Bush hired John Bolton to be the United States UN Ambassador because Bolton hated the UN and believed that it should not exist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyTmuCJ95BkRemember him - he’s the one that always looks like he's standing on his front porch glaring at you, while holding the baseball you just drilled through his living room window.
I promised my wife I’d stop buying the NY Post but I did find one on the subway yesterday- honest Lori that's how I came across Bolton’s rant against Obama’s attempt to start peace talks in the middle east. (Team Obama's Anti Israel Turn NY Post 3/13/09) Yes that’s right - he’s against middle east peace.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03132009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/team_obamas_anti_israel_turn_159276.htmIm always a little afraid of smart conservatives who oppose Obama. I worry that if they start making sense it might be a sign that the opposition is getting it together. For me its my own little "canary in the mine" early warning system. Based on Bolton's babble in the Post this week the canary is still breathing quite well - so far.
Bolton's entire NY Post opinion piece is cut and pasted in bold below mixed in with my comments.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Obama administration is increasingly fixed on resolving the "Arab-Israeli dispute," seeing it as the key to peace and stability in the Middle East. This is bad news for Israel - and for America.
Its not a typo - he actually said that middle east peace is bad for Israel. This is a helpful reminder of what violent radical fundamentalist nuts were running the government
In its purest form, this theory holds that, once Israel and its neighbors come to terms, all other regional conflicts can be duly resolved: Iran's nuclear-weapons program, fanatical anti-Western terrorism, Islam's Sunni-Shiite schism, Arab-Persian ethnic tensions.
Some advocates believe substantively that the overwhelming bulk of other Middle Eastern grievances, wholly or partly, stem from Israel's founding and continued existence. Others see it in process terms - how to "sequence" dispute resolutions, so that Arab-Israeli progress facilitates progress elsewhere.Pursuing this talisman has long characterized many European leaders and their soulmates on the American left.
Now, what the heck do I know? Im just some bloviating guy barking into cyperspace from his kitchen table but did he just say that it's anti Israel to suggest that Middle East peace would help in the fight against terrorism?
Here's my insightful reaction - Huh?
With chewing gum and spit logic he concludes that getting engaged in "the Arab Israeli conflict" is an attack on "Israel's founding and existence" and therefore working for Arab Israeli peace is working for the destruction of Israel.
Based on nothing he has now set up his straw man on which he builds the rest of his rant that its not just Barack Obama who is anti Israel but also Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell.
I get it now. These guys believe that diplomacy is for weaklings. Like "many European leaders" [ in other words like all those gibberish speaking foreign weirdos at the UN] and their soulmates on the American left".
When Hillary Clinton walked into the State Department on her first day of work and was cheered liked a rock star - it was because the career State Department employees knew that the store was open for business again.
The Mideast "peace process" is thus the ultimate self-licking ice cream cone - its mere existence being its basic justification.
And now the Obama administration has made it US policy. This is evidenced by two key developments: the appointment of former Sen. George Mitchell as special envoy for the region, and Secretary of State Hillary's Clinton's recent insistence on a "two-state solution" sooner rather than later.
Naming Mitchell as a high-level, single-issue envoy - rather than keeping the portfolio under Secretary Clinton's personal control - separates Israel from the broader conduct of US diplomacy. Mitchell's role underlines both the issue's priority in the president's eyes and the implicit idea it can be solved in the foreseeable future.
Obama and Mitchell have every incentive to strike a Middle East deal - both to vindicate themselves and, in their minds, to create a basis for further "progress." But there are few visible incentives for any particular substantive outcome - which is very troubling for Israel, since Mitchell's mission essentially replicates in high-profile form exactly the approach the State Department has followed for decades.
It took a few rereads but I did finally figure out what he was trying to say. To the Bush administration the peace process was something you hold up for the world to see while you do nothing about it- not one lick.
[I must confess that, like a lousy song that I cant get out my head, I have spent too large a part of today trying to picture how a "self licking ice cream cone" works. A"self licking ice cream cone" ? Excuse me? - what youthful hallucinogenic experiment did that reference come from John? - forget about politics - tell us more about that weekend.
The heart of what he’s saying is that Israel has nothing to gain - and everything to lose- from the peace process. That’s the line in the sand between right and left on this issue. Between Labor and Likud as well as Republicans and Democrats.
At least we have some clarity here and that's always helpful.
When appointed, Mitchell said confidently: "Conflicts are created, conducted and sustained by human beings. They can be ended by human beings." This is true,however, only if the conflict's substantive resolution is less important than the process point of "ending" it one way or another. Surrender, for example, is a guaranteed way to end conflict
Here, Clinton's strident insistence on a "two-state solution" during her recent Mideast trip becomes important.
Have neo cons ever referred to Hillary Clinton or any other prominent female democrat, for that matter, without using the word "strident"?
She essentially argued predestination: the "inevitability" of moving toward two states is "inescapable," and "there is no time to waste." The political consequence is clear: Since the outcome is inevitable and time is short, there is no excuse for not making "progress." Delay is evidence of obstructionism and failure - something President Obama can't tolerate, for the sake of his policies and his political reputation.
A person with intellectual integrity would at least admit that he opposes the two state solution. I guess rather than defend the indefensible his criticism is that Hillary is making the peace process too much of a priority. There is a science fiction "Planet of the Upside Down People" quality to the way these folks think . If only they were just fictional characters.
You know a guy is in trouble when the best handful of mud he can sling at the President of the United States, is that after two months in office Obama is against obstructionism and failure" and that he cares about his "political reputation". The canary in the mine is singing its little head off.
In this very European view, failure on the Arab-Israeli front presages failure elsewhere. Accordingly, the Obama adminstration has created a negotiating dynamic that puts increasing pressure on Israel, Palestinians, Syria and others.
To neo cons calling someone a European is the same as cursing at them. Remember when Europeans questioned the fraudulent invasion of Iraq and Rumsfeld sneeringly dismissed them as the "old Europe".
Bolton's point is that the peace process can only hurt Israel because Israelis are so reasonable and care about what the world thinks of them and are therefore easier to bully.
That might be the subject of a good faith argument - but using it to attack Obama as anti Israel is just plain sleazy and knowingly dishonest. The last things these guys want is a good faith debate.
Also -the phrase anti Israel is read by many people as anti-semitic and he knows it. We are seeing an opposition strategy of using every opportunity to yell fire in a crowded theatre and pray for chaos that they can use to regain power. [Keep an eye on Cheney's frequent interviews in which he warns of an imminent terrorist attack because we stopped torturing.] It has also occurred to me that the only reason Bolton wrote this thing was, not because anyone will actually read it, but to get the NY Post demographic exposed to a headline that Obama is anti Israel.
To make such a vitriolic inflammatory statement without taking one word of responsibility for the foreign policy disasters they left for Obama on his desk, tied up with a ribbon, speaks volumes about how incompetent, creepy, dishonest and dangerous these people are.
Almost invariably, Israel is the loser - because Israel is the party most dependent on the United States, most subject to US pressure and most susceptible to the inevitable chorus of received wisdom from Western diplomats, media and the intelligentsia demanding concessions. When pressure must be applied to make compromises, it's always easier to pressure the more reasonable side.
How will diplomatic pressure work to change Hamas or Hezbollah, where even military force has so far failed? If anything, one can predict coming pressure on Israel to acknowledge the legitimacy of these two terrorist groups, and to negotiate with them as equals (albeit perhaps under some artful camouflage). The pattern is so common that its reappearance in the Mitchell-led negotiations is what is really "inevitable" and "inescapable." Why would America subject a close ally to this dynamic, playing with the security of an unvarying supporter in world affairs? For America, Israel's intelligence-sharing, military cooperation and significant bilateral economic ties, among many others, are important national-security assets that should not lightly be put at risk.
The only understandable answer is that the Obama administration believes that Israel is as much or more of a problem as it is an ally, at least until Israel's disagreements with its neighbors are resolved. Instead of seeing Israel as a national-security asset, the administration likely sees a relationship complicating its broader policy of diplomatic "outreach." No one will say so publicly, but this is the root cause of Obama's "Arab-Israeli issues first" approach to the region.
This approach is exactly backward. All the other regional problems would still exist even if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got his fondest wish and Israel disappeared from the map: Iran's nuclear-weapons program, its role as the world's central banker for terrorism, the Sunni-Shiite conflict within Islam, Sunni terrorist groups like al Qaeda and other regional ethnic, national and political animosities would
continue as threats and risks for decades to come.
Instead, the US focus should be on Iran and the manifold threats it poses to Israel, to Arab states friendly to Washington and to the United States itself - but that is not to be.
President Obama argues that he will deal comprehensively with the entire region. Rhetoric is certainly his specialty, but in the Middle East rhetoric only lasts so long. Performance is the real measure
So now we have the two world views laid out side by side.
The Bush administration ignored Israeli-Arab peace because they viewed it as a platform to pressure and criticize Israel.
Bolton is not just arguing for proposed policies. They had their chance to do it their way and the result was an 8 year train wreck that Obama has to dig us out from under.
Bolton's attack on Obama's foreign policy is like the inventor of the Corvair screaming that you guys are idiots for moving the gas tank away from the trunk.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658498_1657833,00.htmland the administration's performance to date points in only one direction: pressuring Israel while wooing Iran. Others in the world - friend and foe alike - will draw their own conclusions.
Bolton doesnt acknowledge it but his Post piece headline should have been "Bring back the Bush Middle East policies - which was put no resources into diplomacy and rely only on actual and threatened unilateral military force to remake the geopolitical map - in exhange for ignoring the Arab/Israeli peace process hope to get good Israeli military intelligence.
Bolton couldnt acknowledge that he is urging a return to the Bush policies because critical self examination and honestly taking responsibility for failure is not part of the neo con DNA.
Thank god we got our country back from these awful human beings.
And thank you John Bolton for this reminder of how important it is that we keep it that way
PS Bolton was on Jon Stewart in 2007- check out the great interview
http://crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/695/12953
