Bolton News for Saturday

As the journalist I.F. Stone has taught us, sometimes there are great stories not necessarily buried in archives of classified government files, but right there already in the public record. The instance cited below is an even more extreme example. The comments that I am going to report on, and comment about, below, were made by Senator Voinovich on Friday in opposing John R. Bolton's nomination to be U.N. ambassador.

If one was watching C-Span on Friday, they might have heard these comments. But the New York Times, the Washington Post, and all three television networks did not report a word of these particular assertions by the Senator.

There was no political agenda or sloppy reporting in the omission. Rather, it was most likely a result of reporters not only racing to meet not only a daily deadline, but also now being required to finish stories much earlier in their day to be posted on their newspaper's website, or to broadcast several times a day. In the process, they missed a gem.

I am going to forego any comment whatsoever ahead of time (such un-blogger like behavior!) and simply allow you to decide for yourselves (our slogan here is "I blog, you decide.") whether Senator Voinovich's comments are of some significance. Here is what he said:

"When discussing [various] concerns with Secretary Rice-- John Bolton's propensity to get off message, his lack of interpersonal skills, his tendency to abuse others who disagree with him-- I was informed by the secretary of state that she understood all these things and in spite of them still feels that John Bolton is the best choice and that she would be in frequent communication with him and he would be closely supervised. My private thought at the time, and I should have expressed it to her, is: `Why in the world would you want to send somebody up to the U.N. that has to be supervised?'"

Now some thoughts of my own: These were extraordinary comments for a Secretary of State to make about her President's nominee to be Ambassador to the United Nations. A State Department spokesman did not return a call on Friday seeking comment.

If Rice does not dispute the Senator's version of events, expect this to be a central issue in the Senate debate. (That last assertion was not based on discussion with sources, but rather... common sense.) If conversely Rice disputes the Senator's recounting of her conversation with the Senator, expect that to become a major news story. Of course, some news organization more important than this blog has to report the comments first.

I think Rice's comments raise more questions than they answer: For example, what exactly will the supervision entail? Will the United States ambassador to the United Nations receive a regular personnel review, and who will conduct it? Will they install a nannycam in the U.N?

Moreover, Rice's predecessor as Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and his chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, have made much of the fact that Bolton attempted to circumvent them at every opportunity. Perhaps she believes that she will succeed where they haven't.

Other Bolton news:

According to this Boston Globe account, Sen. Voinovich told reporters that he is not the only Republican who might vote against the Bolton nomination on the Senate floor: "The fact of the matter is that no one is really excited about him going forward," Voinovich said.

I would like to write more for you, but it is such a beautiful spring day outside.

Random notes: The Washington Examiner published a column I wrote-- an appreciation of sorts, of the late Baron Edward Von Kloberg III-- on May 12. It is quite different than my earlier blog posting on the same subject, in that I had a few extra days to think about what I wanted to say. The Examiner column is not posted online, but the column is going to be reprinted in other newspapers, one of which I hope posts it online, so I can link to it here-- for my several blog readers.

In the meantime, here was my lede:

"Baron Edward Von Kloberg III was a man given to grand entrances and exits. The former public relations man to Saddam Hussein and Mobutu Sese Seko, while recently on vacation in Rome, flung himself in full fury off a parapet of the Castel Sant'Angelo, the site of Tosca's suicide in the Puccini opera. He wanted us to notice him one last time."

Profile in Courage: A Senator votes his conscience on the Bolton nomination.

With the White House all but declaring victory yesterday, and the always wrong Washington punditocracy asserting that the outcome was decided long before the vote, the unthinkable occurred: A United States Senator, at some personal and political price to himself, voted his conscience.

Senator George V. Voinovich, Republican of Ohio, voiced opposition this morning to the nomination of John R. Bolton to be Ambassador to the United Nations. In fairness to the White House, Voinovich declined to prevent the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from forwarding the Bolton nomination to the Senate floor for a vote by the full Senate.

As a result of Voinovich's action, the Senate Foreign Relations committee took the extraordinary step of forwarding Bolton's nomination to the full Senate without a favorable recommendation. Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, the Republican chairman of the SFRC, brokered a deal with Voinovich by which Voinovich wouldn't prevent a vote by the full Senate in exchange for the committee voting Bolton's nomination out of committee without an endorsement.

Besides displaying political courage, Voinovich engaged in some extraordinary gamesmanship as well-- at least that is the spin by Lugar's staff. According to congressional sources, Voinovich never intended in the first place to prevent a vote by the full Senate; the agreement by Lugar to not favorably recommend Bolton in exchange for Voinovich allowing the vote out of committee was something that Voinovich did not even originally intend to ask for from Lugar. Only when Lugar displayed a weak hand did Voinovich ask that the committee not endorse Bolton's nomination.

Other senior congressional sources, who have first-hand knowledge of the private discussions between Lugar and Voinovich, speculate that Lugar himself has privately been lukewarm to Bolton's nomination all along, despite the public displays of affection, and that Lugar was more than willing not only to grant this "concession" in the first place, but may have even suggested it to Voinovich.

(I have attempted to reach spokesmen for both Senators for comment. I will update this post if I obtain comment from either.)

In his remarks during the committee's debate this morning, Voinovich made it clear that he did not want to "impose my judgment" on the full Senate by preventing a vote. He also stated "we owe it to the president to give Bolton an up-or-down vote."

Among other things, Voinovich said that Bolton's conduct as a senior State Department official would have lead him to be "fired if he worked for a private corporation." He also said that Bolton was the "poster child for what someone in the diplomatic corps shouldn't be."

Beyond those sound bites, here is some more of the substance of what Voinovich had to say this morning:

"It was not long ago when American's love of freedom was a force of inspiration to the world and America was admired for its democracy, generosity, and its willingness to help others in need of protection. Today the United States is criticized for what the world calls arrogance, unilateralism and for failing to listen and to seek the support of its friends and allies. There has been a drastic change in the attitude of our friends and allies in such organizations as the United Nations and NATO and in the countries of leaders that we need to rely upon for help...

"If we cannot win over the hearts and minds of the world community and work together... our goals will be more difficult to achieve. Additionally, we will be unable to reduce the burden on our own resources. The most important of those resources are the human resources, the lives of the men and women of our armed forces, who are leaving their families every day to serve their country overseas."

These I believe were the most important words spoken by Voinovich today:

"What message are we sending to the world community when in the same breath we have sought to appoint an ambassador to the United Nations who himself has been accused of being arrogant, or not listening to his friends, of acting unilaterally, of bullying those who do not have the ability to properly defend themselves? These are the very characteristics that we're trying to dispel in the world community."

Even Lugar, the Republican chairman of the SFRC, was not entirely glowing this morning in his remarks in recommending Bolton's confirmation: "Secretary Bolton's actions were not always exemplary," Lugar said, "On several occasions, he made incorrect assumptions about the behavior and motivations of subordinates. At other times, he failed to use proper managerial channels or unnecessarily personalized internal disputes.... But there is no evidence that he has broken laws or engaged in serious ethical misconduct."

So that's all that it now takes to be confirmed as U.N. ambassador? That you have not broken any laws or engaged in serious ethical misconduct? By that standard, I am just as much qualified for the post.. or my cab driver for that matter... or most anyone.

(Update: My father has pointed that it is long overdue that I get regular work-- instead of writing and blogging-- and by Sen. Lugar's standards I do qualify for the U.N. position. Memo to the White House: If things with Bolton don't work out...)

(So that I do not take Sen. Lugar's words out of context, he also said: "I have no doubts that Secretary Bolton is extremely well qualified.")

Even staunch Republicans should applaud Senator Voinovich for acting on the courage of his convictions-- even if they think they are wrongheaded. The White House would be well served to do the same. There does not seem to have been any political upside or personal gain by Voinovich in taking the stand that he did today. This was about one Senator's personal convictions.

Both Republican Senators Lincoln Chaffee, of Rhode Island, and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, had much less to lose than Voinovich by breaking with their party. (see my post from yesterday below.) By remaining silent, they made what Voinovich did this morning all the more difficult.

Lugar, it appeared, ever so subtly came more to Voinovich's aid this morning than either Chaffee or Hagel. For his part, Chaffee had attempted to have it both ways by expressing qualms about Bolton, but voting in favor of his nomination by saying a President has the right to have his nominee considered. Voinovich adroitly lead the way for Chaffee to oppose Bolton but still uphold the constitutional perogatives of the President. But Chaffee did not follow, leaving Sen. Voinovich to so unfortunately-- but bravely-- hang out there all by himself.

More Bolton news: Profiles in Courage, or rather the lack thereof. (updated since this morning, see bottom.)
Senator Lincoln Chaffee, Republican of Rhode Island, today says that he will vote in favor of the nomination of John R. Bolton to be the new ambassador to the United Nations. As both the most moderate and independent of Republican Senators on the SFRC, he was long considered the most likely member of the committee to vote against Bolton's nomination.

"I won't deny a lot of information certainly brings great pause, but I fight the administration on so many issues; this is one of those that I've been with them on-- to appoint their team," Chaffee said, in making his decision.

Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska was considered the second most likely to vote against Bolton, but he has indicated in recent days that he too would vote for Bolton.

It now appears all but certain that Bolton's nomination will be voted favorably out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he will be confirmed by the Senate.

The only Republican who has not yet to say how he would vote is Senator George Voinovich, of Ohio. In recent days, it has been this Senator whom the White House was the most worried. One reason was that his decision to postpone the original vote on Bolton's nomination on April 19 so that the SFRC could gather more information was done without his informing the White House ahead of time, at a time that they believed they already had his support.

Of all the Senators considering voting against Bolton, Voinovich, however, would have the most to lose. Chaffee is a Republican from the bluest of states, Rhode Island, and in many ways a vote against Bolton would have assisted in his re-election bid by making him more attractive to Democrats and Independent voters. Hagel is so popular and wins by such lopsided margins in his native state of Nebraska that he had less to lose politically by an anti-Bolton vote than virtually any other Republican Senator. (The last time Hagel ran for re-election, in 20002, he received 83% of the vote. That was the largest margin of victory ever by a Nebraska Senator.)

Now with Chaffee and Hagel both apparently going to vote for Bolton, it would obviously be that much more difficult for Voinovich to be the sole Republican to vote against the nomination. A vote against Bolton by either Chaffee or Hagel, or both of them, would have provided Voinovich the opportunity to make a decision more free of politics.

Update, May 11, 5: 16 P.M.: Told that White House spokesman Scott McClellan had said the Bush administration was "in close contact with members" of the SFRC, and as a result had concluded "that John Bolton will be voted out of committee and that he will be confirmed on the floor of the Senate," Senator Voinovich has made it known that he has become more than a tad bit testy that his vote was being taken for granted.

He told home state reporters this afternoon: "I don't know how anybody knows what's going on in this guy's head." Voinovich appeared to point in the direction of his own head as he made the comments. But it was not entirely clear if he was referring to himself or McClellan.

In private discussions with other Senators, Voinovich has complained about what he has considered to be heavy handed lobbying by supporters of Bolton and President Bush. Whether that, combined with the voluminous evidence assembled against Bolton, would lead him to not only break with his own party, but also with all of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and vote against Bolton's nomination, remains to be seen. It is unlikely he would do so, no matter how irritated he has become, and how incriminating he believes the evidence against Bolton has become.

But the Senator was clearly showing signs today that he has felt besieged by the White House. And those in the White House who are already declaring victory may very well be doing so prematurely.

In the meantime, Democrats hold out hope, however slim, that Voinovich is the Republican Senator who just might vote against Bolton. Norm Kurz, a spokesman for Senator Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told journalist extraordinaire Laura Rosen: "Voinovich is the guy who might just has his conscience pricked again. I wouldn't bet on it happening, but I wouldn't say the game is over."

Exclusive: Bolton was recipient of NSA intercepts of IAEA chief.

John R. Bolton, President Bush's designate to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was one of more than a half dozen senior Bush administration officials who received highly classified NSA intercepts of private phone conversations of Mohammed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, according to government officials familiar with the matter. The IAEA is the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency.

That the NSA was intercepting the phone calls of IAEA officers, particularly ElBaradei, is in and of itself hardly big news. IAEA officials have known about the eavesdropping for more than a decade, and have made it a point not to conduct sensitive diplomacy over the telephone. An IAEA spokesman told reporters in Dec. of last year, for example: "We've always assumed that this kind of thing goes on. We wish it were otherwise, but we know the reality."

But Bolton differed from other consumers of the intelligence, according to two senior government officials familiar with the matter, in that when the intercepts proved all but useless to his cause to oust ElBaradei from his IAEA post, he privately encouraged more aggressive intelligence gathering operations against the IAEA, the United Nations, and other international organizations.

The Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts, of Kansas, and the committee's ranking Democrat, John D. Rockefeller IV, of West Virginia, are expected to be briefed today by senior Bush administration officials on specific NSA intercepts Bolton requested to read while he served as a senior State Department official. An unconfirmed report by the Associated Press said yesterday that Deputy National Intelligence Director Gen. Michael Hayden, who is a former head of the NSA, would conduct the briefing.

In an interview with the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Friday, Lawrence S. Wilkerson, a chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, said that Bolton "overstepped his bounds" through "his moves and gyrations" in attempting to prevent the reappointment of ElBaradei as head of the IAEA.

"Now, what do I mean by that?" Mr. Wilkerson said. "I mean, going out of his way to bad-mouth him, to make sure that everybody knew that the maximum power of the United States would be brought to bear against them if he were brought back in." (For more information on Wilkerson's interview with the SFRC staff, one should read this New York Times story.)

While it is hardly unusual for senior State Department officials to task intelligence agencies with specific requests for information, one official told me that the requests of Bolton and similar minded officials "stuck out like a sore thumb" because of Bolton's activist role in attempting to oust ElBaradei. Moreover, the request appeared to target ElBaradei in particular, while ordinarily intelligence information is sought concerning policy and issues. One official told me: "You don't request on individuals."

Bolton's effort to oust ElBaradei was also a contentious issue within the State Department. The efforts to oust ElBarbadei were opposed by, among others, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, then- deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, and the then-assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, John Wolf.

Update 7:46 A.M, May 10: In this morning's Los Angeles Times, reporter Mary Curtius, in an exemplary example of political reporting, explains why it is increasingly more likely than not that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will favorably vote out Bolton's nomination on Thursday.

Here are some excerpts:

"For all three Republican senators who have expressed reservations about John R. Bolton's nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the committee vote set for Thursday is about much more than whether he is the best man for the job...

"With the administration putting on a full-court press, Democrats say they would be surprised if [Sens.] Voincovich, Hagel, or Chaffee were to break ranks and hand Bush an embarrassing political setback.

"In the end, both sides say, the questions raised about Bolton's personality and management style may prove less important to the wavering senators than issues of... political pragmatism.

"A vote against Bolton, said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster, `poses the most danger for Hagel,' who is widely believed to be laying groundwork for a 2008 presidential race.

"Bolton... has publicly criticized the United Nations-- one reason he has has received strong support from party's conservative base, Fabrizio said...

"The three senators must also take into account that Bolton's nomination `is perceived by the party base as an ideological fight' and by the Senate Republican majority as a challenge from Democrats to its control of the chamber, said David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union, a lobbying group.

"For Hagel's hopes of support from party conservatives in a possible presidential bid, Keene said, `it would not be particularly beneficial to be seen as having knifed Bolton in the back.'"

A few comments and observations of my own:

First, what has gone unreported in this story and in others about Republican efforts to confirm Bolton, is that the White House has very effectively lobbied potentially wavering Republican Senators on the SFRC by arguing that a vote against Bolton would also endanger the Bush administration's agenda on social security, judicial nominations, and crucial foreign policy issues. One congressional staffer sums up this very effective White House lobbying stratagem this way: "A vote for or against Bolton is not about Bolton."

Second, is it really that unbelievable that Lincoln Chaffee or John Hagel would vote their conscience, and actually vote against Bolton? Or that they would put the national interest ahead of the their own political interests or that of their party?

Finally, I still believe it is too early for anyone to be sure which way the vote is going to come down. Curtius credibly makes the case as to why Bolton be voted out, but although it is less likely today than in the past that a Senator will vote his or her conscience, it is not entirely unheard of for him or her to do so. At least we can still hold out hope that that still is the case.

Hagel, for one, has indicated that he will now probably vote for Bolton. Hagel wants to run for President, and the White House and conservative activists have assiduously tied a vote against Bolton as a poke in the eye to the Republican base as the vote nears.

Increasingly, the Republican Senator to watch is George Voinovich of Ohio, who is now most likely to be spoiler. Voinovich would alienate both the base of the Republican party and the White House, obviously, by voting against Bolton. Thus a vote against Bolton would come with a high cost. The upside would be that he would almost instantaneously become a national figure, be heralded for voting for conscience, and pick up both Democratic and swing votes in his next re-election bid.

Bolton News Over the Weekend

The Bush administration is continuing to refuse to provide the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with intercepts from the National Security Agency related to the confirmation of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the United Nations. In his current position as Under Secretary of State for International Security and Arms Control, Bolton had requested to read NSA intercepts in which U.S. government officials and other American citizens were overheard. Besides the very obvious civil liberties issues, there have been allegations, as I have previously reported, that Bolton was requesting access to such NSA intercepts to find damaging information to use against policy rivals in the State Department and elsewhere in the bureaucracy.

This morning's Washington Note contains an extraordinarily thorough account about this latest important development. Steve Clemons has a strong point of view in opposing Bolton, but he wears his bias on his sleeve-- or rather in his blog-- and more importantly, I have yet to find anything he has reported on Bolton or anything else for that matter that has not later proved to be accurate.

Meanwhile, on Friday, Bolton's cause was hardly advanced when Larry Wilkerson, the chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, questioned Bolton's fitness to serve during formal questioning by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff. Wilkerson said that he believed that Bolton was "an extremely poor leader" and "not an effective diplomat."

Wilkerson insisted that he was speaking for himself nor acting as a proxy for Powell, his former boss. Powell himself has not publicly opposed Bolton's nomination, telling friends that he believes it would be undignified for a former Secretary of State to do so, and also because he does not want to repudiate President Bush in such a public fashion. Instead, Powell has privately expressed his reservations to two Republican Senators on the SFRC, promptly had details of those "private" conversations leaked to the press, and encouraged Wilkerson and other State Department officials to speak their mind in public.

If Powell wants to get the word out more prominently that he opposes the Bolton nomination, and do so without suffering the indignity making a formal public statement, I recommend that he proceed in a manner that has proved to be most effective for him in the past: channel his innermost thoughts through Bob Woodward. Powell knows Woodward to be a most reliable reporter to write the story the way he would want it to be written; the story would be played more prominently on the Post's front page than it ordinarily would because of Woodward's byline; and the role of Woodward and the Post would signal to just the right people that the Washington establishment opposes the Bolton nomination.

We have all disapprovingly witnessed the above described process employed in the past by all the various parties to their mutual benefit, at the expense of the public good. While I ordinarily would decry such practices, in this particular instance, the ends might just for once justify the means. To expedite the process, I can even recommend to Woodward and Powell a suitable parking garage.

Also on Friday the SFRC also released a transcript of a formal staff interview of the CIA's former deputy director, John E. McLaughlin, who did little to bolster the hopes of supporters of Bolton's nomination.

(SFRC is the acronym for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Any respectable blogger such as Mickey Kaus utilizes insider acronyms-- such as SFRC, Potus, or Washpo-- to display their own insider knowledge and status, and thus make their readers feel similarly in the know. Therefore, following Mickey's lead, I have adopted the practice as well! On the other hand, I also want to actually draw in readers to my blog not ordinarily interested in politics, instead of alienating them. What to do?! What to do?!... I will have it both ways!)

McLaughlin sharply criticized an attempt by Bolton to oust a CIA analyst from his position after Bolton and the analyst clashed over a speech alleging that Cuba was pursuing a program to produce biological weapons. The analyst, Fulton Armstrong, the CIA's national intelligence officer for Latin America, had previously told the committee that he believed Bolton attempted to purposely mislead the public in furtherance of Bolton's personal and political objectives.

Recalling the effort to have Armstrong removed from his position, McLaughlin reportedly told the committee: "It's perfectly right for a policy maker to express disagreement with an N.I.O. or an analyst, and it's perfectly all right for them to challenge such an individual vigorously, challenge their work vigorously. But I think it's different to then request [the officer] be transferred. And-- unless their is malfeasance involved here, and in this case, I had a high regard for the individual's work-- therefore, I had a strong negative reaction to the suggestion about moving them." For those desiring more details, I recommend that they read this particular New York Times story.

Update, Sunday Night, 10:37 P.M., May 8

Sen. Lugar, the chairman of the SFRC, said on CBS' "Meet the Press" this morning that he expects that Bolton' s nomination will be voted upon favorably by his committee, and that the vote will most likely be along a straight party line.

Making that outcome appear even more likely, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said on ABC's "This Week" that although he still has yet to make a final decision as to how he might vote on the Bolton nomination, "I know nothing as of this moment that would stop him from being voted out of committee."

Those comments clearly bode well for Bolton's chances to be voted out of the SFRC, and confirmed by the full Senate. Aside from Sen. Lincoln Chafee, of Rhode Island, Hagel was the most likely Republican on the SFRC to vote against Bolton. Moreover, if Hagel were to vote against Bolton, it was thought to be more likely that Chafee would vote the same way.

The outcome of the vote, however, is still very much in doubt. And at this blog we do not pretend to be soothsayers, nor aspire to be one of the McLaughlin Group or Capital Gang.

(If I were to ever appear on one of those programs, I grant my readers permission ahead of time, and even encourage them, to bitch-slap some sense into me. For any of my readers who are offended by my use of the word "bitch-slap", I apologize, but the marketing/focus group people have encouraged me to use such slang and hipster-speak to appeal to that valuable 18-24 demographic which reads blogs.)

Meanwhile, USA Today weighs in with a political analysis examining how a win or loss by the President on the Bolton nomination would affect the Bush administration's agenda on social security and judicial nominations. Although there was no consensus among those queried by the newspaper, the majority opinion was that a defeat on the Bolton nomination would lead to further setbacks on all fronts for the Bush administration.

Leon Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Clinton, told the newspaper: "Any time you show your weariness and vulnerability, it is an opportunity for your opponents."

The article also quotes Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, but does so without disclosing to USA Today's readers that Kristol has a dog in this fight: Bolton was a long time director of the Project for the New American Century, which was at the time, and still is, chaired by Kristol. For his part, Kristol has hardly attempted to hide the relationship: For example, Kristol himself made note of his ties to Bolton in this Weekly Standard editorial in which his magazine endorsed Bolton's nomination to be U.N. ambassador.

(It should be interesting to see if USA Today corrects or amplifies its article to reflect the relationship between Bolton and Kristol. I will update this post when I find out.)

To his credit, Kristol does not pull any punches for the home team, saying: "If Bush loses a man he wants and a man he knows, it will be a blow, and it will weaken him."

On a personal note, it is also good to see the newspaper query experts beyond the usual suspects. (I don't really care or want to know what Norman Ornstein thinks of the Bolton nomination, no disrespect to him.) I was pleasantly surprised to see that among those interviewed for the story was Stephen Wayne, a political science professor at Georgetown. Back in the day (while I was in college) I took Wayne's course on the modern presidency, and in and of itself, the class was worth a full year's tuition. I took Wayne's class, of course, a few years ago, a good five to seven years ago... er, maybe a decade ago... er, perhaps twelve to fifteen years ago.... (At this time, the blogger invokes his Fifth Amendment privilege as to how long ago it was that he attended college.)

If by chance there are any Georgetown students who read this blog, take Wayne's class. I am convinced that a Georgetown alumnus named William Jefferson Clinton would have had a smoother first term had he had the opportunity to take Wayne's class. Whether Clinton would have showed up regularly for class, taken good notes, turned his papers in on time, and the such is another matter...

Random notes on other topics: CNBC has canceled Tina Brown's television show. *sadness* What to do?! Where will we get our news?! According to this published report, only 4,000 viewers in the key 25-54 demographic were even tuning in. It is almost impossible to have numbers any lower than that. A certain percentage of a viewership that small would include, one might surmise, people who were watching the program from the previous hour and fell asleep; or absentmindedly left the room or their house, without turning their television off. (Ever since the Washington Post's Richard Leiby praised this blog for its civility, I have attempted to live up to that high standard. I apologize to my readers for perhaps failing in this particular instance. I pledge that it will not happen again all that soon.) I should note that this blog has way more than 4,000 readers, and I'm not really even trying that hard...

Senators Try to Reach Compromise on Bolton probe

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), tonight privately reached out to at least one Democratic Senator, pledging that he would more forcefully press the Bush administration to comply with requests for information as the committee readies to vote on the nomination of John R. Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations, according to senior congressional staff. Lugar's staff has also relayed the same message to foreign policy staffers for other Democratic Senators, the same sources told me tonight.

"Everyone wants this resolved," one senior congressional staffer told me, "There is a lot more to the appearance of gamesmanship than the actual thing-- or so we hope." A senior Democratic staffer was less hopeful, but told me that there was room for a compromise and for the vote to go forward as scheduled.

The effort by Lugar to reach out to his Democratic counterparts came as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) suggested that he might attempt to delay a vote on Bolton's nomination if the Bush administration does not turn over critical documents Democrats on the committee requested last week. As things stand, the committee is scheduled to vote on Bolton's nomination on May 12.

Bolton's chances for Senate confirmation are further not expected to be advanced tomorrow morning as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee formally interviews former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, Larry Wilkerson. Powell himself has previously expressed strong reservations about Bolton's fitness to serve in private conversations with two Republican members of the panel, Sen. Lincoln Chafee, of Rhode Island, and Chuck Hagel, of Nebraska. Wilkerson in the past has been quoted as saying that Bolton would make an "abysmal ambassador" to the United Nations.

The information sought by Biden includes details of several instances in which Bolton had requested intercepts by the National Security Agency of the private conversations of U.S. government officials. There has been speculation that Bolton requested access to the intercepts to obtain derogatory information on his rivals in the the State Department and elsewhere in the bureaucracy. A Democratic staffer told me: "If what Bolton did was so routine and there was nothing sinister to going on, why don't they just turn over everything that they have and dispel everyone's suspicions? They're the ones who can put this to rest and aren't."

In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Biden wrote: "My Democratic colleagues and I would consider the failure to produce the requested documents in a timely manner a lack of cooperation." Biden also underscored that he only agreed to schedule a vote on May 12 "predicated on my expectation... that the executive branch will cooperate in providing access to witnesses and documents." Implicit in his comments was a threat that Democrats might attempt to delay the vote.

In direct contradiction of what my sources have told me, the New York Times has posted a story on its website tonight reporting that Lugar has "declined to endorse a Democratic request that the State Department turn over documents" requested by Biden.

Lugar has said requests for documents by Democrats on the committee have been "extremely broad" and "may have marginal relevance to specific allegations".

The Times story also informs: "The move was a blow to Democrats on the panel, who have focused on the dispute as a central part of their effort to defeat Mr. Bolton's nomination."

So are my sources wrong if the Times story is correct? Not so fast.

Nobody really has a clue right now what is going to happen. There is a good cop, bad cop aspect to the contradictory posturing by both Democrats and Republicans on the committee, and also between the White House and the Hill. The conventions of journalism dictate that journalists speak with authority; the conceit and agenda of sources also leads them to intimate they are in the know as to what is going to happen.

So all that I am going to say here to my blog readers is that right now I have absolutely no clue what the outcome is going to be. It is next to impossible to know anything when none of the key players do either-- as they preen and posture-- in part for the media.

Perhaps it is best that the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, and other major news organizations not feel obligated to report every insignificant development of this saga and similar ones... as if they were bloggers or something! In the end, we are not better informed. And if they really must behave like bloggers, perhaps they would be best served to drop the voice of authority.

I for one am more than willing to enjoy the Bolton saga for now for what it is-- a cliffhanger. Events are currently so fluid that not only does anyone know whether or not Bolton will be confirmed but even whether or not the vote on his nomination will go forward as scheduled. If anyone claims otherwise, absent a Republican Senator saying he or she will vote against Bolton, pay no attention.

Besides, cliffhangers are from my point of view-- and should be to journalists-- the desired state of being.

The indefatigable Steve Clemons of the Washington Note earlier today spoke to Lugar press secretary Andy Fisher, who told him: "We anticipate that sufficient discovery, information and due diligence will be completed in a timely manner for the vote to occur next Thursday as agreed."

That clears things up once and for all!

One of Clemons' well informed readers makes this observation regarding Lugar's press secretary's comments: "This sounds like the equivalent of a non-denial denial.

"Do we have an immovable and irresistible force? Will somebody blink?"

"How many Republicans on the SFRC really care about the perogatives and responsibilities of the United States Senate?"

Another of his readers posted this comment: "The clock is ticking and the suspense mounts."

And what is so wrong about that?

RIP, Baron Edward Von Kloberg III, 1942-2005

Edward Von Kloberg is dead. The former public relations man to Saddam Hussein and Mobutu Sese Seko, while on vacation in Rome, leapt to his death from the parapet of a castle, a State Department spokesman said late last night. A suicide note written by the self described "Washington representative to the damned" was found at the scene, but has not yet been made public.

Speculation as to why Von Kloberg might have killed himself revolved around the fact that he was in failing health. My surmise is that his conscience finally caught up with him.

That last comment might appear on its face to be somewhat cruel and insensitive, considering my words have been written so soon after his passing. But before anyone jumps on me for my insensitivity (We don't want a headline in the New York Post declaring "Bloggers Decry One of Their Own for his Incivility", do we?) I should say I knew Edward Von Kloberg quite well. Well enough to know that if he were here now reading this post, he would almost certainly heartily laugh, and say as he was apt to do, when we spent time together, "Well said, young man... Well said, indeed!"

The only story that I have found so far online about his death, is this one appearing on the front page of tomorrow morning's Washington's Post, the lede of which says:

"As part of Washington's image machinery for more than two decades, Edward Von Kloberg III did his best to sanitize some of the late 20th century's most notorious dictators as they sought favors and approval from U.S. officials."

The Post is right to say that Von Kloberg was paid the big bucks by his foreign clients-- several of whom were mass murderers and war criminals-- to "sanitize" their image among U.S. policy makers. (In fairness to Von Kloberg client Saddam Hussein, the since deposed Iraqi dictator has been indicted for war crimes, but has not yet stood trial.) But the Post in its front page tribute to Von Kloberg need not "sanitize" his life the way he sanitized the misdeeds of his clients.

(Update: Several bloggers have since chided the Post for sanitizing Von Kloberg's life. This particular blogger called the Post's front page story a "odd obituary", adding: "[Post reporter] Adam Bernstein shouldn't be writing paeans to a man like Von Kloberg. The Post should be writing exposes to shame [such men] back into the shadows.")

As someone who personally knew Von Kloberg quite well, I believe that inside the man whose life was spent white washing the worst of humanity was a truth teller trying to escape.

I now imagine him once again reading these very words, sitting across from me at the dinner table at the Jockey Club, as I blog in real time, declaring emphatically, as he often did when we met: "Well said, young man. Well said, indeed!" (Would they allow you to bring a laptop into the Jockey Club? Blogging would be banned in such a place, I would think. I dunno.) I have to admit that I rather enjoyed his company on such occasions, liked the man, and disliked myself for liking him. I still like him so much (and will sorely miss him) that I now dislike myself for writing here so truthfully about him. (Enough for self loathing blogging!)

The Post also writes of him: "Von Kloberg embraced the slogan `shame is for sissies' as well as an unabashedly Edwardian style of living. He arrived at balls and galas wearing black capes, and he traveled with steamer trunks. He added the name `Von' because it sounded distinguished. (I do not know whether Von Kloberg was a real life Baron as he claimed, but I will find out, and update my post.)

"His voice, said one friend, was marked by an `almost Rooseveltian, high class accent.' He drove enormous black cars and draped foreign medals (Zaire's Order of the Leopard among them) across his tuxedo. At night, he sported one of two favorite black capes: one with red lining, the other with the print of doves."

Even in death he was over the top: He flung himself in full fury off the parapet of the Castel Sant' Angelo in Rome. This was the very same site of Tosca's suicide in the Puccini opera. Italian newspapers have speculated that he was distraught after a failed reconciliation with his Lithuanian gay lover. (His family believes that failing health also played a role.)

Von Kloberg adopted a persona so thoroughly convincing that it was difficult for even him, I think, over time to know where the persona ended and the real person began, until one fully become the other. One evening at the Jockey Club, I noticed he was not eating, when he confided that he had already had dinner with someone else just before me, and when we were done, he was going to have a third dinner with yet someone else. Despite such a social calendar, I believe deep down that he was a very lonely man. Perhaps it is because I just want to think the best of him, hold on to any reason at all really to think well of him, that I can believe that he was so needy and lonely that his late nights drinking brandy with Mobutu were the result of a Clintonesque fear of being alone for even a single moment.

(I think I should just stop romanticizing this not-so-nice man. I feel horrible on the one hand about saying unkind things about someone I know who just died, and yet so even more guilty about romanticzing him. What to do?! What to do? I will do both! In typical blogger "tradition"-- LOL-- I am sharing my every thought with my readers as they pop into my head-- in real time!-- once again begging the question: "Is this a blog or a parody of blogs and blogging?")

Von Kloberg was indeed every bit as theatric as his last notices have portrayed him. The capes, steamer trunks, even the flinging himself off the parapet of a castle from a Puccini opera, spoke of a man who although was not always openly sexually gay was clearly culturally gay. He was tolerated by conservative Republican friends (as he tolerated them, and sadly tolerated their prejudice) even as they openly expressed their hatred of gays. They explained away the black capes he wore with red lining and the prints of doves as only the sign of an eccentric man.

(One can only imagine how Saddam Hussein or Mobutu Sese Seko would have reacted if they knew their American propagandist and confidant was gay. In Mobutu's case, one might also further consider how betrayed the murderous tyrant might have felt, that after having awarded Von Kloberg Zaire's "Order of the Leopard", his American friend would utilize the medal as a gay kitsch fashion accessory.)

But his flamboyant behavior, such as his adopting "Von" as his middle name, also had another use. It was the sign of a consummate confidence man. Among other things, he had once pleaded guilty to faking letters of support from two ambassadors, both of whom were clients, to obtain a $60,000 bank loan. He received five years probation and 100 hours of community service for that one. (Even Saddam Hussein was at one time a mark, as I will explain shortly.)

On another occasion, when a new Pakistani ambassador arrived in town, she received a letter from Von Kloberg welcoming her and soliciting her business. In the letter, Von Kloberg claimed that the partners in his firm included four former members of Congress, a former mayor of Washington D.C., and a couple of ambassadors. The only problem was that three of them turned out to never have had any association whatsoever with Von Kloberg. One, former Rep. Edward Feighan, Democrat of Ohio, was so infuriated that he sued Von Kloberg for $3.5 million alleging "wrongful appropriation of [his] name."

The faking of letters of two clients to obtain a bank loan was not the only time he betrayed a client. This particular incident has not been previously reported until now (An investigative reporter's heart still beats in this blogger body): When he represented Saddam Hussein, according to Foreign Agents Regisration records Von Kloberg himself filed with the Department of Justice, he billed the since deposed Iraqi dictator for several op-eds in the New York Times and other newspapers that advocated a U.S. tilt towards Iraq in its longstanding conflict with the ayatollahs of Iran. Von Kloberg took credit for the op-eds, and asked to be, and was, compensated for each and every one by Saddam. The authors of the op-eds, all of them (including a then-Congressman) told me that they had never heard of Von Kloberg. One was more amused than angry, telling me: "I guess everyone has to find a way to make a living."

Baron Edward Von Kloberg III defrauded Saddam Hussein. Who is to say that was a good thing or a bad thing? Von Kloberg was fortunate that I never wrote about the incident (by way of explanation, there are always too many good stories competing for the interest of most journalists, including me, and this one didn't pass muster). But what if I had written the story? Would any jury have convicted him? Would prosecutors even have considered charging him with a crime? Absent justice by other means, would Saddam Hussein have somehow found his way to the Small Claims branch of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia?

When I confronted Von Kloberg about this con, he simply laughed, telling me: "If I was doing my job for Saddam Hussein, you would condemn me for that as well, wouldn't you? Maybe it is best that I not do my job so well all the time." It was difficult for me to argue the point.

But let it not be said that there were often times he did produce results for his clients. In 1989 and 1990, Rep. Dan Burton, Republican of Indiana, inserted lengthy statements into the Congressional Record praising Zairian dictator Mobutu Sese Seko. Around that time, Von Kloberg had paid Burton $4,000 in honorarium for giving talks to his clients. (Can one imagine how Dan Burton, the congressional inquisitor would react, if Bill Clinton had praised a foreign tyrant like Mobutu after receiving speaking fees from a registered lobbyist from the same said foreign dictator?) The Burton statements praising Mobutu, Von Kloberg boasted to me, were ghost written by Von Kloberg and his staff. Burton's office did not return calls seeking commnets regarding the allegations.

Von Kloberg was right when he said it was perhaps for the best that he not always do his job so well.

Gossip from the White House Correspondents Dinner (Not really.)

For yet another year, I have not attended the White House Correspondents dinner. Instead, I spent the evening with a woman I really, really like. We went to see a play and rode around the city listening to Van Morrison. I can't provide any further details about the evening because her friend reads this blog.

For those who want to know more about the dinner, I'll leave that to Wonkette.

First, one note of interest regarding the Wonkette post. The details of First Lady Laura Bush's appearance at the dinner by Wonkette differs from that of most other media accounts in one major detail. The Wonkette account contains a joke supposedly made by the First Lady regarding her husband-- the President of the United States-- and a horse of his same gender. The joke itself is too tasteless to repeat here.

But the fact that it appeared in Wonkette and not elsewhere begs a question: Was this yet another example of Ana Marie Cox simply making something up, blending fact and fiction, as a means to lampoon (often quite well) the powerful? Or did Laura Bush indeed tell the joke in question, and most news organizations simply not report it because their readers might consider it to be offensive or tasteless? I will promptly research the question and then update this post. (Update: Laura Bush indeed make the comments in question-- M.S.W.)

In the meantime, Ana Marie Cox, through a spokesperson, has said Ms. Cox will personally address this issue at a panel discussion at the Brookings Institute, before explicating further on the Charlie Rose show. The Charlie Rose show will examine how one can sound high minded in pursuing the low brow.

The White House Correspondents dinner, for those who know little about it, is a joyful celebration by the Washington media elite... of itself.

It's yet another example of why the media has lost the respect and trust of the public. There was once a time when being a journalist was about something more than whether or not you were invited to the Bloomberg party; to do your job meant learning your way around the file room of the country courthouse instead of the green room; the story was about those you covered instead of yourself; and your role was to uncover new facts instead of expressing opinions about things of which you knew nothing. And attitude was what you gave your editor rather than something you displayed on MSNBC. Those days are long gone. (Not that the good ol' days of journalism were really that good anyway, but that is for another time...)

George Will recently published a column in which he lamented the fact that we might be passing into a "post-journalism age", writing:

"If you awake before dawn you probably hear a daily sound that may become as anachronistic as the clatter of the horse's hooves on urban cobblestones. The sound is the slap of the morning paper on the sidewalk."

[In contrast, if you are reading this post, the sound that you are most likely hearing is clicking of your mouse.]

Will paints a bleak picture for those of us who believe that vibrant and independent newspapers are essential to democracy: "Circulation of daily newspapers is 55.2 million, down from 62.3 million in 1990. " Sixty percent of those 65 and older say that they regularly read a newspaper; 23% of those 18-29 read a daily newspaper.

Will also points out: "The combined viewership of the evening newscasts is 28.8 million, down from 52.1 million in 1980. The median age of viewers is 60. Hence the sponsorship of news programming by Metamucil and Fixodent."

George Will blames the public and their purported shallow nature for their paying less and less attention to people like George Will. That is not surprising. Anyone involved in a failed relationship usually blames the other party.

But if newspapers are going to flourish they might consider entering an already ongoing discussion in the public square as to how they might be themselves responsible for their own predicament. Those who run newspapers bounce around from the manic extremes of one day writing less for their readers than for the juries who award journalism prizes to then empaneling focus groups to figure out how to pander to their readers.

Newspapers do not have to pander to their readers so much as to engage them. The failure to engage their readers (i.e., writing for the juries of those journalism awards) results in their audience eroding further which leads them to pander to their readers (i.e., utilizing focus groups to determine how to bring back their alienated former readers). Pandering to their readers only leads to them alienating their most serious readers, leading to even further erosion of their circulation.

There are old school newspaper editors who take pride in the distance between themselves and their readers. They mistake engaging with their readers with pandering to them, only to end up having to pander to them anyway in desperately seeking their return.

I have had the good fortune for having written for and worked for some of the nation's leading newspapers and magazines. I could write a hundred front page news stories (which I did) without ever talking to, or engaging in any manner, with a single reader. That is not possible any longer if you want to write a blog like this one. And if is one of the reasons that many of the folks who used to read newspapers are instead reading this post now.

Writing a blog, I hear back from my readers almost immediately. Many of them often disagree with what I write, but are still respectful and appreciative. I quote from one post from a blogger, not because it is favorable to me, but because after having it read it, I felt better than if I had won a Pulitzer Prize. It makes me want to raise early in the morning and post again. And it is much more important than I win the respect of my readers-- such as this-- rather than any Pulitzer board. This person writes:

"There's tons of good learnin' to be gleaned [from this blog]. I've read about half his archive... I was thinking on it... comparing him to Wonkette... She actually has equal knowledge of the corridors of power, having once been the senior editor of the American Prospect, but she has put on a false persona of being a cynical prescient ingenue hipster. Waas does it so much more grown-up.... Wonkette, of course, will continue to be hot, because she doesn't require an attention span by the reader."

(The person who wrote the above is not a relative-- I swear!)

That I care more about my readers think rather than a Pulitzer jury is the reason that estranged readers of the Washington Post are (this very moment) reading this blog instead of the Post. Donald Graham, the chairman of the Washington Post, is also a former chair, and current member, of the Pulitzer board. In his role as the former, he might consider less worrying about trying to satisfy the later. Indeed, his dual roles only exemplify the insulatiry and remoteness of what was once a popular media evolving into an elite media. In the process, he might no longer have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for focus groups to learn how to pander to the readers he and his newspaper have lost. (To my many friends who work at the Post, lose the focus groups.) Instead, engage your readers in a meaningful way and on a regular basis and they might just someday return to you.

A book officially recommended by this blog....

Sarah Vowell's Assassination Vacation officially made the New York Times' Best Seller's list this morning. (The list is actually circulated to paid subscribers much earlier, thus the use of the word "officially" in that last sentence.)

Long, long overdue and well deserved for this particular author.

As this reviewer of Assassination Vacation wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle: "Sarah Vowell is a cultural critic with a taste for old-fashioned leg work. In search of material to riff on, she ventures beyond bookstores, newsstands, libraries, theaters, and flatscreens." In other words, she is not afraid to play gumshoe before fashioning her opinions. And the genius of her writing is that she takes the reader along with her during her research, the end result being that she produces books that are one part travelogue, another part entertaining history lesson, and a third which is informed social criticism.

One criticism of this otherwise engaging book is that she sometimes lacks confidence in her own story telling and leg work, doubling back to make sure that readers know what they almost certainly have already extracted on their own. She would at times be better served by allowing her work to speak for itself. As she observes about herself in the book: "I'm dormant, dormant, quiet, old-guy loners build log cabins on the sides of my silence and then, boom, it's 1980. Once I erupt, they'll be wiping my verbal ashes off their windshields as far away as North Dakota."

The success of any writer is convincing someone else to finance your descent into your own personal obsessions. An even greater success is convincing readers to share it with you. The greatest success is having your readers adopt it as their own. By these standards, she is the both the most fortunate and successful of writers.

Disclosure: Geoff Kloske, the executive editor of Simon & Schuster, and who edits Vowell's books, is an acquaintance/friend.

Even fuller disclosure: I once long ago had a wicked crush on Sarah Vowell (*red face*) but only met her one time, at a book reading she gave at Politics & Prose, along with David Eggers, as well as a third writer, whose name I cannot remember. I introduced myself to her hoping that there was a remote chance we might have had some mutual acquaintances or she might have heard of me. (Investigative reporters are for the most part anonymous figures. I was not yet the famous blogger that I am today! ) I was taken aback when she looked up and responded: "Of course I know who you are. But I didn't know you actually existed in real life. I thought you were some superhero action figure who only existed in people's imagination." I totally blew it when I responded: "Are you sure you don't have me mixed up with someone else?" (I still think it was quite possible that she did.) David Eggers, who was doing the book signing with her, shot me an expression that seemed to say: "What a lame ass response, dude." It's one thing for your friends to point out that you have said some lame ass thing. It's quite another when some very famous person shoots you an expression that you have. That was the last that I ever saw her (*sadness*).

More Plame commentary, with apologies to those who say that I am writing too much on this subject.

Joe Wilson gives an interview to Daily Kos, and makes this revelation: "As I report in the paperback version of my book-- in the stands in a couple of weeks-- the CIA itself would not let Valerie defend her honor in an op-ed that the New York Times wanted to publish." (Disclosure: Philip Turner, the editor-in-chief of Carroll & Graf, which has published Wilson's book, is a personal friend.)

The well known First Amendment attorney, Floyd Abrams, will be on Nightline tonight to discuss the Plame case, as he seeks to have the Supreme Court consider an appeal of the contempt convictions of New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper for refusing to testify to the Plame grand jury. Over the next few days, I am going to blog right here some interesting comments from my own interview with Abrams.

The special counsel in the Plame matter, Patrick Fitzgerald, has agreed not to challenge requests by Abrams and other attorneys representing Miller and Cooper to stay the jail sentences of the two reporters until the Supreme Court has the opportunity to consider their case. It is yet another example as to how Fitzgerald is not exactly the zealot that some in the media, like Jack Shafer, have attempted to potray him. (More on that later.)

In the meantime, Julie Hilden, a former associate at Williams & Connolly, who specialized in First Amendment issues, has written a couple of interesting related columns: her most recent explores whether bloggers should have the same privileges to protect confidential sources as traditional journalists. One of her earlier columns was devoted entirely to the Valerie Plame case. (Even though I link to her column, I should note that I disagree with every fiber in my body her argument that the reporters should consider identifying their sources.) Hopefully, her column will find a broader audience. Julie gave up her regular gig at Williams & Connolly to become a columnist and novelist, which begs this question: What was she thinking?

The best article on the Web-- or anywhere else for that matter-- on reporter's privilege is this one by Stephen Bates in Slate, who wrote:

"In 1848, the New York Herald's John Nugent became the first American reporter incarcerated for refusing to identify a confidential source. `I consider myself bound in honor not to answer,' Nugent declared when Senators asked him how had he got a secret draft of a treaty with Mexico. They ordered him held for contempt. Lacking a cell, the Senators' sergeant-at-arms took Nugent home with him at night and kept him in an empty committee room during the day."

Some observations: I would do virtually anything to protect a source. That includes going to jail. But if I was ordered to go home with with the senate's sergeant-at-arms and made to stay in an empty committee room during the day, I just might crack. The hearing room of the House Government Reform committee, for one, is one of the most dreary places on earth. (I have considered the committee room to be a leading candidate to be featured on my makeover pilot for C-Span.) For those sources who might fear that I might crack under the circumstances of being held in such environs, no worries: My attorneys would expeditiously appeal, and almost assuredly succeed, arguing that my incarceration certainly violated my constitutional rights to be spared "cruel and unusual punishment."

One blogger who has kind words for this column, mistakenly writes that "There is now a blog which seems to be mostly devoted to Valerie Plame news called Whatever Already!" More regular readers of this blog know that it contains media news and criticism, original foreign policy and national security reporting, and a regular essay on grocery shopping. A regular feature of this blog, Pressing Matters, a column of media criticism, is about to be simultaneously published and syndicated by a much more prestigious and well read venue than this one.

My two nephews, and niece, David, Daniel, and Jennifer, perhaps best know this blog as a place where their (favorite) uncle chastises them for not calling him enough. Now that they are teenagers, they call far less than they once have. *sad* The lives of teenagers are today are far more busy and complex than they were back in the day. My niece Jennifer has on her schedule: marching band practice, track practice, clarinet lessons, Hebrew school, an after-school science academic competition, and a leadership position in her Jewish youth group. Still, she should have enough time left over to call her uncle.

Black to Plame: one reason that I have blocked so much on the subject is that I have a major piece coming out in a new venue. I will link to the story, and comment about it here, as well. It will be appearing in what Mickey Kaus and other hipster bloggers refer to the MSM.

Not myself being a hipster blogger, the first time I read a reference by Mickey to MSM, I did not even know its meaning. At first, I thought it was a mistaken reference to MSNBC. Then I came to believe that MSM might be related to BDSM. But then again, I never have really understood what BDSM was in the first place. It was only later that I learned that MSM refers to the mainstream media.

The irony of Mickey Kaus's snide references to the MSM is that he is one of its charter members.

Dude, if you blog for Slate.com, a company owned by the Washington Post, and just previously owned by Microsoft, you are part of the mainstream press. If your best friend is Michael Kinsley, you are no doubt MSM. If you have worked for Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal, you are even more so. If you have have worked for the New Republic, and still get along well with Marty Peretz, you are MSM.

If Mickey were to argue this point further, I could end the dispute once and for all with this single factoid: Dude, if Brill's Content has reported that you regularly hot tub with Maureen Dowd, you are the MSM!

For the blogger who believes that all I write about is Valerie Plame, my three readers could point out to him that I have over time devoted many, many more column inches and megabytes to teasing/ridiculing Mickey.

Reading for Monday morning: New Plame disclosures

On TAP Online, I have a story with new disclosures regarding the federal grand jury investigation of the Valerie Plame affair. The lede to my story:

"Two days before columnist Robert Novak named Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative, a Bush administration official told a reporter for the Washington Post that Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, had been sent to Niger on a sensitive diplomatic mission only because his wife recommended him for the job. The administration official admitted his role to federal prosecutors during their investigation into the leak of Plame's identity.

"The Bush administration official, according to attorneys familiar with his testimony, told a federal grand jury that he made the claim to the Post reporter and others in an effort to undermine Wilson's credibility, who was alleging at the time that the Bush administration was relying on faulty intelligence to bolster its case to go to war with Iraq. But the official just as adamantly denied to federal investigators... that he ever told the Post reporter, Novak, or anyone else that Plame was a clandestine CIA operative."

"The Post reporter, Walter Pincus, confirmed in an interview that the administration official attempted to discredit Wilson by claiming that Wilson had been sent on a boondoggle arranged by Wilson's wife. But Pincus says that the official did not tell him that Plame was anything other than an analyst."

More than one of my readers-- and bloggers-- have already made the observation that I appear to have buried the lede in my story. They are absolutely correct! Down lower in my story, I write: "The grand jury uncovered evidence that several administration officials engaged in an aggressive and organized effort to discredit Wilson." And even lower, I write that federal investigators have for some time believed that columnist Novak has very likely lied to shield his sources from potential criminal culpability.

This is a story of an increasing importance, despite the judgment of editors at some leading news organizations that there might not be much more to the story, as leaks regarding the grand jury have been scarce, and the special counsel investigating the matter, Patrick Fitzgerald, has said he completed virtually all aspects of his investigation months ago.

As I see it, I can underplay what I have for now as I gain a competitive edge in reporting this story. I don't want to wake any sleeping giants-- say Tim Russert or Jill Abramson-- with such vastly greater (and corporate) resources than my 'lil blog, until I own this story. That there might be a story here of a far greater magnitude than currently meets the eye is a piece of information that I would ask my loyal readers keep as our secret for a while.

As for the still unnamed Bush administration official in the lede to my story, there apparently were no grounds for criminal charges to be brought against him by the grand jury because the evidence did not demonstrate that he acted with the intent to reveal the status of a covert CIA operative.

But the grand jury clearly did uncover evidence that the official was part of a concerted campaign to silence and discredit Wilson and others critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy. And whatever the official's intentions, his reckless actions may have played some role in the disclosure that Plame was a clandestine CIA officer; impaired then ongoing U.S. intelligence operations; endangered sensitive intelligence sources; and undermined the war on terrorism. Most of the rest of us would be in a little trouble at our work if we got caught doing something like that!

It would nice to see a reporter for some major news organization ask during tomorrow's White House press briefing, what, if any, disciplinary action, President Bush might take against this official, and why none has been taken already. (Word of warning: If nobody asks this question, I am going to get White House press credentials of my own, so that I can ask the question. If James Gluckert/James Gannon can obtain a White House press pass, I assume that I can as well.)

Meanwhile, Josh Marshall has been too kind to me, writing on talkingpointsmemo.com: "Just a note for those of you looking for the latest news on the Valerie Plame story. Murray Waas's new blog `Whatever Already' has been the source for the latest updates, all based on his extensive and continued original reporting on the subject." Josh has more faith in me than I do, or more faith that I deserve. But now the pressure is on!

Random notes: For those of you who have wanted me to write, report, or blog about the Bolton nomination, you would be much better served to read Laura Rozen's indispensable warandpiece.com blog, Steve C. Clemons' "Washington Note", as well as Josh. I will have a post with some original reporting on Bolton by the middle of the week. For those not following the story as closely, the entire saga can perhaps be summed up in a single sentence in this lengthy Time magazine article out on newsstands tomorrow morning: "There is a saying in Washington that you meet on the way down all the people you stepped on the way up."

For those wondering about the deconstruction and analysis of my own story, it begs the question-- once again-- as to whether this is a blog or a parody of a blog.

A Whatever Already Editorial!

On Sept. 30, 2003, upon learning that the Department of Justice had commenced a criminal investigation to determine who in his administration leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a clandestine CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak, President Bush had this to say: "I want to know who it is and if the person has violated the law. The person will be taken care of."

Later on Oct. 6, 2003, President Bush was even more emphatic in asserting that he would hold accountable whoever had leaked derogatory information to the press about Plame and her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, saying: "If anybody has got any information inside our government who leaked, you ought to take it to the Justice Department, so we can find the leaker." The unauthorized disclosure, Bush said, was a "very serious matter" and a "criminal action."

I know that the President is a busy man, and he probably does not read the American Prospect Online. I don't always read it that regularly myself (especially when they are late in sending me a pay check). And when I called the White House seeking a comment for my for my last TAP story about the Plame affair, it was an intern who handled my query. (I am not joking.) I have actually had had my inquiries taken more seriously when I have called the White House seeking comment for a post for my blog. (Again, no kidding.)

Perhaps the President or someone on the White House senior staff reads my blog?!

In my TAP Online story, I disclosed that an administration official had testified to a federal grand jury that two days before columnist Robert Novak named Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative, the official had told a reporter for the Washington Post that Plame's husband, former ambassador Wilson, had only been sent on a sensitive diplomatic mission to Niger because his wife had purportedly recommended him for the job. In his testimony to the grand jury, the Bush administration official asserted that he did not tell the Post reporter, Walter Pincus, that Plame was a clandestine CIA officer. And in his own statements to prosecutors, Pincus has largely backed up the official's version of events. Still, the official testified it was his intent to discredit Wilson, a critic of the administration's Iraq policy.

It is more likely than not that the Bush administration official did not violate federal law, in that there is no strong evidence that the official acted with the purposeful intent to out a clandestine CIA officer. It is also unclear as to whether the official who spoke to Pincus was one of the two "senior administration officials" who spoke to Novak.

But clearly the official was acting recklessly in bandying around the fact to a Washington Post reporter that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA, and that Wilson only was sent to Niger as a result of her purported nepotism. Only two short days later, if Novak can be trusted, two administration officials told Novak much the same story. As a result, Plame was identified in Novak's column as a CIA "operative"; ongoing intelligence operations were impaired; sensitive intelligence sources were endangered; and the war on terrorism was undermined.

If the President were interested in knowing who this official is, all that he needs to do at this point is inquire amongst his own senior staff. What he does next-- discipline the official in some meaningful way, fire him, slap him on the wrist, or simply glare at him-- is up to the President. But George W. Bush is the President of the United States, and he can take whatever action he sees fit, or at least explain in the interim, why he remains silent and does nothing.

The time is long overdue for the President to speak to this issue.

Note to readers: In the future, there will be a most strict separation between those who break news for my blog (me), and those who write editorials and commentary. In due course, those who break news (me) and those who will write editorials will not even be allowed to speak to one another! However, for the time being, I am unable to afford to take on an editorial writer...