Fox News has been told that Bolton's disclosure to the Senate was accurate - he has not testified or given evidence in the Plame investigation. Let's see what other news services come up with.
I have been ignoring the alleged Bolton-Plame connection for weeks; barring a collapse on the Fox Front, I will resume doing so - some longshots aren't worth betting, and my supply of tin-foil is not limitless (Truth!).
Good job by the DKos crowd pushing this angle, though - it flickered by the Times last week, and I see from Fox that leading Senate Dems have picked it up as well. Keep hope alive!
UPDATE: Fox has substantially rewritten the story overnight, and moved the news about Bolton from the lead to two cryptic sentences:
But a State Department official said Wednesday that Bolton does not need to change his response.
"The forms submitted by John Bolton were accurate and nothing has changed to require them to be updated," a State Department official told FOX News.
PARSE THIS: From the July 28 press briefing at he State Dept.:
QUESTION: Senator Biden -- let's see -- asked the Secretary yesterday to tell the Senate Foreign Relations Committee whether John Bolton did, in fact, appear before a grand jury or whether he has been interviewed or otherwise asked to provide information by the Special Prosecutor or his staff in connection with the Valerie Plame affair. Do you have anything on that?
MR. MCCORMACK: Mr. Bolton, as part of the nomination process, supplied answers, supplied an answer to the question. They'd asked whether or not the nominee has been interviewed or asked to supply any information in connection with any administrative, including an Inspector General, congressional or grand jury investigation within the past five years, except routine Congressional testimony. Mr. Bolton, in his response on the written paperwork, was to say no. And that answer was truthful then and it remains the case now.
"Was to say no"? Meaning what?
As I read this, Bolton is not revising his original answer in response to Biden's question. Now, is "supply any information" from the questionaire responsive to "interviewed or otherwise asked to provide information" from Biden's letter? Trusting minds might think so; perhaps lawyers reason that Bolton answered the questionaire, and shouldn't involve himself with figuring out whether there is a trick to Biden's question.
...the State Department acknowledged Thursday night that President Bush's pick to be ambassador to the United Nations did inaccurately state his role in another probe.
A spokesman said that Bolton had in fact been questioned by the State Department inspector general, contrary to his response in a questionnaire filled out for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (search) during the confirmation process.
"Mr. Bolton was not interviewed as part of the [CIA leak] investigation. When Mr. Bolton completed the forms during the confirmation process, he did not recall being interviewed by the State Department's inspector general. Therefore his form as submitted was inaccurate. He will correct it," State Department spokesman Noel Clay said.
Just hours earlier, the State Department said Bolton had filled out the questionnaire truthfully and accurately.
"Mr. Bolton, as part of the nomination process, supplied an answer to the question that asked whether or not a nominee as been interviewed or asked to supply any information in connection with any administrative, including an inspector general congressional or grand jury investigation, within the past five years, except routine congressional testimony," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.
"Mr. Bolton, in his response on the written paperwork, was to say 'no.' And that answer is truthful then and it remains the case now."
But Bolton was interviewed by the State Department's inspector general as part of a joint investigation with the CIA into Iraq's attempts to purchase yellow-cake uranium from Niger. The president cited the Iraq-Niger connection two years ago in his State of the Union address justifying an invasion, an assertion the administration later retracted.
Normally, the phrase "Mr. Bolton was not interviewed as part of the [CIA leak] investigation" would answer our original question. At this point, desperate though I may be to resume ignoring Bolton, I am gloomily awaiting the next round of clarifications.
Let's also clip this Reuters story, headlined "State Dept admits Bolton gave inaccurate answers". And (you'll have to trust me), let's add that Google News currently shows the headline to be "State Dept. says Bolton truthful to Senate panel".