Campaigning on behalf of presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, Bush administration U.N. ambassador John Bolton told the crowd at a fundraiser (PDF) for the Polk County Republicans of Iowa that the U.S. should focus on military spending at the expense of domestic spending on issues like health care.

In Iowa, the typically über-hawkish Fox News commentator pleaded with event attendees to support Romney even though he “may not have been your perfect candidate,” and later told the crowd:

A dollar well spent on American defense is a lot different than a dollar spent with the Department of Health and Human Services. It’s qualitatively different.

Romney is trying to base his campaign for president on his (dubious) record as a job creator (at the expense of all other issues, including Bolton’s forté, foreign policy).

But Bolton’s idea won’t help Romney’s campaign theme. He’s right: Military spending is “qualitatively different,” but not quite in the way that Bolton means. According to a University of Massachusetts, Amherst, study, military spending creates fewer jobs than other government spending. Here’s a chart published in the study:

So actually, a dollor spent on the military is “different”: it’s less valuable in terms of job creation than spending on government programs such as those administered precisely by the Department of Health and Human Services. This, however, will probably be news to Mitt Romney and his generously-spending militaristic advisers. What shouldn’t be news to the Romney campaign however, is Bolton’s push to rob social security and health care spending to give more money to the military.

Mitt Romney adviser and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is no stranger to hawkish rhetoric when it comes to Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. In January he called for an outright war, telling Fox news “the better way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons is to attack its nuclear weapons program directly” and, in February, he fanned the flames of war even further, saying, “I don’t think it’s in our interest to stay out” of a war between Israel and Iran.

But while Bolton and his fellow hawks are welcome to assert their own hypotheses about Iran’s nuclear intentions and how the U.S. should respond, the facts about U.S. and IAEA intelligence findings on Iran’s nuclear program are not a matter for debate. Today, Bolton made a completely unsubstantiated assertion about intelligence findings on Iran’s nuclear program, telling Fox News:

Look, if anybody thinks this is for peaceful purposes there are a lot of bridges for sale in New York and the intelligence on this is unambiguous. The International Atomic Energy information on what Iran’s been up to is unambiguous. This is a charade driven by the Obama administration’s need to find something to pressure Israel not to use military force against the Iranian program.

Watch it:

But U.S. and IAEA reports have never shown claims of an Iranian nuclear weapons to be “unambiguous.” In fact, the IAEA has raised questions about possible dual-military-civilian use nuclear technologies but they have not concluded that Iran has decided to restart its nuclear weapons program after its suspension in 2003.

And Israeli and U.S. intelligence reports concur with the assessment that there is no “unambiguous” evidence that Iran has restarted its nuclear weapons program. In February, Director of National Intelligence told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he had doubts about Iranian intentions to build a nuclear weapon and that “they’re keeping themselves in a position to make that decision but there are certain things they have not done for some time.”

The Associated Press reported in March that, “Several senior Israeli officials who spoke in recent days to The Associated Press said Israel has come around to the U.S. view that no final decision to build a bomb has been made by Iran.”

Furthermore, Bolton’s claim that the U.S. is only playing for time in negotiations with Iran is contradicted by President Obama’s unambiguous commitment to “preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon” and assertion that it was “unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.” But while the president has outlined the threat an Iranian nuclear weapon poses to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, the Obama administration believes that diplomacy is the “best and most permanent way” to resolve the crisis.

But all this probably won’t stop Romney from seeking out Bolton’s advice. “I look forward to consulting with him as we campaign to restore America’s standing abroad and ensure that this century is an American Century,” Romney said of Bolton back in January.

Vice President Joe Biden’s speech critiquing former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s foreign policy positions has received a range of responses. Dan Senor, a Romney adviser who served as the spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, commented that Biden offered a “fantasy narrative” of President Obama’s accomplishments. Another Romney foreign policy adviser, Pierre Prosper, charged that, under the Obama administration, “The United States abandoned its missile defense sites in Poland and Czechoslovakia” — of which the latter dissolved nearly 20 years ago after the fall of the U.S.S.R.

But the strangest criticism came from former U.N. ambassador John Bolton who claimed that a laugh-line in Biden’s speech showed that New York University (NYU) students, where the speech was delivered, don’t believe the president is strong on foreign policy. Bolton explained to Fox News’ Greta Van Sustern:

BOLTON: But I thought the best part of it was at one point, trying to appropriate yet another Republican president, Biden said, ‘you have to speak softly and carry a big stick.’ And then he said, ‘I promise you, President Obama has a big stick.’ And the audience broke out laughing, which is some measure of their belief about how assertive Obama is on behalf of our interests internationally.

VAN SUSTEREN: Yes, it’s — apparently, that’s also going to — that’s made a couple — a lot of — a lot of jokes, too, on the Internet. It is — apparently, that is something that’s not going to go away, at least for a while, for Vice President Biden, that remark.

BOLTON: Yet another one.

Watch it:

It’s unclear if the NYU audience was laughing at, or with, Biden. The Vice President maintained a dead-pan expression during the brief outbreak of laughter.

Indeed, Van Susteren is correct that the “big stick” comment has generated a great deal of attention, although not all of it negative, on the internet. CBS, ABC, NBC and The Huffington Post all published articles with headlines incorporating the statement “Obama ‘has a big stick,’” in the minutes and hours after the speech was delivered.

The fact that Bolton interpreted the laughter as a critical response to the administration’s foreign policy doctrine is bizarre considering the former U.N. ambassador’s penchant for bellicose rhetoric when describing his domination-focused foreign policy positions. Last summer, Bolton opined that the U.S. “should be squeezing and disciplining Moscow, not caressing it.”

Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton is one of the more outspoken Fox News pundits, nearly always advocating for U.S. and/or Israeli military action to stop Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. But appearing on Fox News today, Bolton, who still supports military action, admitted that military strikes might be incapable of breaking Iran’s control of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Indeed, the comments from Bolton fall in line with Bolton’s former colleague in the George W. Bush Administration, former CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden, who warned recently that bombing Iran may give Tehran an inducement to pursue a nuclear weapon. Bolton told Fox News this afternoon:

BOLTON: They [Israel] may attack now but not really break Iran’s control over the nuclear fuel cycle which is a very unfortunate circumstance. We’re running out of time. Israel’s running out of time. Nobody can calibrate exactly when Iran will get the bomb.

Watch it:

While Bolton and his fellow hawks are quick to refer to Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions as a foregone conclusion, neither senior U.S. intelligence officials now the IAEA have concluded that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. The IAEA has expressed concerns over a possible military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program and Director of National Intelligence Jame Clapper emphasized that U.S. intelligence sources believe Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has not yet made a decision whether to pursue a nuclear weapon.

Last month, Clapper told Members of Congress that economic pressure from sanctions could effect Iran’s “cost-benefit analysis” and dissuade Tehran from taking the steps necessary for constructing a nuclear weapon.

Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton endorsed Mitt Romney in an appearance on Fox News last night. Bolton was offered a cabinet position as Secretary of State in a prospective Newt Gingrich administration but his endorsement of Romney puts the hawkish former diplomat squarely in the Romney camp. Bolton told Greta Van Susteren that “Romney is conservative enough for me” and Romney is an acceptable candidate only because Bolton isn’t running himself:

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: Tell the viewers. Who are you endorsing sir?

JOHN BOLTON: Well I’m going to support Mitt Romney. I’ve thought about this very hard and it’s an extraordinarily important decision for the Republican party. [...]

BOLTON: Well let me put it this way, looking at the whole range of prospective candidates there was only one prospective candidate who met my test as the ideal conservative but he decided not to run.

VAN SUSTEREN: Who’s that? I guess that’s you?

BOLTON: I guess he’s sitting here. So faced with everyone else, I followed the William F. Buckley Jr. test which is to find the most conservative candidate who is capable of getting elected. There are obviously two variables there. But in the words of that old song, “gimme that old time religion, Romney’s conservative enough for me.”

Watch the clip:

Bolton’s controversial past might not give a boost to Romney’s presidential campaign but it offers some indication that the hawkish foreign policy wing of the Republican party is shifting into the Romney camp. Bolton’s career as U.N. ambassador was only made possible by a recess appointment after the Senate refused to confirm him and he has maintained close ties to the Islamophobic far-right and regularly calls for war with Iran. In 2010, he wrote the foreword for Islamophobes Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller’s book “The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America.”

Over the summer, Bolton teased Fox News viewers — where he appears as a paid commentator — with the possibility of a presidential run but later announced he would not be running.

Former Bush administration ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton said today on Fox News that the killing of an Iranian scientist and sanctions against Iran constitute only “half-measures” in the quest to stunt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Though he conflates them, the two tactics aimed at slowing Iran’s nuclear progress are actually very different. One set of activities — sanctions — are overt and have international legitimacy. The measures against Iran’s nuclear and missile programs pushed through the U.N. Security Council by the Obama administration are among the few tactics which have been shown to slow Iran’s progress.

Covert work can be broken up into several different tacks as well. While assassinations are considered clearly illegal under international humanitarian law, other activities fall in murkier territory (take, for example, the Stuxnet computer virus unleashed on Iranian nuclear facilities reportedly by Israel and the U.S.). That’s probably why U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came out today and disavowed the attack on an Iranian nuclear scientist. A State Department statement added: “The United States strongly condemns this act of violence and categorically denies any involvement in the killing.”

Openly contemptuous of international law and a longtime proponent of war with Iran, Bolton’s only objection to the killing of Iranian scientists seems to be that it’s not enough for him:

BOLTON: Well, I think all of these efforts are doomed to failure and in fact the consequence of increasing the sanctions is simply to persuade Iran to finish — to get on with the business of finishing its nuclear weapon, putting it in the position of North Korea which we know has exploded two nuclear devices, which makes it a lot less likely — in fact, probably makes it impossible to believe we would attack North Korea because of the fear of nuclear retaliation.

So I think this is going to a very, very difficult year and I think, honestly, that half-measures like assassinations or sanctions are only going to produce the crisis more quickly. The better way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons is to attack its nuclear weapons program directly, break their control over the nuclear fuel cycle.

Watch the video:

What Bolton won’t tell you here is that sanctions, as mentioned before, have actually helped slow Iran’s nuclear progress — not accelerate it. A strike would merely delay the program, probably by no more than three years. Furthermore, a Israeli thinktank’s simulation exercise found that a Iranian nuclear test explosion does not, as Bolton claims, preclude a strike to delay further progress toward a viable, operational nuclear weapon.

Washington Post columnist and former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson examines Newt Gingrich’s history of anti-Muslim fear-bating and concludes that “those views demonstrate a disturbing tendency: the passionate embrace of shallow ideas.” But Gerson fails to acknowledge that Gingrich’s “shallow ideas” are more than just rhetoric. Gingrich has a plan to put them into action.

Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute last year, Gingrich told the audience:

It’s time we had a national debate on this. And one of the things I’m going to suggest today is a federal law that says ‘no court, anywhere in the United States, under any circumstances, is allowed to consider Sharia as a replacement for American law.’ Period.

Watch it:

And Gingrich’s 2010 documentary, “America At Risk: The War With No Name,” portrays a disturbing vision of the world in which the U.S. and its western allies are at war with Islam. “This war will go on until either the entire world either embraces Islam or submits to Islamic rule,” says historian Bernard Lewis, while appearing in the film.

Further exemplifying his anti-Muslim sentiments, In an interview last week, Gingrich explained that the Palestinians are an “invented people,” a statement effectively denying the right of Palestinians to a state. Such a position would end U.S. support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and rejects the policy positions of the Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations.

Gerson’s effort to flag Gingrich’s anti-Sharia rhetoric as “simplistic” is a welcome pushback against the growing Islamophobia in the far-right. (We addressed this problem in our recent report “Fear Inc.: The Roots Of the Islamophobia Network In America.”) But Gerson fails to acknowledge the potential domestic and foreign policy implications of Gingrich’s anti-Muslim statements.

Former Bush administration U.N. ambassador John Bolton responded to Newt Gingrich’s commitment to the Republican Jewish Committee that he would appoint Bolton as his Secretary of State if elected president. Bolton downplayed Gingrich’s statement and clarified that he wouldn’t commit to serving in a Gingrich administration and that Gingrich hadn’t offered him the job. He told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren:

He hasn’t spoken to me yet so it’s obviously very flattering. I’m honored that anybody would say that. But I think it’s really presumptuous for people in that position to be accepting or not. The focus has to be on nominating the best candidate we can and replacing President Obama. I think there’s some advantage to candidates talking about who they might have in their cabinet… It helps the candidates show what their priorities are and the direction of their thinking.

Watch it:

Indeed, appointing Bolton as Secretary of State would say a great deal about Gingrich’s priorities. Bolton is a highly divisive figure — he said, “The [UN] Secretariat Building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost ten stories today, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.” The Senate refused to confirm him as U.N. ambassador back in 2006. More recently, Bolton has forged ties to the Islamophobic far-right and wrote the foreword to anti-Muslim bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer’s book, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America. (HT: Christian Heinze)

At a forum hosted by the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich proclaimed that, if elected president, he would appoint former Bush administration U.N. ambassador John Bolton to be Secretary of State. Gingrich said he would require Bolton to restructure the U.S.’s entire diplomatic structure, and seek a more business-like atmosphere at State. Gingrich made the announcement to raucous applause:

If he will accept it, I will ask John Bolton to be Secretary of State. But I will only appoint him if he will agree that his first job is the complete and thorough transformation fo the State Department and the replacement of the current Foreign Service culture with a new entrepreneurial and aggressive culture dedicated to the proposition that defending freedom and defending America is the first business of the State Department, not appeasing opponents.

Watch the video:

The Senate refused to confirm the pugnacious Fox New contributor as U.N. envoy in 2006, forcing a recess appointment. Known for extremely hawkish positions and undiplomatic conduct, Bolton has maintained close ties to the Islamophobic right — but sometimes only when the money was good enough.

After the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog released its periodic report yesterday, replete with rich details about possible military dimension of Iran’s nuclear program, conservative hawks — ranging from journalists to think-tankers and even a presidential candidate — stepped up their support for a military strike on the Islamic Republic. While many in Congress are pushing for draconian sanctions on Iran, those not on Capital Hill are pushing a step farther.

Here’s a quick round-up of statements supporting a U.S. or Israeli attack from GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich, former Bush administration U.N. ambassador John Bolton, Wall Street Journal opinion and editorial writer Bret Stephens, and Council on Foreign Relations scholar Max Boot.

STEPHENS: [T]he policy debate… needs to abandon the conceit that there is a third way between allowing Iran’s nuclear drive to proceed effectively unhindered or to use military force to stop it…. A (bad) argument can be made that a nuclear Iran could be contained.

BOOT: Really stopping the Iranian program would require much tougher steps on the part of the U.S.–steps such as a naval blockade to cripple the Iranian economy and/or air strikes to cripple Iran’s military capacity.

GINGRICH: Well, if the Israelis decide as matter of national survival that they have to eliminate the Iranian nuclear capacity, I would strongly support them automatically… I think to ask them to take that risk is unconscionable.

BOLTON: The only alternative now is the potential for a pre-emptive military strike against their military program, either by the United States or Israel. Diplomacy has failed. Sanctions have failed.

Watch clips of Gingrich and Bolton:

It’s worth keeping in mind the right wing has been calling for an attack on Iran absent any evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program and well before the IAEA’s report.

“Iran’s nuclear program has produced much demagoguery and dangerous speculation,” the Atlantic Council’s Barbara Slavin noted yesterday in a Politico op-ed. “Dozens of other countries, however, have conducted nuclear research without becoming nuclear weapons states,” she said, adding, “It’s not too late to dissuade Iran from building and testing a nuclear weapon.”