Steve,

The BW will be interesting no doubt. But I believe Bolton is small potatoes. Perhaps a 'sub-watch' could be carried out on Sec Rice. If she "can't manage" Bolton, as you predict, why not trumpet this, another, of her failures? It's Condi they are gearing up to shove down our throats in 2008. Efforts should be made to metaphorically take her down now. God knows she provides us with enough material herself. But little of it gets out because the spin masters around her.

This guy should be watched, he is a lightening rod of emotion and he brings alot of action with him whenever he seems to be involved.
Raymond B
www.voteswagon.com

Bravo Steve!!!!
What a great idea, and great for America too!

Let's play the cryptography game with John Bolton. Now Bolton spelled backwards is Notlob. If we change the first 'o' to a 'u', then the first 'l' to a 'j', we get 'nutjob'. See? The cryptography game works perfectly with our given scenario. John Nutjob is simply doing his job for George Bush. Get inside the United Nations and screw up the works as insanely as is humanly possible. Mr. Nutjob takes his work very seriously and he has the presidential backing of one George Bush.

I'm surprised how, given the NSA domestic spying story, Bolton's use of NSA intercepts to see if he could dig up dirt on political enemies isn't getting more attention.

When you get back from your hiatus, it would be great if you could present a comprehensive look at Bolton and his NSA intercepts issues....

i'll be among the first to announce when it's up and running...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

re: jonst's comment at top of thread

I don't think the Ambassador to the UN is small potatoes. Steve's strategy (I surmise) is to provide quality information regarding his professional expertise. He's picked his battles well and educated many of us. I imagine when he has something useful to present about Secy. Rice, we'll read it.

I predict if there were some way to rate the influence of the viewers of this blog -- say, you had data on their G-level payscale, or other metric ;-) -- then we'd see an indicator of how highly effective this blog is--it has quality information, not the usual demonizing blogs that document the atrocities but don't provide much new information for those in a position to influence things inside the beltway.

Don't get me wrong--I love to read documentation of the atrocities, rhetoric that shares my outrage, but I think other blogs have that niche well covered, and it is more depressing than inspiring after a while.

Your surprise surprises me Steve.

Certainly this administration, especially the neocon movement, has been micro-focused and undettered by any outside opinion.

My question, how do you feel a Bolton Watch will influence his actions if a lack of confirmation from Congress hasn't?

I can see the new blog helping from the larger Democratic strategy of a thousand cuts, but Bolton seems to be pretty intent on either dominating or destroying the UN.

Happy New Year and thanks for all.

I'm still happy to help you with that fundraising idea, but your email has been bouncing. Am I too much of a pest? :^)

Don -- you are never a pest. Some alternative emails to reach me at are:

scclemons@yahoo.com
or
clemons@newamerica.net

Look forward to your reaction to the new "Bolton Watch" section when launched.

All the best,

Steve Clemons
The Washington Note
steve@thewashingtonnote.com

steve@steveclemons.com (the contact address linked from your "about Steve Clemons" page) isn't working anymore?

BTW, will you be taking part in any speaking engagements or forums that are open to the public during your 2-day visit to Philadelphia this weekend?

Greetings P. Lukasiak: Thanks for your email which I did receive and just looked at. I don't have any plans for a public talk in Philadelphia. I'm going up there to spend New Year's eve with some academic friends from Washington College -- which is in Chestertown, MD. But one of the cool ringleaders, Michele Volansky, a blogger herself, and a well known "dramaturg" (if I'm spelling that correctly) is having a fun party.

On New Year's day, I'm attending a football game -- yes, I know -- but I need to learn something about American culture.

Maybe we could meet for coffee??

Yes, steve@steveclemons.com is also good...they all converge one way or another.

Steve Clemons

A little OT, but steve@steveclemons.com and steve@thewashingtonnote.com both seem to forward to clemons@newamerica.net, which has been bouncing my emails.

"One or more of the following e-mail accounts are invalid at the organization this message was sent to. Check the e-mail addresses, or contact the recipient directly to find out the correct address.

==================
clemons@newamerica.net"

Since I didn't think you'd left, I was guessing either a full mailbox or server problem.

Dons Blog -- Thanks for the note. I have a suspicion that there is something wrong with the New America Foundation server. I will get your emails from the original sites you sent to...probably tomorrow as am on the road tomorrow. Thanks for this alert.

Best,
Steve Clemons

Nice initiative. Re the Condi post, since she was undermining Powell, doesn't that clearly indicate that she was working with Bolton to do so. I suppose not necessarily, but the likelihood of being utterly out of the loop seems slim to none.

EXCellent profile on Wilkerson (several posts ago, no comment field there)!!

It really gets at the issue I raised in the comments section there.

I.e., it outlines the dilemma faced by public officials with a conscience: either stay on the job and saying nothing, hoping to accomplish something worthwhile, OR go public in order to alter the public debate.

And Wilkerson clearly struggled with, and eventually won, that battle with his conscience -- and did so in good faith. He won that battle.

That said, the profile is more revealing than Wilkerson would like. His two greatest attributes were not equal to the task, and our country went down the wrong road, at great cost, because of it. The profile states " 'First, he could always find the big picture in whatever was going on. Second, he always tore things apart. He never takes things at face value . . . Mr. Powell turned to Mr. Wilkerson to go with him to the C.I.A. to sort through the mounds of material prepared to buttress the case... for the lengthy presentation the secretary gave on Feb. 5, 2003, at the United Nations Security Council."

The obvious question: If I can open up Newsweek and read that Gregg Thielmann and Houghton Woods have disproven the aluminum tubes claims -- why couldn't Wilkerson? These two guys are OUR experts on that specific topic. And they sent that evidence and that analysis straight to Wilkerson and Powell. Given Thielmann's position at State, it's not that far to travel.

Same goes for other pieces of evidence. Much was publicly available that discredited and/or disproved Bush's claims. Which is why he had to up the ante to invoke the specter of nukes.

There's an obvious conclusion here. Either no information AT ALL got through -- or Wilkerson and Powell made a political calculus that it was better to bend to neocon demands and proceed use false, pernicious, or questionable evidence in that UN speech. It's pretty clear it had to be the latter.

Better to make the speech, than to refuse and/or go public.

Worse, though, Wilkerson's primary strengths failed him at an important juncture. He wasn't able to see the big picture. And he tore the speech apart, vetted the evidence, and put it back together. It still failed the smell test. Thielmann said that "his jaw hit the floor" as he watched Powell give the speech. I had read multiple accounts regarding multiple pieces of "evidence" that discredited and disproved the points Powell used, all publicly available.

Wilkerson's conscience, however, has not failed him. And he is to be credited and honored for that.

Three things stand out:
1) Wilkerson and Powell are in far more of a bubble than they know or can perceive. Or, better, that they can conceive. This is due to the total lack of debate between the classified-public realms. If Wilkerson had known that some guy in Wisconsin -- in fact, much of the public at large -- was aware of that status of the claims made at the UN, that it wasn't just Thielmann and Woods, he would hardly have been so malleable/loyal in greenlighting the speech. That bubble, that lack of access to info from and the opinion of the general public, badly damaged Wilkerson's ability to make sound decisions.

2) The reverse is also true. The lack of publicly availalbe hard data hamstrung the ability of the Constitutionally-mandated decision-making process to function even adequately. It's clearly worth examining and dicussing in public the validity of classified intel if the whole country is to be put at risk. Classified status of the rationale for war has to fall before the national security interest inherent in commiting the nation to war, with all its risks. Why? Because some President & Staff might lie about it. That's really the ONLY necessary reason to go public and be more forthcoming. It's sufficient in and of itself. Or more likely, some President might believe that their own self-justifications are adequate to approving less-than-forthright approach to the actual factual evidence. They might sincerely believe their own hype, exaggerations, pr, big picture.

3) But that is ALL the MORE reason to fully carry out a fully-fledged public debate on the merits of war, the validity of the evidence, and the justness of the cause. And for Congress to explicitly carry out its decision-making powers of Declaration -- rather than capitulate that mandated obligation to a usurpatious Exec Branch.

There are plenty of reasons to hold back classified intel, and to dispense it with great discretion. None of those reasons can trump the above, nor the lessons of the Bush-Iraq debacle.
I'll state flatly that not only does Congress as a whole have the right to know, but that that right stems directly from a public right to know what this data is, and how it is validated.

To be honest, I'm MOST concerned that Wilkerson & Powell didn't really have any idea how much information was publicly available, and how much it had already discredited the Bush Push to War. There has to be a real, real-time conduit to people in such positions. Their attitude towards the people they serve has to be adjusted to some degree. Along the way, I've talked to reporters, Senate staffer, Senators, editors -- most AREN'T aware AT ALL about much of the info, data on these issues. Even those people whose job it is to report about or make policy on these issues. There has to be a way to better inform folks who are, in fact, very busy, very dedicated public officials. Official channels is not getting it done.

Wilkerson, though, I've gotta admire his integrity and forthrightness. It is much too rare.

The True Dimensions of the Grand Bubble of Colin Powell are pretty clear when you hear him scolding Wilkerson "Don't characterize my loyalty!" You gotta be kidding. The whole country's characterizing Colin Powell's loyalty. And his recent comment on the legality of Bush's extra-legal wiretaps just verifies that his loyalty is misplaced, preferring fealty to a Pres, George V, rather than his country and the Constitution that defines it.

One thing is crystal clear: the lack of public debate regarding

Key quote from the profiile:

"Mr. Powell turned to Mr. Wilkerson to go with him to the C.I.A. to sort through the mounds of material prepared to buttress the case against Saddam Hussein on the eve of the Iraq war, for the lengthy presentation the secretary gave on Feb. 5, 2003, at the United Nations Security Council.

"He found that the draft didn't have the sourcing and backing that we wanted and he tore the whole thing apart and put it back together," the former State Department official recalled. "He was Powell's internal iconoclast." Mr. Wilkerson recalls the preparation of the Feb. 5 presentation, which Mr. Powell has acknowledged will be remembered as a blot on his career because of its mistakes on intelligence, as an exercise in frustration.

It was an embittering experience for everyone at the State Department, Mr. Wilkerson says, to be saddled with presenting what turned out to be false information at the United Nations, and also to have been sidelined in the running of postwar Iraq by the Pentagon. "When I rationalize for myself not resigning, I did it by saying, 'This is the only sane member of this administration,' " Mr. Wilkerson said of Mr. Powell."

It is a sad day when American diplomatic officials need to have an online babysitter, financed by the citizenry.

Good work, Steve....

global yokel,

It is a sad say when no citizen takes the time to watch their government closely, especially when the government is maintaining that it has the right to take away citizenship, hold a citizen indefinitely without trial, etc.

Further, by watching Bolton carefully, one can see one of the people who have likely violated our laws and certainly the spirit of our treaties and international obligations on numerous occassions. For that, he deserves to be put under a magnifying glass. Theoretically that will rein in his mendaciousness. At the very least, it will provide a record of his blunderbuss approach to American diplomacy.

Please send me your snail mail addy and I'll wing a few lilangeni your way.

what happened to "smilin' john...?"

You changed his picture during the day.
I liked the first one better....

There is value in a plausible public spotlight (TWN) shining on Mr. Bolton's output. First of all he works for the administration in charge; he reflects the values and tone of his superiors, else he would not have been so stubbornly wedged into place at the UN. The public may not so easily be able give passes to his bosses for their misdeeds when he is so "out there." Second, the spotlight will be useful because his previous role in the NSA intercepts stuff could become a part of the inevitable congressional inquiries after the first of the year. There's nothing to get a senator's dander up, quite like having your phone tapped by the executive branch.
Good work with this initiative. I will link to it often with my own writing.

Thanks, Mr. Clemons. It ain't easy, I know, and you probably don't receive anywhere near the number of "Thank you's" that you should. Your efforts are truly appreciated by those of us who often lose hope that this crisis in our country will ever shake itself out.

Dear Vachon --

Thanks for the support. A good mailing address is:

Steve Clemons
The Washington Note
1630 Connecticut Ave., NW, 7th Floor
Washington, DC 20009

Much appreciated -- as always,

Steve Clemons

While "Bolton Watch" may be an invitation to those who tracked and participated in Bolton Phase I, why not make it a forum for the larger topic of foreign affairs? Within a Foreign Affairs Watch Bolton would be in the spotlight, until he is no longer relevant.

The larger forum would have a life beyond Bolton. The larger topic might attract more than Bolton critics and maintain TWN as a place for centrist, logical thinking.

The larger topic might attract more than Bolton critics and maintain TWN as a place for centrist, logical thinking.

Posted by CtGlav

"Centrist logical thinking". I like that. Is that what Hillary was exhibiting when she stood before America saying "Don't burn the flag" while Bush was standing before us saying "Screw you America, I am above the law, and I will spy on anyone I want to, whenever I want to, however I want to"??

A "centrist", these days is a eunich, a coward. Afraid to address the inaction of the left, and afraid to address the crimes of the right. It is a posture that requires no spine, and guarantees the domination of the right.

The minute Hillary started in with this posturing, she lost all credibility in my opinion. Her comment about a "vast right wing conspiracy" was RIGHT ON, and its a shame she jettisoned such honesty in favor of a false and ineffective political posture.

My free advice, worth what you pay for it, is I'd like some framework about the UN along with Bolton's place in the it.

For instance, we hear about the corruption of the food for oil program, which I have no problem believing. But then we hear about US collusion in aiding Turkey to get around oil purchase rules.

How about the guard that mysteriously died. Why are such despised groups getting into the Human Rights Council? Who are some of the key players, both on a country and individual level? Why does Japan donate such a large part of the budget and what do they expect to get out of it? How much do Russia, China, the Ukraine and other military leaders participate? What are some of the alternative institutions that Bolton talks about going to?

I've read about some interesting new projects in the Journal of Foreign Affairs, but I wonder if they're having any real effect on the lives of average citizens.

That would help me understand, and explain, why Bolton is having such a bad affect on the institution.

Thanks. I can hardly wait. You're sure good at teasers Steve.

PO American - it's a sad day in American politics when you believe "centrist" is another name for eunich.

A fence-sitter, an on-one-hand person is of no value but centrist is no slur. The left and right whine because a centrist is someone they could not bully into their camp.

PO American - it's a sad day in American politics when you believe "centrist" is another name for eunich.

A fence-sitter, an on-one-hand person is of no value but centrist is no slur. The left and right whine because a centrist is someone they could not bully into their camp.

Posted by CtGlav

The left now has a "camp"? Where the hell is it? I've been looking, but I don't smell any campfires. So, you maintain that a centrist is someone that is between the Bushlickers, who are shredding everything our nation once held dear, and the likes of Harry Reid, who are doing nothing about it. How does a politician standing between those two "camps" benefit our nation?

Sorry, I ain't buying it.

Bolton Squash is what I think we need before he wrecks the whole UN, something he would relish doing. I think the NSA intercept investigation will reveal Bolton a a key player and then we can all chant, Bolton, Be Gone.

Steve,

Glad to hear that BW is going to get off the ground soon. I remain convinced that it has much chance for success.

Keep up the great work!

The intercepts Bolton requested are potentially significant. They may be the reason the WH is so reluctant to pursue charges against the NYT and the NSA leakers. After all, any domestic spying investigation would surely be compelled to look into Bolton's requests too as a matter of course.

The NSA leakers were angry about Director Hayden opting for trading the Agency's intregrity for another star. They are STILL angry. They make for a harder target than reporters.

The Bolton Reforms of the UN have started already!!

The UN now protects whistle-blowers in their ranks.

see http://truthout.org/docs_2005/123005F.shtml

I suggest you start out the Bolton Watch with a praising article and Press Release complimenting Bolton on the fine job he has done in protecting whistle-blowers at the UN. And then suggest that he pass along the program to his leader of the free world for implementation in the USA.

WASHINGTON - Gov. Bill Richardson is concerned that some of his phone calls were monitored by a U.S. spy agency and transcripts of them were given to the president's nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton.

Richardson called Sen. Chris Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, to express his concerns after Dodd revealed that Bolton had on 10 occasions asked the National Security Agency for the intercepts of phone conversations involving Americans.

An online journalist then speculated that Richardson's conversations with former Secretary of State Colin Powell and another U.S. official about North Korea might have been among Bolton's requests.

"The governor is upset that his conversations with Secretary Powell would be intercepted since most of them were domestic calls," said Richardson spokesman Billy Sparks. "The governor felt his calls about North Korea were confidential."

Bolton, as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, was one of the architects of a hard-line approach toward negotiating with North Korea over dismantling its nuclear weapons program.

Two representatives of North Korea's permanent mission to the United Nations traveled to Santa Fe in January 2003 to meet with Richardson, a former U.N. ambassador, to discuss how to resolve the conflict.

http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/nw_local_state_government/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19859_3736152,00.html

No doubt, Steve's "toast" on the "Bolton Watch" on the 31st, was unanimous on this blog like the unanimous decisions of the Politburo. At the risk of at least one who will not rise to his toast, and who will definitely raise the wrath of his acolytes, who like Zeus will cast their thunderbolts against my not lifting glass, I would like to make the following points.

Steve opens his "Bolton Watch", by stating, that "if he gets on a course that is positive for America and UN interests, then the blog will highlight that". But further down he says, that the "Ambassador's every move-good and bad-will be under a microscope that "will help us survive his tenure there". But if his moves happen to be good, why is it bad to "survive his tenure there"?

The opening statement and his last quote cannot be anything else but monumental hypocricy. Steve's pretentiousness of intellectual impartiality needs a figleaf, which however is so worn out, that its flimsiness cannot hide the atrabilious bias he has for Bolton. Only fools and knaves would expect an objective assessment by Steve on John Bolton.

The UN does not need a Bolton to be "undermined". It has already being undermined by its criminal ineptness, both in Ruwanda and in Darfur, not to mention the depth of its corruption, as a result of Kofi Annan's effetness as a leader to persuade the Organization of African States to take effective action that would have prevented the genocide in Ruwanda and the massacre in Darfur.

Finally, I'm asking him to concretize the "enlightened American diplomacy" and offer us some examples, instead of keeping it in a sublime state of abstraction.