Bolton: ‘Targeted force’ is the ‘only option’ for Iran.
Bolton: ‘Targeted force’ is the ‘only option’ for Iran.
In his third op-ed on Iran in a major newspaper in the last month, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton wrote in the Washington Post today that the time is right for Israel to launch an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities:
Iran’s nuclear threat was never in doubt during its presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.
Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. [...]
Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people.
Despite his suggestion that now is time for an attack, in reality, it’s always a great time to attack Iran if you’re John Bolton, considering he never passes up an opportunity to use turmoil in the Middle East to suggest war with Iran.
- Comments
- 161
Bolton Slams Obama For Being ‘Timid’ On Iran, Then Admits U.S. Options Limited Because Of Bush’s Failures
Bolton Slams Obama For Being ‘Timid’ On Iran, Then Admits U.S. Options Limited Because Of Bush’s Failures
Yesterday on Fox News, Sean Hannity and former U.N. ambassador John Bolton joined the right-wing chorus hitting President Obama’s response to the Iranian election crisis. Bolton repeatedly said Obama should act more forcefully and offer the “possibility of concrete assistance” to the Iranian protestors:
BOLTON: Well, it’s not at all what they want, and you know what’s worst of all about this, looking at President Obama, is not only that he’s being timid, he’s being disingenuous. The real reason that he won’t speak out has nothing to do with this argument that we don’t want to meddle. [...]
[Obama] is abandoning the people in the streets and not providing any possibility of concrete assistance to them.
Hannity then asked Bolton whether he agreed with Lt. Col. Ralph Peters’s recent New York Post op-ed, in which he wrote that Obama’s “silence” is “a blank check for the current regime.” Bolton surprisingly backtracked and seemed to contradict his statements from a few moments earlier, claiming it’s better to be “prudent” right now because the United States isn’t in a position to “provide concrete assistance”:
BOLTON: Well, I think it’s mostly right except I would say this. Because including during the Bush administration we did not prepare adequately for this potential revolutionary moment, we’re not really in a position now to offer much concrete assistance.
And I don’t want America to be in a position where we urge people in the streets and then watch them die. I’d rather be a little bit prudent and prepare for the long-term where we really can provide concrete assistance.
Watch it:
So basically, Bolton wants Obama to stand with the Iranian protestors and provide the “possibility of concrete assistance,” even though he also thinks the United States is in no position “where we really can provide concrete assistance”? Of course, this call to be “prudent” comes from a man who wanted Obama to launch “meaningful efforts at regime change” just a few months ago. Bolton’s claim to want to assist Iran’s “people in the streets” also rings hollow, given that he has wanted to bomb them for years.
Transcript: More »
Neocons Claim Iranian Elections Don’t Matter
Neocons Claim Iranian Elections Don’t Matter
Yesterday, the American Prospect’s Dana Goldstein noted that the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), despite warning of the dangers of an Iran led by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are now suggesting that his possible ouster in today’s elections in Iran will not have any impact on how the Iranian government approaches relations with the West. Goldstein characterized AIPAC’s message this way: “If you are concerned about the expansion of Iran’s nuclear program, the argument goes, it doesn’t matter whether Ahmadinejad wins or loses.”
As the Wonk Room’s Matt Duss and HuffPost’s Rachel Weiner have noted, AIPAC’s read on the Iranian elections is nearly identical to that of the broader neo-conservative community:
Daniel Pipes: “The president tends to have power in the areas — in the soft areas — having to do with culture and religion and education. And it is the Rahbare, the Supreme Guide of Iran, Khomeini at first and now Khamenei who has control of the military, the law enforcement, the judiciary system, the intelligence agencies. So its not clear that the president matters that much.” [Heritage Foundation Panel, 6/03/09]
Michael Rubin: “[S]hould someone more soft-spoken and less defiant [than Ahmadinejad] — someone like former prime minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi — win, it would be easier for Obama to believe that Iran really was figuratively unclenching a fist when, in fact, it had it had its other hand hidden under its cloak, grasping a dagger.” [National Review, 06/11/09]
Elliot Abrams: “In fact, a victory by Mr. Ahmadinejad’s main challenger, Mir Hussein Moussavi, is more likely to change Western policy toward Iran than to change Iran’s own conduct.” [New York Times, 06/12/09]
In apparent confirmation that such sentiments have now become neoconservative dogma, John Bolton echoed them on Fox News this morning. Bolton — who has long demonized Ahmadinejad as a significant threat to U.S. national security — argued to Fox’s Bill Hemmer that an Ahmadinejad defeat would not change Iran’s foreign policy because such issues are handled by the Iran’s religious leaders:
HEMMER: It doesn’t matter who wins then, based on what you’re telling us.
BOLTON: In terms of foreign policy. People like to joke this dispute between moderates and hard liners is that you have Ahmadinejad who tells people that he’s proceeding with the nuclear program and plans to wipe Israel off the map, or whether you have a moderate who proceeds with the nuclear program but is smart enough to keep his mouth shut.
Watch it:
In fact, it would be significant for the Iranian people to reject the radical politics and hard-line policies of Ahmadinejad. As Duss explains, the clerical leadership does not appear to be as interested in pursuing nuclear weapons as Ahmadinejad appears to be. Goldstein adds, “The thing to remember is that despite buzz to the contrary, there are key foreign policy differences between Ahmadinejad, who does not support international talks regarding the Iranian nuclear program, and Mousavi, who does.”
Laura Rozen agrees, writing that “the voting out of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would undoubtedly be seen in Washington and the West as a welcome sign that the Iranian public supports greater liberalization and a less hostile attitude toward the West.” Indeed, even if Ahmadinejad’s main challenger, Mousavi, loses, the campaign demonstrates that “there’s clearly a lot of popular disconnect with Ahmadinejad’s rule, and a lot of it centers around his bizarrely self-defeating approach to foreign policy,” Stephen Walt concludes.
Bolton Calls Invading Somalia With A ‘Coalition Of The Willing’ ‘The Prudential Response’ To Piracy
Bolton Calls Invading Somalia With A ‘Coalition Of The Willing’ ‘The Prudential Response’ To Piracy
Yesterday, the Navy Seals launched a daring and successful effort to free the American cargo ship captain who had been held hostage by Somali pirates for five days, killing three pirates. Throughout last week, some conservatives used the hostage situation to lobby for military action and massive defense spending on irrelevant weapons.
At the forefront of the calls for war was, unsurprisingly, former U.N. Ambassador and perpetual war-monger John Bolton. Even after the successful rescue of the American hostage, Bolton endorsed a ground invasion of Somalia this morning on Fox News:
FOX HOST: Ambassador, if you were serving in this administration, would it be your recommendation that they go in to, militarily with air strikes and/or boots on the ground, into these so-called feral cities, where these pirates are taking hold? Should we go in and take those people out, and take their installations out, now, militarily? Is that what you’re suggesting?
BOLTON: Yes. … Unless we go in and really end this problem once and for all, we will simply see it grow over time.
On Friday, Bolton called for a “coalition of the willing” to attack Somalia, saying the use of force was “the prudential response” to piracy problems. He kept up his calls for war over the weekend. Watch it:
For Bolton, war is always the best option. Last year, he said that attacking Iran “is really the most prudent thing to do.” In 2002, he declared Saddam Hussein to be “a real threat,” making it “a very prudent and logical conclusion that he needs to be replaced.” And less than two weeks before Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, Bolton praised “the prudent course we are on with Iraq.”
Bolton’s insistence that we will see the piracy off the coast of Somalia “grow over time” without U.S. military intervention to “end this problem once and for all” is striking. Back in 1994, Bolton lambasted the Clinton administration for expanding the U.S. mission in Somalia to prevent it from becoming a failed state. Clinton’s efforts “led to the violence and embarrassment that ultimately ensued,” Bolton wrote.
In 2005, Bolton stood by his critique, saying, “I would not have intervened in Somalia.” Today, however, Bolton views such intervention — including the possibility of “boots on the ground” — as “the prudential response.”
Right Wing Hysterical Over Obama’s ‘Not At War With Islam’ Remarks: ‘We Have Nothing To Apologize For’
Right Wing Hysterical Over Obama’s ‘Not At War With Islam’ Remarks: ‘We Have Nothing To Apologize For’
President Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world has been a welcome development after eight years of President Bush’s “us vs. them” approach. “Let me say this as clearly as I can,” he told the Turkish parliament yesterday. “The United States is not and will never be at war with Islam.” He told Turkish students today, “You will find a partner and a supporter and a friend in the United States of America.” Middle Eastern leaders are embracing Obama’s outreach already.
But apparently, the conservative establishment finds such outreach objectionable. On Fox News yesterday, John Bolton, Bill Kristol, and Sean Hannity all derided Obama’s comments to the Turkish parliament. They argued that in fact, the Iraq war served as evidence of America’s concern for Muslims. CNN’s Lou Dobbs also decried Obama’s praise for the “great civilization of Iran”:
BOLTON:There are an enormous amount of things we’ve done to benefit Muslims in countries all over the world. We have nothing to apologize for.
KRISTOL: But could Barack Obama say something that would be mildly unpopular to an audience which he was speaking? No. Could he say that the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq are just and that we have fought for Muslims, incidentally under President Clinton we fought for Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo?
HANNITY: It seemed to me…that this was an attempt to apologize for toppling Saddam Hussein and the war on terror.
DOBBS: In his efforts to charm our allies, President Obama noted that Islam helped shape the world for the better, including the United States. He even declared Iran to be a great civilization.
Charles Krauthammer said Obama’s parliament speech was “not original and not terribly important.” Kristol responded that Krauthammer was being “too nice.” Watch a compilation:
In his first trip abroad, Obama also extended a hand towards Europe, saying that America had “shown arrogance” and had “been dismissive, even derisive” towards Europeans in the past. Again, the right wing saw this as evidence of Obama’s anti-Americanism.
The outreach is desperately needed. Over “70 percent of Egyptians, Pakistanis, Indonesians and Moroccans believe the United States is trying to weaken and divide the Islamic world,” an April 2007 WorldPublicOpinion poll said. It seems that for the far right, however, the best outreach is always through bullets and bombs.
Dennis Blair: Iran Has Not Re-Started Its Nuclear Weapons Program
Dennis Blair: Iran Has Not Re-Started Its Nuclear Weapons Program
Earlier this month, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen made headlines when he was asked by CNN whether Iran had enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb. “We think they do, quite frankly,” Mullen said. This morning, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) asked Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair to address the “confusion” about what the intelligence says about Iran’s weapons capacity. Blair said the intelligence community has assessed that Iran does not possess any highly-enriched uranium, and clarified that Mullen had been referring only to low-enriched uranium.
Moreover, Blair said that the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which judged that “in the fall of 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program,” still stands:
LEVIN: In 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran said that “the intelligence community judges with high confidence that in the fall of 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” Is the position of the intelligence community the same as it was back in October of ‘07? Has that changed?
BLAIR: Mr. Chairman, the nuclear weapons program is one of the three components required for deliverable system, including the delivery system and the uranium. But as for the nuclear weapons program, the current position is the same, that Iran has stopped its nuclear weapons design and weaponization activities in 2003 and did not — has not started them again, at least as of mid-2007.
Watch it:
Despite the intelligence assessments, conservatives have continued to fearmonger on Iran’s nuclear weapons capacity. Last week, John Bolton told Fox’s Sean Hannity that Iran could have a functional nuclear bomb “within a matter of six to nine months.” Just last Sunday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) insisted on Fox News Sunday that we “have information” that Iran is well on the path to a nuclear weapon:
CHRIS WALLACE: Let’s turn to foreign policy. And there is some breaking news. Iran has announced this morning that they have launched a new long-range missile. Your reaction.
MCCAIN: It’s not surprising, and it’s not surprising that we continue to have information that they have the material to make nuclear weapons. Exactly where they are is not totally clear, but they’re obviously on that trip.
Despite the repeated assessments of intelligence analysts, the right continues to spew false claims about Iran’s weapons programs.
John Bolton jokes about nuking Chicago, entire CPAC audience erupts in laughter.
John Bolton jokes about nuking Chicago, entire CPAC audience erupts in laughter.
This morning, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton spoke to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He tried to up the fear quotient in the room by raising the prospect of an Iranian-sent nuclear attack on an American city. “It’s [a] tiny [threat] compared to the Soviet Union,” Bolton said, “but is the loss of one American city — pick one at random: Chicago — is that a tiny threat?” The audience erupted in cheers and laughter at the idea of Obama’s home city being obliterated. Watch it:
Later during the conference, Joe Scarborough warned the audience that conservatives would have to work on their “tone.” “We’re not going to win votes, we’re not going to win elections by calling Obama a communist,” Scarborough said.
Bolton calls on Obama to launch ‘meaningful efforts at regime change’ in Iran.
Bolton calls on Obama to launch ‘meaningful efforts at regime change’ in Iran.
Earlier this week famed war hawk John Bolton said that the recent crisis in Gaza presents the perfect opportunity for the U.S. and Israel to bomb Iran. Today, Bolton took to the Wall Street Journal op-ed pages to re-emphasize his desire for war with Iran. Bolton said he fears the new Obama administration’s Iran and North Korea policies would center on diplomacy, which he says will not end “proliferation threats from Pyongyang and Tehran.” While part of his solution oddly calls for more diplomacy with North Korea (in this case it would be the Chinese conducting it), Bolton then urges Obama to start the process of “regime change” in Iran:
Iran and North Korea achieved their objectives through diplomacy. Mr. Bush failed to achieve his. How can Mr. Obama do better? For starters, he could increase the pressure on China, which has real leverage over North Korea, to press Kim Jong Il’s regime in ways that the six-party talks never approached. Options on Iran are more limited, but meaningful efforts at regime change and assisting Israel should it decide to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities would be good first steps.
Bolton: Gaza Crisis Means We Should Attack Iran Now
Bolton: Gaza Crisis Means We Should Attack Iran Now
Yesterday, on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes, Iran war hawk John Bolton said that Israel’s recent bombing campaign in Gaza is all the more reason for the United States to bomb Iran now. “So while our focus obviously is on Gaza right now, this could turn out to be a much larger conflict,” he said, adding that “we’re looking at potentially a multi-front war here.”
“You would strike Iran right now?” asked host Alan Colmes. “I would have done it before this,” Bolton responded. Colmes asked whether tensions and war across Middle East would escalate if the U.S. or Israel were to bomb Iran. Bolton said that the many Arab countries would secretly be cheering if Iran were attacked:
COLMES: So if we do that, they strike back, are we then in danger of creating a broader war?
BOLTON: I think in many Arab states in the region, although they wouldn’t say it publicly, they’d be doing the equivalent of popping champagne corks because the Arab states don’t want Iran with nuclear weapons any more than Israel does. What Iran could do is what’s already happening in the Gaza Strip or what might happen if they unleashed Hezbollah, terrorist attacks on Israel.
Watch it:
It’s hard to believe that the Arab world would be pulling out the party hats if Iran were attacked. Thanks to the policies of President Bush, the U.S is immensely unpopular across the Middle East. Iran, on the other hand, enjoys unprecedented support in Iraq, which is supposed to be America’s greatest ally in the region.
The LA Times reported last year that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “has transcended national and religious divides to become a folk hero across the Middle East.” Ahmadinejaded, “the leader of a non-Arab Shiite nation, has ingratiated himself with the Middle East’s predominantly Sunni Arab population.”
Without regard for the wider war and increased regional instability that an attack on Iran would likely cause, Bolton believes the solution to a Middle East already in flames is to throw more wood on the fire.
Bolton: ‘In 100 years people aren’t going to remember Guantánamo or Abu Ghraib.’
Bolton: ‘In 100 years people aren’t going to remember Guantánamo or Abu Ghraib.’
With President Bush’s time in office rapidly coming to an end, his loyal supporters are working overtime to spin his legacy positively. In an interview with the Telegraph, Bush’s former UN ambassador, John Bolton, claims that “in 100 years,” people won’t remember two of the biggest stains on Bush’s record, Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib:
“In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, he was strong and decisive and that was critical for both the country and for the Western world,” believes John Bolton. “In 100 years people aren’t going to remember Guantánamo or Abu Ghraib, they’re going to remember 9/11 and Bush’s reaction to it.”
Bolton’s claim that history will forget Bush’s human rights abuses is similar to State Department spokesman Sean McCormack’s claim that in 50 years no one will remember the shoe-hurling Iraqi journalist.
Bolton on humanitarian intervention: ‘Do it with your own sons and daughters, not with mine.’
Bolton on humanitarian intervention: ‘Do it with your own sons and daughters, not with mine.’
Earlier this month, the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto hosted the second in a series of so-called “Munk Debates” on public policy. This particular debate asked the participants if the international community should intervene in man-made humanitarian crises if the national governments involved fail to act. International Crisis Group CEO Gareth Evans and actor/activist Mia Farrow said the international community should intervene, arguing it has a “responsibility to protect.” However, former Bush administration war hawk John Bolton and Canadian military General Rick Hillier argued against. Bolton, in particular, offered some callous advice to those in favor of humanitarian intervention:
BOLTON: Now I recognize, that the motives of those who advocate responsibility to protect is well intentioned and I respect those who believe in it as a doctrine and I would simply say this to all of you and I say it to you with respect. If you want to engage in humanitarian intervention, do it with your own sons and daughters, not with mine.
Listen here:
Of course Bolton is a staunch supporter of the Iraq war and has spent the better part of the last year calling for one with Iran. Presumably he would have no problem sending his children to fight there.
Media Default To John Bolton For Criticism Of Obama’s U.N. Pick
Media Default To John Bolton For Criticism Of Obama’s U.N. Pick
Last Monday, President-elect Barack Obama announced the nomination of his campaign’s senior foreign policy adviser Susan Rice as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Obama added that he would restore Rice’s position to Cabinet-level rank, as it had been during the Clinton administration.
But in searching for an alternative perspective of this decision, it appears that some in the media got lazy. Instead of providing a thoughtful counterpoint from a respected and credible voice, the easy route seems to be just to quote U.N. basher John Bolton:
– The New York Times: [Bolton] said it was unwise to elevate the position to the cabinet again. “One, it overstates the role and importance the U.N. should have in U.S. foreign policy,” Mr. Bolton said. ”Second, you shouldn’t have two secretaries in the same department.”
– USA Today: [Bolton] said Cabinet rank creates the potential for bureaucratic conflict, especially with the State Department. Bolton also questioned whether the U.N. — whose culture he says is “impervious to change” — should be so central to U.S. foreign policy.
Naturally, Fox News gave Bolton air time, who, having once served as U.S. ambassador to the world body himself, offered Rice some advice: U.N. ambassadors “are not sent to New York to be platonic guardians with other ambassadors for the good of the world.” Watch it:
Of course Bolton thinks elevating Rice to a cabinet level position and refocusing U.S. foreign policy on greater international cooperation is a bad idea. He hates the United Nations. Bolton famously said “there is no such thing as the United Nations” and if the U.N. building in New York “lost ten stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.” Not only that, but Bolton once boasted that he never took any international law classes while attending Yale.
In fact, Bolton’s credibility on issues of peace and cooperation are certainly suspect, as he has spent much of the past year calling for war with Iran. Even President Bush thinks Bolton is a fraud.
But that doesn’t seem to stop the media from continuing to quote him. After all, without much to do these days, perhaps Bolton is more than happy to sit by the phone.
UN Ambassador-nominee Susan Rice won’t be asking John Bolton for advice.
UN Ambassador-nominee Susan Rice won’t be asking John Bolton for advice.
Yesterday, President-elect Barack Obama formally named Susan Rice as his nominee to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. After the press conference, Rice spoke to The New Republic’s Dayo Olopade, telling her that she wanted “to call up former holders of the position for advice.” There was one former UN ambassador, however, who Rice said she didn’t want to speak to: John Bolton.
Bolton Decries ‘Reverse Intimidation’: GOP Poll Watchers, Not Minorities, Are The Ones Actually Being Harassed
Bolton Decries ‘Reverse Intimidation’: GOP Poll Watchers, Not Minorities, Are The Ones Actually Being Harassed
Today on Fox News, host Megyn Kelly continued to rail against voting rights laws meant to protect Americans’ voting rights. Her guest, former U.N. ambassador and key 2000 Florida recount player John Bolton, was angry at the fact that there weren’t more criminal prosecutors at polling places. In fact, according to Bolton, GOP poll watchers, not minorities, are the ones who need protection:
BOLTON: There’s kind of a reverse intimidation going on. People who go and try to be poll watchers and keep fraudulently registered people from voting. They’re being told they’re intimidating minorities; it’s a form of political incorrectness.
Really, voting is an act of civic responsibility and making sure that only legitimate people votes is a very important aspect of this. Yet many Republican poll watchers, we’ve already heard, are being intimidated in their own right.
Watch it:
The right wing is heavily pushing this meme today. In particular, they’re pointing to GOP poll watchers in Philadelphia being asked to leave a polling place, allegedly because they were “in the minority” party in a heavily Democratic area. But even a reporter from Kelly’s own network debunked this myth today, saying they were asked to leave simply because it was crowded. Watch it:
Both Democrats and Republicans have deployed thousands of lawyers around the country today to watch for voting shenanigans. However, stationing Justice Department prosecutors at polls does more harm than good — despite Kelly’s claims — as the agency concluded in September when it rolled back John Ashcroft’s policy of doing so. These prosecutors are often untrained in voter protection and may discourage people from voting out of fear of harassment. The Progress Report has more on the myth of voter fraud. LCCR has put together resources here if you have any concerns or questions about voting.
Transcript: More »
Bush says he ‘doesn’t consider Bolton credible,’ laments spending ‘political capital’ on him.
Bush says he ‘doesn’t consider Bolton credible,’ laments spending ‘political capital’ on him.
The New York Times reports that President Bush recently held an off-the-record meeting with conservative writers. During the meeting, Council on Foreign Relations fellow Max Boot asked Bush why he had diverted from the priorities of his first term. “That’s ridiculous,” Bush said. Boot then read from a Wall Street Journal op-ed by war hawk John Bolton in which Bolton said Bush’s presidency is “in total intellectual collapse.” Bush then lashed out at Bolton:
Bush grew more agitated at the mention of his own former senior diplomat. “Let me just say from the outset that I don’t consider Bolton credible,” the president said bitterly. Bush had brought Bolton into the top ranks of his administration, fought for Senate confirmation and, when lawmakers balked, defied critics to give the hawkish aide a recess appointment. “I spent political capital for him,” Bush said, and look what he got in return.
Matthew Yglesias notes, “Of course Bush is right, Bolton isn’t a credible thinker on national security issues. But Bolton is also right — the inherent unworkability of the Bush doctrine has persuaded Bush to substantially abandon it in the waning days of his administration.”
One Year Ago Today, Alberto Gonzales Resigned
One Year Ago Today, Alberto Gonzales Resigned
One year ago today, Alberto Gonzales resigned as Attorney General of the United States amid questions of his “competence to run the Justice Department” and “accusations of perjury.” As the Washington Post reported at the time, Gonzales was “one of the nation’s most controversial attorneys general since the Watergate era”:
[Gonzales's] resignation, submitted Sunday to President Bush and disclosed yesterday, removes one of the nation’s most controversial attorneys general since the Watergate era. He will leave behind a Justice Department battered by allegations that partisan politics has infected its law enforcement mission.
Gonzales’ departure from the Bush administration has done little to reverse the well-documented politicization of the Justice Department.
In recent months, his replacement — Micheal Mukasey — has refused to say whether he believes Gonzales politicized the department, has promised not to investigate officials who authorized the use of torture on detainees of the U.S. government, and has refused to review the qualifications of career employees hired by former loyal Bushie Monica Goodling. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said recently, Mukasey “hasn’t provided the balance that I had hoped for.”
In April, the New York Times reported that Gonzales “has been unable to interest law firms in adding his name to their roster” as a result of his performance as Attorney General. Gonzales found work — at least temporarily — in June, when he was hired to “provide assistance to a special master on a patent case.”
Miers and Bolten push for further delay in congressional testimony.
Miers and Bolten push for further delay in congressional testimony.
Last week U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled that White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers must testify before Congress regarding their role in the 2006 U.S. Attorney purge. Today, however, Miers and Bolten requested that Bates stay his decision to provide time for them to appeal the ruling. In a court filing, they wrote:
Whatever the proper resolution of the extraordinarily important questions presented, the public interest clearly favors further consideration of issues before defendants are required to take actions that may forever alter the constitutional balance of separation of powers.
While the subpoenas expire in January, the case could make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Miers was once a nominee.
Bolton: Regime Change In Iran ‘Would Lead To Greater Stability In The Region’
Bolton: Regime Change In Iran ‘Would Lead To Greater Stability In The Region’
Continuing his long-running advocacy for a war against Iran, John Bolton said on Fox News today, “Diplomacy is finished.” Bolton said there are only two options: targeted military strikes or full-scale regime change. He added:
I think regime change would be preferable because I think that would lead to greater stability in the region as a whole.
Watch it:
Justin Logan comments, “I have an eerie feeling that I’ve heard this somewhere before, but I just can’t place it…” How about just a few reminders:
President Bush, 2/26/03:
Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world.
Vice President Cheney, 8/26/02:
Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region. When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace.
John McCain, 2/14/03:
[O]nly a change of regime will make Iraq a state that does not threaten us and others, and where a liberated people assume the rights and responsibilities of freedom. … Not only would deterrence condemn the Iraqi people to more unspeakable tyranny, it would condemn Saddam’s neighbors to perpetual instability.
Despite his unceasing advocacy for war, Bolton is always quick to remind his audience that he finds war detestable and “deeply unattractive.”
Right Wing Falsely Claims NYT Rejection Of McCain’s Op-Ed Was Unprecedented
Right Wing Falsely Claims NYT Rejection Of McCain’s Op-Ed Was Unprecedented
Yesterday, the Drudge Report revealed that the New York Times had rejected a draft op-ed by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), which rebutted an earlier one by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). As the Times explained, it was happy to publish a piece from McCain, but the one submitted was editorially subpar — it didn’t have any new information.
The right wing rushed to defend McCain yesterday, calling the Times’s decision “offensive” and “stupid” and claiming that it was part of a conspiracy to to help Obama win the election:
Weekly Standard’s Dean Barnett: “Nobody has ever heard of anything like this ever happening before.” [Hugh Hewitt Show, 7/21/08]
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton: “For them to say that to - - the Republican presidential nominee is offensive.” [Hannity and Colmes, 7/21/08]
Conservative Pundit Dick Morris: “You don’t tell a president to the United States candidate what to write.” [Hannity and Colmes, 7/21/08]
Former White House Adviser Karl Rove: “I thought the decision by The New York Times was arrogant, condescending and stupid.” [On the Record with Greta, 7/21/08]
Bolton also said that he “may never publish another op-ed in ‘The New York Times’ after this.” Watch a compilation of Bolton, Morris, and Rove here:
But yesterday on CNN, Center for American Progress Action Fund Senior Vice President and former Clinton Deputy Press Secretary Jennifer Palmieri emphasized that even as a sitting president, Bill Clinton had “many” op-eds rejected by the Times:
When I worked for President Clinton, “The New York Times” rejected many op-eds written by him as a sitting president of the United States. They don’t just give up space to a candidate because their opponent has space. You can’t just go — you can’t go to “The New York Times” editorial page and say I want to say what’s wrong with the other guy. They want to leverage their space, which is very valuable, to force you to say something you haven’t said before. And I think that they turned down McCain not because they like Obama but because McCain, all he was doing in his piece was criticizing Obama and they wanted him to put him on the spot to say more.
Read the Times’s full explanation of its rejection here.
Transcript: More »
Bolton Claims He Has ‘Always Said’ Striking Iran Is ‘Deeply Unattractive’
Bolton Claims He Has ‘Always Said’ Striking Iran Is ‘Deeply Unattractive’
On the Friday edition of Hannity and Colmes, Alan Colmes questioned former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton about his “statements over the last few months” advocating that the Bush administration use military force against Iran. Bolton denied having made such statements, replying that “would not be an accurate reflection of my view”:
COLMES: Well, you’ve said — statements over the last few months that either you believe the Bush administration is going to strike or that you would like if there were a first strike against Iran. Would that be an accurate reflection of your view?
BOLTON: No, it would not be an accurate reflection of my view. In fact, I’ve said most recently I don’t think the Bush administration will use force, and I have always said, Alan, always said, that the use of force against Iran’s nuclear program is deeply unattractive.
Watch it:
However, Bolton has not always found the use of force against Iran “deeply unattractive.” To the contrary, he has vigorously pushed the administration to attack Iran, believing it the “prudent” thing to do:
- Asked if he could imagine a scenario where Bush would strike Iran before the end of his term, Bolton responded “I think so, definitely.” [Fox News, 5/7/08]
- Bolton explained that a U.S. military strike on Iran is “really the most prudent thing to do.” [Fox News, 5/5/08]
- Bolton said that he “absolutely” hopes the U.S. will attack Iran in the “next six months.” [Fox News, 8/22/07]
But Bolton doesn’t only theorize about the U.S. striking Iran. On multiple occasions, he has suggested that Israel will attack Iran “after our elections and before the inauguration of the next President,” which he explained “makes a lot of sense.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll