It’s a sad day for our country, and a sad statement about the Bush administration’s chokehold on Senate leadership, that the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee has to “endorse” a potential U.N. ambassador with a statement like this:

Secretary Bolton’s actions were not always exemplary. On several occasions, he made incorrect assumptions about the behavior and motivations of subordinates. At other times, he failed to use proper managerial channels or unnecessarily personalized internal disputes. The picture is one of an aggressive policymaker who pressed his missions at every opportunity and argued vociferously for his point of view. In the process, his blunt style alienated some colleagues. But there is no evidence that he has broken laws or engaged in serious ethical misconduct.

Over at Eschaton, Avedon links to this merriful story on how embezzling neo-con darling (and freshly installed Iraqi oil minister) Ahmad Chalabi is about to be pardoned:

King Abdullah of Jordan has agreed to pardon Ahmed Chalabi, the controversial Iraqi political leader, who was sentenced to 22 years in prison for fraud after his bank collapsed with $300m in missing deposits in 1989.

Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi President, asked the king to resolve the differences between Jordan and Mr Chalabi, now Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, during a visit to Ammanthis week.

But Talabani’s not the only one, according to New Yorker journalist Sy Hersh, who was asked about Chalabi’s pardon yesterday:

Here’s what I know about that. … [T]his is about nine months ago — [King Abdullah] was stunned. He was seeing [President Bush]. The President said, you know, “Your” — whatever he calls him — “I have a favor.” He said, “Of course, anything.” “I want you to pardon Chalabi.” And he was stunned, because, you know, how can he pardon Chalabi after what he had done. The money he stole was from old women and children, you know, little funds, and he was reviled, Chalabi. … In any case, he was stunned, and he didn’t know what to say. He went back and he asked people in the parliament, who said, “Are you kidding?” So all I can tell you is that Abdullah is doing what the President of the United States [asked], to his amazing shock, because this was after the stuff came out about Chalabi and his connection to Iran. … I can categorically tell you this is Abdullah’s story, this I do know. And he was stunned.

Remember, just last month Vice President Cheney was sending friendly smoke signals to Chalabi, telling the New York Sun, “I know Mr. Chalabi myself. I’ve met with him. I wouldn’t have any problems meeting with him today.”

Ordinarily, there would be a vote to send Bolton’s nomination to the floor with a favorable recommendation. Since Sen. Voinovich said he would vote against that, it would fail, 9-9. Sen. Lugar may not even bother.

Lugar will likely have a committee vote to send Bolton’s nomination to the full Senate without recommendation. Voinovich said he would vote for that. Assuming everyone else sticks to party lines, this will pass 10-8.

Bolton’s nomination will then go to the full Senate. Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Voinovich are likely to vote against the nomination. If all Democrats vote against Bolton that means there are 47 votes opposing. Four other Republicans would have to persuaded to vote against Bolton to block his confirmation.

Or, there could be a filibuster.

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. Read more