Ace - Why can't the administration give the Senate the requested intercepts?
...
I think I had more to say, but the ThoseShirts.com babe completely distracted me once again.
...
Oh, right! The Dems are not asking that the intercepts be released to the public, or even to the Senate, but that they be released to the Chair and Ranking Dem of the Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees. They are also asking for a pretty limited amount of information, 10 intercepts containing the names of 19 citizens.

That being said, from a partisan political perspective I hope that Bolton gets approved as I expect him to be a revealing disaster as UN Ambassador; he is indeed a brutally blunt little asshole and this will help show the US citizenry that the administration is full of brutal assholes. The Dems should let the nomination go through as soon as the administration either releases the intercepts or not so that Bolton has a chance to work his voodoo in time to affect the mid-term elections.

There is one glaring fact that Mr. vonK and fellow travellers like to ignore; those intercepts have absolutely no bearing on Mr. Bolton's fitness to serve. This is the 'Miguel Estrada' ploy once again; ask for something you know you won't get just to provide political cover for your obstruction of the confirmation.

BrewFan's quite right about this being a replay of the Dems' tactics in the Miguel Estrada quagmire. Furthermore, I would have bet any one of my paired organs that this would be the immediate follow-up to that nitwit "compromise" deal. NRO is suggesting that Bush make a recess appointment and sidestep Bolton's confirmation entirely for the time being. That would be an eminently appropriate response to this non-filibuster filibuster, but I doubt Bush has the cojones to go through with it.

Brew - Why do you say that these intercepts have no bearing on Bolton's fitness to serve? The argument that the Dems are making is that Bolton used his power to try and bully and intimidate others in order to advance his and the administration's basis for policy. I don't see how you can blithely dismiss the names of citizens in the intercepts that Bolton requested as evidence of this pattern.
....
Ace - If you can get me a date with the ThosShirts.com model I'd seriously consider voting Republican. Can you make that happen?

When playing hardball, I want someone to bully and intimidate. I don't want a guy who is willing to do phony little french air kisses with our opponents.

Anon - Cool, then the Repubs should release the intercepts and argue that they show that Bolton is just the kind of bad-ass mo-fo that we need at the UN.

VonK. How is requesting names from intercepts "evidence of this pattern"? It was in no way out of the ordinary to make such requests. Further more... from the linked York article.

"In addition, the administration has already shown the top two members of the Intelligence Committee, Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), much of the material, minus the names. They concluded there was nothing improper about the requests."

Why can't Biden accept Rockefellers word on this?

Sorry ^^ was me.

Check out Chris Dodd w/Chris Wallace on Fox:

The allegations against Mr. Bolton, which provokes this request, were that on at least two occasions on five different times involving two individuals over 48 months tried to have intelligence analysts at both the State Department and the CIA fired.
...
WALLACE: But in any case, what do these names have to do with it?

DODD: Well, because the issue is, was he going beyond what we know he did, to try and intimidate these people in some way? Why was he seeking the names of these individuals? It's very rare indeed for a policy-setter to request the names on the intercepts of the Americans -- very rare for a policy-setter.

WALLACE: But wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. In fact, in the State Department during these years, there were 400...

DODD: Oh, no, wait a second. That's diplomatic security...

WALLACE: Let me ask my question. There were 400 requests for these intercepts, and John Bolton's represented only 10 of the 400.

DODD: Yes, well, the bulk of them come from the intelligence and research division at the State Department and from the diplomatic security section, not from policy-setters. There's a distinction there. This is not that common an occurrence.

"the bulk of them come from the intelligence and research division" -- deceptive spin. How many came from intellignece and research, how many came from policy-setters? Dodd knows.

"This is not that common an occurrence." --double speak. It's common, but not THAT common. What the hell does that mean?

Why won't Biden accept Rockefellers word? Because he's a partisan hack.

Well, what does Sen. Rockefeller have to say? From the Boston Globe:

During yesterday's debate, Senator Jay Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia, the ranking minority member on the Senate Intelligence committee, said he was convinced that Bolton did nothing improper in asking for the identities of US officials quoted in the intercepts. But Rockefeller said Bolton may have violated the security agency's restrictions by sharing the information with another State Department official when he sought out the official to congratulate him, apparently for comments he made during the intercept.

This could speak to the pattern of intimidation. If the official was someone on Bolton's shit list then this "congratulations" would be a nice way of telling the official that Bolton was listening in on the official's conversations. Or it could be competely innocuous, one would have to see the names to make that determination.

By the by, I'm not denying that Dodd is a partisan or that this is an exercise in partisan politics. But we live in a partisan political system, so that comes with the territory. And from that perspective, as I've said, I hope that Bolton gets confirmed as his bullying damn-the-facts MO will help reveal that MO in the administration generally.

Really, ... "congratulations" = bullying??? That's a stretch, don't you think?

"Roberts said that his investigation indicated that Bolton had only discussed the uncensored NSA information with "one other individual”—the American named in the NSA report—who was a person who "worked directly for Under Secretary Bolton, possessed the necessary security clearances, received and read the same intelligence report in the course of his duties, and understood that he was the 'U.S. person' referred to therein."

What a nasty bastard, he congratulated a person who works directly for him for a job well done.

Master - Another way of looking at it is he congratulated an underling on something the underling said in an intercepted private communication.

A hypothetical:
I make send an email to a friend in which I talk about how I just found out that I am going to receive an award for excellence. I also talk about what a fucking incompetent asshole my boss is. The next day my boss congratulates me on the award I'm going to receive. I would totally get the willies.

Is this what occurred? I have not idea, but given the multiple allegations of bullying on the part of Mr. Bolton it is not out of bounds for the Dems to want to know WHO are the people Mr. Bolton wanted to look in on.

Loose word shit in the previous post. No "make" before "send"; "I have NO idea" not "I have NOT idea"

Sorry.

"Is this what occurred? I have no idea"

I'll agree with you on that one. But if Bolton was such a well documented bully, why wouldn't he admonish somebody that works directly for him? He didn't, he congratulated him on the way that he handled a conversation that was caught in the intercept. This doesn't support in any way a pattern of abuse or bullying.

I've got a long post on Bolton and how his PSI has actually stopped Iran from getting nukes over at Patterico.

"By the by, I'm not denying that Dodd is a partisan or that this is an exercise in partisan politics"

I appreciate that acknowledgement, vonK. Thats really all this is. Of course your prediction about Bolton's failing is wrong too. How do I know? Because if he was incompetent, the Dems would confirm him in a minute and then sit back and wait for the political windfall.

Brew - A couple of things:

1 - If the Dems are competent, then they want to make a very public case that Bolton is a bully who tries to intimidate intel/diplomatic professionals into agreeing to policy that the facts don't support, because they can then use this as a mirror against the admin/Repubs in coming elections.
2 - That is assuming that the Dems are competent political gamesmen, something that I'm not at all sure is supported by the evidence.

Oh and:

3 - There are likely some Dems who simply see Bolton as a probable foreign policy disaster at the UN and are opposing his nomination on straight forward in addition to partisan grounds.

"3 - There are likely some Dems who simply see Bolton as a probable foreign policy disaster at the UN and are opposing his nomination on straight forward in addition to partisan grounds"

Quite telling that this was an afterthought :)

I think when all is said and done, the Dems real motivation is to keep their base 'in the game' and contributing. To do that requires them to manufacture controversy. To do that requires them to become the party of 'No'. I don't remember if it was you or not, but the point was made not long ago that if you look at judicial appointments over the last 30+ years the 'rights' vs. the 'lefts' even out. This makes it hard for me to believe the judicial appointment filibusters are being done for anything but political show. The alternative is they believe they are going to be the minority party for a long, long time to come.

I think Bolton should withdraw. He's a bully. He made Voinivich cry after all.

And wasn't V. the mayor of Cleveland? If he got through managing Cleveland without crying the Senate should have been a breeze........but Bush had to nominate Bolton and the waterworks followed, as anyone could have predicted. Withdraw Bolton and Pass Voinivich the Kleenex!

If someone can be bullied and intimidated, they don't belong in intel/diplomatic profession. As usual, the dems have it back assward.

Sweetie-- a friend from Ohio told me that Vvich used to cry in Cleveland too--he couldn't meet some firefighters demands (or somehting) and the water works came on.

I agree that Bolton is an intimidating bully and he may not always play well with others. That's why he's just the man for the job.