I'm on the road now and don't have much time to post, but I do want to quickly call attention to two significant developments. The first has to do with the Security Council resolution on North Korea; the second has to do with the media, after some early trouble, now getting the Bolton story right.

Consider this exchange between Bolton and Senator Kerry:

SEN. KERRY: (Pause.) Prior to the adoption, speaking to reporters on July 6th, you said, quote, "I think it's important that the Security Council speak under Chapter 7 to make a binding resolution." Is that correct?

AMB. BOLTON: That's correct.

SEN. KERRY: Then, on July 14th, just a day before they acted, you said you continue to insist on a resolution under Chapter 7 which would make any sanctions mandatory. You stressed the importance of a, quote, "clear, binding Chapter 7 resolution. That remains our view and the view of Japan." You went so far as to warn that if there is to be a veto, there comes a time when countries have to go into that chamber and raise their hand. That's not what happened, is it?

AMB. BOLTON: As I said before, it's our judgment this is a mandatory resolution.

SEN. KERRY: But it's a judgment. But it's not the way it's viewed by the other parties.

AMB. BOLTON: It's viewed that way by Japan, England and France.

SEN. KERRY: Well, it's not -- the Russians certainly aren't prepared to join in it, nor are the --

AMB. BOLTON: They -- they voted for it.

I haven't been able to get definitive answers from every country on the Security Council yet, but so far no government is willing to say, as Bolton has, that the resolution is binding under Chapter 7.

Why is this a problem? The negotiations probably went down like this: Bolton is sitting around with the other 14 Security Council Ambassadors. They're stuck, no agreement to be found. Finally, someone says: "we'll sign on to a tough statement if it doesn't reference Chapter 7." Everyone around the room nods, and agreement is reached.

Until this point, Bolton and other administration officials have sought to portray the resolution as binding on North Korea, despite the absence of an explicit Chapter 7 reference.. It certainly seems reasonable to make this kind of favorable interpretation.

But the only plausible explanation for the resolution's omission of a Chapter 7 reference is that other countries weren't willing to sign on. Now, they when they hear Bolton say it is binding under Chapter 7, they'll rightly feel deceived, since that was the outcome they likely specifically negotiated to avoid. It's a gotcha moment.

Bolton's apparent misrepresentation of a shared position - agreed unanimously - will make others less likely to concur with the U.S. in the future.

I'm going to keep tracking down answers from Security Council member governments. But it certainly seems as if Bolton is pushing the envelope to appear tough and successful before the Senate at the expense of U.S. foreign policy. Many thanks to E P-G and R F for helping uncover this with me.

I also wanted to make a point of praising good reporting on the Bolton story. On Thursday, I was upset that the Associated Press chose to focus on the storyline of Bolton as a bully, which senators specifically tried to avoid. Kudos to Charles Babington of the Washington Post and Thom Shanker of the New York Times for getting it right.