Flashback: Bolton sees Bush admin's Iran diplomacy as... appeasement

[suedanim]

Remember that guy John Bolton, George Bush did a slipped into the UN a fews years back during a Senate recess? You know... John Bolton, that PNAC, quintessential, warhawk of all warhawk neocons? You cannot get MORE hard rightwing than this guy.

Now... we can see where George Bush's recent inflammatory rhetoric is directly coming from and that it was well planned in advance. Not so slick maneuver though when he was being accused of the same thing he accused Obama of, just a year ago.

Interestingly.. we can also see where some of the very SAME words, phrases and opinions parroted by at least one of the Obama bashers aka Bush/McCain peanut gallery appear to be coming from, the hard right neocon crowd.

:ponder:

You will have to follow the link and watch/listen to the video or just read the transcript provided.



Bolton sees Bush administration's Iran diplomacy as appeasement (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Bolton_critical_of_Hagel_Rice_for_1109.html)

Another former Bush administration official has turned into an outspoken critic, but instead of highlighting the administration's failures in Iraq, former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton has been condemning it for being insufficiently hawkish on Iran.
According to (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/world/middleeast/09bolton.html?em&ex=1194757200&en=f90505d982402620&ei=5087%0A) the New York Times, "Mr. Bolton, long viewed by liberal critics as a villain on the Bush team, has since emerged as the administration’s most outspoken critic from the right, rebuking his former boss in interviews, in op-ed articles and now in a book."

Bolton's criticism has reached a point where Steve Clemons is suggesting (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002515.php) at The Washington Note that "the anti-Bush administration rhetoric now spewing forth from Bolton is shocking a lot of avid Bush supporters and hitting higher and higher decibel levels. At what point do book parties for Bolton cross that line of disloyalty to Bush?"

Promoting his book on CNN Friday morning, Bolton told John Roberts that the issue in Pakistan "is not a choice between democracy ... and martial law. ... This is a choice right now between secure command and control over Pakistan's nuclear weapons arsenel on the one hand and chaos on the other. If we have chaos, we could have a radical Islamicist regime in charge of those weapons."

When Roberts pointed out that Musharraf is arresting lawyers, not Islamic radicals, Bolton continued to insist that "we don't have a very good idea of what the situation is. ... Events can spiral out of control." He also indicated his belief that all civilian governments in Pakistan have been corrupt and that only the military is reliable.

Roberts then asked Bolton about Iran's recent claims of progress in its nuclear program. Bolton responded that "we may be past the tipping-point" and said "I'd analogize this to 1936, when Hitler marched into the Rhineland. ... If Iran gets nuclear weapons, the entire situation in the Middle East changes dramatically."

Iran insists that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. The International Atomic Energy Agency, although critical (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7068478.stm) of Iran's lack of full transparency, agrees there is no sign it is actively working on nuclear weapons and says Iran is years away from having a bomb. Observers have also pointed out that, with Israel and Pakistan already having nuclear weapons, even if Iran joined them it would not fundamentally alter the balance of power in the region.

Roberts also showed Bolton a clip of Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel saying, "Now is the time for the United States to pursue an offer of direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran."

"That would be a bad mistake," Bolton commented. "When you go back to the days of the Cold War ... they knew you didn't negotiate with the Soviets until you were in a position of strength. And we're not in that position now.

... I don't think Iran is going to be chit-chatted out of its nuclear weapons."
Bolton is extremely negative in his book about the State Department under both Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, saying they gave Iran time to develop its nuclear program and "that's why we're at such a dangerous point today." He describes (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/11/09/bolton_turns_bush_critic/5965/) the Bush administration's Iran policy as "4 1/2 years of failed diplomacy" and claims he left his position at the United Nations because of it.

However, according to most accounts, Bolton stepped down from his recess appointment as UN ambassador in December 2006 because it had become clear that his nomination -- formally submitted by President Bush the previous month -- would never be approved by the Senate.

The following video is from CNN's American Morning, broadcast on November 9, 2007.




RUSH TRANSCRIPT (via closed captions)
ROBERTS: Are we at a tipping point in this standoff and are you concerned that israel may try to take preemptive action?

BOLTON: I think we may be past a tipping point. I think iran clearly now has the scientific and technical mastery it needs to get to nuclear weapons. I'd analogyize this to hitler. If britain and france had done some about the violation of the versailles treaty, we may have prevented world war ii. If iran gets nuclear weapons, the entire situation in the middle east changes radically.

ROBERTS: and hitler with was appeased in his early march and you accuse the government of trying to appease iran, throwing too many carrots. And you talk about getting to a restaurant and condoleezza rice ordered carrot soup. And kerik is very critical of the way white house is dealing with iran. Take a look at what he said. I want to ask you about it.

HAGEL: now is the time for the united states to actively pursue an offer of direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with iran. We cannot afford to refuse to consider the strategic choice any longer.

ROBERTS: direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with iron. An -- iran. Your opinion?

BOLTON: I think that would be a bad mistake. Look, when you go back to the cold war and we had leaders leak dean acheson, they knew you didn't associate with the soevts until you were in a position of strength and we're not in that position now. On the nuclear issue, I don't think iran is going to be chitchatted out of nuclear weapons. They've been pursuing it, 20-year-long strategic decision to acquire this capability. They're very close to it. We've missed a lot of opportunities, precisely by engaging in diplomacy via the european union.

(excerpted)

[Buck Laser]

Bush an appeaser?? Say it ain't so, Condi!! :evil:

[lily]

Promoting his book on CNN Friday morning, Bolton told John Roberts that the issue in Pakistan "is not a choice between democracy ... and martial law. ... This is a choice right now between secure command and control over Pakistan's nuclear weapons arsenel on the one hand and chaos on the other. If we have chaos, we could have a radical Islamicist regime in charge of those weapons."

Sue.....I know this isn't the direction you wanted this thread to go in and I'm sorry I just couldn't let this paragraph go without comment.

For years we've heard how evil Iran is, how they are going to get the bomb and kill us all! Yet bin-Laden is still free, Pakistan has the bomb, as does Israel......while neither country is allowed to even have nuclear power, let alone bombs. Just how secure do we know they are? Hell, it's the country where we know bin-Laden is in (still) and Dr. Khan still runs free.......I'm telling you, it's a case of look over there.......no, not there THERE.

[suedanim]

Sue.....I know this isn't the direction you wanted this thread to go in and I'm sorry I just couldn't let this paragraph go without comment.

For years we've heard how evil Iran is, how they are going to get the bomb and kill us all! Yet bin-Laden is still free, Pakistan has the bomb, as does Israel......while neither country is allowed to even have nuclear power, let alone bombs. Just how secure do we know they are? Hell, it's the country where we know bin-Laden is in (still) and Dr. Khan still runs free.......I'm telling you, it's a case of look over there.......no, not there THERE.

Articles like this usually have a few jewels that should be explored. The fact that Pakistan sits on nuclear wmd's AND plays host to al qaida and the Taliban speaks volumes about just how fucked up this war on terrorism has been. I mean really, what the hell!

Hello! Conservatives?! This thread is for YOU! Join in ...

[BoogyMan]

Hmm, Sue, where does Bolton claim that the current policy is appeasement?

Somebody named Roberts transcript called it appeasment to which Bolton replied thusly.

I think that would be a bad mistake. Look, when you go back to the cold war and we had leaders leak dean acheson, they knew you didn't associate with the soevts until you were in a position of strength and we're not in that position now. On the nuclear issue, I don't think iran is going to be chitchatted out of nuclear weapons. They've been pursuing it, 20-year-long strategic decision to acquire this capability. They're very close to it. We've missed a lot of opportunities, precisely by engaging in diplomacy via the european union.

[preservanation]

So, let me get this straight...the left thinks Bush has been appeasing terrorist nations?... and Obama won't.
Or is it that Obama, because of the power of his personality, will be more successful with his appeasement?
Or is all of this a busload of bushwa?

[suedanim]

So, let me get this straight...the left thinks Bush has been appeasing terrorist nations?... and Obama won't.
Or is it that Obama, because of the power of his personality, will be more successful with his appeasement?
Or is all of this a busload of bushwa?

No... you don't have it straight. The left was not quoted here. John Bolton, one of the top neocons, most aggressive of warhawks thinks the Bush policy has been soft. He advocates aggressive intervention not a robust diplomacy,which is parroted now by McCain and Bush... while Bush's Secretarys of Defense and State have advised robust diplomacy....as does Chuck Hagel AND Barack Obama.

btw... this article/interview was done a year ago. I posted it to show how easily and irresponsibly the word appeasement is thrown around with little regard for its historic context and meaning as it relates to todays foreign policy and does NOT apply to merely talking to foreign heads of state.

The interviewer quotes Boltons book on appeasement. Listen again. Sounds to me like George read the book (or had it read to him hehe) just before speaking before the Knesset.

[preservanation]

OK, then I agree with Bolton.
Bush IMO has not been tough enough on terrorism and the conflict in Iraq...instead of bowing to the libs in congress and in the State Dept like Powell,
he should have continued Shock and Awe all the way to Iran and points west when we had the chance.
For once we agree that Bush was in error in this respect

[suedanim]

OK, then I agree with Bolton.
Bush IMO has not been tough enough on terrorism and the conflict in Iraq...instead of bowing to the libs in congress and in the State Dept like Powell,
he should have continued Shock and Awe all the way to Iran and points west when we had the chance.
For once we agree that Bush was in error in this respect

Good grief and God help us.

Where shall we march to next mein fuhrer! We shall rule the oil! Next, the world!! [Dr. Evil laugh]

China, Russia and the rest of the world will sit back and let us or we'll march on them too by God. Shock and awe on them all, cause we're the biggest, baddest mofo's on the face of this earth and everybody else better sit up and recognize.

We talk to NO one, cause we're better than them anyway, PLUS we want to squash them like bugs, TAKE their antiqities, resources and ram our corruption down their throats. Like it or not.. the world WILL be made over in our image, cable wrestling, Jackass, Judge Judy, Foxnews and endless Jo Wayne and Clint Eastwood old Westerns. Yeah, buddy.

:sadly:

[preservanation]

In this dangerous world of terrorists, fascists and dictatorial despots, I would much rather be feared than loved.
One thing you seem to not realize is that America is the good guy, just like John Wayne.

[apdst]

I think Bush has played patty-cake with Iran, too. We should have long ago parked a carrier task force inside Iranian territorial waters and dared them to do something about it. Then, invite Armadinejihad to meet us on the flight deck to, "engage in diplomacy".

[suedanim]

In this dangerous world of terrorists, fascists and dictatorial despots

And thats just George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and John Bolton!

I would much rather be feared than loved.

Feared? Stalin was feared. Pol Pot was feared. Hitler was feared. Idi Amin was feared. Saddam Hussein was feared.

Feared regimes fall... ALWAYS. Ancient and not so ancient history teaches us this.

I do not believe we should strive to be either loved or feared. Lets just take care of our OWN business, our OWN people and stop ripping other nations off. Not enough oil... find our own. We own a lot of fuckn real estate. We have some of the most brilliant minds in the world and what we lack, we collaborate to get... Develop new and improved energy sources. We have the technology... can develop and refine it further. OH! But that might cause the oil and energy industry to not make the billions in profit the rich fucks are accustomed to. :grrrr:

One thing you seem to not realize is that America is the good guy, just like John Wayne.

The one thing you don't seem to realize is thats old shit. We USED to be the good guys. We used to be honorable. We ARE NOT. What we have done in the ME is a disgrace to humanity.

When we stormed Normandy, we were the good guys. When we fought for South Korea we were the good guys. Over 58,000 boys from my generation who died in Vietnam were good guys and the young men and women who have given up their lives in the ME were good guys, but our government was wrong on both wars. Desert Storm... valid. But, we went in and out without massive occupation.

No nation can tolerate the massive occupation we have sustained in Iraq, nor the gross mismanagement and incompetance of leadership. And no democracy can or will sustain war in the proportions we have in Iraq for very long. The people grow weary, the economy suffers. I fear for our government and the American way we love and are famous for if we continue to be imperialistic aggressors.

Iraq is unique. There is no comparison, unless its the Spanish American War in which our nation, in its zeal for expansionism found excuse for war on Spain, by exploding is own ship, "The Maine", and aided by the yellow journalism of William Randolph Hearst newspapers (much like Foxnews today) whipped the American people in a frenzy of hate and fear enough to support a war on Spain. Hence, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Guam, Puerto Rico and for a time the Philipines became US real estate. We have used that recipe to start a fight... again and again.

We stand on the flesh, bone and blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children. You advocate that we annihilate (in Clintons famous threat) thousands, if not millions of Iranians and you honestly sit there and tell me we are GOOD GUYS? How do you arrive at that conclusion? What makes what we are doing GOOD? For WHO, WHAT?

The war we enacted against Iraq had NOTHING to do with U. S. national security in 2003 and it does not now. Neither will a war on Iran.

:unreal:

[apdst]

Not enough oil... find our own

What do you think some of us want to do?

[preservanation]

When we stormed Normandy, we were the good guys. When we fought for South Korea we were the good guys. Over 58,000 boys from my generation who died in Vietnam were good guys and the young men and women who have given up their lives in the ME were good guys, but our government was wrong on both wars. Desert Storm... valid. But, we went in and out without massive occupation. How did you feel about Reagan's toppling of the USSR?

[preservanation]

Maybe Bush is finally listening to your humble preserva...(snip)'Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term'
By JPOST.COM STAFF


US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran in the upcoming months, before the end of his term, Army Radio quoted officials in Jerusalem as saying Tuesday.

Bush, the officials said, opined that Hizbullah's show of strength was evidence of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's crowing influence. They said that according to Bush, "the disease must be treated - not its symptoms."

In an address to the Knesset during his visit here last week, Bush said that "the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages."

"America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions," Bush said. "Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." jpost (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668683139&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

If Bush carries this out, he will secure his place is history as one of the greatest American Presidents of all time.

[lily]

If Bush carries this out, he will secure his place is history as one of the greatest American Presidents of all time.

You CANNOT possibly be serious? A third war? While I honestly believe this is his wet dream and he doesn't give a shit for his party, as he's screwed them every which way but Sunday..........but invading Iran..........God please don't let him be that sutpid..........they have an army, navy and airforce! It's not like going into Iraq after your dad pretty much disabled their military and then still fucking it up.

[preservanation]

Bush could use the Clinton war strategy and bomb like he did in Eastern Europe.
No invasion needed.

[suedanim]

Remember way back, maybe last year we were talking about (maybe not on this board though) that there may well be an October surprise, the elections suspended and George-Dick and friends declare martial law here in the US?

Preserva:

Your link says this... Not sure if this was included, but..


The White House on Tuesday flatly denied an Army Radio report that claimed US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term. It said that while the military option had not been taken off the table, the administration preferred to resolve concerns about Iran's push for a nuclear weapon "through peaceful diplomatic means."

Army Radio had quoted a top official in Jerusalem claiming that a senior member in the entourage of President Bush, who visited Israel last week, had said in a closed meeting here that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action against Iran was called for.

The official reportedly went on to say that, for the time being, "the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" was preventing the administration from deciding to launch such an attack on the Islamic Republic.


So Gates and Rice are the only two people holding George back. whoopee.

We and the world are in far deeper doodoo than I thought. God help us.

[suedanim]

Bush could use the Clinton war strategy and bomb like he did in Eastern Europe.
No invasion needed.

Thats not going to work with Iran. Iran is going to strike at Israel. Its going to escalate and it wouldn't surprise me if someone goes nuclear.

Somebody better start doing some fancy talking.

[preservanation]

What are you going to talk about?
Make an agreement?
My bet is that one who threatens annihilation of sovereign nations and promises death to the west just might lie as well, don't you think?
Just because one thinks they can change megalomaniac's minds or move mountains through their power of personality doesn't mean they can.
Mr. Spock is not a real person.

[suedanim]

What are you going to talk about?
Make an agreement?
My bet is that one who threatens annihilation of sovereign nations and promises death to the west just might lie as well, don't you think?
Just because one thinks they can change megalomaniac's minds or move mountains through their power of personality doesn't mean they can.
Mr. Spock is not a real person.

We are not beyond negotiation. Our power is our bargaining chip and Iran knows this. Do you believe they will risk the power of our military might? We have already shown them, better than we can tell them how far we are willing to go.

But, it is true, we have waited far too long for an aggressive, robust diplomacy. It is also true that we, in large part, created this monster.

You cannot imagine that an invading force can enter, destroy, occupy in massive numbers, building over 50 military bases, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens, build a base right on the border, with a high concentration of troops of a neighboring country and expect that country to not go into high, aggressive defense mode.

Again... if the U. S. strikes Iran, Iran is going to hit back and any sane person would already know they have been preparing for the event for some years. You seem to be too willing to sacrifice thousands, perhaps millions of Iranian, Israeli, Iraqi and American lives. That is hugely troublesome for me.

For some instant gratification for revenge's sake, millions could potentially die. I do not believe for a moment that taking out Iran will be the END to the holocaust of Arab peoples the United States has embarked on. Another nation or league of nations WILL arise to test us, challenge our imperialistic presence in the ME. Count on that.

btw... Syria is an ally with Iran. Israel is currently in peace talks with Syria. surprise, surprise What would a US attack on Iran do in that region? Widespread war... It could very well cause the demise of the USA as we know it.

[Trish]

I honestly don't know what all the angst is about here. We've been hearing and reading that an attack against Iran was "imminent" for well over 2 years and it hasn't happened yet. What's more it isn't going to happen unless IRAN steps too far over the nuclear weapons line or attacks Israel. "IF" Iran does either of those, then there is going to be some sort of military response, no matter WHO is in office! Even Senator Obama has stated that the US would respond militarily "IF" Iran attacks Israel and that Iran with nuclear weapon capability was unacceptable. None of the western nations, including Germany, wants Iran to have nukes. This is not just a US stance here. But those are very big "IFS." Iran may not attack Israel, Iran may not develop nuclear weapons.

Senator Obama said just a couple days ago,

"The Soviet Union had the ability to destroy the world several times over, had satellites spanning the globe, had huge masses of conventional military power, all directed at destroying us," he said. "So, I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave. But what I've said is that we should not just talk to our friends. We should be willing to engage our enemies as well. That's what diplomacy is all about."
Obama repeatedly stressed the risk posed by Iran, as he suggested that danger has grown because of policies supported by McCain.
"Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust," he said. "The reason Iran is so much more powerful than it was a few years ago is because of the Bush-McCain policy of fighting in Iraq and refusing to pursue direct diplomacy with Iran. They're the ones who have not dealt with Iran wisely."
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/obama_counters_mccain_on_appea.html

Now Clinton, McCain and Obama differ slightly on what constitutes a reasonable policy in dealing with Iran, and the whys and wherefores of Iran being a threat, but they ALL recognize Iran as a "grave threat" to us, to Israel, and to the world at large. ALL 3 candidates support Israel and will take action if Israel is attacked by Iran or if Iran gets nukes.

"Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. Obama supports this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel." http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

"Throughout the Middle East, we must harness American power to reinvigorate American diplomacy. Tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power -- political, economic, and military -- could bring success even when dealing with long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria. Our policy of issuing threats and relying on intermediaries to curb Iran's nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism, and regional aggression is failing. Although we must not rule out using military force, we should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran. Our diplomacy should aim to raise the cost for Iran of continuing its nuclear program by applying tougher sanctions and increasing pressure from its key trading partners. The world must work to stop Iran's uranium-enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. At the same time, we must show Iran -- and especially the Iranian people -- what could be gained from fundamental change: economic engagement, security assurances, and diplomatic relations. Diplomacy combined with pressure could also reorient Syria away from its radical agenda to a more moderate stance -- which could, in turn, help stabilize Iraq, isolate Iran, free Lebanon from Damascus' grip, and better secure Israel."
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html


Clinton on Iran:
"Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it. Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.
On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option."
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601-p40/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html



As can be seen "possible" military action against Iran is seen as a viable response depending upon Iran's own actions by all the presidential candidates, including Obama, and NOT just McCain and the current administration.