Democrats Say NO to Bolton for a second time

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
2 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - President Bush faces a politically thorny situation â?? and stark choices â?? now that Senate Democrats twice have blocked John Bolton's confirmation as U.N. ambassador.

ADVERTISEMENT

The president could withdraw the nomination, authorize further concessions to Democrats over access to information they seek or bypass lawmakers altogether by appointing the former State Department official to the job temporarily without the Senate's OK.

But any of those options could leave the president appearing weak as he confronts sagging poll numbers and fights to stave off a lame-duck label just six months into his final term.

At a White House news conference Monday, the president left open the possibility of circumventing the Senate when he sidestepped a question on whether he would appoint Bolton to the ambassador's post when Congress leaves Washington for a July 4 recess.

"It's time for the Senate to give him an up-or-down vote. Now," the president said.

But Democrats made clear they weren't budging and most stood together to defeat a GOP effort to force a final vote on Bolton. The Senate voted 54-38, six shy of the total needed to advance his nomination. The vote represented an erosion in support from last month's failed Republican effort.

Sen. George Voinovich (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, who voted in May to advance the nomination, switched positions and urged Bush to consider another candidate, while only three Democrats crossed party lines.

Democrats have demanded that the administration check a list of 36 U.S. officials against names in secret national security intercepts that Bolton requested and received. They also want documents related to the preparation of testimony that Bolton planned to deliver â?? but ultimately never gave â?? in the House in July 2003 about Syria's weapons capability.

In remarks on the Senate floor, Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) of Delaware, the lead Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a chief critic of Bolton, said White House Chief Staff Andrew Card had offered to provide some of the Syria information.

"I indicated to him that was not sufficient," Biden said. Rather, Biden said Democrats want the administration to turn over all information they seek.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., accused Democrats of being unwilling to compromise.

"Some on the other side of the aisle are obstructing a highly qualified nominee and I believe by not allowing him to assume this position yet are doing harm to our country," Frist said.

Bush has said Bolton, with a history of blunt talk and skepticism about the U.N.'s power, would lead an effort to overhaul the world body's bureaucracy and make it more accountable. Critics say Bolton, who has been accused of mistreating subordinates, would hurt U.S. efforts to work with the U.N. and other countries.

Republicans argued that holding Monday's vote â?? even if it didn't succeed â?? would at least put Democrats on record again of delaying final confirmation. That could provide political cover for the White House for a recess appointment or to withdraw Bolton's nomination by letting the administration say it was forced to take those steps because of Democratic stonewalling.

Some Republicans urged Bush to continue fighting for Bolton rather than appoint him on his own during the upcoming Senate break â?? a so-called recess appointment â?? for fear of sending a weakened nominee to the United Nations. "That would not be in our best interest," said Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Such an appointment would only last through the next one-year session of Congress â?? in Bolton's case until January 2007.

Like the vote in May, Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana were the only Democrats to support the move to have an immediate final vote. Last month, Republicans fell four votes short of moving the nomination forward.

"We ought to move on and get a different nominee," argued Sen. Christopher Dodd (news, bio, voting record), D-Conn.

But Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., and one of Bolton's staunchest backers, said: "I would hope the president would stand by John Bolton and keep fighting for him."

Democrats say they want to determine whether Bolton improperly used intelligence to intimidate officials who disagreed with his views. They also suspect the Syria documents could bolster their case that Bolton sought to exaggerate intelligence data. And, they want to see whether he misled the Senate during his confirmation hearings when he said he was not involved in the preparation of that Syria testimony.

Howdy XTC,

It's really very simple to understand,those opposed to Bolton,are intent on preserving the status quo at the UN,the UN,is mostly anti-American..and therefore,a 'darling' of the Left.

Have a good one....

then why george bush support it torog? why did he expand and sign us back onto UNESCO? why is he signging us onto unconstitutional trade deals just like clinton did? why do you hate america and freedom so much?

you can't be against the UN and want to get rid of it, but support reforms and nominations for it...

We all know the U.N. needs reform but even if your opinions are to the right, you can agree that perhaps a more professional person than that Bolton hack should take the post. Whether you're a liberal or conservative, you can't deny that fixing the facts in intelligence jeopardizes our country.

Torog, it's not as simple as you describe it. The Democrats usually just bend over and like anything the Republicans throw at them, so why should this be any different. Even a number of Republican legislators know that this guy is bad news.

W could care less about Bolten,its all about the judges.ask pissy.its all about getting them to look the other way,and it is working quite well.