Friday, June 02, 2006

Bolton May Be An Ambassador, But He's No Diplomat

On Wednesday's edition of Fox News Channel's Your World with Neil Cuvuto, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton explicitly said that unilateral military action against Iran was “on the table.”

Here's the transcript (please note the informative tag line Fox News provides in the image at right):

BOLTON: And I think when the President says it’s unacceptable, I think what he means by that is that it’s unacceptable. So it’s important…

CAVUTO: But unacceptable means that if it keeps going on you’re going to do something about it…

BOLTON: That no option is taken off the table. And Secretary…

CAVUTO: Military as well?

BOLTON: Exactly. Secretary Rice…

CAVUTO: Unilateral military action?

BOLTON: Secretary Rice made that point again today. But that’s why I think…

CAVUTO: That we would, I’m sorry Ambassador, that we would act alone if we had to?

BOLTON: That’s why he says no option is taken off the table. But it’s also why he has, the President, has reached out President Putin and other leaders in the past couple of days to say, “We’re making a significant step here,” that will be criticized by many of the president’s staunchest supporters here at home. But he’s taking this step to show strength and American leadership and to say he’s willing to do something that may be unpopular even with some of his supporters, to remove all excuses from Iran and its supporters to say, “We went the extra mile. We gave Iran really, this last chance to show that they are serious when they say they don’t want nuclear weapons.” This is put or shut up time for Iran.


With what military could we possibly act alone in launching a military attack on Iran?

In January, a 136-page report contracted by the Pentagon found that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. The author of the study, retired Army officer Andrew Krepinevich, said even Army leaders are not sure how much longer they can keep up the unusually high pace of combat tours in Iraq before they trigger an institutional crisis. Some major Army divisions are serving their second yearlong tours in Iraq, and some smaller units have served three times.

How stretched thin is our military? Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), speaking last month on ABC's This Week, said: "We’ve got 75% of all the equipment of National Guard all across this country is in Iraq. We’ve got National Guard members in their second, third and fourth tours in Iraq. We have stretched our military as thin as we have ever seen it in modern times."

And Hagel was talking about how difficult it would be to carry out President Bush's plan to use several thousand National Guard troops to guard the U.S. border with Mexico.

An engagement in Iran, obviously, would involve several tens of thousands of troops, if not several hundreds of thousands. So exactly how much credibility does blustering John Bolton have?


Anonymous Gen. Patton said...

Of course the military option is still on the table, Chicken Little. Take a look at history. Remember what negoitions and isoloation did to Hitler. That's right, absolutely nothing. He still went on slaughtering Jews. Make no mistake, Iran is a Modern Day Nazi regime, hell bent on destroying the Jewish state. That country needs to be fire bombed around the clock for a week. Then maybe we can start talks about giving them a "package." What a joke.

11:16 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Patton, I can't believe your reading comprehension levels are so poor.

The question is: what troops would the U.S. use to back up Bolton's claim that we might act unilaterally?

1) The U.S. would institute a draft

2) The U.S. would pull massive amounts of troops out of Iraq

3) The U.S. would pull massive amounts of troops from other locations around the world.

4) The U.S. has no idea how it would back up Bolton's claim.

That's the question, Patton. Can you answer it? Or are you limited to hyperbolic crap?

11:54 AM  
Anonymous Gen. Patton responds said...

It doesn't take an army of men to drop an A-bomb from a plane, Numb Nutz.

1:38 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

So you think that's going to be the U.S. policy? Drop an A-bomb from a plane.

Ok. You're on record with that one. My thinking is that there's a 0% chance of that happening. Furthermore, I doubt you can find a single legitimate source -- someone from the administration, a key Republican leader, etc. -- who has said as much.

Numb nutz, indeed.

3:03 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Gen Patton, maybe you haven't been instructed that dropping of an A-bomb on Iran would trigger World War III.
The retaliation from the Arab world would put a immediate end to our efforts to democracize the Middle East. You can forget about whatever we have accomplished in Iraq.
The act would likely result in an A-bomb dropped on the U.S. and the end of human civilization.
What a stupid idea, moron.
Such a terrifying Ann Coulterish blood lust to kill droves of innocent people can only bring about our own destruction.
I remain confident the American people by in large possess enough common sense to keep at bay such far right, extremist, war hawkish whacked-out ideas.

3:07 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares