Friday, March 23, 2018

Blitzkrieg Bolton, Trumps New National Security Adviser

Gobsmacked best described my reaction to news of this man's appointment today! 
image from here

Bolton is the Hawks Hawk.

Wayback @ PFYT on  Wednesday, June 13, 2012- John Bolton: Syria, World War and the destruction of America

Keep in mind this is John Bolton. Former Ambassador to the UN. Promoter of "diplomacy via death squads" -How Bolton Armed Haiti's Thugs and Killers. Let's not forget the Iran/Contra scandal.

The man is a certifiable psychopath. Instead of being locked up, which he should be, he is free to reign terror on the planet and it's people. His latest call for bloodshed and death was available for reading at the National Review online. (the entire article is still available to read- I'm surprised)

It is lengthy, therefore, only the highlights will be quoted.
Written to bolster the Republican/Democrat divide, which Bolton knows doesn't really exist.
He is playing to the audience. Keep that in mind.

"In response, calls for U.S. military intervention of one sort or another to aid the opposition increase, while the Obama administration dithers ( there has been no dithering, only a media created perception of dithering) over whether to continue relying on the United Nations Security Council and former U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan.

 But what are the American interests at stake, and what is the best way to protect them?

Syria’s Assad family–Baath party dictatorship had nothing to recommend it before the current conflict, other than its being the devil we knew. Now, it is increasingly an Iranian satellite under Tehran’s growing regional influence. Syria remains a threat to Israel; has continuing aspirations to control Lebanon while serving as a conduit to supply and support the terrorist group Hezbollah; provides a base of operations for Russian military activity in the Middle East; and is quite possibly the site of ongoing, illicit nuclear-weapons activity by Iran and North Korea, despite Israel’s destruction of a Syrian nuclear reactor in September 2007". (the 2007 Israeli bombing was a crock of stinky stuff)- and oddly enought that was remaking the news rounds just this past week in typical wash, rinse, repeat fashion
"Accordingly regime change in Syria is prima facie in America’s interest as well as the interests of Israel and our Arab friends in the region, who see nothing but danger for themselves if Iran’s hegemonic ambitions unfold successfully.
It would have been one thing to work with the Syrian diaspora to remove Assad and the Baath party when we had a massive military presence in Iraq, right on Syria’s border. In the days just after Saddam’s ouster in 2003, conditions were optimal (if nonetheless imperfect) for overthrowing Assad and replacing his regime with something compatible with American interests. We would not have needed to use U.S. ground forces. Our mere presence in Iraq could have precluded Iran — or, what we see today, an Iraq under Iran’s influence — from trying to protect Assad.
Accordingly, we are blinking at reality if we do not recognize that, following Assad’s ouster, especially if the violence grew, the bloodlust would be high and the risk of large-scale massacres of Alawites all too real. How would we feel if U.S. weapons were used in such massacres? (How does Bolton "feel" now about them being used?) Without a substantial on-the-ground troop presence, we could no more prevent them than we can prevent the current killings of civilians.

Advocates of U.S. intervention argue that, if we are unwilling to supply weapons to the opposition, we can at least declare a no-fly zone along the Turkish border and continue to supply non-lethal assistance. This less visible approach implicitly acknowledges that Arab states determined to prevent Iran from consolidating its hold over Syria are now arming the rebels and will continue to do so. Of course, they will arm factions they believe are congenial to their interests, and not necessarily (spin) those congenial to ours, a fact we can do little to change. Indeed, any level of U.S. support, if it turns out to be effective, implies the same potential political and humanitarian problems as does U.S. support that is truly robust. The more effective our aid is, the more likely the opposition is to prevail.
Significantly, U.S. intervention could not be confined to Syria and would inevitably entail confronting Iran and possibly Russia. This the Obama administration is unwilling to do, although it should. In the case of Russia, such a confrontation would likely break the famous “reset” button beyond repair"
Yes, Bolton wrote that in 2012 folks- Six years ago
 "First and foremost, we should cut Syria off from its major supporters. The television images from Syria will not change permanently until the underlying strategic terrain changes permanently. Russia should be told in no uncertain terms that it can forget about sustained good relations with the United States as long as it continues to back Assad. We should resume full-scale, indeed accelerated, efforts to construct the limited missile-defense system designed by George W. Bush to protect American territory not against Russia but against rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. But we should immediately make it clear to Moscow that we will begin to consider broadening our missile-defense program to deal with Russian and Chinese ballistic-missile capabilities. (as if that isn't happening right now?)We should also announce our withdrawal from the New START arms-control treaty, and our utter disinterest in negotiations to prevent an “arms race” in space. Let Moscow and Beijing think about all that for a while.

-The magnitude of such a shift as a response to the conflict in Syria may seem startling, but each of these proposals is meritorious on its own terms. Wrapping several major policy redirections around the Syria problem thus advances multiple objectives simultaneously. 

Next, we should tell Iran that our patience with their decade-long ploy of using diplomacy to gain time to advance their nuclear-weapons program has ended. Tehran should face a stark choice, and we can leave to their imagination what will happen if they fail immediately to dismantle all aspects of their existing nuclear effort.
-We should also reverse the fantasy still trumpeted by Obama that, despite its repeated violations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty over 20 years, Iran is somehow entitled to a “peaceful” nuclear program. Until there is a new, trustworthy regime in Tehran, (regime change for Iran!!!) there can be no claim to benefits or “rights” under a treaty Iran has grossly abused. (untrue) We should introduce this new reality to our European friends as well, perhaps by simply being unambiguous with them. (Bolton not happy with Europe)

-Finally, in Syria itself, we should do now what we could have begun to do ten years ago (and what the Obama White House at least says it is doing now): find Syrian rebel leaders who are truly secular and who oppose radical Islam; who will disavow al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups; and who will reject Russian and Iranian hegemony over their country"

Of course USrael presented the illusion of secular rebels via their Kurdish proxies.

The image that accompanies the National Review article of 2012 is to the right >>>>>>>

 From earlier today

 Four from yesterday:


  1. possibly the site of ongoing, illicit nuclear-weapons activity by Iran and North Korea, despite Israel’s destruction of a Syrian nuclear reactor in September 2007

    Keep telling a lie loud enough and long enough...

    But Sonny Jared will now get some $$$ to refinance that 666 white elephant, 1.2 billion due early next year.

    1. The Big Lie works that's why these detestable persons keep on using it!

  2. Blitzkreig? Maybe you meant Blitzkrieg? ;)

    1. I guess i doesn't come before e, in this case