Reidblog [The Reid Report blog]

The Bolton confirmation hearings have revealed his constant efforts to undermine Powell on Iran and Iraq, Syria and North Korea. They have also exposed a most curious incident that has triggered the administration's stonewall reflex. The foreign relations committee has discovered that Bolton made a highly unusual request and gained access to 10 intercepts by the National Security Agency, which monitors worldwide communications, of conversations involving past and present government officials. Whose conversations did Bolton secretly secure and why?

Staff members on the committee believe that Bolton was probably spying
on Powell, his senior advisers and other officials reporting to him on diplomatic initiatives that Bolton opposed. If so, it is also possible that Bolton was sharing this top-secret information with his neoconservative allies within the Pentagon and the vice-president's office, with whom he was in daily contact and who were known to be working in league against Powell.

If the intercepts are released they may disclose whether Bolton was a key figure in a
counter-intelligence operation run inside the Bush administration against the secretary of state, who would resemble the hunted character played by Will Smith in Enemy of the State. Both Republican and Democratic senators have demanded that the state department, which holds the NSA intercepts, turn them over to the committee. But Rice so far has refused. What is she hiding by her cover-up?

Not One Mention of Illegal Immigration by Bushie or Press

Posted by WinchesterMagnumSniperOn
04/28/2005 9:08:18 PM PDT You'd think at least one "journalist" would have taken the opportunity tonite to embarrass Bushie and his band of Rockefeller liberals over the Minutemen's success and the government's failure to secure the Mexican border. When a dozen al-Qaeda infect themselves with small pox, cross the border and begin spreading it around at a Padres game, LAX and the MTA bus system, illegal immigration will be a bit tougher to ignore. Right now, Mexican illegals only cost the US economy $68 billion/year, according to a new study by Columbia University.

TimRussert: First, it’s clear this president is deeply concerned about the energy problems in the country, particularly the high price of gasoline. He acknowledged there is no quick fix, and it is having an effect on consumer confidence and job creation and the economy.

Secondly, on his plan laying out for Social Security — he called it a “sliding scale” in terms of benefits. Look for the Democrats to say that that plan would cut benefits anywhere from 20 to 40 percent for the next two generations of recipients, and that will commence a very big battle on Capitol Hill.

Third, his answer on faith and judicial opponents — it is a clear break from what many of his supporters said this past Sunday: that these nominees were blocked because of their belief in faith. He said that is not the case. He thinks they are blocked because of the strict constructionists. That will cause unease amongst some Christian activists in the Republican Party.

As CBS News Correspondent Jim Axelrod reports, while it clearly strikes a nerve, you get the feeling it goes beyond coziness with the Saudis or dependence on their oil. Asked what he makes of it, one man says, "I don't like it."

When it comes to two men holding hands, America's got issues. "I mean I'd love to meet the president, but I'm not going to walk around holding his hand," says XXXX. "I'm not that kind of guy, know what I'm saying. "I like girls. I don't like boys."

Nevermind that Mr. Bush might actually get some points for it in the Middle East.

You’ve got to hand it to the PR geniuses at the White House. There’s nothing like back-to-back Texas photo ops with Crown Prince Abdullah and Rep. Tom DeLay to give Americans a visceral sense that the Boss is on top of the gas-price situation and desperate to save working folks cash at the pump.

Just kidding, of course.

Actually, it’s hard to imagine two political events LESS likely to win the president points. George Bush held hands and pecked cheeks with Abdullah in traditional desert fashion – but the prince gave him the back of his hand on the issue of the moment: oil supply and prices, which the Saudis essentially control. Then the president welcomed the embattled DeLay into his photo space in Galveston. That was no energy-issue coup, either. Until lobbyist Jack Abramoff came into the picture, DeLay’s best-known corporate ties were to corporate titans such as Kenneth Lay of Enron in his home town of Houston.

That Midas touch?

Across a range of issues, and in a number of subtle and not-so-subtle ways, the Bush Administration seems to have lost its touch. Is it losing momentum in a serious and permanent way? Yes, Bush has been down politically before, and recovered smartly. He’s a fighter, and has the ability to ignore the gloom and doom around him. Yes, the Democrats don’t have much of an answer to him other than to shout “no” on a host of issues. Still, despite Republican control of virtually every lever of power in ashington – in a way because of that very fact – Bush finds himself playing defense.

A lot of thoughtful conservatives are having serious second thoughts about George W. Bush. His failure to act upon core values of fiscal conservatism and sovereignty is a growing concern.

Donations to conservative organizations and think tanks are in sharp decline. A lot of conservatives have decided to stop giving financial support because they are losing faith in the ability of these groups to have any effect on administration policies.

Bush has an engaging personality, but he’s not running for office anymore. He is already a very lame duck.

In concert with Republican party leaders in Congress, the White House has been unable to get its judicial appointments approved and the fight over John Bolton’s appointment as UN ambassador suggests the party lacks unity on Capitol Hill. Bolton has been confirmed four times for previous positions. Unless the GOP can unite to overcome the obstructionism of the Democrats, it bodes ill for the party.

If conservatives stay home for the 2006 elections, power can shift to the Democrats.
People are increasingly worried about the huge budget deficit created by a President and a Congress that have been on a spending binge. The national debt has increased by $2.16 billion every day since September 30, 2004. It is now a cliché that Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill while in office. New "entitlements" added to Medicare for prescriptions will add still more to the rising tide of national debt. It is not "if" the economy will reach a tipping point this accumulated debt cannot be
paid, but when.

Compounding fears is the appearance of an increasingly shaky economy that includes rising inflation and major corporations like General Motors in trouble. Wall Street is experiencing early tremors that forecast a bear market.

An issue reaching critical mass are the illegal immigrants flowing across our southern border. The assertion that they are necessary to do the work that Americans will not is nonsense. With the exception of the agricultural sector that has always depended on migrant workers, there are many jobs American workers would take if they weren’t already being given to undocumented workers paid in cash. Illegal workers sent $20 billion dollars home to Mexico last year!

To: MikeEdwards:
The Republican leadership has managed to alienate both of its wings - a remarkable feat considering the majorities they won across the board a couple of months ago. On this thread so far I've seen conservatives angry about immigration, and conservatives angry about spending policies. These issues are important, but they were never the reason my wing voted for the Republicans for all these 30 years.

Pro-lifers have been unified on just one thing: protecting life. We understood long ago that this meant getting Republican majorities to change the composition of the courts, and for pro-life judges to reverse Roe v. Wade. That's always been the strategy, and come last November, we were crowned with success. And that very DAY, Arlen Specter - new head of the Senate Judiciary Committee - stood up and warned the President not to press a "radical" slate of judges who would overturn Roe.

The Republican Party ignored the howls of pro-lifers. So the pro-lifers took a "wait and see" attitude when Specter was installed. Well, in just the past three weeks we saw the Republican party fail spectacularly and catastrophically on life issues.

First there was the Terri Schiavo debacle, in which the Bush boys themselves and Congress and the Republican-controlled courts (Greer: Republican; Justice Kennedy: Republican) all washed their hands of the matter and killed her. And then Frist waffled and thus far has failed to pass the nuclear option, despite thre being 55 Senators.

Pro-lifers are not very calculating souls. Most are devout Christians and not very political. They're not going to change parties. What they will do is stay home. And with them gone, the Republican majority will collapse. At this point, all the Republicans can do is pass the nuclear option. That would stanch the bleeding. They have lost trust, but not all of it. If they don't, they are doomed in 2006 and for a long time thereafter. If the pro-lifers leave, many of them will turn back to their private lives and faith and not enter worldly politics again. Republicans are blowing it, and it starts with the failure of both Bushes in the Schiavo case. They showed weakness, and became lame ducks the instant they did. It's too bad. But it is what it is.
41 posted on 04/26/2005 11:42:56 AM PDT by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)

Issue 2: immigration (code for economic worries, jobs) next poster:

To: MikeEdwards:
that piece absolutely spot on imo.i know it is treasonous, but i am either sitting out 2006 or voting straight libertarian (which means sitting out).probably the same in 2008 the way things are advancing presently.we are up to our eyeballs in illegals working for half wages, in the meantime our taxes, fees, fines and penalties are going up (only for the legals). our hospitals and municipalities are going bankrupt, and we are paying $2.25 a gallon for gas to get to the jobs that we no longer have because they left for china or mexico.

in my town there is one empty (for 3 years now) osram facility that went to mexico, and a second closing operations in a year (800 more layoffs). also our hunt memorial hospital, long since bankrupt and currently (imo)the most expensive sparrow nesting site in north america.it will be worse when the dems regain control, but likely the total collapse they will inevitably cause (i'm from massachusetts, i've seen it before) will bring about a new generation of real leaders. if not, we all will have to learn to become landscapers and chimney sweeps for trial lawyers, college professors and other "government" employees. massachusetts been there too... that was the
"massachusetts miracle".at present i would not give the gop the steam off of my urine never mind a vote or donation.above is my donation to the gop.
49 posted on 04/26/2005 12:00:02 PM PDT by mmercier

Donations to conservative organizations and think tanks are in sharp decline. A lot of conservatives have decided to stop giving financial support because they are losing faith in the ability of these groups to have any effect on administration policies.

Yep, that describes me. As I responded to Ken Mehlman's latest solitication:

Hi Ken,
I can't believe you sent this while I'm reading that Stoneless Frist is negiotating with the DemocRATS.

Hypocrite? Talk to Frist.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-ews/1391058/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1391054/posts

Are we the majority or not?

Mitch McConnell said Sunday we have the votes.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1390409/posts

VP Cheney has said he'll gladly break a tie.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1384952/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1389219/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1384952/posts

What more do we need?
Why can't we "git-er-done?"
We need to get a pair, grow up and like the
MAJORITY we are! I guarantee you if the situation were reversed the DemocRATS would be beating us up so bad our mothers wouldn't recognize us. I truly dislike the DemocRATS and all they stand for. But they got STONES!

upchuckAiken, SC

PS -
1. Judges
2. Bolton
3. Criminal aliens
4. Social Security

Four issues that MUST be resolved to our benefit. If not, 2006 and 2008 are gonna be total disasters for us.
48 posted on 04/26/2005 11:56:44 AM PDT by upchuck ("If our nation be
destroyed, it would be from the judiciary." ~ Thomas Jefferson)

April 26, 2005 -- WASHINGTON — President Bush yesterday held hands with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and took him on a stroll through a field of bluebonnet flowers at his Texas ranch in a pitch to get the Saudis to pump more oil.

They embraced and traded air kisses on both cheeks after the prince, clad in flowing robes, arrived nearly 30 minutes late for his second visit to the Bush ranch in Crawford. The president firmly held the hand of his guest, who's in his 80s, and guided the Saudi ruler through the field of blooming bluebonnets as they headed to an office for a few hours of meetings.

"[My] personal relationship with the crown prince is important," Bush told reporters
just before Abdullah arrived.

When Bush and Abdullah held hands walking into their meeting, the gesture prompted questions about two men showing that kind of physical intimacy. Fred Jones, the National Security Council spokesman, said hand-holding is an Arab expression of ''friendship, respect and trust.''

The gesture goes further than a symbol of friendship, according to James Zogby, of the Arab American Institute, a Washington-based Arab civil rights organization. ''The president and Crown Prince Abdullah were also sending a real political message that they are partners and friends and intend to remain that way,'' Zogby said.

''To the Saudi people, the message was that their leader has the respect and support of the American president. And the fact that President Bush confidently took the crown prince's hand and held it all the way into the office said to Americans, 'This is my friend and I am going to walk with him,' " Zogby said.

CRAWFORD, Texas -- President Bush yesterday pressed Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah to increase the flow of crude oil from his nation's vast reserves, but failed during their meeting to win any short-term relief for Americans pummeled by
sky-high gasoline prices.

Instead, Bush administration officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley, touted long-range plans already
offered by the Saudis to increase capacity and production by several million
barrels per day by the end of the decade.

...

A joint statement by the two leaders reflected continued tensions over the issue of democratic change, but did not criticize Saudi Arabia's poor human rights record.

It said: "The United States considers that nations will create institutions that reflect the history, culture and traditions of their societies; it does not seek to impose its own style of government on the government and people of Saudi Arabia."

"There is no shortage of crude oil," said Adel Aljubeir, foreign affairs advisor to Prince Abdullah. " . . . It would not make a difference if we put an extra 1.5 to 2 million barrels of oil on the market."

The price hikes, he said, are a result of a confluence of factors, including: increased demand, limited refinery capacity, a lack of spare production capacity and the fear permeating the market because of the ongoing violence in Iraq. Some oil policy experts agreed there is relatively little Saudi Arabia can do in the short run to lower
oil prices. The country is producing about 9.5 million barrels of oil a day -- close to its nearly 11 million-barrel capacity.

American officials, who had chosen to ignore Mr. Chávez through much of last year, now recognize the need for a longer-term strategy to deal with a leader who is poised to win a second six-year term in elections next year.

A multiagency task force in Washington has been working on shaping a new approach, one that high-ranking American policy makers say would most likely veer toward a harder line. United States support for groups that Chávez supporters say oppose the government has been a source of tension in the past. Under the plans being considered, American officials said, that support may increase.

...

"What's happening here is they realize this thing is deteriorating rapidly and it's going to require some more attention," said a high-ranking Republican aide on Capitol Hill who works on Latin America policy. "The current look-the-other-way policy is not working."The United States, he said, is particularly concerned because Venezuela is one of four top providers of foreign oil to the United States. "You can't write him off," the aide said of Mr. Chávez. "He's sitting on an energy source that's critical to us."

A main problem for the United States is that Washington has little, if any, influence
over Caracas. The high price of oil has left Venezuela with no need for the loans or other aid that the United States could use as leverage. Nor does the Bush administration have much support in Latin America, where left-leaning leaders now govern two-thirds of the continent. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to raise concerns about Venezuela in a four-country tour through the region this week. Political analysts say she will have a hard time finding support. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, on a recent trip to Brazil, publicly raised concerns about Mr. Chávez. Days later, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, in a meeting in Venezuela with Mr. Chávez and the leaders of Colombia and Argentina, pointedly said, "We don't accept defamation and insinuations against a compañero," meaning a close friend.

Newsweek reported, in its May 2 edition, that British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw complained about Bolton to then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell in November 2003. Citing a "former Bush administration official who was there," Newsweek said Straw told Powell that Bolton -- Powell's undersecretary for arms control and international security -- was making it impossible to reach an agreement on Iran's nuclear program.

According to the official, Newsweek reports, Powell then turned to an aide and said, "Get a different view on [the Iranian problem]. Bolton is being too tough." Newsweek said British officials "at the highest level" persuaded the White House to keep Bolton off the negotiating team that ultimately convinced Libya to give up its nuclear program.

Bolton was unwilling to support a compromise under which the United States would
drop its goal of regime change in favor of "policy change" in exchange for
Libya's disarmament, the magazine reported.

None of the dozens of messages reviewed by The New York Times were from Mr. Bolton. But the correspondence, spanning a period from February to September 2002, included e-mail sent to Mr. Bolton by his principal assistant, Frederick Fleitz, as well as extensive exchanges between Mr. Fleitz and Christian P. Westermann, the State Department's top expert on biological weapons who clashed sharply with Mr. Bolton over Cuba.

The messages included a Sept. 25, 2002 note in which Thomas Fingar, the No. 2 official in the State Department intelligence branch, deplored what he said had been the toll inflicted on Mr. Westermann by Mr. Bolton and Mr. Fleitz.

"I am dismayed and disgusted that unwarranted personal attacks are affecting you in this way," Mr. Fingar said in a message sent to Mr. Westermann. Two days earlier, in another message, Mr. Westermann wrote to Mr. Fingar to say that "personal attacks, harassment and impugning of my integrity" by Mr. Bolton and Mr. Fleitz were "now affecting my work, my health and dedication to public service."

The correspondence provided to the Senate committee also includes a Feb. 12 message sent to Mr. Bolton by Mr. Fleitz, who disparages what he calls the "already cleared (wimpy) language on Cuba" that Mr. Westermann had recommended be used by Mr. Bolton in his planned speech. It made clear that Mr. Westermann had proposed language that reiterated existing, consensus assessments by American intelligence agencies, rather than the stronger assertions that Mr. Bolton had been pressing to make about possible efforts by Cuba to obtain biological weapons, which Mr. Bolton contended were borne out by some highly classified intelligence reports.

"I explained to Christian that it was a political judgment as to how to interpret this data, and the I.C. should do as we asked and sanitize my language as long as sources and methods are not compromised," Mr. Fleitz wrote to Mr. Bolton, referring to the intelligence community. Mr. Fleitz said of Mr. Westermann, "He strongly disagrees with us."

...Congressional Democrats are also pressing the administration for a more detailed explanation of why Bolton requested unedited intelligence intercepts from the National Security Agency which included the names of American government officials. According to a letter that the State Department sent this week to Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, one of Bolton's most vocal critics, over the past four years Bolton on 10 occasions requested that NSA supply him with unedited intercepts that included U.S. officials’ names. Under normal procedures, NSA, which is severely restricted from spying on Americans, is required by its own rules to edit out the names of any American citizens who are mentioned in intercepts the agency collects from its vast international network which eavesdrops on international communications and breaks foreign government codes.

Bolton opponents have speculated that Bolton might have sought the unedited NSA intercepts so that he could use them to try and promote his policy positions in the administration and undermine the positions of officials who opposed him. Administration and Congressional sources tell NEWSWEEK, however, that the State Department and NSA over the last few days have reviewed their records and discovered that since 2001, State Department officials made an estimated 400 requests for intercepts which included the names of Americans or citizens of other countries which are NSA's partners in its international eavesdropping network, which include Great Britain, Canada and Australia.

Bolton's supporters argue that his 10 requests for such material over the last four years therefore are insignificant. Bolton's critics say that they cannot tell whether or not Bolton's requests for the information were significant until they have some sense of the content of the unedited intercepts Bolton had requested.

Congressional investigators are also pressing the State Department to release extensive e-mail exchanges between Bolton, his aides, and the State Department and CIA officials that Bolton tangled with regarding Cuban WMD. Before Bolton's initial confirmation hearing earlier this month, the State Department sent the Foreign Relations Committee a sheaf of relevant e-mails which appeared to be unclassified. But the Department later sent another set of the same material covered by a classified cover-sheet, leading some Bolton opponents to suggest the administration was trying to re-classify formerly non-secret information to avoid public embarrassment to Bolton.

Congressional sources say that the administration has now relented and de-classified part of the material, but Bolton's critics who are pressing for further de-classifications expect some of the documentation to be made public later this week.

The White House also helped organize Republicans to speak out in favor of Bolton yesterday. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said on the Senate floor that Bolton's temper should not disqualify him. "I believe John Bolton could provide the medicine the United Nations needs," he said.

You know who is killing themselves on this, and it's not going to be readily apparent because you're not going to see polls on it and you're not going to see man on the street and woman on the street interviews out in the red states, but the people in this country who were watching this are going to understand that we got hit on 9/11. The UN is totally incapable of protecting us and protecting anybody else. It's nothing but a corrupt institution as currently constituted.

We need some hardball at the UN. We need some hardball in the area of national defense. We need some people who are going to kick butt and take names later. We need some people who are not going to subject the defense of this country to a bunch of wacko diplomats at the United Nations, most of whom are not interested in our own security in the first place. The status quo libs want to maintain a corrupt institution because it is opposed to America just as they are opposed to America when George Bush is president, and that's what this is all about.

Gov. Short Fuse blew on Oct. 20 when federal rules delayed his plane's takeoff as the president arrived in Columbus. As it often does when the president flies, the FAA issued a Temporary Flight Restriction, commonly referred to as a no-fly order. When this order is in effect, no planes other than essential aircraft are cleared for takeoff. That reduces the chances of a terrorist staging a kamikaze attack on Air Force One.

The order kept the governor and his plane on the ground. And he was honked.
Gov. Voinovich called it "bull"-something and ordered his pilot to break the rules and take off. He even dared the control tower to "shoot us down." That, too, would have cost. One hour of flying time for an F-15 Eagle fighter jet runs $3,399 to $4,037.

The nomination appears to hang on what emerges on several points. One is whether the Senate panel substantiates accusations from a former contract worker on an Agency for International Development project that Mr. Bolton, as a private lawyer hired by her employer, tried to intimidate her in 1994. A co-worker has corroborated some of the charges made by the former contract worker, Melody Townsel, while the president of the company has challenged some of her claims.

A second point involves documents sought by the committee from the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency, to clarify conflicting accounts about Mr. Bolton's role in several matters, including his attempts while working as an under secretary of state to seek the transfer of several employees, and his requests for identifying information about American officials who were mentioned in or participated in conversations intercepted by the National Security Agency. He addressed some of these issues in his public