Uncensored truth instead of propaganda from a Christian liberal.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Support The Troops - Bring Them Home

Those who think we don't support the troops because we want them brought home before another one of America's sons and daughters are killed or wounded have things backward. It's because we DO support them that we want them brought home. Those who want this travesty built on lies to continue, leaving them in harm's way for political gain are the ones who don't support them.



Our military has been betrayed by their own commander-in-chief. He has used the courage and patriotism of our troops for purposes that are not intended in the oath they swear to protect and defend the United States. We were in no danger from Iraq so there was nothing to protect or defend us against.



The idea that we are fighting "them" there so we don't have to fight "them" here is an absurdity. Terrorism is a tactic. A terrorist is someone who uses that tactic because of an ideology. You can't bomb an ideology or kill it with bullets. We are only creating more enemies and giving them more reasons to hate America. That makes us LESS safe.



Bush's idea that we are bringing democracy to the rest of the world because democratic nations don't attack other nations is wrong on two counts. One: you can't force democracy at the end of a gun. Two: we're a democratic nation and we attacked another nation.


We aren't giving the Iraqis freedom. You can't be free when you're occupied. The Constitution Iraq had under Saddam was the most secular in the Middle East. Indications are that the new one will incorporate sharia, Islamic law, which will impose more restrictions with harsher punishments so they will be less free than they were, particularly the women.


George Bush's actions has made things infinitely worse for the Iraqi people. There was no reason to invade and since we're making things worse, there is no logical, moral or any intelligent reason to "stay the course". If you discover you were driving down the wrong road, you don't continue on that same road because you'll never reach your destination and will only end up lost. Keeping our troops in Iraq until they have a trained military to protect themselves in unrealistic. We have the best trained and equipped military in the world and we have not been able to accomplish that.



Our presence is inflammatory and is fueling the fighting to drive us out. We would do no less if another country bombed, invaded and occupied America.



Support the troops. Get them out of harm's way and bring them home.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Criminal Confidentiality Protection

Freedom of the Press is essential to a democracy. A free press is necessary to act as a check to balance government power by keeping the people informed on government actions and conduct. No one would argue that when a whistleblower gives a journalist information exposing government wrongdoing that adversely affects the common good, that source's identity should be protected.

When the giving of certain information is, in itself a wrongdoing, you no longer can consider that person a source. That person is a criminal. When a journalist is no longer able to make the distinction between the two, it is time to hang up the notebook.

Judith Miller, a reporter for the New York Times, is serving a jail sentence for refusing to testify before a Federal Grand Jury investigating the leaking of the identity of a covert CIA operative. She is basing her refusal on the right of journalists to protect the identity of their sources.

In this case, the information her source provided was a breach of National Security by exposing the identity of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative working on WMD issues. Those issues were to gather intelligence enabling us to track the flow of those weapons and the materials used to make them in countries around the world. That exposure collapsed the mission that was helping to keep those weapons out of the hands of anti-American groups. As a consequence the CIA front company, Brewster Jennings, through which she posed as an energy consultant was also lost. CIA officials are still trying to establish the extent of the damage done to our intelligence community.

The motive for officials in the White House to sacrifice the safety and security of our nation and its citizens was to exact revenge on Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, for revealing that Bush lied about the threat posed by Iraq to justify the US planned invasion. In July, 2003 Wilson wrote an op-ed piece in the NY Times detailing a trip he agreed to undertake for the CIA the previous Feb. to see if he could confirm a report containing documents showing Saddam Hussein was attempting to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. His 20 year diplomatic career included assignments in Africa giving him contacts and high level entry into the Dept. of Mines and most Nigerian government offices. At the end of his eight day fact finding mission, he concluded that the report was false. No such attempt by Iraq had taken place in Niger and stated that in his debriefing to the CIA in early March, 2002. Several subsequent reports had confirmed his findings, including one from the UN head of the IAEA, El Barradei, who said the documents were obvious forgeries. He was therefore taken aback when he heard George Bush include that discounted claim ten months later in his State of the Union address.

To cover up the administration's manipulating, exaggerating and manufacturing intelligence that would support a legal basis for invading Iraq, it was necessary to discredit Wilson's article. To do that it was decided to portray him as unqualified to make that determination by saying the only reason he was sent to Niger was not bvecause of his ability and experience, but because his wife worked at the CIA and was responsible for his being sent.

It is surprising to see the almost universal support being given to Miller by other journalists for her choosing jail rather than reveal her source. She is being portrayed as a heroine protecting the First Amendment. It isn't the first time Miller was used as a propaganda tool. She filed many "scoops" appearing on the front page of the Times in the lead-up to the war with information from sources promoting the reasons to consider Iraq a dangerous threat to the US. After the invasion she was embedded with our troops in Iraq and filed stories with exclusives she was given by con man Ahmad Chalabi in Baghdad. The Times later apologized for publishing articles that promoted the war without verifying the accuracy of some of the claims made.

The question never asked is whether or not Miller was a willing tool in the White House propaganda machine promoting the march to war or was she duped? If she was an active participant, her using her shield of confidentiality to protect those who would jeopardize National Security to cover up a deliberate contrivance to justify an invasion has nothing to do with protecting the First Amendment. What she is protecting are treasonous criminals and her complicity in the treason. She is guilty of misusing the press to promote State propaganda and violated the Constitutional guarantee of a free press. If she was duped, she should have learned from past experience of being fed propaganda to promote war that she didn't have a source. Rather she was dealing with someone who was using her, used her again to commit a crime by proxy and was continuing to use her to shield him from prosecution for his crime. This is not a source entitled to be shielded by any cloak of confidentiality. If she was truly interested in protecting the Constitution, it is she who should have adopted the role of whistleblower and exposed the governmental wrongdoing of officials in the administration passing classified information that endangers our country to cover up governmental wrongdoing of lying us into war.

Judith Miller deserves no praise. There is nothing honorable about either willfully or negligently aiding and abetting treason.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Blaming the Messenger...AGAIN!

News shows have been interviewing the likes of Pat Buchanan, Charles Colson and G. Gordon Liddy about the revelation that Mark Felt was "Deep Throat". Not surprisingly they have condemned him. These are people who all worked for the corrupt Nixon administration.

Second only to the current Bush administration in secrecy, the Nixon presidency corruption would have continued committing its illegal actions if a brave and patriotic public servant hadn't blown the whistle.

Our Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It goes on to say, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government..."

Thank goodness Mark Felt did his duty. Hopefully another Patriot will expose the corruption of the Bush cabal.

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Is Newsweek Responsible?

Shoot the messenger! That seems to be the Republican cure-all.

In an attempt to place the blame for reporting on the torture being committed by the US, Newsweek is being painted with the "Blame America first" brush. Who should be blamed? Instead of being appalled at the torture being perpetrated, the Rove machine in manipulating us into being angry at it being reported. The military denied that the Koran was desecrated and that's supposed to be enough for us. We're supposed to ignore that everything the interrogators did was geared to insult the sensibilities of Muslim men and accept that it didn't include desecrating the Koran.

Scott McClellan said the Newsweek story damaged the image of the US and caused deaths. According to the Downing St. memo the White House knew full well that this war was unnecessary. Did an unprovoked invasion not damage our image? Did it not cause deaths?

In a case of deja vu, just as the planted Dan Rather story about Bush's AWOL halted any further questions about his military service, the Newsweek story being blamed for causing deaths will probably put an end to critics blaming Bush's determination to attack Iraq for causing deaths.

For anyone paying attention, it's a rather transparent ploy.

Saturday, May 14, 2005

Absolute Power

Lord Acton said, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Now that the Republicans are in power it seems not only to corrupt, power has become their religion and anything or anyone that attempts to check that power in the name of balance is labeled as being against "people of faith". They will change the rules just as Henry the VIII changed the rules of his religion when the Pope challenged his power and denied him a divorce.

These Neo Con Republicans have no interest in the Constitution unless it suits their purpose.

In 1788, James Madison published Federalist Paper #47 titled, "The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts". In it Madison wrote about the importance of the different branches of government to serve as checks and balances on each other.

"No political truth is of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty," wrote Madison. "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

The fact that 205 out of 215 of Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed for lifetime appointments is not enough for the "Powerists". Opposition is heresy. They must have absolute control and so, like Henry the VIII, they want to change the rules of the Senate and abandon the 200 year tradition of allowing the filibuster. The filibuster is a check on total power which would allow the minority party to prevent total control by the party in power.

This is a threat to democracy. It is also a barrier to accountability. We have abandoned the Geneva Conventions against torture. That policy did not originate with a handful of National Guardsmen. It came from the White House.

From the leaked London memo, we now know that the intelligence about WMD in Iraq was "fixed" to dupe the American people and our elected representatives to support an unnecessary and preventable war that this administration had already pre-planned to wage.

Would lifetime Bush appointed judges be apt to allow charges to be brought against him and his co-conspirators? Not likely.

The Republican Congressional clergy will simply denounce the opposers and accusers as immoral heretics and since the "Powerists" define morality the followers of their cult will believe them.

The American people must make a choice. Tyranny or Democracy.

Thursday, May 12, 2005

Should Politically Active Churches be Tax Exempt?

Churches engaged in religious activities have enjoyed tax exempt status. When churches host a telethon like the recent Justice Sunday that claim a political party wants to filibuster "people of faith" because they disagree with their politics and when a church wants to oust members who don't vote the way the pastor wants them to vote, it's time to re-think the tax exempt status.

In order to maintain its 501(c)(3) tax exempt status churches are prohibited from "any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

In the lead up to the 2004 election, the Catholic Church denounced John Kerry's stance on abortion rights and said anyone who voted for that stance would be in violation of Catholic doctrine.

There have been numerous violations of the IRS rule since 2000. Any endorsement of a particular political candidate by a minister at an offical church function or in an official church publication is grounds to pull the tax exemption.

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Defining Morality

This week we learned that a Republican Mayor trolled gay chat rooms and had sex with men. Also this week we found out that reknowned Republican Christian Reconstructionist Neil Horsely's first girlfriend was a mule. Today, we find that Republican nominee for Ambassador to the UN forced his ex-wife to have group sex and made many paid visits to Plato's Retreat, a swinging sex club in NY in the 70's and 80's.

These are the same folks who want to define our morality. Are they kidding? There's a Republican sex scandal that comes out every other day. These aren't just sex scandals. These are perverted sex scandals.

If you want to protect your children from indecency, the solution is clear. Don't let them anywhere near a Republican!

Is This Our Tax Dollars At Work?

Are public funds being used for George Bush's "town hall meetings" to discuss Social Security that only supporters of Bush's privatization/destruction plan are allowed to attend? People have been denied entrance to these supposedly "public" talks for no other reason than a parking lot check of their vehicle revealed a bumper sticker that read "No Blood For Oil".

Have we heard about any of these restrictions on mainstream media? This is not a campaign stump paid for by campaign contributions of supporters. These are our tax dollars at work. A gay prostitute can gain entrance to the White House Press Room and address Bush but someone with a bumper sticker protesting the Iraq invasion cannot gain entrance to hear Bush speak in their home town auditorium about Social Security, a subject unrelated to either Iraq or their bumper sticker.

Showing film clips on the news of Bush entering to wild applause and his remarks being met with cheers is simply staged propaganda with a selected audience masquerading as "fair and balanced" news. In reality it is neither fair, nor balanced, nor news. The news would be that public funds are again being used to produce propaganda to promote programs that can't stand on their own merit.

The Sounds of Silence

Listen! Do you hear that? It’s the sound of silence. And the silence is deafening. Something’s very wrong. There shouldn’t be any silence. There should be multitudes of voices raised in outrage. What has happened to us as Americans?

There was a time not too long ago when the people of this country were good and their motives pure, when they stood for justice and tolerance, a time when America was respected throughout the world.

What has changed the very fiber of people that they now accept their government torturing people? They saw the evidence with their own eyes in a series of pictures from Abu Ghraib. They heard the reports of the CIA “rendering” people for interrogation to countries that permit torture. Ironically, some people who supported the invasion of Iraq claimed it was justified to prevent Saddam Hussein from torturing people. Yet there is silence.

There was a time when we valued our freedoms and fought to defend our democracy. Now our government asks our military to fight to spread democracy to other nations while it passes laws to restrict our freedoms here and we accept it in the name of security. We laud elections in countries we invade but refuse to have a paper trail in our own elections that would guarantee fair results. And there is quiet.

Our Constitution provides for freedom of religion yet a radical religious sect is imposing its views on everything from the teaching of science to cheerleading. We have allowed them to define morality and legislate their morality for the entire country. We mutely tolerate their intolerance of anyone who disagrees with them.

We have allowed designated free speech zones where dissenters are penned. No one wants to shout that all of America was once a free speech zone.

For three and a half years there were hints that intelligence on WMD was cooked to gain support for a pre-emptive invasion. Those who made those accusations were called conspiracy nuts. The administration said they were lies. We accepted what our government told us, even when it was revealed that the speech our Secretary of State, Colin Powell gave at the UN was lifted from a student paper written twelve years earlier. We accepted the lie about Iraq seeking yellowcake from Niger in a State of the Union speech when Ambassador Wilson said he had told the administration it was false. When his CIA wife was outed by a White House source in retaliation for his “outing” the George W. Bush lie we haven’t demanded a resolution to that investigation.

Now a secret memo has come out from England with the minutes of a meeting that describes the ruse used by Bush and Tony Blair to “fix” the intelligence to fit the policy already made to attack Iraq knowing full well the intelligence was phony. The corporate controlled American press has basically ignored this smoking gun although it’s been reported on the front pages of the London papers. It was not mistaken intelligence. The memo says that Britain and America deliberately lied to create the conditions to justify a war. Our military sons and daughters are dead and continue to die. Innocent civilians in Iraq are dead and continue to die. Their voices are silent. How long will our voices also remain silent? When will we regain our American values and raise our collective voices of outrage at this most outrageous criminal act?

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Musings

Has anything else in the world been going on besides the Michael Jackson Trial and the Runaway Bride? Are these the replacement fare for the Scott Peterson trial? If anyone has seen the movie "Wag the Dog" they are familiar with the methods used to manipulate public opinion.

The news shows predicted a win for Tony Blair based on exit polls. Why are exit polls reliable for the UK election but unreliable for the 2004 US election?

Why are public funds being used for George Bush's "town hall meetings" to discuss Social Security that only supporters of Bush's privatization/destruction plan are allowed to attend?

Our Congressional corporatocracy, as part of the energy bill, voted to drill in the ANWR. In 10 years it is projected that it will produce 1 million barrels of oil a day. A proposal by the Democrats to have automakers build cars that would average a minimum of 33 mpg was voted down by the Republicans. That would have saved TWO million barrels of oil a day in 10 years. It's not about the oil per se. It's about the PROFITS that oil would bring. Conservation makes no money. It's only good for the people and the planet, two things this administration has no interest in at all.

Thursday, April 28, 2005

What No One Else Said At Bush's Press Conference

Two of the main issues that George Bush stressed in the Press Conference tonight were Social Security and Energy.

Why are people so reluctant to follow Bush's proposals on changing Social Security? Perhaps it's because this administration has a record of blatant lies that lead us into situations that are not in the best interest of the people. Another reason may be that we don't think a man who ran a budget surplus into the biggest deficit in history is the right man to be managing our finances. We have 35 years to get someone in the White House who we can trust to have a hand in determining whether or not our aging population becomes homeless.

In discussing our current energy crisis, Bush mentioned the competition we now have with China and India for energy and their increasing demand for Middle East oil.

What wasn't mentioned and what no journalist pressed him on was the fact that the main reason China and India are competing with us for oil is because we have created their demand by outsourcing American jobs and manufacturing to those countries.

The drilling in the ANWR was discussed. In ten years we will gain one million barrels a day. A budget proposal to require automobile makers to produce cars that meet an average of 33 mpg that would save us TWO million barrels a day in ten years was voted down by the Republicans.

Bush said there was nothing he could do to bring down gas prices in the immediate timeframe, however no one mentioned how much gas our war machinery takes to run. Bringing our troops home would certainly have an effect. Another fix would be to stop diverting the oil to the strategic petroleum reserves and release some as Clinton did.

Again, the mainstream press failed the American people.

Sunday, April 24, 2005

Black and White vs. Shades of Gray

You hear the question asked all the time. Why can't the Democratic Party unite?

The Republicans present a united front. They never stray off message. They can stick together and vote along party lines. Why can’t the Democrats do that?

Is it because the Democrats have no spine? Is it because they are traitors to the Party? Are those who don’t vote with the Party DINOS?

Actually the answer is very simple. It goes to the very basis of the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Whether they are radical left, centrist, or conservative Democrats, they are to some degree, liberal.

Liberals by their very nature think for themselves. They have a mind of their own, think independently and are too diverse to be pigeonholed. It is because of their diversity that they are more tolerant of other people, opinions, and lifestyles. They have a respect for the differences among cultures and religions that give them a live-and-let-live attitude. They recognize the value in differences that allows for debate that give different perspectives.

Republican Conservatives, on the other hand have a black and white mindset. They are regimented and dogmatic. They have no tolerance for any opinion other than their own. If it's right for them it's right for everybody. Anyone who disagrees is obviously wrong so why give them or their opinions any credence or respect? They will obey the leadership opinion and mindlessly regurgitate the same talking points.

They are convinced of the superiority of their opinion and want to impose it on everyone else so there is no diversity in their narrow world. They have nothing but disdain for a conflicting opinion. In fact, they refuse to even listen to it. They are incapable of thinking outside of the box. It explains why the majority of the military vote along the conservative line. They are used to regimentation and being told what to do and how to think.

The Fundamentalists will also vote for conservative opinion. They are cookie-cutter thinkers. They are so convinced of the infallible rightness of their thinking, there is just no room for any outside opinion. They want to fashion the world in their image. There is only one way and it is their way. There is no compromise, no tolerance, no differences allowed.

A drawing done in only black and white is flat and one-dimensional. It is the shades of gray that give it depth, the different tones and shadows that make it three-dimensional and interesting.

Liberals recognize that in the world, reality depends on the shades of gray. The world is a diversity of cultures, religions, races and lifestyles. We were not created as a mass of homogenized humanity.

It takes a certain kind of arrogance to think we can improve upon what was created or that we are superior to the rest of creation.

So the next time you get frustrated at the Democrats for not voting in lockstep, stop and think of how terrible it would be if they did.

4-24-05

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Bush Is Famous For His Poor Choices

The Republicans in Congress want to give George Bush his choice of the person he nominated for a particular position. That's very commendable. But what about when the person he nominated is totally unsuited for the position? Does your loyalty to the president and the party supercede your loyalty to the American people, the country and the Constitution you took an oath to uphold? Our founding fathers tried to protect future generations by establishing a system of checks and balances so one branch of the government balances the others by checking the amount of power each can assume. They also separated the powers assigning certain ones to each branch.

Bush is famous for his poor choices of nominees.

He nominated Bernie Kirkuk, for Homeland Security, an unscrupulous, womanizing, corrupt bully who took kickbacks from the trobacco industry and funneled them into a foundation of which he was president.

He nominated a man who ignored the laws of the United States on torture and devised a defense on how to get around the law to Attorney General, a position that has the duty to enforce the laws of the United States.

He chose Condi Rice, leading administration hawk, who was inept at her job as National Security Advisor and expressed the desire to be Secretary of Defense, to be the Secretary of State, a position that tries to avoid war through effective negotiating skills. How do you negotiate peace when your preferred job is to wage war?

His Department appointees were either laywers or lobbyists representing the industry that the particular Department is supposed to monitor and prosecute.

And now John Bolton, a man who said there is no such thing as the UN and that if the top 10 floors of the UN disappeared, no one would notice, and whose belligerent, inflexible attitudes provoke people, is nominated to be the diplomatic representative to the world.

He presented the Medal of Freedom to George Tenet, the man blamed for the intelligence failures that led us into an unprovoked attack on Iraq, to Paul Bremmer, under whose watch $9 billion are unaccounted for, and to Gen. Tommy Franks, who led an unopposed military force that was too small to secure the country as occupiers and unequipped to protect them from maiming injuries.

The task of the Senate on nominees is to advise and consent. Will they advise honestly as to the suitability and qualifications of the candidate to perform the duties of the position or will they simply tell the president what he wants to hear and consent to give him everything he wants without checks, without balance and without separation, giving almost unlimited power to the Executive branch? Do we re-elect "yes men" more interested in furthering their careers than in furthering what is best for the country?

It's time to start watching Congress closely to see their
priorities and think about ours. We'll have to begin making that decision in 2006.

My Name Is The U. S. Government. . . And I’m A Gadget-aholic

I admit to being a gadget freak. Something new that quickly and easily performs any kind of a function heretofore requiring a specific talent or consuming enormous amounts of time has my immediate attention. It may not even be a function I would normally perform. I convince myself that if I had the gadget that made it easy to perform that function maybe I would.

That's the reason my cabinets spill over with every dust covered, never used, or used once Ronco product ever advertised.

While my obsession may have led me to buy the "Pocket Fisherman" when I don't even like to fish, it’s harmless enough. I still manage to pay my bills on time or at least after one reminder notice. If I were borrowing $2 billion a day however, I would definitely seek help from a gadget-aholic group or sign myself into a gadget recovery program.

Our government is a gadget-aholic.

Our military budget is in excess of $400 billion a year. The Pentagon has never met a weapon it doesn’t like. They are not content with just buying weapons that are invented. Their military budget has a research and development expenditure to think up and produce as yet un-invented weapons. Then we buy those too.

We have so many airplanes that the U.S. Air Force can't even contain them all so we also have a Naval Air Force and an Army Air Force.

We have more of every attack weapon than any other nation in the world but the military defense budget continues to grow because we want more. If it can be bigger, or smaller, or deadlier, or newer, we want it. No, we have to have it...at any cost. It's more important than anything else. We'll cut every other program to get the money to have more weapons. If we can destroy the planet ten times over we want to be able to destroy it twenty times over. We can't seem to stop. We are hopelessly addicted to military gadgets and the advances in technology don't bode well for a recovery in the near future without an intervention.

We are in a war against terror is the excuse given for our addiction. Every addict has an excuse. We're borrowing billions to strengthen our military because we're in a war against terror. We keep increasing our national debt to buy weapons because we're in a war against terror. We are cutting programs that benefit the American people to buy weapons because we're in a war against terror.

One insidious side effect of the government addiction is that is has affected the people even though they aren’t the “users”. The people echo the Pentagon’s excuse that we’re in a war against terror so we all have to sacrifice. We quit funding things like education, Medicare, environmental protections, border patrols and the like to have more money to spend for a strong military and more weapons.

After all, how else do we expect to protect ourselves against a handful of terrorists armed with a couple of box cutters?

04-21-05

Sunday, April 17, 2005


JoannF Posted by Hello

Saturday, April 16, 2005

Bolton in the News

John Bolton, George Bush's nominee for the post of UN Ambassador is not only the wrong person for that post, he belongs on heavy medication in a supervised environment where he doesn't have access to sharp objects.

Barbara Boxer was being too kind when she suggested he needed an anger management course.

Bolton has been a consistant critic of the UN saying there was no such thing as the UN, and that 10 of its 38 stories could be eliminated without anyone noticing. Was he suggesting another NY target? Those are hardly the words that would promote interntional cooperation and the rebuilding of alliances.

The truly scary aspects of John Bolton's personality should have Congressional Republicans and Democrats insisting his nomination be withdrawn.

In 1994, Bolton chased US AID project leader Melody Townsel through the halls of a Russian hotel, throwing things at her because she criticized his client who was the prime contractor on that project.
http://www.dailykos.com/user/amyindallas

Chased her through the halls throwing things at her? That is not the act of a sane person.

Fifty-nine ex-diplomats who served under both Republican and Democrat administrations sent a protest letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee asking that the nomination be blocked.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4389639.stm

Carl Ford Jr., a former chief of the State Dept. Bureau of Intelligence and Research called Bolton a "serial abuser" who harrassed those who disagreed with him.
MSNBC - Senate panel delays vote on U.N. nominee

Sen. Lugar, discounting all the charges indicating Bolton's unsuitability, was quoted as saying the paramount issue was giving President Bush the nominee he wanted to undertake reform at the UN.

Which begs the question, "What could Bush possibly be thinking?"

It's beginning to look more and more like the inmates are running the asylum.