UNITED NATIONS: What Is The White House Hiding About Bolton?

The Progress Report

by Judd Legum, Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney, Mipe Okunseinde and Christy
Harvey
www.progressreport.org

UNITED NATIONS: What Is The White House Hiding About Bolton?

BUSH CONTINUES TO HIDE SYRIA INFORMATION ON BOLTON: At the State
Department Bolton may have "improperly sought to toughen intelligence
assessments
(http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=678501#2)
of Syria as late as the summer of 2003, after the American failure to
find illicit weapons in Iraq had raised alarms about the danger of
inflated intelligence." In light of Bolton's reputation for
"cherry-picking" intelligence
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/11/AR2005051101962.html)
and punishing dissenters
(http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/17/news/bolton.html) for
challenging his views, Senators have sought out information on Bolton's actions
with regards to Syria's weapons program. Despite repeated requests, the
Bush adminstration continues to refuse
(http://www.cq.com/display.do?docid=1732194&sourcetype=6) to supply
this key information.

BUSH CONTINUES TO HIDE INDENTITIES OF BOLTON TARGETS: Furthermore,
Bolton then "asked for -- and recieved -- the identities of 10 different
U.S. officials
(http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=574435)
who were either involved in or talked about in top-secret National
Security communication intercepts," a move that some suspect was meant "to
monitor others at State
(http://www.cq.com/display.do?docid=1732194&sourcetype=6) who disagreed
with his views." Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid has offered a
compromise whereby the Bush administration would only have to share information
if the official appeared on a list of "three dozen names." The
administration has refused to compromise.


STATE DEPT. BECOMES EFFECTIVE...ONCE BOLTON LEAVES: The aftermath of
Bolton's departure from the State Department is clear evidence that he is
a roadblock, not a facilitator. Despite the " heightened threat
perception
(http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=684471)
" after 9/11, "the pace at which fissile materials -- the nuclear
gunpowder that is vital to a terrorist's nuclear bomb -- were secured or
destroyed did not accelerate." As undersecretary of state, Bolton was in
charge of "a key U.S. program
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/19/AR2005061900697.html)
intended to keep Russian nuclear fuel out of terrorist hands." At the
time, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) blamed Bolton for the various
impasses (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000375.html) and
questioned if he was even up to the job. Now with Bolton gone from State,
"U.S. negotiators report a breakthrough
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/19/AR2005061900697.html)
with the Russians...clearing the way to eliminate enough plutonium to
fuel 8,000 nuclear bombs." Furthermore, "for many arms-control advocates
and even fellow diplomats, Bolton's departure is a welcome relief and
an opportunity to restore a more pragmatic approach to international
relations."

BOLTON PLAYS POINT-MAN IN ILLEGAL FIRING: The disclosure of John
Bolton's unlawful orchestration of the firing
(http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1021) of Jose Bustani, head of
the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, shows just how
far he will go to fix intelligence around policy. When the Bush
administration was struggling to justify going to war with Iraq, Bustani was
seen as one of the " foremost obstacles to war
(http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1025) ." The problem with Bustani
was that he "was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors
(http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1021) to Baghadad [which] might
have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined
a U.S. rationale for war." Bolton decided that Bustani "had to go" and
so, through political and financial pressures, had Bustani ousted. A
United Nations tribunal subsequently rebuked Bolton's maneuvering.



BATTLE OVER BOLTON IS NOT PARTISAN POLITICS: Despite assertions to the
contrary, the fight over the Bolton nomination is not a partisan issue.
In fact, some of the individuals who have provided the strongest case
for why Bolton should not be confirmed are firm supporters of President
Bush and also former colleagues of Bolton. Former Secretary of State
Colin Powell has emerged as a behind-the-scenes force against John
Bolton's nomination, privately telling key lawmakers that Bolton is "a smart
but very problematic
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7420-2005Apr21.html?nav=rss_politics)
government official." And one of the most eye-opening insights into
John Bolton came from Carl Ford Jr., a staunch conservative. As former
intelligence chief at the State Department, Ford worked directly with
Bolton and in congressional testimony described him as "a 'bully' who
abused his authority and power
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46436-2005Apr12.html) ,
intimidated intelligence analysts, and damaged the integrity of the
[Department of State]."