John Bolton's inaccurate info
From The N.Y. Times and Progressreport.org
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Bolton's Inaccurate Info
John Bolton, President Bush's nominee to be ambassador to the U.N., provided inaccurate information to Congress during his confirmation hearing. In a form submitted to the Senate Foreign Relations committee, Bolton said "he had not been interviewed or asked for information in connection with any administrative investigation, including that of an inspector general, during the last five years." That wasn't true. Bolton "had been interviewed by the State Department's inspector general looking into how American intelligence agencies came to rely on fabricated reports that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Africa." He only admitted it after being caught red-handed. Yesterday, Sen. Joe Biden sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informing her that "John Bolton was interviewed on July 18, 2003 by the State Department Office of the Inspector General." Hours later, through a State Department spokesperson, Bolton conceded that the form, "as submitted, was inaccurate." The revelation only adds to concerns that have prevent Bolton from being confirmed by the Senate. Nevertheless, the administration hinted they would circumvent the democratic process and install John Bolton as a recess appointment.
CREDIBILITY OF ADMINISTRATION SPOKESPEOPLE RAPIDLY DECLINING: Word to the wise: don't believe everything you hear at an administration press briefing. First, we learned that White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan made inaccurate statements about the Valerie Plame leak. Now, State Department Spokesman Scott McCormack's credibility is taking a nosedive. Yesterday at around 12:45 PM, McCormack said "They'd asked whether or not the nominee [John Bolton] 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 was truthful then and it remains the case now." By the evening, McCormack had completely changed his story. McCormack told Reuters that Bolton's "form as submitted was inaccurate in this regard and he will correct the form."
ADMINISTRATION STILL THREATENING RECESS APPOINTMENT: The administration has been dropping unsubtle hints about the possibility of installing John Bolton with a recess appointment when Congress adjourns for August. On Monday, McClellan said "there are important priorities we're working to advance, and it's important to have people in certain positions. And if the Senate fails to act and move forward on those nominees, then sometimes there comes a point where the President has needed to fill that in a timely manner by recessing those nominees." Rice, appearing on PBS's NewsHour last night, said "What we can't be is without leadership at the United Nations." Apparently, the administration doesn't care that much about being truthful with Congress. An anonymous administration official told the AP that "the new information does not change the Bush administration's commitment to Bolton's nomination."
WHY A BOLTON RECESS APPOINTMENT IS BAD FOR AMERICA: If President Bush decides to make a recess appointment of John Bolton he "would be the first U.S. ambassador to the United Nations to hold office without Senate confirmation." A U.N. ambassador can be effective only if other nations believe he has the trust and confidence of the country he represents and Bolton would "bear the stigma of not having the Senate's backing." Many conservatives agree. Sen Pat Roberts (R-KS) "said a recess appointment 'would weaken not only Mr. Bolton but also the United States' because the international community would see the new ambassador as lacking bipartisan support." Even the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page thinks a recess appointment is a bad idea.
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Bolton's Inaccurate Info
John Bolton, President Bush's nominee to be ambassador to the U.N., provided inaccurate information to Congress during his confirmation hearing. In a form submitted to the Senate Foreign Relations committee, Bolton said "he had not been interviewed or asked for information in connection with any administrative investigation, including that of an inspector general, during the last five years." That wasn't true. Bolton "had been interviewed by the State Department's inspector general looking into how American intelligence agencies came to rely on fabricated reports that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Africa." He only admitted it after being caught red-handed. Yesterday, Sen. Joe Biden sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informing her that "John Bolton was interviewed on July 18, 2003 by the State Department Office of the Inspector General." Hours later, through a State Department spokesperson, Bolton conceded that the form, "as submitted, was inaccurate." The revelation only adds to concerns that have prevent Bolton from being confirmed by the Senate. Nevertheless, the administration hinted they would circumvent the democratic process and install John Bolton as a recess appointment.
CREDIBILITY OF ADMINISTRATION SPOKESPEOPLE RAPIDLY DECLINING: Word to the wise: don't believe everything you hear at an administration press briefing. First, we learned that White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan made inaccurate statements about the Valerie Plame leak. Now, State Department Spokesman Scott McCormack's credibility is taking a nosedive. Yesterday at around 12:45 PM, McCormack said "They'd asked whether or not the nominee [John Bolton] 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 was truthful then and it remains the case now." By the evening, McCormack had completely changed his story. McCormack told Reuters that Bolton's "form as submitted was inaccurate in this regard and he will correct the form."
ADMINISTRATION STILL THREATENING RECESS APPOINTMENT: The administration has been dropping unsubtle hints about the possibility of installing John Bolton with a recess appointment when Congress adjourns for August. On Monday, McClellan said "there are important priorities we're working to advance, and it's important to have people in certain positions. And if the Senate fails to act and move forward on those nominees, then sometimes there comes a point where the President has needed to fill that in a timely manner by recessing those nominees." Rice, appearing on PBS's NewsHour last night, said "What we can't be is without leadership at the United Nations." Apparently, the administration doesn't care that much about being truthful with Congress. An anonymous administration official told the AP that "the new information does not change the Bush administration's commitment to Bolton's nomination."
WHY A BOLTON RECESS APPOINTMENT IS BAD FOR AMERICA: If President Bush decides to make a recess appointment of John Bolton he "would be the first U.S. ambassador to the United Nations to hold office without Senate confirmation." A U.N. ambassador can be effective only if other nations believe he has the trust and confidence of the country he represents and Bolton would "bear the stigma of not having the Senate's backing." Many conservatives agree. Sen Pat Roberts (R-KS) "said a recess appointment 'would weaken not only Mr. Bolton but also the United States' because the international community would see the new ambassador as lacking bipartisan support." Even the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page thinks a recess appointment is a bad idea.
posted by Lomstradamus at 10:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home