John Bolton Time Warp
John Bolton, July 21, 2004
Finally, the world is safer today than one year ago because of an event
unprecedented in modern history: after years of isolation and being caught up
in a web of sanctions, the leader of a regime made a simple, but profound
strategic choice he came to the conclusion that his pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction made his country and his regime not more, but less secure. It is
not just the outside world that has benefited.[snip]
Colonel Qhadadfi has made a strategic choice to put his people before his unjustified fears of a U.S. invasion.
John Bolton, December 5, 2007
Second, the NIE is internally contradictory and insufficiently supported. It implies that Iran is susceptible to diplomatic persuasion and pressure, yet the only event in 2003 that might have affected Iran was our invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, not exactly a diplomatic pas de deux. As undersecretary of state for arms control in 2003, I know we were nowhere near exerting any significant diplomatic pressure on Iran. Nowhere does the NIE explain its logic on this critical point.
Not to mention the fact that Bolton claims to be ignorant of the pas de deux that the Iranians, at least, attempted in 2003.
In the spring of 2003, shortly before I left government, the Iranian Foreign Ministry sent Washington a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences. The document acknowledged that Iran would have to address concerns about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations. It was presented as having support from all major players in Iran’s power structure, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A conversation I had shortly after leaving the government with a senior conservative Iranian official strongly suggested that this was the case. Unfortunately, the administration’s response was to complain that the Swiss diplomats who passed the document from Tehran to Washington were out of line.
Finally, in October 2003, the Europeans got Iran to agree to suspend enrichment in order to pursue talks that might lead to an economic, nuclear and strategic deal. But the Bush administration refused to join the European initiative, ensuring that the talks failed.
I guess Bolton can claim to be ignorant of the pas de deux because it involved icky Europeans. As, I might add, did the Libya agreement.
He just hates “Old” Europe. The Twit.
This video of Bolton being grilled on BBC is classic.
that is one of the best.
If you have not listened to the interview with gordon prather that was linked earlier it is worth the listen
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/20…..prather-4/
Is there any evidence that John Bolton has read the NIE? Not the publicly released key judgements, but the actual NIE?
emptywheel,
what seems to be forgotten here is that Libya allowed not only inspections of the dismantling but also outside help in doint the job, and essentially turned over some of the equipment.
Our people were on the ground, in the buildings, in the plants, talking to the workers, the scientists, etc.
There is very little doubt about Libya.
However with Iran, we are doing the usual Intelligence things which failed with Iraq, which many here like to bring up. Not only American Intelligence failed with Iraq before the war, but other countries Intelligence also failed.
So now many people wish to say the current Intelligence is “iron-clad” but why wasn’t the previous Intelligence any good.
Until we can put feet on the ground in Iran and inspect where we wish, we are still just guessing.
(JodiDog who was at one time on TNH simply Jodi.)
You’re reading from the Bush Spin Record. The usual intelligence things did NOT fail with Iraq. The most up to date intel at the time was that there was no evidence of WMD. What Cheney and the Neocons kept doing was going back to OLD intel, and saying that Iraq had WMD, and had used WMD, and was still harboring bad thoughts, so therefore there must be WMD. You remember, I hope, that this was back in the day when Doug Feith was running is own intel shop in the Pentagon, and Cheney was pressing the intelligence services to give them all their raw intel, so that Feith would cherry-pick stuff from the raw intel to affirm his preconceived views, while disregarding more recent intel about the lack of evidence of WMD.
“Everyone knew” because everyone remembered the old intel, while Cheney and the Pentagon were busy dissing the new intel, that said otherwise, with their fog-and-noise machine.
Bob in HI
Apply those same standards to Israel and the middle east will sigh…deeply.
These contradictions are pure hypocrisy and the whole world knows it
http://209.85.165.104/search?q…..#038;gl=us
Yeah the world is safer all right when you’re being wiretapped, your bank records are picked up, and your emails courtesy of Calia are in the hands of the 16 intelligence agency matrix.
Just a reminder–A closed (that’s right–what makes you think you have any right to the deliberations of your elected Senators) meeting of Senate Judiciary Committe was scheduled today at 3PM in Room 407 to consider Specter’s ridiculously renamed Telco Amnesty bill–you konw Specter–from Pennsylvania–talks tough and then purrs like a kitty for the Bush administration’s whims.
It was on the website yesterday, and it was deleted from the website today.
Why? I dunno. Either canceled or to secret a meeting to announce.
Keep in mind this is the same government who wants to wiretap every detail of your life and communication but has no prospect of inspeting shipping or air cargo.
EFF Calls on Senate Judiciary Committee and Full Senate to Take More Time and Not Let Telephone Companies Off the Hook
I think it was delayed for a week (per something I read so it must be true). The other thing they were supposed to vote on was holding Rove in contempt.
Apparently, they did vote on the Rove contempt charge, and Specter kiaboshed it…so Rove walks again…
Just wrote Leahy about this again. Leahy gives me hope
the sjc did add specter’s new fisa bill to the agenda for their already scheduled business meeting today. the meeting is not closed, and the info on specter’s fisa bill is still posted on the agenda listed on their website.
i don’t like a lot of what is going down in congress on fisa – but really, let’s stick to what they get wrong not untrue accusations.
p.s. i’ve been trying to keep track of congressional committee hearings (at scarecrow’s suggestion for fdl readers) for a while now. if you see that i’ve missed any, would appreciate a head’s up in the comments. will try to keep it up until the openhouseproject has something comparable running.
“p.s. i’ve been trying to keep track of congressional committee hearings (at scarecrow’s suggestion for fdl readers) for a while now. if you see that i’ve missed any, would appreciate a head’s up in the comments. will try to keep it up until the openhouseproject has something comparable running.”
Yes, and thank you for this service!!!
Bob in HI
And of course Bolton has also forgotten Iraq’s back channel communications that helped the U.S. against the Taliban in 2001 after 9/11. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june06/iran_05-09.html)
Convenient memory. Needs Aricept badly, and if this dysfunctional, not really suited to fill any post requiring solid use of long-term and short-term memory.
Agh. I meant IRAN’S back channel communications in 2001. Just committed a Bushie.
I knew Jodi, Jodi was a friend of mine – JodiDog, you’re no Jodi
LS
No, they delayed it a week, as I suspected. A number of the R’s on SJC were unsure how they were going to vote. And no doubt Specter is going to try to broker a Haggis compromise in the interim week.
So Rove walks … but for now, just for a week.
I just realized that it is postponed…I thought they had actually voted on “it”….I guess there is still hope…sigh.
Here is the latest on Specter’s delay tactics…
http://www.politico.com/blogs/…..fight.html
Sure love a good chuckle…Perino is priceless..:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/…../#comments
From that politco link:
Oh shit disregard my previous comment … I sent the wrong linky
Correct link to Specter’s delay tactic
http://www.politico.com/blogs/…..olten.html
wait . . . the troll has not been banned!?!!
Nope.
We’re having an ongoing discussion of whether to ban her (and her imposter, who registered here as Jodi, thus the new name for the original Jodi). I’ve got mixed feelings. Plus, she put me and phred onto some Beamish on tap (unless it was the imposter Jodi—I still have to check that). Though Neil has voted to ban her.
Your thoughts?
I did make a case for exiling jodi and
recantedqualified it by deferring to your better judgment and your capacity for tolerance, which is a good thing.In response to
“However with Iran, we are doing the usual Intelligence things which failed with Iraq, which many here like to bring up.”
Yah, that outing a covert spy who is working in WMD proliferation “thing” was a real killer. I forget, was that the “usual”???
The angle that fascinates me about the administration’s current attitude toward Iran’s nuclear program is that they want to put the focus on forcing Iran to admit that they had a secret nuclear weapon development program till 2003.
What’s ironic, of course, is that they are going to make the case that Iran is lying and not admitting and not apologizing – whereas bush never admits to anything, never apologizes, and is always lying.
A classic case of projection: seeing your own faults in others.
And the focus on wanting to insist they plead guilty to lying. It reminds me of a post (I think at tpm a couple weeks ago) where the point was that Israel is bent on insisting the Palestinians agree they have a right to exist. And unless and until they hear those words (probably from the lips of every Palestinian… ), they simply won’t agree that the Palestinians are negotiating in good faith.
So this red herring with Iran is very similar.
And I can foresee them going on and on about Iran. Whining: They won’t admit they lied! They won’t admit they concealed!
When…. where is the proof for sure that they lied and concealed?
EW – I vote against a ban – it’s too entertaining!
Besides, she sounds hot. Not particularly smart, but hot.
Have used this policy, which so far seems to work — but it would certainly require threads every 72 hours on beer, football, any non-political chatter…
Had to ban somebody for stalking, spamming, and excessive ad hominems; simply pointed to the policy, yanked posts and nipped the IP. Probably could add a line that ultimate decision is host’s discretion.
Hm, if FDL readers are firepups, and TBogg’s readers are boggers…does that make those of us here…spinners? Wheelies? Hrm.
You see, I’m pondering the important questions. Important, I say!
Obviously, we’re “Wheelers.”
YMMV,
Bob in HI
A minor edit, if you please?
I’m for a ban, unless she agrees to post under the handle “Coprophagicdog”.
Oops. “CoprophagicDog”
(i’ve developed a weird affection for our jodibot 2000, the original. the pseudo-jodis, not so much.)
I put a link a moment ago to a Senate depo that describes Bolton’s multi-day standoff with the public relations worker in Moscow, in the Bolton thread a few posts back. The depo is a good historical read.
So far I think we’ve got two votes for banning, and three against. And the “Coprophagicdog” rule. And me, who is still undecided.
Ok. Here’s a question. Is the topic Bolton? Can it be Iran-related? Or simply Bolton and Iran? In other words, how specific to the main topic must it be?
Or is there leeway if you’re not disrupting things?
I vote that Jodi stays…she is usually on target as to the newest neo con rationalizations and it helps prepare my stomach for when I have to hear the newest “excuse”. It’s helpful to know their angles. She can’t help it if their excuses are simplistic and full of projections.
TheraP
For now, don’t worry about it. I’m not that concerned about staying on topic, as I think some of our wandering discussions here are the most productive.
I’m contemplating comments guidelines, but I’m not ready to set them in stone yet.
well, i just may take you at your word… please let me know if i go too far afield (like my previous comment about a certain tv show).
I’m inclined to keep her around. It’s like a running gag on early SNL–dumb, but entertaining in a three-hit sort of way. Besides, it’s a widow into a world we tend to see only from the outside.
OK, so Bolton: I’ve been trying to figure out why this guy is so desirable (ugh, that was hard to type) to the TeeVee producers. What’s the story here? He’s a lying blowhard with an ugly mustache. His policies and opinions have been shown to be horribly false and against all our country stands for. He’s not even entertaining! So why is he on the TeeVee and even NPR spinning the NIE like a contestant at the World Series of Dreidel? Is he the only one they’ve got?
marksb – he’s not nice cuddly or cute but it his turn at the wingnut welfare trough.
Oh, no, Neil, you’re one of the strongest “ban” votes. I thought a lot of what you said was persuasive.
Fair enough. A good argument should carry the day even when its advocate has misgivings about the effect. I think my ballot pivots on the question of whether the troll is intentionally obtrusive or simply obtuse. Most of the time I think it’s the former but sometimes I see evidence of a benign naiveté for which people should not be shunned. Are the posts characteristic of an unexamined point of view or does the troll thrive on posting provocative twaddle for the reaction and the dustup that follows? Funny I consider myself decisive and self-aware person but I’m unsure and I wonder if I know what I really think. (Neil pokes fun reflexively.)
‘Jodi’ has many servings of Crow coming her way during the next year.
If there is no banning, then I’m for stripping the imposter of the name and giving it back to the original Jodi – that way there’ll no confusion when all those lame comments [”…experienced interrogators say the enhanced methods are necessary for the difficult resistors…”]get ‘returned to sender.’
And in honor of the post subject, I give you:
At thenexthurrah, I accepted Jodi as part of the tapestry, even though she was irritating. Now there are too many Jodis, and I am just confused. So I guess I am in favor of banning any fake Jodis, restoring the name Jodi to the original and not banning her, unless she really starts to bug you.
Saltin
That’s where I’m leaning. I’m thinking of keeping the real Jodi (not sure if I can change her name back her own name, though), and putting a “one troll blog” policy in my commenting policy. Something to the effect of, “we’ve got our troll, we like her, she found us Beamish once, and we don’t need another troll.”
I gotta say I love the idea of pet troll!
OK; finally found a plan I am down with.
That sounds like an equitable plan and has my vote.
Slightly OT–
Support Sibel Edmonds in her attempt to speak the truth in public by visiting dKos “Sibel Edmonds update (with videos!)” by lukery today, and “recommend” the videos over on YouTube. This stuff needs some sunshine.
Bob in HI
ot – looks like the sjc’s consideration of specter’s fisa bill may have been held over until next week’s business meeting.
OT – CIA Interrogation Tapes Destroyed, but nothing *cough* illegal on them:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/…..index.html
And in 2005 other things were happening at the CIA:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12…..el.html?hp
C.I.A. Destroyed Tapes of Harsh Interrogations
The Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Al Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody, a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about the C.I.A’s secret detention program, according to current and former government officials….were concerned that tapes documenting controversial interrogation methods could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal jeopardy, several officials said.
The C.I.A. said today that the decision to destroy the tapes had been made “within the C.I.A. itself,” and they were destroyed to protect the safety of undercover officers and because they no longer had intelligence value. The agency was headed at the time by Porter J. Goss. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Goss declined this afternoon to comment on the destruction of the tapes.
GWB-RBC “Hey world! Suck. On. This.”
Wrt to the destroyed “Torture Porn”:
Shorter Porter: “When Viagra won’t do…”
OT
“All I am Saying is Give War a Chance.” Pretty goddamn cynical I’d say. It’s a good example of the snark that reveals the effort as a finger in the eye of the political opposition rather than a serious endevour on its own merits.
My comment @ 60 should have read:
I love the idea of “a” pet troll!
Adds to the ambiance.
All you liberals are completely crazy! This NIE will be interpreted by Cheney, AIPAC, and all neocons as a clear justification for attacking Iran soon.
The logic is something like this:
Intel on Iraq said they had WMD. Intel on Iraq was wrong. Intel on Iran says no nukes. Intel on Iran must also be wrong as intel on Iraq was. Therefore Iran DOES have nukes and we must attack Iran ASAP.
I am sure the plans are already in motion.
Word!
Lets change the tone a bit and while no self criticism will be given, still a little introspection would be good.
Dimitri Shostakovich’s musical satire and modern expression irked Joseph Stalin who was very sensitive to music in HIS STATE, and considered all art ( an extension of the Revolution, and so Shostakovich was required to undertake the long journey of self-criticism and public path-correction twice in his life.
Still Shostakovich was eventually chosen (or had been chosen) to play solo at Stalin’s wake. One little man, a survivor, one Grand Piano’s singular voice. On that day, Shotaskovich did not play the music that had gotten him into so much trouble, the kind of trouble that many artists had literally disappeared into, or had supposedly committed suicide because of. That day Tchaikovsky was good enough.
I am not assigning rolls to anyone here, but if political ideas aren’t allowed to be tested in the fires of real discussion, then just like the machines, the devices and the programs I usually work with, they will never, ever progress.