Bloodthirsty Liberal

Every Presidential candidate in memory has promised this, and each has declined to do so once in office. I will vote for him based on this promise, but if he fails to deliver, it will be the last vote I cast for him.

Newt Gingrich told a gathering of Jewish Republicans Wednesday that he would name former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton to be his secretary of state if elected president, and would immediately move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Mr. Gingrich showed his trademark flare for provocation as he spoke at a presidential candidates’ forum sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition, pledging not to let President Barack Obama dodge his invitation to debate and invoking Mr. Bolton, who advocates an interventionist foreign policy and hawkish stance toward Iran, a longtime antagonist of Israel.

All good, but Obama made similar promises. As did Carter, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Reagan, etc. I’m sick of politicians.

Here’s more:

But Mr. Gingrich has shown himself to be attuned to issues that may be obscure to the general election electorate but resonate with some conservatives. He accused the Justice Department of “an outrageous denial of truth” for pulling back law-enforcement training material that said mainstream American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers.

And he condemned the State Department for “censoring any anti-Islamic conversation,” apparently a reference to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s invitation to a Saudi-based group to attend a conference next week to build what the department called “muscles of respect and empathy and tolerance.”

“We are morally disarmed by a State Department incapable of articulating the cause of freedom,” he told a packed crowd that gave him repeated ovations.

I am betting the elderly Jews in Florida and elsewhere feel really, really burned by Obama and the whole Schlep to Florida campaign, where young adults convinced their grandparents to take a chance with Israel’s future. (And their own, as it turns out. Hope ‘n Change is a nightmare for young adults). A lot of those people will vote for Gingrich. Romney isn’t clear about Israel stuff – intentionally, I think – so Gingrich will probably get their votes. No one cares about his marriages. They all voted for Clinton, right? But how does this translate into the general election? Obama is such a total disaster, I just wish we could run Superman.

- Aggie

What do you think?

(the video is broken, but I found a clip at thedailycaller.com)

- Aggie

I usually love what John Bolton has to say, but on this I think he’s wrong:

Opponents of the Vietnam War — that seemingly endless, inconclusive, increasingly unpopular and ever-more-deadly and costly conflict — called it a “quagmire.” They said it was unwinnable and should never have been fought — and that America must avoid similar future wars. Today, our real risk of “quagmire” is Libya.

Our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president has gotten things badly wrong. By demanding Moammar Khadafy’s ouster while restricting US military force to the more limited objective of protecting innocent civilians, President Obama has set himself up for massive strategic failure.

What’s The ‘Stache talking about? Did we go to war with Libya or something?

I mean, I think I remember something about saying we were when we really weren’t, and handing it off to NATO, without really handing it off, and without NATO having the means to carry it off—and a whole lot more crazy sh*t… but that wasn’t real, was it?

I mean, it didn’t really happen; no one’s talking about it. That doesn’t happen in war.

I thought it was a weird dream, and blamed it on the spicy Thai food we had for dinner.

How spooky is it that John Bolton had the same dream, huh? Was it the choo chee salmon for you too John? That stuff is crazy.

Don’t know much about his domestic policy ideas, but he is a foreign policy giant

He has a mustache. And we all know how that worked out for Dewey. Although, mustaches are currently hip.

In an interview on Aaron Klein’s radio show, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton confirmed his interest in the 2012 presidential race while taking the opportunity to critique President Obama’s foreign policy, arguing that the president is not comfortable advancing American interests around the globe and prefers to focus on domestic policies.

When asked about his interest in challenging Obama, Bolton said, “Yes, I am considering it. And largely for the reasons we just talked about. I am very concerned about the direction of national security policy. I am concerned that we hardly talk about it at national-level debates in the mainstream media. The president, as they say, just seems to view national security issues as an irritation, as a distraction from what his real priorities are.”

“Coming into the 2012 election cycle, I don’t have the slightest doubt that while economic issues are very much on people’s minds, as they should be, it is not in our interest to continue to ignore foreign and national security issues. So, if I did run — and I haven’t made a decision; I have never run for office one way or the other, so it would be a pretty big decision to do it — I just think this has got to be more of priority,” said Bolton.

I would volunteer for his campaign.

- Aggie

At a certain point, I have to wonder if everyone else is crazy—or is it just me?

Prior to North Korea’s launch yesterday of a Taepodong-2 ballistic missile, President Barack Obama declared that such an action would be “provocative.” This public statement was an attempt to reinforce the administration’s private efforts to urge the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea (DPRK) not to fire the missile.

That effort failed, as have countless other attempts to deal softly with Pyongyang. Incredibly, U.S. Special Envoy for North Korea Stephen Bosworth revealed — just a few days before the launch — that he was ready to visit Pyongyang and resume the six-party talks once the “dust from the missiles settles.” It is no wonder the North fired away.

Once the missile shot was complete, the administration’s answer was hand-wringing, more rhetoric and, oh yes, the obligatory trip to the U.N. Security Council so that it could scold the defiant DPRK. Beyond whatever happens in the Security Council, Mr. Obama seems to have no plan whatever.

In 2006, when Pyongyang last lit off a volley of missiles and then exploded a nuclear device, the Security Council responded unanimously with Resolutions 1695 and 1718, which imposed extensive military and some economic sanctions. Unfortunately, the impact of these resolutions was dramatically undercut by subsequent Bush administration diplomacy, which effectively let North Korea off the hook. By re-engaging Pyongyang diplomatically rather than increasing the external pressure, George W. Bush relegitimized the North and gave it yet more time to bargain.

Yesterday’s launch is attributable to prior failures, but the global consequences now unfolding are Mr. Obama’s responsibility. In fact, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is expected to announce today deep cuts in the U.S. missile defense program, an extraordinarily ill-advised step.

That’s John Bolton, cautiously ladling out the blame fairly and evenly—we arrived at this place by a virtual GPS of past dimwitted and misguided decisions.

But when Kim Jong Il flips you the bird and demonstrates his will and his way to plant a missile in Wasilla, Alaska, is unilateral disarmament a sane response?

North Korea has again defied the Security Council, gotten away with its launch with the support of Russia and China, and now will likely confront only pleas by Mr. Obama and others to return to the six-party talks.

Those talks are exactly where North Korea wants to be. From them ever greater material and political benefits will flow to Pyongyang, in exchange for ever more hollow promises to dismantle its nuclear program.

So far, therefore, the missile launch is an unambiguous win for North Korea.

Again (and again), I’m not blaming Obama for Kim. Kim is his own fault.

But it must have been nearly a year ago that I first opined on how our country’s first metrosexual president would stand up to the nutsos in the world, particularly this one.

With all eyes on the race to be next occupant in the White House, John Bolton casts a glance at the current squatter—and doesn’t like what he sees:

As the Bush administration enters its last months, its pursuit of a “legacy,” especially in foreign policy, becomes ever more frenetic.

…

While neither unique nor unexpected, the legacy frenzy masks what should be our real concern until Jan. 20, 2009: the risk of a vulnerable administration making significant, unforced errors and concessions that will burden America well into the future. As our attention turns to a presidential election in two short months, the U.S. is entering a period of vulnerability made more dangerous by the administration’s provocative weakness.

…

Consider first what the State Department sees as one of its greatest successes: North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. True to form, Pyongyang recently complained that the U.S. had not taken the final steps to remove it from our list of state sponsors of terrorism. Sadly, but also typically, State Department insiders believe that North Korea has a point, given the waterfall of concessions State has already made.

…

On Georgia, the administration, after a distressingly slow start, has at least now reached the proper rhetorical pitch. The real problem ahead is strengthening the resolve of our European allies. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s recent comment (politely described by the White House as “not rational”) that we “created this conflict deliberately to create tension and help one of the candidates in the U.S. presidential campaign” will unfortunately resonate in certain Western European circles.

…

Unfortunately, Ms. Rice’s diplomacy is focused on castigating Israel’s settlements on the West Bank, and her continued pursuit of a “peace process” begun at the Annapolis, Md., international conference last November. That process was doomed from the outset, given the ongoing collapse and dissolution of the Palestinian Authority. Mr. Bush’s heart never seemed to be in this effort; now would certainly be a good time to abandon it, and the clear misallocation of scarce administration time and resources that process represents.

This is especially true as Iran continues its unimpeded pursuit of nuclear weapons. Any hope of a fourth Security Council sanctions resolution (let alone, finally, a meaningful one) disappeared in the dust kicked up by Russian tanks entering Georgia. U.S. diplomacy failed on Iran long ago, and the real issue now, for well or ill, is what, if anything, Israel decides to do militarily.

Mr. Bush has been Israel’s greatest friend in the Oval Office, and he may now have one more chance to prove it. Instead of rejecting Israeli requests for support, as press reports indicate the Pentagon is doing, Washington should at least be quietly helping Israel increase its defensive readiness.

Pushing back North Korea, standing up to Russia, and supporting Israel against Iran: now there’s a real Bush administration legacy. That is the President Bush who was actually elected in 2000, not the one now being lauded by the high minded for his second-term policy reversals. Those people are mostly interested in laying the foreign policy foundations of an Obama administration. Let’s hope that President Bush hasn’t left the building yet.

I don’t suppose there is a foreign policy guru more tuned to our wavelength than John Bolton. I can’t fault a word of this. If one’s view of the world is based on fact, his opinions are indisputable; if one’s view is based on wishes and feelings, I can imagine he’s quite a scary figure.

May he be John McCain’s Secretary of State.