« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Bolton: NIE Result of "Illegitimate Politicization"
We know what President Bush thinks of the National Intelligence Estimate which inconveniently concluded "with high confidence" that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003. As he put it, the intelligence community sometimes comes to conclusions "separate from what I may or may not want."
But John Bolton has a way of striking to the heart of the issue. From The Jerusalem Post:
The 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate, as well as the skewed reporting around it, is a sign of the "illegitimate politicization" of the American intelligence establishment, according to former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton...."I know the people who wrote this intelligence estimate," Bolton continued. "They are not from our intelligence community. They're from our State Department. It was a highly politicized document written by people who had a very clear policy objective."
Hypocritical as it might seem for a former Bush administration official to decry "politicization" of the government, Bolton is actually quite canny in his phrasing here. His problem is with "illegitimate" politicization, not politicization in general. That's because, as he explains, "in our system, constitutional legitimacy flows from the president, who was elected, through his officials."













What a monumental case of hypocrisy (not to mention stupidity) that the Bolton dolt would even mention 'constitutional legitimacy'.
January 21, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It does seem a pesky problem when the intelligence proves you have none.
January 21, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
When this election is over, can we send him to the front with a rubber AK47 and see how long he lasts?
January 21, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bolton is actually quite canny in his phrasing here. His problem is with "illegitimate" politicization, not politicization in general. That's because, as he explains, "in our system, constitutional legitimacy flows from the president, who was elected, through his officials."
I am so deeply tired of these greasy jokers...
The NIE is politically illegimate because its conclusions run contrary to the desires of our constitutionally elected monarch.
January 21, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's called "projection," the cons accuse us of doing what they are actually doing.
Like when they accused Gore of trying to steal the 2000 election.
January 21, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is an astonishing statement, "in our system, constitutional legitimacy flows from the president, who was elected, through his officials." he should be called upon to explain it.
The State of Israel has no formal constitution.
I guess that Bolton decided to just 'make up' how the US constitution is interpreted:
"deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed" and "we the people"
January 21, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's rich. Can anyone imagine our "decider" actually able to take even two pieces of information and drawing a conclusion, (remembering the first while reading the second), yet alone the numerous sources that the intelligence people do? I have seen no sign of that level of intellect from Chimpy. And isn't the State Department a branch of the Repug party like the rest of our government?
January 21, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a guy with no hair on half his head; I hate to see that overdone rug.
January 21, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
lets hope he still feels that way in a year when he is in jail
January 21, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know if this helps, but Bolton said almost the exact same thing to Wolfowitz on CNN back in November with regard to the supposed participation and politicization of the NIE by members of the State Dept.
Here's the link to the video Crooks and Liars provided:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/04/bolton-not-swayed-in-the-slightest-by-the-nie-on-iran/
January 21, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just curious -- but as our delegate to the UN wouldn't Bolton have been considered a part of the State Department?
January 21, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. Forget about the actual realities on the ground...NIEs should be based on political legitimacy! What a maroon. And likely a war criminal too.
January 21, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conservatives are doing exactly what they accuse liberals of doing, accepting the NIE they agree with and denouncing the one they disagree with. If conservatives would just listen (or in the case of opinion leaders like Bolton, stop pretending) they would find out that we're not saying the newer NIE is right. We're saying it contradicts the Bush policy. While it doesn't prove Iran isn't up to no good, it does prove the intelligence community thinks conservatives are wrong, and conservatives can't point to the NIE for backing anymore. In fact, they have nothing but their assumptions to point to anymore.
January 21, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The House apparently agrees with Bolton/Bush - they overwhelmingly passed HR 4896 sec 229. The following is a quotation of a letter from Dennis Kucinich signed by 15 members of Congress. We have apparently decided that IRAN still has a nuke program and we are ready to do something about it:
January 18, 2008
Senator Carl Levin
Chairman
United States Senate Committee on Armed Services
228 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairman Levin:
We urge you to remove Section 229 of H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act before bringing this bill to a vote in the Senate. Removal of this section will reflect the findings contained in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran that was released on December 3, 2007.
Section 229 states:
“Congress finds that Iran maintains a nuclear program in continued defiance of the international community while developing ballistic missiles of increasing sophistication and range that pose a threat to the forward-deployed forces of the United States.”
The remaining language in Section 229 states that it is therefore “policy of the United States” to develop an “effective defense” against that nuclear threat.
However, the NIE states:
“We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program… We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007...”
In voting for the bill, Members of Congress are therefore asked to endorse a US policy of weapons build-up based on pretenses now proven to be false. Such policy has not served us well in the recent past. We hope you agree the provision should be removed.
Sincerely,
Dennis J. Kucinich
Member of Congress . . . (snip)
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/30237
Basically Kyl - Liebermann for the House IMO. Neatly attached to the Defense Authorization.
January 21, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel may have to take military action against Iran: Bolton
ww.spacewar.com/2006/080121161952.cdujjlnf.html
HERZLIYA, Israel, Jan 21 (AFP) Jan 21, 2008
Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said on Monday that Israel may have to take military action to prevent its archfoe Iran from acquiring an atomic bomb.
Bolton also said that further UN sanctions against the Islamic republic will be ineffective in stopping Iran's controversial nuclear programme which Israel and the US believe is aimed at developing a bomb -- a claim denied by Tehran.
"One can say with some assurance that in the next year the use of force by the United States is highly unlikely," Bolton told AFP on the sidelines of the Herzliya conference on the balance of Israel's national security.
"That increases the pressure on Israel in that period of time... if it feels Iran is on the verge of acquiring that capability, it brings the decision point home to use force," he said.
The hawkish former diplomat said that after a US intelligence report published late last year that claimed Iran had suspended a nuclear weapons programme in 2003, the US was unlikely to take military action against it.
"The pressure is on Israel now after the National Intelligence Estimate because, I think, the likelihood of American use of force has been dramatically reduced," he said.
Widely considered the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear power, Israel considers Iran its number one enemy following repeated statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the Jewish state to be wiped off the map.
Bolton said that military action against Iran should be taken before Tehran acquires a bomb.
"The calculus in the region changes dramatically once Iran has nuclear capability, meaning the preemptive use of force or the overthrow of the Iranian regime has to come before they get the weapon," Bolton said.
"If you are worried about an Iran with nuclear weapons and an extreme theological regime in power, the time to take the plan of action is before Iran acquires the weapons.
"Once it acquires the weapons there is a risk of retaliation with nuclear capability and that's why Israel is in danger -- it is a very small country and two or three nuclear weapons (and) there is no more country. The pressure to act is intensive and the window of time available is narrow."
Bolton also said that despite Iranian threats to hit hard if it is attacked, "their response will be a lot more measured than people think."
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert last week said that all options were on the table to prevent an Iranian bomb. The Israeli military last week also successfully test-fired a ballistic missile said to be able to carry a non-conventional warhead.
Bolton said that a new round of United Nations Security Council sanctions against Iran was "unlikely" and that Tehran would not be deterred by further diplomatic sanctions.
"Maybe there will be another resolution but it will be even more toothless than the previous two sanction resolutions... International pressure through diplomacy of sanction has no chance of shifting Iran's policies over the next year."
A senior Israeli security official said in reaction that "one should listen very closely to what Bolton has to say."
January 21, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What gets me is that Sec State Rice wants peace in the middle east before leaving office, I guess our fomer US UN spokesperson doesn't agree with that agenda.
I wondering why the markets are in the toilet, could it be that Bolton is communicating a green light by the US to hit Iran?
I wonder if smart money is calculating that as a factor?
January 21, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do believe the State Department is a part of Bush's executive branch.
Bolton seems to think that by virtue of being president Bush is entitled to the "intelligence" he and Cheney want -they think that, too; facts be damned.
January 21, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
L'etat c'est moi.......
January 21, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Supdog >"...of our constitutionally elected monarch."
No, that is not true.
Bush and his cronies have never been elected "constitutionally". The Supreme Court stepped into the 2000 mess (an unconstitutional action, the election should have gone to the House to be decided & yes, I suspect the outcome would have been the same but at least it would have been constitutional) & Ohio (at the least) was not a valid election in 2004.
Not that any thing can be done about either instance of course.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
January 21, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who came closer to the mark on the Iraq-WMD issue: State Department intel, or Bolton's "real" intelligence-community buddies? I don't think Bolton's idea of "politicised intelligence" is too far from Rush Limbaugh's idea of "the liberal media".
January 21, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought this snake was GONE! And now he shows up shilling his book at a Tel-aviv book store? Giving quotes to the Jeruselum Post? Is that a far east version of the Washington Post? Its enugh to make you lose your appetite. Can't wait until the ass tries the same at a bookstore in the US!
January 21, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I estimate that I think the whole 'war on terror' is baby steps toward a police state, as WELL as a wholesale fraud being perpetrated against the public under the aegis of 'defense'. Who defends us from the larcenous and politically ambitious defenders who, by all appearances, seem to do a fair amount of Glen Beck-style talking out of their hip pockets? Mother Of All Jobs Programs...war profiteering by any other name stinks just as bad...what's the 'tab' now, for Iraq? www.larceny.inc and www.mafia.gov...
January 21, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even so, the betting line on a prospective US/Israeli covert attack on Iran has not gone up ...
The line on Gonzales's resignation started to move before he resigned. There are other examples ...
Bellicosity from Bolton may not mean planes are about to take off.
I would love to make money off this disaster. What is the way to bet ?
January 22, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it too much of a pipe dream to expect Israel to ditch America for good?
I think I'll go back to sleep.
January 22, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
To: Anonymous
Forget about giving Bolton a "real" AK-47 and dumping him in Iraq. Like the majority of the warmonger pussies(you know,the anticommunist neocons), Bolton opted out of his opportunity to "kill a commie for mommie" or otherwise backup his martial chauvinism with meanigful actions.
Bolton didn't take the deferment route, but chose to cynically abuse the system--like, ah, Dubya--and enlisted in the Maryland National Guard. As you know, during most of the post-WWII era, National Guard service brought little risk of seeing combat, a fact Bolton was well aware. (See below.)
And remember how Conservatives criticized (Vietnam vet) John Kerry's statement regarding being the last man to die for a mistake? Well, it seems, Bolton thinks "others" losing their lives is just fine. (Again, see below.)
"Though Bolton supported the Vietnam War, he enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard and did not serve in Vietnam. He wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book ,I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered the war in Vietnam already lost.,"[4]
4. Ross Goldberg and Sam Kahn, "Bolton's conservative ideology has roots in Yale experience", Yale Daily News, April 28, 2005.
Sigh. Maybe if all those neocon hardchargers and their fellow travelers (Dick Cheney [5 deferments!!], Bill Kristol, John Podhoretz, John Cornyn, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Richard Perle, Saxby Chambliss, Brit Hume, Tom DeLay, the Kagan brothers, Paul Wolfowitz, Charles, "'cripple" Krauthammer, Marty Peretz, Peter Navarro, Doug Feith and on and on)enlisted or sought commissions like the pinko libbies, such as Al Gore, John Kerry,Tom Daschle, John Conyers, Pete Stark, David Bonior, Sandy Berger and Victor Navasky (publisher emeritus of "The Nation"--imagine a super-lefty!! rather than obtaining draft deferments and abusing the system. the U.S. may have defeated North Vietnam and the Viet Cong. But noooo. No serving for them, just ob-serving and writing jingoistic crap.
Anyway, I guess the warmongering pussies made the right decision. After 50K dead and over 300K wounded, Vietnam is STILL communist and reduced to an enemy shrimp dumper (supposedly).
Pathetic, no?
January 22, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
What happens if Israel does bomb Iran and find that they actually have nothing in place to build a Nuclear Bomb? Do we simply have another "Whoops" moment like we did in Iraq and give no thought whatsoever to thousands of people very likely killed by their actions. I think it very likely that Israel would be happy to see Iran wiped off the map as would this Administration. Then who will the next target be?
January 22, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
WHISKEY - TANGO - Foxtrot!!!
Lorita Doan, "Cookie and Buzzy" Krongard, The Attorney Firings, Blackwater debacle; now that's what I call "politicization" Mr. Bolton!
January 22, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink