Bolton and the UN

Bad revelations keep coming about Bolton.

When does the Senate vote? Is there a vote scheduled??

Democrats Appear Short of Votes to Block Bolton on Senate Floor
May 19 (Bloomberg) -- John Bolton's prospects of being confirmed by the Senate as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations appear strong at this time with at least four Democrats saying they might support him and only one Republican saying he'll vote against.

Republican George Voinovich of Ohio, whose opposition cost Bolton the recommendation of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he'll vote no. Democrats Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas are all considering voting for Bolton, according to aides.

Republicans outnumber Democrats in the Senate, 55-44, with one independent. Four Democratic votes would give Bolton a strong majority, although it's not clear when a vote will be held and whether minds might change as a result of the parties' bitter dispute over President George W. Bush's judicial nominees and Democrats' option to filibuster.

If Republicans change the rules on confirming judges, ``the Bolton nomination will get caught up in the muck of the filibuster- judges battle and will sit,'' said Steven Clemons, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, a Washington public policy institute founded in 1999.

Clemons, who has written articles against the Bolton nomination, said the longer it sits, the better chance Democrats have of winning senators to their side. ``There are too many senators who want to be with Voinovich,'' he said. ``Time kills the White House's plan.''

Stalling Senate Business

Democrats have said they might respond to a change in the filibuster rule by trying to slow passage of legislation on the White House agenda, employing procedural tactics such as insisting on the full reading of bills.

Republicans also have predicted deadlock. Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, said on Sunday that the fight over filibusters could stall ``a number of other compelling issues, whether it be deficit reduction or the war on terrorism, Iraq, many other legislative items.''

The fight could drag into next week, possibly pushing a vote on Bolton until after the Memorial Day recess and allowing Democrats more time to try to press their case against Bolton with Republicans.

Committee Report

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee released a summation of its hearings on the Bolton nomination yesterday. It includes one new allegation: that Bolton considered asking former CIA Director George Tenet to reassign a government intelligence officer who objected to a draft of testimony Bolton delivered on Cuba's weapons capabilities. The report says it's not known whether Bolton actually sent a letter to Tenet asking for the removal of the officer.

The panel's 337-page report offers sharply contrasting views of President George W. Bush's candidate.

The majority view, written by Indiana Republican Richard Lugar, who chairs the panel, says that an extensive probe produced ``no evidence to support the most serious charge, that Secretary Bolton sought to manipulate intelligence.''

The Democrats sum up why they believe Bolton, 56, currently undersecretary of state for arms control, is a poor choice for the UN role and they recommend that senators vote against him on the Senate floor.

They describe ``four distinct patters of conduct'' which they say disqualify Bolton for the post of UN ambassador -- that he repeatedly sought the removal of intelligence analysts who disagreed with him, that he tried to stretch intelligence to fit his views, that he exhibited abusive behavior in his relations with subordinates and colleagues, and that he made misleading statements to the committee.

Confirmed Four Times

Bolton and his supporters dispute the allegations and say he would strongly defend U.S. interests and implement needed reforms at the UN. He has won Senate confirmation four times before.

So far no Republicans except Voinovich have said they will vote against Bolton and several Democrats are considering supporting him.

``Senator Lieberman remains undecided about Mr. Bolton's nomination,'' said spokesman Matt Gobush. ``As a general rule, he believes the president should have the latitude to choose his own Cabinet, except in the most extraordinary cases. The senator is studying the issues raised by the committee to determine whether this is one of those cases.''

Lieberman voted for Bolton at his previous confirmation hearing in 2001.

Pryor, Landrieu, Nelson

Spokesmen for Pryor and Landrieu said the senators had not decided. Nelson ``is undecided,'' but is ``leaning in favor of the nomination,'' said spokesman David DiMartino.

Democratic opponents of Bolton hoped to persuade Republicans such as Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to join Voinovich in opposition to Bolton.

Snowe ``hasn't expressed any reservations or said she would vote no'' on Bolton, spokesman Preston Hartman said. ``She has said nothing bad about John Bolton.''

Collins plans to vote in favor of Bolton, spokeswoman Elissa Davison said.

Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska plans to support Bolton on the floor, spokesman Mike Buttry said. So does Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, according to spokesman Steve Hourahan. Both senators were early Republican critics of Bolton on the foreign relations panel.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=71000001&refer=top_world_news&sid=asTLgc.fv.NQ

Kofi Anan and top UN aides discussing the oil4food operation...

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050519-110607-1836r.htm

Quote:

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's chief of staff yesterday acknowledged that scandals involving Iraq, peacekeeping and human rights have hurt the world body, but said any move to freeze or cut U.S. dues would set back the cause of reform.

"The option of withholding money immediately sets you off from all of your allies in this fight," Mark Malloch Brown, Mr. Annan's recently appointed chief of staff, told a House International Relations Committee hearing.

"It would be seen as the United States once again acting alone," he said. ...

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1485653,00.html#article_continue

US 'backed illegal Iraqi oil deals'

Report claims blind eye was turned to sanctions busting by American firms

Julian Borger and Jamie Wilson in Washington
Tuesday May 17, 2005
The Guardian

The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.

A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.

The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.

Yesterday's report makes two principal allegations against the Bush administration. Firstly, it found the US treasury failed to take action against a Texas oil company, Bayoil, which facilitated payment of "at least $37m in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime".

The surcharges were a violation of the UN Oil For Food programme, by which Iraq was allowed to sell heavily discounted oil to raise money for food and humanitarian supplies. However, Saddam was allowed to choose which companies were given the highly lucrative oil contracts. Between September 2000 and September 2002 (when the practice was stopped) the regime demanded kickbacks of 10 to 30 US cents a barrel in return for oil allocations.

In its second main finding, the report said the US military and the state department gave a tacit green light for shipments of nearly 8m barrels of oil bought by Jordan, a vital American ally, entirely outside the UN-monitored Oil For Food system. Jordan was permitted to buy some oil directly under strict conditions but these purchases appeared to be under the counter.

The report details a series of efforts by UN monitors to obtain information about Bayoil's oil shipments in 2001 and 2002, and the lack of help provided by the US treasury.

After repeated requests over eight months from the UN and the US state department, the treasury's office of foreign as sets control wrote to Bayoil in May 2002, requesting a report on its transactions but did not "request specific information by UN or direct Bayoil to answer the UN's questions".

Bayoil's owner, David Chalmers, has been charged over the company's activities. His lawyer Catherine Recker told the Washington Post: "Bayoil and David Chalmers [said] they have done nothing illegal and will vigorously defend these reckless accusations."

The Jordanian oil purchases were shipped in the weeks before the war, out of the Iraqi port of Khor al-Amaya, which was operating without UN approval or surveillance.

Investigators found correspondence showing that Odin Marine Inc, the US company chartering the seven huge tankers which picked up the oil at Khor al-Amaya, repeatedly sought and received approval from US military and civilian officials that the ships would not be confiscated by US Navy vessels in the Maritime Interdiction Force (MIF) enforcing the embargo.

Odin was reassured by a state department official that the US "was aware of the shipments and has determined not to take action".

The company's vice president, David Young, told investigators that a US naval officer at MIF told him that he "had no objections" to the shipments. "He said that he was sorry he could not say anything more. I told him I completely understood and did not expect him to say anything more," Mr Young said.

An executive at Odin Maritime confirmed the senate account of the oil shipments as "correct" but declined to comment further.

It was not clear last night whether the Democratic report would be accepted by Republicans on the Senate investigations committee.

The Pentagon declined to comment. The US representative's office at the UN referred inquiries to the state department, which fail to return calls.

A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.

Quote:

A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.

Aside from your sources not being credible ones, I'd say that Bush has done a pretty good job of stopping the oil4food scam. I mean, it's not going on any more, is it?

gungasnake wrote:

Kofi Anan and top UN aides discussing the oil4food operation...

wow. you really are the clever lad.

Recognize the three gentlemen in the picture?

I doubt, he'll sell them, JTT, especially not to you!

The Democrats seem to be demonstrating a definition that was given for the term- Fanatic.

Fanatics are those who, losing sight of their objectives, redouble their efforts.

I seed them as would-be monarchists.

gungasnake wrote:

I seed them as would-be monarchists.

Is that why they support the Bush dynasty so much?

chiczaira wrote:

The Democrats seem to be demonstrating a definition that was given for the term- Fanatic.

Fanatics are those who, losing sight of their objectives, redouble their efforts.

I don't really see the demokkkrats as fanatics; I seed them as would-be monarchists. [/i]They believe they have some sort of a devine right to rule [/i] regardless of any sort of election outcomes, and they believe that it doesn't matter what they have to do to implement that devine right. They view democracy and democratic practices as obstacles to be worked around.

...Besides, how do you figure that "The majority does not consider a fertilized cell that is about to be disposed as medical waste to be off limits for destruction for medical testing."?