Bolton on whether Bush might bomb Iran before he leaves office: ‘I think so, definitely.’
Bolton on whether Bush might bomb Iran before he leaves office: ‘I think so, definitely.’
In a Fox News interview this afternoon, former UN Ambassador John Bolton discussed his desire to bomb camps inside Iran that are reportedly training and arming Shiite insurgents who fight in Iraq. Fox host Martha McCallum asked, “Can you imagine a scenario where President Bush would do that before the end of his term?” Bolton responded, “I think so, definitely.” He added later, “This is entirely responsible on our part.” Watch it:
Asked by McCallum whether Israel would be supportive of the strikes given the possibility of Iranian retaliation, Bolton responded, “I think they’d be delighted.”
Ledeen one-ups Bolton: It’s ‘time to attack’ Iranian AND Syrian terror camps.
Ledeen one-ups Bolton: It’s ‘time to attack’ Iranian AND Syrian terror camps.
Yesterday, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton announced on Fox News his belief that “the use of military force” against Iranian training camps “is really the most prudent thing to do.” Responding to a Telegraph report on his comments today, American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Ledeen declared that Bolton is “right.” Adding that he’s “been proposing this for years,” Ledeen also said that “we should do the same thing to the Syrian camps as well.”
Bolton: Striking Iran ‘Is Really The Most Prudent Thing To Do’
Bolton: Striking Iran ‘Is Really The Most Prudent Thing To Do’
Yesterday morning, Fox News interviewed former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton to discuss whether America is close to striking Iranian targets, as new reports indicate the Bush administration is drawing up plans for a “surgical strike.” Bolton said that while there are “obviously risks associated” with a strike on Iran, the risks of not doing something are “far higher” at this point.
Fox anchor Jaime Colby asserted, “The Brits think we overestimate the threat of Iran in this particular case. Are they right or wrong?” Bolton — who has previously claimed that the “mullahs in Iran” want a Democratic president in 2008 — responded:
I think they’re dead wrong on this. I think this is a case where the use of military force against a training camp to show the Iranians we’re not going to tolerate this is really the most prudent thing to do. Then the ball would be in Iran’s court to draw the appropriate lesson to stop harming our troops.
Fox anchor Colby reacted to Bolton’s war cries by concluding — without sarcasm — “That’s a good message to end on. Thank you.” Watch it:
Bolton has asserted that preventive war against Iraq “did work” and “achieved our strategic objective.” Moreover, he has openly stated that the U.S. should have no interest in the well-being of Iraqis.
Bolton’s unquenchable appetite for a military conflict with Iran is easy to understand, given that he cares so little about the disastrous consequences that follow from war.
John Bolton joins Ken Starr at Kirkland & Ellis.
The law firm Kirkland & Ellis has hired former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton as a “senior advisor.” The Swamp notes that the firm “has long been known as a comfortable environment for prominent conservatives” and “still employs former Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr.” Given his resume, Bolton’s new job is not unusual as “many former and current legal luminaries in the Bush administration worked there at some point in their careers.”
Bolton: ‘I didn’t take any courses at all on int’l law.’
Purporting to give the “cold hard truth about international organizations” while speaking to students at Yale University yesterday, conservative hawk John Bolton said that the United States is the only country “that’s going to stop nuclear proliferation and the threats presented by Iran and North Korea.” Bolton, who once served as UN ambassador, said that when he was at Yale, he “didn’t take any courses at all on international law” and added, “frankly I don’t think I missed a thing.”
Bolton Backs McCain Because He Is ‘Stronger’ Than Bush On Iran
Bolton Backs McCain Because He Is ‘Stronger’ Than Bush On Iran
In remarks yesterday to CPAC, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) attacked Democrats for allegedly not recognizing “the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions,” claiming to know that Iran is pledging to “possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.”
Speaking at CPAC today, notorious Iran war hawk John Bolton emphasized his support for McCain, saying McCain proved he is “stronger” than the Bush administration with the senator’s statement on Iran. Bolton claims Bush is too “moderate” and has a foreign policy in “freefall” because he has yet to bomb Iran:
I think Senator McCain’s statement here yesterday on how he would handle the Iranian program is stronger than the current Bush administration policy. And thank goodness, because the Bush administration policy now lies on the ocean floor. … I didn’t think the policy the administration was pursuing was robust enough.
Watch it:
Echoing Bolton, this morning, McCain revealed that he was “skeptical” of the recent National Intelligence Estimate, which said that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons production in 2003. “I continue to worry about…Persian domination of the region,” he said.
Bolton also revealed today that McCain covertly pushed his nomination to the United Nations — “a nomination that was held up in Congress over Bolton’s controversial anti-UN statements and policies”:
He was very active behind the scenes…He thought I was the type of ambassador that ought to represent the United States at the United Nations.
John McCain: more hawkish than Bush on Iraq and Iran.
McConnell calls Bolton op-ed a ‘gross misrepresentation’
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton penned an op-ed in today’s WSJ claiming that the key judgments in the latest Iran NIE were “distorted,” written by “policy enthusiasts,” and put the “intelligence community’s credibility and impartiality on the line.” Today during a Senate threat assessment hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) asked Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell about Bolton’s assertions. McConnell replied:
MCCONNELL: Sir, I’ll start by saying that the integrity and the professionalism in this NIE is probably the highest in our history in terms of objectivity and quality of the analysis and challenging the assumptions and conducting red teams on the process, conducting a counter intelligence assessment about “were we being misled” and so on. So I would start by saying that the article you refer to is a gross misrepresentation of the professionalism of this community.
Right Wing Attacks Khalilzad For Not Defending Bolton’s Honor: ‘A Lack Of Testicular Fortitude’
Right Wing Attacks Khalilzad For Not Defending Bolton’s Honor: ‘A Lack Of Testicular Fortitude’
Last Saturday, Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, participated in a panel discussion on Iranian foreign policy with two high-ranking Iranian officials at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The New York Times reports that the White House and Condoleezza Rice were “angered” by Khalilzad’s move because he did not receive explicit authorization. (Watch video of the event here.)
The moderator of the forum joked that Khalilzad has a “really formidable advantage of having a name that is not John Bolton.” Because Khalilzad let that comment stand without repudiating it, right-wing bloggers have erupted in full rage that Khalilzad did not jump to defend Bolton’s honor (as they surely would have). Thus, Khalilzad’s behavior was “disgusting,” “an insult to the United States” and showed “a lack of testicular fortitude”:
Powerline: “The moderator begins the panel with an insult to former United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton. Rice is apparently angry that Khalilzad participated in the panel without administration authorization. I am angry that Khalilzad participated after the insult to his predecessor in office. Disgusting.”
Captain’s Quarters: “The moderator noted in his effusive introduction of Khalilzad that among his outstanding qualities was “the further, really formidable advantage of having a name that is not John Bolton.” Regardless of whether Khalilzad had prior authorization, allowing the insult to Bolton to stand unchallenged represents an insult to the United States and a lack of testicular fortitude on the part of his replacement.”
During the panel discussion, Khalilzad “did not veer from the U.S. position” and “stuck to the administration playbook” during the entire event.
So, despite the fact that Khalilzad adhered to the Bush administration line on Iran during the discussion, the right-wing bloggers found it reprehensible that an American official would have the temerity to sit in the same room with an Iranian official and let a mild dig at John Bolton go undefended.
UPDATE: Newshoggers writes, “Poor Zalmay. He’s been a loyal neocon for years and they lauded him for his work in Afghanistan and Iraq when he was up for the UN post. … But let a slur on the Almighty Moustache slide and he’s neocon toast.”
Bolton: ‘The Mullahs In Tehran’ Want A Democrat To Win The Presidency In 2008
Bolton: ‘The Mullahs In Tehran’ Want A Democrat To Win The Presidency In 2008
Since the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran said the country halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has made every attempt to press on for bombing Iran.
Voicing his support for the major Republican presidential candidates — who have supported attacking Iran — today on Fox News, Bolton said Iran’s “mullahs” want a Democratic president elected in 2008 in order to ensure that they can continue to pursue building a nuclear weapon:
Well, I don’t think it’s discussed sufficiently. But I think in part what the mullahs in Tehran are thinking about, looking at the odds of who might win, or at least what the conventional wisdom is about the Democratic nominee winning. I think they’re going try and string this thing out in hopes that they’ll find some more pliable administration in the White House.
Watch it:
Responding to President Bush’s State of the Union remark that he will “confront” Iran if necessary, Bolton said Bush must either “change the regime in Tehran” or “the possible use of force against Iran” before his term expires. Bolton explained that this must be done to halt Iran’s civilian nuclear enrichment program.
Bolton’s fearmongering on Iran mirrors the conservative strategy around the 2006 elections. At the time, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Dick Cheney, and the White House all suggested al Qaeda was hoping for a Democratic Congress.