Could Senator Joe Biden, a confirmed plagarist, ever sit in front of one of these committees and be confirmed to anything? Would Senator John Kerry's war record be questioned on the record if he were the nominee- would the Swift Vets be called as witnesses and given the same credibiity as some woman who claims Mr. Bolton chased her around a Moscow hotel? (by the way, it's been 80 days since Senator Kerry said that he would sign his SF-180)
It was bad enough when the Democrats themselves were playing politics, but now a couple of erstwhile Republicans have joined the game, too, effectively delaying the hearings until more witnesses that can attest to temper tantrums by Mr. Bolton can be found.
I imagine soon we will be hearing from grade school playmates who remember him beating up on sensitive kids like John Kerry when he was a lad.
But of all the goofiness that has taken root in this part of the "world's greatest deliberative body" the most astonishing comment comes from Senator Voinovich: "The passion on the other side on this, I don't think is political."
Right, Senator, exactly right. And the moon is made of green cheese and I've got a lovely bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to offer you at a special bargin price...
For this level of idiocy, beyond the normally high levels achieved by so many of our elected officials, I award Senator Voinovich the EagleSpeak Dodo Award:
Update: Of course, there are contrary views, such as that of Stygius who has raised some substantive concerns and still argues
Senator Biden and his staff not only need to detail these charges, they need to synthesize them all into one document; one case file that analytically makes the charges of intimidation, obstruction, falsehood and retaliation. If all of these elements remain separate, there is room to make excuses that some arbitrary burden of proof hasn't yet been met. But if they all form part of one story --where the work ethics, intelligence manipulation, political grandstanding, bureaucratic infighting, congressional obstruction, organizational disloyalty, and above all the policy subversion are interrelated-- then the case makes itself.I understand the argument, but fail to see how that makes Mr. Bolton different from any other high ranking official or (as I set out above) from the men sitting in judgment of him -virtually all of whom could be proven to have engaged in any of the activities that Stygius raises. If Stygius is arguing that the game of bureacracy isn't played by many, many others as he says Mr. Bolton played it, then Stygius hasn't been around enough. There may be reasons to say "no" to Mr. Bolton, but these aren't them.