Bolton Inquiry Expands, White House Strikes Back

Douglas Jehl's latest installment in the ongoing Bolton nomination saga appears in the New York Times this morning. Jehl reports that Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff will formally interview "as many as two dozen people" in the next week and a half, including former deputy CIA director John E. McLaughlin, former assistant secretary of state John Wolf, and former Ambassador to South Korea Tom Hubbard. The list of those interviewed has apparently been agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats on the committee, and the interviews will be carried out by members of the majority and minority staffs together.

Senators Lugar and Biden have reached agreement that the interview process will be completed by May 6, "allowing time for senators to review interview transcripts and other findings before the scheduled vote" on May 12. Says Jehl, "The new interviews are intended to gather more information about allegations that Mr. Bolton intimidated intelligence analysts, bullied subordinates inside and outside government, and sought to inflate assessments of efforts by Cuba, Syria and other nations to acquire dangerous weapons." Jehl's sources said that it was unclear yet whether Bolton himself would come before the committee again, but that the committee "would allow him a second opportunity to testify if he requested it."

Bolton did make an appearance on Capitol Hill Tuesday, but who he met with is unclear, says Jehl. Aides to Senators Hagel, Chafee, and Murkowski said those senators had not met with Bolton, but a Voinovich aide "would not say whether Mr. Voinovich had taken part in such a meeting." Also on Tuesday, VP Cheney reportedly "made some calls" to several Republican sentors to express the White House's strong support for Bolton's confirmation.

Also in the Times, Elizabeth Bumiller writes the somewhat expected piece beginning "Republicans close to the West Wing acknowledged that a rejection of Mr. Bolton would be politically damaging for President Bush." Bumiller reports that Cheney and Karl Rove are "playing a central and aggressive role in trying to salvage Mr. Bolton's prospects," both making phone calls and having meetings with various actors in the Bolton melodrama.

Typical for Bush & Co., who as you'll recall are incapable of error:

"Republicans close to the administration also said that a powerful motive for the White House was simply showing strength and an unwillingness to back down, particularly after Colin L. Powell, the former secretary of state who often warred with the hawks, expressed private doubts to Republican senators last week about Mr. Bolton. 'It would mean that Colin Powell had influence to block someone,' said a Republican close to the White House. 'It's a troubling sign if the president can't get him confirmed.'" [emphasis added]

Over in the Washington Post, Jim VandeHei and Charles Babington add to the discussion that White House and Senate leadership are considering forcing a floor vote on Bolton even if the Foreign Relations Committee reports the nomination unfavorably or not at all.

This expanded inquiry is an excellent and fair way to proceed on this nomination. I also have no objection to Tom Friedman's solution to the question of who should represents us in New York as outlined on the op/ed page of the Times this morning:

"My biggest problem with nominating John Bolton as U.N. ambassador boils down to one simple fact: he's not the best person for the job - not even close. If President George W. Bush wants a die-hard Republican at the UN, one who has a conservative pedigree he can trust, who is close to the president, who can really build coalitions, who knows the UN building and bureaucracy inside out, who can work well with the State Department and who has the respect of America's friends and foes alike, the choice is obvious, and it's not John Bolton."

Who's he suggest? George Herbert Walker Bush, President 41.