1115.org

As the ever-continuing saga of John Bolton enters what seems to be its 248th week, it becomes increasingly obvious that George Bush will not back down on his choice for America’s ambassador to the United Nations, despite any number of questions about Bolton’s temperament, ethics, diplomatic skill and his penchant for thinking that the rules don’t apply to him. The first image that comes to mind is Bush as the captain of the Titantic, rushing ahead full-speed and oblivious to the warnings of impending icebergs.

When we last left the story a few days ago, the White House was signaling that Bush would just bypass the Senate entirely and install Bolton with a recess appointment. But things took an interesting turn as it was finally admitted that, yes, Bolton had lied to Congress when asked if he had been interviewed by investigators or testified to a grand jury over the last five years.

John Bolton, President Bush’s nominee for U.N. ambassador, neglected to tell Congress he been interviewed in a government investigation into faulty prewar intelligence that Iraq was seeking nuclear materials in Africa, the State Department said.

(…)

His statement came hours after another State Department official said Bolton had correctly answered a Senate questionnaire when he wrote that he had not testified to a grand jury or been interviewed by investigators in any inquiry over the past five years.

Clay said Bolton “didn’t recall being interviewed by the State Department’s inspector general” when he filled out the form. “Therefore, his form, as submitted, was inaccurate,” Clay said. “He will correct it.”

Bolton, former undersecretary for arms control and international security, had no role in a separate criminal investigation into the leak of an undercover CIA officer’s identity, Clay said.

It’s kind of interesting that Bolton is being preemptively distanced from the CIA leak controversy that has put Karl Rove (among others) under the spotlight glare of a media that is finally showing some backbone. We’ll get back to this later. As for Bolton’s misrepresentation on the Senate questionnaire, the State Department and the rest of Bolton’s supporters would like you to believe that he simply forgot; no harm, no foul. But even if you take this explanation at face value, do we really want a U.N. Ambassador that is incapable of remembering being interviewed a mere two years ago? Sure, people make mistakes sometimes. But it’s not like John Bolton is working the night shift at 7-11 and forgot to clean the Slurpee machine; that he would just “forget” about being interviewed for such a prominent investigation doesn’t seem likely.

In another time, this kind of revelation might have killed a nominee’s chances immediately. But when faced with this new development, the White House gave the order to the engine room: full steam ahead!

From CNN (and posted, you will note, at 11:08 p.m., well after Bolton’s “amnesia” was reported):

President Bush may use a recess appointment early next week to install John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, two senior administration officials told CNN Thursday.

So much for the cautious approach. Considering Bush’s new standard of competence is simply not being convicted of a felony, misrepresentation on a Senate form is pretty small potatoes. But there’s another shape looming in the distance, and hinted at by the comments meant to distance Bolton form the Valerie Plame CIA leak investigation.

The following is pretty much speculation (I have no plans to be fitted for a tinfoil hat just yet), but it brings up a very interesting possibility…and a very uncomfortible situation for the White House if there’s any truth to it.

Here’s what we do know: It was recently revealed by Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus that a third administration official—separate from the previously-disclosed Karl Rove or “Scooter” Libby—had provided him with information on Valerie Plame in 2003:

In the same week in July 2003 in which Bush administration officials told a syndicated columnist and a Time magazine reporter that a C.I.A. officer had initiated her husband’s mission to Niger, an administration official provided a Washington Post reporter with a similar account.

The first two episodes, involving the columnist Robert D. Novak and the reporter Matthew Cooper, have become the subjects of intense scrutiny in recent weeks. But little attention has been paid to what The Post reporter, Walter Pincus, has recently described as a separate exchange on July 12, 2003.

In that exchange, Mr. Pincus says, “an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention” to the trip to Niger by Joseph C. Wilson IV “because it was a boondoggle arranged by his wife, an analyst with the agency who was working on weapons of mass destruction.”

Now, how many administration officials would be qualified to comment on matters of Iraqi nuclear activities? It’s a fairly specialized field, but one which would be well known to, say, the State Department’s undersecretary for arms control and international security. In and of itself, this doesn’t mean much of anything. But when you add it to Bolton’s history of sabotaging those who disagree with him (in some cases, by using surveillance and intelligence data) and that the White House has continually stonewalled any request for documents relating to Bolton’s surveillance activities…well, it’s not so absurd to think that something more might be behind the curtain (or mustache, in this case).

In the meantime, grab a life preserver—this is about to get interesting.