The debate over the Bolton nomination shows again the potential of the blogosphere—with its rapid-fire publishing schedule and insider access—to rival traditional journalism in reporting new information. What's important to understand is that the concern over Bolton is based on much more serious evidence than his temperament or his sarcastic remarks about the United Nations. Here's our story so far, via Laura Rozen, who writes War and Piece :
<!--StartFragment -->Wow. In a spectacular triumph for the Senate Democrats led by Barbara Boxer, Chris Dodd and Joseph Biden, and those who have been working so hard to bring to light John Bolton's unfitness for the UN Ambassadorship (Steve Clemons , Citizens for Global Solution , etc.), and with the courage of Sen. Voinovich (R-Oh), the Senate Foreign Relations committee has delayed for at least two weeks a vote on Bolton's nomination. See below  and definitely Steve Clemons' site  for details. It may not be over. But indeed it is a real short term victory for the forces of reason. It also gives all of us time to get more details about Bolton's history of outrageously mistreating subordinates, outrageous misuse of intelligence, including to attack his bureaucratic opponents, and ideological agenda pushing to light. And this is a defeat, if only a temporary one, for the most dangerously extreme ideological forces in the Bush administration, and they truly deserved it.
<!--StartFragment --> Update: Voinovich deserves special support and is going to take special heat from the GOP machine that brought us Misters DeLay and Abramoff. Let him know you appreciate  his courage. And the other Senators  on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should also be hearing from you, particularly the Republicans. Voinovich's courageous action today has given potential cover to one or more of his colleagues to vote their conscience.
Then this nugget from Steve Clemons of The Washington Note  about the content of the intercepts from the National Security Agency that Bolton allegedly obtained to spy on colleagues:
<!--StartFragment -->Bolton was so paranoid about what his perceived enemies inside the State Department were doing to constrain him that he allegedly began to spy on them.
John Bolton may have wanted to know what was being said by some of our interlocutors abroad about their conversations and interactions with U.S. officials, according to several former State Department officials. One way that Bolton tried to get at what was being said about him, or what impressions others had of him so he could measure the reaction that some of his public speeches and positions were generating, was to request the nation's most secret secrets: intercepts from the National Security Agency .
Senator Chris Dodd  wants to know what Bolton was looking for in the unusually high number of NSA intercepts that he requested. Was Bolton using the intercepts to help him in personal battles against others in the State Department? or perhaps because he was insecure in his own standing in the State Department? or was he trying to create an independent intelligence capacity to help battle the CIA and State Department Intelligence & Research Bureau (INR) which he felt were interpreting too softly the raw intelligence coming in?