John Bolton Won’t Settle for Less than War with Iran

-

bolton and team.jpg
John Bolton has another zinger oped today in the Financial Times offering withering criticism of Tony Blair and the British government for actions in the recent soldier detention case that Bolton argues only embolden Iran’s hard-liners.
Ambassador Bolton is brimming lately with hard criticism of the Brits, the Europeans, and even the American government. I’ve been looking but I haven’t found anything “complimentary” the guy has said about his former employers or any of America’s key allies since he resigned his unconfirmed perch as US Ambassador to the United Nations.
Ambassador Bolton has lost little time in grilling the presidency of George W. Bush, pretty much all parts of it except the Vice President’s office. Not too long ago, White House spokesman Tony Snow publicly spanked Bolton for his criticism of President Bush after American progress in managing the North Korea nuclear challenge. Snow specifically addressed Bolton and said:

I would like to remind Ambassador Bolton that the President he served believes the North Korea deal is a good deal and is in America’s interests.

Snow made the comment with some vigor — emphasing the words “he served” to make the implied point of “disloyalty.”
One of the things that has to be noted is how vigorously the Bush White House worked to secure John Bolton’s confirmation as Ambassador in the Senate; Rove & Co. worked this hard and made three huge pushes to get him confirmed. The positive commentary that Bush and his team manufactured about John Bolton was impressive.
Contrast this with the testy, usually arm’s length distance that the White House treated Secretary of State Colin Powell, who worked hard in my view to further the country’s basic diplomatic interests.
Today, Powell won’t say a negative word about President Bush — and he will only make nuanced criticisms of America’s current foreign and defense policies. In January 2009, I believe Powell will finally come out of the closet on his real views — or start to. Later than I would prefer — but it will be important to get Secretary Powell’s views on the record.
But Bolton demonstrates none of the courtesy offered by Powell to Bush. I really wish that Colin Powell could be a bit more like Bolton in tactics — and Bolton a lot more like Powell in substance.
But three quick points about John Bolton’s rant against the Brits today for all that may have been done to get the 15 British soldiers released.
First, Bolton keeps referring to Iran’s nuclear efforts as a “nuclear weapons program” as if this is fact. Iran presently has no such nuclear weapons capacity and has a nuclear ‘energy’ program still in early stages (including today’s announcement). Bolton’s framing seriously distorts the empirical reality. This program may eventually evolve into a nuclear weapons program — and I believe that there are key parts of the Iranian political world that want such weapons capacity — but it is not a nuclear weapons program today. Without qualifying it, Bolton is fear-mongering and committing serious overstatement.
This style is reminiscent of Bolton’s claims about bioweapons production in Cuba and his bullying State Department and CIA intelligence analysts to generate intel reports that conformed to his diagnosis of Iraq WMD activities.
Second, Bolton does not mention at all — not one word — about the unanimous UN Security Council resolution that UnderSecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns and Acting US Ambassador to the United Nations Alejandro Wolff successfully secured because of Iran’s failure to suspend enrichment activities. Where is this action in Bolton’s formulation that Iran’s hardliners have been “rewarded.”
Third, Bolton does not offer his own alternative on what the content of engagement with Iran should be, although I believe if asked, the Ambassador would offer something that sounded like hard-edged, military brinksmanship that moved a notch closer to delivering forced regime change and thorough bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities (which must include killing Iran’s American and European trained nuclear engineering talent).
And there is little reflection by the Ambassador — actually none that I know of — on the sorry state of America’s military capacity today and the current limits on our ability to manage yet another war and its aftermath. The Ambassador and many of his allies helped lead the nation into its current war without calculating the likelihood of long term success and the costs to American interests and prestige. And before remedying our current mess, Bolton would like to double up the bet and venture into yet another poorly considered set of risks.
John Bolton will remain a key participant in the debates about America’s engagement with Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and others. But he needs to be held accountable for his message as well. He is a diplomat who believes in talking only to friends — and many of those friends he thinks hardly deserve our time. And for the most part, he thinks we ought to be bombing our rivals and those with whom we have clear and complicated national security challenges.
Bolton’s binary world is a scary one. It’s either appeasement or war — when American history shows that in most cases, there are great numbers of other solutions and possible courses of action to secure our interests.
Pugnaciousness of Bolton’s sort can sometimes be useful diplomatically when mixed with other strategies and tactics — but pugnaciousness for it’s own sake and at all times can be very dangerous and at minimum is ineffective, predictable and gets stale.
–Steve Clemons

Comments

46 comments on “John Bolton Won’t Settle for Less than War with Iran

  1. Arun says:

    Powell: I will respectfully not tell the captain that we’ve hit an iceberg and sprung a leak, because he doesn’t want to hear it. Maybe after we reach port….
    Bolton: Captain, mow down that iceberg, and that one and that one….
    Both worthless shmucks. If we never hear from either one again, it would be too soon.

    Reply

  2. Dennis says:

    “Secretary Powell” is a game player. As such, he’s just as responsible for the unnecessary attack on Iraq as anyone else. Whether he could have put a stop to it is questionable. But he didn’t exactly try, either.
    You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

    Reply

  3. Renee says:

    WHY is Bush treated like a King?
    WHY is Rice treated like a Queen?
    BOTH of these traitors should be impeached immediately and put on trial for treason!
    “RICE LEAKED TO FORMER AIPAC STAFF
    Tuesday, April 10, 2007 – FreeMarketNews.com
    Two former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee say Condoleezza Rice was their informant on sensitive national security matters. The claim, laid out in a courtroom Friday, April 21, intensified the drama surrounding a trial that could further roil a Washington political establishment already consumed by cases involving “official” and “unofficial” leaks…”…
    http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=38359

    Rice has allegedly leaked classified information to traitorous Israeli spies, which has damaged our nation– and the corrupt and incompetent main-stream media toadies are obsessed with asinine remarks made by the blow-hard Imus??? Jeez!!!

    Reply

  4. Pissed Off American says:

    NEWS: AIPAC traitors who have been charged with espionage on behalf of Israel have said that Condi Rice passed to them the national security information.
    If this is true, Rice should be impeached immediately and put on trial for treason.
    Posted by Renee
    Well, maybe Pelosi will jump right on it. Right after she asks for AIPAC’s permission.

    Reply

  5. Renee says:

    NEWS: AIPAC traitors who have been charged with espionage on behalf of Israel have said that Condi Rice passed to them the national security information.
    If this is true, Rice should be impeached immediately and put on trial for treason.
    Rice should have been fired a long time ago for incompetence and corruption.

    Reply

  6. whynot says:

    Who cares what Powell has to say in 2009? He had his chance and choose to fall in line rather than speak his mind. Now he’s been gone for years and he still won’t talk. Talk about a cut and runner.

    Reply

  7. liz says:

    the media should stop quoting dangerous “has been’s”, Bolton, Newt, and they can stop with some ” are’s ” too like Krystol and that crowd. These people are dangerous and they should stifle them along with the current example ( Imus)

    Reply

  8. Matthew says:

    Thanks, johnf. Nothing anyone could write or say about John Bolton could be more devastating to demonstrating his TOTAL UNFITNESS to serve in government than his own words.
    I particularly loved this non-sequitur: We made a mistake in not giving Iraq sovereignty earlier, but we have no responsibility for their security.

    Reply

  9. johnf says:

    John Bolton has had a very rough time on British TV recently. On at least three occasions I’ve seen him savaged, twice by interviewers and once on a panel show with other panellists and a live audience. Perhaps this is why he’s so anti-Brit at the moment:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO87jib5o8w
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtyGGYZKDqE&mode=related&search=

    Reply

  10. Chesire11 says:

    Why do you keep calling him “Ambassador”?
    Bolton was, for a time, an ambassador. According to my understanding of protocol, when referring to a person by title, it is customary to refer to a person by the highest title he/she achieved (with the exception of the presidency as there is only ever one POTUS). Personally, I love to hear him referred to as “ambassadorr,” especially when he’s being such an unpleasant, angry little man. It kind of highlights how spectacularly incompetent this admiistration is when it comes to foreign policy – hell, ANY policy!

    Reply

  11. Sam Thornton says:

    Hate to say this but Bolton seems bent on positioning himself as the asshat’s asshat. Like other morons of his ilk, he still doesn’t get it. Every time he opens his mouth in public he is going to be immediately fact-checked by thousands of people world-wide.
    His pathetic attempts at deception, along with the facts that rebut him, are going to be part of a permanent internet record. The more he opens his mouth, the deeper he sinks. Keep on yammering John. And let the record be built.

    Reply

  12. Carroll says:

    Here is another Powell like pitiful figure. All but the living dead ideologues and die hard party cultist among us see the pandering and lies of the power lusters finally turning them to pillars of salt. Do you suppose the other lusters have caught on yet? I doubt it, they are too enthralled with it all to see themselves like we see them.
    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040607J.shtml
    The American Tragedy of John McCain
    By William Rivers Pitt

    Reply

  13. JonU says:

    “John Bolton is a hawk because he is looking out for the longterm best interests of the USA. He is probably calculing we will suffer a few military deaths in the short term to prevent gargantuan civilian and military deaths of US citizens in the (not so) long term.
    I agree.”
    Robert, please refer to the plethora of evidence that our invasion of Iraq has decreased our security.
    Invading Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. Our invasion of this country was a preexisting agenda by an extremist faction within our country and government. The neoconservative movement.
    There was no siginificant terrorist activity in Iraq preceding our invasion. This is fact. Anyone saying otherwise is grossly misinformed, or flat out lying to you.
    Simply signifying someone as a “hawk” is not enough to justify their actions. Knee-jerk hawks like Bolton very often have little rational thought in regards to the reality we face in foreign affairs.
    The damage he is doing, along with his fellow neocons, is going to take a good generation to fix.
    And you will be less safe in the duration.

    Reply

  14. Robert Morrow says:

    John Bolton is a hawk because he is looking out for the longterm best interests of the USA. He is probably calculing we will suffer a few military deaths in the short term to prevent gargantuan civilian and military deaths of US citizens in the (not so) long term.
    I agree.

    Reply

  15. Pissed Off American says:

    “…I’m sure there will always be some sort of place for the John Boltons of the world…”
    Rikers?? Pelican Island???

    Reply

  16. Pissed Off American says:

    If one is going to pay attention to the lunatic side of the Iran issue, you might as well take a gander at the more rational opinions as well….
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ID06Ak01.html

    Reply

  17. Jay C says:

    “John Bolton will remain a key participant in the debates about America’s engagement with Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and others”
    Why, Steve? Why should this extremist character rate the time of day from ANYONE with ANY serious concern that the US should have a rational and realistic foreign policy (just for starters, one that looks on actual WARS as a desperate last resort, rather than a blustering tool for neocon pipedreams of world domination)? I’m sure there will always be some sort of place for the John Boltons of the world: but why would this (or why SHOULD this) be anything other than as resident curmudgeon at some well-carpeted right-wing think tank – where his bellicose rantings can be safely ignored by the sane? I really don’t understand.

    Reply

  18. JonU says:

    Here are some questions for you…
    Considering this:
    “since he resigned his UNCONFIRMED perch as US Ambassador to the United Nations” (emphasis mine)
    How is this person considered such an expert on foreign policy that he receives such prominent media soapboxes to mislead people from?
    What exactly are his qualifications and track record, that he should be even considered for op ed pieces in anything beyond than the Backwater Gazette of Greater Podunk?
    Why do delusional, misleading, lying people like Bolton (or any neocon for that matter), get so much prominent media attention after having been so wrong about so much?
    What exactly has this fool been right about, that people still take him seriously?

    Reply

  19. Pissed Off American says:

    Bolton’s outrageous behaviour is matched, or bested, by the Administration’s. I see news accounts that claim that this Administration made an offer to Britain to “scare” Iran with fighter overflights of Iranian military installations. I find it extremely ironic that this administration sought to resolve a crisis, that supposedly was founded in a dispute about whether or not the Brits were in Iranian waters, by ACTUALLY invading Iranian airspace. Thankfully, Britain “refused” our assistance. Its not hard to imagine, (had such a course of action been embarked upon), Bush and Cheney praying for one of our boys to be shot down. If so, I don’t imagine their prayers would have been much different than Bolton’s. Its important to remember, if this Administration had its way, Bolton would be enjoying far more power over our foreign policies than he has now by still having his seat at the UN. Granted, all he can do at this point is rant and rave, but he is ranting and raving the Administration’s wishes. It is not this Administration hesitating to militarily engage Iran, it is the newly elected Democratic majority that is holding them back. And that hold is tenuous at best, particularly considering how beholding the upper echelon Dems are to Israel. Create the right “incident”, and people like Pelosi and Hillary, and probably Reid, will jump right on the “Hey, lets attack Iran” bandwagon. Having one of our jets shot down would have been EXACTLY what Bolton and Bush/Cheney need to swing the pendulum.
    BTW, Steve, Powell is a God damned traitor. His loyalty to the “Commander in Chief” has superceded his loyalty to this nation. I have no doubt that Powell possesses the knowledge to bring these bastards down, and secure them a cell in a federal penitentiary. And until he comes forward and does just that, I consider him to be no higher than pond scum.

    Reply

  20. TonyForesta says:

    The Nimitz and her strike group are heading to the Gulf or Hormuz, financial and other US oleaginous interests in have been ordered out of Barhain, “Gen. James Conway (Marine Corps Commandant) visited the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) aboard the multipurpose amphibious assault ship USS Baatan (LHD 5) in the Persian Gulf and other vessels of the strike group. He was accompanied by Lt.Gen. Keith Stadler, Commanding General of II Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF), Sgt. Maj. Of the Marine Corps John Estrada and Rear Adm. Richard Jeffries, medical officer of the Marine Corps.”
    Bolton and the other fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government are iching for a fight with Iran, to salvage what little gossomer thin shred of hope remains for their perverted imperialist fascist ambitions and machinations in the ME.
    This party is on! It is a question of when, not if, – the fascist warmongers and profiteers hurl America and our daughters and sons into another ill-concieved, unwarranted, unnecessary, illegal, deceptive, doomed to fail, costly, bloody, noendinsight horrorshow against another ME nation.
    “Deliver us from evil!”

    Reply

  21. Matthew says:

    Whenever Bolton talks, I forget that Syriana is just a movie.

    Reply

  22. Eli Rabett says:

    Steve, you are dreaming again. Powell was made by GBI and his loyalty runs very deep. He will never say a single word against GBII under any circumstance and you are dumb thinking he will.
    You naivity is touching at times.

    Reply

  23. Edward Nashton says:

    Ambassador Bolton’s analysis of Ahmadinejad’s supposed gains is as transparent as his tough-talk. These efforts, to make Iran’s puppet President the face of the regime, are a sorry attempt by the neocons to incite fear in the American and European populace.
    Notice that while the article says a great deal about what was wrong with the situation and its outcome, not once does Bolton offer any policy prescriptions about how he would conduct things differently.
    Coincidence, or is it just that Mr. Bolton and his buddies at AEI have learned a valuable lesson about the willingness of the American people to support another war in the Middle East. Mr. Strauss, I imagine, would have been enormously proud.

    Reply

  24. Carroll says:

    So Powell will still honor the Omertà in the Bush Neo family till a new family takes over?
    Well whatever Powell might have to say in January 2009 won’t matter, other people have already come forward. In fact saying anything at that late date just makes him look worse. Forget Powell, he’s now in the dust bin of history. His alleigence to his own career above all else finally caught up with him.

    Reply

  25. James White says:

    “Today, Powell won’t say a negative word about President Bush — and he will only make nuanced criticisms of America’s current foreign and defense policies. In January 2009, I believe Powell will finally come out of the closet on his real views — or start to. Later than I would prefer — but it will be important to get Secretary Powell’s views on the record.”
    ——-
    That is why Powell is not A Man for All Seasons. TO withhold criticisms until one is “safe” or one’s ideological cohorts are “safe” or until – God knows what reason, but it certainly isn’t patriotism, is morally reprehensible.

    Reply

  26. smallrat says:

    Tony Blair also refers to Iran’s “nuclear weapons program”, and he does this during PMs questions in the House of commons.

    Reply

  27. nochickenhawk says:

    Why do you devote so much ink to Bolton? Who cares what he says? The best thing to do with a nonentity like that is to ignore him not help him try and gain meaningful employment like everyone else who has to make an honest living.

    Reply

  28. Brigitte N. says:

    Thankfully, Bolton is no longer representing the Bush administration at the UN and therefore I cannot see any reason why he should have a voice in the mass-mediated discourse on foreign policy matters.
    As for Colin Powell, who wants to know what he thought in the run-up to the Iraq war and thereafter, he should have acted in the only right way–resign as Secretary of State. Perhaps that would have been a wake-up call for enough Americans. No excuse for his silence then.

    Reply

  29. Carroll says:

    Why do you keep calling him “Ambassador”?
    Posted by Jerome Gaskins at April 9, 2007 02:44 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Haw!..I was about to say the same thing. Along with the older I get the more I understand that you just can’t reason or deal with some people in a civilized manner. Those like Bolton need to be laid up in the hospital with every bone broken to give them time to reconsider their little selves.

    Reply

  30. john somer says:

    Why do you call John Bolton “Ambassador” ? He was never confirmed in that position or title by the Senate. Some true US Ambassadors might feel insulted

    Reply

  31. Zathras says:

    John Bolton brings to mind an observation Henry Kissinger made once about White House speechwriters, to the effect that far from seeing themselves as loyal servants of their principals, most speechwriters are frustrated principals themselves. Without clear and constant guidance as to what they should write, they are liable to try to use what they write to influence policy to reflect their own views.
    John Bolton seems to me to have the soul of that kind of speechwriter, assigned a subordinate position but determined to assert himself as if American foreign policy should be seen to reflect primarily his views. The contrast with Colin Powell, who is a staff man at heart and stumbled badly when given leadership of a major department, is striking; Bolton by exaggerating his prerogatives threw sand in the gears of foreign policy, while Powell in exalting the career staff man’s discretion accomplished much the same thing. It is unfortunate that both men reached the pinnacle of their respective careers in public life at the same time.

    Reply

  32. Linda says:

    I’m not as sympathetic about Powell’s silence. As I’ve stated before, it reminds me of McNamara’s silence on Iraq too. My guess is that we will learn Powell’s true thoughts too late (and 1/09 is way too late) in a book for which he will get a very large advance.

    Reply

  33. TB says:

    “John Bolton has another zinger oped today in the Financial Times offering withering criticism of Tony Blair and the British government for actions in the recent soldier detention case that Bolton argues only embolden Iran’s hard-liners.”
    Yeah, and ya know what else, I’ve got a bat-crazy uncle who thinks the same way, and I treat his opinions the same way I treat Bolton’s: like unmitigated BS to be ignored ignore.
    “John Bolton FAILED recess appointment by George Bush”
    That would be an accurate title to run under the guy on TV news programs until he goes away and is found many years later raving at a UFO convention.

    Reply

  34. eCAHNomics says:

    John Bolton does not play well with others. He’s just a pouty toddler. Don’t know why anyone would give him media space or waste a blog post on him,

    Reply

  35. Jerome Gaskins says:

    Why do you keep calling him “Ambassador”?
    Former-Amb is more appropriate, don’t you think? Right now, it sounds almost as if you miss the old bassador!

    Reply

  36. David Wearing says:

    Without the Bolton tendency there would have been no hostage crisis. The hostage taking was designed to send a specific message, it seems to me. And although Britain was at the receiving end of Iran’s actions, Iran’s message was designed to counter not Blair’s but the neo-con’s Iran agenda.
    Specifically the message was:
    1/ If you attack us, as the neo-cons urge, don’t think we can’t strike back. Think about the safety of UK forces in Southern Iran for example; and
    2/ There are two ways you can deal with us – as demonstrated by the way diplomacy played out during the crisis. If you internationalise our disputes and try to haul us before the “internatinal community” you will find your allies are not as impressed with your case as you might hope, and you’ll certainly get nothing from us. If, on the other hand, you engage with us directly and talk to us on-a-level, diplomacy will be productive and we may even be surprisingly generous in any deal-making.
    Now take these lessons, Tehran is saying, and apply them to the rest of the US et al vs Iran dispute. War = bad. Internationalisation = bad. Bilateral diplomacy = good.
    This is not a message that Bolton (a) wants to hear or (b) wants other people to listen to. Hence the tantrums reminscent of those that follwed the DPRK deal. But my guess is that Tehran is hoping that London and saner elements in Washington will get the message, thus strengthening their case against that of Cheney, neo-cons etc.
    more here
    http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk/2007/04/iran-hostage-crisis-in-context.html

    Reply

  37. ... says:

    steve quote >>He is a diplomat who believes in talking only to friends << bolton isn’t a diplomat. to be diplomatic is to converse with others… the guy is a kamakazee on a narrow mission. thanks for helping push him off center stage steve. you have been at the forefront in successfully pointing out his huge shortcomings in serving the usa.

    Reply

  38. profmarcus says:

    bolton is simply a more visible spokesman for what the far right is thinking… i received this in my email from the far right advocacy group, move america forward… i think it’s an enlightening summary of current neocon thinking…

    Reply

  39. Gadfly says:

    “Bolton’s binary world is a scary one.” – Steve Clemons
    One day the bombastic neo-con buffoon Bolton’s views will be relegated to the trash-heap of history where they belong.
    Bolton is a liar- a hypocrite- and, a bully-boy– which is one of the reasons that the corrupt & incompetent Bush-Cheney-Rice-Rove gang wanted him so desperately to be the US Ambassador to the United Nations. In other words, Bolton could be counted-on to regurgitate Bush’s asinine world-view, also binary in nature.
    On the world state, the sordid & squalid ilk of Bolton (and, Rice, Bush, Cheney, the neo-cons) are viewed with disgust– because they threaten like mafia-goons Arab nations, whilst letting Israel get-away with criminal behaviour. Israel is permitted to obtain nuclear weapons & violate U.N. resolutions with impunity.
    Why is it that such creeps like Bolton, Bush, Cheney, Rice & Rove so easily clamour for war, when these arm-chair chicken-hawks never had the the courage, never had the integrity, and never had the willingness to serve our nation in battle? Because they are traitors.
    Bolton & his pay-masters have nothing to say which serves the interests of the American people– and, they should all be shunned like O.J. Simpson!

    Reply

  40. Punchy says:

    Mr. Clemons, your kid-glove treatment of Sec. Powell is a bit nauseating at best. Why on Earth would it be “important to get Sec. Powell’s views on record” post-Jan. 2009??? Isn’t this like the parent who says “yeah, I knew my child was abused by his teacher, but I had to wait until he moved up a grade before I said anything….”
    Who does this? What kind of chicken-shit baloney is coming clean AFTER the damange is done, AFTER the country is screwed-up, AFTER all chance at stopping/reversing/slowing down the destruction has passed?
    Sorry, but paint me as painting Powell one of the sorriest, weakest, morally-bankrupt soliders our country has ever produced. Too friggin’ scared to speak his mind now, FAR too disgustingly ineffective/inept to speak his mind in 22 months. He’s a joke; please just acknowledge this fact.

    Reply

  41. erichwwk says:

    I remain flabbergasted by the frequency with which MSM seems willing to abet John Bolton’s dissemination of hate and bigotry, and beating the drums of violence and genocide.
    Some have raised the issue of whether Iran denies the Holocaust in Europe. At the same time the US denies the holocaust it commits in the Middle East.
    From anecdotal data, I conclude that only 1 in 10 Americans is able to state the number one reason why ObL attacked the US on 9-11. John Bolton has certainly contributed significantly to this obfuscation.

    Reply

  42. Robert M. says:

    Telling photo you found. Thousand words, etc. Do any of the wake-trailers count for anything now or are they part of the Bush-clique?

    Reply

  43. selise says:

    this post reminds me why i am so glad that when bolton says these kinds of things it is as the FORMER ambassador to the UN.
    without steve’s (and others) work… we could be reading about bolton’s statements as the current ambassador.
    hopefully by continuing to pay critical attention (with appropriatee mocking) to bolton’s insanities, there won’t be a chance for his reputation to be whitewashed.
    progress is good….

    Reply

  44. Den Valdron says:

    Okay, who the hell are you, and what have you done with our pal Steve?

    Reply

  45. Matthew says:

    Steve: Who is Bolton’s constituency? Even the Wingnuts have stopped listening to him. Iran’s “aggressiveness” is actually a rational response to Neo-Con ideology: Not possessing nuclear weapons makes you a target; possessing them makes you a negiatating partner.
    Bolton has been wrong about everything. Please start ignoring him.

    Reply

  46. Jim DeRosa says:

    Everything with Bolton and the Bush Gang is war. When the captured Brits shake hands with the President of Iran upon their release…we make them out as fools.
    Put a rifle in Bolton’s hands and drop him off on the border.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *