There is so much out there now on John Bolton, and very little of it is positive and validating of Bolton, other than assertions by his fan club here and here.

Laura Rozen has done a great job of not only reporting Bolton Battle news but creating context to understand the issues. All of her material on Bolton is worth reading, but I particularly liked this recent commentary on Bolton's failure to notify embassies and relevant "regional desks" in the State Department of his foreign travel and meetings.

From WarandPiece.com:

It all goes to something one sees again and again with Bolton, and his supporters. Their sense that he and they are representing the real Bush administration foreign policy to places like Iran and North Korea, while everyone else at State was working against the President's policies.

But that's not how it works in an administration that has a strong sense of what the President's policies are to places like Iran and North Korea. Bolton's supporters, some of them anyhow, want Bolton to represent the real Bush foreign policy to Iran and North Korea, one that is uncompromising, that refuses to negotiate with dictators, that sees the real solution to those countries' nuclear programs as being changing those countries' leaders.

Advocating that inside and outside the bureaucracy is one thing; simply conducting one's own foreign policy as if it were the President's policy is another -- as Bolton apparently was in the habit of doing.

The problem for Bolton and his supporters is that, at least up until this point, regime change in Iran and North Korea has not been the declared or explicit or clear policy President Bush has chosen.

And if and until he does so, you can't have US officials running around on their own trying to make it so, by throwing a wrench in six party talks, or convincing European negotiators the Bush administration gives no credence to their negotiations with Tehran, and therefore making those delicate negotiations' failure basically a kind of fait accompli.

The accounts coming out about Bolton every day do nothing so much as suggest the Bush administration is a ship that is basically unmoored and directionless on the most pressing foreign policy challenge this country faces, the threat of rogue state nuclear proliferation.

More later. Very pleased about the progress on NSA intercepts.

-- Steve Clemons

The National Security Agency has now recommended that the intercept material and the names of U.S. officials requested by John Bolton be released to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

TWN does not know the terms by which the material will be handled. This is classified material, so there must be some protocol for what will be provided and how commentary will be managed.

There are some who think that the NSA intercept material will not provide conclusive insights into John Bolton's objectives in requesting the material. Others have suggested that the material, at a minimum, will futher validate the view that John Bolton had frequent "lapses in judgment" and may underscore a personal vanity that often undermined the objectives of his unit in the State Departement as well as the Department's diplomatic efforts in certain key cases.

As TWN has written before, this should provide a binary response to questions about Bolton. He either abused his authority and misused intelligence -- or he did not.

It will be interesting to see.

I will be writing more on the NSA intercepts issue over the weekend, but the fact that the NSA has signed off on release is important.

-- Steve Clemons

If folks feel like making calls, Lamar Alexander would be a good person with whom to have a discussion on John Bolton.

His number is (202)224-4944.

Senator Alexander is a thoughtful, balanced person. I've had the pleasure of knowing him for some time now, and I'm very supportive of his efforts to find ways in which to support more spending in counties that have drastically lower levels of education spending per child than urban areas. He is a big thinker, believes in experimenting with policy structures and initiatives to achieve "something that works" rather than being "ideologically correct." His words.

He is a Republican from Tennessee, a former Secretary of Education, and a several time candidate for President of the United States. He has the sensibilities of a moderate Republican, and if he dug into John Bolton's file a bit, he would see that the problems with John Bolton are not just optical, and not just bad behavior -- which seems to have been the impression that Lamar Alexander has of the nation's "John Bolton problem."

Reuters made a comment on Lamar Alexander this morning:

Tennessee Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Foreign Relations Committee member, said in a statement testimony about Bolton's behavior "might be a bit of a lesson to Mr. Bolton and a reminder to the rest of us of how unattractive it is to shout at an associate or unnecessarily dress down a staff member."

But Alexander said he was sticking by his support for Bolton.

There may be some principled reasons why someone might want to stand by Mr. Bolton to serve as Ambassador to the United Nations. I don't have a good fix on what those reasons might be, but what I do know is that Lamar Alexander -- who is a sensible, educated, thoughtful man -- knows in his mind and his heart that this Battle over Bolton is not about "unattractive behavior."

Let me recommend to the Senator's staff, that they read and then provide to the Senator the following important summary of the most recent Bolton issues by Douglas Jehl of the New York Times

A fourth senior member of Colin L. Powell's team at the State Department expressed strong reservations on Friday about the nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations.

The official, A. Elizabeth Jones, is a veteran diplomat who stepped down in February as assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasia. Among those who have now voiced public concerns about Mr. Bolton, Ms. Jones joins Lawrence Wilkerson, Mr. Powell's chief of staff; Carl W. Ford, Jr., who headed the department's intelligence bureau; and John R. Wolf, who was assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation. Associates of Mr. Powell have said he has expressed concerns of his own in private conversations with at least two Republican senators.

"I don't know if he's incapable of negotiation, but he's unwilling," Ms. Jones said in an interview. She said she believed that "the fundamental problem," if Mr. Bolton were to become United Nations ambassador, would be a reluctance on his part to make the kinds of minor, symbolic concessions necessary to build consensus among other governments and maintain the American position.

Ms. Jones spoke as the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is reviewing Mr. Bolton's nomination, was holding closed-door interviews with former senior intelligence officials who clashed with Mr. Bolton during his tenure as under secretary of state for arms control. Congressional officials who heard the testimony said John E. McLaughlin, a former deputy director of central intelligence, used strong language on Friday in telling the group that he regarded as totally inappropriate an attempt by Mr. Bolton in 2002 to seek the ouster of Fulton Armstrong, the national intelligence officer for Latin America, in a dispute over reports on Cuba.

Among others interviewed on Friday was Stuart Cohen, who at the time was Mr. Armstrong's supervisor as the acting chairman of the National Intelligence Council. The clash over Cuba between Mr. Bolton and his staff on one hand and intelligence officials on the other is a central focus of the committee as it weighs allegations that Mr. Bolton inappropriately sought to put pressure on intelligence officials to make judgments that reflected his policy views.

Among new disclosures under committee review are some included in previously undisclosed testimony by Mr. Armstrong, now a senior C.I.A. official. Within days of Mr. Bolton's delivering a speech in May 2002 that warned of attempts by Cuba to develop biological weapons, Mr. Armstrong has told the committee, the Central Intelligence Agency took the rare step of circulating within the Bush administration a classified assessment that was more cautious than Mr. Bolton's approach.

By July 2002, Mr. Bolton had requested the transfer of both Mr. Armstrong and a second intelligence officer, Christian Westermann of the State Department, with whom he had clashed on the matter. Mr. Cohen and Alan Foley, a C.I.A. official who headed the agency's weapons proliferation intelligence unit and was interviewed on Thursday, have both told the committee that Mr. Bolton informed them that he wanted to see Mr. Armstrong removed from his portfolio. Mr. Bolton has testified that he had sought the two analysts' removal because he had lost confidence in them.

Lamar Alexander is unusual because he has served in so many distinguished executive positions -- and he understands what a real problem is as compared to an artificial or partisan debate. I would really quit this effort against John Bolton if I thought that the reasons for opposing him were primarily behavioral.

I think that his behavioral quirks and temper are focused in such a way as to make him a loose cannon in national security. He has lied to Congress frequently and not just recently. He pounds people and institutions to give him validation of preconceived and ideologically correct (from his view) intelligence so that he could run crusades against other nations. The problem is that he refused to work in partnership with the other diplomatic and intelligence operations of the U.S. government and frequently undermined them.

Senator Alexander was Governor of Tennessee. He was Secretary of Education. He knows what it is to run an agency or executive operation with someone like John Bolton operating at odds with all others around him. Bolton's credentials are not impeccable, and he is not someone this nation can feel proud of in this position.

I think that if Lamar Alexander considers this a bit more -- and looks into the dossier in a serious way -- he may reconsider his support for Mr. Bolton.

Let me suggest two things -- one to TWN readers, and another to Senator Alexander's staff.

First, I do think that Senator Alexander should hear from people who care about this issue. Call him, but be polite and respectful. Encourage the Senator to reconsider his position and to realize that the issues about Bolton have little to do with "tantrums."

I would really appreciate it if someone out there might fax the Senator's office this entry from The Washington Note. I won't do it -- but others can feel free to do so. His fax number is (202)228-3398.

Sometimes it's good to address faxes to the Chief of Staff, Director of Communications, and Foreign Policy Legislative Assistant.

On another front, I strongly encourage the Senator's staff to reach out to Colin Powell for some broader discussion about Mr. Bolton. I think Secretary Powell will make clear in two sentences to the Senator that this is not about Bolton's intemperate behavior.

The Senator's former Staff Director of the Children and Families Subcommittee, Marguerite Sallee, is now the new President & CEO of America's Promise, of which Colin Powell is founding Chairman.

I have not spoken to Marguerite -- who is an outstanding champion of children's educational and caring needs -- but she might make an ideal channel to Secretary Powell, though of course the Senator can reach anyone he wants on his own. I just wanted to suggest that worlds blur, and some of Lamar Alexander's world could easily be informed by those raising other concerns about John Bolton than the cosmetic.

Please encourage Senator Alexander to talk with Colin Powell, with John Whitehead, with Brent Scowcroft, with John Danforth, with any of the key witnesses that have come forward at great personal risk in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to expose John Bolton's record.

This is not a partisan appeal. This is a call for sensible, ethical, informed judgment on whether John Bolton is "fit" for this job or not -- and in my view, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has responsibilities to the citizens of the country to protect their interests.

The Committee also has a responsibility to the President of the United States to inform him when he has made a bad decision, as the President clearly has in John Bolton's nomination. The Senate's role is what in part keeps America from tilting towards the trappings of monarchy.

-- Steve Clemons

A. Elizabeth Jones, Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, publicly stated that John Bolton, her colleague, regularly violated State Department rules on travel and notification of meetings.

According to AP's Barry Schweid, Jones said that Bolton's behavior was "symptomatic of his determination not to work with other people."

This from the AP report:

John R. Bolton, the embattled nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, regularly tried to set up meetings abroad with Russian, British and French officials without notifying the U.S. Embassy or the State Department, the outgoing head of the department's European bureau said Friday.

On each occasion, Bolton ultimately received permission to hold the meetings before they actually were conducted because State Department officials found out about his plans, A. Elizabeth Jones, assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasia, said in an interview with The Associated Press.

But Bolton, who is undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, persisted in trying to set up subsequent meetings on his own, Jones said.

"It's symptomatic of his determination not to work with other people," she said.

On foreign trips, particularly to Moscow, "He was off on his own doing by God what he pleases," Jones said. "It is a State Department rule these meetings must be coordinated with the embassy."

Asked if the State Department has such a rule, department spokesman Adam Ereli said, "Foreign travel is coordinated with those who it needs to be coordinated with." He said the coordination usually involves the local U.S. embassy, the State Department or both.

On Thursday, Ereli said he knew of no meetings Bolton had with foreign officials abroad without the embassy's knowledge.

"John Bolton coordinated with the proper officials in all cases that I know about," Ereli said.

Poor Adam Ereli. He must be trying very hard to keep from finding out any cases in which Bolton might have done something that was violations of rules, procedures, and protocol when it came to diplomatic contacts and coordination.

Everyone else in senior positions in the State Department seems to have quite a number of John Bolton "misbehavior" stories.

I don't mean in any way to disparage Mr. Ereli. But at some point, the denials of wrong-doing and the attempts by State to white wash what are clearly rogue behaviors by Bolton goes beyond what could politely be called "absurd".

-- Steve Clemons

The New York Times' Douglas Jehl has an excellent summary of the John Wolf and Robert Hutchings interviews here.

Dafna Linzer's informative Washington Post article on the same subject is available here. I think both sew in different items that are worth considering.

However, John Whitehead steps into the spotlight asking his President and the head of his Republican Party why he is so insistent on someone so wrong for the job.

Whitehead -- a Republican, a former Reagan administration Deputy Secretary of State, former Co-Chairman of Goldman Sachs, and Founding Chairman of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation -- is a key pillar of moderate Republicanism in the country. TWN happens to know that he has been very careful not to publicly cross President Bush, with whom he has had a constructive and useful relationship during Bush's term in office.

It will be interesting to see if the administration is planning to take John Whitehead off the White House Holiday Party list because of his expressing a negative assessment of John Bolton's "fitness" for the U.N. job.

Douglas Jehl writes:

On Thursday, John C. Whitehead, who was deputy secretary of state under President Reagan, said in an interview that he had urged Republican senators to oppose Mr. Bolton's nomination on the ground that Mr. Bolton was "a difficult person to work with" who would not command respect at the United Nations.

"I think good Republicans, which I like to feel I am, don't like to disagree with the president publicly, and so have been reluctant to speak out against him," Mr. Whitehead said of Mr. Bolton. "But there are other people, in addition to those who have come forth, who would like to see a change made. I don't like to see the president suffer a loss, and I've been hoping that Mr. Bolton would withdraw, having seen the opposition out there."

The President isn't going to read this blog -- but some of his people do.

You owe it to your boss to have him converse with John Whitehead, with Colin Powell, with Richard Armitage, with Warren Rudman, with John Danforth, with Christine Whitman, with Susan Eisenhower, with Brent Scowcroft. I have no idea what these individuals will really say; they may even concur that Bolton can do some good at the U.N.

But they are an important wing of Republican internationalists whom you should be connecting with, President Bush. Your team is out ahead of these important players, and Bolton-Cheneyism is alienating them.

Someone in the White House needs to take a step back and consider the stakes. The mature and balanced thing is to consult.

Vice President Cheney no doubt that the Bolton nomination was going to be a "cake walk."

We have heard those words before -- and this time it is very much in President Bush's interests to consider all options.

To do that well, he ought to make some phone calls to the people above.

-- Steve Clemons

A completely unanticipated development in the NSA intercepts issue was that unnamed senior level sources who are cleared but refuse to say much more indicated that NM Governor Bill Richardson may be part of the package of NSA intercepts interest exhibited by John Bolton.

This may or may not be true. It seems to me to be a simple, binary question. Bolton requested names of U.S. officials in ten sets of intercepts requested and perused by Bolton. Either Richardson was part of the mix, or not. NSA should find a way to make that clear.

Part of the problem with the NSA intercepts is that the NSA is NOT SUPPOSED to eavesdrop on domestic calls and electronic transmissions. If Bill Richardson was in fact eavesdropped on by the NSA, then this provides some concern that the NSA was monitoring Richardson's conversations with Colin Powell about the North Korea diplomatic effort. Everyone I know who has connections to the NSA world tells me that this would be extraordinary and would shatter trust in the NSA's methods and objectives.

On another front, some were speculating that Bolton's real target of interest was American Envoy for Negotiations with North Korea Jack Pritchard. There seem to have been a number of other officials who interested him as well. The issue with Pritchard, however, is that Bolton was requesting names of officials that were scrubbed out in intercept transcripts. It would have been clear to Bolton or anyone else reading the NSA reports who the official was if it was Pritchard -- so the request for a name seems either redundant or silly.

Let's presume that Bolton was not asking for the "obvious" then. It then seems reasonable to assume that if Bolton was asking for the identities of U.S. officials whose names had been scrubbed by the NSA, that what he was really interested in investigating were foreign conversations, taking place abroad, that referred to U.S. officials or conversations with U.S. officials.

A well-placed source tells me that when the NSA intercepts are read in full, they will demonstrate something unsurprising to those familiar with Bolton's record. The source says that what will be clear is an ongoing-pattern of very poor judgment by John Bolton who was driven by "personal vanity" and "blustery crusades" while "delinquent in his real, assigned responsibilities within his portfolio."

Again, these questions are easily resolved. Bolton either misused intelligence for personal or reckless purposes -- or he did nothing about which the Senate or the American public should be concerned.

It's a yes or no proposition. Binary.

The NSA and Condoleeza Rice's State Department can solve much of this debate about Bolton quickly. It doesn't remove the many arenas of concern about him -- but the question of being a "loose cannon" and of working to undermine American national security because of his behavioral lapses and intemperate vindictiveness against fellow colleagues and their diplomatic efforts will be either enhanced or knocked down a notch by what appears in the transcripts.

Just for those interested, this item ran in the New York Times on January 11, 2003:

"[Democrat, New Mexico] Gov. Bill Richardson, concluding three days of unofficial talks with two North Korean envoys, said today that the discussions had 'eased tensions a bit' between North Korea and the United States.

Speaking just hours after a North Korean diplomat in China warned that his country might resume missile tests, Mr. Richardson called on the Bush administration to engage in its own direct talks with the North. 'I think what now needs to happen is that the governments need to talk to each other,' Mr. Richardson said." The Administration declined.

More later on the intercepts.

-- Steve Clemons

This morning, National Journal's "Inside Washington" ran a short piece on the Bolton fiasco and gave TWN a shout out.

The clip reads:

Inside Washington, National Journal, 30 April 2005

Washington: Take Note of Who Is Joltin' Bolton

Although the nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations is still pending, it is not too early to begin naming this fight's heroes and villains (depending on one's political persuasion). Robert A. George, an editorial writer for the New York Post, already has his pick: Steve Clemons of Washington's New America Foundation.

"If Bolton ends up going down, the person almost single-handedly responsible for it will be Clemons," George wrote on his blog, Ragged Thots, on April 20. "He has been pushing the Bolton-is-unfit/untrustworthy meme with the intensity of a pit bull with its teeth in someone's leg." George is among many insiders crediting Clemons, a former exec at the Economic Strategy Institute and an aide to Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., for joltin' Bolton. Clemons's blog, The Washington Note, has been relentless and thorough in presenting criticism of, and evidence against, President Bush's neocon nominee.

I appreciate the early scoring of effort, but I also want to emphasize that there is a large group of people -- liberal, conservative, and centrist -- who have each played a key role in bringing the opposition to John Bolton's nomination where it has come.

This is actually no time to sort out the score. Bush maintained his support for Bolton in last night's press conference, referring to him as a "blunt guy."

Here is a good treatment of the essentials of Bush's comments on MSNBC:

"John Bolton's a blunt guy," he said at a White House news conference. "Sometimes people say I'm a little too blunt."

But Bush added; "If we expect the United Nations to be effective, it needs to clean up its problems. And I think it makes sense to have somebody representing the United States who will be straightforward about the issues."

Bush described Bolton as someone who will not be "afraid to speak his mind at the United Nations."

Bush and his top aides have been scrambling to put Bolton's nomination on track after Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee were forced to postpone his confirmation vote because of a defection in their ranks.

I feel like we are back in an age of American style Politburo-watching, trying to assess "degrees of support" that the premier and the power-wing of the party may have for someone, or whether that support is dissipating. That said, Bush's comments of support had none of the enthusiasm that he elicited the other day, and certainly has not matched the intensity of ongoing support from Cheney.

Bush was being cautious -- and that is a good thing.

George Bush also knows the difference between theatrical and flamboyant toughness -- versus effectiveness. Why he is pushing Bolton for his ability to mount a public tirade -- rather than pushing someone who has demonstrated a capacity to use stern resolve behind closed doors, producing results that are good for the nation and potentially for reform of the United Nations -- is beyond me.

In August 2004, George Bush himself began slipping into Bolton-style ad hominem references to North Korea's leader, calling him a "tyrant" repeatedly. Kim Jong Il is a tyrant; that's as clear as day. But when American diplomats are tasked with negotiating with a tyrannical regime building a nuclear weapons program, rhetoric needs to make way for diplomacy and space to create an outcome that safeguards American interests.

When Bush was counseled about the fact that his comments "were not helpful" to the process, George Bush actually STOPPED making such references and stopped undermining the efforts of his national security bureacracy to try and get something done with the North Koreans.

John Bolton has never demonstrated such discipline, and is Cheney's dressed-up Wolf-in-Sheep's Clothing to actually undermine American engagement in the institution. Bolton's proponents hope this is the case -- and his opponents also know it.

More to come.

-- Steve Clemons

TWN has just learned from a senior level source that former Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation John Wolf has been interviewed by Republican and Democrat staff members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and validated that John Bolton demonstrated patterned and frequent vindictive behavior towards numerous subordinates at the State Department.

The staff members also spoke with Ambassador Tom Hubbard, former U.S. Ambassador to South Korea, who was mentioned during the testimony provided by John Bolton at his first day of confirmation hearings.

Transcripts of the interviews that Committee staff had with Wolf and Hubbard will most likely be made available on Monday next week.

Here are the nuggets of what was learned:

1. John Wolf confirmed that Rexon Ryu, a State Department expert on proliferation issues in the Middle East and now a State Department detailee working in the office of Senator Chuck Hagel, suffered the determined wrath of John Bolton for many months.

In the period of February/March 2003, Bolton became convinced that Ryu -- whom John Wolf described as one of the most capable, competent and insightful staff in that department -- was "duplicitous."

2. Rexon Ryu had apparently not delivered to Bolton's office a cable that Bolton wanted. TWN does not know what the cable dealt with, but does know that John Wolf investigated and determined that any failure to comply with instructions from Bolton was inadvertent and that no intentional misdeed was done by Ryu. Wolf said that "there was nothing behind this (incident)." In fact, Wolf underscored that Ryu was exceptionally dependable.

3. Over what Wolf considered to be the most minor of infractions, if that, Bolton's fury at Rexon Ryu simmered for months when Bolton went out of his way months later to deny a high profile assignment slated for Rexon Ryu to work on a G-8 Summit meeting. Wolf was astonished by the fact that several months had passed between the cable mishap and the opportunity for Ryu to serve in a different position that Bolton had to go out of his way to block.

4. Wolf disclosed two other incidents in which Bolton -- for undisclosed reasons -- sought to "discipline" (the implication here is "fire" or "remove from portfolio") two other individuals. Wolf refused to identify the individuals or specifically highlight the circumstances other than to say that Wolf protected these two individuals from Bolton's punitive reach. Wolf also stated that in his considered and very well informed assessment, the two individuals whom Bolton wanted removed were not under fire for anything that they did -- but rather for "policy differences." Bolton argued at the time that these two individuals were not "diligent," but Wolf saw this as punishment for alternative views and for "daring to differ."

5. Wolf stated that the Undersecretary was completely "uninterested" in and not willing to entertain alternative policy views.

6. There is speculation that the reason Wolf would not identify the two individuals is that they may be working in sensitive posts inside the State Department at this time and that Wolf and these individuals fear the possibility of retribution -- even at this point. Another possibility exists that Wolf protected these individuals and buffered them from direct exposure to Bolton's wrath and intent.

7. With regard to Tom Hubbard, Hubbard decided on his own to talk to the Republican staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, bypassing the Democratic staff members because of a personal assumption that the Democrats were predisposed to oppose John Bolton and would not be under any illusions about Mr. Bolton. Thus, there was no attempt by Republican staff members to interview Hubbard without Minority staff present.

8. Hubbard wanted to remove any impression from the minds of Committee staff and relevant Republican Senators of the Committee that he "cleared on, approved, or liked any aspect" of the controversial speech presented by John Bolton in Seoul on July 31, 2003. In fact, Hubbard said that he felt that the speech was "counterproductive to the President's policy of a peaceful, effective, and completely verifiable outcome with the North Koreans" over that nation's nuclear weapons program.

9. Hubbard stated that he came forward on his own to make the case clear in case any might have gotten the "impression from John Bolton's testimony" that he was supportive of Bolton's policy positions or of the speech itself. He wanted to "remove" any impression of support or concurrence with Bolton's actions or statements.

I want to remind readers that John Bolton emphatically denied harrassing or abusing staff and that he denied clashing with individuals over intelligence estimates. Bolton said he never tried to have anyone fired. John Bolton lied.

Whereas Lincoln Chafee said that the "Christian Westermann" case -- testified to quite dramatically by former Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Research Carl Ford, a heavyweight Republican lobbyist in D.C. -- did not demonstrate a pattern, it is quite clear that an undeniable pattern is evident now.

Rexon Ryu was harrassed months after a minor incident by Bolton.

According to Wolf, two other staff members had to be protected by John Wolf or they would have been "disciplined" and removed from their positions.

There is also one other case of a senior level State Department official whom Bolton engaged in serious abusive and harmful tactics against. This individual is considering coming forward, and all I can say is that the case is complicated and not reportable yet -- other than that another serious matter at higher levels in the State Department is developing.

This is serious, major news. I don't believe that Lincoln Chafee or Chuck Hagel could in good conscience vote for John Bolton after reading the interviews with John Wolf.

And frankly, if the possible "senior level case" does step forward, I think that Lisa Murkowski is a "No" vote also; but that's still just a hypothetical.

And for all those who think that they know which way Voinovich is going, I've been assured that he is the most independent guy in the Senate and doesn't really give a damn what George Bush or Dick Cheney think when it comes to matters of ethics in government. My bet is Voinovich is the kind of guy to stand up and do the right thing at the "profiles in courage" moment.

I'm actually feeling quite upbeat about matters and very much look forward to hearing President Bush, yet again, reiterate his support for John Bolton.

We are ready to fight this out, and those Republicans and Democrats that don't want to have this disagreeable and inappropriate candidate for the U.N. Ambassadorship rammed down our throats are the ones on the high road.

More to come shortly.

-- Steve Clemons

John Bolton refused to live by the rules that other diplomats, career and non-career, had to live by working at the State Department. Bolton is being irresponsibly rewarded by President Bush and Dick Cheney for violating every rule in the book when it came to serving the U.S. national interest as articulated at various respective times by his boss, Colin Powell, and his even bigger boss, George Bush.

The fact that Bush himself refuses to recognize this or values a perverse type of private loyalty to Bush and Cheney over a more honorable and distinguished type of public loyalty to the foreign policy vision of the President of the United States and Secretary of State does not excuse the error here.

Douglas Jehl has a piece adding even more color to Bolton's genetic predisposition to undermine his State Department colleagues and their operations:

As under secretary of state, John Bolton routinely arranged meetings with Israeli, Russian, British and French officials without first notifying the State Department offices responsible for relations with those countries, according to three former department officials. The officials described the practice by Bolton, who has been nominated to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, as unusual and a violation of department procedures. On at least one occasion, the officials said, Elizabeth Jones, then assistant secretary of state for European affairs, confronted Bolton to complain about meetings in Moscow that Bolton had sought with Russian officials without clearance from the European bureau. Some meetings that Bolton held in Israel, including those with officials of Mossad, the foreign intelligence service, also prompted complaints in the State Department from the bureau of Near Eastern affairs, the officials said. Bolton traveled overseas widely during his tenure but often ignored a requirement that he seek "country clearance" from the U.S. Embassy involved, the officials said. The episodes were described by former State Department officials with direct knowledge of the events. They said they regarded the episodes as notable because they reflected Bolton's practice of acting unilaterally, even in sensitive diplomatic areas in which it was important that U.S. policy be coordinated. The staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is expected to ask questions about the episodes as it begins a new round of interviews about Bolton, whose nomination has caused unease, even among Republicans on the committee. John Wolf, a former assistant secretary of state who traveled with Bolton on some of the trips, is among about two dozen people scheduled to be interviewed by the panel in coming days.

The Bolton File thickens by the day.

Every Republican and Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- every one of them -- will have to say that none of this mattered if he or she casts a vote in favor of Bolton's nomination.

And that vote will have significant political consequence for them. This is the degree to which the White House seems willing to abuse their erstwhile Republican allies in the Senate.

More to come.

-- Steve Clemons

Sid Blumenthal has written a blistering critique of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice's position on John Bolton, making the lucid and appropriate point that whereas Colin Powell has frequently put the interests of the nation above loyalty to those on petty power trips, Rice seems to be doing the opposite.'

Blumenthal writes:

In seeking to prevent the bullying and duplicitous ideologue from representing the US before the international organisation, Powell is engaging in hand-to-hand combat with his successor. Secretary of state Condoleezza Rice's first true test has not arrived from abroad. Caught by Powell's flanking movement, she is trapped in a crisis of credibility, which she herself is deepening.

Powell's closest associate, his former deputy Richard Armitage, is orchestrating much of the action. Wavering senators are directed to call Powell, who briefs them on Bolton's demerits. Powell's former chief of staff, Lawrence B Wilkerson, has surfaced to give an interview to the New York Times, declaring that Bolton would be "an abysmal ambassador".

Other former foreign-service officers have queued up to provide ever uglier details of Bolton's career as a "serial abuser" and "a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy", as Carl W Ford Jr, the former director of intelligence at the state department, described him before the Senate foreign relations committee.

Rice's response to the seemingly endless stream of witnesses has been to order state department senior staff to stanch the flow of adverse stories.

"This whole building knows how Bolton dealt with people," a dismayed senior state department official told me. "If she is sending a different signal than Powell sent that will be difficult. The muzzle is being put on, the damage is being done. To the extent it's buttoned up here, it's dangerous for the secretary. Powell and Armitage created an environment of accountability about treatment of the staff. Any kind of allegation that you did things like Bolton did was death in the foreign service. Persons were removed. Now she's trying to be a team player, trying to support someone Powell ostracised."

Then focusing on the hugely important matter of Bolton's insubordination against Powell, Blumenthal exposes the probable and vital significance of the NSA intercepts Bolton was using to wage war against Armitage, Powell, and others at the State Department:

The Bolton confirmation hearings have revealed his constant efforts to undermine Powell on Iran and Iraq, Syria and North Korea. They have also exposed a most curious incident that has triggered the administration's stonewall reflex. The foreign relations committee has discovered that Bolton made a highly unusual request and gained access to 10 intercepts by the National Security Agency, which monitors worldwide communications, of conversations involving past and present government officials. Whose conversations did Bolton secretly secure and why?

Staff members on the committee believe that Bolton was probably spying on Powell, his senior advisers and other officials reporting to him on diplomatic initiatives that Bolton opposed. If so, it is also possible that Bolton was sharing this top-secret information with his neoconservative allies within the Pentagon and the vice-president's office, with whom he was in daily contact and who were known to be working in league against Powell.

If the intercepts are released they may disclose whether Bolton was a key figure in a counter-intelligence operation run inside the Bush administration against the secretary of state, who would resemble the hunted character played by Will Smith in Enemy of the State. Both Republican and Democratic senators have demanded that the state department, which holds the NSA intercepts, turn them over to the committee. But Rice so far has refused. What is she hiding by her cover-up?

The White House is toughening-up its support of Bolton, even to the point of anticipating a stalemate or even negative vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Bolton. Lawyers are now considering various mechanisms by which the Senate Foreign Relations Committee might be circumvented to take the nomination directly to the floor of the Senate, this making a mockery of the Committee, its findings, and any vote it might take.

This is incredible. The Bush administration is willing -- it seems -- to gamble everything on behalf of Bolton, even to the point of emasculating the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senators like Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, Lincoln Chafee, George Voinovich, and others need to say enough is enough. This is no longer about Bolton being a "loose cannon" or irresponsible manager of intelligence, or an agent in a guerilla war against Secretary of State Colin Powell's diplomacy. This is about an incredible abuse of power not by Bolton, but by the White House.

If it stays on its present course, the White House is saying that not only was Bolton's wide berth of disturbing, reckless behaviors not appropriate, White House officials are celebrating Boltonianism and mimicking it in its treatment of Lugar and his committee.

Because the White House is willing to go to such incredibly perverse lengths on this battle, I think it's increasingly clear that Bolton's opponents can and may just possibly win. The manner and style of White House pressure on its caucus is forcing the Senate to accept the unacceptable.

Dick Cheney's team is canvassing the Republican caucus to see how solid or weak support will be for Bolton in a full Senate vote -- but they are taking the vote before anyone has seen the NSA intercepts.

If Bolton played loose with the nation's most secret secrets and was spying on his superiors and passing on information to others in government, Bolton's behavior may have violated bounds of legality. The Senate will switch in a heart-beat if that is the case, despite any pre-NSA Intercepts ring-kissing operation that Cheney has going on among the Republicans in the Senate chamber.

Today, in addition to Blumenthal's devastating piece, Bolton-obsession is still running strong in the nation's papers, and particularly in the New York Times and Washington Post. In the latter case, Art Buchwald moves Bolton even deeper into pop culture, and Richard Cohen correctly argues that Bolton's misassessments of intelligence, heavy-handedness with allies, and delinqency on his real non-proliferation tasks were like an "acorn" on Dick Cheney's tree.

Bolton stories will continue to bubble out this week. But watch for a blow-up over the NSA intercepts if the White House or Condoleeza Rice continue to stonewall by restricting access to U.S. Senators demanding to see what Bolton saw.

Cover-ups never work, but it seems to me that whether or not national security related logistical reasons are the excuse for delay or Condoleeza Rice is to blame, each day that passes without response from or compliance by the administration increases the prospect of yet another major blow-up in the Committee over Bolton.

THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MAJORITY AND MINORITY STAFF ON THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE is predicated on the good will that the staffs would collectively secure all testimony and information relevant to the Bolton case. Lugar has today joined Biden in making a formal request of the administration for NSA intercept access.

But if the administration does not comply, Biden and others on Committee -- and any miffed and irritated Senator on the floor of the Senate -- and I hear that Senator Rockefeller is one of those most miffed -- can again help launch fireworks again around the time of the May 12th Committee hearing.

The White House may be deploying new and cynical tactics, but those moderate Republicans and progressives working behind the scenes -- as Sid Blumenthal points out -- are profoundly resolved to restore integrity to American foreign policy and to protect the system of checks and balances that are being smeared and violated by the Cheney-Bolton machine.

The administration is testing its opposition, and I hear that many in the White House check out this blog each morning.

Good morning to all of you there. Just wanted to let you know that we intend to duke it out as long as the Cheney-Bolton team want to stay in the ring.

-- Steve Clemons

Tomorrow the administration will receive a letter co-signed by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar and Ranking Member Joseph Biden requesting that the 10 NSA intercept transcripts requested by John Bolton during his tenure as Under Secretary of State be made available to Senators and cleared senior Committee staff.

This is a very important step because if the administration fails to comply, it is now not only defying Senator Chris Dodd who has been trying to get a response on these transcripts for weeks, it is defiance of Chairman Lugar.

There are two theories as to why the NSA transcripts have not been provided yet. The first is that there are complicated protocols and precedence issues involved with the NSA providing these materials. I do not have evidence just yet of the case, but I have heard that there is in fact a precedent of the NSA providing intercept material to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in another circumstance. These kinds of intercepts are among America's most secret kind of secrets -- and this request for a rather large number of intercepts is significant. There may also be genuine concerns about protecting sources and methods of intelligence collection -- and not having certain kinds of information leak out that could conceivably endanger national security.

The second is that this is a smoke screen that the State Department and Condoleeza Rice and others are manipulating to drag out the process of getting vital information on Bolton's interest in the various U.S. officials named in the transcripts.

Sources tell TWN that the State Department has not signed off on NSA providing the transcripts and that the issue involved is not only resolving the logistics of making the transcripts available -- but also working with State collaboratively so as not to inadvertently harm various diplomatic agendas or people mentioned.

The bottom line is that Dodd and others have worked for a very long time to get into the transcripts -- and the administration has hid behind drag-their-feet protocol matters. NSA also had the audacity to claim that they would provide information only to the Senate Intelligence Committee. I'm sure that as miffed as Senator Lugar was with some Members of his Committee that the Bolton matter was dragged out an extra three weeks, such a response from the NSA and State Department would be equally irritating, if not more.

TWN has also learned that the Senate Democrats on the Committee are prepared to accept alternative presentations of material from the NSA.

If full transcripts prove to be too cumbersome or complicated to make available, TWN has been assured that the Democratic Members on the Committee would be willing to accept a digested version of the material which includes three parts:

1. the names of U.S. officials that appear in the transcripts and requested by Bolton

2. the dates of each reqested transcript

3. a digest of what policy issues or matters the transcript was about

The transcripts are important. Lugar is now tying up with Biden.

There is a great deal of speculation as to what is mentioned in the transcripts and which individuals will make the cut of those Bolton was essentially checking up on (or spying on) with his weekend reads of these super secret intel reports. The speculation and commentary range from Bill Richardson on some North Korea matters to Joe Biden on some Iran efforts...to Jack Pritchard on North Korea...and even Richard Armitage.

I have heard through an indirect source, someone close to a former very senior level officer at the State Department, that the intercepts will most likely not provide a "slam-dunk" against Bolton in showing some very clear pattern of interest in sabotaging his colleagues -- but they will show a pattern of serious lapses in judgment and some serious ethical lapses when it comes to his perception of his role as a staff member assigned to follow the instructions of the Secretary of State.

What is fundamental is that the Senators, on both sides of the aisle, and their chief aides see the material Bolton saw.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee cannot proceed in good conscience on this vote without access to that information.

And though this is a delicate process and Richard Lugar cannot be accused of being anti-Bolton in this process, Lugar himself just raised the stakes a lot by agreeing to assign his name to the demand that the administration stop stone-walling on these intercepts.

There will be more stories tomorrow on Bolton. . .and in case you missed them, here are two pieces on Bolton that ran on today's New York Times op-ed page -- one by Tom Friedman and the other by Maureen Dowd.

There were other articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, and just about everywhere. Even Brit Hume is giving the Bolton matter a lot of air time, though he's on the other side of the battle.

One of our goals when this effort began was to turn Bolton into a household name, to get as many people as possible thinking about what was desirable and not when it came to representing this nation in the United Nations.

Maybe "household name" is overdone -- but Bolton's getting close.

-- Steve Clemons

Tonight I helped host the Chairman of the Free Democratic Party of Germany's Parliamentary Group, Wolfgang Gerhardt, at a forum organized by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation.

If a coalition of the Christian Democrats and Free Democrats displaces the governing coalition of Social Democrats and Greens in Germany's next election, Gerhardt may very well emerge as Germany's next foreign minister.

He gave a lucid, sensible talk -- quite brave in fact for speaking so candidly about some of the problems that lie ahead with China, Israel-Palestine, and Iran policy.

Someone in the audience knowing my rather serious interest in John Bolton's future asked what Gerhardt thought of Bolton's nomintation to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.

Knowing that he could probably not answer such a diplomatic question directly, I suggested a re-phrased question which went something like:

I know that America is in need of a new Ambassador to Germany. (pause) Might Germany welcome John Bolton to that post?

The answer from Wolfgang Gerhardt:

In the case that Mr. Bolton might become Ambassador to Germany, it might make best sense to deal directly with the U.S. government here in Washington rather than through an emissary.

I thought it was a clever response -- and then it reminded me of Condi Rice essentially doing the same thing when she appointed her own U.N. advisor -- distinct, separate, and independent from John Bolton.

-- Steve Clemons

Some Senators involved in the Battle over Bolton have never seemed so small.

I feel like buying them all copies of Anthony Everitt's award-winning Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician just to remind them of what titans they could be if they just got their footing and refixed their tenacious belief in the system of checks and balances that Americans trust them to vigorously support in our form of democracy.

Many people are incorrectly giving this blog credit that is undeserved in the fight against the Bolton nomination. My good friend and political sparring partner Robert George has written on his new blog, Ragged Thots:

If Bolton ends up going down, the person almost single-handedly responsible for it will be Steve Clemons of the New America foundation. Steve's a friend, despite various political differences.

He's a Democrat who worked for Jeff Bingaman for a few years. We've been fortunate enough to end up on a couple of foreign junkets On his blog, The Washington Note, he has been pushing the Bolton-is-unfit/untrustworthy meme with the intensity of a pit bull with its teeth in someone's leg. It's strange, because Steve, though a Democrat, is not exactly a reflexive partisan, but he really despises Bolton.

Via his blog, he may end up doing to Bolton what Bill Kristol did to the Clinton health plan in 1993-94 through his "Project for the Republican Future" memos. The stakes aren't exactly the same, but the comparison is apt. Does this suggest a significant future role within the Democratic Party/liberal policy network for Mr. Clemons? Only time will tell.

Robert is way too generous as many other commentators have been as there have been a ton of voices brought into this debate. I should also add that while I am quite interested in hijacking the Democratic Party and pointing it towards a new and more effective set of policies, I maintain my affiliation of record as Independent.

If those of us involved in the Bolton Battle have done anything, we helped create a political space that sensible Democrat and Republican politicians could get into to think less like robots over this nomination -- and to ponder the big issues that Bolton's nomination has pushed to the surface. For that, this blog is proud -- and whether we win or lose this battle over John Bolton -- it was absolutely the right one to fight with the White House.

I want the White House to show to what absurd lengths it will go to push a candidate so disdainful of the United Nations, so disdainful of principled American engagement in the world, so disdainful of dissent and debate among colleagues on the AMERICAN side of the equation, so disdainful of the realities of delicate diplomacy in vital national security matters, so disdainful of the U.S. Congress to the point of lying outright to them about his past, so disdainful of the separation of powers in our government.

If we are going to lose this battle on Bolton, which we are no where near to losing yet, then I want the White House to compel its moderates, its sensible and generally fair team of Senators like Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, Lisa Murkowski, Lamar Alexander, George Voinovich, and Lincoln Chafee to choke down a candidate that makes many of them want to heave when they get into the muck of his behavior. He is the dark side of the Bush administration.

All presidential administations have a multiple personality reality. Cheney and Bolton are one part of that personality. Bob Zoellick is another, different part. Hadley and others another part. There are more personality profiles to the Bush administration that deserve explication another time -- but that said -- the DOMINANT personality in this battle over the U.N. nomination is Cheney -- and the face the world is seeing and Americans are seeing is the dark, petty, 50%-plus-one tactics of a White House bent on crushing opposition and winning at all costs.

Well, I believe in fighting until the end -- and Democrats in general are not used to doing that. I've been impressed with the Senior Staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and also with some top journalists who are putting this story as it should be -- showing all of the malignancy in the nomination of John Bolton -- and then showing how day after day Senators like Lincoln Chafee are still being compelled by the White House to say that they might stand with them.

While the White House is pouring pressure on these Senators, those who believe in American internationalism and principled American engagement in world affairs, and who want a reformed United Nations that makes sense for our interests and helps to promote global problem-solving are going to fight back and put pressure on these same officials.

None of them will be able to feign ignorance about this vote. They will be signing off on the single worst candidate that has become before them in years if they vote to confirm. That is why so many Republicans -- when faced with the evidence -- have expressed discomfort.

Bolton's behavior, antics, and recklessness OFFEND. And beyond that, he has engaged in battles against Bush adminsistration diplomacy as conducted and driven by Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, and Jack Pritchard that undermined our efforts to keep hostile North Korea nuclear warheads from growing in number, warheads that are hostile to America and global stability.

And if these Senators do get Bolton's nomination out of Committee, there are a whole new set of opportunities for battle over this nomination on the Floor of the Senate.

With people of Colin Powell's and Richard Armitage's ilk essentially on our side, the battle is worth fighting. I tend to want to match with smiles and rationality the sneers and snarls from Cheney and new Bolton buddies David Frum and Gary Bauer. But it is nonetheless feeling more and more like an epic battle, which as Frum wrote yesterday is turning out to be a battle about "the presidency itself."

The White House is trying to demonstrate that it has a majority of Republicans who will vote to confirm Bolton on the floor. Duh...of course they do....until other Senators are forced to look at the evidence, which members outside the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have not been tasked with doing -- at least not until the Committee does its job of compiling a full record on Bolton and voting on it.

I'm not moved at all by the White House's tactic of canvassing the votes of its members. Those opposed to Bolton will be visiting these same Senators and asking the question of whether they can conscientiously vote in favor of Bolton after they know X, Y, and Z about him.

We should put an "acknowledgement of the facts contract" in front of every Senator who plans to vote for or against John Bolton and have them SIGN IT.

In any case, the Senate has not done its job. It has not reviewed all of the evidence on Bolton which is now widening in scope.

The Senators do not have copies of the NSA intercepts which they must read and review before voting on Bolton's nomination. My sources tell me today that the State Department stone-walling of Senators Dodd and Biden, as well as Jay Rockefeller, over the NSA intercepts, may now be complicated by Senator Lugar making a direct request for the intercepts.

Much more to play out -- despite the optics the White House is trying to give this.

TWN is committed to commenting and reporting on this Battle over Bolton because it matters to the country and because this is the kind of fight that Republicans and Democrats who believe in principled internationalism should be fighting together.

I am very happy to be part of this effort -- but let's remember that there are many players in the battle now. I am proud of the role this blog has played in keeping the flame burning, and there are other blogs like Stygius and War and Piece which provide amazing, near constant coverage.

But mainstream journalism is also seeking its teeth into this story every day. Every day. Can you believe that?

They really hoped that John Bolton would sneak anonymously by a nation, counting on the ignorance and ambivalence of citizens about this nomination.

Win or lose on Bolton, Senators need to know that everyone knows who John Bolton is now -- and will be paying a lot of attention to the principles and guidelines they use to justify a vote in favor or against.

-- Steve Clemons

The original blogger, before there were blogs, was Chris Nelson with his Nelson Report. The only difference in what he does today is that he sends his uber-insider zingers to high-paying readers, whereas most of us just do all this posting for fun or an occasional turkey sandwich.

Nelson's latest on Bolton:

Bolton gossip. . .comity on Senate Foreign Relations is a potential casualty of the "war" so far. Note the ill-feelings generated Friday when Republican staff wouldn't let Democratic staff sit in on the "debrief" of former Amb to Seoul Tom Hubbard, despite the Dem's role in bringing Hubbard forward to contradict claims that he "cleared" a controversial Bolton speech on N. Korea.

A meeting late yesterday was aimed at restoring cooperation, and we've not heard if it was black or white smoke which flowed out the window.

But for today, at least, it looks like nothing except a provable charge of criminal behavior is likely to defeat Bolton IF a Floor vote is scheduled. So all eyes remain on Lincoln Chafee, the Republican moderate who has flirted with voting "no" in Committee, which would theoretically doom the nomination.

The White House is putting "huge pressure" on everyone concerned, and Chairman Lugar is known to remain very displeased with being, as he sees it, sandbagged at last week's meeting.

So Dems and other Bolton opponents are pinning their hopes on the calendar. . .May 12 is a long time in politics, and "something may turn up". . .but if that "something" is a recess appointment, it's not clear how the Senate will react.

I just spoke to Chris Nelson and encouraged him to take another look -- particularly at the brewing battle between the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Condi Rice over THE STILL WITHHELD NSA INTERCEPTS that John Bolton requested during his tenure.

I think that the NSA intercepts are turning out to be the 900 lb. guerilla in this battle -- and inquiring minds would like to know what the administration is trying to hide.

-- Steve Clemons

Trying to find out the U.S. officials named in the NSA intercepts is going to be complicated and difficult -- particularly because they are highly classified and also because the State Department and Bush administration are working over-time to try and prevent Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from seeing them.

There is no more important evidence in the John Bolton nomination than those transcripts -- and it is my understanding, though I admit to not having complete information -- that Senator Lugar's staff is now getting stonewalled by the administration as well.

What I do have from a confidential and highly placed source is at least one name who appears in the NSA documents, and it is someone I had not previously considered.

Quite astoundingly, reports are that Governor Bill Richardson -- who previously served as a Member of the U.S. Congress, as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and as Secretary of Energy -- was named in the transcripts dealing with diplomatic efforts he was making with North Korea.

I suspect that Ambassador Charles "Jack" Pritchard, our previous envoy for negotiations with North Korea, is also part of the NSA intercepts package -- but the Richardson revelation is new.

The mainstream press is going to have to do its own digging on this one, but there are sources out there who have some knowledge of the intercepts.

-- Steve Clemons

I just caught this item this morning on Stygius. Not only were the British furious over Libya, but also over Iran.

Bolton has been a one-man wrecking crew undermining American national security diplomacy and angering friends.

-- Steve Clemons

My colleague and friend Robert Wright has an outstanding op-ed in the New York Times today that should remind everyone that the real reason for opposing John Bolton is that he has Neanderthal policy positions when it comes to dealing with the country's largest national security problems.

Noting that the 10th Anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing came and went about a week ago with only scant attention paid, Wright shares:

But letting the memory of Mr. McVeigh fade has its own dangers. In a crucially instructive sense he and Mr. bin Laden represent the same threat. Though their ideologies differ (I'm guessing they wouldn't have hit it off), both were empowered by a force that will empower tomorrow's terrorists even more.

Unfortunately, it's a force that the Bush administration has a deep aversion to confronting. And there's no better illustration of this aversion than one of the many people who got more press last week than Timothy McVeigh: John R. Bolton, Mr. Bush's choice for ambassador to the United Nations.

I suggest that you read the entire article, but I must post this next longish clip which really does get at the nugget of the problem on John Bolton:

UNLESS I've overlooked an option, there is ultimately no alternative to international arms control. It will have to be arms control of a creatively astringent, even visionary, sort. And achieving it will be a long haul -- incremental, halting progress, over many years, through a series of flawed but improving agreements that are at first less than global in scope.

But for now the details don't matter, because the Bush administration opposes the basic idea.

Why? Because John Bolton is not just the undersecretary for arms control, but the guiding spirit, so far, of the administration's arms control philosophy.

To get other nations to endure intrusive monitoring, America would have to submit to such monitoring. People of Mr. Bolton's ideological persuasion insist that this amounts to a sacrifice of American sovereignty. And they're right; it's just a less objectionable sacrifice of sovereignty than letting terrorists blow up your cities.

Weeks before 9/11, the Bush administration antagonized much of the civilized world by rejecting an arduously negotiated protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention. The protocol would have put teeth in the treaty, making member nations, which forswear the possession of bioweapons, open their soil to inspectors.

Would 9/11 and the ensuing anthrax attacks soften the administration's opposition? Or -- since the protocol was no doubt imperfect -- might the administration at least suggest an alternative international inspections regime?

Two months after 9/11, Mr. Bolton told a gathering of member states that the answers were no and no. (Who needs inspections? Mr. Bolton told the assemblage that the existence of Iraq's bioweapons program was "beyond dispute.")

Mr. Bolton's signature arms-control achievement is the "proliferation security initiative," which encourages the interdiction of ships suspected of carrying illicit munitions. Mr. Bolton says there have been interdictions under the pact.

What he doesn't say is that they could have happened without the pact, because it grants no new powers of interdiction. Any such powers would have to apply not just to foreign merchant ships but to ships sailing under an American flag -- which, of course, would be an unacceptable erosion of American sovereignty.

John Bolton is a "Fortress America" kind of guy. He just does not belong in the United Nations, which is a place antithetical to everything John Bolton believes.

-- Steve Clemons

Credit: Dan Wasserman, Boston Globe, 26 April 2005

-- Steve Clemons

Strangely enough, David Frum has written an article in Canada's Financial Post on John Bolton with which I agree about 90%.

Here is how the first bit runs:

On Friday, the battle over John Bolton's nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations ceased to be a battle about Bolton -- and became a battle about the presidency.

That morning, The New York Times reported on its front page that "associates of Colin L. Powell, the former secretary of state, said he had expressed reservations about Mr. Bolton in conversations with at least two wavering Republican senators." The Washington Post carried a still more strongly flavoured story about Powell's "private conversations" with senators on the Foreign Relations Committee: The Post quoted an anonymous Democratic staffer saying, "[Powell] has let it be known that the Bolton nomination is a bad one, to put it mildly."

Stories like these do not (obviously) appear in newspapers by accident. Powell is not merely going to war against Bolton. He is declaring war before the whole world.

But why would Powell do such a thing? As a supremely talented bureaucratic warrior, Powell must know that the deadliest blow he could deal Bolton would be a whispered word to the Foreign Relations Committee's more liberal Republicans: Lincoln Chafee, Chuck Hagel, George Voinovich. Bolton is backed by a re-elected President and a powerful Vice-President. By taking a public stand against Bolton, Powell is also taking a public stand against Bush and Cheney.

Is it possible that Powell did not understand that? No, it is utterly impossible. Powell is joining this fight with eyes wide open -- and playing for the very grandest of stakes.

One of the most difficult manoeuvres in the Washington power game is the move from power to influence. Power comes with high office, and high office is always temporary. But rarely -- very rarely -- an office-holder's reputation, or personal connections, or unique knowledge enable him to exert influence on events even after he leaves his office behind. Henry Kissinger is the outstanding example of the post-official influential, flanked perhaps by former treasury secretary Bob Rubin on the Democratic side and former secretary of state James Baker among Republicans.

Powell is now bidding to join this august group. How more dramatically to stake his claim than to take credit for defeating one of President Bush's most high-profile nominees? The fact that Powell has long disdained Bolton may add special zest to Powell's campaign against him. But make no mistake: Bolton is only an incidental target and only a secondary rival to Powell. Powell's true target is the Bush administration itself -- and his true antagonist is the President himself.

I disagree with Frum's assertion in the article that "Bolton's philosophy is uniquely aligned with the President's own." Bush has demonstrated far more flexibility than even the neocons give him credit for.

And I disagree with David that "we'll yet see ambassador Bolton raise his hand over the American desk at the Security Council."

Where he is absolutely right is that the White House has allowed the controversy over Bolton become a controversy about much greater issues than Bolton the man -- but also about broad foreign policy questions and about the state of the Bush presidency itself.

The White House gambled recklessly in pushing Bolton on a Congress that may be compelled to reject him -- not only because Bolton was a bad choice for the U.N. job but to prove that we do not have a monarchy.

-- Steve Clemons

John Bolton seems to have inflated virtually every threat into which his office came into contact. I take that back. He seems to have underestimated the threat of potential rogue nuclear materials in Russia as Senators Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) questioned his delinquency on that front several years ago.

But on Cuba, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, John Bolton spent a lot of time at war with intelligence analysts. Certainly, all of these nations are threats, but overestimating threats can be as dangerous as underestimating them.

I have known a number of people who worked around John Bolton, and in mid-2003, one of these people made an off-hand comment, which perhaps should not be taken too seriously but nonetheless was chilling. He said, "if my boss had his way, would be at war with North Korea right now." I guess that was the moment when I realized John Bolton's potential danger in the national security establishment.

I think North Korea is a dangerous regime, run by a tyrant. That said, the nation's chief concern in mid-2003 and in the subsequent years when Bush's team was in place to keep North Korea's nuclear ambitions and capabilities from growing worse than they already were. The Six Party Talks were probably the most critical diplomatic initiative underway at the time, and John Bolton spent a lot of political capital trying to undermine them and position the U.S. in a much more belligerent stance towards North Korea.

Bolton has apparently done much the same with Syria, according to an important report by the New York Times' Douglas Jehl:

John R. Bolton clashed repeatedly with American intelligence officials in 2002 and 2003 as he sought to deliver warnings about Syrian efforts to acquire unconventional weapons that the Central Intelligence Agency and other experts rejected as exaggerated, according to former intelligence officials.

Ultimately, the former intelligence officials said, most of what Mr. Bolton, then an under secretary of state, said publicly about Syria hewed to the limits on which the C.I.A. and other agencies had insisted. But they said that the prolonged and heated disputes over Mr. Bolton's proposed remarks were unusual within government, and that they reflected what one former senior official called a pattern in which Mr. Bolton sought to push his public assertions beyond the views endorsed by intelligence agencies.

The episodes involving Syria are being reviewed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as part of its inquiries related to Mr. Bolton's nomination to become ambassador to the United Nations. Some of the former intelligence officials said they had discussed the issue with the committee, while declassified e-mail messages from 2002 provided to the committee by the State Department allude to one previously unknown episode.

Later in the article:

Until now, Senate Democrats leading the opposition to Mr. Bolton's nomination have focused mostly on a 2002 dispute related to Cuba, in which Mr. Bolton has acknowledged seeking the transfer of two intelligence officials with whom he had differed. But a top Democratic staff member on Monday described the clashes over Syria as "an example, perhaps the most serious one, not of Mr. Bolton's abusing people, but of trying to exaggerate the intelligence to fit his policy views."

In one Congressional appearance, in June 2003 before the House International Relations Committee, Mr. Bolton offered a considerably darker view of Syria's nuclear program than the C.I.A. had in a report to Congress two months earlier.

Among other things, Mr. Bolton said American officials were "looking at Syria's nuclear program with growing concern and continue to monitor it for any signs of nuclear weapons intent." The C.I.A. report to Congress in April said only, "In principle, broader access to Russian expertise provides opportunities for Syria to expand its indigenous capabilities, should it decide to pursue nuclear weapons."

John Bolton is one who seemed to have constantly exaggerated what was the "worst case scenario" in most circumstances. This is a phenomenally dangerous kind of blind spot that is ill-suited for the role of Ambassador to the United Nations where the challenge of U.N. reform and building a coalition of support around a new and revived U.N. are going to be critical.

Bolton seems both unable to see the world as anything else but "much worse" than it is -- and also seems unable to stay within the appropriate bounds of a collaborate diplomatic effort.

John Bolton, I am told, reads this blog. This must be a difficult and extremely vexing time for him. Much has been dredged up in his past -- and there seem to be things he has done before that he might want to have done differently.

I hope that he does reconsider this U.N. effort. He should know by now that he can't succeed in a mission there -- and his candidacy is damaging the White House each day this goes on.

Vice President Cheney should offer him some kind of Rovian-type role on his own staff to put Bolton's abilities to work in a corner of the administration where they would be welcome -- but not in a place where the sensibilities of the nation would be greatly aggravated.

-- Steve Clemons

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice spoke in Crawford, Texas today and encouraged the Senate to move forward on the Bolton nomination, suggesting that State had been extremely compliant in providing the material the Senate had requested on John Bolton.

This is not true.

The single most important evidence that has not been sent to the Senate for review are the 10 intercepts that John Bolton had requested during his tenure as Undersecretary from the National Security Agency. For some time, these intercepts were blocked by the State Department that refused to sign off on the NSA providing access to the classified materials.

Rice is not telling the truth about this and needs to tread carefully on this matter. Chris Dodd has been working for weeks to get access to these important intercepts, and at the time of this writing, TWN does not believe that terms of access have been resolved yet.

Until the NSA intercepts -- in full form -- are read by Senators and senior staff in some classified setting, the Bolton nomination cannot proceed.

Rice knows that this is an unresolved matter and should be much more honest and forthcoming that there have been problems in clearing the NSA intercepts.

-- Steve Clemons

Senator Chafee committed to a more vigorous and aggressive investigation of all aspects of John Bolton's background and behavior, and yet in the last several days, there is no evidence that Chafee has done anything to move from his passive stance on Bolton.

I would very much like to be incorrect in my assessment -- and I stand ready to correct the record if I hear from his office or those in contact with him and his efforts on Bolton.

As I have written before, Chafee opened up one of the most important lines of inquiry on Bolton, and ironically, his question about Bolton's battle with Ambassador Charles "Jack" Pritchard may be connected to the NSA intercepts which Bolton requested.

If Chafee were out in front of this and not just waiting for others to lead, we would hear that he was forging ahead, making sure that all members of the Committee were satisfied that the State Department and National Security Agency were complying with requests.

But in my assessment, there has been nothing but SILENCE from his office since his spokeman Steve Hourahan said that he was going to take a much more aggressive stance in this investigation of Bolton.

Chafee may be a moderate -- but he need not be timid. He is a great guy in so many ways, but if he is going to survive in the Senate, which I want him to, he must get into gear and get out of the wake of others. Even if he ultimately votes in favor of Bolton, he needs to be the grand inquisitor.

So far, he will mostly be known for mimicking Kofi Annan's "alleged" encouragement to Bolton to "get confirmed quickly and get to the Waldorf" rather than asking the question that opened the Pritchard inquiry.

Find yourself Senator Chafee -- and get out in front of this. You are missing in action right now.

-- Steve Clemons

Anyone who reads my blog will know that I'm not very good at humor.

I attended an interesting meeting today and met Duncan Black who publishes one of the biggest-reach blogs, Eschaton, and noted that when people read his stuff, they get great one-liners. In my case, they get longish and longer essays mostly devoid of humor.

So, I need others to cook up the laughs. And here are two great entries.

The first is from Tom Toles, the brilliant political cartoonist at the Washington Post who shared this the other day. I just love it. Think of it when you watch Nightline's "Who's the Boss?" show tonight on the life, times, and workplace behavior of John Bolton.

The other is a spoof of my Bolton coverage on my blog, The Washington Note.

It's called "Bolton Fun with Emoticons." It's brilliant.

Enjoy. I'll be back with more soon.

-- Steve Clemons

My problems with John Bolton are about serious "loose cannon" behavior in the realm of national security and foreign policy -- but I have to admit that what has popularized John Bolton as a household name (well. . .almost) are questions about his treatment of people in the workplace.

Tonight, ABC's Nightline will devote its show to John Bolton-style bosses in the workplace.

Here is the promo release:

Nightline -- April 25, 2005

Who's the Boss?

Since when has being a difficult boss been a disqualifier for a job? Well, we might be at that point right now with the president's nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. His nomination is stalled as allegations of his furious temper have emerged. The question is: If he is good at the job, does how he gets results really matter?

Most likely, we've all had a similar experience: working for a boss who wouldn't exactly win accolades from Miss Manners. The world of work is filled with people who are brash, abrasive, mean and rude, but they still get results. So why shouldn't John Bolton get the job? Well, his critics want to know if he is using an alleged bad temper to turn opinion, pressuring people to give him the results he wants on matters of intelligence that will impact policy.

Tonight, correspondent Jonathan Karl will take a look at who John Bolton is and the allegations against him. John Donvan will take a look at the ogre boss, so popular in movies and sitcoms. How prevalent are they in real life, and is there anything to be done about them? Chris Bury anchors tonight, and he'll talk to two guests who know a thing or two about working in Washington and about personal interaction.

We'll close the broadcast with a commentary from author and humorist Christopher Buckley, who has some sage words of advice for John Bolton should he make it to the United Nations.

It should be quite a packed show on a topic we can all relate to. We hope you'll join us.

Madhulika Sikka and the Nightline staff
ABC News Washington D.C.

I have just spoken with Ted Koppel's spokesperson and learned that special guests tonight include the New York Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg who has been writing very lucidly about John Bolton.

The other guest is Deborah Tannen, a Professor of Linguistics at Georgetown University and author of Talking from 9 to 5: Women and Men at Work.

Even I am surprised that news on John Bolton seems to even be holding its own against news on the demise of John Paul II and the ascension of Pope Benedict XVI, and practically every other major story out there.

Everyone wants to talk about John Bolton. Enjoy the show.

-- Steve Clemons

Linda Chavez, if betting now, said she didn't think Bolton was going to make it through confirmation.

This from a recent AFP report:

Linda Chavez, a former official in the Ronald Reagan and elder George Bush administrations, was even more pessimistic. "If I were betting now, I would bet that he's not going to make it," she said on CBS television.

"A lot of people are saying that this man has over the the course of some of his jobs displayed a temperament that is not doing him well now and that is not good for the UN," said Chavez, whose own nomination to become labor secretary in the first George W. Bush administration failed over her alleged hiring of an illegal immigrant as a maid and nanny.

Bolton's nomination hit new problems last week when it emerged that his ex-boss, former secretary of state Colin Powell, reportedly told lawmakers Bolton, currently under secretary of state for arms control and international security, had been a problematic official.

Powell's former chief of staff has been quoted by the US press as saying Bolton would make an "abysmal ambassador."

I see a good wager developing here between Linda Chavez and Bill Richardson, with the latter clearly opposing Bolton but also commenting that he thought he might squeak through.

Why does the White House want someone in the U.N. about whom there is so much indigestion and debate?

Even if confirmed, Bolton is damaged goods even before he takes his post.

-- Steve Clemons

Bill Richardson made some news today suggesting that John Bolton might just squeak through -- but it seems that his comments were of the wagering sort, on how he saw the very close odds, not on the substance of the nomination.

Richardson clearly said that he opposes the Bolton nomination and would vote against him if on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

He also said that Bolton's nomination was on "life-support."

Here are two key excerpts from an Albuquerque Journal article by Michael Coleman today titled "Richardson Says He's Troubled By Bolton U.N. Nomination" (cannot link):

~ Gov. Bill Richardson, a former ambassador to the United Nations under President Clinton, said Sunday that he was "troubled" by the nomination of John Bolton for the U.N. post and would not support him if he were voting in the Senate.

"In the end, if I were a senator, I would not vote for him," Richardson, a former U.S. congressman, said in a telephone interview with the Journal.

However, the governor also predicted the U.S. Senate will eventually confirm Bolton for the high-ranking diplomatic post.

"It's on life support, but I would say the odds are that he will pull it out," Richardson said.

The governor, who also discussed the Bolton nomination on CNN's "Late Edition" with John King on Sunday, said his concerns about the nominee are related more to his policy positions than his reportedly brusque interpersonal style. But Richardson did say an ability to work well with others is a key requirement for success in the U.N. job.

~ "Being aggressive is not a sin," said Richardson, whose own assertive personal style has led to high-profile dustups with Santa Fe lobbyists and lawmakers. "What bothers me is trying to interfere with intelligence."

Richardson, who has not ruled out a presidential run himself in 2008, said a president should generally be allowed to pick his top diplomatic officials. But the concerns raised about Bolton are too serious to ignore, he said.

Richardson said he hasn't heard from Bolton since the president submitted his nomination.

I have been in touch with Bill Richardson's office today and plan to offer the Governor a bet on the Bolton nomination and perhaps get him to reconsider the odds of John Bolton actually getting through this process.

I'll keep you posted if he takes me up on my offer.

-- Steve Clemons

Bob Herbert wrote this beautiful and powerful tribute to the work and memory of Marla Ruzicka who refused to let victims of war go unacknowledged, uncounted, unremembered. She was killed a week ago Saturday in Iraq.

This is from his New York Times piece:

This stunning lack of interest in the toll the war has taken on civilians is one of the reasons Ms. Ruzicka, who was just 28 when she died, felt compelled to try to personally document as much of the suffering as she could.

At times she would go from door to door in the most dangerous areas, taking down information about civilians who had been killed or wounded. She believed fiercely that Americans needed to know about the terrible pain the war was inflicting, and that we had an obligation to do everything possible to mitigate it.

It is such a mistake to mask the costs of war -- financial and in terms of human lives lost on all sides.

My colleague Peter Bergen just sent this to me noting a Senate Memorial Service in honor of Marla Ruzicka:

The Memorial Service for Marla in Washington, DC, is now scheduled for Saturday, May 14, from 2-4pm, in the Russell Senate Caucus Room (Room 325), at the U.S. Senate.

Senator Leahy plans to host this Service, and we expect a very large group of friends and supporters of Marla's to participate. It is a big room because as we all know, Marla made friends with everyone she met, and we hope that any of you who are able will come.

Please forward this email to anyone who you think might want to learn about Marla's life and work and to remember her in this way.

For those of you want to remember someone the nation should feel very proud of, please feel free to join this gathering on May 14.

-- Steve Clemons

Many have asked that I provide an easy roster of contact information for Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Here is a roster of names, phone and fax information, and other electronic contact information for those of you who wish to share your views about John Bolton and whether he helps or hurts American interests if confirmed to serve as America's Ambassador to the U.N.

Hope this is useful.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

(ed. note: Thanks to V.S. for sending this information my way)

Wow. John Aravosis is brilliant.

To paraphrase Jesse Helms who once said this about John Bolton, "John Aravosis is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon."

Check out the lastest pro-Boltonism from Frank Gaffney, David Frum, and Michael Ledeen at ConfirmBolton.com.

Then, check out the rest of the story at ConfirmBolton.org.

(If you paste the url www.confirmbolton.org, it goes to www.TheWashingtonNote.com thanks to John Aravosis.)

Thanks John and AmericaBlog for this nice present today.

-- Steve Clemons

Time Magazine ran this little snippet:

. . .Bolton's confirmation looks far from assured. That has not prevented the nominee, however, from moving through his to-do list. Government sources tell TIME that after he was nominated in early March, Bolton requested that all American employees of the U.S. mission to the U.N. submit their resumes for review.

The move cast a chill over the operation, where some saw it as presumptuous. It may also have been premature.

I had heard this same rumor a couple of weeks ago -- and worked hard at either getting a copy of the email or talking to one of the staff who had concerns about this request. The email just didn't make its way to me -- though I don't doubt at all the "level of concern" among some staffers that their resumes were under review. My sources were very credible regarding the concern -- but weak on the evidence.

So, I called the U.S. Mission to the U.N. and talked with numerous individuals on a background basis. This is what I learned.

A low-level foreign service officer tasked with serving as the liaison between State and the U.S. Mission to the U.N. regarding Bolton's likely move to the delegation prompted some bureaucratic paper-shuffling. One of the items that she thought would make sense was for each section of the U.S. Mission to document what the activities of the respective department were -- what objectives they had, etc.

The press and communications department is in constant flux, faced with different circumstances and objectives all the time -- so in addition to making that reality clear -- this department added "profiles" of its key staff members. Apparently, the foreign service officer and the Chief of Staff of the delegation thought that the 'template' provided by the communications department was a pretty good one and encouraged others if they liked to also add profiles and cv's. But according to my U.N. sources, there was no edict demanding such.

Instead, several key staffers began to provide full curriculum vitae and "juiced-up personal profiles" for their Bolton submissions so as to compete with other personalities in the delegation.

The key point is that Bolton and his people seem never to have requested such documentation. It seems that the U.S. staff to the U.N. just organized themselves in that direction -- suspecting that Bolton may in fact want such information.

Why am I writing this? Because I think it's important to be fair with the evidence on Bolton and let it go the direction it will. Because those with the apparently disconcerting emails did not in the end provide them -- what TIME wrote (unless it had a copy of the emails) is thinly researched. If TIME had called the U.N., I believe that a sensible alternative explanation was possible. . .and in this case, provided.

I do know that the possibility of Bolton moving to the U.S. Delegation has sent a cold shiver through the staff there -- but it's important to report what is real, and not to give too much air time to those things that just can't be validated.

More later on the NSA intercepts -- they matter.

-- Steve Clemons

One of the strongest cards that John Bolton had to play was sitting as the titular head of the Proliferation Security Initiative, a somewhat ad hoc coaltion of willing nations concerned with stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. PSI has been lauded by some as having achieved some very important successes -- particularly in rolling up the A.Q. Khan network and getting Libya to halt its nuclear program.

Others, particularly in the arms control community, have criticized PSI for how little it has achieved, and that proliferation problems have dramatically increased while this largely cosmetic, unenforced collaborate effort against proliferation has provided cover while non-proliferation regimes collapse.

What I find interesting is that many people tell me that the key elements of PSI were in play long before John Bolton came to the story. Most people give Robert Joseph, who is in line to succeed Bolton at State, much of the credit for hatching and launching PSI.

But more importantly, the two victories don't seem to be that at all. On Libya -- certainly a complicated case -- the elements of Libya coming in from the cold were in play for more than a decade. While the Bush administration probably deserves credit for pushing Libya over the edge to finally ending its WMD programs and getting back into the league of semi-respectable nations, Libya had sent signals over many years that it wanted to negotiate its way out of its past identity and get somewhat of a fresh start.

But on top of that, news has already swept through the media that British negotiators with Libya actually asked the White House to block John Bolton from any involvement in the final negotiations with Libya.

Here are two key excerpts from the Michael Hirsh Newsweek story which broke the story on how Bolton threatened key diplomatic efforts involving the British:

~ Colin Powell plainly didn't like what he was hearing. At a meeting in London in November 2003, his counterpart, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, was complaining to Powell about John Bolton, according to a former Bush administration official who was there.

Straw told the then Secretary of State that Bolton, Powell's under secretary for arms control, was making it impossible to reach allied agreement on Iran's nuclear program. Powell turned to an aide and said, "Get a different view on [the Iranian problem]. Bolton is being too tough."

Unbeknownst to Bolton, the aide then interviewed experts in Bolton's own Nonproliferation Bureau. The issue was resolved, the former official told NEWSWEEK, only after Powell adopted softer language recommended by these experts on how and when Iran might be referred to the U.N. Security Council. But the terrified State experts were "adamant that we not let Bolton know we had talked to them," the official said.

~ But the London story is further evidence that Bolton and the White House have their work cut out for them. On several occasions, America's closest ally in the war on terror, Britain, was irked by what U.S. and British sources say were efforts by Bolton to undermine promising diplomatic openings.

Perhaps the most dramatic instance took place early in the U.S.-British talks in 2003 to force Libya to surrender its nuclear program, NEWSWEEK has learned. The Libya deal succeeded only after British officials "at the highest level" persuaded the White House to keep Bolton off the negotiating team. A crucial issue, according to sources involved in the affair, was Muammar Kaddafi's demand that if Libya abandoned its WMD program, the U.S. in turn would drop its goal of regime change.

But Bolton was unwilling to support this compromise. The White House agreed to keep Bolton "out of the loop," as one source puts it. A deal was struck only after Kaddafi was reassured that Bush would settle for "policy change" -- surrendering his WMD. One Bush official called the accounts of both incidents "flatly untrue."

So, Bolton had zilch to do with whatever gains America made on Libya.

And what of A.Q. Khan?

TWN has interviewed several senior foreign service and national security staff -- on a background basis -- and all confirm that the central players in doing the heavy-lifting in containing and rolling back the A.Q. Khan network were Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, CIA Director George Tenet, and Ambassador John Wolf -- who was then Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation.

One person who is a fan of John Bolton told me that when things were heating up on A.Q. Khan, "Bolton was oblivious."

If Libya, and A.Q. Khan were relative gains for American national interest -- and Bolton had virtually nothing to do with these -- what then are his accomplishments in his current position?

The record, even without all of the negative material out there, is unbelievably thin.

-- Steve Clemons

Arlen Specter (R-PA) gave an indication yesterday of what a battle over John Bolton might look like if Bolton's nomination did move out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the Senate Floor.

As reported by Douglas Jehl in the New York Times:

In contrast to optimistic statements from the White House, a top Republican senator said Sunday that John R. Bolton's prospects of winning Senate confirmation as ambassador to the United Nations were "too close to call."

The doubts expressed by the Republican, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who spoke on the CNN program "Late Edition," came as Democratic critics sharpened attacks aimed at portraying Mr. Bolton as someone who sought to politicize intelligence judgments. Four of 10 Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have expressed concern about Mr. Bolton, on a panel where one Republican vote against him could keep the nomination from reaching the Senate floor.

I have joined Bill Kristol in calling on Senator Frist to offer unlimited time for debate on John Bolton if this nomination ever does make it out of Committee, which looks more doubtful by the hour. The combination of behavioral and abuse problems, sabotage of diplomatic efforts, brinksmanship with the entire national security intelligence apparatus, and previous judgment problems when at the National Policy Forum, the Department of Justice, and Covington & Burling provide a vast amount of material for Senators -- and the nation as a whole -- to review via C-Span.

Bolton's nomination would be subjected to countless holds, ongoing questions, and requests for more information on allegations that are even today still continuing to emerge.

I am fairly sure that the Democrats would lose Ben Nelson -- one Democrat -- in the battle against Bolton who seems to have made it clear that he is uninterested in the evidence on Bolton and like Chafee wanted to give a "low-hanging fruit" vote to buy a favor or two from the White House. Nelson's calculus may change when he is confronted by constituents miffed by his stance -- but he's not one to count on.

But what is interesting is that there are lots of Republicans from Pete Domenici to Chuck Hagel to Arlen Specter who are expressing serious doubts and concerns about Bolton. If this ever did come to a vote in the Senate -- the White Housee could actually lose in the Republican-controlled Senate.

As I have written before, a lot hangs on the NSA intercepts. My hunch is that these intercepts will either make it impossible for Bolton to secure a favorable outcome in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- or the intercepts will prove innocuous and give the White House the slimmest opportunity to squeak out a Committee victory.

But there is still a great deal of tumult ahead. It does seem strange that the White House is willing to bleed a little move every day over this. If Cheney-Bolton do win, it will be a victory that harmed the nation.

-- Steve Clemons

On the subject of loyalty, Hannah Arendt once wrote:

Total loyalty is possible only when fidelity is emptied of all concrete content, from which changes of mind might naturally arise.

John Bolton's blind loyalty in the past and present to Jesse Helms, Dick Cheney, and to George Bush's successful presidential race in the year 2000 was the type of total loyalty, devoid of content, that now makes it difficult for the White House to cut loose from his troubled campaign to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

If the White House, and particularly Dick Cheney, drop Bolton too easily, other zealots counting on total support from the White House will have to recalculate their affections. The White House does not really care much about the U.N. as an institution, but they do care about sending signals to their most loyal followers that the Bush-Cheney machine won't totally stand behind their people.

It was an enormous miscalculation of Bush to nominate Bolton for the U.N. job because his background and profile completely offend the sensibilities of those who value principled and reasonable American leadership in the world. Republican internationalists do not like John Bolton, and when such matters as "serial abuse" and "loose cannon" behavior" are tossed into the mix, Republican Senators are being asked to choke down a candidate that is antithetical in the whole to their beliefs.

Bolton may go down, and as of now, it is looking ever more likely -- but the battles ahead will still be fierce because Cheney believes that a loss on Bolton will empower an informal condominium of power between thoughtful, centrist Republicans and some Democrats that will begin to thwart the Bush-Cheney machine.

Cheney made an error over-reaching on Bolton, and if the White House is not careful with this fight and does not figure out a face-saving way to withdraw Bolton, the now fragile support for White House foreign policy initiatives among Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee may be dramatically broken.

It is increasingly hard to find people of the character and starch of a Carl Ford or Tom Hubbard -- whose loyalty is clearly to the United States of America, to representative government, and to the vital system of checks and balances that keeps monarchial power from developing to undermine the Republic.

There are many who are loyal to high-minded principles, and who feel a patriotic duty to challenge the naturally expansive powers of the Presidency. Cheney and others are increasingly painting such independence as disloyal and treasonous.

That is why beating John Bolton is so vital. It is like Chris Nelson wrote so eloquently the other day -- all about saving our democracy.

-- Steve Clemons

Today, CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" ran another "Quick Vote" on the subject of whether Americans thought John Bolton should be Ambassador to the United Nations. 92% have voted NO.

But to be fair, Move America Forward has been running a long-time poll on its site, and it shows 90% of its registered poll-voters (one must register with their site with name, email, and other contact information to be able to vote) favor Bolton.

I did register to vote in that poll and was actually the 2nd vote against Bolton. Now, I see there are at least 123 opposed.

Move America Forward is also the organization that is running campaigns not only to support Bolton's nomination -- but also to "Evict the U.N. from the U.S.A"

Doesn't anyone else find it strange that despite Bolton's assurances during his recent confirmation testimony that he strongly supports the U.N.'s role and is committed to a strong multilateralism, most Bolton advocates actually want to 'nullify' the United Nations?

Here is a typical comment from the ConfirmBolton.com website run by Frank Gaffney and friends on a post about Eagleburger's op-ed today:

If someone other than Bolton is confirmed, it is nearly 100% sure that America will still be in the U.N. in 3 or 4 years. With Bolton, there is at least a chance that we'll be out of it.

Comment by John Davis -- April 24, 2005 @ 4:34 pm

There are so many fascinating angles to the John Bolton nomination fiasco, but clearly the most interesting is that both his proponents and opponents believe that the real John Bolton is not the person who gave testimony in Senate Confirmation Hearings the other day. That person -- who looked like Bolton -- lied about his past and about his run-ins with intel analysts. But most importantly, he said in a round about way that he wasn't the same guy who was speaking in the video played by Senator Boxer.

The problem for John Bolton is that everyone on both sides of the battle knows that the image he created in the Senate hearings does not stand the test of serious scrutiny. He 'is' the guy in the video.

That's the person Move America Forward, Frank Gaffney, and Dick Cheney want.

And that is who many sensible Republicans and sensible Democrats are working so hard to oppose.

-- Steve Clemons

(ed. note: thanks to WEA for the CNN poll)

The White House and some of the Senators who had hoped to quickly move the Bolton nomination through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee counted on the American public's ignorance of Bolton and their relative disinterest in this post at the United Nations.

Blocking Bolton or pushing him through, however, has now become a larger political battle in the country -- not just between Democrats and Republicans -- but actually within Republican circles. This battle is whether George Bush was honest or not in his commitment to start fresh with European allies and to rebuild global concensus on how to confront some of the great global problems of the day.

Some Bolton allies -- including Michael Ledeen, Frank Gaffney, David Frum, and Cliff May -- have launched ConfirmBolton.com. I'm thrilled. This is assuring that the profile and background of John Bolton become even more widely known. The more debate the better. It's good for the country and for the nation that every nook, cranny, and edge of John Bolton's long career to be perused and investigated before the vote on confirmation.

Here is an excerpt from a New York Times article just posted a short while ago, and it illustrates the tension in Republican circles:

Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said on CNN's "Late Edition," that if the abrasiveness is intended to change an idea or an intelligence report, or to hide or change policies to fit an individual's agenda "then that bothers me."

A Republican, Senator Arlen Specter, the Judiciary Committee chairman, said such matters needed to be looked at long and hard.

The postponement of the vote allows the panel time to examine at least a half-dozen allegations against Mr. Bolton that have emerged since he appeared before the committee on April 11.

President Bush has said the Democratic opposition is politically motivated, while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has expressed confidence in Mr. Bolton.

Colin L. Powell, the former secretary of state, has expressed reservations.

With Powell, Armitage (by association), Lawrence Wilkerson, Carl Ford, Brent Scowcroft and other Republicans essentially opposed or doubtful about the appropriateness of John Bolton's nomination to the U.N., there is a powerful Republican undercurrent of opposition. On the other hand, Lawrence Eagleburger joins Dick Cheney in essentially betting that confidence in John Bolton is worth more than a serious investigation or discussion with any of his victims.

On top of this, Eagleburger who has now put his own reputation on the line on behalf of John Bolton has NO IDEA what is in those National Security Agency intercepts that Bolton requested and read.

The NSA intercepts is not a "bullying matter." These are our nation's most secret secrets -- and Bolton was using them for some reason that has not yet been made clear. Some suspect he was spying on his colleagues, particularly Jack Pritchard and perhaps another CIA officer.

Eagleburger has made a serious mistake in not keeping his powder dry until all the evidence unfolds -- and TWN intends to hold him and others accountable if the NSA intercepts matter explodes.

Eagleburger should have waited for more information before embedding himself in this battle.

-- Steve Clemons

This morning in the Boston Globe:

In a new allegation against President Bush's nominee for United Nations ambassador, a woman who worked under John Bolton in the early 1980s has complained that he tried to fire her after they clashed over US policy on infant formula in developing nations.

Lynne D. Finney, now a therapist in Utah, wrote to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Friday, saying Bolton mistreated her when they worked in the General Counsel's Office at the US Agency for International Development. Her accusation is the latest salvo in a pitched battle over Bolton's nomination.

Given this story -- which I did not know about -- and several others that I do but which are not in the media yet, I think that the next couple of weeks are going to be interesting ones as the Bolton dossier grows.

But keep your eyes out for the state-of-play on the NSA intercepts that Bolton requested. Despite the Bolton victims cautiously emerging and sharing their important stories, the possibility that Bolton was spying on his colleagues in the State Department is the matter of most import ahead.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Vice President Cheney does the nation a real disservice by confusing "serial abuse" with what he calls occasional toughness and abrasiveness in the John Bolton case. This reminds me of the old days when America's social leaders minimized the seriousness of spousal abuse or widespread but rarely discussed rape, in which the victim was often the one blamed.

Cheney was quoted as saying: "If being occasionally tough and aggressive and abrasive were a problem, there are a lot of members of the United States Senate who wouldn't qualify."

John Bolton lied about his actions to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He said that he never sought to have intelligence altered or generated in such a way to satisfy his needs. He said that he had "management issues" with Christian Westermann. He lied. Does this fall into the category of behaviors Vice President Cheney finds acceptable?

And what of the so-called victims of John Bolton? Do they deserve to be told that they are only some part of a "character assassination" effort by Democrats and discarded as trivial by the Vice President? Or do they deserve to be heard and supported?

Remember the case of Admiral Richard Macke? Then Commander of U.S. Pacific Forces, Macke stated that the three U.S. military servicemen who brutally raped a 12-year old girl in Okinawa, Japan should have just hired a prostitute. Macke was fired after appropriate public outrage.

The link between these cases is that the White House seems to think that certain kinds of abuse are fine -- just part of the way the world works. Just to be clear, I am not stating that the White House would have been as callous as Macke about the plight of the rape victim in Okinawa, but I am saying that there are similarities in attitude when it comes to considering the power of an alleged abuser over the relatively weaker victim.

Cheney seems to have a real blind spot and seeming lack of concern for those whom Bolton victimized. My biggest concerns about Bolton are his recklessness with national security matters, his long list of failures as the nation's leading proponent of non-proliferation efforts, and his tendency to deceive and lie to Congress. But there is no doubt now that he has serious behavioral problems that perhaps link to these other serious concerns.

Vice President Cheney had the same blind spot in the case of Robert Blackwill, and in that circumstance it was also Colin Powell and Richard Armitage that kept White House morality from taking a huge fall by allowing Blackwill to be rewarded after serious abuse charges had been lodged against him.

Rudy Giuliani didn't see the many flaws in his friend Bernard Kerik. And the White House had to choke on Kerik's nomination to serve as Secretary of Homeland Security. This time it is Dick Cheney who is blind on John Bolton -- who no matter how loyal he was to the Bush-Cheney team -- is now a serious and fundamental liability.

If Cheney forces otherwise unwilling Republican Senators to support Bolton, who may have a long record of abuse victims in his past, then Cheney will also be undermining the personal credibility of these Senators.

Cheney said that if a bit of abuse were the problem in this case, then many Senators would not qualify for the U.N. job as well. There are numerous Members of Congress who would make an outstanding Ambassador to the United Nations -- and others who would be deplorable.

What matters is that we not take a "lowest common denominator" approach to this appointment, and that is what Cheney is doing by trying to ram Bolton through.

We need someone of impeccable credentials, and that is not John Bolton.

-- Steve Clemons

Today is April 23rd, Saturday. Yesterday, major front page articles appeared throughout the major press that Colin Powell had entered the fray on John Bolton and apparently joined the "Bolton is Unfit" side of the equation.

Senate Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have agreed that the next "business meeting" on John Bolton will occur on Thursday, May 12th. Another hearing on Bolton may take place this day -- and it seems that Lugar intends to call for a vote on Bolton that day.

Although many in the press are depicting this battle as one between the Democrats and Republicans, knowing what I now know about the extreme level of indigestion in Republican circles about the nomination, depicting this investigation as a partisan one seems nonsensical.

Thus, I think we need new terms to describe what is going on. I think we need to re-cast the players in three camps:

1. The Cheney-Bolton Advocates

2. The Cheney-Bolton Opponents

3. The Undecided and Wavering

The Cheney-Bolton Advocates include Senators Norm Coleman and George Allen. Senators John Sununu and Mel Martinez also fall into this category because they have given rumblings of their intent to support the President. Regrettably, TWN must include Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar who has decided to support Bolton it seems no matter what the evidence and no matter what the circumstances. He sees his job as getting the nomination of Bolton out of Committee and not having the Senate preempt this Bush administration choice -- no matter how bad it may be.

The Cheney-Bolton Opponents include all of the Democrats on the Committee: Senators Biden, Sarbanes, Dodd, Kerry, Feingold, Boxer, Bill Nelson, and Obama.

The Undecided and Wavering include Senators Lincoln Chafee, George Voinovich, Lamar Alexander, Lisa Murkowski, and Chuck Hagel.

Lisa Murkowski made her discomfort with circumstances known yesterday -- and this is something TWN thought might be cooking. While Lamar Alexander has not made such a public comment (yet), TWN has reason to believe that Senator Alexander may feel that John Bolton's dossier "offends the sensibilities" of many. Lamar Alexander, a former Presidential candidate, and someone who values decency and fair play probably shares the view that America ought to be sending someone to the United Nations whom America can be proud of -- and that person is not John Bolton.

So, there is a great deal of fragility in this battle. TWN believes that a 9-9 tie is no longer likely in the battle over Bolton. Either Senator Chafee or some other Senator will indicate a steadfastness to oppose Bolton and vote against him in Committee and bring with that vote several others, or alternatively, the Republicans will maintain a block.

That means we will either see something that looks like a 12-6 or even 13-5 vote against Bolton, or we will see a 10-8 vote in favor of Bolton. One Senator can make the difference, but once one Senator unambiguously moves and indicates a decision to oppose, then several other Senators will quickly move as well.

The White House is the driver here -- and Lugar is feeling excruciating pressure not to have his committee collapse on this nomination, and it is nearly "abusive" of the White House to be doing this to Lugar and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee because the battle will soon not be cast as one between Democrats and the White House -- but rather between the White House and the Senate on whether the President will respect the role and function of the Senate confirmation process.

While the Cheney-Bolton Opponents and the Undecided and Wavering now have more than two weeks to investigate -- the clock is ticking. There is new material on the way.

There is a story brewing regarding John Bolton's role as a disruptive force in the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom that involves a well-respected scholar, Jeremy Gunn. Dr. Gunn resigned his positions as Director of Research and Deputy General Counsel of the Commission because of matters that "related to Mr. Bolton."

TWN does not know more, but knows that Mr. Gunn has decided to share his experiences with Mr. Bolton with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee so as to have a more complete record of John Bolton's profile.

There is also a case of another still-closely-held, serious abuse incident that occurred at the State Department. TWN has no idea who the individual is -- but just that the incident is as offensive as the one involving Christian Westermann. For reasons I don't understand, this incident is still blacked out and serious political players in D.C. are trying to bring the incident and matter into the public record on Bolton -- while still protecting otherwise innocent people who might be harmed when matters are disclosed. This sort of issue is complicated -- as there seem to be many victims of Bolton abuse in Washington, but coaxing them to come forward and speak requires time and investigation. To be fair, John Bolton should also be given opportunity to respond.

TWN also believes that the most serious challenges regarding John Bolton are not his pattern of "serial abuse" but rather his pattern of delinquency and recklessness regarding national security objectives and delicate diplomatic initiatives. TWN is also alarmed at the seeming indifference that Senators Lugar and others have attached to the fact that John Bolton seems to have lied to the Committee on a broad number of questions -- and seems to have lied in a robust, emphatic manner.

While all of these issues above would normally seem to indicate that the Cheney-Bolton Advocates are in for a tough time, and they are, they also have a number of things working in their favor.

First, Vice President Cheney and President Bush have continued to be loyal to their nominee, standing by a person who is divisive and offends the sensibilities of many. Bolton helped deliver Florida in the contested Presidential election in 2000 -- and they are going to the mat for Bolton, much like Bolton went to the mat in a furious, hard-headed way in 2000. That kind of support from the White House turns this battle into a big one -- but that's the problem with this White House. All battles seem to be big ones because they expect the Senate Republicans to treat Bush as infallible. Losing any battle means losing them all, some in the White House feels, and this lack of maturity and common sense, is making the battle over Bolton about much more.

Another troubling and unreported item is that Senator George Voinovich, the hero of last Tuesday's hearings, who stood before the pro-Bolton machine and said "stop," may be wavering the wrong direction and/or playing both sides of the debate for different audiences. A well-placed source has reported to TWN that Voinovich has told State Department lobbyists that while he felt he must raise questions about Bolton's character and style in the Committee hearing, he intended to "be with the administration in the end."

This is disconcerting news because Voinovich has no idea what evidence may be coming forward and to what degree the serious charges against Bolton may continue to make his confirmation something that balanced, credible, and decent people simply can't pass off on. Perhaps Voinovich made no such comment to State -- but the source is a good one. Alternatively, Voinovich may be stating this to get the State Department people off of his back to give him some space and room to maneuver. Voinovich is also being threatened by the rabidly anti-United Nations and pro-John Bolton group, Move America Forward, which has threatened to run anti-Voinovich ads in Ohio.

What I think may be happening is that Voinovich is indicating to State and the White House that he will support Bolton as things look now -- but that he expects that either a bomb shell will explode in the next two weeks, or it won't. If the bombshell explodes, then Voinovich won't be faulted for opposing the White House's nominee.

The fact is that while Voinovich does deserve a "Conscience of a Conservative Award" for his role at Tuesday's hearings, the future is still murky. Chafee is re-crafting his role in this hearing and plans to aggressively investigate. Colin Powell is now giving Senators cover to oppose Bolton if they choose to do so. Senator Chuck Hagel has been getting very close to "I voted for him before I voted against him" kind of a position -- and needs to weigh that kind of stance carefully.

There is a lot going on, and the momentum is clearly on the side of the Cheney-Bolton Opponents. But that doesn't mean for a moment that the other side can't rebound.

The National Security Agency intercepts will be a fundamental factor in what lies ahead. There is nothing more important than this evidence coming before the Senators. TWN understands that Senator Rockefeller has requested that he be able to see what John Bolton requested as well; and Rockefeller is not even on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In TWN's view, the trancripts will either end the debate on Bolton and kill his nomination -- or if inconclusive in their impact, the transcripts may give the White House just enough cover to threaten, cajole, and corral Republicans to kick Bolton's nomination to the Senate floor.

This will be a brutal couple of weeks ahead. Stay tuned.

-- Steve Clemons

I knew that the essential themes and players involved with the Bolton nomination had played out some time before. Sort of like a Shakespearean tragedy, but I couldn't put my finger on it.

All of this seemed all too familiar with Cheney pushing a questionable political candidate on Condi Rice who oddly acquiesced -- even though it was not in here interest to do so.

The story was right under my nose all the time and takes me back to the very important article written by Sidney Blumenthal about Brent Scowcroft when the distinguished General was somewhat unceremoniously escorted out of the Bush administration's center foreign policy circle. There has been some revisionism about what led to Scowcroft not being asked to continue as Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, but that's another topic for another day.

What matters is the story about another problematic "abuser": Robert Blackwill. Cheney pushed Blackwill's candidacy. Condi would not or could not say "no" despite serious abuse allegations by State Department staff about Blackwill's behavior. And in the end, it was Richard Armitage and Colin Powell who sent the White House and Condoleeza Rice an unambiguous message that if they failed to discipline Blackwill, then the State Department would take action on its own.

Here are the key excerpts from the Blumenthal piece:

The transition to President Bush's second term, filled with backstage betrayals, plots and pathologies, would make for an excellent chapter of I, Claudius. To begin with, Bush has unceremoniously and without public acknowledgement dumped Brent Scowcroft, his father's closest associate and friend, as chairman of the foreign intelligence advisory board. The elder Bush's national security adviser was the last remnant of traditional Republican realism permitted to exist within the administration. At the same time the vice president, Dick Cheney, has imposed his authority over secretary of state designate Condoleezza Rice, in order to blackball Arnold Kanter, former under secretary of state to James Baker and partner in the Scowcroft Group, as a candidate for deputy secretary of state.

"Words like 'incoherent' come to mind," one top state department official told me about Rice's effort to organise her office. She is unable to assert herself against Cheney, her wobbliness a sign that the state department will mostly be sidelined as a power centre for the next four years.

Rice may have wanted to appoint as a deputy her old friend Robert Blackwill, whom she had put in charge of Iraq at the NSC. But Blackwill, a mercurial personality, allegedly assaulted a female US foreign service officer in Kuwait, and was forced to resign in November. Secretary of state Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, presented the evidence against Blackwill to Rice. "Condi only dismissed him after Powell and Armitage threatened to go public," a state department source said.

Meanwhile, key senior state department professionals, such as Marc Grossman, assistant secretary of state for European affairs, have abruptly resigned. According to colleagues who have chosen to remain (at least for now), they foresee the damage that will be done as Rice is charged with whipping the state department into line with the White House and Pentagon neocons. Rice has pleaded with Armitage to stay on, but "he colourfully said he would not", a state department official told me. Rice's radio silence when her former mentor, Scowcroft, was defenestrated was taken by the state department professionals as a sign of things to come.

The Bolton story is the story that keeps on giving -- to those who are opposing his nomination. It's hard to understand the steadfastness of White House support despite Bolton now becoming a daily, major story in the national press.

But clearly, the White House has blinders when it comes to nominations like John Bolton or Robert Blackwill (who never got the formal nomination -- but who was on his way to higher things).

And we should all be thankful that Colin Powell, through his alter-ego and long term aide-de-camp Richard Armitage, intervenes on behalf of the republic when the White House is unable to control its recklessness.

Given Powell's phone conversations with Senators Chafee and Hagel, it is clear that Richard Armitage is again imposing on the White House a standard of decorum and accountability that the administration seems not to be able to manage on its own.

More to come.

-- Steve Clemons

Pick up nearly any major paper in the United States today and there is a front page story on the implications of Colin Powell discreetly sharing his thoughts on John Bolton's past behavior and performance with Senators Hagel and Chafee.

Senator Chafee -- who has become visibly more aggressive in pursuing questions about Bolton -- has indicated that Powell's comments do not help Bolton's nomination.

Here is an excerpt from an article by Jim VandeHei and Robin Wright in the Washington Post today:

Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell is emerging as a behind-the-scenes player in the battle over John R. Bolton's nomination as ambassador to the United Nations, privately telling at least two key Republican lawmakers that Bolton is a smart but very problematic government official, according to Republican sources.

Powell spoke in recent days with Sens. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.) and Chuck Hagel (Neb.), two of three GOP senators on the Foreign Relations Committee who have raised concerns about Bolton's confirmation, the sources said. Powell did not advise the senators to oppose Bolton, but offered a frank assessment of the nominee as a man who was challenging to work with on personnel and policy matters, according to two people familiar with the conversations.

"General Powell has returned calls from senators who wanted to discuss specific questions that have been raised," said Margaret Cifrino, a Powell spokeswoman. "He has not reached out to senators," and considers the discussions private.

A spokesman for Chafee confirmed that at least two conversations took place. Bolton served under Powell as his undersecretary of state for arms control, and the two were known to have serious clashes.

Powell's tenure as secretary of state was often marked by friction with the White House on a range of foreign policy issues, disagreements that both sides worked to keep from surfacing. It is not Powell's style to weigh in strongly against a former colleague, but rather to direct people to what he sees as flaws and potential problems, former associates say. Powell's views are highly influential with many Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Those who know Powell best said two recent events provide insight into his thinking. Powell did not sign a letter from seven other former U.S. secretaries of state or defense supporting Bolton, and his former chief of staff, Lawrence B. Wilkerson, recently told the New York Times that Bolton would be an "abysmal ambassador."

I have a good source who made clear that before Colin Powell's Chief of Staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, went public with his own views of the Bolton nomination, he cleared it not with Powell -- but with Rich Armitage.

Armitage is to Powell what Alexander Hamilton was to George Washington.

His deft maneuvering is clear in the growing momentum against John Bolton, and while progressive activists have helped create some political space for Democrats and some Republicans to potentially oppose Bolton, Armitage has now cleared the space for moderate Republicans, sensible "ethical realists" who care belive that American national interests coincide with credible global engagement, to oppose Bolton's nomination as being "wrong-headed" for the Republican party.

I am soon going to be writing more about Richard Armitage -- whose views on Japan and Asia do not entirely coincide with my own -- but who nonetheless has been an unrecognized hero in many's eyes for the key role in played in helping to stop a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. I have more on that story and will be posting that soon.

In addition, TWN has also learned that John Bolton was "practically oblivious," according to one senior State Department official, to any of the intelligence or activities regarding the A.Q. Khan network -- that Bolton so often takes credit for as part of the portfolio of the Proliferation Security Initiative.

TWN has learned that the A.Q. Khan network was really rolled up by three key U.S. government officials -- Richard Armitage, George Tenet, and John Wolf.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

This is getting interesting. Didn't Bush also look into Putin's eyes and see a good man?

Bush's team is trying to make this about White House infallibility. It's sad that the White House can't step back and study the many reasons why there is so much national indigestion about the Bolton nomination.

As I said yesterday, three weeks more of investigation and analysis will be painful for the nomination of John Bolton -- and I'm sure that those concerned have every interest in making sure that the issues are clear.

From a CNN Report:

President Bush on Thursday urged senators to "put aside politics" and confirm John Bolton as the country's new U.N. ambassador, calling him "the right man at the right time for this important assignment."

"Sometimes, politics gets in the way of doing the people's business," Bush said in a speech to the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America convention in Washington. "Take John Bolton, the good man I nominated to represent our country at the U.N.

"John's distinguished career and service to our nation demonstrates that he is the right man at the right time for this important assignment," Bush said. "I urge the Senate to put aside politics and confirm John Bolton to the U.N."

Has the President read the dossier?

-- Steve Clemons

I spoke with Senator Chafee's Chief Spokesman, Steve Hourahan, yesterday and was very pleased with the discussion. I think Senator Chafee is now moving from the 'passive' and 'reactive' in this matter on John Bolton -- to 'proactive' and 'aggressive' in trying to get to the truth about the many allegations about Bolton.

Hourahan said that yesterday morning, Wednesday, Chafee met with staff and said that he planned to get actively involved in pursuing the totality of questions and evidence on John Bolton. Hourahan stated that the Senator and his staff would now become aggressively involved in the investigation.

Hourahan stated "Senator Chafee intends to get out in front of this -- to see where the evidence on Mr. Bolton takes us. It will either remove the cloud over the nomination, or the evidence and investigation will end the matter."

This is absolutely the right course. Senator Chafee started his opening comments by reinforcing the odd notion expressed by Bolton that U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan had privately told Bolton that he "should hurry up and get confirmed and get to the Waldorf." Bolton mentioned this comment during his Senate confirmation hearings. Chafee mentioned it again -- saying favorably about Annan's comment, "Well, that says a lot."

I have chased down whether Annan will admit to saying this to Bolton or not -- and the Secretary General's office refuses to comment -- and will neither confirm or deny -- Annan's comment to Bolton. What is interesting though is that another very senior member of the U.N. Secretariat expressed his irritation that people like Bolton could make such comments without much fear of being corrected. There are strict rules in the Secretary General's office that they may not speak out against or correcting member nation pronouncements -- and oddly, this Bolton comment falls into that category.

What I was told, with a trill and exaggerated voice, by this U.N. diplomat who is actually in a good position to know about most interactions between Bolton and Annan is that these were "alleged" comments by the Secretary General.

But Chafee seems to be getting ready to place himself at the lead of the pack -- which is the only sensible position to be in if other colleagues like Senators Voinovich and Hagel also have deep doubts. I should say that Senators Lamar Alexander and Lisa Murkowski are also not as solid for Bolton as many think, and their support may be crumbling.

Charles Babington and Jim VandeHei of the Washington Post had this good summary of the re-crafted Lincoln Chafee position today:

A key Republican senator signaled yesterday that he is less likely to support the embattled nomination of John R. Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations after a dramatic meeting Tuesday, and said he will discuss with GOP colleagues whether President Bush should withdraw Bolton's name.

The White House, meanwhile, launched an aggressive campaign to salvage the nomination. Spokesman Scott McClellan accused Democrats of manufacturing charges to discredit Bolton and "score political points."

Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee that is weighing the nomination, "is less likely right now" to vote to confirm Bolton, his spokesman Stephen Hourahan said in an interview. The senator, he said, "wants to get to the bottom" of new allegations about Bolton's dealings with subordinates and classified information. Until Tuesday, when committee Democrats attacked Bolton's record and won a three-week extension to investigate it, Chafee repeatedly had said he was reluctantly inclined to vote for Bolton.

A negative vote by Chafee could deeply wound the nomination because it would prevent the committee -- which Republicans control 10 to 8 -- from recommending Bolton to the full Senate. With all eight committee Democrats opposed to Bolton, a Chafee defection would lead to a 9 to 9 tie at best. The nomination then could reach the Senate floor only with "no recommendation" from the committee, a dubious status that might make it easier for unenthusiastic Republicans to vote against it.

The press is making a mistake by focusing just on Lincoln Chafee and the prospect of a 9-9 vote.

What happened on Tuesday is that the possibility of a 11-7 vote against Bolton appeared. Chafee may be the first to clearly jump ship -- which is the only "smart politics" if Hagel and Voinovich are likely to vote against.

Chafee counted on most Americans, particularly Rhode Islanders, not knowing and not caring who John Bolton was. The White House made the same rather cynical calculation.

That is not possible now. While Bolton is not quite a house-hold name, those interested in policy and politics realize that this is now a big-time standoff and battle. In my view, it is NOT a partisan battle and should not be. What moderate Republicans need to do is stand by conscience and use this opportunity to return to promoting sensible, principled American leadership in world affairs -- that has both purpose, serious objectives to pursue, and treats other nations with dignity.

I think that Chafee has sent the right signals that he is going to investigate this issue on Bolton hard and furious -- and go wherever his investigative activities take him. I hope TWN can help in that endeavor.

Likewise, it doesn't seem likely to me that the case against Bolton will become less solid. I think that there is a tendency to "pile-on" in situations like this -- and I feel that what is most important is to consolidate the case at hand. Look at the veracity and significance of new allegations against Mr. Bolton.

But the most serious and important task -- GET THE NSA INTERCEPTS.

And read them. In my view, the Jack Pritchard story continues to be the most important because of Bolton's reckless disregard for serious and fragile diplomatic efforts underway.

-- Steve Clemons

But didn't John Bolton testify that his only beef with some of these intelligence analysts was over process? That they went behind his back? Did he know he was under oath?

This from AP:

Senators considering John R. Bolton's nomination to be U.N. ambassador have asked to interview former deputy CIA director John McLaughlin and two other high-ranking intelligence officials about possible Bolton efforts to transfer an analyst who had tangled with him, The Associated Press has learned.

Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee are trying to determine whether Bolton met with McLaughlin, another unnamed CIA official and an individual with the National Intelligence Council in July 2002 to pursue his case against the analyst, a Democratic committee staff member said Wednesday.

Democrats are also seeking more information on other personnel incidents involving Bolton. The committee, including several Republican members, agreed Tuesday to delay a vote on his nomination because of growing questions about his temperament and what critics said was a pattern of punishing or pressuring underlings.

-- Steve Clemons

Counselor to the President Dan Bartlett has reported that the White House intends to power on and doesn't consider Voinovich's stand a "no vote" yet.

Just in case anyone at the White House is reading (and I've been informed that they are), no problem.

I think that we actually do need more time to consolidate the case against John Bolton, to bring out the other stories which are now developing, and to have a conversation with Senators and the American public about four questions:

1. Should "Serial Abuse" of subordinates be not only tolerated in government but be rewarded?

2. Should ideologically driven public servants have the ability to play it to the edge, and even over the edge, in generating their own intelligence, trying to predetermined intelligence outcomes, and have the latitude to undermine delicate Bush administration national security initiatives?

3. Should senior level Bush administration officials be able to access the nation's most secret secrets so as to spy on colleagues, their conversations, and their comments about him? (this is what some suspect the infamous NSA intercepts may show)

4. Should a senior Bush administration official be able to get away with such "flagrant lying" about these issues to Congress?

There is a long list that can be added -- but let's stop there.

Just a note to my friends in the White House, this is not a partisan game. Many, many Americans -- Republicans, Democrats, and Independents -- do not think we should be sending someone to the UN of whom we cannot be proud.

John Bolton may be useful in other capacities -- but he is remarkably divisive for this important U.N. role.

If the White House wants to continue to battle, so does TWN and the many who oppose John Bolton.

In fact, I'm still quite a fan of Bill Kristol's proposal to Senator Frist that we have unrestricted debate about John Bolton from now until exhaustion sets in. The more time we have on Bolton to make the case against his nomination, the better. . .

-- Steve Clemons

While I am planting sod out in front of my house today, some of you might enjoy reading the transcripts of Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff interviews regarding John Bolton.

They are fascinating. Some novelist out there is going to be able to draw some great material from these interviews.

They are:

Frederick Fleitz

Christian Westermann

Thomas Fingar

Neil Silver

While these interviews were given a while back, little of the real testimony has made it out to the public -- and it's just a good lesson in politics, policy, questions of professionalism, and the reality of rivalries. I think readers who want "more" should read the transcripts in full.

I find it amusing -- and this is giving me the smile I need before I go lay down a truck full of sod -- that Scott McLellan seems on the verge of offending some key Republican Senators with his assertion that only the Dems are worried about John Bolton.

That did not seem to be the case yesterday -- nor in the last week.

I think that concerns about Bolton are an "American" issue -- across the aisle -- and the White House needs to ask how far it wants to take this battle.

Losing gracefully may be the best option for now, but with McLellan raising the stakes, it raises too the consequences for all involved.

-- Steve Clemons

Chris Nelson sent this out yesterday as part of his 19 April Nelson Report:

Bolton. . .it may be that Republican Senators George Voinovich and Chuck Hagel have taken a stand which will empower a Republican center to emerge and hold on other issues.

At virtually the last minute today, both stepped forward to say they weren't comfortable voting on Bolton's nomination as UN Ambassador. A Foreign Relations Committee vote cannot now occur until after a recess, on May 9, assuming Bolton does not step down, as more and more stories surface (especially allegations of possible misuse of NSA intercepts). This nomination fight has been as instructive as it has been destructive. Argued purely on its merits, the case for Bolton has been that bullying and strong convictions, even if dishonestly pursued, are not automatically disqualifying.

Certainly compelling is the argument that, barring criminal or serious moral issues, the President is entitled to nominate the UN ambassador he wants. But as we took the liberty of editorializing last night, the Bolton fight is not "merely" about the facts, at least not any more. It's now mainly about power, specifically the power to force votes on ALL the president's nominations, regardless of concerns.

That's what this so-called "nuclear option" fight with Majority Leader Bill Frist is all about. . .Frist wants to change the rules to make judicial nominations a simple majority vote, instead of the required super majority of 60. Lose on Bolton, which would take Republican "defections", and the whole power play on conservative activist judges is at risk of unraveling.

Many Republicans, not just centrist/liberals (all this is relative, you understand) have deep personal and political reservations about the White House decision to intervene in that tragic Florida right-to-die case. The President has since tried to pull back from the resulting, unprecedented Republican Leadership attack on an independent, secular-based judiciary. Quite rightly, this has politicians in both parties very uneasy, since the ugly threats are not new, but a cumulative process.

In times where political intimidation is the coin of the realm, finding the courage to object can assume enormous consequence. Chuck Hagel and Bill Frist both want the Republican nomination to succeed George Bush in 2008. Hagel today indicated he can see beyond just playing to a presumed "base".

Inside baseball comment: you have to wonder if Voinovich and Hagel, have given Chairman Richard Lugar some operating space. He was well known to be worried about Bolton's fitness, but as chair, felt it was his duty to try and support the president's nominee.

And he had constantly before him the humiliation visited upon Judiciary Chair Arlen Specter, when Specter dared to comment in January that ultra-conservative and/or religious zealots would have trouble winning Senate approval as judges. Specter nearly lost his chairmanship, and was forced to crawl over glass, metaphorically speaking, to keep it.

There are many in a sort of stupor after succeeding in achieving a delay. This is NOT a time to rest.

This is the time to both broaden the case regarding John Bolton's past performance and to consolidate and organize the rather large scope of problems we do know.

With others, I will be on this case. But this morning, I'm going to buy some grass sod in rural Maryland and plant it in front of my house in Dupont Circle. The dirt has been ready for a few weeks, but just haven't been able to get this done.

So, patronizing Central Sod, Inc. is reward enough today -- but later, I will share some conversations I have had with senior U.N. officials.

The "alleged" comments by Kofi Annan mentioned by John Bolton during his confirmation testimony have really burned me for a while. More on that post-sod.

Thanks to those of you who have been posting and emailing such generous notes. You folks deserve the credit. This is what civil society should be about.

And frankly, there are many, many others linked together in this battle who have less visible roles than a blogger, and they have done the real work.

More later, more.

-- Steve Clemons

This may sound odd because I feel that it is the public's right and responsibility to communicate criticism and praise regarding the positions our elected leaders take.

However, word has been reached here that Senator Voinovich can be negatively influenced by a mountain of phone calls from some organized campaign. Certainly, a blog or two could not be confused as generating such a campaign, but I wanted to share this intelligence.

Maybe Move America Forward folks can do the irritating. I don't want to tell people NOT to call Voinovich. I don't believe in that. Outreach that's genuine and even-mannered can be an excellent thing.

But I did want to be open about the intelligence I received that Voinovich "prizes his independence."

And while it may sound odd in these times, all I can say is "amen to that."

On the Hagel front, there are some who don't want to give him any credit for what happened in today's hearings. I don't buy that for a second. While Hagel may have said that he was inclined to vote for Bolton in Committee and then against him on the floor of the Senate, he made clear the collapsing nature of his confidence in Bolton.

As TWN wrote the other day, if Hagel, Voinovich, Murkowski, or Alexander broke ranks, it would be embarrassing and complicated for Senator Lincoln Chafee -- who should have been out front and leading in this case. Voinovich stunned them all, but TWN thought this might happen, at least with one of the rarely mentioned Republican senators other than Norm Coleman and George Allen.

Hagel said the right things after Voinovich. I give him credit, and we should all appreciate his support. These guys are under some kind of huge pressure.

Joe Biden, Dodd, Boxer, Feingold, Obama, Bill Nelson, John Kerry, and Paul Sarbanes did a herculean, magnificent job of showing what minority opposition OUGHT to look like. I think we have all been waiting for a principled victory -- and not something that has looked like concession before the fight had even begun.

I'm proud of them, and of Senator Reid today on the floor. And I think it's important to be magnanimous during this time. Senator Lugar had reasons to do what he did, and after watching Japanese politics for a long time, there is something to "fighting valiantly" as Lugar did even though the tide was turning against him.

Many of my readers will disagree, but if we do succeed in blocking Bolton, the next agenda will be to do what we can to support a sensible, principled foreign policy agenda that Lugar, Chafee, Hagel, Voinovich and others might be willing to embrace.

They are responding to pressure from the White House, but there is new pressure making itself apparent. . .and that is a great thing.

Congrats to all of you who choose to be informed.

More later. . .I promise.

-- Steve Clemons

No good deed goes unpunished.

Reports have just come in that Senator Voinovich is receiving lots of calls from "out-of-staters" protesting his comments during today's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings.

Most of these calls have been orchestrated by the "Evict the U.N. from U.S. Soil/Pro-John Bolton" campaigners at Move America Forward. This outfit may even start running ads AGAINST Voinovich.

I think Senator Voinovich deserves supportive calls and emails for his principled commentary and stand today. Whether you are from Ohio or from out-of-state, TWN hopes you will call him.

HERE is Senator Voinovich's contact information, for phone and email.

-- Steve Clemons

Reuters reports on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's delay in voting on John Bolton's nomination.

George Voinovich gets the "Conscience of a Conservative Award" as far as TWN is concerned.

Reuters reports:

The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee delayed a vote on the nomination of John Bolton as U.N. ambassador after a Republican senator said he was not prepared to vote for him on Tuesday and cast the nomination in doubt.

"I've heard enough today that I don't feel comfortable about voting for Mr. Bolton," Ohio Sen. George Voinovich said, stunning fellow Republicans who were set to push the contentious nomination through the committee on a party-line vote.

I'm still stunned that the Senate is managing to find the right way on this outrageous nomination.

Maybe this can be the beginning of a number of good things.

-- Steve Clemons

I have been on the phone non-stop with media during the roller-coaster issue of whether or not the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would meet and when. And this was followed up by dramatic, explosive, unbelievable commentary that has thrown the nomination of John Bolton into serious jeapordy.

It is not over. Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee have approximately three weeks to add further to the dossier of concerns and problems that John Bolton's nomination represents.

A delay is what we got today. What was unexpected was the clear and unambiguous comments from Senator George Voinovich and Chuck Hagel that if a vote was held there and then, John Bolton would not get out of Committee. That's right. THEY would help vote him down.

Three weeks is not likely to ease the process for Mr. Bolton -- and will most likely provide the time to further underscore the flaws in him being nominated for such a key Ambassadorial role.

The Senators today -- Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, George Voinovich, Chuck Hagel, and probably many others whom I could not hear as my phone rang off the hook -- deserve enormous credit for not letting good policy and good decisions come undone by the White House's obsession with winning.

This means weeks ahead of hard work and more investigation. I will stick with this -- and I hope that TWN readers will too. . .

For those of you who want a taste of the emotional ups and downs of today's drama on Bolton, this is a good link. The tension oozes out of the screen.

Laura Rozen also has good material as well.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Senator Barbara Boxer has now objected to the Senate going into recess while other Senate Commitees meet.

That means that Boxer's action is forcing other Senators to vote on whether to go into recess or not. The Republicans will win by majority vote. And then the Senate will go into recess.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will then still be able to proceed with its scheduled business meeting at 2:15 p.m.

This is highly, highly unusual -- and demonstrates the lengths the Republican leadership seems willing to go to ram this nomination of John Bolton down the gullet of America.

What is in those NSA intercepts? I'm with Senator Chris Dodd on this.

What are they trying to hide?

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Senators Reid and Frist sparred on the Senate floor shortly ago -- with Frist asking for "unanimous consent" that Senate Committees meet while the Senate was in Session.

Senator Reid objected to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting. . .and all hell broke loose, for just a bit.

At that point, Frist said he would take the entire Senate into recess, preempting all Senate business -- and that he would call for a Senate vote on that motion at 2:15 p.m.

That has now been withdrawn, and the Senate Democrats have now withdrawn objection the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting as scheduled.

So, the recess has been stopped -- but so too has the objection.

What does this mean?

It means that as things stand now, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting is BACK ON for 2:15 p.m.

However and importantly, ANY U.S. SENATOR MAY NOW GO TO THE FLOOR AND OBJECT TO THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE DOING BUSINESS.

This was what I had suggested earlier -- and what the Republicans tried to preempt.

That option is now back on the table.

-- Steve Clemons

This is unbelievable.

TWN just received news that in order to preempt Senate Democrats from objecting to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote today on John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., the Republican leadership is suspending all operations of the Senate today until the Hearings -- which have now been postponed until 4:30 p.m.

Because Senator Frist's office feared that a Democratic Senator would object to the Hearings on the Floor of the Senate at 2 p.m., the Republicans -- in order to RAM THE BOLTON NOMINATION THROUGH -- have gone into recess.

Why you might ask?

The Senate would need to have been in session for two hours for a U.S. Senator to be able to object to the Foreign Relations Committee proceeding with its business.

By stopping all Senate business -- ALL business -- and planning to reconvene at 4:30 p.m., the Republican leadership has preempted an option that the minority would have had to make the administration comply with Senator Dodd's request for the National Security Agency intercepts that Bolton may have used to wage war against rival officials in the State Department.

I don't know how Senator Lugar can tolerate such abuse of the minority. This is a disdainful and cynical move by the White House and Bill Frist.

It's the ugly, dark side of winning -- and it's "tyranny of the majority" tactics.

So, stay tuned. The "business meeting" of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, at which a vote on Bolton might occur, has been moved to 4:30 p.m.

-- Steve Clemons

It was brought to my attention this morning that Senator Lincoln Chafee did not vote for President Bush in the 2004 election.

He stated publicly that he "wrote in" President Bush's father for President.

After this vote, if Chafee indeed votes in favor of Bolton, it will be interesting to see how many Rhode Island constituents write in Lincoln Chafee's father -- a true leader and stalwart for the best side of democracy, Senator John Chafee.

Senator Chafee -- a serious question: HOW CAN YOU VOTE FOR SOMEONE LIKE JOHN BOLTON AFTER YOU FAILED TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT BUSH???

Inquiring minds really want to know.

-- Steve Clemons

Here is the latest:

~ Senator Chris Dodd has not received from the administration the 10 NSA intercepts John Bolton requested;

~ New information on new abuse cases, both regarding intelligence analysts and people close to Bolton in previous jobs, are coming forward and need to be investigated;

~ More is still pending about Bolton's efforts to sabotage diplomatic efforts directed by Secretary of State Colin Powell, particularly relating to North Korea.

This is not normal. What is the administration hiding on Bolton. Word is that John Bolton may have been snooping into the NSA intercepts that recorded conversations and interactions of other U.S. officials so as to spy on them, to disrupt their diplomatic efforts, and to learn what was being said, specifically, about him by his perceived enemies and rival in the State Department.

This is an outrageous, unacceptable abuse of power and privileged access to classified information.

One Senator -- any U.S. Senator -- can go down to the floor of the U.S. Senate today at 2 p.m. and say the following:

Mr./Madame Chairman:

As the U.S. Senate has been in session for more than two hours, I hereby object to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting. . .until adequate and complete answers posed by esteemed Members of this Senate to the administration are responded to, in full, by the administration.

Until that occurs, I object to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee holding further meetings.

That would shut the committee down. It would create another delay, and every single day that there has been more time, another major story has emerged on John Bolton.

Call your Senators. This is important. There is no way that the Bush administration should be able to get away with such arrogance of power in the face of the possibility of a more enlightened approach.

I will be on Al Franken's show today at 1 p.m. making this case. I hope those of you who are connected to decisionmakers, to media, or to people in the Republican or Democratic leadership, will make the same case.

-- Steve Clemons

John Bolton was actually voted down by senior partners of Bolton's law firm, Covington and Burling, where he worked before serving in the Department of Justice, because of concerns over his abusive behavior. An individual who would only speak anonymously shared the content of the super-secret partner's meeting with me yesterday.

In addition, after Bolton left the first Bush administration in 1993, he served on the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom and engaged in not only abusive behavior inside that government agency but also worked hard to have two people with whom he disagreed fired. The victims -- who now work at other institutions in Washington -- are reticent about making public claims because of Bolton's continued ability to cause negative consequences for them and their fear that he will seek retribution.

Ok Senators -- you really should check out these earlier patterns of abuse.

But any "yes" vote to confirm will have to be made acknowledging the long list of recklessness and abuse on the public record regarding John Bolton.

-- Steve Clemons

Colin Powell's Chief of Staff, Lawrence Wilkerson had this to say about John Bolton in an interview with the New York Times:

"Under Secretary Bolton was never the formidable power that people are insinuating he was in terms of foreign policy, or blocking the policies that Secretary Powell wished to pursue," Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Mr. Powell's chief of staff, said in a telephone interview.

"But do I think John Bolton would make a good ambassador to the United Nations? Absolutely not," Mr. Wilkerson said. "He is incapable of listening to people and taking into account their views. He would be an abysmal ambassador."

Today may be the day of the John Bolton Showdown.

Democrats have sought a delay in the vote as Senators Joseph Biden and Chris Dodd want more time to interview Bolton victims, to read NSA intercepts, and to more fully understand John Bolton's "sink Powell's foreign policy" activities on Iran, Cuba, and North Korea.

Apparently, Senator Lugar has denied their request and is calling a "business meeting" of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at 2:15 p.m. The Bolton vote would take place during this meeting, unless something intervenes.

Senator Dodd may place a hold on Mr. Bolton because of his concern that the U.S. Senate has not been given all responses to questions he has posed -- and that would force a further delay, but Dodd is not yet committing to that course of action.

Furthermore, Senators Hagel and Chafee have not given any further indication as to whether their tolerance level of John Bolton's disturbing record and divisive candidacy has surpassed what they can ethically vote to confirm. They each indicated a tilt towards Bolton before the most recent set of revelations and before the accusations yesterday that John Bolton's power aggrandizement actually resulted in him keeping Secretaries Powell and Rice as well as Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage in the dark over important national security policy issues.

This battle in the Committee is indicative of the Bush administration's obsession with winning -- what matters is not the policy or the appropriateness of Bush's decision, but winning. Hopefully, moderate Republicans or other conservatives on the Committee who have paid attention to the evidence that has built up against his nomination will support the interests of the nation and tell President Bush that sometimes he makes mistakes: John Bolton is one of them.

-- Steve Clemons

Washington College student Jack Bohrer began to ask Karl Rove a question last night at a public forum about John Bolton's United Nations nomination -- and for a moment Rove let down high-charm guard, interrupted the student's question, and began to assert his view on all things Bolton.

Rove spoke last night at Washington College's Harwood Lecture Series if American Journalism on the topic, "Polarized Press: Media and Politics in the Age of Bush." The Harwood Forum was established in honor of long-time Washington Post editor, columnist, and ombudsman Richard Harwood -- whose son John Harwood of the Wall Street Journal now helps to run the lecture program and who selected Rove's speech title. Rove quickly stated that the polarized press got polarized on their own and that the "age of Bush" had nothing to do with it.

Bohrer began to ask Rove about the concerns some Republican Senators had about Bolton's intimidation tactics of intelligence analysts, the bullying, and the like. Unlike the rest of the evening that proceeded rather smoothly, Rove interrupted the student and stated that the issue about Bolton was not his harrassing and bullying intelligence analysts -- but that "Bolton did not agree with the intelligence."

Karl Rove said it 'all' there and gave the clearest statement yet of John Bolton's deception in last week's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings. Bolton had insisted that his differences with Christian Westermann were over management process; Bolton said Westermann "went behind his back."

Over and over and over, Bolton insisted that there was no effort on his part to punish analysts for intelligence findings or estimates.

Rove then commented that after 9-11, the vigilant didn't trust what was coming from the intelligence community. Rove then went on to say that he believed Bolton would be easily confirmed, that Bolton believed in "true multilateralism" and would make an outstanding Ambassador.

Jack Bohrer, to his credit, interrupted back and defended his turf on his question and asked what Rove thought of Trent Lott's comment that Senator Lincoln Chafee was "irrevelant in every way."

Rove said he disagreed with Lott. Well, there's a smart answer.

Rove last night was quite amazing and painted a picture of reality that seemed air-tight until the talk was over. During the talk, we were led to believe that the press had been tougher on Bush than on Clinton, that Bush had been constantly at odds with Bush on nearly all of his policy agenda (and I thought Bush was still in a 5-year long honeymoon), and that 527 organizations were allowed by a spineless decision by the Federal Elections Commission (which the Bush administration controlled).

Rove was born in Colorado and basically raised in Utah before heading off to Texas. When I spoke to him at length at the reception preceding his lecture, he had no accent. By the time of the lecture, his soft Texas twang was perfect.

One observer, Professor Andrew Oros, commented to me that Rove's sleight of hand was even more dramatic than I had considered. Oros said that Rove had bemoaned the fact that we rarely discuss policy in the country and tended not to discuss policy issues on their merits, with an agreement to disagree with those who simply had different views. Oros then said that underlying all of Rove's commentary, and particularly that on Bolton was that it was not good policy that mattered most -- but winning that did. Winning.

And ringing in my ears as I left the hall, I kept hearing Rove stating: "John Bolton will be a champion of multilateral power properly deployed."

That is spin, or to paraphrase Vice President Dick Cheney, spin. . .Big Time.

-- Steve Clemons

This is an amazing entry in tonight's Nelson Report. It's one of the bravest essays I have read this week -- and it paints both the Democrats and Republicans amorally triangulating around the White House's winner-takes-all, win-every-battle obsession in the Tom DeLay and John Bolton fiascos.

I am off to hear Karl Rove tonight tell us about what we all ought to be thinking about. I hope he mentions Bolton.

Chris Nelson writes in the 18 April Nelson Report:

BOLTON BATTLE...the real fight

If the fight over John Bolton's UN nomination were just about John Bolton, he'd be history already. But this isn't about Bolton, it's about the exercise of power. Same thing with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

If this was even 5 years ago, hed be toast.

We are at the point now where the Republican Leadership refuses to allow the possibility of a loss on anything, regardless of the merits. This renders "debate" meaningless, since nothing said actually matters, so truth is irrelevant.

"Science" depends on faith; everything is a test of power. Oppose something the President wants, and you aren't just wrong, you are betraying the Party. The underlying message is that you are also offending a very particular definition of God.

The sad, sorry Bolton/DeLay spectacles are about total war, the kill-the-prisoners exercise of power that national US politics has become since the 2000 election. If it were merely about power, it wouldn't be so terrifying. Washington is used to that. . .it's what we exist for. But the fear, the self-loathing, the pathetic, cowardly, sniveling, excuse-making drivel from such "leaders" as Lugar, Hagel, Chafee, the entire House Republican Leadership under DeLay. . .and the ever-so-very carefully expressed angst of the Democrats. . .is about something far more dangerous to the Republic than mere political power.

What we are seeing is a fight for the political soul of the nation. We've had these before, in the existential sense. . .in my political lifetime, the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam war movement, the women’s rights versus, to a certain extent, the right to life movement. But this time it's totally and completely a fight about God. . .specifically, whether God is going to rule in the United States.

The Constitution says that would be illegal, and any serious expert can tell you that not only were the Founders liberal in their interpretation of the Deity, but they intentionally enshrined a purely secular civic government, including the courts. They didn't think that Jesus had an official plan for us, much less did they think that politicians who defined their duties in secular terms were defying the word of God.

Tom Delay manifestly believes this, and it sounds like any number of Senate Republicans either agree, or lack the imagination or moral courage to disagree. . .why else would some endorse threats against Republican-appointed judges who dare to interpret the law in secular terms? This is what the Bolton fight is really about: you can't dump him, because that lets the Democrats win on both the facts and principle. . .fatal notions to a desire to pack the courts with religious and secular policy extremists.

Why else would there be the constant drumbeat of attacks on the "liberal media", except to undermine public trust in the Constitutionally provided mediator between the politicians and the people?

The Founders knew how to protect what they intended; this crowd has figured out how to undermine the very rule of law in the United States. Listen to what DeLay is arguing...that his excesses have nothing to do with his "persecution", interesting choice of word, by the Democrats and their "liberal press allies". If a majority of Congressional Republicans don't, in their hearts, see the hypocrisy of all this, the Republic is doomed.

The real story behind Bolton and DeLay is obvious, to anyone not already seduced by the dark side.

Connect the dots. There's still time.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

An important new poll conducted by Zogby International and commissioned by Citizens for Global Solutions has just been released.

Here is a copy of the poll.

Key findings are:

~ 85 percent of those who said they would vote for Senator Chafee if the election were held today, said the Senator should vote against the Bolton nomination

~ 79 percent of those who are not sure how they will vote in 2006, said the Senator should vote against the Bolton nomination

~ 42.8 percent of those who voted for Senator Chafee in 2000 said they would be less likely to vote for him in 2006 should he vote in favor of the Bolton nomination.

What is amazing is that 4 out of 5 people in Rhode Island oppose the nomination. There is a 4.1% variance in results.

This must be even more disconcerting for Senator Chafee, who is reportedly already 20 points down in polls handicapping the next U.S. Senate race in Rhode Island.

-- Steve Clemons

(photo credit: CommonDreams.org)

A close friend of mine just called in tears with the news that I had missed in the Washington Post this morning.

A mutual friend of ours, Marla Ruzicka, who has been at the New America Foundation many times and who came to the holiday party at my Dupont Circle home in December, was killed in Iraq by a suicide bomber on Saturday. Marla was introduced to me by my colleague, Peter Bergen.

Behind her physical beauty and seeming fragility, she had a tenaciousness and commitment to do good things for people that charmed the most crusty skeptics and inspired genuine awe. I am having a hard time believing that we have lost another great soul in this mess in Iraq.

All I can say right now is that Marla Ruzicka was someone Americans could be proud of. She convinced Congress to set aside money to help tend to accidental, innocent victims of these wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Her non-profit organization, CIVIC Worldwide moved mountains.

She was the face of the best, most inspired side of American foreign policy abroad -- she was a metaphor for the kind of inspired engagement we as a nation should be about.

And if she was that, what is John Bolton's nomination all about?

He can't come close to comparing with this brave woman.

-- Steve Clemons

Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld may not have been the only person bemoaning the fact that he didn't have his own robust, independent source for national security intelligence.

John Bolton too felt constantly constrained by and at war with "intelligence-packagers" at the Department of State and CIA. He felt that these intelligence analysts and their estimates were being colored politically -- and were usually softer-edged assessments than the raw intelligence called for.

Here is the $450 billion question: How did John Bolton know that these intelligence estimates were soft? How did he so frequently have information and material that the State Department INR analysts and CIA analysts had discounted or had not allowed to work through bureaucratic channels?

Several highly-placed officers have "speculated" that John Bolton had several sources for some of this "bad intel" over which he was beating up, harrassing, and seeking termination of so many intelligence analysts.

Notes of Christian Westermann's interview with Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff allude to such capacity in Bolton's office, but others have confirmed in interviews with TWN that Bolton may have had some kind of "intelligence terminal" based in his office.

As I understand it, one of these terminals issues out short reports of highly classified, raw, unfiltered intelligence that has not been analyzed, placed in any kind of context, or otherwise tested for veracity or significance. Every person with whom I have spoken about such terminals said that they are incredibly dangerous, as they are constantly spewing out "sky is falling types of material" that must be analyzed. At the State Department, INR is responsible for sorting out the serious from the sensational, as well as for establishing context and packaging the intelligence in useable form.

But some speculate that Bolton had his own terminal -- very rare in government -- and rather than fully depending on either State or CIA assessments began to generate his own intelligence estimates, views, fact sheets, and materials for his speeches and positions.

This is unbelievably reckless and dangerous and is potentially among the very worst of abuses that John Bolton may have engaged in.

Alternatively, others believe that Bolton had access to someone at the CIA who was feeding him such raw or unfiltered intelligence. This is one of the possibilities raised in the excellent article by Dafna Linzer in today's Washington Post.

Here are the key excerpts about Bolton's intelligence misbehavior:

But testimony gathered by the Senate panel in preparation for Bolton's confirmation hearings has also detailed a private channel to the CIA and how he sought to stifle career analysts from voicing dissent about the intelligence he was receiving. Bolton's chief of staff, Frederick Fleitz, is on loan to Bolton from the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center, known as WINPAC. Fleitz told Senate staff members during an April 7 interview that he goes back to the agency's headquarters from time to time and reports to supervisors there and to Bolton.

Neil Silver, who directs the Office for Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, told Senate staff members earlier this month that his office was surprised when a CIA analysis on "China's commitment to proliferation" showed up for Bolton in 2002 without a request filed through his office. Silver assumed that Fleitz had heard about the analysis through associates at the CIA because its conclusions had not been agreed to within the intelligence community. Silver's office, which is supposed to provide policymakers with a complete picture of intelligence that could affect directives, attached an alternative view for Bolton to see.

That decision brought immediate complaints from Fleitz, who told Silver that it was "unprofessional" to circulate the dissent.

Thomas Fingar, who runs the State Department's intelligence bureau, which is the official liaison between the department and the rest of the intelligence community, told the Senate committee on April 8 that Fleitz had asked that a clearance request for controversial intelligence on Cuba be made through WINPAC.

Often those requests go through the National Intelligence Council (NIC), but it became public during last week's hearings that Bolton had clashed with the council officer in charge of Latin America.

Bolton came up against resistance from Fingar's bureau and, later, from the national intelligence officer on Latin America over a speech he gave in May 2002 suggesting that Cuba had a biological weapons program.

The former national intelligence officer told the committee that he received an abusive e-mail from Fleitz after he had raised objections with the Senate staff about the Cuba speech. The former officer and his boss then, Stuart Cohen, who ran the NIC in 2002, said Bolton tried to get the officer removed from his job after the incident.

Ford, who ran the State Department's intelligence bureau before Fingar, also said that Bolton had sought the removal of Christian Westermann, the bureau analyst who had also challenged the ambiguous intelligence Bolton wanted to make public about Cuba.

When Westermann shared his dissenting view about the intelligence, he was ordered to Bolton's office and berated, Ford and Westermann said. Ford and Silver said Bolton wanted Westermann removed from his job at the intelligence bureau. Bolton denied that he tried to have anyone fired but said that the national intelligence officer and Westermann had acted inappropriately.

It should be easy for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to inquire from the State Department whether Bolton's office had one of these controversial intel terminals or not.

In addition, Mr. Bolton should make clear if he did not have access to said terminal, who in the national security bureacracy was feeding him "unprocessed intelligence," particularly on North Korea, Iran, and Cuba.

These kinds of allegations are very, very serious -- and TWN is treading as carefully as possible here. These comments on the intel terminal are still semi-speculative, but many say that circumstantial evidence points to such capacity in Bolton's office.

Someone should pose these questions about the terminal and about the intel sources to Bolton directly; and then hope he does not obfuscate, or lie.

-- Steve Clemons

Senator Chuck Hagel said yesterday that his vote is in trouble. He was inclined as of yesterday to vote for Bolton, but if the scope of concern and inquiry grew any more he indicated he could not support John Bolton's U.N. nomination.

The Washington Post's Dafna Linzer discloses today that the scope has widened.

Here are some key excerpts:

~ John R. Bolton -- who is seeking confirmation as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations -- often blocked then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and, on one occasion, his successor, Condoleezza Rice, from receiving information vital to U.S. strategies on Iran, according to current and former officials who have worked with Bolton.

In some cases, career officials found back channels to Powell or his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, who encouraged assistant secretaries to bring information directly to him. In other cases, the information was delayed for weeks or simply did not get through. The officials, who would discuss the incidents only on the condition of anonymity because some continue to deal with Bolton on other issues, cited a dozen examples of memos or information that Bolton refused to forward during his four years as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

Two officials described a memo that had been prepared for Powell at the end of October 2003, ahead of a critical international meeting on Iran, informing him that the United States was losing support for efforts to have the U.N. Security Council investigate Iran's nuclear program. Bolton allegedly argued that it would be premature to throw in the towel. "When Armitage's staff asked for information about what other countries were thinking, Bolton said that information couldn't be collected," according to one official with firsthand knowledge of the exchange.

~ Bolton's time at the State Department under Rice has been brief. But authoritative officials said Bolton let her go on her first European trip without knowing about the growing opposition there to Bolton's campaign to oust the head of the U.N. nuclear agency. "She went off without knowing the details of what everybody else was saying about how they were not going to join the campaign," according to a senior official. Bolton has been trying to replace Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who is perceived by some within the Bush administration as too soft on Iran.

The entire article is a block-buster actually and shows the incredible chasm between the reality as known by all those who worked with and for John Bolton and the testimony he gave last week in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings.

More soon on the question of Bolton's efforts to generate his own intelligence estimates.

-- Steve Clemons

Ron Brownstein does a great job at getting at the complex politics of the Bolton nomination.

He writes:

Chafee, facing reelection next year, is feeling as squeezed as anyone. Conservatives grumble about all the times he's defected from Bush's agenda. Chafee voted against Bush's tax cuts, the Iraq war and drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He's indicated opposition to private Social Security accounts and the Republican threat to ban use of the filibuster to block judicial nominees. In November's election, he even wrote in the name of Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, rather than vote for the president.

That record has opened Chafee to the threat of a primary challenge from the right. The most likely challenger, Stephen P. Laffey, an energetic young conservative serving as mayor of Cranston, R.I., hasn't tipped his hand. But the conservative Club for Growth, which specializes in funding challenges against moderate Republicans, has already run ads against Chafee on Social Security and seems eager to mount a full-fledged insurrection. "My gut instinct is he would be vulnerable," says David Keating, the group's executive director.

Chafee's problem is that any step he takes to bolster his GOP credentials exposes him to potential general election attacks in one of the nation's most Democratic states. Democrats already are stockpiling examples of Chafee's votes for Bush. If Chafee backs Bolton, it could provide Democrats a powerful symbol to argue that the senator, for all his independence, is helping to advance Bush's agenda more than most people in Rhode Island prefer.

If the issues about John Bolton had only to do with his personally outrageous and unconstructive views of the United Nations itself, I think that this debate would be over. But the Republicans are being put in a position of confirming someone who has:

1. lied to them about his past behavior in trying to have intelligence agents fired

2. who has tried to actively sabotage official Bush administration policy towards North Korea

3. who may have misused highly classified NSA intercepts in his personal and reckless crusades, or in his personal rivalries with others in government

4. whose obsessions with intelligence resulted in his own office attempting to produce its own intelligence fact sheets as rival reports to State's INR reports

Chafee, Hagel, Alexander, Murkowski, Lugar, Voinovich -- all of them -- don't want to be in the position of confirming a guy who has engaged in such reckless behavior. The Bush administration needs to act as if it did not realize the full scope of issues regarding Mr. Bolton's candidacy and pull back.

John Bolton is not someone that this nation can be proud of in the important role of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

As one very conservative commentator at the CSIS Think Tank Summit on foreign policy said to me this weekend, "The Bolton nomination shows that George Bush still has a sense of humor." But even this commentator -- who is close to the core of neoconservatives in D.C. said that Bush should play a different card in the U.N.

-- Steve Clemons

I just read a very long but interesting piece on the blog, Obsidian Wings, about John Bolton. It's a cluster blog, with some on the right and others on the left. One of the writers, "hilzoy," caught most of the major reasons to oppose Bolton, and I want to link to her post.

The last grafs read:

My best guess, for what it's worth, is the following. John Bolton was, by all accounts, Dick Cheney's guy in the State Department, and he spent his time there working at cross purposes with the rest of the State Department. Condoleeza Rice, I suspect, did not want to have him around wreaking havoc, and since, unlike Colin Powell, she is close to the President, she got her way. But he had to be sent somewhere, and given some more or less prestigious job; thus the UN ambassadorship.

I have also read that some people in the administration believe that there will be a conflict in the UN about Iran in a few months, and they want Bolton there to knock heads. In any case, he gives new meaning to the phrase "wrong man for the job", and in my view the Committee on Foreign Relations would do us all an immense favor by voting him down.

What is interesting in this debate about Bolton is that the White House and many members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- both Republicans and Democrats -- thought that this would be a less controversial appointment than Negroponte or some others. Bolton is an inside-the-beltway kind of guy without much name recognition or visibility outside of his various nuclear non-proliferation and WMD-watch portfolios.

But he's become a very well-known figure now, not for his achievements in the arms control arena but for his thuggery against State Department colleagues and his recklessness in sabotaging some elements of Bush administration foreign policy.

Lincoln Chafee who seemed to be counting on the ignorance of his constituents regarding John Bolton needs to reconsider this assumption. Furthermore, if Chafee thinks other on the Republican side are considering breaking ranks -- the worst move for Chafee is to stay in the pro-Bolton camp, the second worst move is to follow another Senator who changes his or her mind, and the best move is to "lead" as several senators switch positions.

More to come.

-- Steve Clemons

College newspapers around the country are also getting into the question of John Bolton's fitness to serve as America's UN Ambassador.

Robert Iafolla of USC's Daily Trojan published a superb piece today making the case that John Bolton's biggest problem is that he seems to be a "serial liar."

Excerpted here:

Even before last week's hearings, he seemed a poor fit for the post. An unflagging advocate of U.S. unilateralism and hegemony, Bolton said in 1994, "There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States."

Other warning signs emerged from the hearings. The State Department's former intelligence chief called Bolton a "serial abuser" of subordinates and "a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy."

Bolton has abused power as well as people, illustrated by his own admission to eavesdropping on American officials by accessing phone calls and e-mails intercepted by the National Security Agency and by reports that he tried to remove an intelligence analyst whose conclusions he disagreed with.

Perhaps most troubling was the revelation that besides being an ideologue and a power-tripping bully, Bolton is - for lack of a more diplomatic word - a liar.

He displayed dishonesty that goes beyond unsubstantiated claims, such as his 2002 assertion that Cuba had biological weapons and provided them to "other rogue states."

Bolton lied openly and oafishly to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, like a schoolboy explaining that a dog ate his homework.

In a portion of testimony reported by Martin Schram of the Scripps Howard News Service, Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.) asked Bolton about the Law of the Sea Treaty, which the United States has not yet signed, despite support from Condoleezza Rice, Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) and the Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Vern Clark.

Bolton responded by saying that the administration currently supports the treaty, and he supports what the administration supports. When asked for a personal opinion, Bolton said he had never read the treaty.

"Well, now, in an article in a book entitled 'Understanding Unilateralism in American Foreign Relations,'" Sarbanes said, "you called the Law of the Sea Treaty 'not only undesirable as a policy, but also illegitimate methods of forcing fundamental policy changes on the United States outside the customary political process.'"

Check the link. There is an apt cartoon that goes with the Iafolla article.

-- Steve Clemons

(ed. note: Thanks to C.A. for sending this my way.)

John Bolton was a man obsessed with intelligence in his last job.

He was also a man who disliked most of those with whom he worked at the State Department, and he felt like he was constantly under siege from Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who assigned some of his staff to "watch Bolton," who was already known to be reckless and a "loose cannon" who made a habit of trying to undo some of the administration's most delicate diplomatic initiatives -- particularly with regard to North Korea.

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?

TWN has learned that what is being provided to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are "summaries" of the super secret transcripts Bolton looked at.

TWN suggests that the Committee staff read what Bolton read. Read the intercepts. Don't give any parties the ability to smudge over or hide what Bolton was up to.

His actions were unusual, and the U.S. Senate in order to perform its oversight function competently and well depends on a full investigation of the intercepts.

Read them. In full.

And if they aren't made available before tomorrow's vote, DON'T VOTE.

This matter is too important.

-- Steve Clemons

Today is the most important day for anyone who is engaged in the effort to send someone better than John Bolton to be America's Ambassador to the United Nations.

I will be posting a lot today -- quick but important items. I need to spend time reaching out to those making decisions in this matter -- and to the media.

What those of you so inclined need to do is to call your Senators, or call other Senators.

Here are two key Senators to call today. Both have indicated their serious concern about recent revelations about John Bolton, and today more information has come out about John Bolton that should give them the reason to call the White House and say that they must withhold their support. I will post the article I am referring to shortly.

Call. . .Here are two numbers:

Senator Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island (202) 224-2921

Senator Chuck Hagel, Nebraska, (202) 224-4224

Here is a list of other Senators on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- and frankly all of them could use calls. But if you have to focus, Feingold remains important -- and all of the Republicans are important and in my view, potential "gets" with the exception of Norm Coleman and George Allen.

More to come.

-- Steve Clemons