Today, the full Senate will vote on the nomination of John Bolton for ambassador to the U.N. Bolton’s nomination hinges on the conscientious votes of bipartisan members of Congress who realize that Bolton is the antithesis of a diplomat and has a highly questionable record that does not support a promotion. Lincoln Chafee is one of those senators who must vote his conscience in order for the Bolton nomination to be rejected, but as his record has proven, he has found it extremely difficult to locate a principled stance on the matter:

FLIP: Chafee spokesman Stephen Hourahan: “We’re inclined to support the nomination.” [AP, 4/7/05]

FLOP: Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee that is weighing the nomination, “is less likely right now” to vote to confirm Bolton, his spokesman Stephen Hourahan said in an interview. [Washington Post, 4/21/05]

Chafee Does Not Even Meet His Own Standard:
Chafee said, “I try to be consistent.” He said he asks voters to trust him. “Trust is built with consistency,” he said. [Prov Journal, 5/15/05]

Read more

The Pentagon’s response to numerous allegations of Koran desecration has been that those allegations aren’t credible. Yet, until last week, the Pentagon had never investigated any of these allegations to find out if they were credible or not. What gives? This graph from an AP story this morning provides some insight:

DiRita said the charges of deliberate Quran desecration by U.S. military personnel were “fantastic” and “not credible on their face” because U.S. commanders were careful not to inflame passions among the detainees.

“Commanders knew it was a very sensitive issue and they didn’t need the trouble,” the spokesman said.

In other words, it was just assumed the allegations weren’t credible because the Pentagon believed U.S. commanders would never allow that sort of conduct. In the wake of Abu Ghraib, that attitude seems hopelessly naƒ¯ve and irresponsible.