Today, at approximately 12:45PM, State Department spokesperson Scott McCormack said this about John Bolton:

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.

Josh Marshall points to an AP story that just hit the wire. Apparently, before the day was out, the State Department has completely changed it’s story:

John Bolton, the nominee for U.N. ambassador, inaccurately told Congress he had not been interviewed or testified in any investigation over the past five years, the State Department said Thursday When Bolton filled out a Senate questionnaire in connection with his nomination, “he didn’t recall being interviewed by the State Department’s inspector general. Therefore, his form, as submitted, was inaccurate,” [State Department spokesperson Noel] Clay said. “He will correct it.”

What a difference a few hours makes.

The following letter was sent today from Sen. Biden to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

Original in PDF

July 28, 2005

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Madam Secretary:

It has just come to my attention that then-Undersecretary of State John Bolton was interviewed on July 18, 2003 by the State Department Office of the Inspector General in connection with a joint State Department/CIA IG investigation related to the alleged Iraqi attempts to procure uranium from Niger. This information would appear to be inconsistent with information that Mr. Bolton provided to the Committee on Foreign Relations during the Committee’s consideration of his pending nomination to be Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

The Committee on Foreign Relations expects all nominees to provide to it accurate and timely information. Indeed, in submitting the Committee’s questionnaire, all nominees are required to swear out an affidavit stating that the information provided is “true and accurate.” It now appears that Mr. Bolton’s answers may not meet that standard. I write, therefore, to request that you review this matter to determine whether incomplete or inaccurate information was provided by Mr. Bolton.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member

If you were ever in need of stronger evidence linking Donald Rumsfeld to Abu Ghraib, look no further than yesterday’s court testimony provided by two Army dog handlers who stand accused of prisoner abuse at the detention center. At the hearing Maj. David DiNenna, the top military official at Abu Ghraib in 2003, testified that the former commander of Guantanamo Bay Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller came to Iraq to encourage new interrogation techniques.

As the Washington Post reports:

“We understood he was sent over by the secretary of defense,” DiNenna testified by telephone. DiNenna said Miller and his team were at Abu Ghraib “to take their interrogation techniques they used at Guantanamo Bay and incorporate them into Iraq.”

And when you remember that Rumsfeld approved the tactics at Guantanamo, the argument that he bears responsibility for the abuse at Abu Ghraib becomes more compelling. Just to review, we now know that:

1. Donald Rumsfeld approved the use of dogs for interrogations at Guantanamo.
2. Guantanamo commanders traveled to Abu Ghraib in 2003 and encouraged officers there to use dogs.
3. Officers at Abu Ghraib understood — and have now testified under oath — that the Guantanamo commanders’ visit was at the behest of Donald Rumsfeld.

And Rumsfeld persists in claiming that Abu Ghraib was the work of just a few bad apples. Huh… wonder why?

– Conor Clarke

GEORGE H.W. BUSH: “I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.” [Speech at CIA, 4/26/99]

UPDATE: Link fixed for Firefox users.