Once A Sure Thing, Bolton Nomination To UN Now In Trouble

[Nbadan]

GOP Support for Bolton Might Be Wavering
By Sonni Efron, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska signaled Friday that his support for the nomination of John R. Bolton as U.N. ambassador was wavering after new reports that Bolton ordered an intelligence analyst removed from his job.

The analyst, a U.S. State Department employee who now works on Hagel's Senate staff, is the third intelligence analyst who was reported to have been threatened or intimidated by Bolton, who has served since 2001 as undersecretary of State for arms control and international security.

"Sen. Hagel is likely to be supportive (of Bolton) but he needs to be assured there are not additional serious areas of concern," Hagel spokesman Mike Buttry said Friday, adding Hagel was "troubled" by the new information.

Posing potential new problems, Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are investigating as many as five additional incidents in which Bolton's demeanor toward State Department subordinates has been questioned, according to Senate staffers from both parties. In a confirmation hearing earlier this week, testimony indicated Bolton demanded the removal of two intelligence analysts who disagreed with him.

Amid the developments, Hagel's remarks served as a warning that Bolton's confirmation, which had been considered assured, could falter if Democrats succeed in producing more evidence against Bolton....

LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bolton16apr16,0,3939442.story?coll=la-home-nation)

Humm...to bad our Main stream media is busy doing stories on the Pope, Michael Jackson, and child abductions to care about doing their job responsibly when it comes to the Bolton nomination.

[Nbadan]

Yet another story of John Bolton's pattern of bullying his employees is emerging...


Horrifying, personal John Bolton story
by amyindallas
Fri Apr 15th, 2005 at 07:15:42 PDT

My best friend since college, Melody Townsel, was stationed in Kyrgyzstan on a US AID project. During her stay there, she became embroiled in a controversy in which the oh-so-diplomatic John Bolton was a key player. She described the incident in a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee members (who have thus far responded with a yawn), and I wanted to share it with a larger audience.
Here's a small taste:

"Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel -- throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and, generally, behaving like a madman."

(snip)

DailyKos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/15/101542/050)

[GoldToe]

Could walrus boy be in trouble?

[Nbadan]

From Steve Clemons "The Washington Note"
Sunday, 4/17/05


Any Senator -- any and all -- who votes to confirm John Bolton on Tuesday this week (though there may be a further delay) not only has to sign off on the issue of Bolton's pattern of abusive behavior, they must also sign off on the connection of such abuse to the mismanagement of intelligence and his habitual role as a "loose cannon" undermining delicate and high-stakes national security efforts of other diplomats.

In addition, they must sign off on the fact that he lied under oath. Bolton got very pointed with Senators Dodd, Obama, and Biden -- as well as Boxer -- that he never sought to have an intelligence official removed or fired and that issues of difference with staff were over "management questions," not "substance." There is overwhelming evidence bubbling out in the national press that this is simply not true.

<snip>

I would really like to hear Senators Norman Coleman or George Allen explain to the American public, to the media, and to me why they can abide by testimony that is at such odds with what is clearly the troubling truth about Mr. Bolton. Do they think that such lies before their committee are acceptable.

<snip>

I am presently at a foreign policy conference called the CSIS Think Tank Summit organized by Simon Serfaty and Robin Niblett at the Wye Conference Center on the Eastern Shore of Maryland with a broad array of intellectuals who think about Transatlantic issues, the National Defense University, NATO, and national security strategy. I am here with people from AEI, the Monterey Institute, Harvard's Kennedy School, CSIS, the Washington Institute on Middle East Policy, NATO, SWP in Germany, IISS, RAND Corporation, the German Marshall Fund, the Hoover Institution, and more. The spectrum of perspective here is very wide -- but I have not found a single defender of John Bolton. . .not one. And I have tried. One of those who might have defended his appointment did not show to the conference. No one here supports Boltonism at the U.N. -- and many of these folks are wrapped fairly tightly into the inner circle of neo-conservatives thought that his appointment was a good move for the Bush administration.

But now that Bolton has clearly "lied" to Congress about his past -- Cheney needs to pull back, offer Bolton a job on his Vice Presidential staff and offer someone else the position.

The Washington Note (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000471.html)

[The Ressurrected One]

It really must be frustrating and exhausting to salivate over Bush failure after Bush failure that never comes...

[Nbadan]

What the Bolton nomination would mean to Republicans:


If the issues about John Bolton had only to do with his personally outrageous and unconstructive views of the United Nations itself, I think that this debate would be over. But the Republicans are being put in a position of confirming someone who has:

1. lied to them about his past behavior in trying to have intelligence agents fired

2. who has tried to actively sabotage official Bush administration policy towards North Korea

3. who may have misused highly classified NSA intercepts in his personal and reckless crusades, or in his personal rivalries with others in government

4. whose obsessions with intelligence resulted in his own office attempting to produce its own intelligence fact sheets as rival reports to State's INR reports

Chafee, Hagel, Alexander, Murkowski, Lugar, Voinovich -- all of them -- don't want to be in the position of confirming a guy who has engaged in such reckless behavior. The Bush administration needs to act as if it did not realize the full scope of issues regarding Mr. Bolton's candidacy and pull back.

John Bolton is not someone that this nation can be proud of in the important role of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

more...Washington Note (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000476.html)

[The Ressurrected One]

What the Bolton nomination would mean to Republicans:
more...Washington Note (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000476.html)
How magnanimous of you...it can only mean one thing. Bolton is a good pick, otherwise, the Democrats wouldn't be so helpful.

[Nbadan]

Looks more to me like the shit that Bolton is having to try and swim out of may ingulf the Repubiican party in yet another unpopular controveresy...


Bolton Often Blocked Information, Officials Say
Iran, IAEA Matters Were Allegedly Kept From Rice, Powell
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 18, 2005; Page A04

John R. Bolton -- who is seeking confirmation as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations -- often blocked then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and, on one occasion, his successor, Condoleezza Rice, from receiving information vital to U.S. strategies on Iran, according to current and former officials who have worked with Bolton.

In some cases, career officials found back channels to Powell or his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, who encouraged assistant secretaries to bring information directly to him. In other cases, the information was delayed for weeks or simply did not get through. The officials, who would discuss the incidents only on the condition of anonymity because some continue to deal with Bolton on other issues, cited a dozen examples of memos or information that Bolton refused to forward during his four years as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

Two officials described a memo that had been prepared for Powell at the end of October 2003, ahead of a critical international meeting on Iran, informing him that the United States was losing support for efforts to have the U.N. Security Council investigate Iran's nuclear program. Bolton allegedly argued that it would be premature to throw in the towel. "When Armitage's staff asked for information about what other countries were thinking, Bolton said that information couldn't be collected," according to one official with firsthand knowledge of the exchange.

Intra-agency tensions are common in Washington, and as the undersecretary of state in charge of nuclear issues, Bolton had a lot of latitude to decide what needed to go to the secretary. But career officials said they often felt that his decisions, and policy views, left the department's top diplomat uninformed and fed the long-running struggles inside the agency.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61304-2005Apr17.html)

[The Ressurrected One]

Looks more to me like the shit that Bolton is having to try and swim out of may ingulf the Repubiican party in yet another unpopular controveresy...



Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61304-2005Apr17.html)
OMG!!! Gloom and doom!

Do you ever take a breath?

[Nbadan]

OMG!!! Gloom and doom!

Do you ever take a breath?

As soon as the Bush hunta is out of power, I'll buy ya a beer.

[The Ressurrected One]

As soon as the Bush hunta is out of power, I'll buy ya a beer.
No thanks. (deleted insult.)

[Nbadan]

The Bolton nomination to head the U.N. seems to be imploding...


Biden asked Bolton whether he personally drove out to CIA headquarters to pressure one high-ranking official to fire the national intelligence officer for Latin American affairs, Bolton said that he'd gone there mainly to ask about intelligence procedures and that he drove there on his way home from work—it was no special trip. Biden said today that he'd since received Bolton's logs for that day. It turned out he made the trip in the morning, then came back to the State Department for a full day's work.

Slate.MSN.com (http://slate.msn.com/id/2117028/sidebar/2117080/)

Ooopsss!

[Nbadan]

Senators not buying, taking a wait and see approach to Bolton nomination...

Panel Delays Vote on Bolton Nomination to U.N.
Senators Unexpectedly Decide to Spend More Time Investigating Allegations on Record
By Charles Babington and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 20, 2005; Page A01


John R. Bolton's nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations suffered a setback yesterday when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unexpectedly decided to spend three more weeks investigating allegations that he mistreated subordinates, threatened a female government contractor and misled the committee about his handling of classified materials.

The panel's decision -- spurred by Ohio Republican Sen. George V. Voinovich's change of heart during an emotional meeting -- came after Democrats passionately argued that senators and their aides need more time to check out new accusations against Bolton, now the undersecretary of state for arms control. Panel members said they may ask Bolton, who spent a full day testifying last week, to return for more questioning.

The action was a blow to President Bush, who nominated Bolton, and to Senate GOP leaders who had hoped to move the nomination to the full Senate before new allegations -- some of them vague and unsubstantiated thus far -- could result in greater opposition. Bolton's combative criticisms of the United Nations have endeared him to many conservatives, but liberals and some moderate Republicans say he lacks the temperament for the U.N. job.

The developments, which some aides called stunning, complicate matters for Bolton's backers. "The dynamic has changed," said Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.), who before yesterday's session had said he was reluctantly inclined to vote for Bolton. "A lot of reservations surfaced today. It's a new day."

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1691-2005Apr19.html)

[Nbadan]

The crap on Bolton keeps mounting amid Republican Senators who are already skwemish about voting for the shaggy DA wannabe...


A U.S. ambassador is the latest to charge that John Bolton has engaged in some ‘undiplomatic’ behavior.WEB EXCLUSIVE

By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek

[QUOTE]Updated: 7:25 p.m. ET April 20, 2005April 20 - President George W. Bush’s former ambassador to South Korea has contacted the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to report two confrontations he had with United Nations Ambassador-designate John Bolton, NEWSWEEK has learned. And Senate investigators are raising more questions about how Bolton and his staff handled sensitive intelligence matters while serving as under-secretary of state for arms control and international security.

The new issues surfaced as Bolton’s controversial nomination is running into increasing trouble. In a surprise development on Tuesday, Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio—who had been expected to vote for Bolton—told his colleagues that he needed more time to review Bolton’s record, forcing the foreign relations committee to delay what had been expected to be a party-line vote to approve the nominee. Republicans Chuck Hagel and Lincoln Chafee also raised red flags about Bolton.

Meanwhile, the White House stepped up pressure on the Senate to approve Bolton and denounced what a spokesman called "unsubstantiated accusations" aimed at the president's choice. "I think what you're seeing is the ugly side of Washington," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan.

The issues raised by retired ambassador Thomas Hubbard help flesh out a portrait of Bolton as a hard-charging, fiercely conservative official who showed little concern for diplomatic niceties and, according to critics, has long been prone to losing his cool. While not as damaging as some earlier accusations against Bolton, they are likely to be considered significant because of Hubbard’s background. A respected career foreign-service officer who served as President Bill Clinton's ambassador to the Philippines, Hubbard was nominated by President Bush to be U.S. ambassador to Seoul in 2001 and served there until last year.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7577473/site/newsweek/)

[The Ressurrected One]

Yes, yes, Senate Democrats have won a delay, probably lasting a few weeks and maybe to the demise of the nomination, to dig up more dirt on United Nations ambassador nominee John Bolton. But, of course, their real objection to Bolton is ideological, not temperamental: They take issue with his view of the U.N.

In its editorial on "The Bolton mugging," the Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006586) cuts through much of the smoke that shrouds what has happened. The discordant Melody who was the last card played by the Democrats -- a leading figure in Mothers Opposing Bush, the woman who failed to come forward with her story in 2001 when Bolton was appointed to his current position because she was "raising her children" -- makes only a token appearance in the Journal editorial.

The transparent phoniness of Melody Townsel's last-minute smear follows the Democrats' evergreen Anita Hill playbook to a "T." How transparent is Melody Townsel's phoniness? As transparent as George Voinovich's "conscience."

So, let's step back for a moment and ponder the nature of the disagreement, which the Los Angeles Times (http://www.morningsentinel.com/news/2005/0412/Front_Page/006.html) summed up nicely in an article on the hearings last week:


”Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., played a three-minute videotape of Bolton speaking angrily in 1994 about the United Nations. . . . ‘There is no such thing as the United Nations,’ Bolton said on the tape. ‘There is an international community that can occasionally be led by the only real power left in the world--and that is the United States, when it suits our interests and when we can get others to go along.’"
Boxer said the speech appeared to reflect Bolton's disdain for the world body.
"’I see the anger, the hostility,’ Boxer said, adding, ‘What we saw here, I think, was the real John Bolton.’"
Bolton's view, expressed in the article and with which I personally agree, seems to be that the U.N. is useful and worthy of respect only insofar as it responds to American leadership and serves American interests. The Democrats' view, by contrast, seems to be that the U.S. has an obligation to follow the U.N., whether it acts in America's interests or not. That's why, for example, John Kerry, who voted in 2002 to authorize U.S. military force in Iraq, changed his mind the next year when the U.N. Security Council balked at passing a resolution expressly permitting such action.
Except, that's not quite right.

The classic example of the U.S. leading the U.N. was the first Gulf War. In November 1990 the Security Council passed Resolution 678 (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm), which authorized member states "to use all necessary means," including military force, to liberate Kuwait, then under occupation by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The resolution also "request[ed] all States to provide appropriate support" to that end.

In January 1991 Congress obliged. The House voted 250-183 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1991/roll009.xml), with 179 Democrats voting "no," to authorize U.S. military force. The Senate vote was 52-47 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00002), with 45 Democrats voting "no." Only 86 House Democrats and 10 Senate Democrats voted in favor.

Among the negative votes were all five current Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who were then in Congress: Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Paul Sarbanes and then-Rep. Barbara Boxer. All told, 25 of the 28 current Senate Democrats who were in Congress in 1991 voted against the Gulf War. (The three who voted for it, in case you're wondering, were Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Tom Carper of Delaware and Harry Reid of Nevada.)

So the U.N. gave the thumbs-up for military force and asked for help, and most Democrats balked. Only a handful of lawmakers, including Sen. Jim Jeffords, ex-Sen. Bob Graham, Reps. John Dingell and Jim Leach and a few other House members (along with Al Gore), took what might be considered the consistent pro-U.N. position, supporting the liberation of Kuwait but not Iraq. Most Democrats who now pose as champions of the U.N. showed their disdain for the world body by voting to refuse its request for help in 1991.

It seems fair to conclude, then, that most liberal Democrats, like Bolton, are pro-U.N. only when it suits their purposes--and it's just that their purposes are the opposite of Bolton's. That is, for the Democratic left, the U.N. is useful and worthy of respect only insofar as it acts as an obstacle to American leadership and an opponent of American interests.

Now, on the topic of Voinovich and Republican disunity over the Bolton nomination. The National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200504201318.asp) editors are on the money in their discussion of Senator Voinovich's pathetic performance (or lack thereof) during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's consideration of the Bolton nomination.

Inevitably, as frustration mounts over Bolton and the stalled judicial nominees, we're also starting to hear criticism of Majority Leader Frist. I don't know whether Frist failed to take measures that could have prevented Voinovich from acting as he did, and I suspect that Frist's critics don't know either. But I do know how difficult it is to enforce unity among Senate Republicans.

First, putting it kindly; Senators are an independent breed. To take an extreme example, if the North Vietnamese couldn't effectively coerce John McCain, why should we expect Bill Frist be able to do so. Voinovich is no McCain, but he was the mayor of Cleveland and the governor of Ohio, and he's his own man.

Second, the Republican majority represents a coalition of conservatives and moderates. It's not realistic to expect that all Republican moderates in the Senate will support every conservative position. John Bolton is a radically conservative nominee for the U.N job. That's precisely why conservatives like his nomination so much -- they feel that the U.N. is broken and needs a radical fix. But they shouldn't be surprised if some moderates see the matter differently and resist Bolton. More generally, with significantly less than half of the American voters being politically conservative, they shouldn't be surprised if conservatives fail to win every battle in Congress. It may still be the case that there is something about Frist that is causing Republicans to lose battles they should win. But I don't assume this is so merely because they don't seem to winning them all.

A number of Conservatives, whining about Frist and some of the shenanigans going on in the Senate, are beginning to wonder why they should work so hard to elect Republican Senators if these Senators can't combine effectively to win certain critical votes.

The answer is simple. The more Republicans elected (including moderate Republicans where that's the best they can do) the more important battles they will win. But no one should toil for the party in the belief that his or her labor will produce a Senate in which conservatives will always prevail.

[gophergeorge]

It's for the UN Post... who gives a fuck????

Hell, appoint Micky Mouse for all I care....

[Duff McCartney]

Bolton is a prick.

[Nbadan]

In January 1991 Congress obliged. The House voted 250-183, with 179 Democrats voting "no," to authorize U.S. military force. The Senate vote was 52-47, with 45 Democrats voting "no." Only 86 House Democrats and 10 Senate Democrats voted in favor.

Among the negative votes were all five current Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who were then in Congress: Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Paul Sarbanes and then-Rep. Barbara Boxer. All told, 25 of the 28 current Senate Democrats who were in Congress in 1991 voted against the Gulf War. (The three who voted for it, in case you're wondering, were Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Tom Carper of Delaware and Harry Reid of Nevada.)

Nice spin, the problem is this was not a resolution declaring war against Iraq. This resolution did something very different. This resolution transfered the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the Congress to the President so he can declare war when and if he wants to. He has not even indicated that he wants to go to war or has to go to war; but he will make the full decision, not the Congress, not the people through the Congress of this country in that manner. This is why so many Democrats voted against the resolution.

[Nbadan]

It seems fair to conclude, then, that most liberal Democrats, like Bolton, are pro-U.N. only when it suits their purposes--and it's just that their purposes are the opposite of Bolton's. That is, for the Democratic left, the U.N. is useful and worthy of respect only insofar as it acts as an obstacle to American leadership and an opponent of American interests.

I'm sure that the German Nazi's probably said the same about the League of Nations, immediately before it desolved and the world was throw into a World War by countries forming their own treaties, alliances and the domino effect.

[Nbadan]

Looks like Colin Powell may be playing a behind the scenes role in the Bolton Nomination


Powell Plays Behind the Scenes Role in Bolton Debate

By Jim VandeHei and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 22, 2005; 7:50 PM

Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell is emerging as a behind the scenes player in the battle over John Bolton's nomination to the United Nations, privately telling at least two key Republican lawmakers that Bolton is smart, but a very problematic government official, according to Republican sources.

Powell spoke in recent days with Sens. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), two of three GOP members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who have raised concerns about Bolton's confirmation, the sources said. Powell did not advise the senators to oppose Bolton, but offered a frank assessment of the nominee as a man who was challenging to work with on personnel and policy matters, according to two people familiar with the conversation.

"General Powell has returned calls from senators who wanted to discuss specific questions that have been raised," said Margaret Cifrino, a Powell spokeswoman. "He has not reached out to senators" and considers the discussions private. A Chafee spokesman confirmed that at least two conversations took place. Bolton served under Powell as his undersecretary of state for arms control, and the two were known to have serious clashes.

Powell has stayed out of the confirmation fight in public, but influenced it in direct and indirect ways, according to several Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill. It is not Powell's style to weigh in strongly against a former colleague, but rather direct people to what he sees as flaws and potential problems, they say. Powell's views are highly influential with many Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7420-2005Apr21.html)

Republican Senators Sens. Lincoln Chafee, Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), and Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio have all publicly expressed doubts about Bolton.

[dcole50]

It's for the UN Post... who gives a fuck????

this seems to be bush's stance. i think he tried to find the guy who would piss off other un leaders the most and decided to nominate him.

[Nbadan]

didn't they put shirley temple in a similar post once?

Nope. Shirley temple Black was a representative of the U.S. at the U.N. not the Ambassador


Other appointments included U.S. Representative to the United Nations in 1969 under Richard Nixon, Ambassador to the Republic of Ghana and first woman White House Chief of Protocol for Gerald Ford, Foreign Affairs Officer with the State Department for Ronald Reagan, and Ambassador to Czechoslovakia under George Bush. She was a respected diplomat and spent 27 years working for the State Department.

Class Brain (http://www.classbrain.com/artbiographies/publish/shirley_temple.shtml)

[exstatic]

Other appointments included U.S. Representative to the United Nations in 1969 under Richard Nixon, Ambassador to the Republic of Ghana and first woman White House Chief of Protocol for Gerald Ford, Foreign Affairs Officer with the State Department for Ronald Reagan, and Ambassador to Czechoslovakia under George Bush. She was a respected diplomat and spent 27 years working for the State Department.

I wonder if she went over on the Good Ship Lollypop?

[Nbadan]

Compare and Contrast time!!

http://www.virginia.edu/french/resource/images/shirley.gif

Don't make me tell my Daddy!!

http://asshat.org/images/bush/static.jpg

Don't make me tell my Daddy!!

[AFE7FATMAN]

Hell has just froze over.

NBADAN is on the right path with this SOB. :wow

The man is a "Brain" however he treats his subordinates, those that disagree with him
and those lower on the food chain like caca.

This man is less than nice, when the reporters and Big Shots are not in view.

My Source: My High School Drum Major who went on to become to an extremly high Position in the Foreign Service.

[Nbadan]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050425/marlette.gif

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/po/2005/po050427.gif

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/jd/2005/jd050422.gif

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050421/deering.gif

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050422/dickwright.gif

[Nbadan]

Two Detail Bolton's Efforts to Punish Dissent
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 29, 2005; Page A02

A former senior Bush administration official told Senate staff members yesterday that John R. Bolton, the president's nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, sought to punish two State Department officials for disagreeing with him on nonproliferation issues, congressional sources said. And a former CIA chief, disputing Bolton, said the nominee had tried to fire a national intelligence officer who believed Bolton was exaggerating evidence on Cuba, they said.

John S. Wolf, who served as assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation and as President Bush's senior envoy to the Middle East until last year, and Alan Foley, who ran the CIA's weapons of mass destruction office, were two of six people who were interviewed by staff members on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

...

On Wednesday, the committee's Republican chairman, Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), predicted Bolton would be approved by the committee and sent to the full Senate for a successful confirmation. The Republicans dominate the panel with 10 of the 18 seats.

But yesterday, Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio), whose concerns promoted the delay in the committee's decision, told a luncheon of the Cleveland Club that he was still undecided. "I am concerned about people's interpersonal skills," he said in response to a question about Bolton.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042801874.html)

[The Ressurrected One]

If this is the worst the opposition can muster, that he yelled at people and tried to fire others, then Mr. Bolton is a shoo-in for U.N. Ambassador.

Hell, I don't think there's a politician in Washington -- on either side of the aisle -- that hasn't berated a staffer or tried to get an incompetent employee fired.

If anything, it says more about Mr. Bolton, that he was unsuccessful in effecting the firings that it does that he even tried to begin with.