Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

May 7, 2005
Archaic Concepts

Steve Clemons of The Washington Note (aka Bolton central) reports:

The word is out.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will not get the much-wanted National Security Agency intercepts in which John Bolton expressed so much interest during his tenure as Under Secretary of State for International Security and Arms Control. Under Secretaries with questionable intentions can get the transcripts — but Senators with Constitutional oversight responsibilities seemingly cannot.

Bolton was successful in requesting the names of Americans who where part of international communication the NSA intercepted in at least 10 cases.

It is unknown why Bolton asked for these names to be revealed to him, but it seems likely that he did use them to undermine those persons reputations or their politics.

If the Republicans on the Committee cave in to the Executive’s stand by consenting on Bolton for the UN ambassador position without knowing the NSA transcripts, the names revealed to Bolton and the reasons for Bolton’s requests, they will lose the last bit of their autonomy and authority in the US government.

But then, why should should they hang on to such archaic concepts like seperation of powers?

Posted by b on May 7, 2005 at 16:29 UTC | Permalink
Comments

Thanks for posting this, Bernhard. This is a big deal. It will put the Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in an impossible bind.

Posted by: maxcrat | May 7 2005 18:56 utc | 1

Yeah, but what about Michael Jackson scaring that poor girl in Georgia so she had to cancel her wedding? America wants to know.
/snark off

Posted by: stumpy | May 7 2005 20:56 utc | 2

It is really sad that this branch of government that a few years ago thought it was their constitutional duty to shoot a watermelon, now thinks that this is out of bounds. It maybe time for another big Byrd speech on the responsibilities of the Senate.

Posted by: Bubb Rubb | May 7 2005 21:22 utc | 3

I have a few minutes to spare; I’d like to take a stab at synthesizing where the US of A are and where it’s going.
Please feel free to jump in and pick apart my short-hand graphs.
– Domestic: it seems the NeoCons have either successfully staged a coup or are in the process of (cf. stolen elections, twice, filibuster, Bolton, etc.)
– Economy: Don’t understand much, but it’s going to tank, not if, but when and how much? Oil: lasting emergency. Dollar sinking? Depression threatens.
– Society: the very rich will grow richer (what better time to buy assets than in a recession?) while the growing poor (bankruptcy bill etc.) will make excellent cannon fodder (want a green card? your debt written off?) or will worry too much about their survival to be a nuisance. Complicit media (as always) will keep the population entertained.
– Religion: as always in such periods, growth/return of Orthodoxy Faith in force, growth of intolerance, concomitant decline in Science & Innovation. US no longer “world leader”.
– Foreign: overt domination of tde Middle-East sought (oil); increased antagonism towards rival powers (EU, China). As economy tanks, brute military force takes over as leverage. Add to the mix: passive opposition/sly undermining from rival powers (fearing US might) plus revenge-driven Arab para-military (so-called terrorist) strikes, pushing the US further into decline.
– Psyche: enormous disconnect/denial in US population between self-image and reality; plus historical inability to compromise; will break rather than bend.
Conclusion: this reminds me of the Pre-Fall of the USSR, with better TV. I need not elaborate here. Worse in some respects because of oil (or lack thereof).
I think the US is already on a course that cannot be reversed. Or can it? I don’t think so. Most of the factors listed above are already set.
So we are watching the beginning of the Fall and Break-Up of the USA in real time, as we watched that of the USSR 20 years ago.
What Russia became – oligarchs, broken military, disguised autocracy, massive pauperization, ec. – is likely the future of the US of A in the next decade.
As even Ukraine eventually chose to split, I’m not even taking the option of some States (California?) seceding off the table.
Planet-wise, I’d guess there’ll be massive reorganization of all flows following large-scale disruptions.

Posted by: Lupin | May 8 2005 8:51 utc | 4

Psyche: enormous disconnect/denial in US population between self-image and reality; plus historical inability to compromise
Lupin, you’re right on the button. One of the biggest denials is the West generally is the fact that the Soviets won WW2. I cannot even begin to express my disgust about Bush’s remarks on the eve of Russia’s celebrations of the end of WW2. (Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he, given that his grandfather, Prescott Bush, was trading with the enemy as late as 1942, when Europe had already been at war since 1939).
As The Times article notes:
The vital role played by the Soviet Union in smashing Nazi Germany, with a loss of almost 27m people, remains a huge source of pride in Russia. Opening two monuments at a memorial park on the outskirts of Moscow yesterday, Putin struck a strident nationalist tone.
“Our people not only defended their homeland, they liberated 11 European countries,” he said, after laying a wreath. “The Nazi war machine was broken on a battlefield from the Barents Sea to the Caucasus.”
27m people died as a result of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, but the Bush family continued to trade with the invaders. Bush is a disgrace to the American people, a disgrace to the world.

Posted by: Dismal Science | May 8 2005 9:46 utc | 5

Rice’s reason for withholding Bolton files: A chilling effect
WASHINGTON, May 8 – The State Department is refusing to make public internal documents sought by Senate Democrats in their attempt to seek more information about repeated clashes between John R. Bolton and American intelligence agencies over Syria, administration officials say.
In rejecting the request, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that the information involves “internal deliberations” and their disclosure could have a chilling effect on debates within the administration.
…In the letter, Ms. Rice said that the department “does not believe these requests to be specifically tied to the issues being deliberated by the Committee in connection with the nomination.” The letter was sent to the committee by Matthew A. Reynolds, acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, on behalf of Secretary Rice. A copy was provided by the State Department.
As they have been described by former intelligence officials, the disputes on Syria took place almost entirely behind the scenes. In the speeches and testimony about Syria that he delivered, the officials have said, Mr. Bolton toned down his assertions so that they fell within the guidelines that intelligence agencies insisted on.
Mr. Bolton’s defenders have said the internal disputes should be irrelevant to the committee’s deliberations. But in formal interviews with the committee staff, at least three former senior intelligence officials have described the debate on Syria as the most prominent example of instances in which Mr. Bolton pressed to make public assertions that went beyond those supported by objective intelligence assessments.

Posted by: Nugget | May 9 2005 18:39 utc | 6

Back to Main