« Some Cats Really Like to, You Know, Profile and Front | Main | Bulletproof...I Wish I Was »

December 30, 2009

Comments

I get the idea that this Obama dude understands that too

Why does anyone assume the John Boltons of the world have anything in mind other than aggrandizing power for themselves in the United States? John Bolton couldn't give two shts for the opposition party protests in Iran, if he thought supporting the people currently in power in Iran would bolster his standing in the U.S., he'd do it in a heartbeat. See, e.g., Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

I think you're being a bit unfair, Ugh. Bolton simply believes that nothing works except for brute force, and that there is no limit to what brute force can achieve, especially when used by us.

John Bolton knows that the Republicans need IslamoFascistCommieMullahs in charge in Iran. This is why he keeps trying to undermine the moderates in Iran.

Remember when there was a moderate regime in Iran, and the Bush Regime ignored it? Remember how the Bushies always put out threats of military action whenever the radicals in Iran seemed to be losing power?

For that matter, I expect the Israelis will be ramping up attack plans as well - they need Ahmadenijad in power to justify their own hardline positions...

On the contrary, such actions by the United States would likely provoke a massive and violent reaction.

Feature, not bug. These are, after all, the same people who longed for the "cauldronizing" of the Middle East. Violence and bloodshed are cleansing forces...as long as they're happening way, way over there someplace.

An interesting post, Eric, but I notice that neither you nor Matt Duss get down to dealing with the central, fundamental question WRT possible US reactions to developments in Iran...

which is:... Why The F*** should anyone - anyone with any intellectual achievements greater than that of household furniture - pay the slightest bit of attention to anything - anything - John Bolton or anybody else of his cheapjack warmongering neocon claque might have to say about ANYTHING relating to US foreign policy? At ALL??

ZOMG, what does it take to become discredited in this day and age?

Jay C: "what does it take to become discredited in this day and age?"

Oppose the invasion of Iraq, point to the weakness of the evidence for NBC weapons, point out the need for a massive and long-running occupation, point out that the military lacks the manpower, and point out that invading Iraq will strengthen Iran.

Being wrong is not enough to discredit a Serious Person; being right is.

As usual, Bolton is way over the top. All we really should do is parachute Ollie North, G. Gordon Liddy, and Chucky Norris into Teheran.

Problem solved.

Based on everything I have ever seen John Bolton do and say, he likes the kind of regime that Tehran has today and wants to keep it that way.

Why else did George Bush do his best to elect the current president of Iran?

Lovely job of buying into every bit of claptrap proposed as reporting on Iran. Do we start with the NATO Colour Revolution run on a $400 million budget just for the Twitter Revolution or the black ops assassinations against government and military ? Perhaps you didn't notice that nuclear scientist who mysteriously ended up defecting to Israel.Or remember Mousavi authorized attacks on U.S. embassies when in power.
Perhaps you still think Ahmadinejad is both antiSemitic ( while also reported as being of Jewish heritage for fun ) and in charge.
The lack of substantive change in American policy is evidenced by Obama still heralding their danger to world peace ( no nuclear WMD just like Iraq ) and ignoring support by surrounding nations and being under the wing of Moscow : not to mention that, unlike India, they submit to an inspection program for dangerous tech !
Try this on for size while remembering the Saavik Secret Police under the Shah : brutal American puppet dictator.
http://current.com/items/91784249_the-other-side-of-the-1979-iranian-revolution.htm

I kinda think John Bolton and his buddies don't read Dear Abby, but she used to have an acronym for advice they oughtta take:

MYOB.

My corollary: MYOB particularly in the affairs of other sovereign nations.

Jay C,

Unfortunately, they continue to occupy prime liberal media real estate (multiple columnists in major periodicals such as the WaPo, NYT, LAT, etc.) and form the backbone of the GOP's foreign policy outlook.

Ignore them at our peril I say.

Why The F*** should anyone - anyone with any intellectual achievements greater than that of household furniture - pay the slightest bit of attention to anything - anything - John Bolton or anybody else of his cheapjack warmongering neocon claque might have to say about ANYTHING relating to US foreign policy? At ALL??

Exactly what Eric says. Because they have power and influence, so you have to take them into account.


"Marty: Where is your evidence that he's not cooperating? Criminals routinely cooperate with police even when they have lawyers and even when they cannot be compelled to cooperate."

Interestingly today here the Senators responsible for the committee that has oversight disagreed.

"The two senators noted that once Abdulmutallab “was in custody, federal law enforcement officials on the ground in Detroit read the terrorist his Miranda rights. According to press reports, by the time the Miranda rights were read and Abdulmutallab went silent, he had been questioned for just under an hour, during which time he had been speaking openly about the attack” as well as the role of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

They took issue with the “decision to treat Abdulmutallab as a criminal rather than a UEB almost certainly prevented the military and the intelligence community from obtaining information that would have been critical to learning more about how our enemy operates and to preventing future attacks against our homeland and Americans and our allies throughout the world.”

Maybe a post with a whole new view now?


Later in the same article we read:

Miller said that the interrogation yielded intelligence, only after which was Abdulmuttallab read Miranda rights. “Trying Abdulmutallab in federal court does not prevent us from obtaining additional intelligence from him,” Miller said. “He has already provided intelligence, and we will continue to work to gather intelligence from him, as the Department has done repeatedly in past cases.”

Two Republican Senators say it was a mistake to treat him as a normal criminal.

A guy from the Dept of Public Affairs says no harm done.

I think we're in he said / she said territory.

"Two Republican Senators say it was a mistake to treat him as a normal criminal."

Actually no, the Democratic Chairman and Ranking Republican said it was a mistake after being briefed on what actually happened. I am not sure how that equates to a Dept of Public Affairs spokesman.

Actually no, the Democratic Chairman and Ranking Republican said it was a mistake after being briefed on what actually happened.

Actually, no, Lieberman is not a Democrat. And on all issues of national security, he is an arch-conservative. Remember: he tirelessly campaigned for McCain, and criticized Obama's FoPo repeatedly - and still does!

Just because he is an arch conservative doesn't mean we can't stick with the facts. He is not a Republican and holds the Chairmanship at the pleasure of a Democratic Majority Leader.

And Marty, they didn't provide evidence, they just cited "press reports."

Need better than the hearsay of Lieberman and Collins.

The FBI head, and agents on the ground (the best interrogators we have) say this was 100% right, and they got the intel they needed/expected from the initial rounds, and will get more if needed going forward.

Just because he is an arch conservative doesn't mean we can't stick with the facts.

What facts?

"and they got the intel they needed/expected from the initial rounds, and will get more if needed going forward."

And we didn't get that info from press reports?

"What facts?"

oh sorry if I confused you, this statement:

"Two Republican Senators "

And we didn't get that info from press reports?

No, we got that from FBI's testimony before the Senate.

Just because he is an arch conservative doesn't mean we can't stick with the facts.

And the point was just that, other than being factually incorrect to call him a Dem, the critique has no added credibility because it comes from Lieberman. He has relentlessly savaged Obama on FoPo - from the election to the present day.

He might be right. Or wrong. But he gets no benefit of the doubt because he's Joe Lieberman. Honestly, I'd take Chuck Hagel or Richard Lugar's critiques to heart quicker.

oh sorry if I confused you, this statement:

"Two Republican Senators "

But by the same token, were you confused when you called him a Democrat? He's an Independent (Connecticut for Lieberman Party) if we want to stick to the facts.

Unless they confuse you.

"No, we got that from FBI's testimony before the Senate."

I like it that the FBI testified and the two senior Senators on the committee they testified before say it was a mistake, but that carries no weight. But the the spokesmans words are gospel. I am sure that I don't believe that the guy responsible for managing the press is more credible than the press.

Marty,

Here's how it goes.

The FBI interrogate the suspect. They report on how the interrogation went, and what information they received.

Then, Lieberman and Collins issue a statement regarding the interrogation making rather bold conclusions contradicting those FBI agents, based on nothing.

No cited evidence other than vague "press reports." Not even a citation to the "press reports" in question.

Which as we both know could be recycled hearsay (early on, Lieberman was citing Jeff Sessions' statement as evidence, even though Sessions provided no evidence himself).

My point being that if Lieberman and Collins have actual evidence, I'm all for looking at it. Until they present actual evidence (what you might call "facts") I'll chalk up their carping as little more than partisan sniping (along the lines of senior GOP senators claiming Obama doesn't use the word "terrorist" in speeches). I mean, how many times does Lieberman have to be dead wrong on matters of national security before I take what he says with a shaker of salt.

I am sure that I don't believe that the guy responsible for managing the press is more credible than the press.

What press? How bout I say that "press reports support the FBI's take, and completely contradict Lieberman and Collins." That statement is undoubtedly true, and yet what does it provide the discussion?

You want me to amend a post, or draft a new one, stating that the Obama admin was wrong to try the UndieBomber in civilian court because...Joe Lieberman and Republican Senator said so. Citing "press reports" in the general sense, with no specifics.

Pardon me if I abstain.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad