We did it! Democrats are past 41 votes against cloture. CSPAN2. Senate Dems have agreed to a 6PM ET cloture vote. Dems are urging delay to resolve the records impasse, says the NYT. If 60 senators vote for cloture, which requires some Dems, debate ends and the Senate votes to confirm today; that vote requires only a simple majority. Which Dems may cave on cloture?


NEW: NBC Says We Likely Don’t Have 41 Votes | Today’s Speeches | Clue from Voinovich’s Speech Yesterday | Dems Demand Top-Secret Docs | Thune Wavers | Rockefeller’s Dilemma | Newsweek on NSA Intercepts. More below:

Update [2005-5-26 13:37:47 by susanhu]: From NBC: “In a last-ditch effort, two Democratic senators, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, and Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, worked Thursday to round up the 41 votes needed to stop the nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. envoy to the United Nations. … Democrats Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska each said in interviews late Wednesday they would vote with the Republicans to end debate. … Voinovich too …

Update [2005-5-26 12:53:45 by susanhu]: From TWN:

May 26, 2005

The Bolton Speeches: The Good, The Great, The Very Bad, and The Ugly


There is a diligent soul over at DailyKos posting segments of all of the Bolton speeches on the floor of the Senate. It’s a great archive to have available for those of you who may have missed Voinovich, Levin, Boxer, or Biden yesterday — or Senator Pat Robert’s miserly response — or Obama’s fantastic speech today.


It’s worth checking these out now that “Alias” is over for the season.

Help name this thread: Crack your Thesaurus, rattle your brain, search the recesses of your dark side. Blowpipe Bolton, Blowup Bolton, Blowfish Bolton, Bolthead Bolton…. go for it. We can have a group choose by “4s,” or if need be, a poll.


The definition of bola from Webster’s: A weapon made of a long cord or thong with heavy balls at the end, used for throwing at and entangling cattle.


_____________________________________________


I’ll add any breaking news here. You do the same.


_____________________________________________


Clue From Voinovich’s Speech Yesterday:


6:00 AM: CSPAN is replaying Voinovich’s speech, and I just noticed he said this: “There are several theories how Bolton got this nomination, but I won’t go into that on the floor of the Senate but if anyone wishes to talk to me directly about this, I will tell them (or words to that effect).” Might that be the gossip Steve Clemons heard about?


Dems Demand Top-Secret NSA Intercepts, via the NYT:

Mr. Biden and Mr. Dodd said that the majority leader, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, would renew the plea to the White House.

The information sought is related to Mr. Bolton’s handling of information requested from the N.S.A. and to his role in a 2003 dispute over intelligence assessments on Syria. American intelligence officials rejected as overstated testimony that Mr. Bolton sought to deliver to Congress about Syria’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.


The State Department has refused to share the information, saying that to disclose documents showing the internal debate could have a chilling effect on future discussions.


The only information that has been provided to Congress about Mr. Bolton’s handling of the N.S.A. intelligence came in a briefing two weeks ago by Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, the new principal deputy director of national intelligence, to Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat. If the administration refuses to provide more information by Thursday evening, and if Mr. Biden and Mr. Dodd stand their ground, Republicans, who have 55 seats in the Senate, would need votes from at least five Democrats to push through a vote on Mr. Bolton this week. If the Democrats muster 41 votes to keep the debate alive, a vote would be postponed until early June, after the Senate returns from the holiday recess.


In their letters on Wednesday, Mr. Roberts and Mr. Rockefeller provided the first concrete information about Mr. Bolton’s handling of highly classified information provided to him by the N.S.A., in response to his requests. Both said there was evidence that Mr. Bolton had shared information with a subordinate at the State Department about a highly classified February 2003 report in which the subordinate was named.


Mr. Roberts sought to minimize the significance of the episode, saying it appeared Mr. Bolton had not known that the N.S.A. had requested that the information not be shared with others. But Mr. Rockefeller said it demanded further exploration.


The episode is one of 10 in which Mr. Bolton had previously acknowledged using his authority as undersecretary of state to obtain from the N.S.A. information about the identities of Americans mentioned in intercepted communications.


Under normal procedures, the names of such Americans are deleted from intelligence reports prepared by the N.S.A. to protect the Americans’ privacy and can be released only upon request and after a high-level review. The names are regarded as so secret that General Hayden refused to share them with Mr. Roberts and Mr. Rockefeller.


In describing a two-week review, both Mr. Roberts and Mr. Rockefeller said they had been convinced that there was nothing inappropriate in Mr. Bolton’s decisions to request the information. But Mr. Rockefeller raised questions not only about Mr. Bolton’s decision to share it, but also about whether he had been candid in telling the N.S.A. that he needed the names to better understand the report from which they were deleted.


In the case of the February 2003 report, Mr. Rockefeller disclosed, Mr. Bolton had “used the information he was provided” by the N.S.A. “to seek out the State Department official mentioned in the report to congratulate him.” Mr. Rockefeller said the episode “demands further attention” because it raised questions about Mr. Bolton’s conduct.


Neither senator identified the State Department official involved, but Mr. Roberts said in his letter that he worked for Mr. Bolton and had been cleared to handle classified intelligence information.

Via War and Piece, Thune Wavering:

Thune wavering on Bolton? Could this have something to do with base closings? Apparently, yes. More from the Post and the LAT …


Rockefeller’s Dilemma, via TWN:

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) does not support confirmation of John Bolton as America’s Ambassador to the U.N.


The only problem is that he knows more about Bolton than nearly any other Senator and can’t do much with what he knows.


Rockefeller and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Pat Roberts (R-KA) received a classified briefing over two weeks ago from Deputy Director for National Intelligence Michael Hayden on the NSA intercept material that Bolton requested during his four year tenure as Under Secretary of State for International Security and Arms Control. Specifically, Bolton requested to know the ‘identities’ of U.S. officials’ names that are routinely scrubbed from top-secret NSA intercepts.


TWN has learned that most of the intercepts are clustered around two periods of time in 2003 and 2004. Speculation abounds that the intercepts may show patterns of serious misjudgement on Bolton’s part and a ‘personal vanity’ trying to learn what others were saying about him — not an appropriate justification for delving into the nation’s ‘most secret’ secrets.


Since the Hayden briefing of Rockefeller and Roberts, others have been called to the Committee for further investigation of this matter — including the Bolton-victimized State Department INR analyst Christian Westermann and Bolton’s former chief of staff, Fred Fleitz.


Interestingly, Fleitz never gave up his portfolio of responsibilities at the CIA while he was working for Bolton — which thus helps explain why so much unpackaged intel was constantly coming from certain corners of the CIA to bolster Bolton’s crusades. Interestingly, Fleitz, on Bolton’s behalf, was playing the CIA and State INR off of each other, constantly cherry-picking the intel that fit Bolton’s needs and rarely respecting either CIA intel packaging procedures, or State Department INR procedures.


The Intelligence Committee also met other intelligence analysts as well — and there is an ongoing “inquiry” into what Bolton and Fleitz did with the intelligence they lifted from the NSA intercepts. Some might even call this an “investigation” into Bolton.


However, the SSCI does not have jurisdiction in matters related to the confirmation hearings of John Bolton — but it does have powers to consider whether laws were broken — even the spirit of the law when it comes to potential breaches of national security-related intelligence protocols.


Media with intelligence shops need to dig further into this SSCI investigation and learn what state the Bolton investigation is in.


Senator Pat Roberts does not want to proceed, but Rockefeller has failed to give his consent to any letter to the Foreign Relations Committee about Bolton that white-washes what was learned from the NSA briefing.


And note: Senator Roberts and Rockefeller did not receive the list of “names” that Bolton received. Thus, there was enough that was worrisome in the Hayden briefing to warrant further inquiry.


It seems to me to be highly unusual and wrong-headed for Frist to push a vote on Bolton when in fact there is an active investigation underway about Bolton and his former Chief-of-Staff in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.


Frist should speak with Senator Pat Roberts to see “how bad” things are on Bolton. That should not be a classified revelation by Roberts.


But the worst case for the country — for both sides of the aisle frankly — is that Bolton makes his way forward, possibly squeaking by with a narrow confirmation — and then leaks begin to occur about these NSA intercepts that indict Bolton and Fleitz’s recklessness with sensitive national security intelligence.


Rockefeller knows more than most. I speculate that he is keeping Senator Roberts from white-washing what they have found, but Rockefeller cannot easily reveal his concerns. What needs to be nudged forward is that a real inquiry on Bolton is still in process.


That inquiry should be completed before any United States Senator considers the Bolton nomination. They may not wait.


But those who failed to consider the national security questions involved before rushing to support Bolton may find themselves on very fragile ground if the forthcoming leaks tell the story that many suspect.


— Steve Clemons


Posted by steve at May 25, 2005 10:23 AM

Newsweek on NSA Intercepts, via TWN:

Newsweek Reports on NSA Intercepts Link to Possible Bolton Vote Delay

Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff have a nice overview on how the NSA intercepts controversy is surfacing like a semi-concealed submarine in the Bolton debate.

This story has been percolating for weeks, but few have serious journalists have looked at the triple layer chess confrontation that is being waged by multiple players in this process.

On one front, the White House has defied Senate Foreign Relations Committee CHAIRMAN Richard Lugar — a Republican and supporter of Bolton — on his request for the NSA intercepts.

On another, John Negroponte flipped off Senator Biden by stating that to get information on the NSA intercepts, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would have to grovel before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for further information.

On yet another front, Senator Pat Roberts prevented Senators Lugar and Biden from attending the NSA intercepts briefing two and a half weeks ago given by Deputy Director of National Intelligence Michael Hayden.

But today, finally, these battles have erupted and have had political impact — though all of this was brewing for a very long time with little reporting.

Isikoff and Hosenball report that because of the failure of the administration to comply with Senate evidence requests, the Bolton opposition may appeal for and actually get yet another delay on the Bolton vote.

This would be useful as there is more on the Bolton story to tell the nation, and a few more days could be important.

From the story:

On Wednesday, the Senate opened floor debate on the Bolton nomination. But two Bolton critics on the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Dodd and ranking Democrat Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, announced that unless the administration turned over additional information about the uncensored NSA intercepts to the committee, they might insist that the Senate hold a cloture vote, which would require 60 senators to approve a motion to halt debate, before calling a final vote on Bolton’s confirmation. Several Senate Democratic aides said that they believed that Senate Republicans would have trouble finding 60 votes to cut off debate on Bolton’s nomination if the administration failed to turn over additional information.

Democratic congressional sources said that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist had indicated that he was pressing the administration for more information about Bolton’s dealings with the NSA. If Bolton’s nomination does not clear the Senate this week, the earliest a final vote could be held on his nomination would be after a weeklong Memorial Day recess.

All Senators need to study the Bolton file and ask themselves whether a vote in favor of Bolton is something that he or she can strongly defend given all of the evidence that has been gathered against the nomination. Ignorance will be no excuse. Trusting the judgment of President Bush in this case will be no excuse.

A vote in favor of John Bolton — given all that we now know — is a vote of considerable consequence for any United States Senator who agrees to confirm him. It will matter. And those who fail to read the material — who just go with the pro-Bolton flow — will be faced with challenges when the opportunities present themselves.

There are no excuses good enough to support Mr. Bolton — not anymore. Not given what any reasonable person who has studied this situation knows.

— Steve Clemons

Posted by steve at May 26, 2005 12:51 AM