The Daily - Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Episode Date: March 28, 2018

President Trump has chosen John R. Bolton to be his new national security adviser. In 2005, a Republican-controlled Senate committee refused to confirm Mr. Bolton as President George W. Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations. We look back at those confirmation hearings, which portrayed Mr. Bolton as a threat to national security. Guest: Elizabeth Williamson, who writes about Washington in the Trump era for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today, as John Bolton prepares to become President Trump's new National Security Advisor, a look back at a congressional hearing in 2005 in which damning evidence emerged that Bolton's behavior could be a threat to national security. It's Wednesday, March 28th. Now more than ever, the UN must play a critical role as it strives to fulfill the dreams and hopes and aspirations of its original promise to save succeeding generations

from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. So we are a couple of years into the Iraq war. It's March of 2005. Today, I am honored to continue that tradition by announcing that President Bush intends to nominate John Bolton to be our next ambassador to the United Nations. And George W. Bush appoints John Bolton. The president and I have asked John to do this work because he knows how to get things done. Condoleezza Rice, who was the Secretary of State at the time, praised him as a tough-minded diplomat. He has a strong record of success, and he has a proven track record of effective multilateralism. But John, your most important work is yet to come,

and I look forward to working closely with you on behalf of our nation and the international community in support of the United Nations. So the next step is that he must receive confirmation by the Senate. Senator Barbara Boxer of California said of Bolton, quote, he's been contemptuous of the UN. There's a lot to talk about at this hearing. It's going to be very contentious, she said. This was a controversial nomination from the start. Elizabeth Williamson has been reporting on Bolton's nomination. It's clear that John Bolton clearly is not the right choice for our ambassador. But letting this man is letting the fox into the henhouse.

He already got a reputation for being kind of a bureaucratic headcracker in the State Department. He's a skillful ninja of a bureaucratic infighter. He's made a career of opposing multilateral approaches to international affairs and in total disregard to the opinions of others. He was known as a hawk among hawks. I mean, he was a conservative's conservative. He had a very bellicose mindset. He was looking for evidence of illicit weapons developments in countries all over the world, Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea. He was very interested in rooting out who was doing what, and if necessary, he was advocating for ending those programs by force.

So you have this guy who is suspicious of diplomacy, of the federal bureaucracy, but yet it turned out that that was the least of his problems once he was in the room. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is called to order. Given the importance of the position, it is vital that we act both expeditiously and thoroughly in evaluating the nominee. We look forward to hearing the nominee's insights and learning how he will work on behalf of the president and the secretary of state in fulfilling this duty. They set up the meeting for April 11, 2005.

This is the first day. So Bolton is appearing before them. He takes his seat in the center of the room. Arrayed around him is the committee. He is so controversial that he is completely prepared to defend himself. But more prepared is the committee itself because they are known for bipartisan cooperation. They are known for crack investigative work. And they have looked deeply into his past, including things that he doesn't even know they

know. I'd like to turn now to a distinguished ranking member of the committee, Senator Biden, for his opening statement. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. So they begin, of course, like senators do, with opening statements in which they raise some concerns about him, mostly based on his public record. I wonder, as I did in 2001, about your diplomatic temperament. So they talk about his temperament. You once quoted the head of the International Law Commission as evidence of the grandiose ambitions of supporters of the International Criminal Court by saying, quote,

They talk about his fiery speeches. That's not some knuckle-dragging Republican from some southern state. It's the head of the International Law Commission. About his conservative bomb throwing. I don't think it's the kind of attitude that is going to serve us very well in the United Nations if it continues. About his assertions on chemical and biological weapons programs. Over the past four years, Iran has accelerated its own nuclear program. In rogue states like Syria, Iran, Iraq, North Korea. We do know that the approach you apparently advocated has not worked. Then they start to talk about his treatment of subordinates. It has been alleged that he attempted to alter the professional conclusions

of an intelligence analyst with whom he disagreed, and that he subsequently sought to disadvantage the analyst's career. Now, staff has, in fact, interviewed Mr. Westerman. Chief among them is a man named Christian Westerman, who is an analyst inside the State Department in its Intelligence Bureau. He was an INR biological warfare analyst. And he's preparing some analyses for Mr. Bolton, who wants to make a speech on the illicit weapons capabilities of a host of states, including Cuba. There has been at least an allegation that pressure was applied. His findings contradicted some of the things that Bolton wanted to say in this speech.

And so he circulated that. Bolton accused him of backstabbing him, called him to his office, and dressed him down, red face, purple, shaking his finger, shouting at him. It gets back to his boss, a guy named Carl Ford. I remember going back to my office. I came away with the impression that I'd just been asked to fire somebody in the intelligence community for doing what I considered their job. First, he confronts Bolton, who says that he wants this guy reassigned. But the two of them have such a disagreement that Ford, thinking Bolton outranks me too, and he's asking for this guy's firing, I'm probably next. I'm brave, but not stupid. So having barked very loudly at an undersecretary of state, I walked up and talked to the secretary. Secretary Powell.

So he goes to Colin Powell, who was the secretary of state at the time, and says. I had this confrontation with the undersecretary and that he might be coming to see him because I'd barked back. And he calls Bolton an 800-pound gorilla. Devouring a banana. The analyst was required simply to stand there and take it. Meaning he chewed this guy up and spit him out. And he said this is so demoralized, this Bureau of Intelligence, whose job it is to find the intelligence that underpins U.S. policy,

that he says he's got to do something. The secretary made a special point of coming down to an assembled group of people at INR and pointing out the analysts by name. So Paul actually had a meeting with that bureau to try and encourage them that just because this happened to one of your own, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't continue to speak truth to power. And that we should not be impacted by this episode. So Bolton wanted to reassign this much junior than he analyzed, over basically fact-checking a speech that Bolton wanted to make. Yes. And then it emerges on that first day that Westerman is not the only

one who is targeted, not only by Bolton in general, but over this same speech where he wanted to say that Cuba was pretty far along in developing a biological weapons program. We also learned that he did something similar to an intelligence analyst at the CIA for similar reasons. He tried to get him reassigned, too. This guy was in charge of Latin America, and his findings didn't agree with what Bolton wanted to say in public. So he went after him as well. It is widely known throughout the intelligence community that Mr. Bolton wanted these gentlemen's heads.

We are kidding ourselves if we don't think that these incidences had a chilling effect on other analysts. During an interview conducted last night... So basically the story that emerges in these hearings in the first couple of days is that Bolton is a bully towards subordinates. Yes. What slowly emerges is the why of why he was doing this. He was doing this because he was trying to create intelligence of his own that was sort of based on his own assumptions rather than on the facts that these career professionals were uncovering. I believe this may be the most significant vote any of us cast this year in terms of America's security

interest. The idea that he doesn't know the process of how to clear intelligence, I find mind-boggling. Come on. This is a big deal, guys and ladies. This is the very man who may have to take the case to the world on Korea and on Iran based upon intelligence. I believe this appointment is damaging to our national interest. Maybe this is a bit of a naive question, but why misrepresent intelligence? Why try to stretch what's known and knowable to say something that can't be said and can't be known? and knowable to say something that can't be said and can't be known. I think Mr. Bolton's supporters would say that he was doing that because he was trying to keep the country safe. His belief is that Iraq, North Korea, Syria, these countries are threats. These

countries are threats to Americans, to American interests, to our national security. So to him, to American interests, to our national security. So to him, in a way, you know these countries are threats. So why dot T's or cross I's or sweat the details when we could stop them now? Isn't that actually kind of the story of the Iraq war, which is happening as this Senate confirmation hearing is unfolding? I mean, at that very moment, this question of intelligence and what we know versus what we don't know, what certain people wanted to be versus what they could prove, that seems like an especially salient and even dangerous question.

Absolutely. This was a situation that was overhanging everything. The dawning realization that this was a war whose justification was faulty, and it was based on things that we didn't actually know to be true. We thought they were true. We thought that Iraq was a threat, but how much of a threat we were willing to ignore. And now the nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to meet for up to five hours, with a vote on Mr. Bolton expected later today. Live coverage set to begin momentarily from the Dirksen Senate Office Building here on C-SPAN 3.

So this came down to a very dramatic hearing. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is called to order. Senator George Voinovich, Republican senator on the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He says, I've actually heard enough to understand that this is an ideologue who fosters an atmosphere. And here I'm quoting, he fosters an atmosphere of intimidation. He does not tolerate disagreement. He does not tolerate dissent. And anybody who acts that way, he further says, should not be the face of the United States to the world.

I like Mr. Bolton. I think he's a decent man. Our conversations have been candid and cordial. But Mr. Chairman, I really don't believe he's the best man that we can send to the United Nations. The chairman recognizes now Senator Chafee. He was joined by Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. This has been a difficult few weeks as we have exercised our duty of advice and consent on President Bush's nominee to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. There have been many charges and accusations, and I do agree with Senator Dodd

that any intimidation of intelligence analysts is wrong. And I'm apprehensive that by promoting John Bolton, we're signaling an endorsement of that intimidation. Senator Hagel. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to add my thanks to you. And Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. This isn't just about reforming the United Nations. Who said, actually, we've kind of heard enough, too.

This is about extending America's purpose and the optics and who we are and reaching out. If there was ever a time in history that the United States requires friends and alliances and coalitions, it is now. The world is too complicated to do otherwise. It is too dangerous to do otherwise. So in the end, it is Republican senators who weigh in against Bolton and say, he's crossed too many lines. We can't tolerate him. Yes. And so that's enough really to cook John Bolton's goose. Are there any senators in the chamber who have not yet voted or who wish to change their vote? So they had hoped to send a positive recommendation to the full Senate. Instead...

The yeas are 56, the nays are 42, three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. It goes to the full Senate without that recommendation. Are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or who wish to change their vote? The ayes are 54, the nays are 38. And it fails twice. They can't get the 60 votes they need. The motion is not agreed to. After two failed votes in the Senate, the White House realizes that the most

embarrassing but legal option that they had was to do a recess appointment. President Bush is defying his opponents in the Senate. He has bypassed the confirmation process and appointed John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Appointing John Bolton ambassador to the U.N. while Congress was out in August for its summer recess. This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about U.N. reform. So on August 2nd, 2005, that's what President Bush did. what President Bush did. So today I've used my constitutional authority to appoint John Bolton to serve as America's ambassador to the United Nations. So doing a recess appointment would seem to suggest that the Bush administration was determined to have him be U.N. ambassador, that they really wanted him in this post, right? So by the time John Bolton packed

his bags and went to New York, so much had emerged about the end runs that he had tried to do around his own colleagues, but also around his bosses, things that the Bush administration probably hadn't realized themselves, that sending him to New York seemed like the entirely best option. Because it meant he wasn't in Washington. Yes. But the bottom line was he didn't have a whole lot of time to do much of anything because by the following year, his recess appointment would only last until the next session of Congress by law.

So by the following year, Democrats won elections and they controlled both houses of Congress. This effectively damned any possibility of John Bolton receiving a second term. And so at the end of 2006, just before Democrats were to come in and take control of both houses, he resigned. he resigned. So bring us up to now with Bolton. What has he been doing since his time as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. ended? So after he left the United Nations, he went into the conservative think tank world. He became an author, a very public persona, advancing all those same views, which he's never wavered from. What would you say if you could sum up the one lesson from what has happened in Iraq?

What would it be? Well, I think the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, that military action was a resounding success. And so in time, John Bolton lands on Fox News, where he's a very conservative right wing bomb thrower. We've seen enough of North Korea over the past 25 years to know they're not going to change their behavior because we put pressure on them. I think it's time to cut to the chase here. We need to end this regime. And an avid fan of the president. Well, I think that he's demonstrated in his business career he has a capacity for decision making that you need

in an executive position. Who is unhappy with his national security advisor, H.R. McMaster, sees John Bolton on his favorite channel. Moments ago, President Trump breaking the news, as he often does, about our next guest, sending out this tweet. And hires him. Here now, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, former Fox News contributor. Good to have you here this evening, sir.

Your reaction to your new job? Well, I think I still am a Fox News contributor. No, you're not, apparently. I didn't. Well, I haven't started there yet. So. The man who the Bush administration nominated but couldn't wait to send to New York is now back in Washington and he's in the West Wing. So ultimately, the controversy over John Bolton, the reason that there was bipartisan concern over his appointment as ambassador to the U.N. back in 2005, was that he's willing to bend the truth on matters of national security. And now he's

being named to arguably a far more significant position when it comes to national security, which is the national security advisor. Yes. As national security advisor, he will be coordinating and gathering, assessing, and writing intelligence and reports that form the underpinning of American foreign policy. He will be the person who presents the primary product that the president will use to make decisions about our status in the world and who our friends and enemies are. He will suddenly be in charge of several hundred people whose work forms the basis of American foreign policy. Many of them, if not the same individuals, certainly the same agencies that he ran roughshod over when he was last in government.

Elizabeth, how present are those findings of the Senate committee back in 2005 in people's minds now, knowing that Bolton is about to take on this crucial national security job? are really few jobs in the federal government that rely so completely on an objective, cooperative, and collaborative analysis of the threats posed to the United States by other nations than National Security Advisor. So he's now in a job where everyone expects that he's going to be the most objective possible figure when it comes to analyzing intelligence. But everything that you have told us suggests that objectivity is not something that he really applies when it comes to intelligence. No, there's no suggestion that John Bolton's, certainly his political views and his views of American foreign policy and what our role should be in the world have changed. None of that has changed. What remains to be seen is how much, if at all, his views toward

assessing objectively American intelligence products have changed. There is no suggestion that those have changed either. that those have changed either. Elizabeth, thank you very much. You're quite welcome, Michael. It's my pleasure. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today.

The Trump administration announced that the 2020 census will ask people whether they are U.S. citizens, a question the census has not asked in 70 years. The administration said it will include the question to better understand who is eligible to vote and whether voting rights laws are being properly enforced. But opponents fear the question will discourage undocumented immigrants from filling out the census, which is intended to count those living in the country regardless of immigration status. At least 12 states say they plan to sue the Trump administration to try to block the question.

And North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, made a secret visit to Beijing this week to meet with China's leader, Xi Jinping. During the meeting, Kim reiterated his commitment to denuclearize the Korean peninsula. His visit to China via a bulletproof train was Kim's first trip outside North Korea since he took power in 2011, and his first ever meeting with another head of state. The Times reports that the meeting suggests Kim may need China's approval and its advice before holding risky diplomatic talks with President Trump, scheduled for May. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.