April 12, 2005 by s.z.

John Bolton and the Intelligence Analysts This is what you should probably know about this: Back in 2002, Bolton, who was then the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, wrote a speech he was planning on delivering to the Heritage Foundation.  In the speech, Bolton claimed that Cuba had an offensive biological-weapons program, and was providing bio-weapons assistance to rogue regimes. Christian Westermann, the chief bio-weapons analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), was asked to approve language in a Bolton speech.  The LA Times tells what happened next: Westermann told Bolton's chief of staff that the language was unlikely to win clearance from the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and suggested some alternative wording. Bolton's chief of staff sent an e-mail to Westermann saying time was of the essence, and Westermann sent both Bolton's language and his own to the CIA for clearance. Bolton said he thought Westermann had "gone behind my back." Westermann has told Senate investigators that Bolton called him in to harangue him, red-faced in anger and pointing his finger. Bolton went to Westermann's boss, Carl Ford, Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR), and demanded that Westermann be transferred. Per the Times, "After Ford refused to have Westermann reassigned, Bolton stopped speaking to Ford." Bolton clashed with Fulton Armstrong, the national intelligence officer responsible for Latin America -- apparently Armstrong also disagreed with Bolton's claims in his speech about Cuba's biological weapons program. The Union Leader adds that Armstrong had "refused to clear congressional testimony Bolton was preparing in case he was called to appear at a hearing." During a July 2002 visit to CIA headquarters, Bolton asked Stuart Cohen, the former acting director of the National Intelligence Council, to reassign Armstrong. Anyway, during yesterday's confirmation hearing, Bolton said that he has never tried to manipulate intelligence or to intimidate analysts, and that he just thought the men behaved unprofessionally, and since they had "lost his confidence," they should be reassigned. Fred Kaplan of Slate explains why this is BS: [Bolton claimed] that his only problem with these analysts was "procedural." They engaged in "unprofessional conduct"—for instance, the State Department official, he said, went behind his back—so Bolton "lost confidence" in them and wanted them reassigned to other portfolios. Bolton's account is most implausible. First, neither analyst worked under Bolton, so it's irrelevant that he lost confidence in them. Second, the "unprofessional conduct" amounted to the State Department analyst's sending Bolton's proposed speech and his own proposed modification to other intelligence officials—standard procedure for official speeches mentioning intelligence. Third, some of the panel's Democrats—Sens. Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd, and John Kerry—cited interviews, which the bipartisan staff has recently conducted with these officials and their superiors, to bolster the accusation. For instance, the State Department analyst's immediate superior was quoted as saying that Bolton "said he was the president's appointee and … he wasn't going to be told what to say by a midlevel Munchkin." The significance of this tale isn't simply that Bolton behaved like a prick. It's that, sometime soon, our U.N. ambassador will almost certainly be called on to present intelligence data to the Security Council about Iranian or North Korean nuclear weapons. This country did great damage to its credibility when Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered what turned out to be false intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. (On this point, everyone at the hearing—Bolton included—agreed.) The next time we have to make a case against an emerging nuclear threat, the case for international consensus and cooperation will not be helped if the briefer has a record of politicizing intelligence. I would add that it's also signficant that Bolton behaved like a prick.  Everybody who has had a boss like Bolton knows how much damage they can do just by being jerks -- and doesn't the UN have enough problems already without inflicting Bolton on them? Oh, and one another thing about this story that you should know: despite what the media is claiming in articles like "Senators May Have Named CIA Operative," Richard  Lugar and John Kerry didn't blow Armstrong's cover.  Michelle Malkin is right about this. (Really!)  Hey, you can even read Armstrong's bio online, which was taken from the CIA/NIC website!.  So, call Armstrong "Mr. Smith" if it makes you feel all covert and "spooky," Senators and media, but it really isn't necessary, as far as I can tell. 5:54:10 AM

Blind Items We Probably Can Solve! Usually we are terrible at this.  For instance, when the NY Post asks: WHICH attractive Washington TV correspondent is having a torrid affair with another TV type? Her husband seems unaware — even though he works for the same network and toils in the same building as she does . . . We think, "Hmm, an attractive TV correspondent who is cheating on her husband, who also works for the same TV network -- that must be, um, Cokie Roberts?  But wait, she's not attractive.  Lessee, weren't James Carville and Mary Matlin supposed to be doing something for HBO last year -- however, this year she's not a correspondent, she's the editor of Putting the Sap in Sapho.  Are Daryn Kagan and Rush married yet?  Oh, I give up -- and who cares anyway." But today I know the answers to a couple of blind items.  We'll start with this one, which I learned of via the Corner, who pointed me to Roger Simon: April 11, 2005: Free Michael!  I think we should set up a defense fund for my friend Michael Ledeen who is being accused of forging the Niger Uranium Documents by former CIA official Vincent Cannistraro. It all happened on aradio show over the weekend: Ian Masters, host of Background Briefing, in Los Angeles, interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, the former head of Counterterrorism operations at the CIA. Cannistraro came close to naming the man who forged the Niger documents. When Masters asked, "If I said 'Michael Ledeen'?" Vincent Cannistraro replied, "You'd be very close." Is that "close as in close" or close as in "close, but no cigar"?  That would be close as in "Ledeen's good buddies, the Iraqis associated with Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress." I hope this helps, Roger.  (I'm not putting any money on whether Cannistraro is right or not, only providing my guess about who he's referring to.) (BTW, the General, who learned of the matter from First Draft, writes Mr. Ledeen a letter.  General Christian has mixed emotions about the report of Ledeen's involvement in the forgery.) Our second item comes from John Stossel's NewsMax column, "How I Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media": My wife's ex-boyfriend, a liberal, came out with a book the same month I did, from the same publisher. Both our books became New York Times bestsellers. For several weeks we appeared next to each other on the bestseller list. How weird is that? But that's not my point. The point is that the media's response to our two books made it seem as if we lived in different worlds. His book was personal, not political, but he has long been well liked in the liberal media world. After our books came out, I turned on the radio, and the first thing I heard was Imus gushing about how wonderful my wife's ex-boyfriend was. Even my wife rolled her eyes. Imus had him on more than once. My publisher couldn't get me on Imus. Stossel's wife's ex is Richard M. Cohen, who wrote Blindsided, a memoir about his struggle with MS and colon cancer. Anyway, Stossel goes on to complain how his wife's ex was featured regularly on NPR, CNN, PBS, and in the NY Times, while Stossel had to make do with the jerks at Fox News.  And per John, it all goes to prove that the members of liberal media were trying to repress him, which shows how much less open-minded they are than the conservative media, which will allow any old crackpot on the air. I did sell more books than my wife's ex did. But where was the "open debate" I'm always hearing about? Aren't the media supposed to welcome many points of view? Face it, Stossel, people just like Cohen better than you.  He's nicer, more interesting, more intelligent, and better in bed.  Ask your wife about that last one. 4:11:40 AM

Swank o' the Day Okay, Brad over at Sadly, No! mentioned the title, but we're here to bring you the REST of the story.  (Well, a tasty morsel from it at least).  Yes, we're going to blog on Swank too, because we're tired, and so deserve to pick some of the low-hanging comedy apples that grow in the grassroots of Pastor Swank's writing. So, this is our pick for Swank o' the Day: Swallow Hard and Forgive: Charles and Camilla Um, useful advice. Anyway, the pastor talks about how Charles and Camilla chose a prayer that had them acknowledge and bewail their "manifold sins and wickedness."  This caused the pastor to go into "soul shock" -- mostly because he was a big Diana fan, and didn't believe that her two opressors could even ask for forgiveness.  My first thought was that Lady Di is gone. She’s the one stepped all over, trashed and sent to the heap by the Prince who informed his new bride that he, the Prince, was not going to be the first not to have a mistress.  [...] So Lady Di had her own alliances? Yes, but only after being spat upon by her Prince husband, treated as a slave and made to be nothing other than a total palace nuisance. Poor Diana, treated like a slave and sent to the heap.  If only George W. Bush had been President back then, HE would have rescued her from being nothing other than a total palace nuisance!  Because, as we learn in our runner-up Swank o' the Day, George is all about taking liberties to (or with) women. AFGHAN WOMAN GETS FIRST DRIVER’S LICENSE BUT AFRAID TO USE IT  As freedom spread continues in various parts of the globe, primarily because of the championing of liberties for citizens initiated by United States President George W. Bush, resistance persists in certain locales. One of them was an Afghan province overseen by Ismail Kahn, governor. He repressed women’s rights constantly. He treated females similarly to the Taliban. However, he no longer is in power. Nevertheless, the fear remains. Can women dare apply for jobs in the marketplace? Can they put off the repressive head-to-toe fabric that hides their identity? Can they take a driver’s test, and then passing it, even drive a vehicle through the village streets? These real life questions loom in Afghanistan as it gets used to a democracy planting. It takes time. It takes patience, both of which have been lived out by Mr. Bush in example to new leadership elsewhere. Sure, these women's rights were repressed constantly, and they still don't know if they can dare apply for jobs in the marketplace, but at least none of them were slaves like Diana.  And they owe their good fortune to George Bush, who has lived out both time and patience.  What a great example of new leadership elsewhere! 3:11:14 AM