|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Bolton, Intelligence Officials Clashed Over Syria
Undersecretary of State John Bolton and U.S. intelligence officials disagreed sharply in recent years over how far he could publicly press the case that Syria was developing weapons of mass destruction, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, April 25). The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is examining those run-ins as it considers Bolton’s nomination to become U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. A high-level Democratic staffer said that disputes over Syrian weapons programs are “an example, perhaps the most serious one, not of Mr. Bolton’s abusing people, but of trying to exaggerate the intelligence to fit his policy views.” A draft speech for Bolton in April 2002 included language on potential nuclear weapons efforts in Syria. A senior State Department intelligence official called the language “a stretch,” and Bolton did not mention the alleged nuclear work when he delivered the speech, the Times reported. Bolton in June 2003 told the House International Relations Committee that U.S. officials were “looking at Syria’s nuclear program with growing concern and continue to monitor it for any signs of nuclear weapons intent.” The CIA, in a report issued two months earlier, stated only that “broader access to Russian expertise provides opportunities for Syria to expand its indigenous capabilities, should it decide to pursue nuclear weapons.” Bolton also told Congress that U.S. officials “know that Syria is pursuing the development of biological weapons.” The CIA in April had said it was “highly probable that Syria is also continuing to develop an offensive B.W. capability.” In July 2003, intelligence officials objected to claims Bolton planned to make before Congress about Syria’s weapons programs, including that the nation’s chemical and biological weapons programs endangered Middle East stability. “There were a lot of disagreements about the speech,” Bolton said earlier this month during his nomination hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “It was clear to me that more work needed to be done on it.” The nominee noted, however, that intelligence agencies completely cleared the final speech he gave September 2003, according to the Times (Douglas Jehl, New York Times, April 26). Republican and Democratic staff members on the Foreign Relations Committee agreed Monday to interview more than 20 people regarding incidents involving Bolton, the Los Angeles Times reported. Meanwhile, another former U.S. diplomat has spoken out against Bolton. “If it is now U.S. policy not to reform the U.N. but do destroy it, Bolton is our man,” Frederick Vreeland, former ambassador to Burma and Morocco, stated in a letter to Senator Joseph Biden (Del.), ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. Vreeland said Bolton “dealt with visitors to his office as if they were servants with whom he could be dismissive, curt and negative. He was well known for never being good-tempered or well mannered.” Criticism from Vreeland, who was appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was first reported by Time magazine. Bush administration officials fired back yesterday against Bolton’s detractors. “The personal recollections of a retired ambassador notwithstanding, John Bolton has a distinguished record of diplomatic service on behalf of the United States, a fact to which five former secretaries of state and three former secretaries of defense have publicly attested,” said State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli (see GSN, April 4; Sonni Efron, Los Angeles Times, April 26). “I think what we’re seeing, frankly, is a pattern that’s emerging, and that is charges get made, many of them are either unsourced or based on distant and vague memories or really short on details,” Ereli said. “Then when you look at them closely, you find out that the facts don't add up or that they can't be substantiated.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also reiterated the Bush administration’s support for Bolton and pushed for his appointment, Agence France-Presse reported. “We’ve tried to be as responsive as possible to all of the questions that have been asked,” she said. “But I would really hope now that people will move forward on John Bolton’s nomination” (Agence France-Presse, April 25). Elsewhere, the British Foreign Office said that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had no recollection of a 2003 meeting in which he was reported to have warned then-Secretary of State Colin Powell that Bolton was hurting efforts to develop an allied stand on Iran’s nuclear program. Ereli said that Straw sent a letter to Bolton after his nomination saying he looked forward to working together, AP reported (Liz Sidoti, Associated Press/The Guardian, April 26).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
