United Nations Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown gave a speech on “Power and Super-Power” before the Century Foundation and Center for American Progress — Security and Peace Initiative. Much of the speech was directed at encouraging greater participation by the U.S. in both world affairs and the U.N.’s operations and reforms. But while Brown lamented the absence of U.S. participation, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, seemed to take the whole speech as an affront to America and Americans.

Brown’s central observations were concerned with U.S. officials and media that promote hostility toward the U.N.:

“…today, on a very wide number of areas, from Lebanon and Afghanistan to Syria, Iran and the Palestinian issue, the US is constructively engaged with the UN. But that is not well known or understood, in part because much of the public discourse that reaches the US heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.”

We can add John Bolton to that group. Before his recess appointment (he has never been confirmed by the Senate for his post), he was quoted as saying that, “If the UN Secretariat building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.” His response to Brown’s speech demonstrates that his mood has not mellowed.

“Even though the target of the speech was the United States, the victim, I fear, will be the United Nations…Even worse was the condescending and patronizing tone about the American people.”

Bolton went on to say that, should Brown’s speech not be repudiated, he fears the consequences for the organization. Bolton’s predilection for making up affronts to Americans and his fondness for throwing threats around is an affirmation of the substance of Brown’s speech. I’m not sure where we can expect to go from here when we have an ambassador who feels insulted by a colleague who is admiringly pleading for a closer, less hostile relationship with the U.S.

Deputy U.S. Attorney Matthew W. Friedrich appeared before the Senate Judiciary committee to reiterate the Justice Department’s threats to criminalize journalism. And he stayed just long enough to anger even the Republican members of the committee by stonewalling them.

Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) told Friedrich, that he should be ashamed of himself for, “…taking what would be called a testifying Fifth Amendment.” Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA), scolded Friedrich for spinning an answer to refer hypothetically to the past. “I’m not interested in history this morning,” Specter told him. “I’m interested in current events.” And Charles Grassley (R-IA) wondered aloud why the Justice Department would send a representative to testify who wouldn’t answer the committee’s questions if they had, “any respect for this committee whatsoever.”

What Friedrich did say was that the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, was correct when he said that, with regard to prosecuting journalists who receive leaks from anonymous sources…

“There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that [prosecution] is a possibility.”

He would not say whether or not such prosecution had been considered, except for his cryptic reference to “historical examples.” He also wouldn’t comment on the JD’s attempts to seize records from the estate of investigative journalist, Jack Anderson.

One thing he did make a point of saying was that he doesn’t believe new legislation is needed to protect reporters. Protecting reporters is, in fact, the last thing this Justice Department is interested in. Their every occupation and utterance is directed at intimidating and emasculating what remains of an independent press, even unto the grave in Anderson’s case.

Some of the members of the Judiciary committee showed a little gumption by challenging Friedrich, but the media itself has been typically silent. It’s their asses in the sling, yet they still can’t bring themselves to fight for their honor and, by the way, the right of Americans to enjoy the benefits of our constitutionally guaranteed free press.