At Bolton Hearing, Some Unnatural Phenomena

The Washington Post ^ | Friday, July 28, 2006 | Dana Milbank

[Gondring]

It would be no exaggeration to say that yesterday's confirmation hearing for John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was a washout.

Three hours into the dreary and desultory proceedings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a torrent of water began to pour from light fixtures in the ceiling, creating a waterfall between the nominee and the senators.
[...]
As it happens, the cascade provided a fitting coda for a hearing in which both sides seemed to be suggesting that the administration's foreign policy -- at least the one unveiled during President Bush's first term -- was all washed up. Neoconservatives dreamed that the flexing of American muscle in Iraq would cause the world to fall in line behind U.S. leadership; instead, the administration is struggling to build consensus at the United Nations on Iran and North Korea and discouraging any whisper of unilateralism or preemptive military strikes.
[...]
Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [...] gushed: "One of the concerns everyone had was you might go up there and do your own thing and didn't understand how important consensus was. And I think you've been very, very active in working on consensus."
[...]
[Russ] Feingold, too, was in the strange position of scolding Bolton for being insufficiently tough on Iran, North Korea and the U.N. Human Rights Council.
[...]

Throughout the session, Bolton dropped nuggets sure to offend the hawks. He said he "unequivocally" thought the United States should pay its full U.N. dues. He said there should "absolutely" be a "viable, contiguous Palestinian state." And, after aides distributed his prepared testimony to reporters, they returned with a revised copy that excised a sentence defending the Israeli military action in Lebanon.

That dripping sound was the lifeblood draining out of the neocon movement.

[eureka!]

Re#22 Here's a snippet of the Ketchup Boy exchange: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1673744/posts

[griswold3]

Kerry was calling for "bilateral" talks with N.Korea. Bolton simply told him that "bilateral" talks could be held during the six nation round table discussions. Why couldn't Kerry understand that the multilateral talks are more powerful than "bilateral" talks? Why should we "stick our necks on the chopping block" during "bilateral" talks? I am totally convinced Kerry is "stuck on stupid" and you can't fix stupid!!