Dear Mr. Warren:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of John

Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations. It was a pleasure to

hear from you, and I appreciate the benefit of your views on this

important subject.

John Bolton was nominated by President Bush to serve as

United States Ambassador to the United Nations on March 7, 2005.

I did not support this nomination when it was voted upon by the

Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and I continue to oppose his

nomination. I strongly believe that Mr. Bolton's past actions,

most significantly his attempts to have intelligence officials

removed because they disagreed with his interpretation of

available intelligence, disqualify him from this position. His

selective use of intelligence data, as well as his actions to

stifle consideration of alternative policy options also cross

over the line of acceptability. If confirmed, his record

threatens to undermine the credibility of the United States and,

therefore, diminish our capacity to convince other nations to

support us on issues critical to national security.

According to interviews conducted by Senate Foreign

Relations Committee staff, on several occasions, intelligence

officials disapproved of and resisted Mr. Bolton's efforts to

"cherry pick" intelligence for ideological purposes. Moreover,

at least eight current or former members of the Bush

Administration have stated that Mr. Bolton tried to have

intelligence analysts removed from their posts. Many of these

officials stated that he may have done so because the

intelligence these analysts provided was at odds with the policy

positions he wished to take. Mr. Bolton's actions contributed to

the politicization of the intelligence process, which Carl Ford,

Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR)

during President George W. Bush's first term in office, described

as causing a chill among his officers. Responding to this

chilling effect, Secretary of State Colin Powell was forced to

make a special visit to INR to reassure the analysts that they

should not succumb to political pressure.

At a time when the credibility of United States intelligence

has been called into question, there are few issues more critical

than the integrity of our intelligence analysis. Any official

who pressures intelligence analysts or "cooks the books" for

political purposes should not serve as a spokesperson for United

States foreign policy. For these reasons, I believe that

confirmation of this nomination would set a negative precedent

regarding the manner in which business should be conducted in our

intelligence community.

My opposition to this nomination is shared by 103 career

diplomats from five different administrations over the past four

decades, who have signed a public letter in opposition to Mr.

Bolton's candidacy. Even Larry Wilkerson, the Chief of Staff to

former Secretary of State Colin Powell, stated publically that he

believed John Bolton would be "an abysmal ambassador."

As you may know, the Committee on Foreign Relations voted to

report Mr. Bolton's nomination without recommendation on May 12,

2005. On May 26 and June 20, 2005, the Senate defeated motions

to invoke cloture and proceed to an up or down vote on the Bolton 

nomination. On both those occasions, I voted against cloture

because I believe the Administration is withholding critical

documentation that goes to the heart of whether or not John

Bolton is fit to serve as the United States Ambassador to the

United Nations. These documents were requested nearly two months

before the first motion to invoke cloture, and, as a matter of

institutional privilege, I believe as a coequal branch of

government, the Senate has a right to solicit information that

directly pertains to the qualifications of a nominee to be

confirmed by the Senate. Nevertheless, the Administration

refused to provide this documentation. Please be assured that I

will keep your views in mind as we continue to debate this

nomination and important matters of concern to the country and

the people of Connecticut.

Thank you again for contacting me. If you would like to

stay in touch with me on this and other issues of importance,

please visit my website at http://dodd.senate.gov and subscribe

to my online newsletter, the Dodd Digest. Please do not hesitate

to contact me again if I can help you in any way.

Sincerely,

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

United States Senator

Did it make the Clinton administration look bad? Yes, probably…but history and the facts pretty much supported that conclusion already. Sandy Berger was portrayed as somewhat indecisive. Tenet was not exactly shown to be a great leader of the CIA. (Neither of these are earth shattering observations).

The film did well on highlighting the hideous ability of the agencies to share intelligence with one another. The agencies' inability to move or act on certain intel or the inability to obtain follow-up information or piece facts together was discouraging to watch.

Overall the two-part series was well done and enjoyable to watch. If you didn't catch it, I hope you recorded it so you can watch it later.

5 years after 9/11, I realize the replaying of those events in my mind still hits a very raw nerve. Much has changed in our world since that time. I doubt things ever return to status quo.

I was living in the Dallas metro area at the time. I recall sitting in my cube working, and getting a call from my wife.

“Hey honey can you see the World Trade Center on the I-35 from your floor? I think it got hit by a plane.” “No honey. I can’t see the building from here.”

I got off the phone wondering…wow, that’s odd. Shortly thereafter a girl tore into the office with the full story. It wasn’t Dallas at all. 2 jets had hit the World Trade Center in NYC.

Little work was done that day. We mostly huddled around radios or the conference room TV trying to round up information. Even in Dallas we felt the effects of the attack. A girl next to me was in tears trying to contact her sister that worked a couple of buildings down from the towers. Another lady was trying to call her daughter who worked just near the towers, as well. Yet another girl’s father worked at the Pentagon, and she had cousins that worked in the Twin Tower.

Dallas was not immune to fear and suffering of 9/11.

We left work early that day. I worked in a 12 story building in down town Dallas. Hardly a “must-hit” target for a terrorist strike. Starting that day…no one could be sure anymore.

That evening our church in Flower Mound, TX hosted an prayer service for the community. It was much needed there (as everywhere). Our community had many relocated from NJ and NY to work at Verizon, as well as, many American Airlines employees.

That night everyone cried and vented. There was horror, and fear. Most of all dismay. For some of us, a near blind rage was already setting in.

I remember finishing the evening with a couple that my wife and I were friends with. We ended up eating a Chinese restaurant in town. I remember distinctly how long everything seemed to take as evening at 7 or 8 PM in the evening we all still had our eyes glued to the TV…

I woke up this morning a long way from Dallas, and 5 years removed from that day. Still it burns in my memory, much like Pear Harbor does for those my Grandparents age. I now live in CT, and even closer to “ground zero”. It is not forgotten hear either. (I learned recently that the large U.S. Postal Distribution Center, 2 mile down the road was one of the places that anthrax had been sent through). The events of and after 9/11 certainly aren’t forgotten here.

As I look on the things we’ve done as a nation, following that day. I am proud. We are doing what we need to do. It was never going to be easy. It was going to test our resolve. In the end, taking the fight to the streets and towns that harbored those who brought this act upon us was the right thing to do.

A letter was posted in our church bulletin on Sunday. The bishop made remarks that made it clear he doubted our moral justification for the war and that he doubted that the world was safer. (And my his letter apparently assumed everyone else did).

As I said earlier, our resolve will be tested. It is now, and strongly. There are those out there who still (even with 5 years of no attacks on American soil) naively believe that we are less safe. They believe 9/11 was a chance for peace…but through diplomacy and appeasement.

I believe 9/11 was/is an opportunity for peace as well. Ask those who no longer suffer through the fanatical rule of the Taliban. Ask those who have been able to vote in Afghanistan. Ask the people of Iraq, who are no longer under Saddam’s rule, and who may now vote freely. Are things going perfect? No. But they are getting better.

Did we miss a chance at peace with 9/11? No, we preserved our own, while bringing freedom and liberty to others.

This book discusses the “Jeds” role in helping the French resistance rise up against the German forces.

The book discusses after the allies liberated France, the French maquis (resistance) combed the country side…doing a little blood letting of their own. Many perceived as an enemy got killed. The book estimates that the Nazi’s killed 30,000 French…and the maquis killed nearly that many as well.

The point I am trying to make is this. All wars have awful consequences. None go perfectly. Any war where a “tyrant” is thrown out/kicked out (which is nearly all of them)…someone is going to have an ax to grind with someone else. The power vacuum that is left (even if temporary) leaves the perfect opportunity for these grudge matches to play out.

Normalcy is not returned overnight. The French had to work at it…with help. Iraq will not become the textbook version of “how to run a sovereign nation” overnight. It will take years.

The best thing for the U.S. to do in Iraq is stay the course…helping Iraq help it’s self. We have to let them take the lead…but not at the expense of a premature departure which would doom the entire process to failure.

The world survived Hitler and WWII. Iraq will survive Hussein, the terrorist will eventually be killed off or leave. The key point is that we must stay and help…not redeploy.

It strikes me as an opportunity though. If the Clintons and the Democrat party want to go out on this limb and try to pressure the execs at ABC to pull entirely or neuter “The Path to 9/11” editorially we should debate this openly. We should force them to answer “why?”.

This movie has obviously struck fear into the hearts of the Democratic leadership. (They probably think it’s Karl Rove’s October surprise come early). The Republican should capitalize off of this fear. The fact that the Democratic leadership/Clintons are fighting this so hard obviously means it paints them in a negative light. They apparently have something to hide.

Maybe we should all call or email the Democrat “leaders” who signed the letter to state our displeasure with their obstructionist techniques.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader D.Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan