) wanted a transcript of Senator Boxer's remarks at the hearing yesterday on John Bolton.
I've included that below the fold. Courtesy Congressional Quarterly (FDCH Political Transcripts). The FULL hearing transcript is available in LexisNexis Transcripts if you want it; it will not be posted here, for a variety of reasons.
Enjoy. She made a very effective presentation, as usual.
BOXER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Biden.
Thanks to all the members of the committee who feel very strongly about this one way or the other.
I do agree with what Senator Hagel said, that we are at a critical moment in U.S. foreign policy, a time where we need to lead the world to a better place. It is that fork in the road where one place is dark and one place is light. And to do that, we need the world with us so much, or the burdens on our people will just be too much to bear.
And I think Senator Voinovich said that in a magnificent way. I think Senator Hagel also said that in a beautiful way, and other members said it in their way.
And that's why this debate is so important, and that's why the U.N. ambassador is so important. Will this individual unite the world with us so that we can move to that better place?
I was sort of stunned at Senator Coleman when he asked a rhetorical question: "Who makes the judgment about who is the best person to represent the U.N.?" he asked rhetorically, and then went on to answer his question: "There was an election."
But, Senator, you forgot something: There was an election for individual senators too, and maybe it's because I remember it because I also was on the ballot at the same time as the president.
BOXER: And I would just urge the senator to look at Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. "The president shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint ambassadors."
It doesn't say with the advice and consent of the president if he feels like it or if he's in the mood for it, or he should turn to the Senate on Monday at three.
It's pretty clear here. It's in the same sentence.
And I hope that you will have more pride in this institution and your responsibility not to say that it is the president alone. Regardless of whether the president is a Democrat or a Republican, it is a shared responsibility. And that's why this debate is so important.
It also is not about whether Mr. Bolton is nice. As my friend said, he said it certainly shouldn't be about that. And he's right. It is about many other things of deep importance where my friend just doesn't want to go. And I understand it.
I do want to pick up on something Senator Dodd said, because I think it's key.
There is not a majority on this committee in favor of Mr. Bolton right now. There is not. And it is our job to send a signal to our colleagues.
And I think to send a signal that we're moving this forward would be the wrong signal. It's not true. There is not a majority on this committee who supports John Bolton today.
So I will not be voting to move this forward without recommendation.
And there's another point, Mr. Chairman, that really involves you and Senator Biden more than it involves me.
But I am deeply disappointed that we have not gotten all the information we requested. And I agree with my leader on this committee, Senator Biden, that this is a matter of principle.
Perhaps there's nothing in there. Perhaps there's something. But there are several areas. The intercepts, that's one area. Mr. Friedman and his potential conflicts, we've asked for that information. And there's some information about Syria.
And I will just say -- because, Mr. Chairman, I have such respect for you, I would never blindside you -- that I am going to do all I can to see that we get this information before this gets onto the floor. Because it's not right to cast a vote where you really don't have the full information.
BOXER: Now, Mr. Chairman, I think there are many reasons to oppose Mr. Bolton. I'm going to lay them out, but I'm not going to go on -- hopefully not for the full 15 minutes, but it may happen. Sometimes I forget to watch the clock.
But I would ask that my full statement be placed in the record.
LUGAR: It will be placed in the record in full.
BOXER: Thanks.
So I will skim through and I will not reiterate what other people have.
First, and to me the most important is -- I can't ever say it -- the politicization -- and I didn't say it right -- of intelligence.
This is the most important issue, when we see what phony and exaggerated intelligence can lead to. It can lead to war. We've seen it. It's happening every day.
It is tragic: thousands of deaths and injuries -- 1,600 deaths, plus. And in my state, we have about 25 percent of those deaths -- people who were born in California or were activated from California. So we wear that heavily in our state.
So why on Earth would we want to hire someone who has shown he's willing to put political pressure on independent intelligence analysts?
We know about Westermann; we know about Mr. Smith. I'm not going to go through that. We know about it.
Robert Hutchings, chairman of the NIC, described the risks of this politicizing intelligence in this way: "I think every judgment ought to be challenged and questioned, but when it goes beyond that to a search for a pretty clearly defined preformed set of judgments, then it's politicization. And even when it's successfully resisted, it creates a climate of intimidation and a culture of conformity that is damaging."
So here we take someone who put pressure on these people -- you saw the charts that Senator Dodd had -- reached down. This is not a person that we should be promoting when we have the war in Iraq that was based on this faulty intelligence. We shouldn't do it.
BOXER: Second reason: disdain for the U.N.
I know that doesn't get a lot of votes around here, but it seems to me putting someone into that situation who has said there is no United Nations, it is shocking. I mean, Senator Biden said surprising. It was shocking to me.
I think in that regard there are inaccurate comparisons to Moynihan and Kirkpatrick. I think Senator Kerry pointed that out. And I will let that go into the record.
International law, John Bolton's comments versus Senator Moynihan, it's not even in the same league.
Then there's three: a pattern of retribution and abuse. And, again, we know about what he tried to do.
So it's not only that he tried to twist arms to get faulty intelligence forward, but he actually exerted retribution on people. That's wrong. And someone like that should not be promoted.
And, again, I'll put all of that into the record.
But I'm going to close with two areas, one that Senator Kerry touched on: the failure to be candid with this committee.
My God, we ought to at least believe that we deserve someone to tell us the whole truth. And I want to go through this on a chart here, because I can't do it any other way, so bear with me.
Bolton: "I never sought to have Mr. Westermann fired at all. I in no sense sought to have any discipline imposed on Mr. Westermann."
Carl Ford, responding to that: "I remember going back to my office with the impression that I had been asked to fire the analyst. Now, whether the words were 'fire,' whether that was 'reassign,"get him away from me,"I don't want to see him again,' I don't remember. I do remember that I came away with the impression that I'd just been asked to fire somebody in the intelligence community for doing what I considered their job."
Bolton, quote: "I may have mentioned the Westermann issue to one or two people, but then I shrugged my shoulders and moved on."
Several months later Bolton raised Mr. Westermann with the INR director, Neil Silver. According to Mr. Silver, quote: "To the best of my recollection, Bolton raised Mr. Westermann's name and he asked or indicated that he would like me to consider having him moved to some other portfolio."
Bolton: "So I basically went out to pay a courtesy call on Mr. Cohen. And it's true, I drove my own car out there. I have to make a confession here. The CIA is sort of, more or less, on the way home for me, and from time to time, when I've gone out there, I've driven my own car. I've had my meetings. I hate to say this, but I left and went home."
He takes a long time to describe how he just dropped by on the way home. He says, "I didn't go back to the office."
Well, we have Secretary Bolton's calendar here for the day in question. The meeting with Mr. Cohen was scheduled, it was on his schedule for 9:30, and he had other meetings scheduled that afternoon.
And I think we go on with some other charts here.
Is that the 10 minutes or the 15?
BIDEN: That's 10.
BOXER: Ten? OK.
Bolton: "I went out to pay a courtesy call, and my recollection is, the bulk of the meeting was composed of Mr. Cohen explaining to me what the NIC did and told me what their publications were and how it had been created, and gave me some background on it."
Committee staff member asked, "Do you remember giving Bolton a primer about the NIC?"
Mr. Cohen: "No. I just don't recall the details of the meeting, other than the fact that there was a focus on Mr. Smith."
BOXER: Bolton: "I didn't seek to have these people fired. I didn't seek to have discipline imposed on them. I said I've lost trust in them and there are other portfolios they could follow."
Carl Ford: "I do remember that I came away with the impression that I'd been asked to fire somebody in the intelligence community."
John Mclaughlin, former deputy director of the CIA -- "Do you recall other requests similar to this to remove one of your analyst?"
John Mclaughlin: "No. This is the only time I had ever heard of such a request. I didn't think it appropriate."
Burton: "And I can tell you what our ambassador to South Korea, Tom Hubbard said after the speech. He said, 'Thanks a lot for that speech, John. It will help us a lot out here.'"
Hubbard, former ambassador to South Korea quote, "At the very least he greatly, greatly exaggerated my comments. I told the committee that if you're basing your vote on Bolton's assertion that I approved his speech, that is not true."
So, we see here lack of candor, misleading statements. It's absolutely shocking to me that more people on the committee aren't disturbed with this.
I also would say this. The strongest opposition to Mr. Bolton outside of members of this committee comes from the people from the Bush administration.
And I don't have time to read everything, but here we have again Carl Ford, Lawrence Wilkerson. He says, and I won't repeat that quote because somebody else gave it.
Elizabeth Jones, former assistant secretary of state of European and Eurasian affairs: "I don't know if he's capable of negotiation, but he's unwilling."
John Wolf, former assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation: "I believe it would be fair to say that some of the officers within my bureau complained that they felt undue pressure to conform to the views of the undersecretary versus the views that they thought they could support."
And again, John Mclaughlin: "It's perfectly all right for a policy maker to express disagreement with an NIO or an analyst, and it's perfectly all right for them to challenge such an individual vigorously, challenge their work, but I think it's different to then request, because of the disagreement, the person be transferred. I had high regard for the individual's work, therefore, I had a strong negative reaction to the suggestion about moving him."
BOXER: So here you have people from the Bush administration who served there proudly, in many cases saying -- they're conservative, they're Republican, they're proud to support the president, the vice president -- coming out against this nominee.
It is hard for me to understand why the president didn't simply say he's going to send down somebody else.
I guess he wants a fight. I guess he's asking people to walk the line. And if that's where we're going, that's where we're going, because we're going to have a fight. If this comes to the floor, we're going to have a fight.
And the American people are going to engage in it and they're going to look at it. And I guess at the end of the day their sentiments may be able to sway some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
Frankly, I don't know even where my Democratic colleagues are on this, except for the ones on the committee.
But that's the greatness of this place. We'll take this battle, we'll take these quotes, we'll take these interviews down to the floor.
I'm going to ask the American people to help us on this one.
And I thank you all.
LUGAR: Thank you, Senator Boxer.