John Bolton Was Wrong About Iraq WMDs But Says Trust him on Iran Nukes

John-Bolton

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, currently employed as a crank for hire by Fox News, who was all-in for George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq for having weapons of mass destruction it didn’t, in fact, have, wants President Barack Obama to bomb Iraq and begin yet another Middle Eastern War.

The last one – yes, I will say this again, the one undertaken because Iraq allegedly had weapons of mass destruction but didn’t – went on for nearly a decade, as you might remember, and destroyed Iraq and destroyed the American economy.

Bolton was catastrophically wrong then, and you might remember Megyn Kelly, in one of her finer moments of 2014, lacerating him with, “You know that a lot of people are out there tonight saying, ‘Well, weren’t you one of the people who was in favor of going into Iraq in the first place. Is that why you don’t want to discuss the past ten years and whether they were worth it?'”

Yet Bolton wants us to trust him now. Writing in a New York Times op-ed today, he claims that “to stop Iran’s bomb [we] must bomb Iran.” Not only does this sound childish (“if you hit your brother again, I’m going to hit you!”) but its flat-out stupid.

The man who was dead wrong about Iraq wants us to believe that logic is on his side. He says we are facing a “nuclear-arms race if Iran ever acquire[s] weapons capability.”

As it happens, President Obama is actually engaged in trying to stop Iran from acquiring those nuclear weapons, and if Republicans would give him a minute and stop trying to sabotage those efforts, they might actually bear fruit.

Not only can we not know until we’ve tried, but we can’t go around bombing everybody simply because we don’t think talking will work.

Bolton, like other right-wing chicken-hawks, wants to get right to the bombing he won’t have to risk his own life for, and skip negotiations. If someone were to do that to us, we would call it an act of war. John Bolton has a peculiar way of wanting to reduce tensions, since wars don’t generally do that. The war he still loves so much didn’t do that, and accusing us of having “a propensity to admire totalitarianism” if we disagree with him on that score, doesn’t change the facts.

The last war, the one he was also for (and was wrong about then too), destroyed the stability of the region and gave rise to ISIL. Does Bolton think destroying Iran is going to restore stability to the region? Well, he hasn’t considered those implications, just as he failed to consider the implications of destroying Iraq.

Having learned nothing from the abject failure of the Bush Doctrine, the man who lacked proof of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction but wanted to invade Iraq anyway, now speaks of the absence of “palpable proof” of Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons as no reason not to bomb the crap out of them – just because.

But even 2002’s National Security Strategy of the United States, which describes the Bush Doctrine, a “just-because” strategy if there ever was one, states that The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression.”

A 2006 update of the document rephrased it thusly in its summary of the 2002 National Security Strategy: “The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.”

Perhaps John Bolton did not read these appeals to “nonmilitary actions.” Like not bombing people before you’ve tried to talk to them.

In fact, the Institute for Policy Studies’ (IPS) Right Web details Bolton’s hawkish stance, saying,

Bolton has also remained unapologetic about the U.S. war in Iraq. “Despite all the criticism of what happened after Saddam’s defeat,” he argued in February 2013, it is “indisputable” that the U.S.-led coalition “accomplished its military mission with low casualties and great speed, sending an unmistakable signal of power and determination throughout the Middle East and around the world.”

Bolton, who apparently thinks sending “signals of power” are what count, claims President Obama’s “frantic efforts” are “empowering Iran” and “effectively handed a permit to Iran’s nuclear weapons establishment.”

The man who was wrong about Iraq’s WMDs now claims that “the inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program” and that sanctions will not work, even though sanctions have worked, again, according to the experts.

Bolton’s hardline stance and inability to think clearly is nothing out of the ordinary. His love of knee-jerk reactions to world events is nothing new. Appearing on Fox News, Bolton previously called Obama’s Cuba deal “appeasement” and a “very, very bad signal of weakness and lack of resolve by the President of the United States. It is no surprise that his complaints now also point to Obama as a weak-willed leader.

Back in 2013, as Media Matters points out, he called “a historic diplomatic deal between Iran and six world powers ‘abject surrender’ even though experts (actual experts as opposed to Fox News shills) said that Obama’s 2010 sanctions are to be credited with bringing Iran to the bargaining table in the first place, with Madeleine Albright stating plainly that “the sanctions are working.”

The man who was wrong about Iraq’s WMDs but insists we should trust him now about Iranian nuclear weapons, breezily asserts now that “Mr. Obama’s fascination with an Iranian nuclear deal always had an air of unreality.” The man who eschewed diplomacy for war – a war that destabilized the entire region – now claims that “by ignoring the strategic implications of such diplomacy, these talks have triggered a potential wave of nuclear programs. The president’s biggest legacy could be a thoroughly nuclear-weaponized Middle East.”

You would think one so discredited by his own blinkered thinking on Iraq would not be offered the veneer of legitimacy of an op-ed by The New York Times. Sadly, the Times seems to think crackpot thinking (this is the man who claimed back in 2012 that Obama was planning blasphemy laws to protect Islam) ranks higher than clear, well-thought out analysis by experts.

If the Times is not careful, it risks its own veneer of journalistic integrity by becoming no better than a New York franchise of Fox News.

45 Replies to “John Bolton Was Wrong About Iraq WMDs But Says Trust him on Iran Nukes”

  1. John Bolton is a nightmare. Just one step down from Cheney and his venom. He should be in jail along with the other “weapons of mass destruction”.

  2. Agree with you 100%. Also have come to the belief there is not a single rethugI would trust with a wooden nickel.
    They cause wars, protect themselves(no matter what damage is caused)never answer for the mistakes made by any one of them. During the Bush years, and the Raygun years How many have even come close to paying for their actions?
    Plenty of young active worth while American lives have been destroyed by them. As have all the lives in all the other country’s this country invaded. Rethugs love war, they get wealthy others die

  3. Scott Ritter was also a liar caught perving on young girls TWICE on webcam and denying it and Kofi Annan’s son was taking kickbacks from Saddam in the corrupt food for oil program.

    The fact is as wrong as Bush was, the UN never really had any clue either whether Saddam had WMD or not either, especially since Iraq was giving the inspectors the run-around not letting them into the sites they wanted to inspect. They were just politically against the war so they made up that he had none for cover.

  4. Mr. Bolton, I suggest you and your moustache go away so the adults can debate. And furthermore John, by the look on your face at most any time I suggest a strong laxative or some high grade cannabis.

  5. Dumbass the UN said there was no weapons after the first gulf war. Dumbass Iraq was under sanctions. Dumbass Iraq was surrounded by enemies who wouldn’t trade with him. Did I forget that you are a dumbass

  6. Was John Bolton one whose words led the US troops to Iraq? I think in contrary American troops deployed to Iraq because pentagon generals were almost confident that Saddam DID NOT HAVE WMDs, the fact that they cannot say about Iran today. That was solely an excuse to justify their action in security council,and Bolton was reflecting that point. Now you can put Bolton on guilty seat and blame him for being a needed voice in favor of that policy, but this doesn’t change the fact that Iran is not Iraq in 2003 and American policy makers seem not to have many options in dealing with mullahs, as they had regarding Iraq then.

  7. Everything is based on the assumption that Iran actually wants to produce nuclear weapons. I have yet to see any proof of that being the case.

  8. Mr. Bolton was one of those who preached about the necessity of invading Iraq.
    Now he sings the same song about Iran.

    Can we take his assertions seriously? He’s been wrong before, but hasn’t paid the price for it.

    Why should we trust him, or any one of those Chicken-hawks, again?

  9. Yep. Republicans (Neo-Confederates) love money to the point of insanity (they just can’t get enough even if they have multi-millions!) and war is the fastest way to achieve that…while average American taxpayers have to pay for them and lose their sons and daughters in the process.

    Why would anyone, other than out of hatred, vote for these anti-American, anti-worker b*sterds??

  10. Was John Bolton one whose words led the US troops to Iraq?

    Yes. In unison with all the other Republican-warmongers in the G.W. Bush Administration – the same people now “advising” John Ellis Bush.

    The rest of your comment is complete gibberish and is made moot by your assumption that Bolton had nothing to do with the pushing the U.S. into an unnecessary, unpaid-for war.

  11. If you’re wrong the first time, why in the hell would anyone with a brain even listen to you saying ‘hey, I was wrong about Iraq but listen to me… I’m right about Iran.’

    No. In fact, do the country a favor and fade away.

  12. ICH Bolton & the others do not have to advise Jeb Bush..Jeb was right in there with them..but kept a low profile…http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htmm

    Bush, Jeb – Governor of Florida.
    History: Banned convicted felons from voting in the 2000 presidential election, using an extremely inaccurate system to remove voting rights; allowed ineligible absentee ballots to be counted. PNAC Membership list http://www.reasoned.org/e_PNAC2.htm

  13. Wow these negotiations really scare these douches. I think they’re just afraid no one will find anything. Then they’ll be proven liars once again. If these talks pan out, the President will have another accomplishment under his belt. It’s hard to campaign against the Pres. and his ideas, when he’s right.

  14. No one – soldier or civilian – who has ever been in a war, wants another war.

    Bolton is a Warbucks whore with virility issues.

  15. Bush pulled those inspectors out of Iraq before they had finished their job of looking for WMD…if there had been any WMD finding them would have proven BushCo right, saying they could not find any WMD,not need for an invasion..RIGHT?

  16. I’m surprised Mr. Bolton hasn’t been asked to join Jeb’s campaign yet. It seems he has most of W’s advisers already.

  17. I see you have no reading comprehension skills. Fro the original article
    The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.

    After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.
    Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.

    All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

  18. …throw-est thou only on three!..Four is Right Out!!! and thou shall throw-est when the number three being the number that is reached…

  19. This crackpot Republican warmonger (Mr. war Minister), who by the way should never have been representing the U.S. at the U.N. even in the short period he was, before being booted out), is one more reason why there should NEVER be a Republican President for a Looong time! With advisers like this fool, we WOULD go to war in IRAN, with catastrophic results, and I don’t mean just for Iran and us, but for the WHOLE world. Bolton, should not be allowed near Nuclear codes, even in close proximity to a United States President.

  20. These rethugs want war and if they get back in power then we will go to war
    Noted foreign policy expert Scott Walker says he’d strike down any deal America negotiates with Iran

    Scott Walker talking about foreign policy ranks among the most terrifying things I can imagine.

    Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) said Wednesday that if he’s elected president, on his first day in office he’ll reject any deal the White House strikes with Iran over its nuclear program if it continues to allow the country to enrich uranium.
    http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/237025-walker-says-hed-reject-deal-with-iran-on-day-one?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=The+DC+Bubble

  21. John Boehner Calls Barack Obama An ‘Anti-War President’ Who Won’t Lead

    House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday that President Barack Obama was an “anti-war president.”

    “The world is starving for American leadership. But America has an anti-war president,” the Ohio Republican told reporters. “We have no strategy, overarching strategy, to deal with the growing terrorist threat. And it’s not just ISIS or Al-Qaeda or all of their affiliates. We’ve got a serious problem facing the world and America, by and large, is sitting on the sidelines.”

    During his presidency Obama has overseen ongoing U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, launched an unprecedented drone war in Pakistan, and authorized military actions against Libya, Syria, Yemen and Somalia.
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/boehner-obama-anti-war-president

  22. John Bolton wants us to bomb Iran not Iraq. The first paragraph of this article is in error.

    Of course, Bolton is a crazy warmonger. It is amazing that The New York Times has sunk so low that it publishes garbage by such lunatics.

  23. “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
    President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

    “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
    President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

    “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
    Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

    “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
    Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    Now you want to rewrite history and say the Republicans wanted war? You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own fact…

  24. Your dumbass have no clue about the context when Clinton made those statements And BTW Iraq had no program to produce WMDS when we invaded DUMBASS

  25. Americans must look examine the ideology and mental condition of individuals like John Bolton before they appoint them to sensitive positions of major decision making and in particular in the United Nations Security Council.
    Not only he was catastrophically wrong in blindly supporting and pushing for the ILLEGAL Bombardment, ILLEGAL Invasion and almost obliteration of an entire nation of more than 30,000,000 people, he is more catastrophic with his dangerously brainwashing opinions he is paid to the archaic ideology hosts at the FOX NEWS channel.
    Asking opinion about peace, justice, democracy and rule of law from John Bolton is equivalent to asking advice for all the above from Hitler.
    Unfortunately the Americans instead of delivering these individuals to the International Criminal Court to answer for their actions, they converted their nation into a Safe Harbor to protect the war crimes suspects. Luckily Mit Romney lost the elections because this individual was rumored to be incl…

  26. Time for John to sit down and STFU! Better to remain
    silent and be presumed a fool than to speak and
    remove all doubt. Can I get an amen?

  27. You state that Scott Ritter was a liar. What are you alleging, specifically, that he lied about? I am asking about this in the context of Iraqi WMD — I’m not interested in allegations of him being a sexual pervert.

  28. Dumbass the weapons that were found was rusty , non operational and were produced with our help to help the in the Iraq Iran war in the late 80’s. That is a fact. You chickenhawks will try to twist history to justify your ignorance

  29. I still find it frightening that a US president would be advised by someone who is obviously crazier than a shithouse rat. My bad both Bushs had Cheney in their administrations.

  30. vahawk, how stupid can you be?

    Bill Clinton, as every other President in history: “yada yada yada .. . ..”

    FACT: Bill Clinton didn’t order a completely unnecessary war.

    YOUR heroes are the ones who did that!

Comments are closed.