John Bolton lights into Obama
He seems to have a few disagreements (link added) with Obama’s foreign policy:
What is implicit in Obama’s reference to “tiny” threats is that they are sufficiently insignificant that negotiations alone can resolve them. Indeed, he has gone even further, arguing that the lack of negotiations with Iran caused the threats: “And the fact that we have not talked to them means that they have been developing nuclear weapons, funding Hamas, funding Hezbollah.”
This is perhaps the most breathtakingly naive statement of all, implying as it does that it is actually U.S. policy that motivates Iran rather than Iran’s own perceived ambitions and interests. That would be news to the mullahs in Tehran, not to mention the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah.
It is an article of faith for Obama, and many others on the left in the U.S. and abroad, that it is the United States that is mostly responsible for the world’s ills.
That’s not even the best part. Bolton pins a great big MONDALE sign on him.
One more line I’m going to pull out, and chisel in stone somewhere visible in DC:
An “asymmetric” threat to the U.S. often is an existential threat to its friends, which was something we never forgot during the Cold War.
Oh, I wouldn’t say never, Stache, unless by “we” you mean “the Reagan administration”:
L to R: Senator Kerry, Senator Harkin, Mrs. Harkin, Communist Anti-American Dictator Danny Ortega’s Moustache, Communist Anti-American Dictator Danny Ortega.
The most visible exception to Bolton’s Law right now is Colombia, which has been in a struggle for its existence against Communist terrorists since 1968, and which San Fran Nan and her Palominocrats are determined to sell down the river. I’ve written about that several times (check baby check two three four) but here’s the Diplomad’s more thorough and better informed account. He just got back from there.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Lunch Time Links : Stop The ACLU
- John Bolton: Obama the Naive | Infidels Are Cool
- John Bolton: Obama the Naive | Infidels Are Cool
- John Bolton on Naivete and History | The Sundries Shack
- Media Mythbusters Blog » Blog Archive » Media Bias Roundup - 06/05/08
- Hyscience
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » “Naive and dangerous”: Bolton rips Obama
- John Bolton Rips Into Obama’s Foreign Policy | Technophobiac News
- Maggie's Farm
- Political Party Poop
- John Bolton on Barack H***** Obama « Firearms & Freedom
- John Bolton on Obama « Something should go here, maybe later.
- One blog. Two blog. Three blog. Four. Right blog. Left blog. True blog? What for? « Tangents in a Virtual PlayGround Blog
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: 2008 campaign, Barack Obama, War, White Flag Democrats
Right Pundits
» Joe Lieberman: Fort Hood Shooter Is ‘Home-Grown Terrorist’Legal Insurrection
» Bruni de la Motte for Health Care CzarRiehl World View
» Obama: No Military Death Shall Go UnexploitedLegal Insurrection
» In The End: No Public Option, No Abortions, No Pelosi, No ReidThe Other McCain
» Paralysis by analysisThe Powers That Be
» Obama: ‘Don’t Jump to Conclusions’ About Ft. Hood; Immediately Jumps to ConclusionsLegal Insurrection
» NY Times Names Names
I don’t think it’s naive, I think it’s arrogance. You see, “if only he could talk to” [insert enemy here], he’d change their mind. Because naturally, his arguments are superior.
I think we need to get away from the naive, and call it what it is: breathtaking arrogance.
One of the worlds largest supplier of arms to anti-western terrorist groups getting a nuke is a “tiny” threat? What color is the sky in Obamas world
Bolton for Veep!
I do so love John. He is not a shy child and tells it like it is.
L
Black
A 500 kiloton W88 warhead is only about 5′x2′. Maybe that’s what he meant about tiny.
I know where I took the quote doesn’t match what he said but yes I agree. It is our actions that cause them to react.
Following up bloghooligan, arrogance and indifference. “And if a chat over tea doesn’t work, so what? America is a horrible, terrible, downright-mean place, deserves to be knocked down a few pegs by these brave, oppressed freedom fighters.” Etc.
Bolton for Veep hell, Bolton for Pres.
Nah, not gonna happen, he’s too smart for that crap job.
.
There is an element of truth to this.
But what you and many Liberals fail to acknowledge is that the relationship is not unidirectional.
Nope. Let’s just go ahead and cut to the chase – He is stupid.
Okay. Well, maybe, it could be the arugala and highend ham talking.
No wonder Bolton made Voinavich burst into tears on the senate floor.
Can Big John Bolton give a testosterone transfusion to the republican party please?
And throw in a serving of common sense too?
Start with Juan McCain and the rest of the liberal republiwankers in the party leadership.
SPCOlympics said:
If we take a look back to maybe 60 years ago, it was our actions that caused this strife between us, that was healthy at one point.
I don’t think there’s enough testosterone in the world to give these bunch of gutless Repubs that we now have a backbone.
Pelosi and her ilk kick their butts all over the floor of congress on just about any given day and they just sit with stupid looks on their faces and take it.
Wimps, that’s what we’ve got. Just like Bernie Goldberg said in his book, Crazy’s to the left of me, wimps to the right.
Sounds about right to me. Me thinks the Repubs in congress are all eunichs.
.
I believe if we just let bolton’s stache go off and tear our enemies apart like rabid tigers at a gazelle convention, we’ll have no problems.
Can we book him a flight to Iran?
I’ll humor you and say you’re right. Our support of the Shah durning the Cold War gives the Iranians license to pursue the building of nukes and send Quds over to Iraq to kill our troops with IFPs.
Then how do you justify Iranian threats against Israel? Israel hasn’t meddled in Iranian politics. They haven’t imposed sanctions against Iran. They haven’t shot at Iranian boats, down Iranian planes, or killed Iranian troops (except maybe covert ones in Gaza or Lebannon).
Face it, the current Iranian regime are the bad guys.
Obama is a naive fool. He is fond of saying that a McCain Presidency would be a third Bush term. However, a more accurate analogy is that an Obama Presidency would be a second Carter term. Ineptitude squared.
It wasn’t just supporting the Shah, it was getting rid of a democratically elected government, which Iran was the first to see our hypocrisy on that matter. Are these some bad men running Tehran. Yes. I think we should talk with them though, a little progress is better then none.
It reminds me why I value reason and logic over rhetoric.
I’d rather have Bush for three than Carter for two. If we have Carter (Obama) for two, we’d better start practicing up on speaking Farsi.
.
.
Ok lets look at what happened 60 years ago
You might want to reasearch the crap you spew out.
I forgot.
Ayatollah Khomeini. Before him, Israel and Iran actually had joint military ventures, and Iran was the 2nd nation to recognize Israel as a country. I think it had to do with the Shah calling Israel a friend and ally that caused Khomeini to align Israel, the US, and the Shah all lumped together as enemies of Islam.
Mi no habla. Oh, wait. That’s not Farsi, is it? I keep getting my conquering invaders’ languages mixed up.
if McPain wanted to get some conservative cred, he’d bring Bolton on board as a foreign policy advisor (and prospective Sec State).
Wow ! Now thats what I call a B-slap !
I agree. ARROGANCE, thy personification is Barack Hussein Obama. May he fall flat on his face come November.
Btw, BOLTON should be reinstated as Ambassador to the UN, if that sick “international body” survives till the Republican nominee is seated in the WH in January 2009!
Couple of things here.
First the injustices against Americans – the hostage crisis and IFPs in Iraq – are much more recent – and yet we forgiving to a fault. Why can’t the Iranians get over something that happened a couple of generations ago.
Second, they must not miss that democracy very much because once they got the US out, they created and still maintain an oppressive theocracy.
We have been, in the current and past Administrations. It’s just that we haven’t had direct Presidential talks which is something that needs to be earned.
Blind_Mule:
My Apologies. 55 Years ago.
http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html
Silkyinfamous said:
Our problems with Iran started when Peanut Brain Carter decided toquit backing the Shah and let the Mullahs assume power in Iran …
That was only 30 years ago … not 60 …
Spcolympics:
Tell the Jews from the Holocaust that.
A fact checking liberal is pure fiction. Liberals only spin facts.
Shouldn’t the Bolton is holding say, “Brace yo’ self?” It’s been a long time since my 40 drinkin’ days.
Yeah! There you go, spo-con. That’s a term for it that I was trying to think of.
*crap* Shouldn’t the sign Bolton is holding say, “Brace yo’ self?” It’s been a long time since my 40 drinkin’ days.
I gotta stop proofreading after I hit submit. Lol.
I have to agree with the arrogance label for Obama instead of his simply being naive. Obamessiah knows better than professionals that have been dealing with this for decades. Typical elitist crap from the left. God help us all if he becomes president. Obama has no grasp of reality.
Alright. Now, that’s a strrrrreeeeetttch. A theocratic hissy fit by Iran compared to the genocide of millions of Jews is a huge, huge, huge leap.
Bolton called it on target.
God Bless Him.
Obama is a Marxist, Racist, America Hating Fool. He is an excellent tool for the destruction of the Nation.
Wake Up America! Or assume the postiton in the Worlds newest Third World Country!
Arabs and Persians do not “negotiate”. They merely use that time to plan their best sucker punch. God help us if Obie tries to play with these guys. They will cut out his liver (and ours) and eat it with some fava beans and a sweet tea.
We are in decline as a nation when simple-minded personalities like Barak Obama ascend to the pinnacle of power and good men like John Bolton are cast off. May God have mercy on us.
So you admit that the Iranian government yearns for Israel’s death based solely on religious grounds.
That’s not evil… why? And that’s America’s fault how? And talking to them will remedy that how?
I don’t want the arrogant, racist, marxist, Barack Hussein Obama for my President. His arrogance will get many people killed. I hope the Good Lord smiles down on us and finds a way to keep him out of the Oval Office.
So we helped overthrow a democratic government for a dictator who killed thousands of his own people and now have an even crazier regime which does the same thing. I don’t think its a leap. We “Democracy For All” America stripped a country of that and I think its sad no one realizes that.
Well not talking to them hasn’t helped, so what’s the risk. That Iran will say no, and the people will start to think maybe the Satan is the Iranian Government and not US. Stuff like that.
#42 ‘find a way to keep him out the Oval Office’. VOTE in Nov.
L
How many Jews hate Germans, especially Jews born after 1945?
You realize that Germany and Israel have had normal relations since 1960, right?
Jews (hopefully) won’t forget the Holocaust. But they don’t go around playing the victim and calling Germany the Great Satan.
BTW, the Iranians doubt that the Holocaust even happened…
Your right BarryF. I don’t see the connection either. Millions exterminated vs Allah cartoons ? Everything offends these losers ! And B.O. wants to have chats with them…………..
Oh please. They don’t need any hormones what they need is a calcium supplement to fortify their spines.
They have nothing to worry about from Snobama, unless they say something about Michelle Obama. Then, he might have to tell them to “lay off”.
The Iranian Government.
Dude.
No link?
That’s really how you see this shaking out? We offer to engage them, they say no, and all of a sudden everyone who likes Iran and hates America will change course?
Can you show me one hostile power that has worked with? Just one?
By the way, I admire your ability to flit from one proposition to the next without admitting that the premise you were just resting it on has been proven invalid.
Or they take his waffle…lego my eggo, you SOB!
…and we all know that Iranian Government consists of?
Only because he falsely reads into what he wants.
Translation: What we have be doing thus far with Iran has not worked. They are still developing nuclear weapons, funding Hamas, funding Hezbollah. Plus, we removed Iran’s closest enemy.
I respect Bolton enough to believe that he knows better and that this is strictly a politically motivated statement.
It’s called multi-tasking. It’s a liberal thing.
Well hey, all that shuckin’ and jivin’ worked on the left leaning masses and ‘intelligent’ career students. The “tokers”, as usual, just followed the rest of the sheep over the cliff.
thanks for the photo, that’s going on my new blog
That explains alot.
Study: Multitasking is counterproductive
Soviet Union.
How do you negotiate, rationalize or anything else with a crazy regime?
The most powerful person in the free world (i.e. POTUS) sitting down and talking with no pre-conditions with the leader of this “even crazier regime” can give some sense of legitimacy to them and their blood thirsty cohorts. They become emboldened and advance their rhetoric and actions, because they now believe themselves to be on an equal plane with you.
You negotiate from a position of strength, not weakness. If Iran wants to negotiate with the U.S., they must make concessions to show their willingness to cease their behaviors to earn a spot at that particular table.
Yep. Silkyinfamous could even name that…
Ah, but it only worked because we effectively projected our military power. We MADE the Soviets come to the table. Had we not presented a credible offense to Soviet expansionist doctrine, T34’s might have been driving down the Champs-Élysées.
You may want to go back and review the Cold War and how Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union. He didn’t just sit down at the table and chat. Reagan was a staunch believer in “peace through strength”.
And I would argue also that talking to the Soviet Union was just a tad bit different than heading to the table with Iran. What with the whole deployment of the SS-20, then the Pershing II, etc, etc.. We definitely included military power in discussions with them.
Amen to that, I lived on a S.A.C. base and got to see that strength in action when we kept B-52’s in the air at all times ready for the worst.
You’ve got that right. See my comment regarding the Pershing II.
Well, look at the little liberal toad. He/she whatever thinks he’s soooo funny. Liberals must cause a lot of accidents then by doing this multi-tasking while driving. Since according to this clown, they’re the only ones who do. Next time you’re hit by some loser putting on make up or shaving you’ll know it’s a liberal toad.
Plus, this does not take into account the economic conditions of the Soviet Union at the time as well, especially with the amount of spending required to keep up the arms race during the cold war.
There is also a factor where the Soviet Union considered its own survival (although ultimately they lost that as well). I do not believe that the religion fueled leaders of Iran have quite the same take on preserving their own lives, quite the opposite, in fact.
Isn’t that the greatest fear of an Iran with a nuclear weapon? That our own capability will not be an adequate deterrence to them as it was to the Soviet Union?
Equating the Soviet politburo of yesteryear with the Ayatollah of today and treating them as similar could be a dangerous mistake.
terrig
silky wouldn’t know true multi-tasking if it it fell in his/her lap …
Regarding the Soviets, I think this is where Obama’s lack of historical knowledge and dislike of the military becomes dangerous.
Many Liberals think of the military as a tool of oppression, that wars just spontaneously happen because there are armies around the world. If people just sat down and talked, if they just sang Kumbayah, noone would ever fire a shot.
What they fail to understand, or refuse to accept, strong militaries actually prevent wars. They force politicians to use diplomacy.
I read his comment as a kind of self-effacing joke, not a slam (especially since he didn’t challenge the part about the premise becoming invalid). Perhaps I read it incorrectly?
terrig said:
He. You have to have a sense of humor with some of these bizarre comments flying around. There’s no need to call people out, when you have no idea who they are. Feel Free though.
So now I’m hearing that Reagan used military back up, but also talked to the Soviets. He, Himself, talked to the Soviets. So what’s the difference with Iran?
Did you read the whole paper or did you just read the introduction and conclusion, forming the same opinion as the writer?
Eisenhower supported the coupe for fear of Soviet intervention in Iran during the Soviets land grab domination of the world days. Many of the fact involved were not known until 1998 well after the islamic revoloution of 1978-1979.
Along with “Trust but verify.”
One adult still left in politics?
About 20,000 nuclear warheads.
You can say bye-bye to that bargaining chip if Obama gets elected.
source: 2007 NYT
Have you not been reading the posts in this part of the discussion thread? Reagan ended detente with the Soviet Union and Communism by brining them to their knees and putting them in a position where they came seeking an audience with him for relief. His military build up was intentional on two levels.
First, he believed in the position of “peace through strength”, which calls for you to have the ability to take action and for it to be obvious enough that the other party realizes you have it, will use it, if necessary, and what the end result would be, if used.
Second, that military build up served a second purpose. Reagan knew the U.S. economy could withstand a race to attain the frontrunner status in military might that the lame Soviet Union economy could not sustain, putting them in an even weaker position to recover from it.
The Soviets recognized that they were being bested and it was in their best interest to come to the table.
What you are defending Barack Obama on is his offer to take the table to a blood thirsty tyrant bent of the destruction and domination of the free world, because it will not comply with him. Today, Iran’s eyes are turned on the U.S., because we are looked to from around the world to intervene and restore order, when things are out of kilter. If they ever succeeded in destroying the U.S., the next country in line, if there were any left, would be in their crosshairs.
The Reagan approach with the Soviet Union and Obama’s theory are an extreme illustration of comparing apples and oranges.
The Soviets didn’t have a crazy religious component that made them believe that they would get 72 virgins in heaven if they got killed.
Mutually Assured Destruction is a win-win for the muslims.
I agree, in as much as Reagan certainly had policies with teeth on them…it wasnt just bluster or empty rhetoric.
I don’t believe that talking to our enemies is a bad idea. Keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer, is always a good policy.
But its the *reasons* Oblahma
ack, continued….
its the reasons that he wants to sit down and talk to them that worry me. He’s not going over there to flex our countries muscles and make it known we wont tolerate their crap. He would get over there with a page full of democrat talking points and basically capitulate in the end, all for the sake of “understanding their culture.”
Bolton may not be working in the government anymore, but his pimp hand stays strong.
I just hope Bush has enough common sense to take out key nuclear facilities in Iran before November.
After the election and before the inauguration.
Are you actually suggesting that the Soviet Union collapsed and / or became pro-American because we negotiated with them?
Now you’re just being silly. Even by troll standards that’s an absurd thing to assert.
That will never happen, even if Iran produced a nuke on television and paraded it down Tehran like the Soviets used to do in Red Square the liberals would never allow such an act to occur.
But fret not… our allies the Israeli’s have made it abundantly clear, and have past history to back up their claims (*cough* Syria *cough*), that if they feel their security is compromised by Iran’s constant call for their destruction and they believe Iran has the nukes they claim they are not building that they will bomb their nuclear facilities into a crater filled zone of destruction.
The issue I have with Obama on this topic echo’s my distrust of Carter in the 1970’s: a unilateral, public promise of disarmament. (Remember his cancellation of the B1 program? Cancelling neutron bomb production? Opposing deployment of theater missile defense? Etc., Etc.)
Once you voluntarily start back pedaling and reducing your strength BEFORE you start negotiating it seriously undercuts your ability to stand fast in the negotiations. You have given up your credibilty at the outset.
Contrast that with Reagan at the Iceland summit where he walked away saying he preferred no agreement to a flawed one.
Why announce in advance a sense of desperation to talk and create some form of an agreement just to have an agreement? Obama will endanger the entire world with his naivite.
The USSR fell because they tried to outspend us, not because we talked to them. When we did talk to them we were backed with thousands of nukes and a huge military. We took a position of strength. JFK during the cuban missile crisis had hundreds of warships to help put preasure on them. I can not think of any successful talks that took place with hostile nations without the use of the military as a backup plan. I can think of plenty that failed because military force was ruled out.
But, then again, we are talking about the Obamessiah. He is diiiiifferent.
Silkyinfamous,
Negotiations with Russia were only part of a multi-front struggle. If it weren’t, they’d have called it the ‘Cold Battle’, not the ‘Cold War’.
Simultaneously, the USA massively outspent Russia in an arms race the USA knew Russia could not win. They bankrupted their nation in order to try and keep up with us, and it’s largely THAT which resulted in the downfall of Cold War communism. . .NOT negotiations.
If it were just negotiations, you could point at a specfic negotiation that ended with the Russians saying “Yup, we’re going to drop the iron curtain and call it quits”. But they made that decision on their own due to the impact of our entire Cold War foreign policy, not just the negotiations. That’s why our intelligence community was taken almost completely by surprise when suddenly the wall came down.
We built our position on strength, not on begging our enemies not to bother us. It worked.
Good post, Yashmak.
I for one, would like to see a barbed wire steel cage deathmatch between Communist Dictator Daniel Ortega’s mustache and Capitalist Diplo-Super-Hero John Bolton’s mustache. Ortega could even tag team with Geraldo’s mustache, and it still would be a pummeling worthy of legends for ages to come.
I miss Reagan.
Yashmak has it absolutely correct. We built and built and built, while the Soviets eventually went bankrupt.
This was no kumbaya moment.