Not only is Bolton an idiot, but he looks like a child molestor. If he had any sense he'd shave off that mustache.

Ridiculous or inspired? If you think that the intent was to work with international institutions to improve the world, then ridiculous. But if the intent was to sabotage those institutions and make more maneuvering room for Bush/Cheney cronies, brilliant.

It's always struck me funny that, in any other crowd but the conservative Republican right, if you make a stupid statement in public, people assume you're stupid.

Conservative Republican righties, however, can say just about anything and have their comment examined with the analysis due something serious, introspective and thought-provoking.

But everybody who has actual personal exposure to the president, almost everybody, appreciates what a good leader he is, how smart he is and, especially, how humane he is."

And I was talking about Ahmadinejad, not Bush.

Bolton may or may not be an idiot, but as soon as AIPAC orders Obama to attack Iran, I suspect we will begin footing the bill for the third war.

Let's consider the merits for a moment, if you can bear to set aside your propsensity for ad hominem attacks.

Do you agree that North Korea and Iran have the goals of developing nuclear weapons? Do you agree that they have succeeded, diplomatically, in stalling any actions (economic or military) against them? and that by doing so they have been able to continue work on their nuclear programs? and that their ultimate goal is to convince the pacifists of the world that we can "live with" a nuclear-armed North Korea and Iran?

I think all of those points are obvious. It's not obvious what to do do about it if you start from the assumption, as I do, that we can't "live with" a nuclear armed North Korea and Iran.

The real laugh line here is:

Iran and North Korea achieved their objectives through diplomacy. Mr. Bush failed to achieve his.

Oh please! Bush's idea of diplomacy was to say "Do this!" (Waits two seconds, angrily glaring at the other guy and tapping his fingers. Jumps up and slams fist on table) "Now!!!!"

When Bush engaged in the immigration debate with his fellow Republicans (Democrats weren't allowed at the table), he saw that his brand of "diplomacy" (making petulant demands and demonizing the other side) was completely inappropriate and so just sort of mumbled and dithered and just dropped it altogether.

"Do you agree that North Korea and Iran have the goals of developing nuclear weapons?"

Not sure what cave you've been living in, but North Korea manufactured nuclear weapons during the current Chimpy Bush administration.

DBL - The problem is that with a president like Bush, a pre-emptive war like Iraq, and a UN embassador like Bolton (I assume Kalilizad is not much different) who just wants to level the institution, any country would be crazy not to want nuclear arms. After all, we didn't invade Pakistan.

Do you agree that North Korea and Iran have the goals of developing nuclear weapons?

Actually, it's really not entirely clear that they do. It appears that Iran will be happy with guarantees of non-aggression by the US while North Korea will be content with being recognized as a "player" in its region and economic help so it doesn't have to change anything in its political system. No, I don't think I do agree.

The WSJ is the epitome of the revolting (as in, rightly leading to revolt ...) strain of nineteenth century style economic and military imperialism: filled with contempt for the working class and other nations except those (like Israel) showing desirable pugnaciousness if allies, contempt for the intelligentsia other than pragmatic abilities to make money, expand commerce and industry, and deliver propaganda; love of the use of force and all kinds of social and government repression other than any regulation of their nearly worthless speculative endeavors, and so on. It just figures that such a rag publishes the spittlings of a war dog like Bolton.

john bolton probably isn't nuts enough to be put away, but if he were locked up, i think he'd have a very hard time convincing anyone to let him out.

Bolton's now fully transformed into the political version of the crazy old man ranting on streetcorners about the Illuminati being behind the End Times or something like that.

">AIPAC orders Obama to attack Iran, I suspect we will begin footing the bill for the third war."

I am genuinely surprised that this didn't occur in the waning months of the Bush administration. Maybe they [Israelis] figured that Bush was so unpopular that it would be a bad move for a strike to be associated with him.

Then again, there are a few weeks left to go... so you never know.

A rational person might say that Bolton, Feith, Wurmser, Wolfowitz (etc) should have been required to register as Israeli agents.

Persons holding dual citizenships should not be allowed to hold high level positions in the US government.

DBL,

As stated above, North Korea has developed nuclear weapons, and Iran already has powerful military options, such as shutting down oil shipments through the Straight of Hormuz.

You're overlooking the primary motivation for becoming a nuclear state: respect. We treated Korea with contempt. We labeled them a member of the Axis of Evil.

Then they developed a nuke.

We took them off the list of sponsors of terrorism and gave them a seat at the table.

We don't invade nuclear states, we negotiate with them. The primary reason for having nuclear weapons is to deter the worlds most aggressive military from taking action against you.

If we had more mature leadership and we treated these nations as grown ups to begin with, they would have far less motivation to create these weapons.

Additionally, it is irrational to think that the technology can indefinitely be kept from them in the age of information. Isn't it better to spend time and money creating a better relationship with these countries instead of tilting at windmills?

So- were all you looney leftists (redundant) opposed to regime change when Carter abandoned a pro-American and loyal ally in the Shah for the fanatical Ayatollah?

Bolton, like so many others of his ilk, have a media platform to shout their stupidity and insanity at a largely uninformed and disinerested public. Were there any serious journalism, print or electronic, in existence, he and the other neocons would be relegated to the margins and the obscurity they so richly deserve.

Bolton is first and foremost a propagandist. As long as there is a dumbed-down public (read a lousy education system), and a compicit media babblings like Bolton's will have currency. This is, of course, nothing new. The Third Reich was founded on such a house of cards.

So- were all you looney leftists (redundant) opposed to regime change when Carter abandoned a pro-American and loyal ally in the Shah for the fanatical Ayatollah?

That's not worthy of a response.

Bolton should consider a career in comedy writing. Ya gotta love that line about Bush failing to achieve his goals through diplomacy.

If only Bush had had some smart and capable diplomat that he could have sent to the UN, to press forward his diplomatic agenda and achieve those goals....who was handling diplomacy for Bush again?

Funny.

Why is it a given among the neocons that if Iran ever gets a nuclear weapon, that the first they will do is use it?
As if the threat of a retaliation by America's 4,000 nuclear weapsons wouldn't be a deterent. It worked pretty good against the Soviets.

"So- were all you looney leftists (redundant) opposed to regime change when Carter abandoned a pro-American and loyal ally in the Shah for the fanatical Ayatollah?"

So what would be the answer, using US forces to try and keep an unpopular ruler in power?

"So what would be the answer, using US forces to try and keep an unpopular ruler in power?"

Well, that's been standard operating procedure for a long time.

Frankly, if Saddam Hussein had toed the US policy line we would probably have sent troops to Iraq... to keep him in power.

"It appears that Iran will be happy with guarantees of non-aggression by the US"

Do you have a cite for this?

I guess if I were president, I'd tell them that, and see what happens. And if, down the road, they really pissed me off, I'd say that "circumstances had changed" and the prior guarantee was no longer operative.

Bolton so reminds me of Cato the elder and his perennial "yet, Carthage has to be destroyed". A man of one note, not a full symphony.