| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:12 am Post subject: Will the White House Moron Bring On Armageddon? |
| Former CIA Analyst Says Iran Strike Set for June or July:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/06/02/former-cia-analyst-says-iran-strike-set-for-june-or-july.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will the White House Moron Bring On Armageddon?
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9127
June 12, 2006
Will the White House Moron Bring On Armageddon?
by Paul Craig Roberts
John Bolton, a notorious neocon warmonger who could not be confirmed as America's ambassador to the UN by even the compliant and corrupt U.S. Senate, got the job as a recess appointment. He is using the platform to push America into war with Iran.
Bolton told the Financial Times (June 9) that the Bush Regime has no intention of reaching an agreement with Iran. Time is running out for diplomacy, Bolton told the Financial Times. Iran has a short time remaining in which it can give up its right under the nonproliferation treaty to enrich uranium for nuclear energy or be attacked. Bolton said that U.S. security guarantees for Iran "were not on the table."
There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Every physicist knows that the enrichment requirement for weapons is many times greater than for nuclear energy and that Iran can barely achieve the latter. Despite the facts, Bolton told the Financial Times: "They've [Iran] got both feet on the accelerator, which is why we have a sense of urgency. Each day that goes by gives Iran more time to continue to perfect its efforts for mass production."
Bolton is lying through his teeth. Bush Regime lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and propagandistic references to mushroom clouds convinced the befuddled American public to accept an illegal invasion of Iraq. The same collection of neocon war criminals is again deceiving the American public about Iran.
In his remarks to the Financial Times, Bolton shows himself to be extremely disturbed by the prospect that the diplomatic efforts of Europe, Russia, and China could undermine the Bush Regime's plan to attack Iran. Bolton is doing everything possible to make certain that there is no diplomatic solution.
To help undermine any prospect for peace in the Middle East, Israeli gunboats shelled a public beach and killed or wounded 50 Palestinians. This was done in order to provoke Hamas into abandoning the long-established cease-fire that Hamas had imposed in the interest of negotiating a Palestinian settlement.
The Israeli government succeeded, and now there will a resurgence of "Hamas terrorism" that Bolton and his neocon compatriots can use to build a frightening spectacle of Muslim terrorism.
The Bush/Olmert axis-of-evil have made it clear that "we don't want no stinking peace."
Writing on Antiwar.com, University of California Professor Jorge Hirsch explains the tripwire that the Bush Regime has laid for Iran in order to have an excuse to launch an attack on that country. Just as the Bush Regime planned to attack Iraq and then orchestrated a case based on lies, the Bush Regime has already planned to attack Iran. Only this time, nuclear weapons will be used.
Nuking Iran is an essential part of the attack plan. The U.S. lacks the necessary conventional military force to invade and occupy Iran, but the use of nuclear weapons against Iran has a wider purpose. The neocons are determined not to have any more embarrassments, such as the Iraqi insurgency. By nuking Iran they intend to send a wider message that the U.S. will use every means at its disposal to ensure its hegemony. The neocons believe that the use of nukes will convince Arabs and the wider world that there is no recourse to accepting America's will.
The neoconservatives could not care less about public opinion. Neocons are contemptuous of the American people. Leo Strauss taught neocons that it was their duty to deceive the clueless American people in order to implement their agenda of global domination. The neocons believe that they have a perfect right, even the obligation, to manipulate the public through propaganda and black ops in order to create acceptance and support for their wars of aggression.
Neocons are the epitome of evil, and they have succumbed to hubris. Like Hitler when he attacked the Soviet Union, neocons believe that their manipulative skills and use of military power will carry the day for their agenda. Hitler's hubris doomed Germany to destruction. What price will America pay for neocon hubris?
When the neocons nuke Iran, it will revive memories in Japan and break the U.S.-Japanese alliance. Japan owns enough U.S. Treasury bonds to be able to destroy both the U.S. dollar and the market for Washington's endless red ink. Russia, China, India, and even our European lackeys will have it forcefully brought home to them that the U.S. is an out-of-control rogue nation. They will unify against us. Most likely our bought and paid-for puppets in the Middle East will fall, and Islamic leaders will gain Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Al-Qaeda will gain tens of millions of recruits.
Francis Fukuyama's phrase "the end of history" takes on new meaning.
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9127
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuking Iran
By Paul Craig Roberts
http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/91340
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13588.htm
06/12/06 "Information Clearing House" - -- John Bolton, a notorious
neocon warmonger who could not be confirmed as America's ambassador to
the UN by even the compliant and corrupt US Senate, got the job as a
recess appointment. He is using the platform to push America into war
with Iran.
Bolton told the Financial Times (June 9) that the Bush Regime has no
intention of reaching an agreement with Iran. Time is running out for
diplomacy, Bolton told the Financial Times. Iran has a short time
remaining in which it can give up its right under the non-proliferation
treaty to enrich uranium for nuclear energy or be attacked. Bolton said
that US security guarantees for Iran "were not on the table."
There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Every
physicist knows that the enrichment requirement for weapons is many
times greater than for nuclear energy and that Iran can barely achieve
the latter. Despite the facts, Bolton told the Financial Times:
"They've Iran got both feet on the accelerator, which is why we have a
sense of urgency. Each day that goes by gives Iran more time to
continue to perfect its efforts for mass production."
Bolton is lying through his teeth. Bush Regime lies about Iraqi weapons
of mass destruction and propagandistic references to mushroom clouds
convinced the befuddled American public to accept an illegal invasion
of Iraq. The same collection of neocon war criminals is again deceiving
the American public about Iran.
In his remarks to the Financial Times, Bolton shows himself to be
extremely disturbed by the prospect that the diplomatic efforts of
Europe, Russia, and China could undermine the Bush Regime's plan to
attack Iran. Bolton is doing everything possible to make certain that
there is no diplomatic solution.
To help undermine any prospect for peace in the Middle East, Israeli
gunboats shelled a public beach and killed or wounded 50 Palestinians.
This was done in order to provoke Hamas into abandoning the
long-established cease-fire that Hamas had imposed in the interest of
negotiating a Palestinian settlement.
The Israeli government succeeded, and now there will a resurgence of
"Hamas terrorism" that Bolton and his neocon compatriots can use to
build a frightening spectacle of Muslim terrorism.
The Bush/Olmert axis-of-evil have made it clear that "we don't want no
stinking peace."
Writing in Antiwar.com (June 10), University of California Professor
Jorge Hirsch explains the tripwire that the Bush Regime has laid for
Iran in order to have an excuse to launch an attack on that country.
Just as the Bush Regime planned to attack Iraq and then orchestrated a
case based on lies, the Bush Regime has already planned to attack Iran.
Only this time nuclear weapons will be used.
Nuking Iran is an essential part of the attack plan. The US lacks the
necessary conventional military force to invade and occupy Iran, but
the use of nuclear weapons against Iran has a wider purpose. The
neocons are determined not to have any more embarrassments, such as the
Iraqi insurgency. By nuking Iran they intend to send a wider message
that the US will use every means at its disposal to ensure its
hegemony. The neocons believe that the use of nukes will convince Arabs
and the wider world that there is no recourse to accepting America's
will.
The neoconservatives could not care less about public opinion. Neocons
are contemptuous of the American people. Leo Strauss taught neocons
that it was their duty to deceive the clueless American people in order
to implement their agenda of global domination. The neocons believe
that they have a perfect right, even the obligation, to manipulate the
public through propaganda and black ops in order to create acceptance
and support for their wars of aggression.
The neocons are the epitome of evil, and they have succumbed to hubris.
Like Hitler when he attacked the Soviet Union, neocons believe that
their manipulative skills and use of military power will carry the day
for their agenda. Hitler's hubris doomed Germany to destruction. What
price will America pay for neocon hubris?
When the neocon nazis nuke Iran it will revive memories in Japan and
break the US-Japanese alliance. Japan owns enough US Treasury bonds to
be able to destroy both the US dollar and the market for Washington's
endless red ink. Russia, China, India, and even our European lackeys
will have it forcefully brought home to them that the US is an
out-of-control rogue nation. They will unify against us. Most likely
our bought and paid for puppets in the MIddle East will fall, and
Islamic leaders will gain Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Al Qaeda will
gain tens of millions of recruits.
Francis Fukuyama's phrase, "the end of history" takes on new meaning.
Last edited by Alpha on Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:18 pm; edited 2 times in total | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:49 pm Post subject: |
| Look who is leading the charge for US to attack Iran just like this group of fifth columnist Israel firsters did to get US into the Iraq quagmire:
AIPAC fifth columnist Israel firsters pushing hard for coming attack on Iran like it did for Iraq:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2006/06/08/the-sun-never-sets-on-aipac.php
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran given June 29 deadline to respond to anti-nuke offer
Nazila Fathi, Helene Cooper, New York Times
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/10/MNGEPJBTKH1.DTL
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Washington -- Iran has less than three weeks to respond to the package
of incentives offered by major powers in exchange for its suspending its
enrichment of uranium, European diplomats and senior Bush administration
officials said Friday.
The United States and Europe have set a deadline of June 29, when
foreign ministers from the Group of 8 industrialized nations are
scheduled to meet in Moscow. The deadline was not explicitly part of the
package given to Iran earlier this week, but Javier Solana, the European
Union's foreign policy chief, conveyed it to Iranian officials in Tehran
on Tuesday when he delivered the proposal, the diplomats said.
The deadline reflects concern among the United States, Britain and
France that Iran continues to enrich uranium and develop its nuclear
capability even as its leadership considers the package of incentives.
"We know that time is not on our side," one European diplomat said.
On July 15, President Bush and the leaders of Russia, Japan, Britain,
France, Germany, Japan and Italy are to gather in St. Petersburg for the
G-8 summit meeting, where Iran is expected to be high on the agenda.
European diplomats said that back-and-forth between the major powers and
Iran over the package could extend to the meeting, but that Iran is
expected to make an initial response well before that.
Diplomats and Bush administration officials spoke on condition of
anonymity because the terms of the offer had not been released
officially.
"If we haven't heard anything from them" by June 29, "that would be a
very bad sign, and we'd start looking at the sticks," said one European
diplomat, referring to a list of penalties the major powers have agreed
to consider if Iran refuses to suspend its uranium enrichment.
Iran has insisted that it will not accept limits on its right under
existing treaties to enrich uranium for peaceful uses. On Friday, its
chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, repeated that pledge but said
Iran is ready to negotiate with the United States.
"Iran can announce today officially and explicitly that it has no
problem to negotiate with America," Larijani told the student news
agency ISNA.
+++++++++++++
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N09191871.htm
Details emerging on major power offer to Iran
09 Jun 2006 17:54:11 GMT
Source: Reuters
Printable view | Email this article | RSS [-] Text [+]
WASHINGTON, June 9 (Reuters) - The package of incentives and penalties
offered by major powers to end the Iran nuclear crisis has not been
officially revealed. But details from interviews with western diplomats
and an early draft released by ABC Television, include the following:
PRECONDITIONS:
--U.S. will join Europeans, and perhaps Russia and China, for
negotiations on the incentive package if Iran suspends "all
enrichment-related and reprocessing activities." A suspension must be
verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran must
cooperate fully with the IAEA and provide greater access for IAEA
inspectors.
INCENTIVES:
--Major powers recognize Iran's right to energy for peaceful purposes
and agree to support building new light-water nuclear power reactors.
European and Russian firms will be prime contractors. The U.S. will
approve licenses needed to permit U.S.-origin components to be
transferred to Iran.
--Although Iran must for now suspend enrichment, it could continue
uranium conversion, a preliminary step to enrichment.
--Iran may be able to enrich uranium on its own territory in the future
but only after meeting strict conditions with U.N. Security Council
approval.
--Iran can have legally-binding guarantees of nuclear fuel, which
include partnership in an international fuel center in Russia and
establishment in Iran of a new facility containing a five-year fuel
stockpile.
--U.N. Security Council consideration of Iran's nuclear program will be
suspended when negotiations begin.
--Major powers will support Iran's integration into international
economic structures, including the World Trade Organization, and
creation of a framework for increased direct investment and trade with
Iran.
--Civil aviation cooperation will resume, including removal of
restrictions on aircraft manufacturers like Boeing and Airbus to sell
civilian aircraft to Iran.
--A long-term strategic energy partnership will be established between
Iran, the European Union and other willing partners.
--A regional forum to promote dialogue on security issues will be
supported providing a neutral ground for Iran to pursue its goal of U.S.
security guarantees.
DISINCENTIVES:
Listed as "possible measures in the event that Iran does not cooperate,"
the disincentives are deliberately not called sanctions to avoid
threatening Tehran. Major powers say they would be applied gradually in
response to Iran's behavior.
--Embargo on the export of nuclear goods and technologies to Iran.
--Freeze on assets, ban on financial transactions, travel ban on Iranian
individuals and organizations involved in nuclear programs.
--Suspension of Iran's technical nuclear cooperation with the IAEA.
--Ban on Iranians studying abroad in nuclear and missile-related
disciplines.
--Freeze on bilateral political contacts.
--Travel ban on selected Iranian officials.
--Freeze of assets on individuals and organizations "close to the
regime".
--Arms embargo.
--Embargo on exports of specific products, such as refined oil and gas
products, to Iran.
--End to support for Iran's WTO membership bid.
--Ban on investment in certain Iranian sectors.
--General freeze on assets of Iranian financial institutions.
--Reduction in government support for trade and export credit assurances
to Iran.
Last edited by Alpha on Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:05 am; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:25 am Post subject: 'New American Century' Project Ends With a Whimper |
| Pat Buchanan mentioned PNAC (Project for the New American Century) in his 'Whose War?' article:
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
PNAC may be 'closing' but JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) which Buchanan also mentioned in the above referenced 'Whose War?' article is still very much open:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JINSA Israel firsters: IRAQ DOWN, IRAN LEFT TO GO:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/04/06/jinsa-israel-firsters-iraq-down-iran-left-to-go.php
--------------------------------------------
June 13, 2006
'New American Century' Project Ends With a Whimper
by Jim Lobe
Is the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which did so much to promote the invasion of Iraq and an Israel-centered"global war on terror," closing down?
In the absence of an official announcement and the failure since late last year of a live person to answer its telephone number, a Washington Post obituary would seem to be definitive. And, sure enough, the Post quoted one unidentified source presumably linked to PNAC that the group was "heading toward closing" with the feeling of "goal accomplished."
In fact, the 9-year-old group, whose 27 founders included Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, among at least half a dozen of the most powerful hawks in the George W. Bush administration's first term, has been inactive since January 2005, when it issued the last of its "statements," an appeal to significantly increase the size of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps to cope with the growing demands of the kind of "Pax Americana" it had done so much to promote.
As a platform for the three-part coalition that was most enthusiastic about war in Iraq – aggressive nationalists like Cheney, Christian Zionists of the religious Right, and Israel-centered neoconservatives – PNAC actually began breaking down shortly after the Iraq invasion.
It was then that the group's predominantly neoconservative leadership – Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, PNAC director Gary Schmitt, and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace analyst Robert Kagan – began attacking Rumsfeld, in particular, for failing to deploy enough troops to pacify the country and launch a true nation-building exercise, as in post-World War II Germany and Japan.
It was the first of a number of policy splits that, along with the deepening quagmire in Iraq itself, have debilitated the hawks, forcing neoconservatives in the group to reach out to liberal interventionists with whom they sponsored a series of joint statements extolling the virtues of nation-building and a larger army, or calling for a tougher U.S. stance toward Russia and China.
PNAC was launched by Kristol and Kagan in 1997, shortly after their publication of an article in Foreign Affairs magazine entitled "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy," in which they called for Washington to exercise "benevolent global hegemony" to be sustained "as far into the future as possible."
While critical of then President Bill Clinton, the article was directed more against a Republican Congress which, in their view, had grown increasingly isolationist, particularly after the precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Somalia in 1994 and strong Republican opposition to intervention in the Balkans against Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic.
It was in this spirit that the two co-founded PNAC, whose charter was signed by leading neoconservatives, including Cheney's future chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby; Rumsfeld's future deputy, Paul Wolfowitz; Bush's future top Middle East aide, Elliott Abrams; his future ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad; Rumsfeld's future top international security official, Peter Rodman; American Enterprise Institute (AEI) fellow and neocon impresario Richard Perle; Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; as well as Cheney and Rumsfeld themselves.
The charter's few specifics, as well as follow-up reports published by PNAC – "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and "Present Dangers," both published in 2000 to influence the foreign policy debate during the presidential campaign that year – were based to a great extent on an infamous "Defense Planning Guidance" (DPG) draft produced under Cheney when he served as secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush in 1992.
That paper, which was developed by then-Undersecretary of Defense Wolfowitz, Libby, Khalilzad, and the current deputy national security adviser, J.D. Crouch, with assistance from Perle and other like-minded defense specialists, called for the "benevolent domination by one power" (the U.S.) to replace "collective internationalism" and for Washington to ensure that domination, particularly in Eurasia, in order to prevent the emergence, by confrontation if necessary, of any possible regional or global rival.
It was PNAC's role to sustain and propagate these ideas through its reports, its periodic letters and statements signed by right-wing notables, and a steady flow of opinion-pieces and essays, that acted as part of a larger neoconservative"echo chamber" that included Kristol's Weekly Standard, Fox News, the Washington Times, and the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, to frame debates in official Washington and the mainstream media.
In this sense, PNAC was more of a "letterhead organization" that acted more as a mechanism for developing consensus on issues among different political forces – in its case, Republican hawks – and then pushing them in public, than as a think tank.
Indeed, the fact that several of its half-a-dozen staff members – most recently, PNAC director Schmitt – have taken posts at the much-larger AEI located just five floors above PNAC's offices helps illustrate the incestuous nature of the larger network. Nonetheless, PNAC was the first to call publicly (in 1998) for Washington to pursue "regime change" in Iraq by military means in conjunction with the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmed Chalabi, who would later play a key role in the propaganda campaign against Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the 2003 invasion.
But perhaps its most notable letter was sent to Bush Sept. 20, 2001, just nine days after the 9/11 attacks. In addition to calling for the ouster of the Taliban and war on al-Qaeda, the letter called for waging a broader and more ambitious "war on terrorism" that would include cutting off the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat, taking on Hezbollah, threatening Syria and Iran, and, most importantly, ousting Hussein regardless of his relationship to the attacks or al-Qaeda.
"It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States," it said. "But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."
The letter was signed by 38 members of the predominantly neoconservative Washington echo chamber, many of whom – especially Kristol, Kagan, Defense Policy Board members Perle, Woolsey, Eliot Cohen, Center for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney, former Education Secretary William Bennett, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, and Foundation for the Defense of Democracies director Clifford May – would emerge, along with Woolsey, as the most ubiquitous champions of war with Iraq outside the administration.
Seven months later, PNAC issued another letter signed by many of the same people urging Bush to step up preparations for war with Iraq, sever all ties to the Palestinian Authority under Arafat and give full backing to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's efforts to crush the Palestinian Intifada.
"Israel's fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel's victory is an important part of our victory," the letter noted. "For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism." Bush complied two months later.
That period – Sept. 20, 2001, to the run-up to the Iraq war in early 2003 – marked the high-water mark of PNAC's existence. Since then, things have generally gone downhill, as the hawks they represented, including the group's dominant neoconservatives, have fallen prey to internal disagreements: over Rumsfeld's stewardship of Iraq and the Pentagon; over the wisdom of democratic "transformation" in the Arab Middle East; over Sharon's Gaza disengagement plan; over China; and even over the latest administration moves on Iran.
All of which has made it far more difficult to forge consensus – and compose letters – in these areas.
(Inter Press Service)
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=9132 | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:19 pm Post subject: Taunted and jeered, Bolton bolted |
| Taunted and jeered, Bolton bolted
Michael Carmichael, Spinwatch, 14 June 2006
http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=502
"John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at
Armageddon, if it should be my lot to be on hand for what is forecast
to be the final battle between good and evil in this world." Senator
Jesse Helms (Republican, North Carolina, retired)
Facing an increasingly hostile group of law students in an Oxford
seminar that had somehow gone dreadfully wrong, beads of sweat began to
pop out on John Bolton's furrowed brow. Amidst a rising chorus of
taunts, jeers, hisses and outright denunciations, Bolton was swiftly
surrounded by his entourage of three American security agents and
whisked out the door of the seminar room at Oriel College on Friday,
the 9th of June.
Pursued by vocal recriminations from angry and frustrated American
students who led the incisive questioning and the equally incisive
jeering -- with taunts like, "You should be doing a better job!" Bolton
bolted. He turned sharply on his heel and took flight out the door and
then fled down the mediaeval passageway and into the relative safety
and calm of his bullet-proof diplomatic limousine. Bolton swiftly
headed out of Oxford, rudely foregoing the well-established tradition
of lingering to talk with interested members of the audience.
Bolton's swift exit contrasted sharply with Oxford appearances by two
other American politicians earlier this term. Both John Podesta and
Richard Perle enjoyed lingering for discussions with Oxford audiences
after their talks. John Bolton would have none of it, and the reason
was obvious. Throughout the questioning, the audience became
increasingly hostile and combative towards his neoconservative agenda.
Numbering over one hundred and consisting of a large contingent of
Americans intermingled with British and international students, the
audience was eager to hold Bolton accountable for the neoconservative
arguments he put forward in his talk. The keen attitude of the audience
infused Bolton with a noticeable reticence to remain and exchange
viewpoints even though it is a time-honoured Oxford tradition. Bolton's
performance was tantamount to arriving late for dinner, wolfing one's
food and then leaving abruptly before the cigars and Amontillado.
Bolton had been invited to Oxford for a one-hour seminar organised by
The Law Society. His talk would be followed by the routine question and
answer session.
Upon his arrival, Bolton announced that his talk would not be a free
and open discussion but strictly limited to his few selected topics: UN
reform, scandal and the next Secretary General. Predictably, Bolton
launched into his standard speech -- little more than a right-wing
denigration of the UN as riddled with corruption in the form of the Oil
for Food scandal.
Bolton began his broadside with an examination of the principle of
'sovereign equality,' whereby every nation has exactly the same voting
rights as every other member of the General Assembly. He adopted an
unsophisticated book-keeper's perspective, stating that the
contributions made by the USA dwarfed those of many other nations. He
argued unconvincingly that even those forty-seven members who paid the
bare minimum had the same voting power in the General Assembly as
America. This observation failed to impress the audience who were more
than well aware of America's financial and economic superiority to the
debt-ridden nations in the third world ? a superiority accumulated
through trade negotiations designed to extract capital from the poorest
nations and transfer it to the wealthiest.
Bolton's panacea for the bureaucratic inefficiency was simple ? a tax
cut for the wealthiest nations. At its core, he implied that a group of
sharp-eyed book-keepers backed by accountants, auditors and a hardened
core of dues-collectors should run the United Nations along strict
financial guidelines as if it were a private club with a dining room
and golf course rather than the world's premiere organization mandated
to prevent armed conflict between sovereign nations, foster economic
development, enhance social equality and cultivate international law.
If Bolton is aware of the principles defining the mission of the United
Nations, he made no mention of them whatsoever. His sole focus was a
totally transparent harangue on the disparity of dues, a tissue of an
argument that would not have convinced a fifteen year old ? much less
Oxford law students.
Turning to his case for corruption, Bolton launched into a literal
diatribe about the Oil for Food programme that he described as a
substantial scandal. The background to this is important: led by
Bolton, neoconservative critics of the UN attempted unsuccessfully to
make a criminal case against Kofi Annan and members of his family
through the Oil for Food investigation, but their efforts largely were
wasted. The investigation did discover some relatively minor official
corruption involving a paltry $150,000 paid to one individual. The
largest amount of corruption appears to have come in the form of
kickbacks and bribes to the government of Iraq by oil companies seeking
cheap oil. Of the kickbacks paid to the government of Iraq, 52% came
from the US in the form of bribes for cheap oil, a figure that is more
than the rest of the planet of 190 nations combined. While a partisan
Republican Senator, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, made allegations against
one high profile figure, George Galloway a British MP, they have been
refuted. The investigation is ongoing, but of 54 internal audits only
one has been made public. Bolton did not mention any of these details,
nor did he provide any substantive evidence for his charge of serious
levels of official corruption at the UN.
Neither did Bolton call attention to the fact that the Oil for Food
case pales into insignificance when compared to the massive scandals
engulfing American operations in Iraq involving tens and possibly
hundreds of billions of dollars or the Abramoff millions and the Enron
scandal soaring into billions of dollars. Weak, prejudiced and hostile
in its intent, Bolton's case against the UN failed to impress his keen
academic audience of law students. Bolton failed to get an indictment
from this grand jury.
The final part of Bolton's talk dealt with the next Secretary General
of the UN who will take office later this year. He criticized the
obligatory rotation of the office, arguing for a review of the rules
governing selection of the Secretary General. Although making comments
about the need for balance and fairness, Bolton observed that the next
Secretary General should come not from Asia but from the ranks of
Eastern Europe ? a favourite region for Bolton who champions the
increasing integration of Eastern European nations and leaders into the
American sphere of influence. Bolton left the impression that he is
deeply involved in the selection process for the next Secretary
General. From his remarks, it is clear that he is making every effort
to influence this selection by anointing an Eastern European
functionary loyal to the neoconservative agenda of George Bush, Dick
Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
Perhaps most dramatically, Bolton presented a stark message to his
Oxford
audience: the UN exists to institutionalize inequalities of power,
wealth and national security. In his view, the UN should be a club for
powerful nations to manage their relations with poor nations by denying
them any real power. As an agent of corporate wealth and institutional
power, in his Oxford remarks Bolton focused exclusively on justice for
capital and repudiated the notion of a democratic basis for the UN.
Bolton demanded that the UN should remain a gated community devoid of
power-sharing with its small clique of five Security Council members
wielding veto power over the remaining 190 members of the General
Assembly.
During the question period, Bolton recognized a law student who
politely asked him to justify the application of a double standard in
the Middle East that favors Israel over Syria or other Muslim nations.
Detecting the student's accent, Bolton pointedly asked, "Where are you
from?" The student was Syrian. On that note, Bolton refused to answer
the question, and instead he criticized Syria for what he deemed to be
its unwarranted interference in the Middle East and Lebanon even though
they withdrew their final 15,000 troops last year. From a historical
perspective, it is ironic that Bolton would have cited this case, for
Syria was invited to provide security operations in Lebanon by the
Maronite Christians with the tacit approval of the United Nations and
the support of the Arab League. The hypocrisy at the heart of his own
case - since he represents a hegemonic power with more than one hundred
and thirty thousand uninvited troops on the ground in Iraq, thousands
more uninvited troops in Afghanistan and which now threatens to launch
a new war against Iran - was lost on Bolton. But, Bolton's hypocrisy
was not lost on his perceptive audience who now zeroed in on him with a
barrage of pointed questions.
The next question to Bolton was why should the UN be based on dues paid
and the wealth and power of its members i.e one nation, one vote --
instead of population, which would mean -- one man, one vote. Detecting
another foreign accent, Bolton asked, "Where are you from?" The student
was from India. Bolton said that any alteration in the current articles
of the UN charter to reform on a demographic basis would change the
nature of the institution, and he indicated that principle, i.e.
democracy and one man, one vote ? remained totally unacceptable to the
United States as a basis for the United Nations. Quite.
In what was rapidly becoming his interrogation, a woman from America
questioned Bolton about the need for a balanced approach where America
would represent the best interests of the world at large rather than
its own particular regional self-interest. At that point, Bolton
fumbled. In a clumsy and misguided attempt to turn the tables on his
adroit and incisive challengers, Bolton threw out a question of his
own. He called for a show of hands of those in the audience who were
British. Bolton then asked how many of them wanted the British
Ambassador at the UN to represent the interests of Britain. Only one or
two hands were raised. Then he asked to see a show of hands of those
British subjects who wanted the British Ambassador at the UN to
represent not only the interests of Britain but also the collective
interests of the other members as well. At least a dozen hands went up
into the air. Stunned, Bolton was dumbfounded and said rather
witlessly, "I would have gotten a different result in America."
At that point, the crowd was warming to the battle unfolding before
them and led so capably by the incensed Americans in the audience. With
their voices rising in taunts and jeers and more than a dozen hands
demanding to be recognized to put more questions to him, Bolton's
attention turned to his phalanx of security agents who surrounded him
drawing the question and answer session to an abrupt close. In
retrospect, Bolton's was a disgraceful performance, one committed to an
ancien regime of property, monetary wealth and military power in
diametrical opposition to the democratic rights of humanity. John
Bolton showed himself to be a behemoth of corporate greed and corrupt
political influence in world diplomacy. My view is that his appointment
to the Ambassadorship of the United Nations was tantamount to
appointing Vito Corleone to head the FBI.
The primary purpose of Bolton's visit to Britain was not made public,
but it was clear nevertheless from his public remarks. With a history
of trips to Europe to demand the sackings of officials for whom he has
a personal dislike, Bolton's visit to Britain was obviously to demand
the sacking of the Deputy Secretary of the UN, a British subject, Mark
Malloch Brown. Bolton appeared on the influential BBC4 Today programme,
where he was interviewed by Jim Naughtie. Deputy Secretary of the UN
Brown was Bolton's first target. Brown's speech critical of US policy
vis a vis the UN had clearly irritated Bolton. Brown had criticized the
US for using the UN to take care of many foreign policy problems while
US officials hypocritically attacked it back home in red state America.
By pointing this out, Brown touched a sensitive nerve in Bolton's
neoconservative brain. For starters, Bolton falsely accused Brown of
criticizing the American people ? a sheer fabrication. Then, Bolton
lashed out at Brown for making remarks that would injure the UN. Coming
from Bolton, this appraisal sounded more like a threat than serious
criticism. In explaining the US position on the UN, he stated, "I think
that the administration has told the truth about the UN ? the good, the
bad and the ugly," a strange choice of metaphors for a man with as
controversial a reputation as Bolton.
Naughtie turned to the Iran crisis, and Bolton reiterated the official
White House line: the situation remains under negotiation but volatile.
Either Iran will acquiesce to the demands placed upon it, or it will
face dire consequences including military intervention. Leaving no
doubt that Bush and Bolton propose unilateral action, Bolton confirmed
that Iran would be a test case to determine whether the UN Security
Council could be effective in the war against terrorism.
When interviewed on the same day by the Financial Times, Bolton quashed
the concept that the Bush administration was holding out the
possibility of a "grand bargain" with Iran. In Bolton's mind, the terms
of the negotiations are focused exclusively on the Iranian nuclear
programme and do not encompass diplomatic recognition or the
normalization of relations. Far from detente, Bolton's definition of
the process is simple: the US is threatening Iran with war unless they
submit to terms which Iran finds unattractive ? the cessation of what
they state is peaceful research into nuclear energy.
Given his very public actions as exemplified by his statements in the
UK and the US, Bolton should now be considered to be functioning as the
US Secretary of State. It would not be surprising to see him elevated
to that post in the event of Condoleezza Rice leaving the State
Department or upon the election of a new Republican administration in
2008.
John Bolton has a fascinating back-story. A Lutheran from Baltimore,
Bolton studied law at Yale. The extreme right-wing presidential
campaign of Barry Goldwater politicized him, and in the late 1970s, he
emerged as a top legal advisor to the extreme racist Republican,
Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina. A description of Bolton's
political extremism records, "A veteran of Southern electoral
campaigns, Bolton has long appealed to racist voters." (John Bolton,
Right Web) During the 2000 Florida vote fiasco, Bolton played a high
profile partisan role. Working under Jim Baker, Bolton led the
so-called "white collar riot" that brought a halt to the counting of
ballots in Florida.
Throughout the 1980s, Bolton was a leader of Republican Party efforts
to undermine voting rights for minorities. Forming an alliance with
James Baker, Bolton served in both the Reagan and Bush 41
administrations. During the Clinton years, Bolton served as an
assistant to Baker when he worked as Kofi Annan's envoy in the Western
Sahara. It is somewhat ironic that Bolton is now the principal critic
of Annan. Additionally, Bolton spent time at the usual right-wing and
neoconservative institutions
including: the American Enterprise Institute; Project for the New
American Century; Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and
the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf. Before his
appointment as US Ambassador to the United Nations, Bolton served as
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control.
In the mid-1990s, Bolton was involved in a political money-laundering
scandal that opened a channel for funds from Taiwan to Republican
candidates. (ibid.) Prior to his appointment as UN Ambassador, Bolton
was deeply involved in the Bush administration's overt campaign to
undermine international law. Bolton masterminded the systematic
abrogation of several key international treaties including: the 1972
Biological Weapons Convention; the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty; the
Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court and the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. During his work for the Reagan
administration, Bolton supported the Nicaraguan contras and sought to
deny federal investigators access to key evidence in the Iran Contra
scandal. (John Bolton, Officialssay)
Personal scandals have also tarnished John Bolton. A woman accused him
of hostile intimidation that led to a case of sexual discrimination.
Larry Flynt published evidence that Bolton's first marriage had
collapsed after he forced his wife to have group sex at Plato's Retreat
during the Reagan administration. (Rawstory)
When Bush nominated him for the UN Ambassadorship, Bolton suffered
intense scrutiny. He failed to get the endorsement of the Foreign
Relations committee, and a ranking Republican, George Voinovich of
Ohio, openly opposed him. When the nomination came to the floor of the
Senate, the Democrats launched a filibuster. When a small group of
Republicans attempted to invoke cloture to stop the debate, the motion
failed for lack of support. During a congressional recess, Bush was
forced to appoint Bolton in what is called a "recess appointment." This
weakens Bolton's stature, and the law demands that his appointment must
be renewed early next year by the Senate in spite of the embarrassment
it will cause him.
An embarrassing incident occurred last month that confirms the
suspicions of Bolton's polite Syrian questioner at Oxford. In remarks
to B'nei Brith International, the Israeli ambassador to the UN
identified Bolton as "a secret member of Israel's own team at the
United Nations," underlining his confidence in Bolton by stating,
"Today the secret is out. We really are not just five diplomats. We are
at least six including John Bolton." (Haaretz)
During his Oxford harangue, Bolton said that America is a democracy
where people vote for change and the policies they believe to be right.
His own role in the racist politics of the South, the cessation of vote
counting in 2000 and the obstruction of the Iran Contra investigation
transforms every word he ever says claiming America as a model of
democracy into the ne plus ultra of political hypocrisy. George Bush,
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Condoleezza Rice and John
Bolton are a comfortable clutch of hypocritical politicians, and their
approval ratings now demonstrate that they are not the agents of
democracy. Quite the opposite, the democratic disconnection ? the
increasing disparity between popular opinion and government policy - in
Bush and Bolton's America is a scandal of global proportions that could
well be driving the United States over the precipice and into the abyss
of failed and failing states.
References
Bolton rejects 'grand bargain' with Iran
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3016bd02-f7e9-11da-9481-0000779e2340.html
Woman accuses Bolton of harassment
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-04-20-whitehouse-bolton_-
x.htm
Bolton Delay Offensive to Jewish Community, Says JINSA
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=49090
Israel's UN ambassador slams Qatar, praises U.S. envoy Bolton
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/718679.htmlIsrael's UN ambassador
slams Qatar, praises U.S. envoy Bolton
Larry Flynt: Bush UN nominee won't answer questions about troubled
marriage
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/larry_flynt_bolton_511.htm
John R. Bolton
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_R._Bolton
Who Is John Bolton?
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=252671
John Bolton ? Profile ? rightweb
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/972
Rice's Iran Gambit
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/06/05/rices_iran_gambit.php
John Bolton - officialssay
http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/neo-conservatism/bolton.html | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
