While he was acting Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton repeatedly said he was in favor of a “unified” Iraq:
“The United States remains committed to a unified, democratic and prosperous Iraq and looks forward to the continued cooperation of the international community for Iraq’s future.” [11/28/06]
“The unanimous adoption of this resolution is a vivid demonstration of broad international support for a ‘federal, democratic, pluralist and unified Iraq.’” [11/8/05]
Apparently, Bolton never really meant what he said. In a recent interview, Bolton said it’s not in the U.S.’s “strategic interest” for there to be a unified Iraq:
“The United States has no strategic interest in the fact that there’s one Iraq, or three Iraqs,” he was quoted as saying in the French daily Le Monde. “We have a strategic interest in the fact of ensuring that what emerges is not a state in complete collapse, which could become a refuge for terrorists or a terrorist state.”
The comments by Bolton marked the second time in less than a week that Bolton had contradicted Bush administration policy. Last week, he said the United States may not be able to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons because of a flawed diplomatic strategy. Bolton’s comments are a stark reminder of why he was unfit for the U.N. International diplomats could never determine what was his real agenda.
Previous in TP Politics
By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge the ThinkProgress Privacy Policy and agree to the ThinkProgress Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policies as applicable, which can be found here.