Dems Might Attempt to Delay Bolton Vote

[FUZO]

TweetDems Might Attempt to Delay Bolton Vote


WASHINGTON - Republicans face another showdown vote but seem confident of muscling John R. Bolton's nomination to be U.N. ambassador through the Senate, giving the post to the man President Bush says will reform the world organization.




Democrats said they might try delaying Thursday's planned vote on Bolton until next month unless they get internal State Department documents and classified intelligence information they have been denied for weeks.

Yet they said they did not plan to mount a filibuster, or procedural delays, to indefinitely block the vote, and some of their leading voices seemed to acknowledge that time was running out.

"I would seriously hope that the president — and I really don't have much hope — but I wish the president had taken another look at this and found us someone" else, Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., said.

Republicans said it was time to vote after weeks of exhaustive investigation into allegations that Bolton mistreated subordinates and misused government intelligence. This week's bipartisan agreement on judicial filibusters in the Senate and the approach of the Memorial Day recess, which starts at week's end, seemed to be sapping some of the strength from the effort by Bolton's opponents to erect further roadblocks.

"Where does legitimate due diligence turn into partisanship?" asked Sen. Richard Lugar (news, bio, voting record), R-Ind., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Where does the desire for the truth turn into a competition over who wins and who loses?"

Part of the disputed information involves Bolton's acknowledged requests for the names of fellow government officials whose communications were secretly recorded. Democrats want more information about why Bolton sought the information and whose communications he reviewed.

On Wednesday, the Republican leader of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record) of Kansas, said he and his Democratic counterpart had been briefed on the matter and found that Bolton had done nothing improper when asking for the names.

Bolton is currently the undersecretary of state for arms control and one of Bush's most conservative foreign policy advisers. Bush nominated him in March to succeed John Danforth as U.N. ambassador, a plum diplomatic job despite the Bush administration's sometimes chilly attitude toward the world body.

Not all Republicans back Bolton. Sen. George Voinovich (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, said Bolton would set back the U.S. goal of reforming the United Nations and lacks the diplomatic touch for the sensitive job of ambassador.

Voinovich implored senators to think hard before voting to approve Bolton. His surprisingly strong opposition forced a delay of last month's planned Foreign Relations Committee vote on Bolton, and the panel subsequently denied Bolton its customary endorsement.

"The message will be lost because our enemies will do everything they can to use Mr. Bolton's baggage to drown his words," Voinovich said. "The issue will be the messenger, not the message."

Voinovich has been the subject of an intense White House lobbying campaign since he broke ranks on Bolton. He has also been roughed up in television advertisements and by conservative commentators. The strain was evident in Voinovich's voice as his speech drew to a close Wednesday.

"The United States can do better," he said.

Along with most Senate Republicans, Bush has stuck by Bolton through weeks of turmoil, calling him the right man to usher in an era of reform at the world body.

Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., another member of the Foreign Relations Committee, sounded frustrated with the numerous inquiries into Bolton's background and conduct.

"What we are off on now are detours and tangents," Allen said.

[T-Man007]

TweetI think they should all just have a battl royal. The last man standing makes all the rules. LOL

I hate politics, I really do. Those people never do anything that is 100% in our best interest. They do whatever is in the lobyists best interest.

He who pays the most gets what he wants. Why do you think cigarettes companies are not required to put a detailed list of the ingredients on the packages?

[Equalizer]

Tweet

I think they should all just have a battl royal. The last man standing makes all the rules. LOL

I hate politics, I really do. Those people never do anything that is 100% in our best interest. They do whatever is in the lobyists best interest.

He who pays the most gets what he wants. Why do you think cigarettes companies are not required to put a detailed list of the ingredients on the packages?

DITTO...and why drug companies get FDA approvals on shit that either hasnt been tested long enough or the evidence is just swept under the carpet long enough for them to make a few hundred million.

[T-Man007]

Tweet

DITTO...and why drug companies get FDA approvals on shit that either hasnt been tested long enough or the evidence is just swept under the carpet long enough for them to make a few hundred million.

Ohhhhh, man, don't even get me started on the FDA. Did you know that the hormones injected into milk cows has a direct influence on our bodies? Get this phukin story. Back when Mansanto (sp) was deveolping hormones for cows to make them bulk up and produce more milk they did all their research before presenting it to the FDA, naturally. Now, there was this attorney who represented Mansanto for all their approvals prior to the hormone thing. Well, right before the introduction of the cow hormone this attorney left his law firm and was appointed a job with the FDA (approved by Bill Clinton himself). Then when the hormones were tested by the FDA he was the head of the tests. Under his authority the FDA published an article that read even though the cows IGF-1 was passed through the milk it was of no effect to humans. Furthermore, the FDA stated that humans are not acceptable to hormones passed through milk and they even published a study that read even a mothers milk wont pass hormones to a baby during breast feeding. As more knowledge of hormones became known it was proven that a mothers IGF-1 does indeed pass to the baby during breast feeding and it has a HUGE impact on the developement of children. When the FDA was confronted they replied by saying that the IGF-1 in cows is different than that of human IGF-1. Yet, scientist have proven there are infact similar and that the IGF-1 in cows milk has a direct influence on humans. Then, once the drug was passed and approved the "guy" went back to work for the law firm representing Mansanto. And the kicker, it was his law firm that represented Mansanto during the whole process. Talk about having an inside guy.

I think the FDA is a joke.