolton is the wrong man for the job. Testimony by Lawrence Wilkerson, Bolton would be an abysmal ambassador.

Additionally, I want to note that Colin Powell was conspicuously absent from former Secretaries of State endorsing Bolton...

We are facing an era in foreign relations in which choice for our ambassador to the UN is critical. Do you treat people with dignity and respect, very important.

The question is, is John Bolton the best person for the job? Let me say, there is no doubt that John Bolton should be commended and thanked for his service and achievements.

Impressed by his work on combating anti-Semitism.....

Despite these successes there is no doubt that Mr. Bolton has serious deficiencies in the areas needed to be a good ambassador. Kiss up, kick down leader, as Carl Ford says. As Amb. Hubbard says, he does not listen. Former Sec. State Powell's chief of staff said he would be an abysmal ambassador.

He's an ideologue and fosters an atmosphere of intimidation. He does not foster dialogue. He lords over when he has success. Carl Ford testified he'd never seen anyone behave as badly.

Mr. Chairman I have to say that after pouring over 100 pages of testimony, I belive that Mr. John Bolton would have been fired if he had worked for a major corporation. This is not the behavior that shoudl be endorsed as the face of the US to the world. Rather, it is my opinion that Bolton is the poster child for what someone in the UN court should not be.

I worry we are sending the wrong single to thousands of diplomats in foreign service, representing our country, risking their lives.

I was just in the Balkans, with employees of our State Department. He's not what they consider to be the ideal rep of the US.

(Is this like something out of the West Wing? Do politicians even do things like this any more?????)

I have come to the determination that the United States can do better than John Bolton.....

That being said, Mr. Chairman, I am not so arrogant that I should impose my judgment on the rest of my colleagues.

(Oh no). My hope is we can send Mr. Bolton's nomination to the Senate floor without recommendation. Read all the testimomy. Will he solicit information from the right individuals? Is he capable of advancing the president in public diplomacy? Does he have the common decency to lead his team to victory?

I have met with Mr. Bolton on two occasions. I like Mr. Bolton, I think he's a decent man. Our conversations candid and cordial. But Mr. Chairman, I really don't think he's the best man to send to the United Nations.

[Some analysis from a reader of what's happened:

So much promise, only to let us down at the last moment.

Yep, Voinovich will not vote to affirmatively endorse the Bolton nomination to the floor, but he will vote for a "no recommendation" (or perhaps a negative recommendation), to allow the full Senate to debate the nomination. We'll see if Voinovich's statement inspires any change of heart among the other three Republican fence-sitters.

In a floor vote, the key number is now 46. 45 Dems and one Republican will vote against the nomination. We need to strip five more Republicans away ...

Biden is up. Don't know why I didn't think for a moment Mr. Voinovich should go second? (laughter)

Why would you send someone to the United Nations that needed to be supervised?

I did ask the Sec. of State when she had the courtesy of calling me before the nominee was announced. At the time she asked me would I withhold stating anything publicly until I had a chance to talk with her. I did withhold until the day of the hearing.

We didn't seek out this testimony....

The argument we need Bolton at the UN for reform, reminded me of that old saying.

I knew Pat Moynihan, and he's no Pat Moynihan. Moynihan is rolling over in his grave over this comparison.

Bolton has done some great things. The anti-Zionist resolution. That's a big deal, a notable accomplishment. But that does not a UN ambassador make. A lot of people have done very good things who turn out not to be qualified.

Also concerned we were given some misleading testimony from the nominee....This committe has a right and a duty to look at the evidence. [State Department] wouldn't provide....

No cogent rationale while they give us some things and not others. The Department's lack of cooperation is significant departure from the past. Significant departure.

A letter from the Chairman and myself requested the Names of US persons on the NSA intercepts that Bolton request be unredacted were not provided....

We expected that access...Storage material and access, not if we could get access. Mr. Chairman, you made assurances that intel committee would share it with us. The Intel committee leadership were briefed by Gen. Hayden on the NSA intercepts, I understand they were not given the identity of the US persons that Mr. Bolton requested and received. I have no information on when we will get access. Mr. Chairman, your request has not been fulfilled, and I don't know why. And I don't think that's acceptable. We have responsibility to serve our oversight, advise and consent responsibility. Can someone at least do us the courtesy of telling us why this information has not been provided. What gives them the right to determine what this committee needs to serve its duty. It has no right under the constitution, that they do not believe the request to be specifically tied to the responsibilities of the committee. We are a co-equal branch, equally powerful and important, with a specifically assigned Constitutional responsibility that only we have a right to determine whether information is relevant or not. It is our power to decide what is relevant to our deliberations in the exercise of our responsility. With due respect Mr. Chairman, I think we're making a big mistake in not insisting on this information be provided.

I think we have undermined our authority...I will continue to insist we are entitled to that information, it is just a matter of principle.

Let me turn to the matter of the nomination. This is a big deal.

1) Mr. Bolton repeatedly tried to fire underlings

2) He repeatedly looked for the intelligence to support his ideology. He politicized the intelligence process...

3) In relation with colleagues, Mr. Bolton repeatedly showed abusive behavior to colleagues and subordinates, and provided misleading testimony to this committee....

Seven senior officials have testified to the committee that Mr. Bolton
1) seeks retribution against officials who disagree with him

That he pushes the envelope on intelligence information.

I don't recall any senior official being told by the Sec. of State that you cannot say a single thing before the Senate committees or make a single public speech without clearing it first.

Thirdly, he doesn't like to hear dissent, misses the forest for the trees, that he mischaracterizes the views of his colleagues. This is neither hearsay or innuence. This is what a judge would call direct evidence.

Some people might ask that none of this matters. Nobody lost a job. Mr. Bolton gave the speeches he was authorized to give. The people ultimately landed on their feet. If you think his actions don't matter, why woudl so many serious people come forward with little to gain and lots to lose to tell their stories.

We didn't subpoena a single person. They came forward because they think Mr. Bolton's actions matter a lot. Because words matter.

Sarbannes: John Bolton doesn't believe in international law or that the US has an obligation to pay its dues to the UN....

Clear he's attempted to manipulate intelligence in a way that has harmed our nation's interests...In testimony here he denied he had tried to have analysts punished....and yet we have learned from extensive interviews with numerous administration individuals he did try to seek having analysts removed from their positions....that he did not succeed does not speak for Mr. Bolton. What it speaks to is to those who resisted his demands. Given this conduct, when he goes before the UN to make a statement about evidence of nuclear weapons production, who is going to believe him knowing he repeatedly punished analysts who published contradictory information? Knowing he took isolated facts and made much of them to build a case then I thought the intelligence warranted. Cherry picking of isolated factoids to draw out the starkest possible case.

We need a credible spokesman at the United Nations and this past conduct on his part casts serious doubt.

Finally, his poor management skills make him unqualified for a senior role...

Sen. Allen (R-Va): ...Desperate need for reform in the United Nations...

Chris Dodd (D-CT) is up....

We had one this morning. A Senatorial moment. I want to tell my colleague from Ohio it's a privilege to serve with you. When you stand up against the flow of events in your own party. So I thank him for what he did.

A lot of people, 20 people, have sat with our staffs, and done something you rarely see. Rarely see so many people of different stripes willing to come forward and say, please be careful about what you're doing. This is a rare moment. He lists the officials who have come forward....

Stuart Cohen, acting director of NIC
Alan Foley, former head of CIA/WINPAC
John McLaughlin, former deputy director of CIA
Chrisian Westermann, INR analyst
Tom Fingar, INR
attorney at State Department
William Taft, legal advisor to State
Fred Fleitz
Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Powell
Robert Hutchins, NIC
...

All these people said, this is a bad choice.

Chafee up....I am apprehensive that by endorsing Bolton then we are endorsing intimidation of intelligence analysts.

I am also concerned by Bolton's South Korea speech. It does not diminish his having delivered it at such a serious time.

I also recognize his accomplishments...Proliferation Security Initiative....

I do want to take, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bolton at his word as to how he'll perform as ambassador to the United Nations. (Why???) ...(All Bolton's statements to the committee, several of which have been proved to be false).

I will support Mr. Lugar's and Mr. Voinovich's position (forward nomination to the full floor without a recommendation? Lugar and Voinovich don't share a position). (Chafee is useless, Rhode Island should dump him.).

John Kerry's up. I think this ought to end here. But if it doesn't end here, there will be a long debate on the floor of the Senate, and that debate will not benefit Bolton's standing....

Coleman: Is this the right guy? And who makes that judgment? (this guy is such a hack. When his enemy is the UN, his zealotry in trying to personally destroy Kofi Annan was relentless. When the issue is John Bolton, the evidence is so contradictory, he sniffs. 'Is John Bolton the nicest guy in the world? He's not going to win that prize.' Thanks for conceding the obvious. Mr. Coleman might want to explore the nature of Mr. Freedman's private contracts, the type of stuff he was so concerned about when his target weren't Republicans. Enough said. Onto)

Russ Feingold: I share the views of many in insisting on UN reform. But Mr. Bolton's record would suggest that he woudl rather see that institution dramatically weakened than reformed...

Barbara Boxer: Mr. Coleman, you should read the Constitution.

There is not a majority on this committee in favor of this nominee. And it is our job to send a signal to our colleagues. There is not a majority on this community that supports John Bolton today. I will not be voting to move that forward today. I am deeply disappointed we have not gotten all the information that we have requested. This is a matter of principle. Perhaps there's nothing in there. Perhaps there's something. The intercepts. Mr. Freedman. And some information about Syria. I will just say, that I am going to do all I can to see that we get this informatoin before this moves out of here onto the floor. It's not right to cast a vost where you really don't have the full information.

Why on earth would we want to hire someone who has shown he puts pressure on intelligence analysts in order to politicize intelligence? It creates politicization and culture of conformity that is dangerous. This is not a person we should be promoting when we have a war in Iraq that was based on this politicization of intelligence.

Put someone into that situation who has said there is no United Nations, it is shocking...

The failure to be candid with this committee. My God. We ought to at least believe we expect someone to tell us the whole truth.

It's shocking to me that more people on the committee are not disturbed this.

The strongest opposition to Mr. Bolton comes from members of the Bush administration. Carl Ford, Mr. Wilkerson, etc. Elizabeth Jones, "I don't know if he's capable of negotiations, but he's unwilling." John Wolf: "It's fair to say some of the officers in my bureau felt undue pressure to conform to views of Secretary [Bolton] rather than views they support." etc. ...Republicans, conservatives, coming out against this nominee. It is hard for me to understand why the President didn't say he's going to send down someone else. I guess he wants a fight. I guess he's asking people to walk the line. And if that's what he wants, there's going to be a fight.

American people are going to look at it. And at the end of the day, I think they may sway some of my colleagues.

We'll take this battle, we'll take these quotes, we'll take these interviews down to the floor. I am going to ask the American people to help us on this one.

Sen. Alexander: He has the credentials. So I expected to be impressed, and I was, when he testified that day.

So after one day I was impressed.

I was surprised and disappointed after the second day. Carl Ford was a good witness. Very believable. He didn't overstate his case....Very mad Bolton had 'chewed out' someone lower down the line. Many members of the committee know and respect him and I found his testimony believable.

There have been some other things said about Mr. Bolton which Mr. Ford himself dismissed. Politicization of intelligence.

As I have listened very carefully to all the charges, only one charge had substance. (This is so highly disingenuous, it's laughable). That John Bolton has been rude to staff members, jobs subordinate to his. I imagine Mr. Bolton is embarrassed by those charges. Perhaps he's learned a lesson.

What I heard didn't change my vote, but I hope it might change Mr. Bolton's dealings with his colleagues and the other people in the bureaucracies with whom he'll be working..

Obama: I was extraordinarily impressed by the presentation Sen. Voinovich made.

(Shorter Obama; previous speaker was pursuing a total strawman theory of why people like Voinovich oppose Bolton. It's not about "he shouts.")

The basis for our objections have to do with specific allegations that Mr. Bolton reached down not to immediate subordinates but far afield to attempt to fire intel officers that would not support statements he was making on behalf of the US government.

We can define politicization in various ways, what I do know is that there is substantial credible evidence from Republican appointees serving in the Bush administration that Mr. Bolton sought to massage intelligence to fit an ideological predisposition.

Murkowski: I want to thank you for the delay to get to the facts. I appreciate the chance you gave this committee to go out and do its homework.

Has a management style that is far different from my management style. And as you go through the transcripts, as you listen to the testimony that we have heard, and as I have talked to individuals who have worked with Mr. Bolton, words like "hard charging," "overbearing" and "confrontational." Also use the word very difficult to work with, he can be overaggressive....also clear to me that when Bolton has made up his mind, it can be difficult to change that mindset.

I have paid my penance for going through all the pages of testimony. A lot of time to do reading and thinking. When I first met with Mr. Bolton, this was prior to any allegations have come out that he has been abusive to staff members. His role in NY was discussed, inflammatory statements he had made in the past. Whose opinion would he be representing at the UN? When he made his comments about North Korea's leader, we in Alaska spent a lot of time looking and focusing on the North Korea issue. I found Mr. Bolton's statements to be inflammatory.

I also understand that Mr. Bolton's remarks that he had received a thank you from Amb Hubbard and yet when I reviewed the transcript from the interview, it was very clear that Hubbard's intent had not been to thank Mr. Bolton for the speech itself. I have to agree with Amb. Hubbard's statement that the speech did not advance the President's objective.

Second matter: concern that Bolton would get out ahead of the President's policy. I believe there is a pattern of Mr. Bolton pushing that envelope.

Push policies more ambitious than President's policy willing to go....But (evidence) suggests speech had been cleared. I do question language used, reality is Mr. Bolton did what he was supposed to do in getting his speech approved.

Now when the committee learned of allegations Bolton had berated INR analyst, that concerned me a great deal. And additional charges of trying to get additional persons removed from positions also had me concerned. It says a lot, about them as a person and how they will work with others.

In this position at the UN, our rep needs to be able to work with others. But at the same time I recognize this is the President's nominee. He deserves to be surrounded by individuals he trusts and advances interests of the administraiton.

When it comes down to it, it's not about Mr. Bolton's intelligence, not about his capability, which he's demonstrated....My question has to do with the conduct, how Mr. Bolton treats people....how Bolton will interact with other rep and their staff at the UN and how he represents the US. That conduct will reflect on the president and the head of the department. it's the prez' responsibility that his nominee is part of the team and is not a freelancer. And listens to that input.

The president has put his trust in John Bolton, the Secretary of State has put her trust in Bolton, the President deserves to have an individual he trusts in that position, and with the understanding that how Mr. Bolton conducts himself in NY will reflect on the administration, I support moving Mr. Bolton's nomination to the Senate floor.

Nelson: Where's the biggest threat in the world today? Iran and North Korea. Over the past four years, how much progress have we made? and who was in charge? And now we are asked to promote him representing us to a world body? It just doesn't make sense to me. So I'm going to vote no on the nomination.

Biden: Let me state what is obvious. Our disagreement over Bolton in this committee...

I am confident that at some point our colleagues in the Intel committee that they looked at the information from the intercepts and they see no pattern for raising alarm. They will also tell you, they were not given what Mr. Bolton was given. They were redacted files. They did not have the name of "The American." And so, I don't have any doubt but it doesn't in any way that we are entitled to see what they saw, and they are entitled to see more. But facts are, we don't have that information.

I don't ever recall a nominee being put forward by the president that had so many people who worked for the president come forward and say that nominee should not be confirmed. I don't ever recall that.

Posted by Laura at May 12, 2005 10:19 AM