Video: John Bolton on the Bhutto assassination

posted at 6:35 pm on December 27, 2007 by Bryan

Ambassador John Bolton makes a point that I led off with in the Paul post, namely, that we pushed too soon for democracy in Pakistan. That push led to Bhutto’s return, which in turn led to what happened to her today. That’s not blaming America so much as noting that you can’t make democracy in a microwave.

Bolton goes on to note that beyond democracy or anything else, the paramount US interest in Pakistan right now is to make sure that the nukes are secure. That need supersedes thoughts of the January 8 election. He’s right, of course. The first candidate who enlists Bolton’s open support in the primary is highly likely to get my vote.

More: I’ve been pondering whether and when to mention this, and this post seems as good a time as any. Probably the single aspect of Bolton’s book that most surprised me was the fact that one particular senator stood out as supporting Bolton’s nomination to become US Ambassador to the UN more than any other. Many senators supported him, and several tried to help out however they could. But one — Sen. John McCain — stands out in the book as doing the most over the longest period of time to try to facilitate Bolton’s confirmation.

That’s not an endorsement of McCain by any means. It does speak well of his judgment on putting the right man into the right job, though. If personnel is policy, and I believe that it very much is, we could do worse than McCain. Any of the Democrats would be much, much worse, because none of them would even think of putting someone like Bolton into a major role.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I doubt that anyone of the candidates has the nads to even ask for support from him let alone use it.

bbz123 on December 27, 2007 at 6:39 PM

…you can’t make democracy in a microwave.

Bingo…but you have to start “cooking” it at some point in a “regular oven”…and to continue with the metaphors, it might get burnt a little, bubble over, dry out…but it’s better than consuming it raw.

I’m still in full agreement that spreading democracy, sooner the better (as a start) is the way to go in the Middle East. And yes…it’s going to take time. Could be a couple decades or so. But it can, and must, happen…or the extremists will gain control, and like Iran, once they do, it’ll be that much harder to rid a place of them.

JetBoy on December 27, 2007 at 6:41 PM

The first candidate who enlists Bolton’s open support in the primary is highly likely to get my vote.

If Bolton endorses anybody, it’d be very interesting to see who. I’ll bet the candidates are salivating over the thought of such an endorsement.

flipflop on December 27, 2007 at 6:46 PM

That’s not blaming America so much as noting that you can’t make democracy in a microwave Muslim country.

Mojave Mark on December 27, 2007 at 6:47 PM

that we pushed too soon for democracy in Pakistan. That push led to Bhutto’s return, which in turn led to what happened to her today.

Bolton made warnings about this early last month on HHewitt

HH: And we have a very precarious position, a situation in Pakistan today, Ambassador Bolton, and we’re getting conflicting signals, not surprising having read Surrender Is Not An Option, from the State Department and from the President. What ought to be the reaction of the United States to Musharraf’s declaration of military rule?

JB: Well, I don’t think it’s anything we should celebrate, of course, but I think we have to be practical about this. This is a regime in control of a number of nuclear weapons, it’s a regime we need to fight the remainder of al Qaeda and Taliban along its border with Afghanistan. And I don’t think we ought to be pushing Musharraf out the door, or necessarily in a direction of coalitions with the likes of Benazir Bhutto, if he thinks it would weaken his position, because the alternative is not a nice Jeffersonian democratic government. The alternative to Musharraf right now is an Islamo-fascist government in control of nuclear weapons, and that’s definitely something to fear.

HH: Is there a danger that Musharraf could become Bush’s Shah or his Diem?

JB: Well, I think that’s entirely possible, and I think part of the reason is the State Department was pushing Benazir Bhutto on him, and I think it was a very foolish strategy, because you can’t say take on some of the democratic opposition and not take on the rest of it. This trying to read internal Pakistani politics is hard for the Pakistanis, let alone for people at the State Department.

Topsecretk9 on December 27, 2007 at 6:48 PM

God love Bolton, as always credible, balanced and an informed perspective. I wish he were still at the UN! I’d like to see him as Secretary of State in a new Repub adminstration. Surrender truly is not an option, and the AQ thugs reminded us of that today. Keep a sharp lookout, Mr. President. Treacherous waters ahead.

gajaw999 on December 27, 2007 at 6:49 PM

I’m sure the Paulbots will seize on this with a “see, I told you so” in justification for what their master said earlier.

thirteen28 on December 27, 2007 at 6:49 PM

Brokered convention, here we come! My sign’s already printed up!

see-dubya on December 27, 2007 at 6:53 PM

McCain/Bolton 2008 ?

Wait for the explosion

William Amos on December 27, 2007 at 6:54 PM

Topsecretk9 on December 27, 2007 at 6:48 PM

Great link to Bolton’s wisdom. Thanks.

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 6:55 PM

Was Negroponte behind this push? Does anyone know?

Topsecretk9 on December 27, 2007 at 6:55 PM

You bet B-Danish.

Topsecretk9 on December 27, 2007 at 6:57 PM

The first candidate to announce they will make Bolton Sec State gets my vote. Even if it’s McCain.

Drew on December 27, 2007 at 7:01 PM

Brokered convention, here we come! My sign’s already printed up!

see-dubya on December 27, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Ha ha. I’m with you if it comes to that. The candidates Teddy Kennedy most hates get my vote any day.

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 7:01 PM

see-dubya on December 27, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Great sign!!

oldleprechaun on December 27, 2007 at 7:02 PM

…one particular senator stood out as supporting Bolton’s nomination to become US Ambassador to the UN more than any other. Many senators supported him, and several tried to help out however they could. But one — Sen. John McCain — stands out in the book as doing the most over the longest period of time to try to facilitate Bolton’s confirmation.

bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 7:03 PM

Brokered convention, here we come! My sign’s already printed up!

see-dubya on December 27, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Nice sentiment, see-dubya, but don’t you think we would be better served having Bolton at State to clean out that swamp of limp-wristed careerists who think that we are the problem, not the solution? Talk about having a stroke! The weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth at that prospect would drive them to derangement– the final phase of BDS. I love it.

gajaw999 on December 27, 2007 at 7:04 PM

Bolton seems like a cinch for a place in a Giuliani administration. Even moreso than McCain, I think his views are closest to Rudy’s.

LagunaDave on December 27, 2007 at 7:04 PM

Question: Would the United States be justified if it struck nuclear targets in Pakistan should the current government be over thrown by a islamic theocratic regime?

Question: Can islam and democracy co-exist?

I really would like to hear what you all think about these things.

Talon on December 27, 2007 at 7:05 PM

Was Negroponte behind this push? Does anyone know?

Topsecretk9 on December 27, 2007 at 6:55 PM

This idea was a State Dept. idea. And as usual, it didn’t work.

bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 7:05 PM

PAK riots…AP via JP…
Pakistan Riots

Limerick on December 27, 2007 at 7:09 PM

Question: Would the United States be justified if it struck nuclear targets in Pakistan should the current government be over thrown by a islamic theocratic regime?

Talon, a pretty high-stakes gamble to be sure. If a strike were to be made, I imagine there would have to be a high level of certainty that all nukes were accounted for, otherwise we have a conflagration of staggering proportions on our hands. Civilian casualties would no doubt be astronomical. Israel would be right in the mix, too, since these weapons could be transported within range of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

Here is another thing to consider: how would we be reacting right now if Iran already had the bomb?

gajaw999 on December 27, 2007 at 7:14 PM

Inteeeeresting…

Friday August 3, ….Lobbyists for former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’ s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) are urging top Democrats to press the Bush administration and President Pervez Musharraf to promote free and fair elections in Pakistan this year.

Under contract with the PPP, lobbyists with BKSH & Associates have made dozens of contacts with Capitol Hill, the State Department and think tanks around Washington, the Hill – a Washington journal focusing on the US Congress – reported Thursday….

…The letters by members of Congress pull no punches. In a March 12 letter to Musharraf signed by Senators Biden, John Kerry, Patrick Leahy and Blanche Lincoln, the lawmakers argue that unless Bhutto’s party and others can campaign freely, it will be difficult to treat the 2007 elections ‘as a true expression of democracy’.

The senators’ letter urges Musharraf to arrest Taliban officials believed to be hiding out along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. A recent National Intelligence Estimate described Pakistan as Al Qaeda’s new safe haven.
Lantos and Biden also sent a letter June 1 to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asking her to ‘forcefully’ raise the issue of Musharraf’s actions against protesters with his government and make a ‘public appeal’ for restoring ‘full democracy’.

LINK

Topsecretk9 on December 27, 2007 at 7:14 PM

Topsecretk9 on December 27, 2007 at 7:14 PM

For some reason, Democrats liked her. She was to meet with Arlen Specter and Patrick Kennedy today.

bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 7:18 PM

one particular senator stood out as supporting Bolton’s nomination to become US Ambassador to the UN more than any other.

As I read that sentence I was yelling NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

PLEASE DON’T DO THIS TO ME!!!!!!!

conservnut on December 27, 2007 at 7:22 PM

Bolton goes on to note that beyond democracy or anything else, the paramount US interest in Pakistan right now is to make sure that the nukes are secure. That need supersedes thoughts of the January 8 election. He’s right, of course.

Putting American interests first, what a novel idea.
Not forcing Democracy to avoid a worse result, also novel.

Speakup on December 27, 2007 at 7:24 PM

Bryan said:

That’s not an endorsement of McCain by any means. It does speak well of his judgment on putting the right man into the right job, though. If personnel is policy, and I believe that it very much is, we could do worse than McCain. Any of the Democrats would be much, much worse, because none of them would even think of putting someone like Bolton into a major role.

I think that John Bolton is a John Wayne type of American, an American we can all be very proud of and I am deeply grateful for his service to our Country. And it follows that the first candidate to get the nod from Bolton has a real prize endorsement. However, McCain is a loose cannon, he’s too eager to compromise with the mangy democraps and is way too old for the job. I understand you haven’t endorsed McCain, but I’d still rather be waterboarded than vote for Maverick

Bolton, yes. McCain, no.

Zorro on December 27, 2007 at 7:37 PM

Bolton, yes. McCain, no.

Zorro on December 27, 2007 at 7:37 PM

That’s where I am too, pretty much. But McCain vs Any Democrat (if McCain ends up with the nomination)? That’s not really a tough call.

Bryan on December 27, 2007 at 7:42 PM

Talon, do we know for sure where they all are? If so, taking them out comes to mind. I thought the deal was this: Mushy lets UBL & AAZ camp on the border. The jihadis let Musharrif stay in power. We observe our ally’s sovereignty and don’t go get them. We get assurance the Nukes are safe. If Pakistan goes to hell now, we should have gone in and gotten them ourselves and let Pervez deal with the insult years ago. Whose bright idea was elections anyway? What’s the point of a military dictatorship as an ally if you make him hold elections?

Buck Turgidson on December 27, 2007 at 7:52 PM

I agree. It’s a bleak prospect but I agree.

Zorro on December 27, 2007 at 7:53 PM

That’s where I am too, pretty much. But McCain vs Any Democrat (if McCain ends up with the nomination)? That’s not really a tough call.

Bryan on December 27, 2007 at 7:42 PM

I agree. It’s a bleak prospect but I agree.

(sorry for the double but wanted to properly connect the comments)

Zorro on December 27, 2007 at 7:55 PM

But McCain vs Any Democrat (if McCain ends up with the nomination)? That’s not really a tough call.

Bryan on December 27, 2007 at 7:42 PM

True, but I ain’t ready to contemplate that just yet. McCain still makes me wretch.

conservnut on December 27, 2007 at 8:09 PM

Probably the single aspect of Bolton’s book that most surprised me was the fact that one particular senator stood out as supporting Bolton’s nomination to become US Ambassador to the UN more than any other

Here’s a memory refresher Bryan, on the subject of McCain’s so-called “support” of Bolton:
McCain Rides To The Rescue Of Democrats Again

McCain has to be considered one of the leading dupes from the Seven Dwarves who fashioned the last capitulation, the one one which Frist relied when he scheduled the Bolton vote. McCain has to prove that the “comity” that he claims to have revived still exists, and so he has transferred the blame for this impasse from the Democrats to the White House.

Nice of Bolton to be so appreciative of St. John’s efforts, but maybe, just maybe, he should rethink why exactly that was necessary, aside from yet another opportunity for McCain to grab some “great mediator” headlines.

Nichevo on December 27, 2007 at 8:10 PM

gajaw999 on December 27, 2007 at 7:14 PM

All good points but no answer. Would the USA be justified? (Not trying to pick a fight, just askin’)

Buck Turgidson on December 27, 2007 at 7:52 PM

I refer the right, honorable, gentlemen to the response I gave just now.

Talon on December 27, 2007 at 8:12 PM

Bolton’s book is now available on audible.com.

For book lovers whose life has become too hectic to sit in a chair and turn pages, please consider the audio version on your ipod during your commute or your routine chores.

RushBaby on December 27, 2007 at 8:12 PM

Nichevo on December 27, 2007 at 8:10 PM

I’m just going by Bolton’s book. I noted that that wasn’t an endorsement, which it isn’t.

Bryan on December 27, 2007 at 8:12 PM

Bolton goes on to note that beyond democracy or anything else, the paramount US interest in Pakistan right now is to make sure that the nukes are secure.

How the hell do we do that?

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 8:14 PM

The man is going to get every opportunity it seems. Which is a good thing in and of it’s self. Unfortunitely we should admit there are only 3 that you could count on for foreign policy. Fred and Rudy and Hunter with John McCain hanging by a rope 100′ up. He’d probably make the right decisions but are you sure? Of course, the left would get their way 50% of the time because he must be fair you know? Huckster on foreign policy is laughable. Mitt would have to have his lawyers make the decision. Paul is run, bury your head in the sand and the world will kneel at your doorstep. I mean what is that? Shouldn’t there be an early primary that weeds out the total losers who are living in fantasyland? That would save a lot of money.

Griz on December 27, 2007 at 8:27 PM

Well one voice I have listened to whenever he spoke is Monsoor Ijaz, and on Fox a minute ago just said

“I want all those that think it was Al Queda need to take a step back. I think, with good confidence that the ISI or “black ops” had a hand in this. But its just my theory”

This guy knows what hes talking about.

broker1 on December 27, 2007 at 8:40 PM

I can’t wait till January 2009.. I have no confidence that this country under Condi Rice as FM has any clue WTF to do about the world.

VinceP1974 on December 27, 2007 at 8:46 PM

Fred should consider Bolton for his Vice President.

duff65 on December 27, 2007 at 8:50 PM

I can’t wait till January 2009.. I have no confidence that this country under Condi Rice as FM has any clue WTF to do about the world.

VinceP1974 on December 27, 2007 at 8:46 PM

Yeah her stupidity allowed this to happen. Just another dumb brown person right? Lets go back to the glory days of Madelline Albright when things were hunky dory with the world.

broker1 on December 27, 2007 at 8:50 PM

I’m just going by Bolton’s book. I noted that that wasn’t an endorsement, which it isn’t.

Bryan on December 27, 2007 at 8:12 PM

Don’t take this the wrong way, Bryan, but you went quite a bit further than “just going by Bolton’s book.”

If personnel is policy, and I believe that it very much is, we could do worse than McCain.

Sure we could do worse, as long as Ron Paul’s still in the running. Huckabee or McCain? A tossup, or more precisely, Russian roulette. I’m not willing to take that chance, and if it comes to McCain vs a Democrat, let the Democrat fall on their socialist face, rather than a phony with an “R” after their name.

Nichevo on December 27, 2007 at 8:58 PM

A very tanned Fred! is on Hannity and Colmes right now.

SouthernPride on December 27, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Nichevo on December 27, 2007 at 8:58 PM

No, I described what’s in Bolton’s book. Then I explained what it might mean, and added that it’s not an endorsement. I’m not going to get into sentence diagramming on this.

Bryan on December 27, 2007 at 9:07 PM

Shouldn’t there be an early primary that weeds out the total losers who are living in fantasyland? That would save a lot of money.

Griz on December 27, 2007 at 8:27 PM

That’s precisely why the primaries are spread out and not all on one day like the ‘Super Tuesday’ we have this year. This ain’t the first rodeo for elections in America. We should continue to stagger the primaries for this vetting process. But the states have egos and ‘want to choose first’.

The Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina were designed to be exactly what you described. Better to have the ‘weeding out’ process in smaller states than in larger ones.

ThackerAgency on December 27, 2007 at 9:11 PM

Well one voice I have listened to whenever he spoke is Monsoor Ijaz, and on Fox a minute ago just said

“I want all those that think it was Al Queda need to take a step back. I think, with good confidence that the ISI or “black ops” had a hand in this. But its just my theory”

broker1 on December 27, 2007 at 8:40 PM

Ditto on Monsoor.
I heard the same statement he made about the “Pakistani Black Ops” and asked hubby who they were. No clue.

The only thing I can find is on Wikipedia (for whatever its worth). They state that “Black Ops” is the generally accepted worldwide military parlance for types of covert operations typically involving activities that are either secret or of questionable ethics and legality. The term itself is often used in political, military, intelligence and business circles. Agents or persons who specialise or are involved in a black operation are typically referred to as a “Black operator” or “black operative.”

Does this mean Monsoor believes Musharaff is the culprit? Ideas???

SouthernPride on December 27, 2007 at 9:14 PM

Holy crap Bryan, this quote from an article on the bosses site is chilling indeed.

President George Bush, the face of a campaign to bring democracy — or, at least, some form of sharia-lite that might pass for democracy — to the Islamic world, registered nine percent. Nine!

If you want to know what to make of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto’s murder today in Pakistan, ponder that.

I have lost all faith in Pakistan reforming. Would it be better just to replace Musharaff with a Mullah and stop pretending?

broker1 on December 27, 2007 at 9:15 PM

I have lost all faith in Pakistan reforming. Would it be better just to replace Musharaff with a Mullah and stop pretending?

broker1 on December 27, 2007 at 9:15 PM

No dude. We should never give up. A solution is out there. Perhaps only God knows. But no. We don’t just throw our hands up and give up. That’s what our enemies want us to do.

SouthernPride on December 27, 2007 at 9:20 PM

Nichevo on December 27, 2007 at 8:10 PM

Ouch!

That message has yet to reach John McCain, or he simply doesn’t care. It gives him another opportunity to stick a white hat and ride a donkey to the rescue of the Democrats, whooping and hollering all along the way in order to make sure that every newspaper sees how reasonable he is. In his own way, he has become the Jimmy Carter and/or the Neville Chamberlain of the Senate: he jumps into disagreements and surrenders almost everything he can in order to wave a piece of paper over his head and claim victory.

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 9:20 PM

broker1 on December 27, 2007 at 9:15 PM

I read that earlier today. The real Pakistan is a nightmare for us.

Bryan on December 27, 2007 at 9:27 PM

Question: Would the United States be justified if it struck nuclear targets in Pakistan should the current government be over thrown by a islamic theocratic regime?

Wholly justified.

Question: Can islam and democracy co-exist?

The careful wording of this question provides its answer.

aengus on December 27, 2007 at 9:29 PM

I’m still in full agreement that spreading democracy, sooner the better (as a start) is the way to go in the Middle East. And yes…it’s going to take time. Could be a couple decades or so. But it can, and must, happen…or the extremists will gain control, and like Iran, once they do, it’ll be that much harder to rid a place of them.
JetBoy on December 27, 2007 at 6:41 PM

I strongly disagree. As the Palestinians have shown, forcing democracy onto terrorists just makes them democratic terrorists.

paulsur on December 27, 2007 at 10:04 PM

Question: Can islam and democracy co-exist?

Can matter and anti-matter co-exists?

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 10:06 PM

Question: Would the United States be justified if it struck nuclear targets in Pakistan should the current government be over thrown by a islamic theocratic regime?

Yes, assuming our CIA has any idea where the hell they are.

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 10:09 PM

Question: Would the United States be justified if it struck nuclear targets in Pakistan should the current government be over thrown by a islamic theocratic regime?

Morally justified? Unquestionably yes, since the right to protect your very survival is paramount. A nuclear armed AQ trumps all else in terms of threats. Strategically justified? I think yes, but as stated before, you better be sure you get every last one of them, or invade quickly and take control. But what do I know– just an armchair observer of the scene (although I do have a theology degree, and I do occasionally stay at Holiday Inn Express).

gajaw999 on December 27, 2007 at 10:34 PM

The first candidate who enlists Bolton’s open support in the primary is highly likely to get my vote.

Megadittos

petefrt on December 27, 2007 at 10:53 PM

Talon, to try to answer more directly, if we could achieve a nuke free Pakistan with preemptive strikes and 100% success, sure I’m for it. In reality, I fear by the time we knew we better do something, the war heads would already have been removed to another location by the enemy. AQ has no use for missiles, too obvious.

On question #2 it depends on whose Islam we’re talking about. Wahabbi Islam no. Some muslims manage just fine in western nations. They tend to do best as a minority. A secular government would allow apostasy without the fear of being murdered. The hope is, over time, they would become less Islamic, join the 21st century, and start building churches.

Buck Turgidson on December 27, 2007 at 10:56 PM

Why would you expect anything to arise from a theocratically-brainwashed mass of sycophants-to-submission but a tyrannical theocratic nightmare if the “demos” are given a simple voting choice without the serious preparation that such such a step toward “democracy” requires?

Education about the nature of a responsible form of rights-based governance, first, is vital before you start idealistically throwing open the gates of power to the mob of mullah-intoxicated traditionalists.

If the population has been stunted and kept stupid, you only get a stunted, stupid “democracy”.

The word becomes a meaningless mockery without a Bill of Rights, an Enlightment ethos, and secular rule of Law underpinning the Grand Exercise.

Bush, et al, who promote “democracy” without grasping the Unintended Consequences of empowering the Unexamined Mindset of Islam endanger our future with their fecklessness.

Bhutto joined in this folly, and got a taste of the demos.

profitsbeard on December 27, 2007 at 11:04 PM

Forgive the frivolity in the middle of some serious posts, but I can’t look at Bolton without thinking “Mark Twain”.

landlines on December 27, 2007 at 11:07 PM

The only thing I can find is on Wikipedia (for whatever its worth). They state that “Black Ops” is the generally accepted worldwide military parlance for types of covert operations typically involving activities that are either secret or of questionable ethics and legality.

SouthernPride on December 27, 2007 at 9:14 PM

Holy cow, don’t you ever watch movies? :)

Does this mean Monsoor believes Musharaff is the culprit? Ideas???

I can’t speak about what Monsoor intended to say, but “black ops” doesn’t necessarily indicate that the head of a government is involved in the operation. Particularly in a country like Pakistan, where there are elements of the ISI, (and probably every other branch of the government), that are sympathetic to Jihad, Monsoor’s belief that the assassination may be the result of a black op doesn’t necessarily indicate that Monsoor believes Musharraf was involved in any way. The ISI probably has all sorts of black ops that Musharraf isn’t aware of, at least not unless he has spies in the ISI that keep him appraised.

Again, that’s just my generic thoughts on the matter.

FloatingRock on December 27, 2007 at 11:27 PM

you better be sure you get every last one of them, or invade quickly and take control.

gajaw999 on December 27, 2007 at 10:34 PM

Simultaneously turning the entire country into glass with stealth cruise missiles might be a third option.

Another possibility would be Tancredo’s MAD strategy. If Jihadis get their hands on nukes, and if American’s know it, I think we will probably see a lot of nuke-Mecca converts out there in la-la land. (No, I’m not talking about pre-emptive strikes, just MAD.)

If we have a robust missile defense that can extend to all of our allies and interests abroad combined with strong border and shipping security here at home, (and our allies would require it as well), this would also serve a deterrent.

The last option is the reason I don’t understand how McCain, Rudy or any of the other open-border candidates can claim to be strong on national-security. They’re full of cr@p. McCain, for example, he’s against water-boarding; does anybody here think he’s going to issue a MAD directive against Mecca or alternative targets of similar value to our enemies if there is a strong chance it could save one or more of our cities? Heck no, he won’t.

FloatingRock on December 27, 2007 at 11:55 PM

Simultaneously turning the entire country into glass with stealth cruise missiles might be a third option.

BTW, that was just for shock value, to loosen people up for the less extreme possibilities. Next to the extermination of Pakistan, MAD is enlightened.

FloatingRock on December 27, 2007 at 11:59 PM

The hope is, over time, they would become less Islamic, join the 21st century, and start building churches.

Buck Turgidson on December 27, 2007 at 10:56 PM

Although in Europe the opposite has been happening.

FloatingRock on December 28, 2007 at 12:04 AM

Although in Europe the opposite has been happening.

FloatingRock on December 28, 2007 at 12:04 AM

Actually, all over the world, in this century they’ve regressed dramatically.

Entelechy on December 28, 2007 at 12:20 AM

I also like Monsoor Ijaz, I am sure it is because he is on Fox, and he is one of us, but I also at times feels he is full is BS.

But hey, Pakistan is a part of the world he is very familiar with, and some of the things he says seem far fetched, but to us things that happen over there are far fetched.

WoosterOh on December 28, 2007 at 12:30 AM

Surprisingly intelligent questions from Colmes, IMHO.

Bolton, as usual, is the smartest guy on the planet regarding these regional crises.

infidel4life on December 28, 2007 at 12:31 AM

Yeah her stupidity allowed this to happen. Just another dumb brown person right? Lets go back to the glory days of Madelline Albright when things were hunky dory with the world.

broker1 on December 27, 2007 at 8:50 PM

Nice, illogical, off-topic, non-sequitur (to say nothing of unhelpful) use of the race card.

Do we need to ask your permission before criticizing the egregiously incompetent Rice? (Did you by any chance happen to hear what Bolton said about “our” [Read: Rice's] pushing Bhutto’s return and precipitously timed civilian elections on Pakistan?)

And what weird world to you live in where the only two available options for SecState are Albright and Rice?

I can’t wait till January 2009.. I have no confidence that this country under Condi Rice as FM has any clue WTF to do about the world.

VinceP1974 on December 27, 2007 at 8:46 PM

I couldn’t agree more Vince (although, it could get even worse if a Dem wins the White House). Radio talk-show host Michael Savage had Condi’s number months ago, referring to her as a “Sunday School marm” who is “in over her head.”

Bhutto’s assassination is the final straw: If Bush permits Rice to stay on at this point, history — in my view — will show him to have been a foreign policy gelding held captive by his “own” State Department since roughly the beginning of his second term.

sanantonian on December 28, 2007 at 12:46 AM

Bolton=SecDef
.
State Dept, no longer a cabinet position, now just serving at the pleasure of SecDef (see above).

AZCON on December 28, 2007 at 12:52 AM

Although in Europe the opposite has been happening.

FloatingRock on December 28, 2007 at 12:04 AM

Sure. The European immigration issue is real and tragic as far as I’m concerned. But if democracy could exist in places like Pakistan without turning into an islamic state, that would be something. If Iraq succeeds with a reasonable, lasting outcome it would prove it is possible. I hope I live to see the day.

Buck Turgidson on December 28, 2007 at 1:13 AM

For those that answered…………thanks.

All good points.

Talon on December 28, 2007 at 1:18 AM

Thank you so much for this video.

Wild Thing on December 28, 2007 at 1:36 AM

I’d LOVE to see a Con-Rep POTUS candidate invoke the policy prowess of John Bolton… To hear Fred do it, while announcing him as the Sec. of State nominee would be divine pleasure to my ears. To learn of his intent to run with Bolton as VP would just please me to no end. The question is…, how brainwashed is the public and how many of them understand the value of such a man…?

Rugged Individual on December 28, 2007 at 1:48 AM

Dang, Martha’s yummy.

Jaibones on December 28, 2007 at 9:16 AM

Brokered convention, here we come! My sign’s already printed up!

see-dubya on December 27, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Heh.

Jaibones on December 28, 2007 at 9:17 AM

In WND today, here is what Thompson is quoted as saying:
“This is an international war we are engaged in,” he emphasized. “Bhutto’s assassination is not a law enforcement matter. This is a global conflict, and al-Qaida wants to bring Western civilization to its knees.”

“It could be a lot worse if those nukes fall into the wrong hands,” he said. “Right now, the question of stability is paramount in the short run in Pakistan.”

docdave on December 28, 2007 at 10:17 AM

Brockered convention???

Thompson/Gingrich with Bolton as a Sec State!

Romeo13 on December 28, 2007 at 10:22 AM

Gingrich at NSA, Bolton at State.

gajaw999 on December 28, 2007 at 11:07 AM

On question #2 it depends on whose Islam we’re talking about. Wahabbi Islam no. Some muslims manage just fine in western nations. They tend to do best as a minority. A secular government would allow apostasy without the fear of being murdered. The hope is, over time, they would become less Islamic, join the 21st century, and start building churches.

Buck Turgidson on December 27, 2007 at 10:56 PM

“They tend to do best as a minority”

They do best as minority because then the nation is not muslim. Understanding that muslims have to become less muslim to have a successful ‘western-syle’ nation is the road to recovery. The intrinsic rules of that belief system preclude Western Civilization as we know it. Christianity was the growth bed of Western Civilization and therein lies the problem.

In our country, islamic lobbying groups utilize our Bill of Rights to pressure towards islamization of this nation. This may be successful for them as a minority, but it is destructive to the basis of our freedoms

Meanwhile both Musharraf and Bhutto were ‘westernized’ islamic leaders. Both were ‘palatable’ to the West and therefore less digestible to their population

entagor on December 28, 2007 at 2:14 PM