You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
International-UN-NGOs
John Bolton's first newspaper interview since leaving UN
2007-01-14
Excerpts:
"I wouldn’t have engaged in negotiations with Iran in the first place. The policy has failed. Sanctions won’t stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons." Bolton thinks the Bush administration would “rather find a way for diplomacy to succeed but time is running out”. He added as an afterthought, “That’s me speaking”

...Bolton believes that Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, is wasting her time trying to restart the Middle East peace process. The Arab-Israeli conflict was “not a priority”, he added. “I don’t see linkage to Iraq, and Hamas and Fatah are in a state of civil war.”

...One of his greatest concerns is the threat to Israel and the West posed by Iran’s nuclear programme. Regime change is “preferable” to striking Iran’s sites, he noted, but “the only course worse than the use of force is an Iran with nuclear weapons”.

The EU3 nations’ years of negotiations with Iran were not a “neutral activity”. Iran used the time to develop its mastery of uranium enrichment — as its own leaders have boasted....

[On Iraq] “The fundamental point is whether the civil war that exists is going to continue.” Bolton has often been mistaken for a neocon, but while he considers democracy preferable to other forms of government, he does not consider it America’s duty to spread it.

The shape and form of the nation is irrelevant: what matters is that Iraq is either tolerably pro-western or de-fanged. He has no regrets about the removal of Saddam Hussein; now it is up to the Iraqis if they want to engage in “fratricide”. The same goes for partition: “If the future of Iraq is to stay together, that’s fine. If not, I couldn’t care less from a strategic perspective.”
Posted by:Anguper Hupomosing9418

#16  Bolton's cool. “If the future of Iraq is to stay together, thatÂ’s fine. If not, I couldnÂ’t care less from a strategic perspective.” - awesome, tells it like he sees it.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2007-01-14 21:01  

#15  He brings tears to my eyes.
Posted by: Senator Voinovich   2007-01-14 20:22  

#14  If Mr. Bolton had the kind of drive necessary to be a politician, he would have been one long since. Or, he would have been one of those "political diplomats", much like General Wesley Clark is well-known to have been a political general.
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-01-14 20:15  

#13  He might serve if drafted in a crisis, say after a terror strike that destroyed a sitting vice president but left the country's political structure mostly intact. The peacetime national electoral process has grown so dysfunctional no competent candidate with a sense of decency would want to run.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2007-01-14 18:58  

#12  There will be nobody at State worth anything because they will never be approved by the Senate. Also, the President has not shown to be willing to fight for some good, tough candidates, with a few exceptions. Guilliani may have traction in NYC, but I would not like to seem as a pres candidate.

Actually, John Bolton would be an EXCELLENT pres candidate. But he would not put up with the HEAVY DUTY INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH smear campaign that would accompany his putting his hat in the ring. The Dems would do it to him, and so would some of the Republicans, in a quiet and respectful way, of course.

Bolton is a straight shooter, and that is why he got in trouble.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2007-01-14 18:22  

#11  I'm with TW. Bolton at State has appeal.

He is the kind of diplomat that is utterly lacking at State.
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-01-14 14:22  

#10  Unfortunately, Mr. Bolton, esq. is not at all a politician, SpecOp35. I wish he were -- that combination of intelligence, rigorous thinking, and plain speaking is entirely too rare, and I would be much happier if Secretary Rice were to clarify her thinking about Israel and its neighbors. I wouldn't at all mind seeing Bolton heading State, but he isn't candidate material in my opinion. I'd still like to see Guiliani in the race, fwiw.
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-01-14 13:47  

#9  Bolton has the capacity to think and speak quite clearly. He knows a big part of turning left when we should have turned right is to be laid at Rice's feet. She's totally out of her depth. She, to this day, thinks these blood thirsty bastards can be persuaded to play nice and hold hands and live happily ever after. Bolton is available. Pubs need a real candiadte for 2008. Any comments?
Posted by: SpecOp35   2007-01-14 12:55  

#8  The time is fast arriving for a little reverse logic - we've played the divide and conquer hand, maybe since the conquering went os quickly, it's time to start dividing. Three nations, which allows the Kurds to focus on their ethnic brethren to the east and west. Good luck to the north/Turkey.
Posted by: Grack Whaitle3696   2007-01-14 11:49  

#7  For democracy to "take" in Iraq its infrastructure has to be set up - which'd be the oligarchy that actually runs it. To date Iraq's "powers that be" are controlled from either Teheran or Syria. The reason Kurdistan is working is because Talabani and Barzani worked out a modus vivendi.
Posted by: Fred   2007-01-14 10:20  

#6  I like that:

The room, with a view of the Jefferson memorial, is still sparse but he has made it his own by placing his favourite gift from colleagues, a bronzed hand-grenade inscribed with “truest Reaganaut”, on the coffee table.
Posted by: SwissTex   2007-01-14 09:29  

#5  What makes you think we're leaving anytime soon? We still have bases in Germany and Japan. Our bases in Iraq are too valuable to abandon.
Posted by: Parabellum   2007-01-14 09:10  

#4  Then followed by a partitioning of Iraq by its neighbors.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2007-01-14 06:30  

#3  Aristotelian thinking SW. Just because dictators didn't work out, doesn't mean democracy is possible in MME.

p.s. Once USA leaves, military coup in Iraq is a matter of weeks---if not days.
Posted by: gromgoru   2007-01-14 03:40  

#2  Sorry, no. Putting in another dictator means we'll have to go back in the future and clean the place out again. Or somewhere else close by.

The whole point of this operation is that the past fifty years of American (and western) policy in the Middle East -- putting pliable dictators in charge so that we can guarantee a stable supply of oil -- has failed. Failed utterly and completely, because in the end people who can't live free lives will eventually pick up with the most violent and crazy ideology that promises them something better.

That's al-Qaeda. And we remember 9/11.

No. No dictators. No thugs. No 'realism' from James Baker or Brent Scowcroft. They represent the mentality that got us into this mess.

We might not be able to help the Iraqis to a democracy, but we're damned sure stupid if we put another mans' foot on their necks.
Posted by: Steve White   2007-01-14 01:29  

#1  He's right about Iraq. Maliki needs to go and get replaced with a dictator we can live with.
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-01-14 01:03  

00:00