Doug Jehl reports:
With a vote scheduled Thursday on his contested nomination as ambassador to the United Nations, John R. Bolton has told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that a policy maker should maintain the right to “state his own reading of the intelligence” even when it differs from that of intelligence agencies.
Mr. Bolton’s statement came in a written response to a written question from Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, a leading Democratic critic of the nomination, and was disclosed by Democrats legislators opposed to the nomination. They said they would cite it as evidence that Mr. Bolton would adopt a loose standard for accuracy in making statements based on intelligence.
In interviews on Wednesday, several former senior intelligence officials said the widely accepted view was that policy makers had a right to state their own views about intelligence matters, but that they also had an obligation to be accurate and to make explicit when they were stating personal opinions.
For weeks, the committee has been exploring whether Mr. Bolton, as an under secretary of state, improperly sought to press intelligence agencies to endorse his views, and sought to bypass the agencies’ objections by describing his own views as those of the government.
Mr. Kerry asked Mr. Bolton whether as ambassador to the United Nations, he would “unfailingly use the established procedure” for clearing speeches, testimony and other public remarks with intelligence agencies.
In his response, Mr. Bolton told the committee that he would adhere to rules that require formal clearance of any statement purporting to describe intelligence agencies’ views. But he also said, “A policy official may state his own reading of the intelligence (assuming the information is cleared for release as a policy matter) as long as he does not purport to speak for the intelligence community.”
Will Bolton assert the same if he is American Ambassador to the U.N. and interpreting matters related to Iran’s nuclear ambitions — particularly if there is action in the U.N. Security Council towards Iran that requires coordination with key allies?
Bolton’s behavior is a matter of concern — and it is frustrating to American interests and sensibilities that the White House would not send someone clearly dependable, clearly with impeccable credentials, and clearly someone in whom Americans have fundamental trust.
That is not John Bolton.
— Steve Clemons