Reuters' write-up of the most recent Bolton events is a fairly good one, both as a wrap-up of the Sunday shows and as a decent overview of where things stand overall. I must say, I was disheartened at the half-hearted opposition of Democratic senators today: both Dodd on "Fox News Sunday" (write-up here, transcript here) and Lieberman on "Late Edition" (transcript here) seemed basically resigned to the fact that Bolton will get a recess appointment, and neither took the opportunity to bring up the new revelations about Bolton's failure to disclose to the Foreign Relations Committee that he was interviewed by the State Department's inspector general back in 2003.

All reports seem to point toward a recess appointment for Bolton sometime during the early part of the week, prior to President Bush's departure for Crawford on Tuesday. Since there have been a great many questions about the use of the recess appointment power, its history and so forth, I wanted to pass along this from MSNBC, which I've found very useful for background throughout this process.

I'm not going to size up the many ramifications of a recess appointment yet... the deed is not done, and there will be ample time for discussion after the fact if and when the president takes that step. For now, we cannot let up: we must make perfectly clear that no member of the Senate, Republican or Democrat, Bolton proponent or opponent, should sit quietly by and let a presidential nominee get away with submitting an untruthful disclosure form to the Senate. "I forgot" is hardly an adequate defense for such a serious omission, and no senator, no American, should be satisfied with it.

In the next couple of days, we should finally have a resolution to this months-long saga. Regardless of the final outcome, all of us who have opposed this ill-chosen nominee should remember that we have stood for truth, for honor, for reform, and for the best interests of America and our relations with the world.

-- Jeremy Dibbell (Charging RINO)

It's Charles Kupchan here, filling in for Steve Clemons, to whom I am grateful for my first opportunity to be a blogger. I am a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Sunday's Washington Post ran a front-page article ("At State, Rice Takes Control of Diplomacy") commending Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice for taking charge of U.S. foreign policy and pursuing a diplomatic strategy more pragmatic and less ideological than during Bush's first term. On several fronts, Secretary Rice well deserves the Post's kudos. Since she moved from the White House to Foggy Bottom, America's relations with Europe have improved markedly. Washington is now actively engaged in diplomatic efforts to ensure that Iran and North Korea do not maintain nuclear weapons programs. The U.S. is playing a more visible and active role in the Middle East peace process, with Israel's withdrawal from Gaza proceeding apace. And in picking Bob Zoellick and Nick Burns as her top aides, Rice has reached out to consummate professionals -- both of whom embrace the centrist brand of internationalism that was so underrepresented in Bush's first term. These are impressive accomplishments, especially in light of the fact that Rice still has to do battle with Rumsfeld, Cheney, and other hardliners.

But before we breathe a collective sigh of relief and pronounce America's ship of state back on course, let's take a step back. To applaud the State Department for actually engaging in diplomacy with Iran and North Korea is a bit like applauding McDonalds for serving hamburgers. For four years, the Bush team merely glared at Tehran and Pyongyang. Diplomatic engagement is a welcome change of course -- but it seems like a bold innovation only because Washington dropped the ball, and was sticking its head in the sand for years, preoccupied with the war in Iraq.

The Post also praises Secretary Rice for brokering a deal on Sudan at the UN. A breakthrough did indeed occur on her watch. But what held up UN engagement for months was Washington's needless phobia about the International Criminal Court and the prospect of the ICC investigating war crimes in Darfur. The State Department deserves credit for finding a way out of the stalemate (Washington abstained rather than vetoed the resolution), enabling the international community to get on with peacekeeping and relief efforts in Sudan. But the U.S. should have never blocked the resolution to begin with. Furthermore, the Bush administration still has done far too little to stop the suffering and killing in Darfur.

Finally, Condi Rice's accomplishments notwithstanding, the State Department needs to start speaking the truth about Iraq before I will be prepared to pronounce American diplomacy -- and American politics more generally -- back on course. On matters ranging from the stamina of the insurgency (it's not in its last throes), to the influence of Iran in Iraq (there is a great deal), to the risks of civil war (anything but insignificant), it is time for the administration to shoot straight with the American people. Only after strategic myth has given way to sober assessment can the nation sensibly and reasonably find its way forward in Iraq.

-- Charles Kupchan

It's good news that British authorities apparently have nabbed the four men who launched the most recent (unsuccessful) bombings in London. But the threat of terrorism will go on. And security professionals, in contrast to politicians, acknowledge how the Iraq conflict is encouraging additional violent attacks. Evidence of the connection keeps accumulating.

According to the Times in London:

IRAQ has become "a dominant issue" for Islamic extremists in Britain, MI5 has admitted.

In a fresh analysis of the threat facing Britain from international terrorist groups, the acknowledgement underlines the view of the security and intelligence services that Iraq has provided an extra motivating force for terrorists.

Contributing to the agency's official website after the July 7 bombings, under the heading "Threat to the UK from international terrorism", a team of MI5 analysts concludes: "Though they have a range of aspirations and 'causes', Iraq is a dominant issue for a range of extremist groups and individuals in the UK and Europe."

After the suicide bombings in London, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said there was no connection between them and the war in Iraq. This conflicted with a leaked assessment by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, based at MI5 and run by a Ministry of Defence official, which claimed, three weeks before July 7 that Iraq was continuing to act "as a focus of a range of terrorist related activities in Britain".

The latest MI5 assessment sticks to the view that there is a link between Iraq and terrorist activities. In their website analysis, the MI5 officers add: "Some individuals who support the insurgency are known to have travelled to Iraq in order to fight against coalition forces. It is possible that they may return to the UK and consider mounting attacks here."

Obviously, this analysis doesn't mean terrorism is justified. (One shouldn't have to say that, but with war advocates apt to take the slightest sign of opposition as objective support for the terrorists, it must be said.) This doesn't mean that terrorists don't articulate other grievances. This doesn't even mean one can't justify the Iraq war. But one needs to acknowledge the consequences of the conflict and honestly balance its costs and benefits.

So when the President's argues that Iraq has become the central front in the war on terrorism, he is right. But only because of his own policies, most obviously the ill-considered decision to invade Iraq. In saying that we now must remain there, the President is like the man who murders his parents and then requests the court's mercy since he's an orphan.

-- Doug Bandow

As most everyone knows, the Army and Marine Corps and Army National Guard and Reserves have been running into recruiting problems. The cause isn't difficult to understand. Indeed, you'd have to worry about someone who was enthusiastic about joining the armed services in order to fight in a war that: was based on completely false claims; has been badly bungled by officials who foresaw no opposition and didn't bother to acquire the necessary equipment (such as body armor and armored vehicles); has spawned a "democratic" process in Iraq that risks becoming distinctly illiberal, and has created an active recruiting and training ground for terrorists.

But war supporters remain adept at finding scapegoats. Some leftish activists have been attempting to organize a counter-recruitment movement. I don't know how successful it has been in practice, but Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy is not pleased:

Those who oppose our armed forces recruiters' visits to schools and universities or otherwise interfere with their activities will not prevent us from waging the war we have no choice but to fight. They may, however, require us to do so with forces that are obliged to serve rather than those who do so freely.

However, if anything is evident in the aftermath of the administration's WMD intelligence fiasco, it is that the war was not necessary, but a matter of choice pursued for reasons having little to do with any direct threats to America. The fact that those most at risk in fighting -- as opposed to arm-chair warriors sitting around Washington planning -- such a conflict are increasingly saying no should create cause for reflection. There is nothing inevitable about how long America stays, or in what form it remains engaged.

If war enthusiasts (especially those enthusiastic young conservatives about whom I read who are now active on college campuses) can't seem to make it down to the armed services recruiting offices, the administration has yet another reason to accelerate plans to get out. It's one thing to contemplate conscription to preserve the nation from a hegemonic totalitarian menace. It's quite another thing for those who failed to serve yesterday to draft those who don't want to join today to spread "democracy" -- especially if the ultimate result is an authoritarian Iraq leaning toward Axis of Evil member Iran.

-- Doug Bandow

The other day Josh Marshall asked an important question about the growing controversy over giving the Senate Judiciary Committee access to the memos John Roberts wrote when he worked in the Reagan and Bush 41 Administrations. In short, Josh wondered why the Senate should be any less informed about Roberts' past than the President. The answer, obviously, is that it shouldn't.

For those of you not following the issue, the Bush 43 Administration has decided to release Roberts' documents from when he served as a lawyer in the Reagan White House and Justice Department (some of which were already publicly available at the Reagan Library). However, the White House is steadfastly refusing to release any documents stemming from Roberts' tenure as Deputy Solicitor General during the Bush 41 Administration. Specifically, Senate Democrats want to see memos relating to 16 cases that Roberts participated in while in the Solicitor General's office. These memos may reveal much about Roberts' personal views on important issues like the right to privacy, affirmative action, environmental protection, and the separation of church and state.

There's a lot that should be said about this issue. But for now I just want to briefly highlight a piece of information I provided to Steve back during Alberto Gonzales' nomination to be Attorney General, which Steve posted here.

This passage is from a 1941 legal opinion issued by Robert Jackson when he was Attorney General. Jackson's views on this topic are highly relevant. Jackson, who later went on to be a Supreme Court Justice and Nuremberg prosecutor, is one of the rare legal figures who's revered on both the left and right. He also probably understood the need to protect executive branch deliberations better than anyone. Before joining the Court he spent most of his legal career as a government attorney, and his concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer (1952) is the definitive judicial statement on the separation of powers doctrine. And most significantly for these purposes, Jackson served as Solicitor General from 1938 to 1940, so he was keenly aware of the importance of protecting that office's internal deliberations.

In fact, the primary purpose of this Attorney General opinion was to defend the executive branch's refusal to turn over internal Justice Department investigative reports to a congressional committee. But Jackson added this key passage at the end:

Of course, where the public interest has seemed to justify it, information as to particular situations has been supplied to congressional committees by me and by former Attorneys General. For example, I have taken the position that committees called upon to pass on the confirmation of persons recommended for appointment by the Attorney General would be afforded confidential access to any information that we have -- because no candidate's name is submitted without his knowledge and the Department does not intend to submit the name of any person whose entire history will not stand light.

40 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 45 (1941).

So, Josh, you can see you're in good company in believing the Senate should have access to the same information the Bush Administration has in its possession. Jackson, in his trademark eloquence, couldn't have expressed that position any better. And like Jackson, I think it's reasonable to reach an accommodation here where the Senators and their staff get access to Roberts' SG documents on a confidential basis. Unfortunately, compromise isn't something this Administration is known for, particularly when it comes to other branches of government. Instead, this is just another example of Bush's attempted parliamentarization of Congress, which we've seen with Bolton, the nuclear option, the prescription drug benefit, and so many other shameful episodes.

-- Brian Greer is an attorney in Washington, DC.

A couple of characteristics seem to set apart the neocons and their allies who so readily, indeed, enthusiastically, make war. One, of course, is to avoid actually serving in combat. Vice President Dick Cheney famously allowed that he had "other priorities" -- evidenced by his five deferments. His experience is shockingly common, though admittedly not universal, among the war hawks.

The second is to avoid worrying unduly when reality turns out different than theory. In going through old papers that had piled up during my most recent trip abroad, I came across Al Kamen's column from the Federal Page in the Washington Post on July 1. He noted the current State Department travel advisory for Iraq.

It is really quite stunning. While the President and Vice President assure us that we are winning and the insurgency is in its last throes:

The Department of State continues to strongly warn U.S. citizens against travel to Iraq, which remains very dangerous. Remnants of the former Baath regime, transnational terrorists, and criminal elements remain active. Attacks against military and civilian targets throughout Iraq continue, including in the International (or “Green”) Zone. Targets include hotels, restaurants, police stations, checkpoints, foreign diplomatic missions, and international organizations and other locations with expatriate personnel. These attacks have resulted in deaths and injuries of American citizens, including those doing humanitarian work. In addition, there have been planned and random killings, as well as extortions and kidnappings. U.S. citizens have been kidnapped and several were subsequently murdered by terrorists in Iraq. U.S. citizens and other foreigners continue to be targeted by insurgent groups for kidnapping and murder. Military operations continue. There are daily attacks against Multinational Forces - Iraq (MNF-I) throughout the country.

There is credible information that terrorists are targeting civil aviation. Civilian and military aircraft arriving in and departing from Baghdad International Airport have been subjected to small arms and missiles. Civilian aircraft do not generally possess systems, such as those found on military aircraft, capable of defeating man-portable, surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS). Anyone choosing to utilize civilian aircraft to enter or depart Iraq should be aware of this potential threat, as well as the extremely high risk to road transportation described below...

All vehicular travel in Iraq is extremely dangerous. There have been numerous attacks on civilian vehicles, as well as military convoys. Attacks occur throughout the day, but travel at night is exceptionally dangerous. Travel in or through Ramadi and Fallujah, travel between al-Hillah and Baghdad, and travel between the International Zone and Baghdad International Airport is particularly dangerous. Occasionally, U.S. Government personnel are prohibited from traveling to select areas depending on prevailing security conditions. There continues to be heavy use of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and/or mines on roads, particularly in plastic bags, soda cans, and dead animals. Grenades and explosives have been thrown into vehicles from overpasses, particularly in crowded areas. Overland travel should be undertaken only when absolutely necessary and with the appropriate security.

Despite continuing pacification efforts, it is sadly apparent that the insurgents/terrorists are still "bringing it on," as encouraged by the President two years ago.

But then, when you're living in the White House protected by the Secret Service, it's probably easy to miss what's happening on the ground in Iraq. You certainly don't perceive any need to read the State Department's travel advisory for the country.

-- Doug Bandow

As I noted late last night, Senator Chafee of Rhode Island told the Associated Press that the newest revelations about John Bolton were enough to make him withdraw his support for the nomination and oppose a recess appointment. As Chafee said, "Any intimidation of the facts, or suppression of information getting to the public which led us to the war, absolutely should preclude him from a recess appointment."

While I appreciate Chafee's new-found opposition to Bolton, as I said last night, his timing could not be worse. The time for opposition to Bolton was, well, anytime prior to late last night - and Chafee missed the boat. While I feel like I spend half my time defending fellow moderate/centrist/liberal Republicans from criticism, I cannot defend Chafee on this. I said in comments earlier this morning, and will repeat here, that this latest from Chafee only adds to his reputation as the "very model of a modern mushy moderate"... a description which in this case is quite apt.

For those of us working diligently, both in and out of the blogosphere, to overcome the stigma that centrism or moderation is the same thing as wishy-washiness, Chafee has been a great disappointment, particularly but not only when it comes to John Bolton. He had a tremendous opportunity to play an important centrist role, an opportunity which he squandered completely. Unlike his father John, who once held the seat Linc occupies, the current Senator Chafee does not relish his position as a "charging centrist" within the Republican Party; all too often he wilts under pressure from the White House and Senate leadership, emitting only meek chirps of half-dissent.

John Chafee is one of my personal and political heroes, and I have the greatest respect for him and his accomplishments as one of the greatest senators and Republicans of the twentieth century. I wish that the son had inherited a bit more of his father's intestinal fortitude, as well as his backbone. I probably agree practically with Linc Chafee on 90% of the issues, but his tactics depress me.

This has been a hard post to write, but it had to be said. No offense intended, Linc - but we centrists need your voice. You need to find it, and start charging.

-- Jeremy Dibbell (Charging RINO)

From One State to Three "Virtual States"

If only grandmother had four wheels: If you believe the front-page report from Iraq in Thursday's Wall Street Journal that "U.S. opens door for big pullback in Iraq next year," then I'll sell you a bridge over the Euphrates. The news from Baghdad, highlighting one of those "surprise visits" by the Secretary of the Department of Regime Change, Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad, quotes him and U.S. Commander in Iraq George Casey saying, suggesting, implying and hinting that the U.S. was laying the groundwork for a "substantial" withdrawal next spring. Mm... Let me see. Isn't that when the midterm election campaigns are beginning to gain momentum? In any case, Casey, according to the Journal added several conditions or "qualifications," stressing that the U.S. military in Iraq would be able to take those "substantial reductions" if "the political process continues to go positively" and if "the development of the security forces continues to go as it is going [and how is it going? LH]," while Rumsfeld, according to the New York Times, said that troop withdrawal "hinged" on the following: The size and strength of the insurgency; the level of cooperation from Syria and Iran; the ability of the Iraqi security forces; Iraqi public support for the new government; and, oh, yes, on whether Courtney Love and Paris Hilton join a convent... Which recalls an old Jewish saying: If my grandmother had four wheels, she would be a carriage... And not to forget that the Bush Administration had already been able to fool Congress and others with the commitment to pursue diplomacy and not to go to war against Iraq "if" Saddam would only did this or that. So don't hold your breath. American troops will be "over there" for many years to come, and I'm not talking here about the new FX series (BTW, thumbs down for that show as far as I'm concerned; I would have switched to "CSI: NY" but it was a repeat).

Here is what's going to happen in Iraq: First, neither the Americans nor the insurgents are going to win a 'victory' in Iraq. Second, a political 'solution' to Iraq that would maintain its territorial integrity under a central government is not a realistic option. American policymakers should consider the above as political axioms and come up with an interim agreement that could provide Iraq with an opportunity to bring some stability to the country and begin its economic reconstruction. So the best-case-scenario should be based on the recognition that the least costly option will be to freeze the status quo in which Iraq is gradually being divided into three mini-states -- a mostly Kurdish region in the north, a mostly Shiite area in the south, and the Sunni Triangle .

The Kosovo Model: Consider the reality in post-war Kosovo - with its Albanian majority and Serbian minority - which has been transformed into an international protectorate, although it still remains part of Serbia. Kosovo cannot achieve the status of an independent state - since Serbia and its ally Russia backing the Serbian minority in Kosovo will oppose such a move and also because concerns that an independent Kosovo would ignite pressure for secession of the Albanian minority in Macedonia and produce momentum for the establishment of a Greater Albania. At the same time, the return of Kosovo to full Serbian control is rejected by the Albanian majority and their supporters in the West. Hence the willingness to accept the current arrangement of a 'virtual' Kosovo mini-state. It’s not a permanent 'solution' but Serbs and Albanians are not killing each other and there is some effort to establish political stability and to economically reconstruct Kosovo.

The Hadar Plan: The conditions in Mesopotamia resemble those in the Balkans under which three Kosovos could emerge in Iraq. Such a scheme will not resemble the Bush dministration's let's-make-the-Middle-East-safe-for-democracy fantasies, and will require that the US launch a process of diplomatic detente with Iran, one of the three major regional players in Iraq - the two other being Turkey and Syria. Hence negotiations between the US, Iran and the Iraqi Shiite leadership whose members have close political and religious ties to the regime in Teheran could lead to an agreement in which Washington and Teheran could provide security to the Shiite region under an informal Iranian-American condominium. A similar accord between the Kurds, the US and Turkey could allow the Kurdish region to continue to maintain its political autonomy while giving Ankara guarantees that the Kurds will not demand full political independence, will share control of oil rich Kirkuk and will grant full rights to the Turkoman minority. Finally, when it comes to the troubled Sunni Triangle, the US could encourage the members of the Arab League, led by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Syria to police the country and its borders and help establish a new Iraqi-Sunni leadership. The United Nations and the EU could also provide peacekeeping troops to help maintain order in the Sunni region. As part of the arrangement, the oil resources of Iran could come under the control of an international trust which the three Iraqi communities will be represented. The creation of three 'virtual' mini states in Iraq should be regarded as an interim arrangement that will lead to a separation of sorts between the three contending players and create conditions in which foreign investment could start flowing into the country, while oil will start flowing from Iraq into the global markets and some of the American troops could start withdrawing from the country. After a transition period of, say, five to ten years, during which Iraq would become more stable and prosperous, the Iraqi people will have an opportunity to decide whether they want to re-establish a central government or to divide the country into two or three sovereign states.

Bye, bye: And now before leaving for Iraq and other world capitals to implement this great plan, I want to thank Steve Clemons -- he is Washington's most original "Policy Entrepreneur" -- for hosting me on his blog for two days and also to thank Dave Meyer for making this thing work. Perhaps one of these days I'll launch my own blog. Meanwhile you can contact me at LeonHadar@aol.com. And please get a copy of my new book (well, buy one), Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East. I hope to get your feedback.

-- Leon Hadar

I was surprised when Steve asked me to join in as a guest blogger. I remain a books and print kind-of-guy in the internet age, so it's a new thing for me. I also warned Steve that he risked having the Washington Note turned into a "Blog for Bolton" site. I happen to like John and would enjoy having him at the UN, but that's another story. And I don't want to give Steve heart failure if he checks in from whereever he is on his, er, arduous trek in foreign parts.

I was struck by a Washington Post story on Wednesday which described a violent Afghan demonstration at a U.S. base. It seems that American forces had detained of several Afghans without consulting local leaders. The article concluded:

"We have supported the Americans for years. We should be treated with dignity," said Shah Aghar, 35. "They are arresting our people without the permission of the government. They are breaking into our houses and offending the people. We are very angry."

Sadly, my first thought was: where'd he get that silly idea? (A friend cattily remarked: "he doesn't seem happy about being liberated.") When does the U.S. ever treat other states or peoples with dignity? As far as I can tell, the Secretary of State is almost constantly on the road lecturing everyone else on how to live their lives.

In this case -- after a thousand people had gathered, tossing stones and attempting to bust down the gates to the base -- the U.S. gave in, subsequently turning over the eight men. But the specific controversy is not the main point. What's so disturbing is that Washington is widely perceived as imperious -- a perception based on its behavior -- which has a corrosive impact on attitudes toward the U.S. Foreign peoples and governments might have to listen to the Great Superpower, but they resent doing so. And many of them can be counted on to resist, balk, delay, and impede whenever the opportunity arises.

I recently returned from a trip to Nepal where I was speaking on economic development to audiences ranging from students to politicians. After one talk someone went up to one of my hosts and said that he liked me because I was "unAmerican." By that he meant that I wasn't acting as if I was omnipotent and telling them exactly what to do. Rather, I emphasized that I was no expert on Nepalese society and encouraged them to work on applying the principles of economic liberty, so necessary for the development of a free and prosperous society, within their own traditions and culture.

At the same time, admiration for the liberty and opportunity available in America remained strong. But the U.S. risks squandering this appreciation for America's strengths -- an incredibly valuable intangible asset -- by attitudes and policies that often are unabashedly arrogant.

-- Doug Bandow

I took Peter Scoblic's suggestion and read his new piece in The New Republic, and I must say it's magnificent. Scoblic is one of the few journalists in America - Fred Kaplan and Soyoung Ho are two others -- who grasp just how utterly foolish, incompetent, and disastrous the Bush administration's policy towards North Korea has been.

In the fall of 2002 and winter of 2003 the president and his people literally sat back and watched as Kim Jong-il's troops marched into a North Korean nuclear fuel storage facility then under international lock and key and trucked off its contents to who knows where to be turned into nuclear weapons.

There was no good reason for this to have happened. When faced with almost precisely the same situation in 1994, the Clinton administration, in what Scoblic calls "a superb example of coercive diplomacy," threatened North Korea with force while opening up a direct negotiating channel to the regime. The result was the deal that put the nuclear fuel under international monitoring for nearly a decade, until the Bush administration let the regime walk in and take it.

Scoblic's explanation for this seemingly-insane passivity is that the administration is driven by conservative ideology; it is "consumed by the idea that the character of states is of primary importance to U.S. security." It believes, in other words, that the threat from a regime like North Korea's is not so much its capabilities -- i.e., its weapons -- but its evil intentions; that the only way to change those intentions is to change the regime; and that to negotiate with such a regime is to risk strengthening it.

Of course we now are negotiating with Pyongyang, in six-party talks underway in Beijing. This is a welcome change, a sign of rational though from the Bush administration (and of a healthier environment in a post-John-Bolton State Department). But keep this in mind: we're negotiating to get North Korea to give up weapons it did not have until we let it have them!

-- Paul Glastris

The Associated Press, along with other news outlets, is now reporting that President Bush will send John Bolton to the United Nations next week via his power of recess appointment. This is, as I have said repeatedly, an unfortunate step, but a particularly egregious one now that we have learned that Mr. Bolton falsified, intentionally or not, his disclosure form to Congress. Sending Bolton to the United Nations under such circumstances is a true act of political indecency, and I hope that the president will reconsider this step.

Within the AP story is a comment from Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee, who had said earlier in the day that he might reconsider his support for Bolton based on the disclosure form revelations. The AP got him to kick his opposition up a notch: Chafee told the wire service he would now vote against Bolton and will oppose a recess appointment. "Any intimidation of the facts, or suppression of information getting to the public which led us to the war, absolutely should preclude him from a recess appointment," Chafee says.

While I appreciate Chafee's insistence on getting to the truth of this matter, I have to express my wonder that this, of all things, is the straw that breaks the camel's back. Of all we have come to learn about Bolton since his nomination in March, this is the one thing that gets Chafee's dander up.

Better late than never, I guess ... but the relevance of Chafee's change of heart is minimal now that the Senate's out of session anyway. The ball is in the president's court, and from all current reports, it looks like he's going to pop it rather than hit it back over the net.

Discovery of the disclosure omission a week earlier, this nomination would probably have been dead in the water. As it stands now, come this time next week, we'll likely have a UN Ambassador who's already got a track record of keeping vital information from Congress. Great start.

- Jeremy Dibbell (Charging RINO)

CBS News, 7/29/05:

President Bush intends to announce next week that he is going around Congress to install embattled nominee John Bolton as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, senior administration officials said Friday.

CBS News Correspondent Mark Knoller reports that CBS News has been told Bush intends to use a recess appointment in the coming days to make John Bolton the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Bush has the power to fill vacancies without Senate approval while Congress is in recess. Under the Constitution, a recess appointment during the lawmakers' August break would last until the next session of Congress, which begins in January 2007.

Two officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because the president had not made the announcement and Congress wasn't in recess yet, said Bush would exercise that authority before he leaves Washington on Tuesday for his ranch, the Associated Press reports. The House recessed on Thursday and the Senate's break was scheduled to begin later Friday.

Alright, I've finally deciphered all the signatures on the letter [pdf] sent to Bush today by 36 members of the U.S. Senate, calling on the president to withdraw Bolton's name in light of his "memory lapse" (discussed in depth here).

Those senators who signed were Durbin, Reid, Clinton, Boxer, Dodd, Biden, Feinstein, Kerry, Corzine, Wyden, Lautenberg, Jeffords, Obama, Salazar, Bingaman, Schumer, Bill Nelson, Feingold, Rockefeller, Reed, Dorgan, Cantwell, Murray, Mikulski, Sarbanes, Leahy, Lincoln, Stabenow, Kennedy, Kohl, Harkin, Landrieu, Levin, Inouye, Dayton, and Akaka.

Nine Democrats (Baucus, Bayh, Byrd, Carper, Conrad, Johnson, Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Pryor) did not sign, along with all 55 Republicans.

-- Jeremy Dibbell (Charging RINO)

President Bush should walk into the Oval Office on Monday morning and contact Bill Frist, Harry Reid, Dick Lugar, and Joe Biden. Then he should make a recess appointment to fill the UN Ambassador vacancy.

You're probably wondering right now why in the world Steve would let me write for his blog in his absence.

Hold on, Steve, don't pull the plug. I'm not suggesting that Bush send Bolton to Turtle Bay. I want him to appoint Anne Patterson so she can improve on the already stellar job she's been doing. A recess appointment made in cooperation with the Senate - not against its will - is a recess appointment I can proudly support.

Now, if you've been listening to the daily proclamations of Scott McClellan, Condoleezza Rice, and the State Department press robots, you've been hearing a lot about the need for leadership at the UN Millennium Summit in September. Here's McClellan's daily nugget:

In terms of this position, there is a vacancy at the United Nations for our ambassador. We need our permanent representative in place at the United States at this critical time. There is an effort underway to move forward on comprehensive reform. We have outlined the comprehensive reforms that we want to see put in place to make sure that the United Nations is an effective multilateral organization. And it's a critical time to be moving forward on this. The United Nations will be having their General Assembly meeting in September, and it's important that we get our permanent representative in place.

If you're just tuning in to the Bolton battle, you might think the Administration just woke up this morning and realized we need leadership at the United Nations. The truth is, the Bush team has squandered months by refusing documents to the Senate, and now they want the public to believe it's a race against the clock to get a Permanent Representative in New York by September.

If this is a question of leadership at the UN as the Administration claims, Bolton is clearly not the answer. Even Bolton's staunchest supporters have made strategic concessions about his poor leadership style, and Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell's Chief of Staff and proprietor of a one-man Bolton complaint desk, made a point of calling him "a lousy leader."

The fact is, we don't have a leadership problem. We already have Anne Patterson in New York, fully prepped for the 21st century and doing a great job. "Damaged goods" Bolton wouldn't bring additional leadership as a confirmed Ambassador; in fact, he's far more likely to sink the ship, especially as a temporary (till 2007) Permanent Representative without the backing of the Senate.

A qualified U.S. Ambassador with the ear of the President and the trust of the Senate can go a long way toward advancing U.S. foreign policy priorities. I do question the sincerity of President Bush's commitment to having a Permanent Representative, given he left the post open for 9 months - twice as long as the duration of the current impasse - when he took office. But even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, it's pretty clear that Bolton isn't the answer.

There's one thing everyone can agree on: no nominee - not Patterson, not Bolton, nobody - can be confirmed in the Senate by September. On Monday, with the blessing of key Senators, he should announce Patterson's appointment. She'd be well-prepared for the September Summit, she'd have the unofficial support of the Senate, and since she'd likely sail through to Senate confirmation in 2007, no one would see her as a lame duck.

Most importantly, Patterson would be a Permanent Representative that makes Americans proud, and America would be permanently rid of its Bolton problem.

-- Scott Paul

Yesterday the Department of State responded to Senator Biden in writing. The letter lays out how Bolton's memory was jogged:

JUL 28, 2005
Dear Senator Biden:

I am writing in response to your letters of July 27 and July 28. Mr. Bolton confirms that he has never appeared before the grand jury or been interviewed or otherwise asked to provide information by the special counselor his staff in connection with their investigation of the Valerie Plame matter. Press reports to the contrary are inaccurate.

With regard to your question concerning the Joint Department of State and CIA Inspectors General Report o'fi Alleged Iraqi Attempts to Procure Uranium from Niger, Mr. Bolton does not recall being interviewed by the Inspector General. However, we have checked the records of our Office of Inspector General and have confinned that Mr. Bolton was interviewed by the Inspector General's staff on July 18,2003. This interview related to Mr. Bolton's involvement in preparation of materials concerning Iraq's attempts to obtain uranium from Niger; the interview did not relate to the Valerie Plame matter. Mr. Bolton answered the questions on the Committee's questionnaire to the best of his knowledge, but he did not recall this interview at the time he completed the questionnaire. Mr. Bolton will submit an amended questionnaire to the Committee tomorrow. Mr. Bolton has already responded to Committee questions about his involvement in preparation of State Department materials concerning Iraq's attempts to obtain uranium from Niger; as Mr. Bolton informed the Committee, he did not assist in preparation of the Department's Niger Uranium Fact Sheet.

Matthew A. Reynolds
Acting Assistant Secretary
Legislative Affairs

Given Bolton's poor memory, I hope that State isn't just taking Bolton's word on the Fitzgerald nomination or on the production of the Niger fact sheet. Mr. Bolton's hazy recollection of this time period -- apparently, the entire year 2003 -- justifies some scrutiny.

-- Dave Meyer

I missed this, but Robert George pointed it out in comments, and gail helpfully supplied the transcript. Shuster now claims that it was inaccurate to list Bolton as having testified to the Fitzgerald grand jury:

MATTHEWS: David, last Thursday, a week ago, you reported that John Bolton, the president's nominee for the U.N., had testified in the CIA leak investigation.

Well, the State Department today stood by John Bolton's assertion on that issue that he did not. What do you have for us today?

SHUSTER: Well, Chris, we've gone back to our original sources to clarify, and we now believe it was inaccurate to list John Bolton's name along with State Department officials who did give testimony.

We'll continue to report this story and we will let you know what we find - Chris.

-- Dave Meyer

Josh Marshall has some more information up over at TPM Cafe on Bolton and the State-CIA inquiry, including a letter Senate Democrats sent the president today asking him not to make a recess appointment.

-- Peter Scoblic

[Note from Dave: Jeremy and Peter submitted their posts minutes apart. The issue deserves the attention, so both posts go up.]