It's official - as of yesterday, ex-US Ambassador John Bolton has endorsed John McCain.This is an important endorsement as far as I'm concerned, and I'll be interested to see if Bolton campaigns for McCain in the 2008 general. Along with the endorsement from Rudy Giuliani, it could mean a great deal, especially to foreign policy conservatives sitting on the fence.
Having John Bolton as say, NSC or Secretary of State would be the State Department's worst nightmare, and probably the best thing that's happened to US foreign policy in decades.
8 comments:
Wrong. John Bolton would not be helpful for foreign policy, since even though he rightly criticizes Rice, his approach is still fundamentally flawed, and because of some tough talk, deceptively so, but bottom line is Bolton's stated foreign policy hero is James Baker! So his endorsement of McCain is just one more reason for me never to trust McCain with national security. There's a reason people like Giuliani and Bush are supporting McCain--he'll follow the same neocon track, with a few tweaks, thanks to his friend Condi-appointed envoy Gen. James Jones, who McCain said will have a "key role." This would be disastrous--more Arab appeasement, more screw-the-Jews for oil, etc.
I likewise have had some doubts about McCain on Israel, although it's becoming increasingly difficult to warn against appeasement on Israel when their own government appears to be leading the charge.And I'm certainly aware of who James Jones is.Yechh!
John Bolton, in fairness, I have very few doubts about. Among other things, he was instrumental in getting the `Zionism -is-racism' resolution repealed by the UN.
I think he'd be a brilliant Secretary of State.
He may be endorsing McCain as the likely GOP nominee because he wants a position in the administration, true, but that's th eway the game is played.
O.k., but I read his book and I didn't just pull the Bolton admires Baker thing out of a hat, plus he said that James Baker was his "diplomatic role model" as recently as last November, here. Bottom line is that well-intentioned though he may be, Bolton still adheres to the suicidally misguided neoconservative approach to Islamofascism, as do so many McCain supporters. I would however take Bolton over the likely McCain Sec of State, James Jones.
Orde, I'm not sure McCain is thinking along the lines of James Jones as SecState! That would be a pretty huge jump.
As far as admiring James Baker, I haven't read Bolton's book but given his views on Israel and Jews are about 180 degrees from Baker's, perhaps what he was talking about was his ability to accomplish things an d admiration for his ability rather than admiration for his views.
As for the 'neocon' stuff,like baseball, it's all in the execution. If the curent occupant of the White House had actually meant what he said and adhered to the so-called Bush Doctrine, this war would have been over long ago and the president would probably be cruising along with approval ratings in the 60s.
Of course, if you're talking about invading Iraq and making it a model for Arab democracy, that gem didn't come from the so-called neocons, but from Colin Powell and Clinton holdover George Tenant. Do a search on this site for more info.
All Best,
ff
I don't like McCain, but he's the stop Hillary express, so I guess I gotta vote for him. The little that I know about Bolton I like. He's a pit bull. I'll take him for Secretary of State any day...
(Apologies if this ends up a duplicate comment, not clear if other was submitted)
Consider McCain's own words, that James Jones would have a "key role". And considering Jones' background, expertise and present positions, not much of a leap to think this raised-in-France, Georgetown School of Foreign service grad, ex-NATO commander, US Chamber of Commerce Institute of Energy Pres/CEO, present envoy to the Middle East will be Sec of State.
Perhaps, McCain's longtime friend even is the most powerful man in the world at this time. I await Jone's defining report, but given his liasons, I suspect it to be predictable and bad news for Israel.
To Orde...Gen. James Jones "would be disastrous"...how uneducated are you on foreign policy? He has more foreign policy and diplomatic experience than our current SECSTATE! More than the last SECSTATE! What do you think he did in EUCOMM AOR and as NATO Commander? He is now internationally recognized and appreciated for his diplomacy skills...and he is a "grunt" Marine. That experience easily surpasses being Provost! Your opinion is your own...but to take a 40-year Marine Corps Veteran who is now focused on America's energy independance, and who understands the Middle East, and suggest that it would be "disastrous" and lead to more "Arab appeasment" is, at best, ignorant...but, ignorance is be bliss. So, be blissfully orde!!!
O.k., anonymous, if you want to use the "appeal to authority" fallacy, then let me go all the way to the Top, to the sovereign Creator and Sustainer of the entire universe, (including nations and individuals, illiterates and generals) whose commands and promises Jones is either ignorant of or willfully disregarding to our nation's peril (4:2 in Tanakh version).
I could make all sorts of scholarly arguments on legal, historical and moral claims of Israel to the land and why they outweigh perceived U.S. interests in appeasing the Arab League, and point out from Hadith and Sira clear authoritative Islamic texts (as well as contemporary statements from the ulama) that also indicate the folly of Jones-supported U.S. policy, since expertise you tout, I go to the Top expert, whose wisdom is available to all for the asking, including you, and suggest you learn what He has to say about the Abrahamic Covenant: Audio Sermon: The Abrahamic Covenant, and how by understanding it the average Joe can be wiser than a patriotic, well-connected, Georgetown-educated, 6'5" general, ex-NATO commander, Middle East envoy who speaks fluent French.
Blessings to you and yours,
Orde
Post a Comment