"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98E87317E979Arrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...

After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Docrodile"
<swampthing@hellsbayou.net> Spat the Words

John Bolton, turns against Bush on Iran

Saturday, March 03, 2007 - ?2005 IranMania.com

LONDON, March 3 (IranMania) - John Bolton, who helped shape
President George W Bush's diplomacy aimed at blocking the nuclear
ambitions of Iran and North Korea, said those efforts are failing and
the US may have to seek the ouster of the governments in Tehran and
Pyongyang, Bloomberg reported.

It's hard to see anything that is going on over there as *anything
but* a failure for the Bush administration. In 6 short years Bush
has taken a small group of US enemies, about 4,000 , and multiplied
that number several thousand fold. We now have millions of fanatic
muslims who wish to kill Americans. I can see why Bolten has these
views. Having done nothing but create enemies, the only way forward
seems to be exterminate all of the muslims (only way to be sure you
can get all the really dangerous fanatic types).

We had "millions" of Muslims hating and fearing the US long before Bush II
arrived. The Ayatollah Khomeini whipped up a good frothy hate brew over
the Great Satan and the Little Satan many years ago...which continues to

this day, added onto by Bush's irrational policies, and spiced with
Ahmadinejad's fiery anti-Western rhetoric. It's interesting that Dubya
gave a speech to Congress in Sept. 2001 that identified those 'millions'
as a 'fringe group' of militants and that Islam was largely a peaceful,
good religion! That speech can be referenced at the official white house
records site. I did this some time ago, and presented that portion of
the speech to fanatics like Guernon, Tony, Mikey, etc., here in
2004...only to have them mock my reference, or ignore it entirely. My
point then was that their 'hero' had first attempted to isolate a small
part of Islam as a militant threat, while praising the much larger
whole. It fell flat here. They were intent on making Islam into a
kill-crazy, degenerate religion with Mohammed a liar, pedophile,
nutcase, etc. LOL!! I will never advocate the wiping out of adherents to
a belief system. I will support going after those specifically within
that group of believers who advocate violence against humanity...and I
don't give a ***** whether they think they're doing it in their God's
name, or for Aunt Mary. Certainly, small extremist groups within
Christianity have used violence. They're all wrong as wrong can possibly
be to promote mass murder and violence against others. We can't kill off
an ideology by killing its subscribers, Perseid. We will only succeed in
driving it underground, at best, to have it simmer underneath, ready to
come back with vengeance. Accommodation of the diversity of beliefs,
political systems, cultures, and races is the ONLY solution we have for
living together peacefully...and that is through removal of
nationalistic arrogance, self-righteousness, various forms of extremism,
etc. It takes lots of *boring* negotiations and compromise to reach a
peaceful co-existence. War is much more exciting, dramatic. It's the
stuff novels, TV programs, movies, games are made of. Who wants to play
a game of peace, eh? We will not get rid of those we hate and fear, or
feel superior to in some way, either, by murdering and/or oppressing
them. None of this species is in such a morally superior stance as to
not share the behavior of their enemies, as Christ instructed. You
become like your enemy when you do the wrong things to him, in anger and
revenge, that he had done to you. For whoever or whatever Jesus was, he
spoke simple painful truth about the nature of our behavior. When we
deny or ignore these truths he (and other avatars) spoke, we always get
ourselves into more of a Hell than we already are in. LOL! Docrodile

"We have let them out of the corner we put them in,'' Bolton
said.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=5007
8&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

"Marvin The Paranoid Android" <marvinparanoidandroid@hotmail.com> wrote

message news:1172965869.771232.294760@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...

On Mar 3, 11:29 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:

John Bolton, turns against Bush on Iran

Saturday, March 03, 2007 - ?2005 IranMania.com

LONDON, March 3 (IranMania) - John Bolton, who helped shape
President George W Bush's diplomacy aimed at blocking the nuclear
ambitions of Iran and North Korea, said those efforts are failing and
the
US may have to seek the ouster of the governments in Tehran and
Pyongyang,
Bloomberg reported.

Bolton has been quick to voice his disappointment with the
president
he was serving as United Nations ambassador less than three months

The agreement with North Korea to exchange economic aid for a nuclear
disarmament pledge shows the Bush administration has "abandoned the
principles it pursued for much of its first several years in

he
said in an interview yesterday.

Talks with either North Korea or Iran won't work, Bolton
asserted.
"Unless you're prepared to believe that the Iranians are voluntarily
going
to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons, the idea of pursuing
negotiations is ultimately going to be fruitless,'' he said.

Bolton's criticism reflected a split in the administration
between
those who seek multinational diplomacy and those who are skeptical

approach can deter countries bent on acquiring nuclear weapons.

The US has allowed Britain, France and Germany to "screw

in
nuclear talks with Iran, according to Bolton. The diplomacy has gone

for "three and a half years, and that allowed the Iranians to make
enormous progress on their nuclear- weapons program,'' he said.

Iranian officials insist their nuclear program is aimed only at
building a commercial power-generation industry.

"Regime change in Iran or, as a last resort, military action is
the
only thing that will stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons,''
Bolton said.

No 'Surrender'

The 58-year-old Yale University-educated lawyer and onetime US
arms-control official said he would go into more detail in a book he

writing, tentatively titled "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending
America
at the United Nations and Abroad.''

His criticisms drew a retort from President Bill Clinton's UN
ambassador, Bill Richardson. "Mr. Bolton's insults to our European
allies
and this saber-rattling are irresponsible,'' Richardson, the governor
of
New Mexico and a Democratic candidate for president, said in an e-

``We need tough, direct negotiations with Iran but also with our
allies,
especially Russia, to provide a united front to pressure Iran.''

A spokesman for Bush's National Security Council brushed aside
Bolton's critique. "He is a private citizen, welcome to his own
views,''
said the NSC's Gordon Johndroe.

Blaming 'Bureaucracy'

Bolton, who left the UN in December after failing to win
congressional support to extend his tenure, said he couldn't fully
explain
the lack of US resolve on North Korea, except to blame the

of
the bureaucracy'' in the State Department.

Since leaving the UN, Bolton has returned to the American
Enterprise
Institute in Washington to serve as a senior fellow on foreign policy.
He
fired a salvo against Bush's accord with North Korea a few hours after
the
announcement on Feb. 13 that a six-nation negotiation hosted by China
had
arrived at the deal.

While Bolton has been largely alone in public criticism of the
agreement, he was joined Feb. 28 by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
(news, bio, voting record) of Florida, ranking Republican on the House
Foreign Affairs Committee.

North Korean Pledges

"What has convinced you and the administration that the North
Korean
regime will abide by its commitments in the February 13 agreement?''
she
asked US negotiator Christopher Hill at a hearing. Ros-Lehtinen said
the
agreement doesn't adequately address North Korea's transfer of missile
technology to South Asia and the Middle East, and questioned a US
commitment to talk with North Korea about its designation as a state
sponsor of terror.

Hill said on Feb. 22, "We ultimately decided that, even though
North
Korea does need to make a strategic decision to get out of this

weapons business, to realize that decision is going to require a
step-by-step process.''

On Iran, Bolton scoffed at the pace of diplomacy, while
cautioning
that a military option has its own drawbacks, especially if there is a
secret uranium-enrichment facility.

"The downside of the military option is that you would incur all
of
the costs of having undertaken military action but potentially not
gotten
the benefits of decisively breaking the nuclear fuel cycle at one or
more
points,'' he said. "What that says is we need better intelligence

what the Iranians are actually up to beyond what is already in the
public
domain.''

Because of all of this, the US needs to tap the "substantial
Iranian
diaspora'' and "exploit'' the dissatisfaction inside Iran to topple

cleric-led government, Bolton said.

North Korea's dictatorship also should be feeling the heat from
the
US, Bolton said. Easing financial sanctions would be a "big

he
said.

"We have let them out of the corner we put them in,'' Bolton
said.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=50078

line330newsmain.gif
1KViewDownload

Bush 'appears' to be reversing course but Bolton is saying 'This is a
waste of time. We'll have to invade anyways'

They want to invade Iran. The WH is trying to put on a show of
diplomacy in the meantime.

Bolton is just warming everyone up for the main event.

Cheers!

-- Marvin

Yeah, I'm suspicious of the motives of a hardline executive branch that
makes sudden, seemingly dramatic peace-promoting about-faces on foreign
policy they vigorously defended (with lies, distractions) for years

engaged in preemptive warfare!

Whatever is happening, we likely won't have to wait long to find out.

I think of Bush, in late 2002, stating that the UNSC's decision on what
course to take against Saddam might not be followed if it didn't approve

military invasion, it brings me to the current crisis with Iran. Now, we
hear that he wants to sit down and do some talking with the foreign
minister of Iran, while previously demanding preconditions (outlined by
the UNSC) be meant beforehand for a high-level meeting.
The rationalization for the military naval buildup is that it is part of
an overall diplomatic move to pressure Iran. That is what we hear from
them. And why is it so many of us don't really believe it? LOL!!
It's a worrisome pattern of deceit and manipulation that trails behind
this rotten administration like diarrhea and mouth drool from a sick

dog.
Docrodile