So much for bipartisan comity in the Senate. Only 72 hours after seven Democratic and seven Republican senators struck a deal on judicial nominations, 42 Democrats go ahead and filibuster the nomination of John Bolton. New Yorkers expect this sort of thing from, say, Senator Boxer. But what are New Yorkers to make of it when, in the middle of a seminal struggle against the anti-Israel crowd at the United Nations, the obstruction is joined by the likes of Senators Clinton, Schumer, and Lieberman?

Now the minority party would like you to believe that this was not what it most clearly was. Technically, the Democrats voted against ending the allotted debate on the nomination of Mr. Bolton. In a letter to colleagues, Senators Dodd and Biden argued that nothing less than the Senate’s power to advise and consent was at stake if their colleagues voted to end debate on the nomination they opposed but now looks all but certain to pass in an up-or-down vote. The two men complained that the State Department and National Security Agency have not complied with every escalating request from the Foreign Relations Committee for information. As if hundreds of hours of interviews, reams of declassified e-mails, and extensive questions of the nominee were not enough to satisfy.

To believe this, one would have to think that there is some chance that Messrs. Dodd or Biden, or for that matter any of the Democrats that voted to delay the vote, could see new information that would change their minds about Mr. Bolton. Most of the Democrats opposed to this nomination have been opposed from the beginning. At first, they opposed Mr. Bolton because he had mean things to say about the United Nations. Then they claimed he was abusive. Then they said that he sought to politicize intelligence.

In part, this judgment is based on the testimony of Lawrence Wilkerson, the chief of staff to Secretary of State Powell. But was it not Mr. Powell along with the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, who delivered the allegedly politicized intelligence in 2003 to the United Nations Security Council? Mr. Wilkerson confirmed even in his interview with the committee that the intelligence used in that presentation came from the very institution whose analysts Mr. Bolton challenged.

To illustrate the problem of the Democratic case, consider their request for the names of American officials initially redacted from National Security Agency intercepts requested by Mr. Bolton. Mr. Dodd in particular has speculated that Mr. Bolton tried to use the intercepts in some fashion against his bureaucratic foes. Mr. Bolton has said in testimony that he requested the names of the officials to better understand the intelligence contained within the National Security Agency reports.

In this case, we can understand why the NSA would hesitate to hand over the unredacted intercepts to the full Senate. Two months ago in the Foreign Relations Committee’s public hearings on Mr. Bolton, Senators Lugar and Kerry let slip the identity of the national intelligence officer for Latin America whom Democrats have alleged Mr. Bolton tried to have fired. It’s amazing that the same party that made such a huge deal of the outing of Valerie Plame would say nothing of the outing of Fulton Armstrong.

Because the NSA information was so sensitive, the National Security Agency did brief the chairman and vice chairman of the Select Intelligence Committee. It is important to note that even Senator Rockefeller, a Democrat, found nothing unusual or wrong about the requests Mr. Bolton made.

So what gives? It’s hard to see the latest stunt from the Democrats on the committee as anything more than another delay tactic being used for reasons that can only be called partisan in the worst, cheapest sense of the word. For a group that claims to care about multilateralism and the United Nations, they are doing their best to keep America without representation there in the midst of a desperate war.