Bomb, bomb, bomb Bolton.
John Bolton: US should bomb Iranian camps
John Bolton, America’s ex-ambassador to the United Nations, has called for US air strikes on Iranian camps where insurgents are trained for war in Iraq.
Mr Bolton said that striking Iran would represent a major step towards victory in Iraq. While he acknowledged that the risk of a hostile Iranian response harming American’s overseas interests existed, he said the damage inflicted by Tehran would be “far higher” if Washington took no action.
“This is a case where the use of military force against a training camp to show the Iranians we’re not going to tolerate this is really the most prudent thing to do,” he said. “Then the ball would be in Iran’s court to draw the appropriate lesson to stop harming our troops.”
Mr Bolton, an influential former member of President George W Bush’s inner circle, dismissed as “dead wrong” reported British intelligence conclusions that the US military had overstated the support that Iran was providing to Iraqi fighters.
Do you think Hillary will appoint Bolton. He can go after that evil oil cartel. $200/barrel oil, here it comes.
Bomb Iran=Victory in Iran. I am glad someone finally figured it out.
After all a vote against Bolton is a vote against Israel. Can’t have that.
Secondly, several U.S. Senators have separately told me that they have received calls from various Jewish organizations and Israel-affiliated interest groups stating “A Vote Against Bolton is a vote against Israel.”
Senator Schumer himself has helped to propogate this idiocy inside the Democratic Senate caucus, and a number of other Foreign Relations Committee Democrats went to him and urged him “strongly” to stuff it and keep the Bolton prosletyzing to himself — at least until the Committee had done its work.
Two things here. First, Shumer and Senators from both political persuasions should remind AIPAC that REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS HAVE BOTH BEEN VITAL STEWARDS OF THE US-ISRAEL RELATIONSHIP AND OF ISRAEL’S INTERESTS IN THE UN. To conflate John Bolton’s confirmation with the question of Israel’s ultimate interests and of America’s concern for Israel is reckless over-personalization of this matter and could seriously backfire.
Bolton’s renomination effort started when Israel had been attacked and when Israel had the moral highground. Things are blurrier now and did not go well. The enthusiasm for making Bolton the annointed and legitimated spear-carrier to help broker an Israeli-Arab-Persian future has been muted by the fact that politically, tilting only towards Israel at the expense of all other players in the region isn’t constructive diplomacy. For its own sake, Israel must get out of the zero sum game approach in the Middle East to secure its own future and interests — and John Bolton is a total zero sum agitator.
Someone is begining to get it, Chafee writes:
September 7, 2006
The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
US Department of State
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Secretary Rice:
I write to you with regard to the nomination of John Bolton to be US Representative to the United Nations. Today, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations was scheduled to have a vote on Mr. Bolton’s nomination. The decision on whether to hold that vote is in the Chairman of the Committee’s hands. Chairman Lugar decided to hold the vote over to a later date, and I support that decision.
It is no secret that I have serious questions about this Administration’s policies in the Middle East. As we tackle enormous problems in the region, most notably with Iran and Iraq, I believe we need to be successful in forging alliances. A critical part of that work is accomplished by our Ambassador to the UN.
One of the key issues with many of our allies is the situation with the Palestinians. I support the creation of a viable, contiguous Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace with its neighbor Israel. I believe progress on this front would be beneficial for the Palestinians, and futher America’s, and Israel’s security. The President, and you, frequently have spoken in favor of establishing a Palestinian state. On February 26, 2003, President Bush said “Success in Iraq could also begin a new state for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic state.” On February 22, 2005, the President said “Israel must freeze settlement activity.” And on April 14, 2004, the President wrote to then-Prime Minister Sharon, “The United States supports the establishment of a Palestinian state this is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent, so that the Palestinian people can build their own future in accordance with the vision I set forth in June 2002 and with the path set forth in the roadmap.”
Phase one of that Road Map states clearly that Israel will freeze all settlement activity. Yet, just this week, it is reported that 690 homes will be built in the West Bank settlements of Maale Adumim and Betar Illit. While the official US policy hs been against settlement activity, no credible observer could think that the US could not do more to stop these new actions.
While I am a strong supporter of Israel, and believer her security is non-negotiable, we should have a more balanced approach — so that both sides can see that we are an honest broker for peace. I have been a long-time critic of the disparity between the rhetoric and the actions of the Administration on the subject of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. However, now I fear that even the rhetoric is going to stop. Is this expansion of settlement activity a signal that holding both sides to their commitments under the Road Map is no longer official US policy?
It is my hope that answers will be forthcoming about our policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Committee can reconvene to debate Ambassador Bolton’s confirmation.
Doubting the Evidence Against Iran
American circles in Baghdad and Washington are probably not pleased with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s plan for a special panel to investigate allegations of Iranian interference in Iraq. Many U.S. officials are already convinced of the worst and, for years, U.S. officials have now aired accusations against Iran, insisting that Tehran is stoking Iraq’s violence by keeping up a flow of money, weapons and trained fighters into the country. The Iraqi government, however, remains unconvinced — with good reason.
“We want to find really good evidence and not evidence made on speculations,” Ali al-Dabbagh, a spokesman for the Iraqi government, told reporters in Baghdad on Sunday. Last week an Iraqi government delegation went to Tehran to discuss the allegations of Iranian involvement in the Iraqi militias, the government said. Details of the evidence presented in Tehran remains hazy, but at the same time American officials in Baghdad and Washington have never offered a convincing case publicly to support their allegations. [In the meantime, Tehran announced that it would not hold a new round of talks — the third in their kind with American representatives — regarding security in Iraq unless the U.S. ceased its operations against Iraqi Shi’ites. American forces have been working with the Iraqi Army against Shi’ite militias in Baghdad’s sprawling slum, Sadr City.]
Indeed, the U.S. allegations appear to be based on speculation, spurred by the appearance about a year ago of a new breed of roadside bomb in Iraq. Explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, proved effective at piercing American armor by firing a concave copper disc from a makeshift cannon, which transformed the slug midair into a molten jet of super-heated metal. Accusations that Iran was shipping the things into Iraq grew louder as U.S. casualties from the weapon rose. But no concrete evidence has emerged in public that Iran was behind the weapons. U.S. officials have revealed no captured shipments of such devices and offered no other proof.
Instead, the Americans argued their case publicly with deductive reasoning: the copper slugs used in EFPs had to be precisely tooled with a heavy press in order to work properly, they said; no such heavy presses were in operation in Iraq, according to the Americans, therefore the slugs had to have been machined in Iran and moved into Iraq. It is, however, not impossible that such heavy presses may well be operating in Iraq. Three major cities in southern Iraq (Basra, Karbala and Najaf) have gone without a significant U.S. military presence for more than a year. These cities, which U.S. officials believe form hubs for the flow of arms into Baghdad, may indeed have such presses.
Well? Democrats should be approving new funding for the War on Terror any day now.