Republicans and Democrats Issue Rival Reports on Bolton's U.N. Nomination

WASHINGTON, May 18 - Republicans and Democrats drew new lines today in the battle over John R. Bolton, issuing rival reports to the Senate that staked out their positions for the next stage of the Senate debate over Mr. Bolton's nomination to become ambassador to the United Nations.

With Mr. Bolton's nomination now awaiting a full Senate vote, the reports reflected the deep divisions on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that prevented Mr. Bolton from winning the panel's endorsement last week. The panel's Republicans, who took the unusual step of voting to send Mr. Bolton's nomination to the Senate without a recommendation, submitted only an eight-page brief that described Mr. Bolton as "a highly qualified nominee" who had not sought to manipulate intelligence, notwithstanding the claims of his critics.

By contrast, the Democrats, who were united in opposition to the nomination, used their 64-page report to present a case against Mr. Bolton as someone whose conduct toward subordinates and intelligence analysts should disqualify him from the post. The Democrats also cited what they described as new evidence that Mr. Bolton, in his testimony to the panel, had "vastly understated" his role in seeking to oust a top Central Intelligence Agency analyst from his post in a dispute over Cuba.

The Senate's Republican leaders have said they hope to hold a vote on Mr. Bolton's nomination sometime next week, before a scheduled Memorial Day recess, and the White House and State Department have also urged quick action. But the timing of any vote remains highly uncertain, with the Senate seeking first to resolve the bitter dispute over judicial nominees, and Democrats calling on the State Department to hand over more documents that might shed light on Mr. Bolton's conduct in another dispute, over Syria in 2003.

The Republican report acknowledged that Mr. Bolton had "a reputation for being an aggressive and blunt negotiator" but said that should not be a disqualifying factor "for a post that historically has included a number of blunt, plain-spoken individuals, including Jeane Kirkpatrick and our former colleague Pat Moynihan.

"In fact, President Bush has cited John Bolton's direct style as one of the reasons that he has picked him for this particular job," the Republican report said. The Republican report said the committee's investigation had found "no evidence to support the most serious charge" against Mr. Bolton, that he sought to manipulate intelligence. "He may have disagreed with intelligence findings but in the end, he always accepted the final judgment of the intelligence community."

By contrast, the Democratic report portrayed Mr. Bolton as someone who bullied others and sought to use his power to shape intelligence reports to reflect his policy views. It called new attention to Mr. Bolton's role in the dispute with the C.I.A. analyst, Fulton Armstrong, who was serving as the national intelligence officer for Latin America at the time of the 2002 clash. In his public testimony last month, Mr. Bolton acknowledged seeking to have Mr. Armstrong transferred, but said his effort had been limited to "one part of one conversation with one person one time," in an exchange in July 2002 with Mr. Armstrong's supervisor, Stuart Cohen.

But the Democratic report cites a series of previously undisclosed internal emails to suggest that Mr. Bolton's role was in fact far more prolonged and intensive. The emails span a four-month period from June to October 2002, and suggest that Mr. Bolton's efforts had begun before the conversation with Mr. Cohen and did not end until four months later, the Democratic report said.

None of the new emails cited in the Democrats' report appear to have been sent by Mr. Bolton himself. But they include at least five different messages sent by aides to Mr. Bolton and a State Department ally, Otto Reich, between June and October 2002, which the Democrats cited as evidence that the two offices "actively discussed their joint effort to seek the removal" of Mr. Armstrong from his post.

Among the emails cited in the report is correspondence circulated by an aide to Mr. Bolton on June 7, 2002. As described in the Democratic report, the email contains a still-classified draft letter from Mr. Bolton and Mr. Reich that is addressed to George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, and complains about Mr. Armstrong's objections to draft testimony on Cuba that Mr. Bolton had prepared.

The draft letter "urged the immediate replacement'' of Mr. Armstrong and indicated that Mr. Bolton and Mr. Reich would take several measures on their own, including excluding Mr. Armstrong from official meetings at the State Department and official travel in the Western hemisphere, the Democratic report says. It cites a reply sent by a State Department official who reported that he had discussed the matter with Mr. Bolton, and says that Mr. Bolton "would prefer at this point to handle this in person with Tenet."

All eight Democrats on the panel voted last week against sending Mr. Bolton's name to the full Senate. With their 10 votes, the Republicans hold the majority on the panel, but could agree only on a fallback plan to "let the Senate work the will," as one of them, Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, put it in breaking ranks with the party to oppose Mr. Bolton's nomination.