Redstate

if Frist had a backbone.

The UN will never have to wonder again what the White House position REALLY is.

When the other side has the votes to avoid cloture and our side doesn't.

Maybe we should have held some transportation projects in Ohio hostage...

was doing an excellent job.  She was able to annunciate the american position without the baggage that bolton carries.  But, it is the president's perrogative to use the recess appointment. I just hope that bolton can be effective in an institution where there will be much resistance to his mere presence.

Our Permanent Representative to the UN is a Temp on a 17-month assignment. He will not be confirmed by the new Senate (in Jan 07) becuase he filed a false statement with them.  

17 months is plenty long enough for anyone to wade around the UN cesspool. Second, the accuracy of his statement had nothing to do with the fact he wasn't allowed an up or down vote and it will have nothing to do with any future confirmation hearings either. Third, Frist just got a lesson in why Bush is President, and he will be a footnote.

I think people at the UN will take Bolton's phone calls. What do you think?

. . .take up a collection to buy Senator Voinovich a fresh supply of crying towels?

Bolton submitting knowingly false information is unimportant?  

The WH has acknowledged the error and corrected the information.

Under their own rules, Senators and Members of the House 'correct the record' all the time, why not give that same courtesy to witnesses?  Oh wait, that's part of their rules too.  People testifying before Congress have an opportunity to correct the record too.

This is a total red herring.

Look I'll be the first to admit that this is silly and no reason not to appoint Bolton.

But I'm waiting for one - just one would make me happy - of the people who said it was really important to impeach Bill Clinton for lying about a blow job to step forward and say that it's important to punish Bolton for lying on a sworn statement.

Could you point to the Senate rule that allows witnesses to revise sworn testimony after it has been proven to be false?

I agree that this is a pretty point but that doesn't mean that the Senate will treat it as such.

I think the concern is that he will be indicted over the Plame/Wilson thing.  If that happens he will lose credibility even more.

It has to be.

to find this explicitly laid out in the rules, but not having much luck.  I'll keep looking.

But, in practice, Committee staff review the transcript after the hearing for grammar and accuracy of the transcription.  If errors are made, they get permission to correct the transcript.  If a Senator or House Member rezliae they've made an error (or have been told of an error) they typically just ask for a unanimous consent request to update the record.

Approps Committee let's the administration (whichever party is in charge) do a whole lot of editing and 'clarifying' after the actual hearing, so much so that you'd be stunned to read the official transcript and then watch a replay of the hearing.

... to get through one, just one, conversation without someone mentioning Bill Clinton and his inate inability to keep his zipper closed in the presence of the opposite sex?

If you fail to comprehend the difference between lying under oath to a Grand Jury and forgetting to mention an interview with the State Department IG then there is no hope.

Already has a large appropriation to cover their tissue requirements, the budget for which is always passed by unanimous consent just before they go on recess.  Even more interesting, though, is the spy photograph of Frank Rich from the New York Times that I have recently obtained.  It shows Rich in his new disguise, which he will be using while he follows John Bolton around Manhattan in an attempt to gather dirt on his personal activities over the next 17 months.  Rich believes that he'll have a better chance of inconspicuously stalking Bolton with this new, more fashionable hairdo.  Ssssshhhh.

... the Democrats would be rushing to line up to vote for his confirmation; anything that embarrasses the administration is fair game with the Democrats now days.

If you fail to comprehend the difference between lying under oath to a Grand Jury and forgetting to mention an interview with the State Department IG then there is no hope

I don't believe that these two situations are comparable it is NOT because one was a case of lying to a Grand Jury and one was a case of "forgetting" something.  Both cases involve stating the record accurately.  If you don't then you are violating your oath and technically committing perjury.  Since we have NO WAY of knowing whether Bolton forgot about the interview or willfully refused to divulge that he was interviewed we must simply enforce the law.

Having said that I suspect that he probably DID just forget the matter.  Also unless someone can provide an argument for why he WOULD willfuly refuse to divulge this information I fail to see how this is comparable to the Clinton testimony.

People who rely on relative morality and situational ethics have to compare any action with some previous action rather than test against a core value of which they have none. This is why hypocrisy is inherent in secularism.

that there are differences. But a whole bunch of people insisted that any lie under oath is unforgivable and must be punished. I'd just like to see even one of those people apply that standard to Bolton.

... there is a big difference between willful deceit i.e. perjury, and forgetting to mention something --- even if that something was significant (which, as I understand it, is not at issue in this case.)

Even the IRS allows you to go back and refile your tax return if you forgot something :-)

That is going to leave a mark :-)

Every one in your whole bunch has clearly stated that it unforgivable and should be punished. Name one person who hasn't.

Every one in your whole bunch has clearly stated that it unforgivable and should be punished. Name one person who hasn't. **

What exactly is my bunch? I know I haven't said it is unforgivable (I assume I'm in my bunch). Is that enough. Heck, I said just the opposite.

But I'm still looking for someone who said lying under oath has to be punished to matter what to step forward and apply that standard to Bolton.

That the Administration isn't backing down.  worst case, they may need to make another recess appointment later.

Seriously, the Democrats were on a fishing expedition - NSA intercepts are stuff that we really can't afford to have leaking.  We've got to protect methods and sources of gathering intelligence.  This fishing expedition (and this is going to become the trend, I fear), endangered that.

He appreciates Gilbert Gottfried and Friar's Club roasts, after all.  Frank Rich was the theater critic for the Times for so many years that it's a fair bet he has a keen eye for creative makeup and costume effects.  With Bolton coming to town, I imagine that he'll be pulling out all the stops to get the scoop for the Times and Vanity Fair.  Bolton is the only person in the Administration that Rich hasn't attacked recently in his column, but I think that's only a ruse to lull the ambassador into a false sense of security.  Tip to Ambassador Bolton:  mind carefully what you say around those incongruously large-boned redheads with medium-length Jennifer Aniston-style hairdos at cocktail parties...

You said there were a whole bunch of people. I assumed that you knew who they were in that you wanted just one of them make an admission. If you don't know who is in the bunch, how are you going to know if one of them makes the admission you want? You made nothing but a contention and I contentioned the opposite to point out that your statement had no basis. I was being sarcastic.

... apply your "any error is a lie" standard to Bolton? Willfully misrepresenting facts is lying. Forgetting to mention something is not the same as willful misrepresentation.

It appears you are attempting to apply the left's favorite "Bush lied about WMD" shibboleth here. Perjury is not the same as making a mistake, forgetting something or being misinformed. As I said, even the IRS allows you to correct mistakes.

I thought my whole bunch referred to the bunch I belonged to, not the bunch I was talking about

we're "moving on."

They just might decide to pursue an agenda that is antagonistic to our own.

The point that I'm concerned about his Bolton's effectiveness.  Where he goes, rancor surely follows. Look at Arms Reduction...as soon as he leaves we make major breakthroughs.  He is a source of ill will, when that is the exact opposite of what we really need.  Well, I guess we will find out.

And as Bolton has said (ten stories and all), the UN doesn't really matter to this administration anyway.  So, I guess no big deal.

Bolton wasn't talking about just any "ten stories." He was talking about UN jobs on the order of Assistant to the Assistant to the Chairman of Antarctica Agricultural Development Committee, if there is such a thing. There are at least ten stories worth of totally worthless UN activities that nobody would miss. That was his point.

If the left thinks this is a huge event, they are missing the point.

Here's a test - name five previous UN ambassadors, AND name their respective signal accomplishments.

Granted, it's a high profile position, and a useful diplomatic laboratory, but it's still not (thankfully) anything approaching a world government with associated powers.

If anything, a valid criticism might be that Bolton is inappropriate since he lacks an FBI white-collar investigative background needed to tackle the primary problem in the organization. Then again, he gets staff for that work.

As for the latest leftist talking point, is the State Dept. IG making a stink about his evasiveness, uncooperative stance, dishonesty, malfeasence, management failure or incompetence? For that matter, does the IG think his failure to disclose is a material matter, or would the IG have even noticed it upon review of Bolton's answer to the question? Has anyone asked the IG? Say any democratic committee senator or staffer?

Just wondering.

Tom DeLay is the leaker...Bolton is just a smokescreen.