Thursday, January 12, 2012

I THINK I SAW THIS MOVIE BACK IN 2000

Two stories. First from The Wall Street Journal:

Bolton to Back Romney

Former U.N Ambassador John Bolton is set to endorse Mitt Romney and will join his top team of foreign-policy advisers, according to people close to the campaign....

The Bolton endorsement will help buttress Mr. Romney's image as the more hawkish of the GOP candidates....


Then from ThinkProgress:

Former Bush administration ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton said today on Fox News that the killing of an Iranian scientist and sanctions against Iran constitute only "half-measures" in the quest to stunt Iran's nuclear ambitions....

Openly contemptuous of international law and a longtime proponent of war with Iran, Bolton's only objection to the killing of Iranian scientists seems to be that it's not enough for him:
BOLTON: ... I think, honestly, that half-measures like assassinations or sanctions are only going to produce the crisis more quickly. The better way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons is to attack its nuclear weapons program directly, break their control over the nuclear fuel cycle.

I bring this up because the complete, exhaustive list of people who can be elected president in November contains only two names: Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

If you are hell-bent on turning Barack Obama into a foreign-policy Antichrist, and on declaring that any progressive who doesn't regard him as a war criminal is a traitor to left values and human decency -- well, this is the alternative. The only alternative. Not Ron Paul. Not Gary Johnson. This.

Our moral betters -- Glenn Greenwald and others -- are making it their life's work to persuade as many progressives as possible to loathe Barack Obama and regard him as indistinguishable from Republicans on every issue. But every Republican president we've elected in my lifetime has upped the ante on previous Republican presidents' awfulness.* My rule of thumb is: The worst president in American history is always the next Republican president.

Would President Romney really be worse on foreign policy than George W. Bush? Stay home in November, or vote libertarian the way you may have voted Nader in 2000, and we all may get to find out.

*With the exception, I guess, of George H.W. Bush, though even he got us into two wars.

7 comments:

Danp said...

Funny how when Republicans lose a major election, they always claim to have learned their lesson. Then they go to Frank Luntz to find a new marketing strategy.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus said...

Well, this is scary news.

For a while it looked like, apart from Paul, Romney would be the least aggressive of the Republican candidates with regard to the pursuit of neocon policy in the Middle East.

Not any more.

Bolton is one of the original, super-duper crackpots.

He will urge on Romney the most provocative measures possible with regard to Iran and will rejoice if they bring about war between Iran and the US.

Paul, of course, makes more sense on Iran than any of the others and more sense than Obama.

That is because he makes more sense on Israel and our damaging alliance with that country than any of the others and more sense than Obama.

Still, if he were the Republican nominee I would prefer Obama.

And he will not be the Republican nominee.

That will most likely be Romney, now setting himself up to be a rerun of McCain.

I am so glad McCain lost.

c u n d gulag said...

Where are the rest of the Bush Crime Families Neocon Court Jesters?
Were's Wolfie?
Doug Feith?
Etc.
Can condi's endorsement be far behind?

I'm sure the MITT 3.0 Cyborg will want their endorsement.

Oh, and about H.W. Bush, don't forget he pardoned all of the Iran-Contra conspirators so that Clinton couldn't go after them, him, and Ronnie.
And then went into Panama to take our Noriega, his and Reagan's partner in coke distribution and money laundering on the back end of the support for the Mullah's, and the Reactionary Terrorists in Central and South America they were running.

So, H.W. Bush was a fucking scumbag of monumental proportions - he was just a much smarter fucking scumbag of monumental proportions than his sociopathic asshole of a son.

Ten Bears said...

"moral betters"? What is that, some kind of Jew/"Christian"/Muslim/Mormon Cult of Male Domination thing? I'll admit I afforded Greenwald a degree of credibility six or seven years ago, but today he's just another Bimbo Bottle-Blonde Bobble-Head member of the Multi-Millionaire Mainstream Media. He has no credibility.

As to "morality" - as an Atheist, or more accurately a Gnostic, albeit a Rogue Gnostic, the moral and ethical standards I subscribe to are far stricter than anything the daughter-fuckers of the Jew/"Christian"/Muslim/Mormon Cult of Male Domination can conceive of.

Yes, I know things they don't know. I know things they don't want to know. Hell, I know things I don't want to know. And above all else because of the worldview they have embraced I know things they are not capable of knowing.

Steve M. said...

On "moral betters," maybe my sarcasm wasn't self-evident.

Joey Blau said...

"Our moral betters -- Glenn Greenwald and others -- are making it their life's work to persuade as many progressives as possible to loathe Barack Obama and regard him as indistinguishable from Republicans on every issue"

what? I read what he wrote and never thought he said that. He said if you like Ron Paul but won't vote for him because he's a crazy racist you should at least admit that Obama has almost as many horrible things to his credit as Ron Paul.

Since Glenn is vixated on personal liberties, Ron Paul is appealing to him on that level.

Obama HAS grabbed the same reins of power that W created and used them to kill anyone the admin rules is a threat, even US citizens.

That is something to consider.

Steve M. said...

Obama HAS grabbed the same reins of power that W created and used them to kill anyone the admin rules is a threat, even US citizens.

"Citizens," plural? Awlaki and who else?