Bolton: The Obama administration has had the worst relationship with Israel of any other presidency

posted at 8:41 pm on April 29, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

The Obama administration certainly hasn’t been the first White House to hope/presume that it had the answers for orchestrating a Jewish-Arab peace process in the Middle East, and the way things have been going, I very much doubt it will be the last — but throw the wishy-washiness on Iran’s nuclear program and now the most recent antagonization into the mix, and I think it’s safe to say Israel is pretty teed off right about now.

I don’t think there’s any question that the Obama administration has had the worst relationship, the most hostile relationship, with Israel than any American presidency since the state of Israel was created. I think it’s reflected in comments that Kerry and Obama have made over the past several weeks, in particular blaming the breakdown of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations essentially equally on both sides. … I think [Kerry] is objectively wrong about what’s going to bring peace and stability to the Middle East and Israel. No politician in America is going to get caught out saying something that looks anti-Israeli. It’s not what they say, it’s what they do, and this pursuit of the two-state solution, which would inevitably, it seems to me, lead to a terrorist state on the other side of the border with Israel is something that has been proven time and time again not to work, and we just had the most recent example of it. But that’s why this is a critical moment, to look to other alternatives.


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

So?

corona79 on April 29, 2014 at 8:43 PM

Correction

The Obama administration has had the worst relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel they are fine with. Him not so much.

coolrepublica on April 29, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Funny, Obama has had about the worst relationship with America as any president in history as well. Welcome to Obama’s America, $6.30, no, really.

oscarwilde on April 29, 2014 at 8:48 PM

This administration has been doing the hokey pokey with Israel for years. However, it is all music without a clue on how to dance.

31giddyup on April 29, 2014 at 8:51 PM

Correction

The Obama administration has had the worst relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel they are fine with. Him not so much.

coolrepublica on April 29, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Parroting Carter’s slanderous words of Israel being apartheid has nothing to do with Israel’s PM and everything to do with the poisonous Obama/Carter mindset about Israel itself.

thebrokenrattle on April 29, 2014 at 8:56 PM

Correction

The Obama administration has had the worst relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel they are fine with. Him not so much.

coolrepublica on April 29, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Did your momma drop you on your head? No, I’m seriously asking you.

TinFin on April 29, 2014 at 8:59 PM

Bolton: The Obama administration has had the worst relationship with Israel of any other presidency

No dang kidding…

Resign Kerry Resign!

Scrumpy on April 29, 2014 at 9:00 PM

Obama overtly supports anti-Semites -Benjamin-Netanyahus like the Muslim Brotherhood and Chuck Hagel …

ShainS on April 29, 2014 at 9:02 PM

Did your momma drop you on your head? No, I’m seriously asking you.

TinFin on April 29, 2014 at 8:59 PM

No. did yours?

coolrepublica on April 29, 2014 at 9:03 PM

The One State Solution

gh on April 29, 2014 at 9:04 PM

I think Netanyahu has Obama’s number and will proceed accordingly.

crankyoldlady on April 29, 2014 at 9:05 PM

crankyoldlady on April 29, 2014 at 9:05 PM

He sure does. Right from the get go.

CoffeeLover on April 29, 2014 at 9:08 PM

Are Jews racists?

MT on April 29, 2014 at 9:09 PM

Did your momma drop you on your head? No, I’m seriously asking you.

TinFin on April 29, 2014 at 8:59 PM

No. did yours?

coolrepublica on April 29, 2014 at 9:03 PM

Nope, sugar. You cannot even make a decent sandwich. Plus, you don’t like Israel.

TinFin on April 29, 2014 at 9:09 PM

He sure does. Right from the get go.

CoffeeLover on April 29, 2014 at 9:08 PM

The Israelis can’t afford to tfust anyone.

crankyoldlady on April 29, 2014 at 9:09 PM

The Obama administration has had the worst relationship with Israel every ally we formerly had of any other presidency

Because he regards our friends as his enemies, and those who wish us destroyed as his friends.

He sees them as the “enlightened, mystical rulers of the future”- a category which he includes himself in.

There’s no sense in pretending otherwise any longer.

clear ether

eon

eon on April 29, 2014 at 9:12 PM

Are Jews racists?

MT on April 29, 2014 at 9:09 PM

Only the ones who dare criticize The Messiah …

ShainS on April 29, 2014 at 9:12 PM

Nope, sugar. You cannot even make a decent sandwich. Plus, you don’t like Israel.

TinFin on April 29, 2014 at 9:09 PM

Well, it’s settled then.

coolrepublica on April 29, 2014 at 9:13 PM

crankyoldlady on April 29, 2014 at 9:09 PM

At this point, heck no. But they’ve been on to this for years so I’m sure they are not surprised.

CoffeeLover on April 29, 2014 at 9:15 PM

If the country was an ally of the US during the Bush years they are an enemy of the state now.

Franklin100 on April 29, 2014 at 9:17 PM

The Obama administration has had the worst relationship with Israel every ally we formerly had of any other presidency

Because he regards our friends as his enemies, and those who wish us destroyed as his friends.

He sees them as the “enlightened, mystical rulers of the future”- a category which he includes himself in.

There’s no sense in pretending otherwise any longer.

clear ether

eon

eon on April 29, 2014 at 9:12 PM

+++++++++++++++++

At this point, heck no. But they’ve been on to this for years so I’m sure they are not surprised.

CoffeeLover on April 29, 2014 at 9:15 PM

Yep.

bazil9 on April 29, 2014 at 9:25 PM

One area I’m going to give the Obama Administration a pass on. It is too one sided.

Proof? I’ll be called an anti-semite just for suggesting it.

There is a weird confluence of the urban jewish intellectual class, the literal evangelicals, and the knee-jerk lets start WWIII with the entire Muslim world that really blinds truth, justice, and common sense here.

swamp_yankee on April 29, 2014 at 9:29 PM

Correction

The Obama administration has had the worst relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel they are fine with. Him not so much.

coolrepublica on April 29, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Nonsense. They would love Netanyahu if he would do what they want, but he won’t make concessions that will compromise Israel’s security and ultimately lead to the end of the Jewish state. That is Obama’s goal, and he won’t get along with anyone who stands in his way.

The rest of the administration are like-minded tools. Most Israelis no doubt recognize by now they do not have an ally in the White House, but I’m certain Netanyahu has known since Obama became a serious candidate. His history is an open book, unless you restrict your research to the MSM.

novaculus on April 29, 2014 at 9:52 PM

Correction

The Obama administration has had the worst relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel they are fine with. Him not so much.

coldpubichair on April 29, 2014 at 8:45 PM

…tell us why lamebrain!

KOOLAID2 on April 29, 2014 at 9:54 PM

TinFin on April 29, 2014 at 9:09 PM

.
Well, it’s settled then.

coolrepublica on April 29, 2014 at 9:13 PM

.
The only thing settled is the absence of truth, in your original comment.

listens2glenn on April 29, 2014 at 9:59 PM

Correction

The Obama administration has had the worst relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel they are fine with. Him not so much.

coolrepublica on April 29, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Aww, the anti-semite in residence is back at it, alas, again :).. I see that you si fke out and you are particularly motivated to come and comment on Israel/Jewish posts, why is that? Still rubs you the wrong way that the JOOS got their state, or what is it, have nobody to hate on there, in your neck of the wood? :). Well, have news for toy. the Jews are there to stay, or as Joan Baez out it: ‘no nos moveram’ :)…so, choke on it… As for Netanyahu, too bad the Israelis don’t give a shite what Obama administration thinks or wants, they elect who they think fit…

jimver on April 29, 2014 at 10:02 PM

‘Single out’ that is…

jimver on April 29, 2014 at 10:02 PM

Are Jews racists?

MT on April 29, 2014 at 9:09 PM

Well, I think this guy called Donald Sterling just might be.

swamp_yankee on April 29, 2014 at 10:09 PM

Are Jews racists?

MT on April 29, 2014 at 9:09 PM

Why is American hatred of Jews centered in the black wing of the Democratic party?

slickwillie2001 on April 29, 2014 at 10:12 PM

Why is American hatred of Jews centered in the black wing of the Democratic party?

slickwillie2001 on April 29, 2014 at 10:12 PM

it’s pretty equally distributed among and it encompasses all segments and colors of the Dem spectrum…it’s an all pervasive leftist thing in general…partly it has to do wih their renewed zeal to embrace the Muslims and make them the underdog and their new project…

jimver on April 29, 2014 at 10:24 PM

Israel should have bombed Iran years ago.

Sherman1864 on April 29, 2014 at 10:36 PM

This is pure BS. Israel wasn;t even a client state until after 67. Eisenhower and Bush Snr. were much harder on Israel then the current Administration but then Bolton has always had problems with the truth.

lexhamfox on April 29, 2014 at 11:15 PM

“What is an understatement?”

connertown on April 29, 2014 at 11:59 PM

This is pure BS. Israel wasn;t even a client state until after 67. Eisenhower and Bush Snr. were much harder on Israel then the current Administration but then Bolton has always had problems with the truth.

lexhamfox on April 29, 2014 at 11:15 PM

Being “hard” on a foreign power, in and of itself, sounds tough but without a qualifier is essentially meaningless. The examples you cite, Eisenhower and GHWB, were both focused on realpolitik and stability in the broader region. But give me one example where either president you mentioned (or an official in either their administrations) said or did things that would have encouraged/provoked Israel’s enemies?

I’ll go one further: when Israel bombed the reactor at Osirak in 1981, Reagan publicly condemned Israel for the bombing. But not once did he encourage Saddam in his remarks.

By comparison, Kerry’s remarks about his perceived risks of the failure of the peace process gave a green light to further Pali violence.

Our policy with Israel since ’67 has been to treat them like a pit bull on a leash: we armed them to the teeth but required restraint from them in return for protecting them (either by our own intervention or by turning the other way when they acted). Reagan blustered following Osirak because that bombing was a case of “ask for forgiveness instead of permission” and it caught him by surprise. But he did not take any significant actions against Israel following that event. Compare this to the God-King currently in office, whose administration officials leaked several operational details regarding potential options Israel might exercise in a strike on Iran, including comments that risked its relationship with Turkey. No other president, not even Jimmah, would have gone that far.

Finally, consider this. It’s a poorly kept secret that Israel has approximately 200 nuclear warheads and IRBMs that could cover the entire middle east. Arabic nations bellyache about this from time to time but no one really fears it – but – both Saudi Arabia and Egypt have stated, publicly, that if Iran gets nukes, they will arm their own countries.

No Arab country ever threatened to go nuclear because of Israel’s nuclear arms stockpile, which they have had since the late 1960′s. Keep this in mind.

Wanderlust on April 30, 2014 at 12:04 AM

No Arab country ever threatened to go nuclear because of Israel’s nuclear arms stockpile, which they have had since the late 1960′s. Keep this in mind.

Wanderlust on April 30, 2014 at 12:04 AM

To the nitpickers, note that I am not counting either Iraq or Iran in this statement, as both countries want[ed] nukes as a means of dominating both Israel and their neighboring Arab countries. And I don’t count Pakistan in the comment either, as it is not so much an Arabic country as a collection of tribes that got spun off by India, who armed themselves because they hate India.

Wanderlust on April 30, 2014 at 12:07 AM

Water is wet.

VorDaj on April 30, 2014 at 12:16 AM

Are Jews racists?

MT on April 29, 2014 at 9:09 PM

No. But you can only be chosen so many times before you can’t choose for yourself anymore.

WryTrvllr on April 30, 2014 at 12:24 AM

To the nitpickers, note that I am not counting either Iraq or Iran in this statement, as both countries want[ed] nukes as a means of dominating both Israel and their neighboring Arab countries. And I don’t count Pakistan in the comment either, as it is not so much an Arabic country as a collection of tribes that got spun off by India, who armed themselves because they hate India.

Wanderlust on April 30, 2014 at 12:07 AM

You forgot that Indonesian president who famously said, the arab world needs the bomb.

WryTrvllr on April 30, 2014 at 12:25 AM

Wanderlust on April 30, 2014 at 12:04 AM

Yes hard is meaningless except one of the cases I cited threatened to suspend aid in order to exact a political response. The other did the same and more in Suez. What has the US threatened to do recently if Israel does not do what the US wants? The difference between hard and soft is stark.

You can look at the honest testimony from Gates and various IDF principles on the level of support and access Israel has from the US under this Admin and it is above and beyond even the Bush Admin in terms of intel and joint initiatives. They have access to ordnance that they never had access to previously. State still goes to the mat every time something comes up that requires the US to defend/deflect the ongoing occupation.

I agree that on the fluff the Obama and Bibi play silly buggers but in the substance Israel has not been hindered in the least by this Admin.

lexhamfox on April 30, 2014 at 12:39 AM

…Israel has not been hindered in the least by this Admin.

lexhamfox on April 30, 2014 at 12:39 AM

Thank God for that.

slickwillie2001 on April 30, 2014 at 12:43 AM

You forgot that Indonesian president who famously said, the arab world needs the bomb.

WryTrvllr on April 30, 2014 at 12:25 AM

Yes, because the Arab world has been a model of geopolitical restraint since 1948, their governments are subject to the will of their citizens, and all their adults have an equal expectation of being able to seek redress before impartial courts without fear of retribution.

Oh, and don’t forget that offshoot Shia belief in the 12th Imam, where the perquisite for the Imam’s return is for someone to deliberately create enough strife so he will show up in the middle of it.

I say yes, the Arab world needs the Bomb…but, only if one of their leaders can honestly answer me these three questions:

If Allah is so powerful, why does he need a Jewish bomb*?

Why can he not come up with his own bomb that is more powerful than one created by Jews?

And why did the Jews get their bomb 70 years ago, but their isn’t a single bomb among the Ummah that is better?

(*Note: I’m referring to the fact that most of the scientists on the Manhattan Project were ethnic Jews)

Poor Allah, always hiding in the shadow of the evil Jews who humiliate him for his utter stupidity and foolishness…

Yes, why I think 0bama is right, they *should* have their own Bomb.

All we have to do is “drill, baby, drill” so we have no further geopolitical interest in the Middle East, and turn any country to glass that dares attack Israel. Then we can put up a wall around the whole sandbox and let them fight amongst each other for supremacy of the Ummah until every last one of them has died.

I’m game.

Wanderlust on April 30, 2014 at 12:59 AM

lexhamfox on April 30, 2014 at 12:39 AM

I’ll respond to your points.

Yes hard is meaningless except one of the cases I cited threatened to suspend aid in order to exact a political response. The other did the same and more in Suez. What has the US threatened to do recently if Israel does not do what the US wants? The difference between hard and soft is stark.

You seem to focus on the act of cutting off aid because the US did not “get what it wants”, rather than understanding that the more important point is the threat to cut off aid because of *what* the US wanted at the time. Threatening to cut off aid is a huge act with significant ramifications, something that one would not do unless a) we were really ready to carry out the threat; and b) the threat was based on an issue so important that we would do it. Like so many threats, it’s only as threatening as each party perceives the threat to be, and once done, it cannot be undone. If the other party can live after the threat, or the first party doesn’t have the will to carry it out, the threat is meaningless (see also, Syria and the “red line” fiasco) and the power of the threatening party is significantly reduced in the future.

The Suez threat was based on concerns that Israel’s actions might lead to a wider escalation in the region that would draw the USSR into a fight with the US – far more dangerous than Israel committing national suicide by signing up to a “peace” that would mean the destruction of their country.

You can look at the honest testimony from Gates and various IDF principles on the level of support and access Israel has from the US under this Admin and it is above and beyond even the Bush Admin in terms of intel and joint initiatives. They have access to ordnance that they never had access to previously. State still goes to the mat every time something comes up that requires the US to defend/deflect the ongoing occupation.

Your comments about the “occupation” ignore the fact that those lands were taken during the Six Day War (1967) as a result of an unprovoked invasion by several countries. If those countries invaded without provocation, Israel is under no moral obligation to return lands captured in battle.

Here’s a little article comparing the Israeli intifada to what happened in France a few years back: Op-Ed: Got That “Ooo La La, Intifada” Feeling? Personally I love how the comparison concludes, for France.

I agree that on the fluff the Obama and Bibi play silly buggers but in the substance Israel has not been hindered in the least by this Admin.

I will agree to disagree with this point, based on items I raised above.

Wanderlust on April 30, 2014 at 1:26 AM

I’m game.

Wanderlust on April 30, 2014 at 12:59 AM

If you’re game, I am buying a license.

Yes, drill baby drill. our oil is profitable at 95$ per barrel, House of Saud’s at $5. Why would they need a bomb? To destroy their holdings?

Who pays to help keep the Xl off the plate?

When you own USA, France, and Britain, why build your own. They are expensive to maintain, and can fall into the hands of the people you are slaughtering (ie, your populace)

Did you notice who got briefed on operation “Iraqi freedom” before it got started?

I say yes, the Arab world needs the Bomb…but, only if one of their leaders can honestly answer me these three questions:

If Allah is so powerful, why does he need a Jewish bomb*?

Why can he not come up with his own bomb that is more powerful than one created by Jews?

And why did the Jews get their bomb 70 years ago, but their isn’t a single bomb among the Ummah that is better?

First you say they need a bomb, and then you place conditions. Who are you to dictate? (oddly, I think there must be a misunderstanding here, because you’re finally making sense.)

Also, by the way, I doubt the Iranians are having many Jews work on yjeir projects.

WryTrvllr on April 30, 2014 at 1:30 AM

And we’ll see just how happy Isreal is when Iran gets one.

WryTrvllr on April 30, 2014 at 1:31 AM

Israel

WryTrvllr on April 30, 2014 at 1:32 AM

Also, seriously, because I cannot find out online. Were Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman of jewish decent?

How about Max Planck? Usually, if they are, it’s covered in the opening paragraphs.

Anyway, this is a pathetic digression. I would not place discovering the atom bomb on the list of humankinds greatest achievements. Lasers and the photoelectric effect yes. Nuclear bombs, not so much.

WryTrvllr on April 30, 2014 at 1:59 AM

Here’s a little article comparing the Israeli intifada to what happened in France a few years back: Op-Ed: Got That “Ooo La La, Intifada” Feeling? Personally I love how the comparison concludes, for France.

Wanderlust on April 30, 2014 at 1:26 am

That article made me smile :)…my paternal grandfather is from Languedoc-Roussilon (Midi-Pyrénées) , according to this article, it should go back to Spain :)…now, that won’t make him too happy, he can’t stand the Spaniards, he thinks they are all loud and crazy :)…

jimver on April 30, 2014 at 2:14 AM

Also, seriously, because I cannot find out online. Were Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman of jewish decent?

How about Max Planck? Usually, if they are, it’s covered in the opening paragraphs.

WryTrvllr on April 30, 2014 at 1:59 AM

Lol :) true …for any other ethnicities or religions, there’s hardly any mention, but if they happen to be Jews, expect it to be stated loud and clear in the opening paragraph :), or under ‘ early life’: ‘he/she was raised in a jewish family blah, blah..:)…

jimver on April 30, 2014 at 2:20 AM

Good stuff, Wanderlust. One significant historical point, though it does not change the moral calculus, is that Israel struck Egypt first in the 1967 war – but only after Egypt had begun a naval blockade of Israel which is an act of war. *And* (prior to hostilities) they ejected the UN forces in the Suez (left from the 1956 war) *and* mobilized their forces on Israel’s border *and* said they were going to, quote, “finish what Hitler started”, unquote. lexhamfox is a longtime apologist for the Palestinians and critic of Israel. It is also true that cutting aid at this point is far less significant than this administration lending its voice to those trying to isolate and demonize Israel by falsely using the term “apartheid”. It tells you all you need to know that Obama recently attended a dinner honoring Al Sharpton, a racist and anti-Semitic fanatic who hates Israel. Not to mention the fact that he has incited more murders than Charles Manson.

FOAF on April 30, 2014 at 3:11 AM

WryTrvllr on April 30, 2014 at 1:30 AM

And

Anyway, this is a pathetic digression. I would not place discovering the atom bomb on the list of humankinds greatest achievements. Lasers and the photoelectric effect yes. Nuclear bombs, not so much.

WryTrvllr on April 30, 2014 at 1:59 AM

Apologies, HA ate my comment earlier, responding to you that I should have used the /sarc tag in regards to the Arab Bomb thingy.

As for this:

Yes, drill baby drill. our oil is profitable at 95$ per barrel, House of Saud’s at $5. Why would they need a bomb? To destroy their holdings?

I would say two things.

1. Fracking costs are dropping precipitously, compared to where things were back in 2008 – and the majors are focusing on condensate plays rather than dry gas, to improve their margins further; and

2. Saudi oil may have a marginal cost of $5/bbl to extract, but the fields have been tapped for the better part of 60 years now and depend on saltwater injection on a large scale to recover the bottom deposits.

I recall Oliver North writing a fiction story back around 2002 on the premise that terrorists attacked by way of destroying saltwater injection points, to reduce oil flow by at least 50% – causing a massive spike in the price. Of course, this was long before fracking came to the fore.

Finally, I’d argue that cracking the atom is perhaps the most massively underutilised human achievement in modern history, given the energy density of uranium vs fossil fuels (uranium is 26,000 times more energy dense than coal, for example).

That article made me smile :)…my paternal grandfather is from Languedoc-Roussilon (Midi-Pyrénées) , according to this article, it should go back to Spain :)…now, that won’t make him too happy, he can’t stand the Spaniards, he thinks they are all loud and crazy :)…

jimver on April 30, 2014 at 2:14 AM

I remember when that article first came out, I was laughing over it for days. I loved how the writer shoved the frogs’ diplomatic premise down their craven, Vichy throats at the time.

Wanderlust on April 30, 2014 at 3:13 AM

FOAF on April 30, 2014 at 3:11 AM

The list of ways 0bama has demonstrated his contempt for allies and his love for murderers is long, but what did it for me was when he sucked up to Hugo Chavez early in his first term. May Chavez rot in Hell.

I’d remind lexhamfox that the palis as a people did not exist prior to 1917: they were Arabs who lived in the area that the British Balfour Declaration termed “Palestine”. They were no more a nation than was Jordan; the only difference being that Jordan as a nation was created shortly before Israel.

The Jews have an historical claim on Israel no different than do the Egyptians, Syrians, or Lebanese to those respective regions. And the Palis actively disrupt archaeological digs near the Wailing Wall because they cannot stand the fact that there are many artifacts that prove Israel existed long before the Arabs thought to build the mosque nearby.

I’d be perfectly happy for Israel to declare Palestine a state in its current borders, then wait for those idiots to lob a Qassam missile over the border at a school in Sderot so they could send the entire lot of them back to their miserable Allah.

So long as Hamas trains children from an early age to be terrorists, there can be no peace. People like lexhamfox will likely never understand or accept this premise.

Wanderlust on April 30, 2014 at 3:29 AM

It is also true that cutting aid at this point is far less significant than this administration lending its voice to those trying to isolate and demonize Israel by falsely using the term “apartheid”. It tells you all you need to know that Obama recently attended a dinner honoring Al Sharpton, a racist and anti-Semitic fanatic who hates Israel. Not to mention the fact that he has incited more murders than Charles Manson.

FOAF on April 30, 2014 at 3:11 AM

Exactly, at this point it’s all about the symbolics of it all, and the message this admin sends. Especially with the crazies promoting the BDS insanity (boycot divestement & sanctions) that is gaining ground…Sharpton, sure, a known anti-semite, but it goes waaay back to the teachings of Jeremiah Wright and Farrakhan, our president’s spiritual mentors, all one needs to know…as for lexhamfox, he is not fooling anybody, nor that other anti-semite nuts alkzed or whatever his name…shroriaed he didn’t show uo here, wherever there’s a post about israel they are crawling out of their holes enlighten us about the real nature of the JOOS…

jimver on April 30, 2014 at 3:34 AM

Should read: ‘Surprised he didn’t show up here’…

and

To enligthen us…

My iphone is illiterate :)..

jimver on April 30, 2014 at 3:36 AM

Reading the troll comments here is a good indication of where the U.S. is going in regards to its relationship with Israel. There will be a sundering—we have a troll government exercising its power to achieve that end.

zoyclem on April 30, 2014 at 5:47 AM

The Obama administration has had the worst relationship with Israel of any other presidency

Here let me help you a bit Mr. Bolton, not that you need help.

The Obama administration has had the worst relationship with __________(fill in blank) of any other presidency.

Russia, Poland, England, Canada, although he has had great relations with the drug leaders of Mexico thanks to the arms he provided them with…

right2bright on April 30, 2014 at 7:46 AM

…and this pursuit of the two-state solution, which would inevitably, it seems to me, lead to a terrorist state on the other side of the border with Israel…
– Bolton

So which fringe plan does Bolton plant his flag in?
Beacuse he’s fully out of step with not just Obama, but consistent US policy (set in motion by Ronald Reagan’s recognition of the PLO), Benjamin Netanyahu, and the majority of Israelis and Palestinians.

The no-John Bolton solution has been good for the US & The World.
His pastures are Fox News and the AEI cocktail parties with Lynne Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. (And the occasional Hot Air swoon when he attacks Obama.)
Yawn.

verbaluce on April 30, 2014 at 9:26 AM

I LOVE BOLTON. Obama is a muslim so its no surprise he is an anti-Semite.

neyney on April 30, 2014 at 9:48 AM

Yawn.

verbaluce on April 30, 2014 at 9:26 AM

Sad to say, but your comments do evoke that response, verby.

So which fringe plan does Bolton plant his flag in?
Beacuse he’s fully out of step with not just Obama, but consistent US policy (set in motion by Ronald Reagan’s recognition of the PLO), Benjamin Netanyahu, and the majority of Israelis and Palestinians.

verbaluce reminds me of an hold HS friend of mine who made arguments like this one: he takes a half-truth (“Ronald Reagan’s recognition of the PLO”) and links it to a statement, “consistent US policy…,Benjamin Netanyahu, and the majority of Israelis and Palestinians”, that he does not explain.

Like my HS friend, I’m guessing verby works for the govt or is a lawyer.

Otherwise, he’d understand that the Stache’s comments were based on a combined PLO-HAMAS unity govt where HAMAS has never renounced its stated goal to eliminate Israel. A two-state solution on that basis will absolutely “lead to a terrorist state on the other side of the border with Israel” as the Stache surmised, IMHO.

I’d suggest that verby’s “pastures” are Daily KOS, HuffPo, and MSNBC.

The only thing worth yawning about is your obvious lack of logic or reasoning ability in this instance.

Wanderlust on April 30, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Like my HS friend, I’m guessing verby works for the govt or is a lawyer.

Wanderlust on April 30, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Neither. Also not an ideologue.
And I’m also able to see the difference between someone who is actually speaking about/to the issue vs. someone who is simply angling a political attack on an individual.
But I will concede, it’s a good mustache.

verbaluce on April 30, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Finally, I’d argue that cracking the atom is perhaps the most massively underutilised human achievement in modern history, given the energy density of uranium vs fossil fuels (uranium is 26,000 times more energy dense than coal, for example).

Wanderlust on April 30, 2014 at 3:13 AM

Total agreement there.

(Enrico Fermi)

WryTrvllr on April 30, 2014 at 8:17 PM