Bolton: We Should Carry Out Regime Change In Iran Because ‘It Did Work In Iraq’
Bolton: We Should Carry Out Regime Change In Iran Because ‘It Did Work In Iraq’
The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday that former U.N. ambassador John Bolton advised Tory delegates in Britain this weekend that they should press for “pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities” in Iran.
“Because life is about choices, I think we have to consider the use of military force,” Bolton said. He added that any strike “should be followed by an attempt to remove” the “source of the problem,” Iranian President Ahmadinejad.
Fleshing out his hawkish dreams on British television, Bolton suggested that the U.S. overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq was a model for the “policy of regime change” he would like to see done in Iran:
Q: It’s not of the course the policy that worked in Iraq though, did it? I mean, that was the policy of regime change.
BOLTON: No, but I think it did work in Iraq. … Knowing everything we know today, I think it’s unquestionably the case that we were right to overthrow Saddam. We achieved our strategic objective. I think the world is better off for it. […]
I don’t think you should conflate what happened in the post-Saddam period. And whatever happened and however bad it’s been, doesn’t change the fundamental analytical point that we’re better off without Saddam.
Watch it:
There is no “strategic objective” that has been gained through the Iraq war. Rather, it has fueled the spread of terrorism, overstretched our ground forces, caused the unnecessary death of thousands of soldiers and Iraqi civilians, and fundamentally made the world a more dangerous place for the United States.
A military conflict in Iran is likely to produce the same effects as the Iraq war. Moreover, a military attack on Iran “would not, as is often said, delay the Iranian program. It would almost certainly speed it up.”
Bolton’s unquenchable appetite for war is easy to espouse given that he seems to care little about the disastrous consequences that follow.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
85 Responses to “Bolton: We Should Carry Out Regime Change In Iran Because ‘It Did Work In Iraq’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
F*cking IDIOT!!!
October 1st, 2007 at 4:19 pmBolton does not care about what happened to I
October 1st, 2007 at 4:20 pmTwo things, Iran’s military won’t be as much of a pushover as Iraq’s military, and China and Russia won’t sit by while we attack Iran. Especially China, they depend far to much on Iran for their energy needs. Added to that, we are still trying to work out Iraq, I don’t even know what to say anymore.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:24 pmYeah, it worked real well. Now maybe we can have daily car bombs, suicide bombers, death squads, Blackwater murderers, no clean water, no electricity, corruption on a grand scale, lost weapons, lost money, no jobs, no food, thousands of our soldiers wounded and killed and lots of dead civilians in Iran too. Sounds like a neocon wet dream. Oh forgot, WAR PROFITTING too.
Buck Fush
October 1st, 2007 at 4:26 pmGreat idea. I mean… look at the huge success we have in Iraq. And look how much the world loves us for invading. How could we NOT invade Iran? It’s just such an awesome idea.
*blank stare*
Unbelievable.
~Sean
October 1st, 2007 at 4:26 pmWait, is there another Iraq we’re unaware of that exists?
October 1st, 2007 at 4:26 pmHat Head Bolton says “WE should consider regime change in Iraq”?? How about it WE consider regime change right here instead?? That’s our own backyard and it’s polluted right now. The idea of considering regime change in another peoplel’s country is downright amoral and hideous.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:27 pmBotlon: War pig or Walrus?
October 1st, 2007 at 4:28 pmLOL! Iraq has been a DISASTER.
And anyway, regime change would require taking over the whole country(of 70 million) and ocupying it with our troops. How the heck is he supposing we’d do that?!
Even if they re-instituted the draft they couldn’t possibly put a force large enough together(and arm it, and get it there) before Bush has left office. What is this guy smoking?!
October 1st, 2007 at 4:28 pmAs though we’re the “world police” and decide what’s best for other countries?? Duh! We can’t even police our own country and take care of our own people. We have a moron and his psycho-phants in charge whom the people hate and they can’t see that we, the people, want the Bush regime “changed” right here? You have to be continually amazed at the level of idiocy of these thugs within!
October 1st, 2007 at 4:28 pmMethinks that the Bush Crime Cabal is in for one heap big surprise if they think they’re going to tamper with the likes of Iran - big surprises in store for them.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:29 pmDoug: If PsychoChimp reinstates the draft, most families with children “of age” will immediately move to Canada.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:30 pmThe strategic objective was met. The problem was that it was to turn Iraq into a one giant CF so there would be no valid national government to oppose our seizing of their oil fields.
The same could happen in Iran.
I mean, sure, it virtually guarantees that our children will be seeing more 9/11s, but mmmmmmm oil……
October 1st, 2007 at 4:30 pmHell the slam dunk for regime change in Afghanistan, is on the edge, because the ADD President wanted Saddam.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:31 pmLefty: Kook-Kook-A-Choo - He is THE WALRUS! And that’s going a stretch and besmerching the looks of a walrus.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:31 pmDigdug, they don’t have to start the draft, a few bombs on soft targets in Iran, and the US is involved.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:31 pmbbrown: Hmmmm….more false flag operations like 911 you mean?
October 1st, 2007 at 4:31 pmI’m eagerly waiting for a troll to get on this thread to try and defend him! :D
October 1st, 2007 at 4:32 pmMaybe these things are aiding the strategic objective. Depends what that objective is. If you want to make Americans feel unsafe and in need of a strong leader, so that they will willingly give up their civil liberties, for example, then the Iraq occupation has been a success. If you want to transfer power and money from average Americans to a corporate elite, then the Iraq occupation has been a success.
It seems to me that those intent on occupying Iraq have different strategic objectives than normal, moral, sensible human beings consider acceptable.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:32 pmHow did it work if we are still stuck in Iraq with no exit strategy?
October 1st, 2007 at 4:33 pmDigdug, they don’t have to start the draft, a few bombs on soft targets in Iran, and the US is involved.
Comment by Krazny
Yes, but regime change requires troops on the ground doesn’t it?
October 1st, 2007 at 4:33 pmHe just may be looking thru a glass onion.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:33 pmThis guy was actually an ambassador?
October 1st, 2007 at 4:34 pmSo, why are WE better off without Saddam? He was never a threat to us. And, if you ask the average Iraqi if they are better off without Saddam, I’m fairly sure that most will say not no, Hell No!
October 1st, 2007 at 4:36 pmGah, good god, people have lost their minds.
And yeah for “regime change” you need troops on the ground. To just blow people the hell up, you just need missiles.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:36 pmBolton
October 1st, 2007 at 4:36 pmRush
Rove
Would be more rational
if they weren’t so physically repulsive
I bet-
Yes, but regime change requires troops on the ground doesn’t it?
Comment by DigDug — October 1, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
It didn’t in Yugoslavia/Serbian in the 90s. Ask Milosevic.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:36 pmYes, but regime change requires troops on the ground doesn’t it?
Comment by DigDug — October 1, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Regime change does require boots on the ground, but with a few well placed bombs the whole thorny, messy problem can be passed to the next president to sort out. Pretty much the way Bush’s whole life has been. Create the mess that others need to clean up.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:37 pmThis guy was actually an ambassador?
Comment by deebaser
Yes, embarrasing isn’t it. This is the man that said the UN could only ever work if it’s controlled by the US.
Thankfully the senate would not confirm him so his carrer as an ambassador was very short! :)
October 1st, 2007 at 4:37 pmSerbia/Yugoslavia isn’t Iran.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:37 pmIf you have a termite problem don’t call the John Bolton extermination service. He will burn your house to the ground and call it a success.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:38 pmRegime change does require boots on the ground, but with a few well placed bombs the whole thorny, messy problem can be passed to the next president to sort out.
Comment by Krazny — October 1, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Iran is going to be a thorny, messy problem whether we attack or not…
October 1st, 2007 at 4:39 pmWE!!!!
Who the hell is this WE that is going to FIGHT and DIE so that some can satisfy there appetites for death, destruction, and greed.
It is US, US that serve in the Military (my daughter included) who will bear the brunt of sacrifice. All who support this form of thinking should be ashamed of themselves. WAR WAR WAR thats all YOU talk about, but NONE of YOU will man/woman up and fight it.
WE ARE TIRED of FIGHTING!!!
All we are doing is fighting until we get something right, because EVERYTHING else has been dead WRONG. And instead of decent supposedly religious/spiritual people standing up and speaking up. your shutting up and laying down and trying to get the Armageddonist to join you in condemning one of their own (Harry Reid, pleeze).
Dem/Repubs there is no longer a difference, those of us with HALF a BRAIN know why Iran is next, but are as scared to say why as you are to put on a uniform and fight.
And before you give me this “I’m too old to fight” BS, Blackwater and Triple Canopy is full of fat, old, asthmatic, bastards making (and dealing) a killing over in Iraq so put in you applications cause they are ALWAYS hiring.
WE…………….. yea right
US
RIP
SGT Stephen R. Sherman
C CO 1-5 IN (STRYKER)
KIA 3 Feb 2005
Mosul, Iraq
A REAL SOLDIER!!!
October 1st, 2007 at 4:39 pmSomeone smack Wally Walrus in the mouth.
How did it work if we are still stuck in Iraq with no exit strategy?
It worked perfectly. Bush got reelected on it, didn’t he? His and Cheney’s buddies got their greasy hands on the oil and BILLIONS in no-bid contracts. The military-industrial complex got a new war to keep business running smooth and Bill Kristol has a new column in Time.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:40 pmSerbia/Yugoslavia isn’t Iran.
Comment by DennisRaines — October 1, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
I’d noticed. What is your point?
October 1st, 2007 at 4:40 pmYes, but regime change requires troops on the ground doesn’t it?
Comment by DigDug
You mean you don’t think that the day the first bomb drops that their nutjob leader isn’t going to come out with his hands up? That’s probably what this incompetent bunch of people think will happen. Just like the Iraqi’s greeting us with flowers and chocolates.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:40 pmWhy is the media asking a foreign ambassador that helped to create a quagmire in Iraq? What about Afghanistan, did that work?
October 1st, 2007 at 4:43 pm*foreign=former.
Heh.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:43 pmI’d noticed. What is your point?
Comment by Keltoi
Look at the size of Iran compared to Iraq.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:46 pmYes, but regime change requires troops on the ground doesn’t it?
Comment by DigDug — October 1, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
It didn’t in Yugoslavia/Serbian in the 90s. Ask Milosevic.
Comment by Keltoi
Are you delusional enough to think that after dropping bombs on Iran that they are going to roll over and play dead? I bet you are one of those who thought that we would be greeted with flowers and chocolates for invading Iraq.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:46 pmBolton is an old, washed up “has been”. Anything he says is totally irrelevant at this point. He was driven from his position and has zero credibility. Why is he even involved in this discussion at this point?
He definitely makes the case for and old douchbag buzzing off his locks. Is he trying out for Captain Kangaroo Redux perhaps?
October 1st, 2007 at 4:47 pmamoral and hideous-comment by Veritas
Not to mention, illegal too under international law.
war pig or walrus-comment by lefty
October 1st, 2007 at 4:47 pmI say both.
How about trying out regime change in America first?
October 1st, 2007 at 4:47 pmBilbo: These reichwing lockstep Kool-aid drinking fascists are now believing their own drivel. If they think that Iran will be a pushover like Saddam was, they are in for a very rude awakening. Iran has multi-national support behind them who will come after us like a fly on hot feces.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:48 pmHow about a “Walrus Douchbag” folks?
October 1st, 2007 at 4:49 pmAnd by then we’ll be so radioactive probably that our own feces will be “glowing”.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:49 pmYup John, it worked. The regime is changed. Into what, I’m not quite sure. But go ahead, what’s one more war?
October 1st, 2007 at 4:50 pmRegime Change Right Here & Now! We need some new tee shirts for the movement.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:50 pmoops….it would have to say - US Regime Change - Right Here & Now.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:51 pmWe desperately NEED regime change HERE… to the rest of the world, we ARE the terrorists.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:51 pm“What about Afghanistan, did that work?”
if opium’s your bag, then it worked out swimmingly. also, karzai just invited mullah omar to be his myspace friend, so that’s also a plus.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:53 pmBetter off, yes, save for that $80 a barrel oil and all the soldiers, marines and Iraquis who died so that aWol could strut.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:54 pmYes, but regime change requires troops on the ground doesn’t it?
Comment by DigDug — October 1, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Ground troops? No, there’s always “Shock and Awe” which proved to be very, very effective in Iraq. Mission Accomplished.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:55 pmI just saw Bolton at the Army recruiting office. he said he wanted to join but they said he’d have to shave off his mustache. he then proceeded to tell the SGT that his mustache was vital to national security. don’t fight the mustache power…
October 1st, 2007 at 4:58 pmI’ll betcha ol’ Johnny Bolton believes that he’s just right with Jesus.
*eyeroll*
October 1st, 2007 at 5:06 pmKeltoi, Serbia/Yugoslavia was a civilwar. Two sides fighting. In such a case, lending support to one side can tip the balance without having to commit massive force oneself.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:09 pmAnd we did have ground troops. We justdidn’t lose any of them. They were especially important in securing the peace.
And Milosevic was not captured by Navy Seals or an armored column–he surrendered after long negotiation.
He’s right. Occupyin’s hard work.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:10 pm[ We should carry out regime change in Iran….]
Who are ‘We…’?
the Neocons,the AIPACs, and the oil industry….Now how many of these chickenhawks are fighting in Iraq.
Bolton, a heartless Neocon who sees everything is beautiful now in Iraq, as long as the PNAC plan is put to work, regardless of what millions in USA and around the world can see that Iraq is a disaster…
October 1st, 2007 at 5:13 pmBolton keeps drawing a rosy picture instead about Iraq,and now he is selling the Iranian war.
I think the world is better off for it.
The world?
So, how is it that 94.5% of the world disagrees with military interventions, after the UN said it was an illegal maneuver, a violation of international laws, etc and the world is better???
How the world is better without Saddam? Why do these idiots get to talk in front of a mike? I know it is amusing but come on…
October 1st, 2007 at 5:14 pmOnce again we see the misues of the term “preemptive strike.” A peemptive strike is a military action against an enemy that is planning an imminent attack, and has the capability and inclination to do so. Iran fits none of these categories. Any action we take against them is a “preventative strike,” a completely different thing in terms of strategery and international law.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:17 pmBesides, you dont need no stinking nuclear facilities in order to bomb a country.
You just need to hate them all…and give them freedom…or something.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:22 pmWhat is with all of these Republicans that have a hard-*n to create more war. May they never find peace or absolution on their death bed.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:41 pmI have noticed that many republicans seem to love war, as long as they aren’t actually fighting the war.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:50 pmWhy the hell is John Bolton — discredited former UN Ambassador — speaking about US foreign affairs? The man could not get confirmed by the Senate. so Bush gave him a recess appointment to the UN. Bolton is a neo-con disaster, who now has a new microphone to push for the US to attack Iran. WTH?
Why is he making policy, reporting policy, and making headlines? We fired him and he needs to go away.
October 1st, 2007 at 6:28 pmKeltoi: “It didn’t in Yugoslavia/Serbian in the 90s. Ask Milosevic.”
Where did you get the notion that we didn’t have ground troops in Yugoslavia? We had thousands. I think there still are thousands there.
October 1st, 2007 at 6:40 pmDamn, all these reich winger’s are like bad heart burn that one can’t get rid of……What the hell do we need to do to rid ourselves of this diseased administration?……Oh I remember, Palosi took it off the table……Blessings
October 1st, 2007 at 6:48 pmCaptain Crunch is delusional. And the comment is coming from a nimrod who needs to be in anger management classes. Who should we be afraid of: Iran or Captain Crunch Bolton? Pass the popcorn please…
October 1st, 2007 at 6:51 pmI can understand Bolton’s being interviewed on Sky News. It is, after all, a Murdoch operation but why on earth do presumably serious-minded people in the British Parliament give this maniac a serious hearing? Has everyone gone mad?
Never mind. Everyone *has* gone mad.
jb
October 1st, 2007 at 6:59 pm“Oh I remember, Palosi took it off the table……Blessings”
Why do so many of the posters here keep pretending that Pelosi’s political statement is what is preventing an impeachment? I hate to break it to you, but reality is what’s preventing impeachment, not Pelosi.
October 1st, 2007 at 7:05 pmBolt-Head is a nut. He still believes in “regime change” as a credible foreign policy!!!!!
It has worked so well in Iraq????????
If Iran was attacked, Mahmoud A. would probably be out without our help. Probably would eventually be kicked out by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for getting Iran too much publicity and rhetorical audacity.
I guess Bolt-Head doesn’t realize Ahmadinejad is number 2, the Allatolah is the head guy making the final calls.
It’s extremely unlikely that Iran would convert to western democracy, more likely it would become a more extreme Islamic state.
But I guess he loves conflict $$$$$$
October 1st, 2007 at 7:29 pm“When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war.â€
Dwight D. Eisenhower
October 1st, 2007 at 7:52 pmMad dream golf foursome: John Bolton, Dick Cheney, George Bush, and Clarence Thomas. Each player gets one concealed weapon and one “Gotcha.”
October 1st, 2007 at 8:22 pmKeltoi: “It didn’t in Yugoslavia/Serbian in the 90s. Ask Milosevic.â€
Where did you get the notion that we didn’t have ground troops in Yugoslavia? We had thousands. I think there still are thousands there.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — October 1, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
We do indeed have thousands there still - Clinton said those troops would be home by Christmas when he sent them in, BTW.
However, to the best of my recollection, we had no troops in country when the conflict began. There were some useless UN types in there overseeing genocide, but I do not believe we had any US ground troops engage in combat with Serbian troops. We lost not a single man in the exercise, so I am pretty sure we did it all from the air….I could be wrong.
It took 78 days of pounding to make Milosevic cry uncle, and he had been overseeing genocide in the Balkans for several years before American airpower made him change his mind. Also, Serbia was no pushover from an air defense standpoint, they had pretty much top of the line Russian hardware. It is true that Iran is not Serbia….I dunno. I am no fan of bombing Iran, but I am also no fan of Iran establishing a hegemony in the Persian Gulf, especially if they do it by developing nukes.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:58 pmJust because post-war Iran and the Middle East will be a huge disaster, we should remember, as Bolton would say:
“I don’t think you should conflate what happened in the post-Ahmadinejad period. And whatever happened and however bad it’s been, doesn’t change the fundamental analytical point that we’re better off without Ahmadinejad.”
October 1st, 2007 at 9:22 pmBolton is a classic fish-cake pussy.He talks big and tough while safely several thousands of miles away but put him in the midst of the action and he’ll run out of his shoes.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:33 pmThe first regime change we did in Iran led to the overthrow of a democratic government and 25 years of a brutal dicatatorship imposed on the people.
When the Shah started getting a bit too independent, we helped the Ayatollahs take power indirectly by ordering the Iran military to stand down and not protect the Shahs government by threatening to not sell any parts for their existing equipment if they did. Good move Jimmy Carter. That did not work out so well for us as the Shah did. So now we try it again.
It’s not only Iran and Iraq that he have been doing this stuff to. We have attempted to overthrow a governments, some of which were democratic, or support a dicatorship from popular revolt, either militarily or through CIA covert actions for over a century. The list is long, Chile, Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Laos, Haiti, Cuba, Ecuador, Zaire, Brazil, Indonesia, Greece, Philippines, Cambodia, Bolivia, Chile, Afghansitan, Syria, Egypt, Bolivia, Lebanon, Jordan, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Haiti, Panama. Some of thse countries were done multiple times, and we did not always succeed. And we want to know why the world hates us?
In almost every case (except Afghanistan and Iraq) , the power that we supported or overthrew was less democratic than the previous government or the government that would have taken over. Why? Because we hate democracy in other countries. Democratic countries act in their own interests. Dictators who come to power or stay in power due to our support can be made to act in our interests, which are usually aligned with corporate interests.
One reason those in power today seem to like war so much is that few of those in power have ever fought in a real war. To them it’s like a game.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:33 pmAsk the millions Iraqis who have been killed, wounded or displaced how much fun our games are. Oh, but it’s worth it because it helps keep Johnny from Burger King safe from being attacked by the Monsters that hide in caves.
Bolton, you rotten cowardly bloodsucking bastard! May you and your neocon friends rot in hell!
So you say that we’re better off now! Please tell me how.
- With thousands of US and Iraqi casualties? And more to come.
- With the ultimate cost of the war estimated at 2 trillion or more?
- With our army and marines worn out, and no strategic reserve left for emergencies?
- With Iran now in the driver’s seat in the region?
- And the US without allies now, unlike immediately after 9/11, when even Iran was on our side
- With Bin Laden still free, and Al Qaida growing in strength and recognized as a leader of world wide terrorism thanks to Bush’s criminal ineptitude, rather than a fringe bunch of right wing Muslim fanatics it was.
I could go on an on and on about you and your immoral warmongering friends, who care not a whit for the suffering they have caused and for the even greater suffering they are proposing, all the while making sure to keep a safe distance from danger themselves.
I have never held anyone in more disgust than you, your leader and your compatriots.
Signed
October 1st, 2007 at 9:50 pmOld soldier who has had the misfortune to experience war close up.
“… but their cooperation with Bush gives him credibility.”
Comment by Vendetta — October 1, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
It acctually discredits the whole stinking lot, but yer waaaaay tooooo stupid to understand that.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:23 pmIs there an Iraq somewhere on another planet, in another galaxy, that we might not be aware of, but Bolton is?
That is the only way his twaddle could ever begin to be convincing to a person with a normal, functioning brain (that is, anyone but a Bush cultist)
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:48 amMilitary action in support of, or for the purpose of, regime change in a foreign nation is illegal. That’s why the WMD olio had to be cooked up for Iraq.
Not that legal/illegal carries any weight in either the admin or media.
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:05 amIt’s better to deal with our enemies directly and decisively rather than postpone the inevitable for mere political expediency.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Then, please enlist right away, Bigfoot-in-the-Mouth.
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:41 amThere is no “strategic objective†that has been gained through the Iraq war.
yes there is. western control of resources. its the only objective that matters to these people. and when you look at iraq from that perspective its quite obvious that iraq has been a success.
the lives of ordinary iraqis are irrelevant. the state of the nation is irrelevant. having terrorists run amok suits their brand of politics and having iraq tear itself apart suits their imperial ambitions.
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:53 amHere is Seymour Hersh’s interview on CNN yesterday:
http://beta.redlasso.com/ Community/ ClipPlayer.aspx?i=f127d54f-b432-4a26-8cf8-45f9c6de56fb
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:19 pm“I don’t think you should conflate what happened in the post-Saddam period.”
Really? So, removing Saddam was good even if it causes decades of conflict, costs hundreds upon hundreds of billions, the lives and limbs of tens of thousands of our troops, turns our Iranian enemies into a regional superpower and destroys our standing in the world? Saddam was worth all that? I didn’t watch the video but did whoever was interviewing him follow up something like “are you taking some sort of anti-psychotic medication”? It’s irrational.
The one defining attribute of all neocon thinkers is this, they are not responsible for what happens. Not them. There is always some other force to blame for their failures. It’s “liberals”, “the media”, “anti-semites”, or any number of mysteriously powerful forces that hide just beyond their control. Neocons like Bolton, Cheney, Fieth, and Kristol have never taken responsibility for the actions they encouraged or undertook. They’re preparing their next act now. That is, when Hillary is president, watch how quickly they move to rewrite history. Again, the only constant, the only thing we can be absolutely sure of now is that it will not be their fault.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:10 pmthis is a bloodthirsty madman. Enough said. to give this mustach any more credibility than to tell him he is a bloodthirsty madman is wasting your time. He is taking up too much time on the news and should be ignored, just like
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:03 amcorporate media wishes people to ignore Chavez or anyone that might have something to say that is the truth. Bolten is a dangerous liar.