Michelle Malkin » John Bolton lights into Obama

John Bolton lights into Obama

By see-dubya • June 5, 2008 12:00 PM

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.

Posted in: 2008 campaign, Barack Obama, War, White Flag Democrats

Regular View

comments (112)

trackbacks (13)

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

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#342148

On June 5th, 2008 at 3:32 pm, MtsEdge said:

I just hope Bush has enough common sense to take out key nuclear facilities in Iran before November.

If he doesn’t, we’d better hope that Israel will.
#342153

On June 5th, 2008 at 3:33 pm, MtsEdge said:

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.

Sorry AG, missed your post.
#342165

On June 5th, 2008 at 3:52 pm, ugly kid joe said:

stupidlyinfamous must be referring to the totally successful type of negotiations that occured between the UN and Iraq…for how long? 5…no, 7…no, 10…no, oh it was 11 years. these people will never get it…ever
#342192

On June 5th, 2008 at 4:24 pm, Yashmak said:

Or perhaps the successful negotiations between Israel and Hez. . .no wait, that hasn’t worked, Israel and Fata. . .no not that either, maybe Israel and Ham. ..again no, maybe USA and North Kor. . .darn this is tough, USA Bosnia/Herzegov/blahblah THAT one worked YEAH. . .after we applied military force to the equation.
#342194

On June 5th, 2008 at 4:29 pm, terrig said:

Salt it was, unfortunately Silkyinfamous the liberal toad didn’t get it.
I thought it was pretty obvious with the rolling eyes but I guess he just wasn’t able to figure it out.
#342195

On June 5th, 2008 at 4:31 pm, terrig said:

Gee, I am tired. It would have been better to have qouted what Salt said so I’ll do it down here. Sorry.

On June 5th, 2008 at 1:29 pm, Salt said:
On June 5th, 2008 at 1:23 pm, terrig said:

It’s called multi-tasking. It’s a liberal thing.
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.
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?

For the record, it was a joke. It’s obvious who doesn’t have a sense of humour around here isn’t it?
#342216

On June 5th, 2008 at 5:06 pm, Silkyinfamous said:

ugly kid joe said:

stupidlyinfamous

Now that was clever, I’m not familiar with the smiley faces. so yea .
#342219

On June 5th, 2008 at 5:08 pm, brooklyn red said:

Sigh… to bad he isn’t running.
#342262

On June 5th, 2008 at 5:33 pm, secondsight said:

here’s Bolton’s op-ed.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bolton5-2008jun05,0,5282011.story
#342269

On June 5th, 2008 at 5:36 pm, see-dubya said:

Oh crap…I left the link out, didn’t I?

Let me fix that.
#342423

On June 5th, 2008 at 9:49 pm, GJCorby said:

And you tell me over and over and over again my friend that you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction.
-Barry McGuire
#342439

On June 5th, 2008 at 11:06 pm, Coregis said:

Which famous Middle East terrorist leader has said that we do not seek to negotiate with you, we seek to kill you? Was it Hamas or Hezbollah? When you negotiate with a culture that is enamored with death, do you really think that there will be a “We Are the World” moment?
#342440

On June 5th, 2008 at 11:13 pm, 29Victor said:

Do I sense some ’stache envy in this comment?

Maybe one day, Michelle, maybe one day.
#342441

On June 5th, 2008 at 11:14 pm, 29Victor said:

comment = post

Sorry, my ’stache got in the way of the screen so I couldn’t see the “preview” button.
#342508

On June 6th, 2008 at 6:49 am, ct davis said:

Silkyinfamous.. Hate to say it but you have a point. In 1976, the USA elected Jimmy Carter as president. Jimmy’s entire political career before that covered one term as the Governor of Georgia (My home state and very proud of it). He was elected Governor by running as a conservative Democrat (due to Reconstruction and Carpetbaggers, Republicans weren’t viable cadidates in the South until Clinton changed our minds) but flip flopped once in office and showed his true liberal colors. He was defeated soundly when he ran for reelection.

He was elected in 1976 on the tide of Watergate. Ford was a great man and a fine President (he actually loved the USA unlike Dems today).

I could write a book explaining what a poor leader Carter was and is. However, lets look beyond the 21% prime rate and an energy “crisis” caused by Carter’s weaknes with OPEC (the crisis, like the hostage crisis in Iran, was solved within hours of a Regan Presidency). Let’s talk about his religion..

Dems today loved to condemn President Bush because he labled himself a Born Again Christian. Carter, however, is hailed as an elder Statesman and the Voice of Reason. Carter is a Baptist Minister who regularly gives sermons in Plains. Why don’t we have a problem with this? Carter honestly felt in his heart that a government in the Mid East that was based upon religion would be better than a Dictatorship that backed the United States. Well, he backed Khomeni and, after his Carter supported victory, the Old Ayatollah treated Carter like a weak dog. We all know the history from there.

However, had Carter continued to back the Shah, the Soviet Union would likely not have invaded Afghanistan because Iran was a serious military threat in the region with US backing. No Soviet Invasion, no Mujihadeen. No Mujihadeen, no Osama Bin Laden. No Osama, well, no 9/11, no Iraq, No Afghanistan, No TSA people screaming at us to take off our shoes.. Do I have to go on?

Carter indirectly caused all of this. But it wasn’t that indirect. He places his utopian Peace and All Costs view above the welfare of the Country and People he swore to protect.

So if you want to say that “We” (as in the USA) caused the problems in Iran, well, if you consider that “We” elected him, then, you are right. However, I don’t think any sane minded person in 1978 would have done what he did for the reasons he did. His election was one of the greatest disasters in US history and if you want to be angry with Nixon for ANYTHING, it should be paving the way for a Carter administration.

Please don’t blame me and my fellow countrymen for this Madman’s antics.
#342816

On June 6th, 2008 at 11:50 am, 29Victor said:

June 6th, 2008 at 6:49 am, ct davis

Excellent.
#343326

On June 7th, 2008 at 12:08 am, Floyd R. Turbo said:

Yes, excellent, indeed. No, a testosterone infusion isn’t enough. The RNC needs more like a testicular implant. Like those from a Texas Longhorn Steer. Jeez! What happened to the RNC? Fall spreadeagled on a fence rail? Ouch. Those boys need some serious gonads and SOON or we’ve bought the farm.