Bolton On The NIE

Former ambassador John Bolton has an item on the recently released NIE in the Washington Post today. His main points being:

- the US Intelligence community seems more interested in playing politics and influencing policy, than they do in gathering intelligence

- the newly released NIE isn't much different than the 2005 NIE and it has always been the known civilian nuclear program in Iran that is of concern, as that could so easily be transferred to military use once the basic technology is mastered

- the NIE has only a moderate level of confidence in its conclusions and is also contradictory

- the NIE is based mostly on supposedly new intelligence, the veracity of which is far from clear, some of it from the IAEA, which most agree appears to be rather soft on Iran

- in part, the document was formulated by ex-State Department types who had these same views years ago

- and lastly, that the Bush administration doesn't appear to have a good handle on how this information is released to the public, or how to respond when it is

Comments

[IslamoLlama]

Also, John Bolton on The Middle East:

“Iraq, despite UN sanctions, maintains an aggressive program to rebuild the infrastructure for its nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs. In each instance, Iraq's procurement agents are actively working to obtain both weapons-specific and dual-use materials and technologies critical to their rebuilding and expansion efforts, using front companies and whatever illicit means are at hand.”

"I think NATO should go global. There is no reason why Japan and Australia shouldn't join." NATO could also make room for Israel. "Why not?" he said. "It's a European country, fundamentally. Turkey is a European country and it is further east."

John Bolton on information gathering:

“Well, we had a lot of messages, ... Mostly I was listening. You know former Secretary of State George Schultz once said listening is vastly underrated as a method of obtaining information, so I was following his advice today.”

John Bolton on the UN:

"There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

John Bolton on US Treaties:

"There may be good and sufficient reasons to abide by the provisions of a treaty, amd in most cases one would expect to do so because of the mutuality of benefits that treaties provide, but not because the U.S. is "legally" obligated to do so."

A deep and insightful thinker, that John Bolton.

[seekeronos]

Mr. Bolton is a very smart man indeed. Too bad he isn't in the presidential race.

We don't need the UN. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Better to evict those lousy squatters and kit out the UN building as condominiums.

What might work better for our interests might be an "Anglophonic Pact" consisting of the USA, the UK, major Commonwealth nations like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and observer members such as Japan, Taiwan, and Israel.

As for treaties, Mr. Bolton is 110% correct. A treaty is only as binding as the willingness of the parties to adhere to its conditions. Once the terms of a treaty cease to bring benefit to either of its constituents, there is no compelling reason to continue to abide by it - especially if one nation or the other is in a position to unilaterally cease from observing it.

Unlike contracts between people, there is no higher authority or court that can impose a penalty on nations that choose to abrogate a treaty, save for the Court of the Most High God, Who alone exalts men to be rulers, and nations to primacy.

Or perhaps the "court of world opinion"... but that court is ever so easy to bribe with juicy soundbites and media manipulations.

[seekeronos]

Mr. Bolton is a very smart man indeed. Too bad he isn't in the presidential race.

We don't need the UN. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Better to evict those lousy squatters and kit out the UN building as condominiums.

What might work better for our interests might be an "Anglophonic Pact" consisting of the USA, the UK, major Commonwealth nations like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and observer members such as Japan, Taiwan, and Israel.

As for treaties, Mr. Bolton is 110% correct. A treaty is only as binding as the willingness of the parties to adhere to its conditions. Once the terms of a treaty cease to bring benefit to either of its constituents, there is no compelling reason to continue to abide by it - especially if one nation or the other is in a position to unilaterally cease from observing it.

Unlike contracts between people, there is no higher authority or court that can impose a penalty on nations that choose to abrogate a treaty, save for the Court of the Most High God, Who alone exalts men to be rulers, and nations to primacy.

Or perhaps the "court of world opinion"... but that court is ever so easy to bribe with juicy soundbites and media manipulations.

[seekeronos]

Mr. Bolton is a very smart man indeed. Too bad he isn't in the presidential race.

We don't need the UN. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Better to evict those lousy squatters and kit out the UN building as condominiums.

What might work better for our interests might be an "Anglophonic Pact" consisting of the USA, the UK, major Commonwealth nations like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and observer members such as Japan, Taiwan, and Israel.

As for treaties, Mr. Bolton is 110% correct. A treaty is only as binding as the willingness of the parties to adhere to its conditions. Once the terms of a treaty cease to bring benefit to either of its constituents, there is no compelling reason to continue to abide by it - especially if one nation or the other is in a position to unilaterally cease from observing it.

Unlike contracts between people, there is no higher authority or court that can impose a penalty on nations that choose to abrogate a treaty, save for the Court of the Most High God, Who alone exalts men to be rulers, and nations to primacy.

Or perhaps the "court of world opinion"... but that court is ever so easy to bribe with juicy soundbites and media manipulations.

[Fred Beloit]

I was aghast at the damning tone concerning Bolton as quoted by Islamomoe. Upon carefully reading it, however, I could not find fault with one word of the quotes. This is a solid demonstration of the fact that Moe's head is lodged firmly between his larger and smaller intestine.

But I could be wrong. Perhaps Moe could explain what is terribly, or even mildly, wrong with this proposal:
"I think NATO should go global. There is no reason why Japan and Australia shouldn't join." NATO could also make room for Israel. "Why not?" he said. "It's a European country, fundamentally. Turkey is a European country and it is further east."

Oh, perhaps I know. The name would have to be changed to something like the Atlantic, Pacific, Mediterranean Treaty Organization or ATPACMEDTRETOR. This is way too long an acronym to fit into Moes's brain pan, so naturally he is against this idea.

[IslamoLlama]

Um... Fred, Turkey is about as European as Saudi Arabia or Egypt. The fact that Bolton can't figure out where the line is between continents and cultures displays a staggering amount of geopolitical ignorance. It would be like me suggesting that Spain is part of Africa.