Voinovich was only just elected to his second term.
From the article linked in post #76:
So, at least until then.
Sorry, Brain Glutton, I guess I should have been clearer about what I was getting at. What I meant in the above post is this: If the trend continues with more people on the Republican side airing their reservations about Bolton in public, how long before the Administration begins to view the situation as untenable. They can only blame the situation on partisanship up to a point. Once the number and stature of Republican voices on the nay side reaches a certain level, any such argument loses its bite, so to speak. If this happens, will there even be further hearings or will the nomination be withdrawn? Colin Powell is still highly regarded by many Americans. After his remarks are played through Friday’s news cycle, then what?
This should speed the committee’s deliberations:
Ex-Ambassador: Bolton May Have Misled Senate Committee
Well Squink, you left out the best part:
Hmmmm, more un-diplomatic behavior. I mean, that really is the point here isn’t it? Regardless of his politics, the man doesn’t seem to have the temperment of a diplomat, does he?
I thought it was Twylar?
Why on earth would you want to appoint someone to be the ambassador to an entity which he detests? Is the next step to make Jack Chick the ambassador to the Holy See? It’s hard to imagine that other countries would take such an appointment as anything but a slap in the face. If Bush hates the UN, fine, let him propose withdrawing from it. But if we’re going to be in the UN, let’s have someone there who thinks it’s a worthy effort. That Colin Powell is questioning this nomination speaks volumes.
Hard to say. Obviously Bush shpuld do the sensible thing and cut his losses – he doesn’t really need Bolton at the UN to accomplish anything important, does he? It should be easy to find somebody who holds similar views but is less obnoxious about them – or, better still, somebody who holds no relevant views at all but will do whatever the president tells him. But Bush has never suffered a serious political defeat so long as he’s been president. He might not be willing to imagine he can be defeated. I’d expect him to keep pushing this right down to the wire.
Politically, Bush needs a win at the moment (in the sense that he and Rove understand winning). He got stuffed on “Terri’s Law”, he’s getting stuffed on Social Security, and he can’t allow an aura of fecklessness to take hold.
[possible semi-hijack]
Not so interested in Mr Bolton anal proclivities, we’ve all had at least one asshole for a boss, even the self-employed. More concerned with his alleged tendency to seek intelligence confirmation for pre-concieved notions, a factor we’ve seen quite enough of, of late. To indulge galactic understatement.
As it happens, a coincidence: I read about Mr Bolton insisting that Cuba is a dreadful menace, cooking up ghastly bio-terrorism agents with fiendish intent, etc. At the same time, I’m reading an article in Harpers about Cuban agriculture, how the collapse of the Soviet Union has forced them away from a chemical and grain based agriculture to alternatives. One of which is some fairly advanced research in the use of organic “bio-agents” in pest control, etc. In other words, looking for an aphid anthrax, some bacteria that will take the place of expensive insecticides.
I wonder if word of this research reached Mr Bolton’s ears in a twisted context?
[/possible semi hijack]
Are you denying that the Vatican needs reform? We need to send someone over there to give straight talk and shake that place up. And if the President wants Jack Chick to be his ambassador, who are you to turn him down? We can no longer pussyfoot around all this Catholic sex abuse stuff, and the White House needs someone with a proven record of confronting evildoers, and that man is Jack Chick.
How dare you question his qualifications.
[/Karl Rove OFF]
Here’s a letter alleging some weird behavior on Bolton’s part:
Dear Sir:
I’m writing to urge you to consider blocking in committee the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN.
In the late summer of 1994, I worked as the subcontracted leader of a US AID project in Kyrgyzstan officially awarded to a HUB primary contractor. My own employer was Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly, and I reported directly to Republican leader Charlie Black.
After months of incompetence, poor contract performance, inadequate in-country funding, and a general lack of interest or support in our work from the prime contractor, I was forced to make US AID officials aware of the prime contractor’s poor performance.
I flew from Kyrgyzstan to Moscow to meet with other Black Manafort employees who were leading or subcontracted to other US AID projects. While there, I met with US AID officials and expressed my concerns about the project – chief among them, the prime contractor’s inability to keep enough cash in country to allow us to pay bills, which directly resulted in armed threats by Kyrgyz contractors to me and my staff.
Within hours of sending a letter to US AID officials outlining my concerns, I met John Bolton, whom the prime contractor hired as legal counsel to represent them to US AID. And, so, within hours of dispatching that letter, my hell began.
Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel – throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and, generally, behaving like a madman. For nearly two weeks, while I awaited fresh direction from my company and from US AID, John Bolton hounded me in such an appalling way that I eventually retreated to my hotel room and stayed there. Mr. Bolton, of course, then routinely visited me there to pound on the door and shout threats.
When US AID asked me to return to Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan in advance of assuming leadership of a project in Kazakstan, I returned to my project to find that John Bolton had proceeded me by two days. Why? To meet with every other AID team leader as well as US foreign-service officials in Bishkek, claiming that I was under investigation for misuse of funds and likely was facing jail time. As US AID can confirm, nothing was further from the truth.
He indicated to key employees of or contractors to State that, based on his discussions with investigatory officials, I was headed for federal prison and, if they refused to cooperate with either him or the prime contractor’s replacement team leader, they, too, would find themselves the subjects of federal investigation. As a further aside, he made unconscionable comments about my weight, my wardrobe and, with a couple of team leaders, my sexuality, hinting that I was a lesbian (for the record, I’m not).
When I resurfaced in Kyrgyzstan, I learned that he had done such a convincing job of smearing me that it took me weeks – with the direct intervention of US AID officials – to limit the damage. In fact, it was only US AID’s appoinment of me as a project leader in Almaty, Kazakstan that largely put paid to the rumors Mr. Bolton maliciously circulated.
As a maligned whistleblower, I’ve learned firsthand the lengths Mr. Bolton will go to accomplish any goal he sets for himself. Truth flew out the window. Decency flew out the window. In his bid to smear me and promote the interests of his client, he went straight for the low road and stayed there.
John Bolton put me through hell – and he did everything he could to intimidate, malign and threaten not just me, but anybody unwilling to go along with his version of events. His behavior back in 1994 wasn’t just unforgivable, it was pathological.
I cannot believe that this is a man being seriously considered for any diplomatic position, let alone such a critical posting to the UN. Others you may call before your committee will be able to speak better to his stated dislike for and objection to stated UN goals. I write you to speak about the very character of the man.
It took me years to get over Mr. Bolton’s actions in that Moscow hotel in 1994, his intensely personal attacks and his shocking attempts to malign my character.
I urge you from the bottom of my heart to use your ability to block Mr. Bolton’s nomination in committee.
Respectfully yours,
Melody Townsel
Dallas, TX 75208
:eek: Where did you get this letter? Was it written to a senator?
I got the complete text from thissite, but originally read of the woman’s accusations in the LA Times. Of course the administration (State) denies that this happened, and the woman admits to being partisan. According to the Times article, she was hesitant to protest the nomination for precisely that reason. (Possibly this and all the other former co-workers coming forward are what led to the rescheduling of the commitee vote to send the nomination to the floor.) Bolton himself has not commented, because a nominee is not supposed to do that.
Yes, it was sent to the subcommitee.
that should be committe and subcommitte
I mean…oh, forget it
Update: Bolton’s confirmation hearing was scheduled for May 12, but now Senate Democrats are saying they might delay a vote unless the State Department turns over documents they’ve requested to help them investigate allegations re Bolton. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/05/un.ambassador/index.html
Bolton will soon be confirmed and start taking names and kicking ass. YAHOO 
[sup]that’s my John Dean impersonation.[/sup]
I can’t agree more.
Bullshit at the UN?
Paging Mr Powell! Mr Colin Powell. Paging Mr Powell!
Whatever did Mr Bolton have to say about that fiasco?