Senator John McCain comes off as a major political star in Eugene Jarecki's Why We Fight which is opening soon in Washington, but his chief of staff, Mark Salter, has blown a gasket over a cute clip in the film in which Vice President Cheney calls him during that interview. At that moment, McCain is saying that Americans deserve a serious investigation into contracting improprieties surrounding the Iraq War.

According to Mary Ann Akers in Roll Call's gossip column, Heard on the Hill, this morning:

Attention, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.): You're not the only punching bag for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). The 2008 presidential hopeful is also really mad at the producer of the Sundance Film Festival award-winning film "Why We Fight."

Forget about his nanosecond blip on Monday night's episode of "24." McCain -- and especially his chief of staff -- think the movie producer intentionally twisted McCain's few lines in the film so that he comes off as critical of Vice President Cheney.

"We're actually pretty mad about it," McCain's chief of staff, Mark Salter, told HOH. He accused the producer, Eugene Jarecki, of "doing manipulative editing" to make it look like McCain is questioning Cheney's involvement in the awarding of military contracts to Halliburton, the company the veep used to run.

McCain says in the movie: "It looks bad. It looks bad and apparently Halliburton, more than once, has overcharged the federal government. That's wrong."

Then, asked how he would tackle the problem, McCain says, "I'd have a public investigation of what they've done." At that very moment, coincidentally, the phone rings in McCain's office ... and an aide announces the vice president is calling. Scene ends.

While McCain said nothing about Cheney in the context of Halliburton, Salter is angry because McCain's scene immediately follows one in which Richard Perle is defending Cheney, saying the veep wouldn't dare use his power to help Halliburton get contracts.

Then McCain pops on the screen saying, "It looks bad" -- as if he's talking about Cheney, when in fact he's not, Salter argues. To the contrary, Salter said -- McCain has "complete respect for Mr. Cheney's integrity." "It's editorial manipulation," Salter said of the film.

Jarecki can't believe that McCain's office is so upset. He says McCain didn't impugn Cheney in any way, nor did he, as the filmmaker, intend for it to look that way. "I'm mystified by the whole thing," he said. "My view of John McCain is extremely glowing."

A big part of the film is about Dwight Eisenhower, who, in his 1961 farewell address as president, warned America about the "military-industrial complex" -- a term he coined in that speech. "If there's anybody today who carries that spirit ... it's John McCain," Jarecki said, adding, "What I see when I see John McCain in the film is a good man in a weary world. He's working so hard every day to make Washington a better place."

The love, apparently, only goes one way. Salter calls Jarecki a "a slippery son of a gun" and says that McCain doesn't like the film, at least not the part involving him. "He thought it was dishonest," Salter said.

The miffed chief of staff said Jarecki was misleading from the get-go. McCain thought he was doing an interview on Iraq with the BBC. "Turns out to be a theatrically released film in the United States."

Well, it turns out that Salter is right. Jarecki originally made his film for the BBC. Then he hit the big screen.

"I never imagined we'd win Sundance and be picked up by Sony [Pictures]," he said. With that, he headed over to the Motion Picture Association of America for a second Washington, D.C., screening.

The "first screening" obliquely referred to was co-hosted by TWN.

I've seen the film three times now, and Senator McCain comes off as a 21st century Eisenhower in the movie -- the type of potential President who can be a 'big national security president' but not let the military-industrial complex, a term coined first in Dwight Eisenhower's 1961 Farewell Address, run amok.

Salter, who has been a key aide to McCain for many years and has written with McCain Faith of My Fathers and Why Courage Matters, is someone who understands the importance of editing. Not everything makes it into the book, or the film in this case. Salter's demands veer dangerously close to thin-skinned censorship. Not good for any team considering a run at the most admired, feared, pilloried, and lampooned job in the world -- the Presidency of the United States.

TWN has gone to some effort to learn about some of the background on the interview, what was in the larger interview -- tough to get as the director has not wanted to release the material because it would undermine his editorial prerogatives.

TWN has confirmed that the McCain office essentially ignored Jarecki for months, despite calls, a mailed DVD of the film, and various interactions as Jarecki had hoped to involve McCain in the roll-out of the film (figuring that he would like it).

It wasn't until the film became "big" that Salter and the McCain staff paid any attention to the director. They called Charlotte Street Films in a huff, according to one source, demanding a copy of the film. As it turned out, McCain's office had had one already on their shelves, unwatched.

So, while I do not have (yet) the text of the McCain interview, some of the things he said were extremely provocative.

My apologies to both Senator McCain and Eugene Jarecki for sharing some of this, as I admire both, but in my view, Jarecki actually protected McCain's interests in this film -- and Mark Salter is behaving in a surly, oppressive way -- not what Senator McCain deserves.

And this blog has gone way out of its way in the past to underscore its respect for McCain (though a good chunk of TWN readers let me know how misplaced my respect is).

That said, "flaming out" makes people look small, emotionally rather than rationally driven, and out of control. When someone like McCain, or Mark Salter on his behalf, flames out -- it better be about something huge.

In any case, my source has shared with me some of the other talking "nodes" in the McCain interview. As I said, I'm trying to sneak out text, but Jarecki is not allowing it out from his office.

These were some of the things that McCain allegedly uttered in a long interview:

(paraphrased)

John McCain said he was in fundamental agreement with the neocons, that spreading democracy and freedom in the world was vital in this time -- but not spreading it through pre-emptive strikes and unilateralism

He said that neoconservatism evolved during the Vietnam era and in some ways McCain admitted that he was one. He said that the roll backs against military capabilities occurred during this period, and the neoconservatives organized to counter this trend.

McCain said that Bush was out of step with core conservative values on the international front. He said that domestically tax cuts and fiscal responsibility were core Republican values and Bush hit those buttons, but on the international front, Bush's aggressive internationalism was beyond core Republican values. McCain didn't offer a positive or negative assessment of this -- just stated that this was the case.

McCain said that the government was rife with contributors giving millions of dollars to the Party, buying access with this money, seeking favors in contracting, and getting it. He said that Halliburton style no-bid contracts were part of this picture and that Americans should be worried. He said that Americans deserved a serious public investigation.

McCain also said that if there was a serious, imminent threat directly threatening to Americans that a preemptive strike could be understood, but if American lives are lost on something that was not an imminent threat, well. . .that can't stand.

McCain said that Bush ran on a platform of disengaging from a lot of American commitments and was opposed to nation-building. Now Bush is for nation-building. McCain just noted that the Bush America voted for is not the Bush they got after he'd been in office.

McCain also said that while he supported the Iraq War, Americans were "not fully informed" and deserved to have been.

McCain stated that while he didn't think America could precipitously leave Iraq, the war will have been won even when we see "a badly functioning democracy" there.

There's more, but I don't have it yet.

McCain's commentary above is sensible, thoughtful. I don't agree with all of it, and frankly -- I see McCain as more of an ethical realist than I do a neoconservative, but that's irrelevant.

What is significant is that any editor with anywhere near the amount of information above could clip and edit McCain in a number of different ways.

The neocon material or the commentary on Bush, or shady defense contractors seducing his own Party, the comment about Americans not being appropriately informed -- all of that -- could have been far more damaging to McCain's efforts to appear to the Republican establishment that he is behaving, so to speak.

For some time, McCain has been working hard to charm the mainline Republican establishment and not needlessly provoke Bush and Cheney, which makes sense as McCain has said in the past that it was not the Republican right wing that beat him in his last presidential run, it was the fact that the mainstream Republican establishment had pre-positioned itself with Bush.

Politically, this sensitivity matters -- and tactically, perhaps McCain and Salter see it as beneficial to beat up a film that actually makes the Senator look good, but perhaps too good.

The reason that Salter is probably testy about this is BECAUSE Cheney DOES represent in the minds of many Americans the kind of politician who hides behind veils of official secrecy. Before McCain took on the administration over corruption in the Boeing air-tanker deal, McCain was one of the major behind-the-scenes players exposing the Bush administration's nefarious dealings with Enron and other energy companies. And who was in the middle of that escapade? Dick Cheney.

Eavesdropping last night, one of my sources reports that a Republican Senator -- and close friend of McCain's -- said that the Cheney-McCain call was cute but that the film shows McCain as close to Bush and also close to Eisenhower. "What could be better?" this Senator said.

McCain is an American hero in my book. Despite the critique that comes from many on the left and the right (and which will no doubt come towards me from some of my well-intentioned readers after I post this) -- McCain ought not to "lose it" when he gets to play Eisenhower, when he is lauded for being the white knight in national security affairs who can keep the military-industrial-complex under some form of democracy-preserving scrutiny.

And if Cheney calls him during an interview, then Cheney calls him during an interview -- that's how Washington works. It was a cute moment that did nothing but show that even major national leaders like Cheney and McCain who probably disagree about defense-contracting ethics must still work together in this town.

I've known Mark Salter from a distance for a long time, ever since I worked at the Nixon Center in Washington.

I admire his passion for his Senator and friend, John McCain, and for the country. He supports the Iraq War, as Senator McCain does; I do not. We move on -- but I still feel that McCain's voice is vital as we sort out what kinds of "norms" this nation really holds true during times of national stress.

Mark Salter, on behalf of his boss John McCain, is losing it over the wrong issue -- and frankly -- as a friend of the McCain camp -- they are "losing it" too much lately.

Senator McCain is reportedly appearing on the Late Show with David Letterman on Thursday evening -- and this clip of McCain and Cheney may run (I am told...but you know how things can change).

Let's hope by then that we see humor and insight rather than the boiling over we have seen of late.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

(photo credit: Max Blumenthal)

TWN has heard that former Swedish Deputy Prime Minister Per Ahlmark would like to borrow this sign from Southern New Mexico.

Sweden's Liberal Party Leader has just nominated John Bolton and Kenneth Timmerman for the Nobel Peace Prize. More here at Bolton Watch.

Fun, fun, fun -- it just doesn't stop.

-- Steve Clemons

There are roughly 25 million people in Iraq.

Yesterday, the cost for invading and occupying Iraq raced past the $300 billion mark.

Per capita costs in Iraq from America's efforts $12,000.00.

This doesn't include wounded and dead Americans, wounded and dead Iraqis, shattered families, ill will, and future "blowback".

It also does not include the leverage America has lost in global affairs -- failing to put out of business North Korea's nuclear program, creating an atmosphere in which Iran felt emboldened to push forward its nuclear pretensions, failure of the President of the United States to secure run-of-the-mill economic deals in Latin America and China, and collapse of American moral credibility in global affairs.

$12,000 per person -- in a nation where per capita income is about $2,000 and most people live realistically at about $500 a year.

Lawrence Lindsey was more right than his White House foes about the financial costs -- but even he missed the costs incurred for the entire world seeing America at its limits, when enemies have incentives to move their agendas and allies won't count on us as much.

-- Steve Clemons

Ed. Note: Thanks to BG for forwarding NY Daily news item.

When I was recently in London, I learned through my sources that Senator McCain and his wife were over in the UK for one primary reason, even though it might not have been the official reason, and that was to see the London production of Mamma Mia.

The Senator and Mrs. McCain apparently really relax and have fun listening to ABBA.

But today, it's clear that the Senator needs another trip to the theatre -- or maybe needs to get some ABBA time on his Ipod.

The Senator wrote one of the most disdainful letters to another Senator that TWN has seen in a long time.

McCain's letter isn't quite up as high as Dick Cheney's "Go Fuck Yourself!" comment to Senator Patrick Leahy on the floor of the Senate -- though it does go neck-and-neck with Bill Frist losing it and calling Harry Reid untrustworthy for the rest of the Congressional Session after Reid invoked Rule 21 and shut down the Senate.

The opening paragraph is tough enough -- but the rest of the letter keeps sizzling:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable.

Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make the same mistake again.

Some of this tension became evident after a report TWN made about a blogger conference call with Senator Harry Reid in which he suggested that an unnamed Democratic Senator had come to him to suggest a way forward on bipartisan ethics reform. Reid told those on the call that this was not a time to work with the other side but was rather a time to contrast the Republicans with Democrats.

I reported this -- and George Stephanopoulos used a clip from TWN for his show in an exchange with Barack Obama. When asked if he was the "unnamed Senator", Obama evaded the question and then confirmed that there were differences between his and Reid's approaches, though subtle ones, and declared his commitment to genuiune bipartisan reform.

TWN has since confirmed that Senator Obama was in fact "the" unnamed Senator.

Apparently, Reid's "us vs. them" admonition to Obama won out in the end, and McCain lashed out at Obama, flaming him in such a way as to let the public know that a bridge is being torched, blown up, and burned.

The ball is now in Obama's court. Will he flame McCain back? Will he keep silent? Will he offer some constructive direction that gives McCain a chance to calm down and join forces again in a common effort on ethics reform?

McCain is going on the Late Show with David Letterman Thursday night.

This imbroglio will probably generate some pretty good content in Letterman's banter with McCain, but if he isn't heated up enough already, TWN hears through other sources that the American public will be treated to a cute cut from the newly released Eugene Jarecki film, "Why We Fight," in which while talking about the importance of ethics in defense contracting and suggesting that a serious investigation into Halliburton contracting is warranted, Vice President Cheney calls him on the phone.

McCain comes off great in the film -- but the episode with Cheney's call out of the blue -- is priceless.

We suspect that if McCain is back in control, he'll be calm when Letterman rolls the film clip, but if that and Obama hit simultaneously on Lettermans's show, watch out.

-- Steve Clemons

There is an interesting first amendment attorney in town, Glenn Greenwald, who has been working hard to make sure that Senate Judiciary Committee Members pose the most important lines of questions to Attorney General Gonzales.

I have been out of the office most of the day and will have to watch the hearings later, but I want to highlight two pieces of his. The first is a short op-ed that appeared today on Alternet and the second is a set of "10 questions" that should be posed in today's hearings.

In his op-ed today, Greenwald points out that the debates over FISA, the rush to modify FISA rules, and all that FISA hullaballoo was simply subterfuge for the fact that the White House had gone monarchial -- uncontestedly monarchial.

From his piece:

The theories embraced by the Bush Administration are both radical and unprecedented. These theories hold that, with regard to responses to the threat of terrorism both abroad and within the U.S., decisions are "for the President alone to make" and neither the Congress nor the courts can limit the president in any way.

Thus, the question faced by the Congress is whether it will continue to stand by and allow the administration to claim unchecked power and relegate the Congress to an impotent, useless appendage.

The first chance the Congress has to answer that question will be on February 6 when it questions Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and it is not hyperbole to say that what is at stake are the founding and most fundamental principles for how our government operates.

And here are the ten questions that Greenwald poses, which I find useful in framing this debate:

Questions 1-5

Questions 6-10

I don't know if Glenn Greenwald has made a dent in the hearings today, but I will listen in later to find out, and some of you may already know.

Here are some other resources, however,

First, National Journal's Intelligence & Homeland Security Correspondent Shane Harris has a fantastic article titled "Spying 101: A Legal Primer" on these hearings regardling wireless wiretaps and what we should be looking for and trying to understand in these debates.

(Sorry it was not up earlier but should be a good resource for those watching re-runs)

Here is the pdf of Shane Harris's piece, which I am posting with permission.

Secondly, here are a number of links recently posted by Think Progress, all quite useful. Just scroll down and read them as there are too many to list individually. One of the most interesting to me was Lindsey Graham's comment that by Gonzales's definition, there seemed to be no "natural boundary" to Executive authority.

Exactly.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

I just posted a short piece at Huffington Post on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's antics about not letting the press see any aspect of DoD budget specifics until "after" the press meeting with him.

Talk about controlling information flow!

I hear that John McCain, a prominently featured voice in Eugene Jarecki's Why We Fight, will be on the Late Show with David Letterman Thursday night.

McCain comes off great in the film and makes the case that the ethics lapses that surrounded Halliburton contracting in the Iraq War, and a lot of the other war-profiteering that has run rampant in this town, deserves investigation.

I would love to see some TWN reader in the Letterman-world prompt Dave to ask John McCain a question regarding the imperial, non-transparent way Rumsfeld manages his Pentagon empire.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

I have my doubts, but I also think that we have no choice as a nation but to try and purge the self-destructive, anti-democratic, politically hackish behaviors out of the military and national intelligence bureaucracies.

This fight is vital as I don't believe that America is going to get out of the intelligence business, though I increasingly agree with Chalmers Johnson that a serious cost-benefit analysis of America's net gain or net loss from a vastly expensive national intelligence establishment would be "negative". That said, it's going to be here -- and those who believe in healthy democracy have got to work over-time in getting that intelligence capacity back in decent shape (meaning generating excellent intelligence untwisted by the likes of Dick Cheney's David Addington and John Bolton's Frederick Fleitz), but in confines consistent with real rather than faked democracy.

Behind the backdrop of the NSA warrantless wiretap hearings today, some are trying to think through strategies to put pressure on the administration to clean up our "intel act" and to find some way to communicate to the American public that we are not just being duped again into believing that we have a Presidency that believes in checks and balances on executive authority -- even in times of so-called war.

One of the proposals I just read through this morning comes from the webpage of the upcoming Intelligence Summit, scheduled to take place on February 17-20 in Crystal City, VA. This is reportedly a non-partisan, non-profit educational forum.

I haven't quite figured out how credible the summit is. I can't say that I'm too impressed with the purposeful sensationalization of a promised revelation of Saddam Hussein's personal WMD tapes, but maybe they've got something none of the rest of us have heard before. But sounds a bit too much like Geraldo for my taste.

But the board is bi-partisan and has credible people attached to it. Well, mostly credible. James Woolsey, who has personally profited a bit too much from this "global war on terror" is on the board. During Harry Truman's time, Woolsey and many others riding high in this town would have been exposed as "war-profiteers".

But the interesting piece is a personal proposal by Brent Budowsky, linked on the Intelligent Summit's homepage:

In his essay, Budowsky writes:

Specifically I propose the President create a Bipartisan National Security Committee of Wise Men and Women who have high level security clearances, a history of crediblity and national leadership, a proven stature and integrity that transcend party affiliation and political ideology, and an understanding of the roles of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.

The Bipartisan National Security Committee would report to the President, Congress and the Supreme Court; would have access to all classified information and executive orders; would have no have legal or juridical powers but would be empowered to assess and report in public recommendations and advice on the great matters that today divide the nation.

This Bipartisan National Security Commission would be empowered to review whatever matters they choose. Hopefully they would arrive at unamimous agreements on matters that balance our respect for human rights and appropriate interrogation practices, our respect privacy and appropriate rules for eavesdropping under agreed upon rules of conduct, the legitimate need for any commander in chief to retain some inherent powers during time of war with the appropriate checks and balances by legislative and judicial branches of government, and the need for secrecy in the conduct of war and counter-terrorism with the reasonable right to know in a free society where 'we the people" ultimately decide our national destiny.

This is actually a useful idea.

No matter what evolves on the NSA in the upcoming hearings today and forward, it won't solve the problem that there is huge national skepticism about the national security establishment.

Even at the fringe, the warrantless spying on ANY Americans undermines trust and threatens slippery-slopism to broader, unchecked national powers. When a government justifies violating the laws of a nation to protect the citizens of that nation, not on an exceptional basis but in a routenized way, then America is not the great democracy it purports to be.

If we are going to fix this -- and have a national security and national intelligence establishment in the future -- then we have to have TRUSTED Americans have access to EVERYTHING and give us a "Thumbs Up" or "Thumbs Down".

Budowsky recommends for this Commission these people:

Justice Sandra Day O'Conner. Senators or former Senators Sam Nunn, Howard Baker, Richard Lugar, Warren Rudman, Alan Simpson, and George Mitchell who is also a former Federal Judge. Retired Generals Anthony Zinni (United States Marine Corps) and Tommy Franks (United States Army).

I think it's a great list. I would incude some others perhaps like former Congressman Amo Houghton, former Defense Secretary Bill Perry, international law expert and co-pillar of the New York Republican establishment Rita Hauser, former Senator Gary Hart, and former former Oklahoma Congressman and Electronics Industry Alliance President Dave McCurdy. These people would add to the diversity and credibility of Budowsky's list.

We will eventually need some way for the public to benchmark whether reforms in the intelligence establishment are real or contrived.

Such a Commission might help.

-- Steve Clemons

Dennis Ross is raising money for Scooter Libby's Legal Defense Fund.

Some might ask why I'm bothered by this.

After all, James Woolsey, an alleged Democrat from Tulsa who once headed Bill Clinton's CIA, was Ahmed Chalabi's lawyer.

Former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith -- one of the dumbest people ever to work in government according the memoirs and recollections of too many people to recount -- housed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress in his law office while also working with Israeli groups.

The now indicted and jailed State Department Israeli spy Lawrence Franklin facilitated cozy relationships between Douglas Feith, Harold Rhodes, Manucher Gorbanifar, Richard Perle, and Michael Ledeen.

Why should it be surprising that one of the titans of America's Middle East Peace Business cartel would find himself beholden to Dick Cheney's chief political and national security architect?

There's just no other way around it. This looks damn slimey, with all due respect to Dennis Ross.

Libby is the first indicted White House official in over a century -- and is involved in a crime that the President of the United States himself was an outrageous violation of our national security. The involvement on the Libby Legal Defense Fund of Ross -- no matter how much he makes the case that he is a 25-year long friend of Libby -- looks like he is there to reinforce the Cheney/Libby connection to Israel -- and that those concerned about Israel should bail out Libby.

It's just wrong.

I'm not all that happy with other members on the board of the Legal Defense Fund, but they have to make their own way on this issue. Former Senator Alan Simpson, former Senator Fred Thompson, Francis Fukuyama are all a cut above and a cut different than the hard-core neoconservative that Libby is.

But Ross can't be considered as just a Libby personal pal in this.

He works and operates at the nexus of America's relations in the Middle East -- and those relations in Israel, Iran, with the Palestinians are fragile on all fronts and at all levels now.

His involvement with Libby's funding needs won't come off to anyone as just personal. He's there for big time institutional reasons -- representing Libby's interests to another nation, and representing that nation's interests to those in Libby's circles -- particularly Dick Cheney.

More on this soon, but this just makes more clear why Washington's Middle East Peace Business cartel needs to be broken.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: I should have posted this interesting NY Times piece from yesterday titled "Handling Hamas," which is an interview with Dennis Ross.

I am all for people helping each other when in need -- even bad guys who may be friends -- but Ross symbolizes too much to have had anything more to do with Libby's Defense Fund than a private donor.

More later. Thanks to LF for sending the NY Times link.

-- Steve Clemons

Ward Sutton says it all (well, most of it anyway):

reprinted with permission

-- Steve Clemons

Ed. Note: Thanks to Jim Terr for sending this my way.

Air America Radio's Al Franken wants to discuss what John Bolton is up to and has some thoughts on the launch of Bolton Watch.

Listen in tomorrow (Monday) at 1:30 p.m. Eastern

In anticipation of the show, here is my latest post on a good chunk of John Bolton's "shake the UN apart" agenda.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

Bolton Watch is up! This section will always appear at TPM Cafe, but TWN will frequently link to what I and others are writing there.

However, today, I am reposting the first Bolton Watch post here.

It seems appropriate to launch Bolton Watch now as the United States holds the rotating presidency of the 15-member Security Council for February 2006.

The recess-appointed John Bolton chairs the UN Security Council this month and already has shaken up the system by demanding that all members of the Security Council attend a daily 10 a.m. morning meeting.

The other ambassadors are grumbling -- but all in all, Bolton Watch supports John Bolton's ploy here. It's good to have him engaged on a daily basis with the rest of the world.

While he may think these will be strong-arm sessions, Bolton and the Ambassadors from the other Security Council nations may find that these morning briefings focus their collective minds on serious global problem-solving. Bolton will be beaten up on a daily basis by these Ambassadors if he doesn't learn to ratchet up his diplomatic tact and objectives.

On another front the International Atomic Energy Agency has referred Iran's nuclear activities to the UN Security Council. Bolton was never put in the UN to genuinely reform the place, though reform is something that we should support -- he was put there to muscle the UN Security Council and the broader UN on Iran.

Ambassador Bolton is a pugnacious nationalist. There's nothing wrong with nationalism in my view -- but nationalism can exist side-by-side with respect and engagement in international institutions, particularly when those institutions protect and enhance our national interests and security.

But this kind of in-your-face, hyper-nationalism taunts the rest of the world to attempt to constrain American power and interests.

Bolton has stated in the past that he does not believe in "the concept of the United Nations", that the "UN only works when America wants it to work", that if one whacked off the top of the UN Secretariat, no one would miss it.

When he arrived at the UN, one of the first meetings he had with other Security Council principals had him stepping in and saying:

I'm John Bolton, and I'm here to pursue the interests of the United States.

Those who are here to pursue the interests of the world, please yourself.

Bolton needs to learn that the interests of the United States are enhanced and strenthened -- not weakened -- by collective engagement with other global stakeholders in responding to the major pandemics, natural disasters, environmental challenges, and transnational security problems that face the world.

While a single nation, like the U.S., can approach some of these unilaterally, the bottom line is that nearly all of the great challenges require a convergence of American and global competencies and effort.

Bolton's theatrics undermine good will and are preempting credible reform. Not only has he been disruptive to the UN Secretariat, Bolton has undermined the negotiations of his own team at the U.S. Mission.

I've been flooded with new information on John Bolton and his work == some of it is small time, and some macro stuff that is pretty shocking.

As a friend of mine inside the State Department recently told me, I have a slew of friends inside the Department and in the nooks and crannies of Bolton's world who want Bolton Watch to play a constructive role in helping Condoleezza Rice to supervise him.

We are happy to oblige.

More soon, from both myself and a number of other new Bolton Watch bloggers.

-- Steve Clemons

This is great news.

Some time tonight, Bolton Watch will launch at www.BoltonWatch.TPMCafe.com. (The site is not loaded yet, so clicking now will only take you to TPM Cafe.)

Talking Points Memo and The Washington Note are jointly launching this site to keep tabs on John Bolton during the 11 months he has left in his term.

Today, the International Atomic Energy Agency referred Iran's nuclear activities to the UN Security Council. Whether people believe it's a bad step, too soon, or the right call -- I don't believe that John Bolton can be left unsupervised to manage American interests in the UN.

I have written extensively about Bolton -- and argued that the real reason Dick Cheney fought so hard to get Bolton to his UN perch was to pave the way for an Iraq-replay against Iran. It has begun.

Josh Marshall has also written much on Bolton and the consequences of his pugnacious, hyper-nationalism and what it hss done to undermine American interests.

More later, but watch for the first Bolton Watch post tonight.

-- Steve Clemons

Danny Glover of National Journal's "Beltway Blogroll" has a superb piece on the question of what lines ought to divide elite political bloggers and the subject of their posts.

His article today, "A Warning about Blogger Conference Calls" links to my post today -- and also to a great article that he wrote on this same subject.

His piece, "The Courtship of the Blogosphere" perfectly complements mine as he focuses on trends in the conservative blogging community, whereas I discussed some of the trends in Democratic blogging circles.

Glover's perspective tracks extremely closely with my own, and I wish I had read this before I posted my own note today.

Here is how he opens:

Fifteen years ago, just a few months into my first full-time job as a reporter, I covered a speech by Iran-Contra figure Robert McFarlane. It was a defining moment in my career.

I say that not because of the speech, which was both predictable and unspectacular, or because of the story I wrote, which was ordinary and uninspiring. I say it because of what happened afterward: One of my journalistic brethren approached the disgraced national security adviser to former President Ronald Reagan and requested an autograph.

I was floored. How could a supposedly objective journalist solicit the autograph of a controversial news subject, especially before finishing his story? How objective could his story possibly be if he were so enthralled as to publicly request a favor from his source?

I felt the same way last week when reading the accounts of conservative bloggers handpicked by the Republican Party to cover the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito from Washington. The communications experts in the party took to new heights the courtship of the blogosphere that they began last fall -- and they found a most receptive audience.

The bloggers not only welcomed the lavish treatment and exclusive access bestowed upon them by the Republican National Committee and the Senate Republican Conference; they basked in it without reservation. They dropped names (White House adviser Karl Rove was the favorite), heaped praise on their news subjects and celebrated their chance to imbibe in the trappings of power.

After my post on this subject today, I have been flooded by emails both applauding and excoriating the questions I posed. The most interesting response came from one person I won't name. I have anonymized this email with this person's permission:

It is incredibly unfair to broadly paint every blogger who participates on these calls as "journalists" with some sort of ethical problem.

I am on the other side of the spectrum of some on this list, and consider myself an activist first. I also acknowledge that there are other liberal bloggers who consider themselves reporters first; that's fine, it's just not what I'd call myself. And of course there is a big mushy middle in between.

However, as an activist, I DO have a common interest in helping frame issues for candidates via my blog. I DO have a common interest in helping the party I support get their message out. Why? Because I want to help them win. My agenda is absolutely clear to everyone who stops by my site and should be clear to everyone who's ever met me.

There is no blurring of the lines there. I am openly partisan. Why is that wrong? How is my participation in conference calls unethical in any way? I wonder if Steve C thinks that people like me should be dis-invited from these calls.

And to be painted a syncophant... I can't even express how disappointed I am.

I'm not sure Steve C. realised that his comments would be taken so personally, but believe me, they are. Because by applying that broad brush, you've smeared me and many other folks who are working our asses off.

I sincerely doubt that anyone on those conference calls is there to suck up to the candidates, especially those of us on the activist side. And I would also bet an inordinate amount of money that if some politician threatened to "disinvite" any blogger who didn't write about a call, they'd be called out so fast it would make their head spin.

With all due respect to Steve C, I really think you got that article wrong. You tried lumping us all together. We're not GOPbots. And those of us activists who get on these calls get there for one purpose only: to help good candidates get elected. And we openly admit that. We aren't hiding anything. I would hope you will take that into consideration if you expand on that article.

This perspective is important and, in a way, reinforces my point that there is a clear identity quandary evolving in these calls.

Some of the blogger conference calls are managed by the communications staff of the Senator or House Member. Others are organized by PR shops. Some are organized by the web/blog staffer in the Member's employ. Some are organized by the election office of the Member.

But most of the sessions in which I have participate have the trappings of a press conference with the Member making a statement and bloggers issuing questions for response.

But the blogger above has a point. He/she is an activist and wants to collude and is open about it. Non-profit blogs can't play this game as they'd lose their 501c3 status, though there are few blogs of course that are incorporated.

The Washington Note is a private LLC corporation and operates as a center of opinion journalism. It does take on causes, like keeping John Bolton from securing his Senate confirmation, but it approaches the political game with both "attitude" and respect for the different players and the roles that they have to play. To have credibility, I need to be able to report without colluding, and I maintain a centrist sensibility with progressive objectives.

If I were on the far left or the far right, I would still need to maintain some distance from the subject of my writing. This is a nuanced and complicated subject because in the Bolton battle, I did make common cause with a number of Senators and players in that battle, but in my own mind and sense of things, I also maintained a cautious distance -- as did all of my interlocutors.

Danny Glover's great piece from a few weeks ago raises the same point as the blogger above:

By this point, you're probably thinking, "So what? They're bloggers, not journalists. Nobody expects them to be objective." I thought the same thing -- especially of the writers who attended the forums for sites like Blogs for Bush and GOP Bloggers.

Glover continues in the piece:

Pat Cleary of the Manufacturers' Blog attended some of the GOP forums and said in an e-mail interview that "the beauty of blogging" is its unfiltered nature. "You get what people are saying without benefit of my bias or filter. ... My job isn't to pin them, debate them, argue with them. I'm glad to be invited, happy to write what they have to say."

I agree to an extent. But blogging also is beautiful because the people who are doing it are outsiders. They are neither part of the media establishment -- the MSM they hate so much -- nor the political establishment. Their ability to see the world differently than people inside the Beltway is precisely what moved them to outrage against former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., three years ago, when the establishment initially yawned.

The blogosphere lost some of that edge last week. I hope the loss is only fleeting.

As I've said repeatedly in emails today, I like the blogger conference calls. They are an interesting and potentially great innovation in citizen blog journalism (and activism).

However, I have to approach these call sessions with the view that the Member of Congress or Bush administration official is going to try and use me, to sell something to me, to co-opt me. That's what they are supposed to do. We need to be aware that we bloggers are becoming power centers -- and that is why the Senators are speaking to us.

So, it's important to remember, in my view, that sometimes we'll endorse and write favorably about a policy action, and sometimes criticize it. When politicians engage regularly with any part of the public -- whether its trade associations, regular media, or bloggers -- there needs to be an understanding that bloggers may be activists or they may be journalists who blog.

But the presumption of a collusive relationship damages all sides. To my blogging acquaintance above, I would not advocate that blogging activists be dis-invited from calls. I just think that there should be different types of calls. Serious journalists who want to compete with the media should develop and establish norms that institutionalize a constructive distance from the politician or party being written about.

Activists who mingle with journalists on these calls need to realize that journalist bloggers have to be very cautious about environments in which total cooperation is presumed.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: A great think piece by Matt Stoller on the same subject.

David Neiwert also has a thoughtful, long piece on the difference between journalism and blogging. He doesn't address the question of the nexus between politicians and bloggers, particularly if routenized, but he's written an important piece. (thanks to P for sending)

Here is another thought-provoking piece by Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice blog.

On the libertarian/conservative front, I just found this quite thoughtful post recounting some experiences with Republicans on blogger conference calls. McQ makes great sense.

Chris Nelson shares some fun insider gossip in today's Nelson Report about Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick's recent "Panda Diplomacy" at a "Principals Meeting" in the White House:

BUSH NAMES...in the amusing gossip department, we hear Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick was presented with a large stuffed Panda at a Principals Meeting at the White House yesterday by an unknown assailant dressed in a laboratory smock and rubber sterile gloves (you remember the photos which went around the world of Zoellick embracing a baby panda in China, showing Zoelleck being forced to wear gloves by his Chinese hosts?).

The White House drama unfolded when the "attendant" burst into the room asking for "Dr. Zoellick"??

Startled, Zoellick raised his hand and identified himself, and the masked man said "wait", disappeared into the corridor, returned with a large stuffed Panda, rushed over to the still bemused Zoellick and then took several incriminating photographs.

"Evidently, the place was in hysterics. . .but,rumor has it that Zoellick was not amused," our source gleefully reports.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a bit of a bummer.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton wanted Libby's trial to begin in September 2006, which would have been a nice reminder to American citizens of the abuses of power that have occurred in the lead up to and prosecution of the war against Iraq.

However, Libby's lead lawyer is "busy" in September, and so the trial has been set (conveniently for the White House) for January 2007.

-- Steve Clemons

I have been doing a lot of blogger conference calls lately.

They are fascinating, and I've learned something in every one.

However, I've recently surmised that there are some landmines in this blogger conference call business and that some serious reporters are scratching their heads wondering whether these calls enhance journalism or are violating some ethical norms in political reporting.

I have done a lot of these calls now -- with House Members and Senators, all Dems. Interestingly, I hear through the grapevine that Hillary Clinton won't do them.

I don't know if Republicans are doing them or not as I've not been invited to one -- though I was pleased to be invited by the Communications Directors in Senator John McCain's and Senate Majority Bill Frist's office to cover as a blogger/journalist a press conference that they gave last year advocating John Bolton's confirmation. To their credit, and despite knowing the principled opposition my blog had taken to Bolton's confirmation, they invited me along with the other press.

In the standard press conference, I -- as a blogger -- knew the rules. We were there not to be co-opted but rather to hear the Senators and to pose questions. We weren't there as sycophants. Our job was to push the angles and report truthfully. We weren't there as enemies of McCain and Frist, but as competitors regarding how to frame and tell the story of the political debate.

In contrast, the lines inside political blogger conference calls are fuzzier.

I have approached every blogger conference call I have been in with the norms and attitude of a journalist.

I have kept notes and believe that all the content on the call was fair game for reporting. Unless stated otherwise, I treat everything said as "on the record".

However, it seems increasingly clear to me that those on the call -- both the Member of Congress and the bloggers -- are engaged in an informal collusion of interests. This may be too harsh a term. The Senators and Members look at bloggers as being co-participants in a political operation. The Members want to share their priorities and objectives with bloggers so that they can become the "noise machine" for the Dems. Some bloggers want to be NGO-like on one hand, advocating the Democratic Party's line on some issue -- while on the other, they want to be seen as journalists reporting on something they "got" from a Reid or Kennedy call.

On some levels, I'm OK with that. In the Bolton Battle, I certainly worked hard to advocate his defeat, to publicize as best I could the many problems in his work portfolio, and his attitude that made him inappropriate to represent the interests of Americans at the United Nations. But as a journalist with a view, I worked closely with Republicans and Democrats. Both sides fed me material. In fact, more came from Republican sources, far more, than Democratic.

I worked with NGOs and others in advocating a defeat of his confirmation in the Senate, but again in a way that was consistent with my views, work and writing and which worked across aisles.

In the case now, I think it's fine that Senators or House Members annoint some "favored bloggers" as ones they want to reach out to, but the bloggers have an obligation to maintain some distance and objectivity in the process. Otherwise, the blogs will be seen as mouthpieces and noise machines of that Member's operation, and as part of the "explicit" operation of a political organization.

Last night, I heard a disturbing rumor that I have not confirmed (I should add that none of the calls I was on required what I am about to report) that there has been one organizer of liberal blogger conference calls who imposed a "publish or perish" rule requiring all participants in a call to write about that call, and favorably. This person apparently required bloggers on the call to report and write about the meeting with some respective Member of Congress or not be invited back in the future.

Why would anyone impose such a rule? Why would a Senator or Representative and his or her staff put the Member in a position of making it look like they are trading access for manufactured web press? If this rumor is true, then bloggers are being put in the position of being "agents" of that Member -- and there are serious legal consequences to that.

The bigger issue for me with the Blogger conference calls is the sycophancy that seems to be developing in these meetings -- and the unwritten norm that those bloggers on the call are the running dogs for that particular Senator. There is clearly a 'community' of interests where the line between the journalistic and reporting objectives of the blogger and the interests of the Senator or Representative are becoming practically invisible.

Again, I think it's OK for like-minded journalists and politicians to share views, even share objectives for the country and world -- but the implied norm of the call feels as if there is an obligation of the bloggers to watch the Senator's or Rep's back -- to write not necessarily truthfully about the call, but to "frame" or "shape" the call in such a way that fits a politically acceptable groove.

In Japan, there is a word, giri, that means "mutual obligation". Giri can exist between journalists and politicians, between subordinates and seniors in a company, between different households in a community, between bank regulators and banks.

Quite simply, if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. If I do something for you, then you owe me something in the future.

The well-known Dutch Japan analyst, Karel van Wolferen, once wrote that giri was akin to 'hostage-taking'.

When a Japanese or an American politician provides a journalist or reporter favored access in exchange for favored reporting, one of the key elements of civil society is corrupted. Sometimes the corruption is slight, sometimes serious. But over the long run, with the long term habits of journalistic practice, most politicians -- at least in America -- realize that they can't necessarily buy favorable articles with gifts of access. Both sides have tended to "respect" the process, at least until recent years.

There have tended to be just enough checks and balances in media to offset serious corruption -- until the age of Fox News, Judith Miller, journalists turned celebrities, and others where clearly the lines of co-optation have become evident. But because the practice exists in the main stream media to a degree does not validate in the blogosphere.

Blogging is a new industry and new kind of journalism. Many bloggers are very young and not nearly as jaded as this writer about Washington. For them, getting on to a call with Kennedy or Reid or Durbin is a career mountain climbed. They are thankful to be there -- and they know that their presence is fragile.

There are exceptions, however. I have no doubt that if Hillary Clinton had a blogger conference call, Markos Moulitsas (aka Kos) would not be sycophantic. There's a confidence in Kos's position that doesn't yield just because of the provision of access.

But that kind of confidence around power is rare in the blogging world.

What is more common in these calls is a great desire by bloggers to be the vessels of Members -- when what they should be is in dialogue with these Members, challenging them, engaging them, and reporting fairly -- even if the views of each side are somewhat similar.

In our system of government and in our civil society, we have governance rules that require regulators and the regulated not to corrupt their competitive objectives with strategies of co-optation or "mutual obligation".

It may be important for these proliferating blogger conference calls to make clear from the outset that the Senator or Member has views he or she wants to share -- and that bloggers can pose questions or even offer comments of enthusiastic support.

But everything not taken off the record should be on the record -- and none faulted for accurately depicting the content of such a call.

I ran into this recently in which some well-respected bloggers (whom I like) challenged me on my reporting about a blogger conference call with Senator Harry Reid. Reid's office felt that I depicted his comments accurately -- and after some serious media interest in my report -- issued a "clarification" of his comment that I posted.

But the opposition to my own report was not over the "accuracy" of my report -- but rather that I had written something that conservative bloggers and pundits were running with to attack Reid. They felt as if there had been some minor betrayal of Reid in what I wrote.

A week after this, This Week with George Stephanopoulos used the piece from my blog in a conversation with Senator Barack Obama about ethics reforms strategies.

The bottom line is that my report on Reid helped surface a seemingly genuine difference of views about strategies on ehtics reform inside the Democratic Party.

I did not argue that Reid's strategy was wrong and that Obama's was better. I simply reported that there were mutiple views in play.

If bloggers are positioning themselves to be the mouthpieces of a Member, then neither the interests of the Member nor the bloggiing community will be served. Any pretense of balance or even of credible, logical thinking will be undermined if Members of Congress view blogs as predictable appendages of their work and interests.

There needs to be polite distance, and all sides on these interesting calls need to respect the responsibilities they have in these debates about politics and policy.

I will continue to participate in these blogger conference calls as long as I'm asked.

I hope I am, but i will also be there using journalistic norms when reporting as a journalist blogger.

That's the only way that these "blogger conference calls" can remain healthy.

-- Steve Clemons