FULL TRANSCRIPT: Voinovich Makes the Case Against Bolton
FULL TRANSCRIPT: Voinovich Makes the Case Against Bolton
Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) on the nomination of John Bolton to U.N. ambassador:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First let me take this opportunity to thank you and your staff for your graciousness and hard work on this nomination. You have made strong arguments in favor of the nominee throughout this process. Additionally, thank you for providing all of the members of this committee with timely information related to Mr. Bolton. I believe that the inquiry has been fair and exhaustive. I am confident that I have enough information to cast my vote today. Again, I appreciate your staff’s hard work, as well as the administration’s efforts.
Since our last meeting on this subject, I have pored over hundreds of pages of testimony, have spoken to dozens or so of individuals regarding their experiences, interactions and thoughts about John Bolton. Most importantly, in addition to the meeting that I had with Mr. Bolton prior to the official business meeting that we had on his nomination, I once again met with Mr. Bolton this week personally to share my concerns and to listen carefully to his thoughts.
After great thought and consideration, I have based my decision on what I think is the bigger picture. Frankly, there is a particular concern that I have about this nomination, and it involves the big picture of U.S. public diplomacy.
It was not long ago when America’s love of freedom was a force of inspiration to the world and America was admired for its democracy, generosity and its willingness to help others in need of protection. Today, the United States is criticized for what the world calls arrogance, unilateralism and for failing to listen and to seek the support of its friends and allies. There has been a drastic change in the attitude of our friends and allies in such organizations as the United Nations and NATO and in the countries of leaders that we need to rely upon for help.
I discovered this last November when I was in London with people in the Parliament there. I found that to be the case when we visited the NATO meeting in Italy, that things have really changed in the last several years. It troubles me deeply that the U.S. is perceived this way in a world community, because the United States will face a steeper challenge in achieving its objectives without their support.
We will face more difficulties in conducting the war on terrorism, promoting peace and stability worldwide and building democracies without the help from our friends to share the responsibilities, leadership and costs.
To achieve these objectives, public diplomacy must once again be of high importance. If we cannot win over the hearts and minds of the world community and work together as a team, our goals will be more difficult to achieve. Additionally, we will be unable to reduce the burden on our own resources. The most important of these resources are the human resources, the lives of the men and women of our armed forces, who are leaving their families every day to serve their country overseas.
Just this last Tuesday we passed an $82 billion supplemental bill for our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is clear that the costs of this war are rising all the time, and they are not expected to go down any time soon.
There are not many allies standing up to join us in bearing the cost of these wars, particularly Iraq. We need the help of other countries to share the financial burden that is adding to our national debt and the human resource burden that our armed forces, National Guardsmen and contractors are bearing so heavily now, including the deaths of over 1,500 American servicemen and women.
And the key to this, I believe, is public diplomacy.
Mr. Chairman, I applaud the president and secretary of state for understanding that public diplomacy is an important objective and beginning this new term with an emphasis on repairing relationships. I applaud the president and Secretary Rice for reaching out to our friends in the world community and articulating that the United States does respect international law and protocol. And I also applaud the president’s decision to appoint Karen Hughes to help take the lead in this effort. Though the United States may have differences with our friends at times and though we may need to be firm with our positions, it is important to send a message that we’re willing to sit down, talk about them, discuss our reasoning and to work for solutions. The work of the president and Secretary of State Rice is a move in the right direction.
But what message are we sending to the world community when in the same breath we have sought to appoint an ambassador to the United Nations who himself has been accused of being arrogant, of not listening to his friends, of acting unilaterally, of bullying those who do not have the ability to properly defend themselves? These are the very characteristics that we’re trying to dispel in the world community.
We must understand that next to the president, the vice president, secretary of state, the next most important, prominent public diplomat is our ambassador to the United Nations. It is my concern that the confirmation of John Bolton would send a contradictory and negative message to the world community about U.S. intentions. I’m afraid that his confirmation will tell the world that we’re not dedicated to repairing our relationship or working as a team, but that we believe only someone with sharp elbows can deal properly with the international community.
I want to make it clear that I do believe that the U.N. needs to be reformed if it’s to be relevant in the 21st century. I do believe we need to pursue its transformation aggressively, sending the strong message that corruption’s not going to be tolerated. The corruption that occurred under the oil-for-food program made it possible for Saddam’s Iraq to discredit the U.N. and undermine the goals of its members. This must never happen again, and severe reforms are needed to strengthen the organization. And, yes, I believe that it will be necessary to take a firm position so we can succeed, but it will take a special individual to succeed at this endeavor, and I have great concerns with the current nominee and his ability to get the job done.
And to those who say a vote against John Bolton is against reform of the U.N., I say, nonsense. There are many other people who are qualified to go to the United Nations that can get the job done for our country. Frankly, I’m concerned that Mr. Bolton would make it more difficult for us to achieve the badly needed reforms to this outdated institution. I believe that there could even be more obstacles to reform if Mr. Bolton is sent to the United Nations than if he were another candidate.
Those in the international community who do not want to see the U.N. reform will act as a roadblock, and I fear that Mr. Bolton’s reputation will make it easier for them to succeed. I believe that some member nations in the U.N. will use Mr. Bolton as part of their agenda to further question the integrity and credibility of the United States and to reinforce their negative U.S. propaganda, and there’s a lot of it out there today.
Another reason I believe Mr. Bolton is not the best candidate for the job is his tendency to act without regard for the views of others and without respect for the chain of command.
We have heard that Mr. Bolton has a reputation for straying off message on occasion. Ambassador Hubbard testified that the tone of Mr. Bolton’s speech on North Korea hurt rather than helped efforts to achieve the president’s objectives. According to several respectable sources, Mr. Bolton strayed off message too often and had to be called on the carpet quite often to be reprimanded. In fairness, those sources said that once reprimanded, Mr. Bolton got back on track, but that he needs to be kept on a short leash. However, this leaves me a very uneasy feeling.
Who is to say that Mr. Bolton will not continue to stray off message as ambassador to the U.N.?
Who is to say he will not hurt rather than help U.S. relations with the international community and our desire to reform the U.N.?
When discussing all these concerns with Secretary Rice, John Bolton’s propensity to get off message, his lack of interpersonal skills, his tendency to abuse others who disagree with him, I was informed by the secretary of state that she understood all these things and in spite of them still feels that John Bolton is the best choice and that she would be in frequent communication with him and he would be closely supervised. My private thought at the time, and I should have expressed it to her, is: Why in the world would you want to send somebody up to the U.N. that has to be supervised?
I’m also concerned about Mr. Bolton’s interpersonal skills. Mr. Chairman, I understand there will be several vacant senior posts on the staff when Mr. Bolton arrives in his new position. As a matter of fact, I understand all the senior people — or five of them — are leaving right now. For example, Anne Patterson, who is highly regarded, is moving to another position. And I’ve been told by several people that, if he gets there, to be successful, he’s going to need somebody like Anne Patterson to get the job done for him. As such, Mr. Bolton’s going to face a challenge. These people are gone right now. He’s going to have to find some new ones. But his challenge right now is to inspire, lead and manage a new team, a staff of 150 individuals that he will need to rely on to get the job done. We have all witnessed the testimony and observations related to Mr. Bolton’s interpersonal and management skills. I have concerns about Mr. Bolton’s ability to inspire and lead a team so that it can be as effective as possible in completing the important task before him.
And I’m not the only one.
I understand that 59 U.S. diplomats who served under administrations from both sides of the aisle sent a letter to the committee saying that Mr. Bolton’s the wrong man for the job. I want to note that the interview given by Colin Powell’s chief of staff, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, has said that Mr. Bolton would make an abysmal ambassador, that he is, quote, incapable of listening to people and taking into account their views. I would also like to highlight the words of another person that I highly respect who worked with Mr. Bolton and told me that if Mr. Bolton were confirmed, he’d be OK for a short time, but within six months his poor interpersonal skills and lack of self-discipline would cause major problems.
Additionally, I wanted to note my concern that Colin Powell, the person to whom Mr. Bolton answered to over the last four years, was conspicuously absent from a letter signed by former secretaries of state recommending Mr. Bolton’s confirmation. He’s the one that had to deal with him on a day-to-day basis. He’s the one that’s more capable of commenting about whether or not he’s got the ability to get the job done and his name was not on that letter.
We are facing an era of foreign relations in which the choice for our ambassador to the United Nations should be one of the most thoughtful decisions we make. The candidate needs to be both a diplomat and a manager. A manager is important. Interpersonal skills are important. The way you treat other people — do you treat them with dignity and respect — very important. You must have the ability to persuade and inspire our friends to communicate and convince, to listen, to absorb the ideas of others. Without such virtues, we will face more challenges in our efforts to win the war on terrorism, to spread democracy and to foster stability globally.
The question is, is John Bolton the best person for the job? The administration has said they believe he’s the right man. They say that despite his interpersonal shortcomings, he knows the U.N. and he can reform the organization and make it more powerful and relevant to the world.
Now, let me say there is no doubt that John Bolton should be commended and thanked for his service and his particular achievements. He has accomplished some important objectives against great odds.
As a sponsor of legislation that established an office on global anti-Semitism in the State Department, legislation that I worked very hard to get passed, I am particularly impressed by his work to combat global anti-Semitism. I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Bolton that we must get the U.N. to change its anti-Israeli bias. Further, I’m impressed by Mr. Bolton’s achievements in the areas of arms control, specifically the Moscow Treaty, the G-8 Global Partnership Fund, and the president’s Proliferation Security Initiative.
Despite these successes, there is no doubt that Mr. Bolton has serious deficiencies in the areas that are critical to be a good ambassador. As Carl Ford said, he is a kiss-up and kick-down leader who will not tolerate those who disagree with them and who goes out of his way to retaliate for their disagreement.
As Ambassador Hubbard said, he does not listen when an esteemed colleague offers suggested changes to temper language in a speech. And as I’ve already mentioned, former secretary of state Powell’s chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson said he would be an abysmal ambassador.
Some others who have worked closely with Mr. Bolton stated he’s an ideologue and fosters an atmosphere of intimidation. He does not tolerate disagreement. He does not tolerate dissent. Another esteemed individual who has worked with Mr. Bolton told me that even when he had success he had the tendency to lord it over and say, Hey, boy, look what I did. Carl Ford testified that he’d never seen anyone behave as badly in all his days at the State Department, and that he would not even — testified before this committee if John Bolton had simply followed protocol and simple rules of management — you know, just follow the procedure.
Mr. Chairman, I have to say that after poring over the hundreds of pages of testimony and — you know, I wasn’t here for those hearings, but I did my penance, I read all of it — I believe that John Bolton would have been fired if he’d worked for a major corporation. This is not the behavior of a true leader who upholds the kind of democracy that President Bush is seeking to promote globally. This is not the behavior that should be endorsed as the face of the United States to the world community and the United Nations. Rather, Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that John Bolton is the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be.
I worry about the signal that we’re sending to thousands of individuals under the State Department who are serving their country in foreign service, in civil service, living at posts across the world and in some cases risking their lives, also they can represent our country, promote diplomacy and contribute to the safety of Americans everywhere.
I just returned from a trip to the Balkans. I had a chance to spend four days with people from the State Department. He’s not what they consider to be the ideal person, Mr. Chairman, to be our ambassador to the United States — to the United Nations. And I think it’s important that we think about the signal that we send out there to those people that are all over this world that are doing the very best job that they can to represent the United States of America.
This is an important nomination by the president. What we’re saying to these people when we confirm such an individual to one of the highest positions — so what are we saying? I want to emphasize that I weighed Mr. Bolton’s strengths carefully. I have weighed the fact that this is the president’s nominee.
All things being equal, it is my proclivity to support the president’s nominee. However, in this case, all things are not equal. It’s a different world today than it was four years ago. Our enemies are Muslim extremists and religious fanatics who have hijacked the Koran and have convinced people that the way to get to Heaven is through jihad against the world, particularly the U.S. We must recognize that to be successful in this war, one of our most important tools is public diplomacy.
After hours of deliberation, telephone calls, personal conversations, reading hundreds of pages of transcripts and asking for guidance from above, I have come to the determination that the United States can do better than John Bolton.
The world needs an ambassador who’s interested in encouraging other people’s points of view and discouraging any atmosphere of intimidation. The world needs an American ambassador to the U.N. who will show that the United States has respect for other countries and intermediary organizations, that we are team players and consensus builders and promoters of symbiotic relationships. And moving forward with the international community, we should remember the words of the great Scot poet who said, Oh, that some great power would give me the wisdom to see myself as other people see me.
That being said, Mr. Chairman, I’m not so arrogant to think that I should impose my judgment and perspective of the U.S. position in the world community on the rest of my colleagues. We owe it to the president to give Mr. Bolton an up-or-down vote on the floor of the United States Senate. My hope is that on a bipartisan basis we can send Mr. Bolton’s nomination to the floor without recommendation and let the Senate work its will.
If that goes to the floor, I would plead to my colleagues in the Senate to consider the decision and its consequences carefully, to read all the pertinent material — so often we get nominees and we don’t spend the time to look into the background of the individual — and to ask themselves several questions.
Will John Bolton do the best job possible representing a trans- Atlantic face of America at the U.N.?
Will he be able to pursue the needed reforms at the U.N. despite his damaged credibility?
Will he share information with the right individuals?
And will he solicit information from the right individuals, including his subordinates, so he can make the most informed decision?
Is he capable of advancing the president and secretary of state’s effort to advance our public diplomacy?
Does he have the character, leadership, interpersonal skills, self-discipline, common decency, and understanding of the chain of command to lead his team to victory?
Will he recognize and seize opportunities to repair and strengthen relationships, promote peace, uphold democracy as a team with our fellow nations?
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say this. I have met with Mr. Bolton on two occasions, spent almost two hours with him. I like Mr. Bolton. I think he’s a decent man. Our conversations have been candid and cordial. But, Mr. Chairman, I really don’t believe he’s the best man that we can send to the United Nations.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
But the bastard’s going to vote for him anyway. Does he think he can be defeated on the floor? what the heck
May 12th, 2005 at 12:20 pmfilibuster the sob – let’s use it just like Orrin Hatch did.
May 12th, 2005 at 12:28 pmHe wants it both ways. Despite the fine words, he’s got the heart of a hamster.
May 12th, 2005 at 12:35 pmVoinovich strayed off the reservation but Karl and I are pleased that he toed the party line. We have been working hard to see that Johnny gets an “up or down” (that’s an up vote — wink, wink, nudge, nudge) vote in the full Senate.
This is extremely important to my agenda to destroy the U.S. reputation and economy and to dismantle the U.N. Those bastards better back me up on this or there will be hell to pay.
May 12th, 2005 at 12:48 pmPurest soul of a politician — self preservation.
May 12th, 2005 at 12:52 pmVoinovich didn’t do all he could, but let’s not completely dismiss what happened today. First, he articulated a very compelling case against John Bolton. Also, he ensured that it will go to the floor without the recommendation of the committee which will make it easier for other Senators to vote against Bolton.
May 12th, 2005 at 12:56 pmI don’t see how Voinovich can still support this nomination. As if the obstructionism of Bidens requests by the State Department aren’t reason enough to hold this up. We’re encroaching on the separation of powers with this nomination and the stonewalling by State.
May 12th, 2005 at 12:59 pmMr. Voinovich is an embarrassment to Ohio.
May 12th, 2005 at 1:55 pmPut a star on that man’s head.
May 12th, 2005 at 2:01 pmThe Senate has the constitutional duty–not just the committee.
Enough senators should simply vote no: even though I agree this seems unlikely.
I don’t fault Voinovich for turning it over to the Senate. I’m very interested, however, in seeing who votes for Bolton.
If Voinovich votes to confirm then it seems to me the rhetorical heat is justified. But maybe its time for the Senate to set up, to actually act as a deliberative body with our national interest at heart.
It could happen. Really. Someday.
May 12th, 2005 at 2:25 pmI’m not arguing that what Voinovich did was ideal. But it actually did take some courage. Without a doubt he was under extreme pressure just to roll over. And hearing a conservative Senator from Ohio articulate these criticism of Bolton could be very helpful.
May 12th, 2005 at 2:49 pmdon’t be so hard on him, and don’t call him a bastard. he didn’t have to do this. I’m from Ohio, I am damned proud of him for this.
why? because he is just about the only red state thug in the nation who appears to be able to act in anything approaching a principled, moral fashion. this should be encouraged, as one of these days we are going to be welcoming these sane reality based types into our party.
why do you think he’s doing this? you think he’s scoring points at home?
sending a presidential nominee to the floor in this fashion is a huge statement, and I just about guarantee you that this is not going to get confirmed. voinovich isn’t exactly a ‘liberal’ republican. this is a great big umbrella for the few non-repugnant thugs in the senate to crowd under.
May 12th, 2005 at 2:52 pmhey judd, what’s the chance of me and you posting at the same time??
May 12th, 2005 at 2:53 pmHe makes a good case and is taking a step toward collaboration across the aisle. Rather than tear him down, we should support his ablility to break party lines. Of course he has to look after himself. At least he had the balls to voice his true opinion.
May 12th, 2005 at 3:01 pmthe anziety was building as I read thru his bloviating…could it be?…will he actually?…but alas, he ultimately doesn’t want to be within Rove’s crosshairs because, as said above, it’s all about self-preservation.
May 12th, 2005 at 3:04 pmI agree that it was a disappointment that he ended up supporting reporting Bolton out of committee. But it wasn’t bloviating. It was a powerful indictment of John Bolton.
May 12th, 2005 at 3:31 pmThe constitutional issue I see is that documents were withheld by the administration in violation of the constitution as stated by Sen Biden. With all of the questionable circumstances surrounding Bolton, a lack of full document disclosure should have kept him in Committee. Voinovich should have kept him in committee, seeing that he’s the only majority senator willing to take a nonpartisan look at Bolton.
May 12th, 2005 at 4:34 pmQuote of the Day
May 12th, 2005 at 5:11 pmWe must understand that next to the president, the vice president, secretary of state, the next most important, prominent public diplomat is our ambassador to the United Nations. It is my concern that the confirmation of John Bolton would send a cont…
I’m angry about the nomination… but I really couldn’t expect Senator Voinovich to do that to himself. I can imagine the pressure the top Repugs must have been putting on him these last weeks. I’m dissapointed, because he could have just voted “no”, but I guess I’ll have to accept the fact that the best we’ll get out of this partisan system is occasional moments of brilliant conscientiousness.
May 12th, 2005 at 5:14 pmVoinoviich has told a story which has many problems. He listened to everyone but the ones responsible for the Nomination of John Bolton. It is Obvious to me, they have gone through the same discussions you have and come to a different conclusion. A President, Plus the Secretary of State asking this man to be appointed, where do you think the blast is going Senator if he is nominated? The Senate? The Blast will always be toward the President and you can duck the Heat, BUT…If he is as good as the President and the Secretary of State think he is, you will also bask in the Glory or Suffer in the ignominy of your failure to vote.
May 12th, 2005 at 5:25 pmVoinovich made a very clear and convincing argument in the case of questioning whether John Bolton is the bets person to represent the US interest in the UN. When it was really time to stand up however, he decided to vote to send it for an up and down vote. I suppose for a Republican, what more could you expect?
May 12th, 2005 at 5:46 pmHe’s a coward. Talk about riding the fence! He basically said that Bolton is scum but washed his hands of the responsibility of stopping him from being appointed. Yeah, his one vote on the senate floor where there is a 10 vote spread between Republicans and Democrats will make a real big difference.
May 12th, 2005 at 8:36 pmAh, but Bolton would be the best man for the Bush job at the U.N., or at least he will be in position to lay the groundwork and push through the resolutions to firebomb Teheran in the next month or so.
No more namby-pamby United States U.N. ambassadors sucking up to irrelavent world governments.
Bolton is the Bush team’s “nuclear option” for the United Nations. In other words, the Bush team’s idea of “reform” always seems to end up killing a whole lot of people.
Hey, just look at the “reform” work the Bush neo-con-nut team started in Iraq if you doubt my assessment.
May 12th, 2005 at 11:09 pmWe cannot have an ambassador who bullies people around.
May 12th, 2005 at 11:23 pmBullies shouldn’t be in charge of anything as important as diplomat to the UN, but I think the bigger (negative) strike against Bolton is how he cooked intelligence so that it matched his own view. No wonder Bush likes him so much. :-p
May 13th, 2005 at 2:59 amVoinovich articulated the case against Bolton in such a compelling way using the very language Dr Rice would use that it would take all the skills of Dr Rice and the likes to refute him. My respect for Sen Voinovich and the american system has greatly increased.
May 13th, 2005 at 11:54 amHmmmm. Makes you wonder what is really on the agenda for the white house to be behind this man. Can everyone please drink the kool-aid. Please just drink it.
May 13th, 2005 at 1:09 pmThe agenda is Iran. You start the process of threatening Iran through the UN while Bolton is there undermining the process for you. Bolton also gets face time in the US bashing the UN’s efforts. Then you make the case for bypassing the corrupt and impotent UN and start making unilateral threats and ultimatums. Maybe some people are stupid enough to be fooled again.
May 13th, 2005 at 3:19 pmHe took a page from the dems. Object strenuously and then vote for it anyway. If you have ‘reservations’, you’re supposed vote in a way that acknowledges them like say, ‘No’. I’m sick of these spineless pols who don’t have the will to stand for anything. It really boils my blood.
May 13th, 2005 at 8:33 pmClearly, John Bolton is a chip off the old block that is the Bush Administration. His epithets of “arrogance”, “bully-ish”, self-agraandizing”, etc. fall right in line with the personification of Bush’s (mostly) hand-picked team of lackeys. It is no surprise that Bolton is their number one candidate for such an important post; nor is it a surprise that they want him in that post immediately if not sooner.
I remember when, in the aftermath of 9/11, our President was prepared to simply steamroll the UN when it attempted to obstruct his burning desire to go and level Afganistan. It is clear that he has little respect for such a diplomatic institution. Wanting Bolton to represent his agenda at a time when UN reform is at hand (is it truly necessary?) smells of hidden planning and secretive manouverings. With N. Korea, Iran, and China (to name a few) lining up with blatant disregard for the policy-making coming out of Bush’s Washington, I agree that it is necessary to appoint a person who knows the ins-and-outs of diplomacy. We do not need an arrogant, smooth-talking bully with a big stick in these egg-shell times. We need a person who is patient, connected, and passionate to the cause of calming the flames in this inferno of a world.
I agree with Sen. Voinovich’s position. He is a member of the Republican party. His is a leader to the state of Ohio. He did right by making plain his hesitation in regards to Mr. Bolton in such a way as to not draw heat upon himself or his state. That is the mark of a good politician.
We must hope and pray that his words struck the heart of more than a few people in the position to make the choice over Mr. Bolton’s fate.
May 14th, 2005 at 12:35 amThere are lots of reasons to vote no on Bolton, but it seems that only the perjury chrages would actually disqualify him.
Is there any chance that Senators will be looking into this further? His Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony was untrue regarding his N. Korea speech, his retaliation against analysts, and apparently his involvement in Syria policy.
Ignoring perjury makes the Senate and the checks and balance system a joke.
June 2nd, 2005 at 1:58 amEeeegads, we are so angry out here in Blue Land. Maybe we should just drink the koolaide (is it electric?) and forget about it. In a nation where two presidential elections have been stolen, does it really matter who represents us in the United Nations? God help us, Bush represents us to the world!
June 2nd, 2005 at 5:33 pmYour site is a refreshing change from the majority of sites I have visited. When I first started visiting web sites I was excited by the potential of the internet as a resource and was very disappointed initially. You have restored my enthusiasm and I thank you for your efforts to share your insights and help the world become a better place.
June 11th, 2005 at 1:20 pmI just surfed in and found your site, I really enjoyed the visit and hope to come back soon. nice Site!
June 11th, 2005 at 1:21 pmOn Bolton and a Lack of Reasoned Thought
So I was watching CSPAN’s Washington Journal yesterday morning over a cup of coffee when the question over the Bolton nomination came up. If you are unfamiliar with Washington Journal then you should know that it is one of the more open forums for po…
June 22nd, 2005 at 7:35 am[...] ple are completely unwilling to take a serious look at his record which proves this out in loud, blaring fashion. What is it about this President then that causes otherwise reasonable people to s [...]
June 22nd, 2005 at 8:28 ammedia player mp3
Think Progress »…
July 20th, 2005 at 2:02 amlqjr
Think Progress »…
July 20th, 2005 at 2:06 amBUSH SENDS HIS BOY ON TO THE UN. THE DEMS AND ANY CONCERNED REP NEED TO PUSH THE PERGURY ISSUE ALONG WITH TYING BOLTON TO THE ROVE/NOVAK/PLUME OUTING.
August 1st, 2005 at 4:49 pmTHE DEMS CANT DROP THE BALL UNTIL THEY GET AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION TO COUNTER THE POSSIBILITY THAT FITZGERALD’S WILL FOLLOW PARTY LOYALTY LINES.
MEANWHILE COULD WE GET HIM TO SHAVE.
August 1st, 2005 at 4:50 pmbuy mp3 music
Think Progress »…
August 2nd, 2005 at 3:27 pm[...] The UN is full of pricks, John Bolton is just another one to add to the mix. While he might be able to be effective, as some have suggested, the problem is that he will be pushing Bush’s wheelbarrow of divisive ideas around the floor of the UN. [...]
August 2nd, 2005 at 4:51 pmmigraines
Think Progress »…
August 20th, 2005 at 11:15 amlose-weight-medicines
Think Progress »…
August 23rd, 2005 at 8:20 pmCelecoxib
Think Progress »…
August 26th, 2005 at 3:26 amadult content original pay site starting we
Think Progress »…
August 28th, 2005 at 6:07 pmfree-full-length-sex-movie
Think Progress »…
September 11th, 2005 at 2:10 pmflying sex scenes from a chinese torture
Think Progress »…
October 5th, 2005 at 10:20 amYou are invited to check out some information on- Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
October 10th, 2005 at 9:12 amIn your free time, take a look at some relevant pages on.
October 16th, 2005 at 5:39 amlotterie gewinnen
Please check out the pages on make quick
October 16th, 2005 at 6:35 pmPlease check some relevant pages in the field of- Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
October 18th, 2005 at 4:59 amYou may find it interesting to visit some relevant pages in the field of…
October 19th, 2005 at 9:49 ambelly torture
Think Progress »…
October 20th, 2005 at 8:23 amprosolution pill review
October 26th, 2005 at 6:19 amdoes magna rx work
November 2nd, 2005 at 6:41 amVegas simulations,poises,placid!Caribbean associatively eager …
November 3rd, 2005 at 2:06 amsatires tank customization:secretions:Stanhope:Heraclitus.venturing.
November 4th, 2005 at 12:10 amPettibone?coloring cremates Christoph chalked waives sterns windy!
November 20th, 2005 at 2:34 amworkingman abided quickly,slopping reprove – Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
November 26th, 2005 at 12:53 ampro enhance patch
December 2nd, 2005 at 11:00 pmlending tree inc
December 7th, 2005 at 2:26 amseedling intractability seven departments baritone gangster referenced?… Thanks!!!
December 29th, 2005 at 10:23 pmjuveniles palfrey Arequipa cowering overestimation …
January 14th, 2006 at 2:37 am[...] Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), who refused to back John Bolton to be U.N. Ambassador when he was first nominated last year, has caved. In an op-ed titled, “Why I’ll Vote for Bolton,” Voinovich said questioning Bolton’s renomination “would jeopardize our influence in the United Nations” and “undermin[e] our policies and agenda.” [...]
July 20th, 2006 at 9:12 amThe Bush policies are not working, so why would he vote for him?
July 21st, 2006 at 12:49 am[...] Last year, Sen. George Voinovich eloquently made the case against the nomination of John Bolton, stating, “I’m afraid that his confirmation will tell the world that we’re not dedicated to repairing our relationship or working as a team.†Voinovich now intends to support Bolton, but his original concerns turned out to be well-founded. [...]
July 24th, 2006 at 12:34 pm[...] Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) opposed Bolton last year, delivering a powerful and eloquent indictment of the Bolton nomination. Now, Voinovich supports Bolton’s nomination. Today on Fox, Voinovich explained that Bolton needed to be confirmed because “the world, you know, is going whacko everywhere.” Watch it: [...]
July 25th, 2006 at 5:21 pmDelete this spam!
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:02 am