Bolton's Disclosure Accurate?

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.

Developing...

Here are the State Dept. sites for press releases and briefings.

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.

UPDATE:  Is this a State Department press briefing, or have I blundered into a comedy club?  Apparently, "the answer was truthful then" means "the answer was wrong then":

...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".

Comments

[clarice]

NYT says Pincus' source was not Rove nor Libby but another "administration official"..http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/politics/28leak.html?

[SamAm]

Dunno how Fitzgerald could really be looking at the Niger forgeries and not call Bolton. We'll see.

[Jeff]

There is a tiny bit of bobbing and weaving in the Fox article. It will be interesting to see how it sorts out.

[Dwilkers]

Well, that shows the danger of parsing and microscopic examination of these media reports, although I admit I enjoy the activity as much as anyone else.

So the reports on Bolton last week were wrong. Who'd a thunk our MSM guys woulda told us something that wasn't true?

[Hannibal]

Very good, clarice.

[TM]

Jeff - that Fox article looks like it started out like the Reuters and AP reports noting Biden's letter and Boxer's speech, and then got a late lead paragraph pasted in after some source gave them a secret answer.

Presumably, either the State Dept is going to answer this for everyone, or not - there was nothing on their website yesterday (and NO QUESTIONS on Bolton's disclosure form from our free and inquiring press!)

[AlanDownunder]

<>barring a collapse on the Fox Front

Such faith!

[Martin]

Premature exoneration.

Exactly where in the Fox News story does it anywhere state: "he has not testified or given evidence in the Plame investigation."

[Jeff]

Look! Fox changed the article (nothing unusual in that), and in some interesting ways, leading me to believe that we've got some bs-ing going on. Here are paragraphs 2 and 3 now (emphasis mine):

Democratic Sen. Joe Biden (search) of Delaware, who opposes Bolton's nomination, wants to know whether the State Department undersecretary testified to the grand jury about who leaked the name of Valerie Plame (search) to reporters. If Bolton did, some Democrats say, he should have amended his response to a questionnaire filled out for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in his effort to be confirmed to that post.

But a State Department official said Wednesday that Bolton does not need to change his response.

On this telling, it is a matter of interpretation -- and partisan interpretation -- whether participating in the grand jury investigation required a "yes" answer from Bolton on the Disclosure Form. (Karen Hughes, by the way, shares the Democrats' interpretation on this one.) The State Department says Bolton doesn't need to change his response -- but maybe that just because they don't share the Democrats' interpretation of whether participation in the Fitzgerald grand jury investigation qualifies for a "yes" answer. This story makes me more strongly suspect Bolton did in fact participate in the grand jury investigation -- and I will admit the plain meaning of the text of the Disclosure Form compels me to share the Democrats' and Karen Hughes' interpretation of the relevant question and of whether Bolton being questioned or deposed in the grand jury investigation means he has to answer "yes" to answer truthfully.

I await the State Department's categorical and clear statement that Bolton did not participate in the grand jury investigation in any way, shape or form specified by the question on the Disclosure Form.

[Dwilkers]

Hmmm. Nice snag Jeff.

I agree "some Democrats say" changes the meaning of the article significantly.

[TM]

Good old Fox - they dropped that State Dept official out of the lead paragraph, and kept him in as one ambiguous sentence, as Jeff explains.

Here are the State Dept sites for press releases and briefings - nothing yet.

[Martin]

I must commend you again TM on keeping the comments open for this sort of thing, and for not banning snarky bungholes like me.

If only your right wing brethren had your fortitude what a wonderful world this would be.

[Jeff]

More on Bolton -- he answered incorrectly, but because of a different investigation, which he forgot about. These important Bush administration figures sure seem to have a lot of memory problems.

[Etienne]

It's like Hadley can't remember why he didn't remember that tthe CIA told him the yellowcake nonsense shouldn't be put in the SOTU speech.

It's like Rove can't remember who told him that that bad Joe Wilson was really just a girly man who got sent to Africa by his incrediby powerful (though only a Langley desk jockey) wife, who was a covert agent....or why he felt this irrelevant (and confidential) information had to be passed on to at least 6 more tellephone game players in the national press.

Yesterday on the CAFTA vote we had a Repub congressman (Taylor of NC) who had promised his constituents he would vote against it, somehow forget to check whether or not his vote had been counted (it hadn't) and leave the chamber for the night.

I think Steve Martin had a great routine on this once. "The most useful words in the English language are: I. Forgot." Criminals and scoundrels throughout history have certainly found it so.

[Martin]

TM-aren't even you sick of not getting a straight answer from these guys?

[Martin]

"When Mr. Bolton completed his form during the Senate confirmation process he did not recall being interviewed by the State Department inspector general."

Remember-lying to Congress means lying to you. This is the guy who you want to represent America to the world?

What does that say about you? Why are Repubs not demanding Bolton be withdrawn immediately?

Your party is in power-and the integrity checks will have to come from you.

So where the hell are they?

[Etienne]

If nothing else, the Republicans are demonstrating that integrity and honor were never their priorities, but only the usual political shell game used to gain power.

I guess it's a necessary cleansing process. Before they gained power, the Repubs were able to define corruption as a Democratic phenomenon. Now they've demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's merely the inevitable byproduct of political power. It's very disheartening to any American who had hoped there truly was a noble heart hidden somewhere in the American political process. The arrogance with which the Repubs are thumbing their noses at all of us right now will likely create a backlash. Alas, that one will also likely be as temporary as the Republican commitment to "accountability" was.

[jukeboxgrad]

Speaking of memory problems, some Bush-critics here are not remembering that Bush promised to "restore honor and dignity to the White House" (link, also see this). Since he said he would, therefore he must have done so. Therefore, all evidence to the contrary is just a mirage.

Why do liberals persist in denying reality?

[Martin]

Here for the record is the Dem's letter to the President:

Dear Mr. President:

In light of the fact that John Bolton was not truthful to the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee on the questionnaire he swore was truthful, we ask that you do not make a recess appointment ofMr. Bolton to be the Ambassador to the United Nations and instead submit a new nomination to the Senate.

Mr. Bolton's excuse that he "didn't recall being interviewed by the State Department's
Inspector General" is simply not believable. How can you forget an interview about an issue so important that the United States Senate unanimously passed an amendment stating that Congress supports "the thorough and expeditious investigation by the Inspector General of the Department
of State and the Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency into the documents ... that the President relied on to conclude that Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium from Africa"? The amendment was cosponsored by the Chairmen of both the Foreign Relations Committee and the
Intelligence Committee.

Mr. President, we know you are engaged in an effort to strengthen our relationships
throughout the world. Sending someone to the United Nations who has not been confirmed by
the United States Senate and now who has admitted to not being truthful on a document so important that it requires a sworn affidavit is going to set our efforts back in many ways."

[kim]

Nyah, nyah, a Bolton. I insist he remains the last UN hope to retain a relevant role in the world via being an instrument of US foreign policy.

Otherwise, they descend even further into corruption, comedy, and tragedy. They so poorly represent the dream of what they could be, and the US so accidently functions, sometimes stumblingly, as their surrogate in caretaking the world.
===================================================