John Bolton: ‘The Biggest Threat to National Security Is in the White House’


Editor’s note: Below are the video and transcript to Ambassador John Bolton’s address at the Freedom Center’s 2014 Texas Weekend. The event took place May 2nd-4th at the Gaylord Texan Resort and Convention Center in Grapevine, Texas.

Daniel Pipes: Please join me in welcoming John Bolton.

(Applause)

John Bolton: Thanks, Daniel.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.  Thank you.

I’m always delighted to be able to be part of a Freedom Center event.  The work that everybody does is just so important, and becomes more important.  So for all of you who are supporters, believe me, it’s support that’s put to very good use.  I can assure you of that.

I wanted to talk for just a little bit tonight about some of the problems that the United States and its friends in the world face.  And I’m acutely conscious that I’m the only thing now that stands between you and dinner.

(Laughter)

So I’ll try and make these remarks as pointed as I can.

It is a very dangerous time for the United States and its friends in the world.  And in large measure, it’s not because of the individual crises that we see in the world around us.  The biggest threat to our national security is sitting the White House.  And it’s –

(Applause)

It’s something that we never could’ve predicted.  It’s unquestionably the case in my view that the President’s the most radical President that we’ve ever had, and not just on domestic issues.  He has a fundamentally different view of America’s place in the world than any other President in history, to the point where I think most of us already look back at the Jimmy Carter Administration in the late 1970s as the good old days.

(Laughter)

Which tells you something right there.

So before I get into some of the specifics, I want to talk about what it is about this President that makes him different, and the particular reasons that his worldview is so contrary to our national interest.

I think, to start with, it’s important to understand that the basic concept is he just doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism.  Now, this is a subject that’s controversial sometimes even with our friends when we talk about American exceptionalism.  My view it’s not a statement or a belief in American superiority; it’s a recognition that our history has been fundamentally different from virtually every other country around the world.

And it wasn’t the United States or its citizens that first proclaimed American exceptionalism; it was a Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, who, in “Democracy in America,” his insightful analysis of the United States in the first part of the 19th century, said that it may be said of the Americans that they are truly exceptional, in that no other democratic people will repeat their experience.  And it’s right.  And it has shaped our view of America and America’s role in the world.

It’s sometimes controversial.  But the fact is that it’s been so widely shared among Americans that nobody’s ever really given it serious thought, until we got Obama.  And the views that he picked up during his time at Columbia and Harvard Law School, and working as a community organizer in Chicago, have made him fundamentally different.

Now, it’s quite interesting — in his first trip to Europe as President, a British reporter asked him if he believed in American exceptionalism.  That’s how apparent it was to the rest of the world that he didn’t that the reporter actually put the question to him.  And Obama’s answer, which a number of people have commented on since 2009, is worth reviewing again as we look at the policies he pursues today.  In response to this question, he said — yes, I believe in American exceptionalism, just as the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.

Now, let’s parse this sentence, which is classic Obama.  In the first third, he says — yeah, I believe in American exceptionalism.  So all those people who say that I don’t are wrong.  But then, in the second two thirds of the sentence, he takes it back by referring to the British and Greek views.

You know, there are 193 countries in the United Nations.  And he certainly could’ve gone on — just as the Papua New Guineans believe in Papua New Guinean exceptionalism –

(Laughter)

– just as the Burkina Fasians believe in Burkina Fasian exceptionalism.

(Laughter)

The point’s clear.  If everybody’s exceptional, then nobody’s exceptional.  And that’s what he really thinks.

He’s not the first Democratic Party leader to believe that.  I think if you go back to 1988, George H.W. Bush said about Michael Dukakis — “my opponent believes that the United States is a nice country out there somewhere on the UN roll call between Albania and Zimbabwe.”  In other words, just one more country.  That’s what they think.

And so, in his view, since America’s not exceptional, since we’re not different than any other country — we have our interests, they have their interests — he looks at American strength as part of the problem in the world — that we’re too much — we’re too assertive, too dominant, too successful, really, over the years.

And so in the Obama view, because our strength is part of the problem, one way to get to a more peaceful, more stable environment is for the United States to withdraw, to be less assertive, to be less in the world.

Now, I think this is like looking at the world through the wrong end of the telescope.  It’s not American strength that’s the problem; it’s American weakness that’s the problem.  And certainly, Obama is proving that on a daily basis.

He’s not, though — although his policies get you to a declining, withdrawing America, it’s not that he’s an isolationist, in the sense that we see a rising isolation in some parts of the Republican Party; he’s a multilateralist.

And he doesn’t view what happens in the world through a nationalist prism.  He said — and these are really chilling words, when you think about it — he said in 2009, in his first speech to the United Nations — it is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009, more than at any point in human history, the interests of nations and peoples are shared.  No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed.  No balance of power among nations will hold.

Now, that is a statement that essentially says everything that we’ve seen in, you know, roughly 100,000 years of human history doesn’t apply anymore.  Coincidentally, 2009, more than at any point in human history, when Barack Obama becomes President — which is when history begins for Barack Obama –

(Laughter)

– these are core beliefs of his.  And they are reflected in his policy.

I’ve worried for a long time what he meant when he said no world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed.  I wondered, what is he talking about there?  What does he really mean?  And the more I looked it, it finally came to me — he’s talking about us.  He’s talking about us.  We’re one nation elevated over another, that’s not going to succeed.  So his determination is to make sure that in fact we are not the dominant power in the world.

Now again, this is not the first person to hold this view.  I think it’s very similar to what Woodrow Wilson believed, and caused us so much trouble.  Wilson said, in his famous Fourteen Points speech — the interests of all nations are also our own.  He talked about peace without victory in 1918.  And Wilson said — there must be not a balance of power, but a community of power.  And he wasn’t even a community organizer.

(Laughter)

Not organized rivalries, but an organized common piece based on — listen to this — the moral force of the public opinion of the world.

Now, nobody’s ever told us how to get the public opinion of the world, unless you’re Woodrow Wilson or Barack Obama and you know it.  I mean, it speaks to you.  This is a very, very precarious and dangerous basis for a President of the United States to make policy.  It is detached from the interest and views of the American people.  Because he’s listening to the public opinion of the world.

Now, the opposite view on this was expressed very clearly at the time by Theodore Roosevelt, when he was asked — well, what do you think of this business of making the world safe for democracy?  And Roosevelt, the Republican Roosevelt, said in response — first, we’re to make the world safe for ourselves.

And that is the real bedrock, or should be the bedrock, of American foreign policy.  We can’t shape the rest of the world, but we can shape it adequately to defend ourselves and to defend our interests around the world.

That’s why when I hear within the Republican Party voices that hark back to the isolationism of the 1930s, I get worried.  Because by moving away from the Theodore Roosevelt view, they end up — although they start with a very different analytical premise — they end up in the same place as Barack Obama — that it’s America that causes the problems, and that if indifference to the world, withdrawing from the world, makes us less provocative, that that’s what we ought to do.

You know, that leads to a real absence of thinking about American national security.  We already see in the Democratic Party, they don’t have a national security wing anymore.  There’s no Scoop Jackson wing, there isn’t even a Joe Lieberman wing anymore.

And yet, we see within the Republican Party today a view of America’s place in the world that will fundamentally leave us in the same position as the Obama view, which is a weaker, less outward-looking, declinist America.

This is fundamentally the opposite of Ronald Reagan’s view of the world — the view that brought us to a successful conclusion in the Cold War, which rejected multilateralism, which rejected isolationism and which, in the phrase that Reagan used over and over again, was based on peace through strength.  That is, to achieve American objectives without the use of military force.

It is a way that protects America and its friends and allies because of the strength, military, political and economic, of our position.  It dissuades and deters adversaries from trying to take advantage of us.  And it recognizes that you are best able to achieve peace when you are strong — that it’s not American strength that’s provocative; it’s American weakness that’s provocative.  And that’s something that Obama, and some people in the Republican Party today, unfortunately, have never really understood — that it’s the first duty of the sovereign, as Adam Smith said, to protect the society against the violence of other societies.

So it’s a basic chore of government, and it’s something that really our way of life, our standard of living in the United States, depend on.  Whatever minimal order and stability there is in the world — and there’s very little of it — is because of the United States and its structure of alliances.  If we don’t fulfill that role, you’re going to have others attempting to fill the void, or you’re going to have anarchy.  And it’s going to be the worse for us here.

Now, many people complain — and rightfully so — that other countries benefit from this and don’t pay their fair share, they don’t bear their fair share of the burden; that’s true.  And it’s something we should try and fix.  But let’s be clear — we’re not doing this for them; we’re doing it for us.  And there isn’t anybody else that can cover our back if we’re not able to do it.

And I’m afraid that the proof of this is something that we see around us in the world almost everywhere.  And I think that, in fact, I worry that over the next three years, the pace and the scope of the challenges that the United States faces is going to grow.  Because our adversaries and our friends have watched the Obama Administration in its first nearly five years in office.  They fully understand what the President’s about.  And those who want to take advantage of us understand that the 2016 election may bring something very, very different.  So if you want to move on your agenda contrary to American interests, this is the time to do it.

And you can pick so many places around the world where this is evident.  Let’s just start with Russia and Ukraine.  You know, this problem has been evident for quite some time.  If you go back to 2006, when he was last president of Russia, Vladimir Putin said — the breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century and a tragedy for the Russian people.  He was saying even then that his objective was to reestablish Russian hegemony within the space of the former Soviet Union.  Not necessarily to take it over again, because I don’t think he wanted the problems that the newly independent republics had.  But he wanted Russian domination.

And I think the West understood that.  I think that’s one reason we expanded NATO membership to Eastern and Central Europe.  I think it’s why we put the Baltic Republics in NATO.  But we failed to follow our own logic.  We left a gap between NATO’s eastern border and Russia’s western border — Ukraine, Georgia, and other countries.

George W. Bush moved to try and fill that gap in April of 2008 — to bring Georgia and Ukraine on a clearly defined path to NATO membership, to end the ambiguity and to allow those countries to join the West, and to pick up that space for Europe and the United States.  The Europeans, even then fearful of what Russia might do with their oil and gas supplies, rejected the Bush proposal.

And four months later — this is kind of like a laboratory experiment you don’t often get in international affairs — four months later, the Russians invaded Georgia and carved off two provinces of Georgia that they still hold onto.

Now, at the time of that Russian attack, Barack Obama, candidate for President of the United States, was asked what he thought about it.  And his first response — he later walked away from it, but his first response was to call on both Russia and Georgia to exercise restraint.

(Laughter)

I mean, just think about that for a minute.  He had to — as I say, he had to reverse that position.  But in the Kremlin, they took very careful note of what his first reaction was.

So, Obama comes into office.  He could be thinking about the strategic implications of what Russia had just done in Georgia.  But instead, he spends his time pressing the famous reset button, giving up bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, where we would’ve put missile defense assets to protect the United States itself, to protect us in the homeland, against the potential for ballistic missile attack with nuclear warheads from rogue states in the Middle East.  He gave that up.  Because the Russians were afraid of it.

He gave the Russians the New START Arms Control Treaty.  Very ill advised.  He gave concession after concession to the Russians in controversy after controversy.  And as was entirely predictable and in fact predicted by some of us, the Russians did what they did during the Cold War.  They took one concession after another.  They put it in their pocket and said — what have you got for me next?

So Obama today is utterly unprepared for what Vladimir Putin is doing in Ukraine.  Putin suffered a setback when the Yanukovych government was overthrown.  And he’s systematically, for the past three months, going about reversing that.  And he’s accomplishing it.  Even the New York Times today had to admit that the economic sanctions the President’s put in place have been utterly ineffective in deterring Russian conduct.

And let’s be clear what Putin has done here.  First, in 2008 — but even more boldly in the past few months — he has used military force on the continent of Europe to change international boundaries.  And in response, the West has done nothing.  So that the signal to Putin and all the other former Soviet Republics is basically — you’re on your own.

Moreover — and we have to acknowledge the problem — the European response, if anything, has been weaker than Obama’s.  That’s not an excuse for anybody.  It’s a cause of a cyclical problem, where Obama can say — well, you know, the Europeans really aren’t up for tough sanctions.  And therefore, I don’t have to do anything.  And the Europeans can say — well, the Americans aren’t leading.  So we’re not going to lead, either.  And this downward cycle simply encourages Putin to continue his agitation, his destabilizing of Ukraine, to achieve the objective he wants, which is regime in Kiev that’s compliant with his wishes.

But the signal to others, to the Baltic Republics who are NATO members, leaves them in fear.  Because they now worry that Obama, even though they’re NATO members, won’t protect them, either.  And I think Putin didn’t start out this way.  But he sees a chance — potentially, potentially — to shatter the NATO alliance, something he never could’ve dreamed of four or five years ago.

So when you add to the internal problems of the European Union, the possibility of the post-Cold War arrangement in Europe coming unstuck, I think is rising.  And it’s rising in substantial measure because of the absence of any American leadership.

Now, there’s no country in the world watching what’s happening in Ukraine, other than the participants themselves — nobody watching it more closely than China.  Because China is engaged in its own expansionist effort in the waters off its seacoast.  And this is an issue vastly underreported in the United States, even with the President’s recent trip to Asia.  It’s like it just — it’s too hard for people in the media to cover.

Certainly, Obama didn’t give them any reason to cover it while he was in Asia, because he simply repeated the same policies that his administration has pursued for five years.  And they are policies that are failing in the face of an increasingly assertive China.

You know, in the government, and even in American business circles, there’s a kind of a mantra that China’s engaged in a peaceful rise, and it’s going to be a responsible stakeholder in world affairs.  Well, okay.  That’s possible; a lot of things are possible.

But that’s not the most likely scenario by a long shot.  In fact, China’s modernizing its army, it’s building up its ballistic missile and nuclear weapons capabilities.  It’s creating a blue-water navy for the first time in 600 years.  It has one of the world’s — certainly the most aggressive and one of the most sophisticated programs in cyber warfare.  It has developed anti-satellite weapons to blind our capabilities to surveil China from space.  It has extensive development of what are called anti-access area denial weapon capabilities to push the US Navy back from the Western shores of the Pacific, where we’ve been dominant since World War II.  And all the while, it is making territorial claims in the East and South China Sea that make what the Russians are doing in Ukraine look timid.

Now, people say that these claims are these little rocks and reefs and islands that are barely above water at low tide, and that’s true.  But they’re not the issue.  The issue is whether China can break free of the island chain that prevents it from getting out into the Pacific, and whether they can turn the South China Sea into a Chinese lake, taking it from being international waterways to being Chinese water.

What difference does that make?  Well, if you’re in Japan or South Korea or Taiwan, all of your oil from the Middle East comes through the South China Sea.  So if China makes that a territorial lake, they’ve got their hands around the throats of the economy of Japan and the other countries, and puts them in an enormous position to affect Southeast Asia, which is obviously — all of the trade and investment and commerce we have with East and Southeast Asia is at risk.  And this is at a time when the American Navy has the lowest number of warships at sea since 1916.

And you know, Romney tried to raise this during the debate with Obama.  And Obama’s response was again — it’s very revealing.  He didn’t have an answer; he had snark.  He said — well, you know, our ships are much more sophisticated than the ships of 1916.  We have submarines, we have aircraft carriers.  So, you know, you’re just counting numbers.

Well, that would be a good answer if the ships of our adversaries had been built in 1916.

(Laughter)

Unfortunately, they’re not.  They’re building ships that are just as sophisticated as ours are.

And that’s where the blindness of Obama’s vision is so important.  He just doesn’t see how declining American strength affects others — the Japanese are very worried, the Koreans, the Taiwanese, obviously, most worried of all.  The Indians are now very worried about what this rising Chinese capacity means.  And they see no answers from the United States.  And when they look at Ukraine, and they see actual military territorial aggression, and no American response, you can imagine what conclusion they draw.

But to me, the biggest threats that we face in the near term are the continuing threats of international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction — nuclear weapons especially.

And here, the Obama Administration has failed completely.  They’ve failed to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program, they’ve made a deal with Iran that essentially legitimizes Iran’s uranium enrichment capability.  Iran made superficial, easily reversible concessions on its nuclear program.  And in return, they blew a hole through the international sanctions, which were not slowing down the nuclear weapons program but were imposing a cost on the Iranian economy.

They’ve done nothing in the White House to stop the North Korean program.  And there’s ample evidence that Iran and North Korea are cooperating on ballistic missiles for sure, and quite possibly on the nuclear weapons side as well.

This is, again, a huge lesson to our adversaries — to any would-be nuclear weapon state — that if you are simply persistent enough, you too can have nuclear weapons.  And the threat that that poses to Israel, to friendly states in the Middle East, is really extraordinary.

You know, Israel is a small country.  Half a dozen nuclear detonations — there is no more Israel.  That’s why Ariel Sharon once described it to President Bush as the threat of a nuclear holocaust.  And he was not exaggerating.

The Iranian nuclear weapons program is not Israel’s problem; it’s our problem.  Because we’re the only country ultimately that can stop would-be proliferators from getting the capability.  And yet, we’re doing nothing, which is why the spotlight is on Israel to take the very hard decision, whether they will, as they have twice before in Israel’s history, strike a nuclear weapons program in the hands of a hostile state.

Frankly, if I were in Israel, I’d have done this five years ago.  And I think they’re wasting time.

(Applause)

And I think it will be incredibly important for the United States to come to Israel’s defense if we wake up one morning and find that they are already attacking Iran.  This will be an entirely legitimate exercise of Israel’s inherent right of self defense.  And the United States ought to say that immediately after we learn that the attack has begun.  We ought to resupply Israel militarily immediately.  And frankly, we ought to do a lot more.  I just don’t think the Obama Administration will do anything.

And the Iranians understand that.  They don’t believe the President when he says all options are on the table.  I don’t even think the President believes the President –

(Laughter)

– when he says that.

And the Iranian nuclear threat is not simply a regional threat in the Middle East.  It forms the basis of the risk of a perfect storm with terrorists — that Iran would supply nuclear weapons to al-Qaeda or others that they don’t need a ballistic missile to deliver, that they can put in a boxcar, put in a ship, sail it into any harbor in this country or anywhere in the world and detonate it.

And that’s where, really, the threat of international terrorism remains so acute.  Now, we’ve had developments just this week on one of the central issues of the war on terrorism — the attack on Benghazi on September the 11th, 2012, with the revelation of what we knew all along — that the White House had no intention of being candid about what happened in that attack.  But also, today, as I think most of you probably heard, Speaker Boehner has finally announced the formation of a select committee in the House which will unify –

(Applause)

– the investigative efforts from six committees, six committees, into one.

And as I said to a few of you before dinner, I was at the Justice Department when we had to face in the Reagan Administration the Iran Contra select committee.  And let me tell you, it is a powerful, powerful tool in the congressional arsenal.  And the fact that we’re finally going to have it, I think, could make a real difference.

But the fundamental point on the ground in the region remains that the threat of international terrorism is just as acute today as it was before 9/11.  The administration’s own Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, said as much two months ago in testimony before Congress.  It’s a different structure for al-Qaeda than it was before the first 9/11.  But if anything, it’s a graver threat because it’s metastasized into countries all over the region.  And other terrorists have come along.  We’ve seen what they’ve been able to do in Iraq, what they’re doing today in Syria.

And so the whole approach of the administration, which is to say — well, we’ve hurt al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we were able to kill Osama bin Laden — and therefore, what they define as core al-Qaeda has been weakened.

Now, it’s not like al-Qaeda sat around in caves in Afghanistan drawing corporate organization charts and working out exactly how they were going to do things.  They had objectives.  They knew that different people would be attracted to their efforts for different reasons, and they accepted that.  And that’s what’s happened since 9/11.

While Obama has focused on defining terrorism down to Al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda down to core al-Qaeda, and core al-Qaeda down to Osama bin Laden so he can take credit for it; the rest of the terrorists have been ignoring this esoteric discussion and conducting terrorist operations.

And that’s what the attack in Benghazi was, and why it was such a threat to the administration’s entire tissue fabric of argument that al-Qaeda was on the run, Osama bin Laden was dead and General Motors was alive.

(Laughter)

They knew that if people really understood what had happened at Benghazi, the American public would understand that the threat of international terrorism is very real.

So the whole argument about how they had failed to understand that Libya was dissolving into anarchy, that the terrorists had come back to use it for training and for base camps; and that therefore, the notion that the Arab Spring had brought progress to the Middle East and reduced the threat of terrorism was fundamentally wrong.  They did nothing in the months before the September 11th attack to build up capabilities in the region to protect not just our diplomats but American citizens who are even more vulnerable than people in the embassies and consulates.

You know, in February of 2011, we withdrew all civilian personnel from Libya.  This was at the time Khadafi was about to fall.  Things were very dangerous.  We didn’t have naval assets that could bring those people out.  We had to rent a ferryboat in Greece and bring it to Tripoli to pull the Americans out.

So from February of 2011 to September of 2012, what did we do to put capabilities in the region to protect Americans who might be at risk?  Zero.  That’s what we did.  Zero.

You know, Americans don’t realize that the Sixth Fleet, our Mediterranean fleet, on a permanent basis, consists of one ship — the flagship in Italy.  The rest of the Sixth Fleet is whatever happens to be going between the Strait of Magellan and the Suez Canal at any given time.  We don’t have the capability in the Mediterranean anymore.  And that’s the result of years of budget cuts.  And it is a tragedy, and it’s embarrassing.  And we saw the impact on 9/11 in Benghazi.

Could we have done anything on that day?  People whose military judgment and understanding out of respect say no.  I don’t think that’s an excuse; I think it’s a confirmation that we failed in the months before that attack to be ready for it and to protect Americans in danger elsewhere in North Africa and the Middle East.

But the worst part of it is not the failure before 9/11, not the failures on 9/11; but the failures since the attack in Benghazi.  And this to me is both the most troubling and the most indicative of what’s wrong with the Obama foreign policy.

You know, an American ambassador in a foreign country not only presides over an embassy staff from all different departments — Agriculture, Defense, as well as State — the ambassador is the President’s personal representative to the country where he or she is accredited, the President’s personal representative.  When the ambassador drives around the capital city, the American flag flies from the right front fender of their car.  Everybody knows what the American ambassador does.

So, let’s be clear — what happened in Benghazi, with four Americans being murdered, was a tragedy for all of them.  But in particular, it showed that the terrorists could kill the personal representative of the President of the United States and have nothing happen to them — that under Barack Obama, you can murder his personal representative and get away scot free.

That is a terrible lesson for the terrorists, the state sponsors of terrorists, and our adversaries generally, to learn.  It is a sign for 20 months — 20 months!  We’ve done nothing.  Not only have we not arrested anybody; there’s no revenge, no retaliation, no retribution, and no prospect that anything’s going to happen.

So this signal of American weakness, I think, is something they understand in the Kremlin.  They understand it in Beijing, they understand it in Tehran, they understand it all around the world.  They understand it in the capitals of our allies, too — that if the Obama Administration won’t even go after people who are killing his representative, who are they going to come to defend?  How can you trust the word of the United States to meet its commitments when they won’t even defend their own people?

This is something that I think we need much more discussion of at the national level.  And maybe this select committee will help jog the national media into doing it.

But fundamentally, it’s for American citizens.  You know, we get the kind of government that we deserve.  And if we don’t make national security a higher priority going forward, if we don’t insist that our candidates for President and Senate and House explain to us how they’re going to protect America, then we’re not doing our job.

So I think, looking forward to this November, looking forward to the 2016 election, we’ve got to re-center this debate.  And we’ve got to demand of candidates at the presidential and congressional level that they explain whether or not they agree with Ronald Reagan’s view of peace through strength, and that a strong America is the best way not only to protect our interests, but to protect our interests and preserve the peace.  This is absolutely critical to ourselves and our friends around the world.

Thank you very much.

(Applause)

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • AlexanderGofen

    “What it is about this resident that makes him different”, Bolton, is that you, Bolton, do not know for sure even his name: Obama? Soetoro? Soebarkach? Bounel?

    What makes this stranger so different is that he had never been vetted: not because it was overlooked, but because it was undoable! Because he did not satisfy the definition of the US natural born applied to McShame. The 2008 Sen Res. 511 definition was inapplicable to the impostor according to his official bio. Since 2008 his campaign and presidentship was illegal making this nation null and void.

    Moreover, since 2010 the said stranger was uncovered also as an identity thief and forger, who officially produced counterfeit docs and uses stolen SS# of Connecticut. Mrs. Loretta Fuddy (providing him with these docs) suspiciously died as the only victim in a staged plane crash.

    The biggest threat to national security is in the White House indeed, but you, Bolton and your “freedom cenSors” hosts, failed to mention the most grotesque aspect of it.

    • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

      Thank you thank you thank you, there is life out there that has locked onto the truth. It is nice to see a fellow fraud buster out there. Isn’t it shameful that a journalist with any credentials can dig up the same evidence but they fear for their spineless lives. It is pitiful to watch.

    • Americana

      At least Amb. Bolton didn’t try to sell this kind of bonzo reasoning as his rationale for disagreeing w/Pres. Obama’s foreign policy.

      • AlexanderGofen

        That is, Bolton and his kin try to remove from circulation the hard truth: Not something deeply hidden, but the kind which was impossible to hide and already known to entire world. And you “celebrate and embrace” his efforts.

        • Americana

          Alexander, you’re going to have to explain yourself. I don’t have a clue what you’re trying to say about my post.

          • AlexanderGofen

            May be… I did need translation of your “bonzo reasoning”. According to Wikipedia, it may mean Self-immolation. If so, you said that explaining the aspects of the national security threats caused by the current resident of the White House, Bolton deliberately evaded to bring fore the most grotesque aspects (mentioned in my post) because that would be like self immolation for him. That is, you excused his evasion of the truth, dishonesty, and stupidity (because it is stupidity to stay in denial after all that had surfaced during these 6 years). And that means that you “celebrate and embrace” his efforts. Correct me if I am wrong.

          • Americana

            Well, you shouldn’t have needed a translation of my reasoning. What it comes down to is that John Bolton is a neocon who believes that the world will continue to respond to the displays of American military might as the Western world has done in the past because we operate on a similar social basis and we’ve fought our wars to the end. The Muslim world will not react that way. The Muslim world’s reaction is slow burning and unpredictable.

            Pres. Obama is NOT a Muslim. He’s as eligible to be President as I am. If you have your doubts, then take him to court. But to keep up this ridiculous pretense that he’s ineligible, that’s he not a citizen, that he’s a Muslim, and blah blah is simply the most ridiculous display of political balls-to-the-wall propaganda insanity I’ve ever seen.

          • AlexanderGofen

            To be eligible, a presidential contender must be a US natural born citizen, which means born to both parents US (ordinary) citizens on US soil: That is how it was since the Law of Nation and up to the 2008 Sen Res. 511 reasserting the same definition. Obama therefore was not eligible up front since 2008. Obama is a moslem and a citizen of Indonesia at least due an official record or his registration in an Indonesian school (also incompatible with being natural born). It appears that you are completely ignorant of everything that since 2008 was uncovered and reported and entered into court records by Dr. Taitz, reported by Sheriff Arpaio, by Pastor James Davis Manning, and by American Grand Juries.

            As to the moslem world, begin with cleaning our home from them.

          • Americana

            That is NOT what the laws says. You have to be born on American soil or territory to one American parent who claims American citizenry for you. So what if he went to an Indonesian school at some point? I went to British schools when we lived there and I’m still American. I just have a viewpoint on American history that has been gleaned from both studying here in the U.S. as well as studying in England. I’m not ignorant of anything on Pres. Obama’s background, I’m telling you you’re WRONG on all counts.

          • AlexanderGofen

            Indeed, laws (statutes) do not say anything about the concept US Natural Born citizen referred in the Constitution. The most recent reference to what it means is the 2008 Sen Res. 511 on McCain (never applied to Obama). You have confused the statutes about (ordinary) citizenship with the special concept referred in the Constitution. More on the topic:

            http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm
            http://resonoelusono.com/Infamy.htm
            http://www.resonoelusono.com/2008vs1917.htm

          • Nam Marine

            YOU are NOT an American ! You are an Ameri-can’t !

          • Americana

            Oh, yeah, jingoism will win the day.

          • tjke

            No. you are wrong. what you say can apply to be elected to the Senate, noft for the president. Mr Gofen is right, not you

          • Americana

            Listen, if it weren’t legally possible for Pres. Obama to be elected President, he wouldn’t have been. This has been legally argued in court umpteen times. The fact there are some who are keeping up this ridiculous pretense that it’s solid grounds for impeachment and blah blah blah, well, it’s dumb-shito propaganda but it’s certainly fascinating that a certain group of people are believing it.

            I could run for the House, I could run for the Senate and I could run for the American Presidency. I am in the SAME BOAT that Pres. Obama is in along w/millions of our Army brats that are born overseas on American military bases.

          • tjke

            You are quite wrong

          • Americana

            If I were quite wrong, Pres. Obama would be out on his ear. He isn’t out, certainly isn’t out “on his ear,” so ergo, I’m right and you’re wrong.

          • American Patriot

            England is not a country. England is one of four internal divisions (along with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) of the country known as the United Kingdom (or Britain). Calling the UK “England” is offensive to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the UK’s three other internal divisions.

          • tjke

            Agree. You are absolutely right

          • AlexanderGofen

            Thank you. It is futile to argue with an opponent who writes “if it weren’t legally possible for Pres. Obama to be elected President, he wouldn’t have been.”

            Indeed, he wouldn’t have been if the government were not so grotesquely corrupted, if the 2008 Sen Res. 511 on McCain were applied also to Obama; If the numerous applications to courts were heard in merits rather than dismissed (because American voters have “no standing” in questioning validity of those for whom they vote); If all the indictments of American Grand Juries were honored; If FBI acted upon the numerous reports about forgery of his docs; If the numerous court hearing which had taken place were adjudicated with the minimum semblance of justice – rather than in favor of the defendant who defaulted or failed even to show up in the court…

          • Americana

            Take it to court. Have the Republican party take it to court. Let’s see you all give it the old college try. It’ll be highly amusing if the Republican party were charged w/monetary damages for persisting w/this slander and libel past the point of all reason. I could see if it had been used as a brief topical event during the first election but to persist in this fashion? It’s simply ridiculous.

          • AlexanderGofen

            It had been taken to court already many times (and several cases are still pending), Your Ignorance.

            As to the Repoooblican party, it is one of the main culprits in this treason – beginning with their failure in 2008 to apply the Res. 511 to Obama. Their goal is to bury the ineligibility crisis forever and to forget about it (and about their treasonous role in it).

          • Americana

            None of the cases that so far have gone to court have ended w/the President’s citizenship being declared invalid.

          • tjke

            I hope ,however, that now we have a chance to win the Senate and keep the House, so probably there will be a chnace to force him to step down.
            There will be one problem left. The judges in the Supreme Court.

          • Nam Marine

            He is a Communist, Muslim Sodomite ! And YOU are too,
            obviously !

          • Americana

            Oh no, not the horrid conflation of Communism, Islam and sodomy being brought down on me! It’s the whole Soddom and Gomorrah political catastrophe smack down that’s meant to totally squelch one’s opposition.

          • tjke

            Obama is a muslim and is NOT eligible tob e President
            His birth certificate is a fake, check it. If you scroll down, you see that is mother is described as Caucasian and father african.
            If Obama was born in 1961, the terms: Caucasian and African were not used at all. They were used in the 197os.
            and if he is not a muslim, why is he promoting islam, appointing the members of the muslim brotherhood as his closest advisors? Why does he try to stop any criticism of islam?It is not a political propaganda, but all the communists, fascists and muslims are pro Obama? Because he is one of them

          • Americana

            Listen, believe what you want but understand that you’re WRONG. Propaganda is an interesting thing when it’s become so entrenched that those spouting it will no longer see its invalid because they’ve invested too much political and mental energy in propounding the lie.

          • tjke

            I know what the truth is

          • Americana

            You may believe you do. However, if there has been no effective legal action taken against Pres. Obama on the basis of this cooked-up citizenship charge then it’s not true. If the Koch brothers knew this citizenship charge was true, they would spend WHATEVER it took to bring Pres. Obama to court and have him ejected from the Presidency. Why doesn’t anyone attempt this any longer? Because the birth certificate has been shown to be true and their case has evaporated into propagandistic vapor.

          • AlexanderGofen

            You are ignorant about everything since 2008. There were plenty of legal actions taken against Obama on the basis of this cooked-up citizenship.

            Indeed, he would have been convicted long ago if the government were not so grotesquely corrupted, if the 2008 Sen Res. 511 on McCain were applied also to Obama; If the numerous applications to courts were heard in merits rather than dismissed (because American voters have “no standing” in questioning validity of those for whom they vote); If all the indictments of American Grand Juries were honored; If FBI acted upon the numerous reports about forgery of his docs; If the numerous court hearing which had taken place were adjudicated with the minimum semblance of justice – rather than in favor of the defendant who defaulted or failed even to show up in the court…

          • Americana

            Oh, please god, but the invention of the internet is simply the worst thing that could ever have happened to facilitate gossip and opinuendo and slander and libel and jizzojingoism.

          • Americana

            I just bet you do.

  • ARNOLD CARL TAPP

    >>> JOHN BOLTON IS EXACTLY RIGHT , AND ONE OF FEW MEN WITH THE COURAGE TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT obummer , THE ILLEGAL ALIEN UNDOCUMENTED ‘ RESIDENT ‘. BOLTON WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT PRESIDENT BUT WILL NOT BE CHOSEN BY THE IDIOTIC ESTABLISHMENT.<<<

    • AngelaStathamnag

      my Aunty
      Allison recently got a nice 6 month old Jaguar by working from a macbook.this website C­a­s­h­d­u­t­i­e­s­.­C­O­M­

      • AngelaStathamnag

        just before I looked at the receipt ov $8130 , I
        didn’t believe that my sister woz like actualy bringing in money part-time from
        there pretty old laptop. . there aunts neighbour has been doing this 4 only
        about 22 months and at present repayed the mortgage on their appartment and
        bought themselves a Chrysler . see here M­o­n­e­y­d­u­t­i­e­s­.­C­O­M­

        • BEN JABO

          You are a boring shmuck

          • Americana

            Worse, it’s a boring schmuck who’s a commercial advertisement.

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          Flagged for a comment that is seriously off-topic …

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        Flagged for off-topic comment …

    • Americana

      Ambassador Bolton is right about some things but he also fails to mention factors that he doubtless would find rather difficult to discuss in this length speech and that he purposely avoids entirely. Yet those issues Amb. Bolton rigorously avoids discussing in this speech are the central issues to discuss in any argument over how the U..S. is to retain her status around the world and protect her interests in the rise of this century’s military and economic powers. Let’s make no mistake, if the U.S. is on the wane in ANY WAY, it’s because other countries are on the ascent. So for Amb. Bolton to cast the entire American exceptionalism theory in terms of the U.S. being the military policeman of the world even though that’s not what the Frenchman Alexis du Toqueville meant by that term in any way, shape or form, is not only a misnomer, it’s missing the essence of what is happening w/this century viz the U.S. and her influence and control over international events. The U.S. wasn’t the world’s policeman until hundreds of years after her founding so Bolton’s claim that this is what American exceptionalism means illustrates that’s not it’s core principle. But what makes this speech so flawed to me is that Amb. Bolton doesn’t address the financial realities of how the U.S. is to remain the military policeman of the world if the world’s remaining countries continue to rely on us to bear the vast majority of the financial burden for doing so.

    • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

      I have been saying that over the past two years as a participant in the comment blog. The biggest and most protected sleeper cell in America is being run out of the Oval Office with the Secret Service providing protection for it. Now isn’t that a damn shame. This Fraud in Chief should have never been allowed to be a candidate let alone President. He is a complete and utter FRAUD.

    • Erudite Mavin

      Those who are against Bolton are the Left and Libertarians.
      Those who are strong on National Security admire Bolton as I do

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Libertardians like MORON Paul would let Fascist Iran get nukes.

        • tjke

          Yes, agree. He is not better than Obama.

        • Erudite Mavin

          You got that right.
          Ron Paul said Iran is not a threat and has a right to have nuclear weapons.
          Rand is also in that camp

      • Americana

        Those who are knowledgeable about National Security question John Bolton on his grasp of what the U.S. is facing and Bolton’s answers for how the U.S. will face those challenges. One can admire Bolton and still find it hard to tolerate his misapprehension about what the military future is for the U.S. by means of using traditional military tactics and the belief in the traditional American military posture around the world.

        • Erudite Mavin

          You assume what Bolton would do in various situations.

    • tjke

      Yes, I wish he would be the President of the US. He is the best politician we have after Reagan.
      How can the American people be so blind and elect him.
      He can put the greatest nation on the right track.
      Obama is a traitor, he commits all these crimes on purpose-to destroy the US and all his closest advisors now are the members of the muslim brotherhood and Communists.
      However, there are elections and there is Benghazi. Mr Nixon had to step down after being revealed as a liar.
      Now, Obama should step down or be forced to step down after the scandal.

  • http://www.GodAuthoredBible.com geneww1938

    Study what John Bolton says and you will know why he could never be confirmed as our UN ambassador. He is an American patriot.

  • Lanna

    Since Washington is unwilling to recognize Obama’s policies are destructive, and releases Taliban terrorists into the wild, Washington had better be ready for the consequences to the population of the United States.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      I agree with you, completely, Lanna. What ever happened to the concept “America does not compromise with terrorists”? When a man … or now, a woman … puts on the uniform and deploys overseas, he or she should consider the possibility of capture, by the enemy. It’s one of the risks any soldier takes.

    • JayWye

      I hope the consequences first come to DC.
      The WH and Congress,particularly.

  • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

    American exceptionalism has been twisted out of shape by the left and its merry band of multiculturalists. I laid out my own case for exceptionalism here: http://clarespark.com/2013/02/27/american-exceptionalism-retold/. Illustration is a hostile painting by a young Latino, making the US a death-dealing entity, and not the symbol of progress imagined by the 19th century.

    • Americana

      American exceptionalism has been equally twisted out of shape by the Right and its merry brand of nationalists.

      • Drakken

        So now you don’t believe in borders? How quaint! Europe is going to have their nationalistic rebirth soon enough and you folks on the left will have brought it upon yourselves, I used to have empathy and sympathy for folks like you, I am now all out.

  • http://batman-news.com chuckie2u

    The Political establishment behind the throne is pushing the U.S. into the centralization of power that wishes to have dominian over the Nations of the world. Obama is not a fluke but a well planned positioning of a man to move this country into the international socialism of the New World Order .

    • tjke

      Or to a muslim sphere and to lose our democracy. International socialism cooperate with the muslims

  • Wolfthatknowsall

    Personally, I hope that the President … in 2016 … appoints John Bolton as Secretary of State. Thank you, DEMs, for giving us the “nuclear option” in the Senate …

    • zoomie

      yup, and the reason to NOT give lois immunity is, she’s goin downn

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        Although I have mixed feelings about that … I want to see her superiors go down, also … I long to see her escorted into a federal prison.

    • tjke

      I would like to see John Bolton as a President

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        I would, too. Problem is, the very things we like about him would make him hated, and difficult to elect … his intelligence combined with his abrasiveness. But I think he would be the most effective SecDef in history.

        • tjke

          quite true. What happened to rhe America voters? Do not they realize the danger?

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            If the media tells the uninformed that a candidate is “abrasive”, then they take it as the Gospel. We give our media too much credit …

          • tjke

            How can people trust blindly the media? It seems that they trust only left winged media that support Obama. There are even other sources Fox News, Mark Levin,
            Rush Limbaugh and many IT newspapers.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I agree, and freely admit to being a FOX fan, a dittohead, admit to wanting Levin to be President, and using those IT newspapers, you allude to!

            Unfortunately, most Americans, including some conservatives, get their evening news … the only news they get … from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, and other even less-savory sources. We’ve got to convince these Americans that such sources are not dependable.

            My father had an epiphany when one of the men he admired most, in this world, abandoned and betrayed our troops in Vietnam … Walter Cronkite. Dad openly wept …

          • tjke

            Yes it is the most urgent thing to do now to open the Eyes of the Americans and warn them of the most imminent danger just now it is the present person who is in charge in WH. You are quite ritght the above sources ABC,CBS,NBC, CNN and PBS are corrupted lying media like the most media in Europé. These sources are paid by WH and remind me of Goebbel´s propaganda

  • LoJoFo

    Actually, Mr. Bolton, though we could not predict precisely how this Obama experiment would turn out, I think many of us who have an ounce of sense had enough of a feeling of foreboding to know to avoid him; however, with the failure of too many of us to do our jobs as the government’s employer and the voter fraud that goes on, we find ourselves here now. Let us pray and work to turn these circumstances around.

    • Erudite Mavin

      Having vetted Obama in 2007 and have continued there after, I knew then what we were in for with his Marxist background.

  • Christopher Riddle

    Ain’t That THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • zoomie

    about 4 years ago i was watching a presentation on c-span where the speaker was analyzing the direction obvious back then. during the question session a guy in the audience asked plainly, ” at what point does the present administration become a threat to national security ? ”

    the speaker didn’t know what to say

    glad you figured it out finally, johnny. i think you did before but was too cautious to say so.

    but i still don’t want to do anything but watch the syrians blow each other brains out.

    i feel very sorry for the ukrainians, but my little brother doesn’t need to go their too. geography is a bitch.

    and in case you haven’t noticed it, brother john, europe is finished. i guess you’ve been too busy to read Mark Steyn, it’s very old news.

    obviously defense has been cut disgustingly too far. i just hope we’ll be able to fight the next war effectively. me thinks it will be a very fast one.

    from time to time i’ve read reports of the iranians test launching missles from ships in the caspian sea. i cringe too think of the billions who won’t be able to check their face book pages after the initial emp. what will they do ?

    • Drakken

      Europe isn’t finished, it is just about to get started, it is going to have a very radical, course readjustment.

  • Diana

    So where was he when a foreign national was being put on an American Presidential ballot? Where were they ALL?

    • Americana

      The President is NOT a foreign national. Just because he’s of mixed nationality parentage, he is rightfully considered an American. My mother was British and on my father’s side, I’m 4th generation Irish-American. Should I not be allowed to run for President w/that blended nationality? That’s exactly the situation in which Pres. Obama finds himself. He’s got a Kenyan father but an American mother and he was raised as an American.

      • Drakken

        The fact that you support and give cover to this administration speaks volumes. This guy has set back foreign policy back at least 20 years, and I am doubtful at this point that anything can be recovered.

        • Diana

          Not to mention his 6 Muslim Brotherhood consultants for foreign and domestic policy. After 6 years, you’d think Americana would know something.

        • Americana

          I support a President w/whom I have points of agreement as well as disagreement. There have been just as many that have set back American foreign policy from the other party. If you’re honest, you’d recognize the neocons don’t have solutions to the present contretemps in the Middle East.

        • Americana

          Our foreign policy would be in no better shape whoever the President. That’s just the reality of this time and place. We’re facing a huge growth in jihadi terrorism and political influence thanks to never having solved the Palestinian question. We’re reaping what we’ve sown for our foreign policy over the decades.

      • Diana

        Maybe you’ll believe it if you hear it from his own lips. Then again, there are three kinds of people in the world, i.e., those who know, and those who don’t, and those who don’t care to know.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzY

        • Americana

          I went to the Haggia Sofia Mosque in Turkey as well. What you saw w/Pres. Obama walking around the mosque, it’s called TOURISM. I even covered my head during my visit. ARE you going to tell me that as a Roman Catholic, my curiosity about Islamic art and architecture is NOT something in which I’m allowed to indulge my curiosity? That as someone who’s an AVID gardener, I’m not allowed to go to tour any of the Muslim garden villas in Spain? Sorry, but if you cannot distinguish between splicing and dicing of material to produce the most damning portrayal of Pres. Obama, you’ll continue to be victimized by propaganda of all kinds from all sources. Pres. Obama is about as Muslim as Kellogg’s Corn Flakes.

          • zoomie

            yup, and dubya said it was a religion of peace. who ya gonna believe, us or your lyin eyes ?

          • Diana

            “you’ll continue to be victimized by propaganda of all kinds from all sources?” Like you are?

          • Americana

            Well, you obviously enjoy sliced and diced video “proof” of a whole lot of nothing. I bet someone could slice and dice you into believing that you’d actually seen just about anything if you think the above video is “proof.”

          • Diana

            Proverbs 26:4 4 When arguing with fools, don’t answer their foolish arguments, or you will become as foolish as they are. 5 When arguing with fools, be sure to answer their foolish arguments, or they will become wise in their own estimation.
            After 6 years of watching his “fundamental transformation” of my country, the video is the least of confirmations.

    • Erudite Mavin

      John Bolton was busy with seeing that Obama would be defeated in 08 and 12 supporting Obama’s challenger, McCain and Romney.
      On these conservative sites during the elections, the all or nothing crowd were busy posting they were going to sit at home or vote third party and bragged about it after also saying better Obama than the Republican.
      Blame the all or nothing pures who spend more time bashing Republicans than Democrats by enabling Obama’s presidency.

      • Diana

        He never brought out the fact that neither of his parents were native-born citizens or that he got into the US on a foreign exchange visa. Nobody did. That would have thrown him off the ballet altogether.

        • Americana

          Pres. Obama’s mother is an American, his father was Kenyan. He is eligible to run for office and to be elected President of the United States. He got into the U.S. on a foreign exchange visa? Hahahahaha, the propaganda machine continues…

  • Ryan

    NEOCON-DRAFT-DODGER-Bolton is just as bad. Send Bolton to the FRONT LINES and see “courageous” he is.
    The Neocon history shows that many came from the left and many anti-war Vietnam protesters who took their 2S deferments and demonstrated in the streets against the war. They grew fat and older and when in some cases rich and then hypocritically changed to favor an aggressive US military posture through their ‘Project for a New American Century’. This crowd has been called Chickenhawks because of their dodging the draft in the 1960s. The human garbage/termites are in the State Department, on K-Street and in the board Rooms of major corporations who directly profit from repeated military engagements. http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/neo-conservatism/pnac.html
    “Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.” Benito Mussolini
    “If COMMUNISM comes to America, it will come wrapped in the FLAG, and carrying the Bible”
    Well that is EXACTLY how it came.
    NeoCon was INVENTED by Irving Kristol, a TROTSKYITE COMMUNIST.
    NeoCon is COMMUNISM wrapped in an American flag.
    NeoCons refuse to WEAR an American uniform ….
    they just wrap themselves in the flag and send YOU and YOURS to be maimed and killed.
    Today’s American NeoCons are yesterday’s Jewish Bolsheviks. SAME THING.
    The whole neocon-thing is nothing but a Zionist takeover of the conservative US establishment
    WHY did American “conservatives” allow a Jewish COMMUNIST to lead them away from putting AMERICA FIRST, SECOND, and THIRD in their priority list? Israel is NOT AMERICA and is NOT our “ally”. Israel is a SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST/TRIBE.

    • Americana

      Militarist ventures sound good in theory, work horribly in practice at this point in time. NeoCons have an infeasible, hawk stance toward world political and sociological conditions. The NeoCons are responsible for our injection into the Middle East courtesy of Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld so they cannot also simultaneously claim that the U.S. failures there are solely because of this President. The failures were INHERENT in our intervention in each and every one of those Middle Eastern countries, from the VERY BEGINNING, not only because they are Muslim countries but because of the unique geopolitical situation attached to EACH COUNTRY in which we are attempting to play a tactical role.

      The NeoCon insistence on the injection of American power more blatantly into the region was meant to secure the remaining oil supply for the industrialized world against the threat of militant Islam. It worked for a brief, very brief period and then suddenly the geopolitical realities of the political situations unique to each country as well as the opportunism of militant Islam ramped up. But the United States cannot secure that oil supply in all those Middle Eastern countries against the wishes of their own people. We can BELIEVE we have the military power to impose our will, and we do have the military power to impose our will but where we fail is in holding to the peace and continuing the process of pacification of the militants that are harbored by each of these countries.That’s how pacification works. it relies on the willingness of the country’s inhabitants to work w/the controlling military force which, in this case, would be the U.S., to keep the militants at bay. The NeoCons seem to fail utterly at grasping the new reality of America’s power in this current age of Islamic militancy, which is, that we can use our military power but that it cannot be wedded to a final political structure in another country except through the willingness of those whom we have militarily inveigled into our geopolitical game to fight to the death against their countrymen.

      I find the rest of your post simply not realistic about NeoCons and Communists and how the two came to politically share an American flag. It’s just NOT ACCURATE history and it’s not accurate interpretive THINKING.

      • Drakken

        Pacification works when there is no one left to oppose you . It is easy to use military force in a muslim country, kill enough of them until they are at your feet begging you to stop, we have so far failed to do this. Unless and until we get over these feckless policies of limited force, we will continue to play whack a mole.

      • Nam Marine

        Commies like you belong in Gitmo !

      • tjke

        Move to Cuba or to Iran or Saudi -arabia

      • Americana

        What a brilliant solution from you folks! Yeah, that’s the ticket, give her a ticket rather than solve what’s wrong w/our current national circumstances. Why is this the constant refrain from those who should be offering up better solutions IF THEY HAD ANY?

        **Nam Marine, Gitmo wasn’t designed to hold Commies. DOH.
        **tjke, you ought to take your own advice.
        **Drakken, we cannot simply bomb away at Afghanistan and hope we devastate the enemy forces. They are IRREGULAR FORCES and we can’t defeat them on the field of battle. We also, because they’re irregulars, can’t simply kill off whatever civilians we see in hopes of devastating the Taliban.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Fascist Pat Buchanan is a paleo-con DRAFT DODGER and a Socialist SHlTler defender through his books.

      Why would an American defend Socialst SHlTler?

      timothy mcveigh was in the US military but he was a TRAITOR and bombed the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City and was EXECUTED for his murder of 168 people.

  • JayWye

    “The Obama Doctrine can be described in just nine words: Embolden our enemies, undermine our friends, diminish our country.” Frank J. Gaffney Jr.

    Comrade Obama IS the muslim Manchurian Candidate.

    There’s a reason why,post-college,Comrade Hussein traveled to Pakistan,of all places. it’s not because he was a Christian. There’s a reason why Comrade Hussein was aided in getting into college by Saudi money and influence.

  • Mary Brown

    Obama is a traitor to his oath to defend and uphold the constitution of the United States. He MUST be removed before the USA breaks apart in a civil war

  • Americana

    Pres. Obama is a citizen of mixed heritage just as I’m a citizen of mixed heritage. You may not feel comfortable his father is a Kenyan Muslim. That’s fine, since his father was not in the picture for very long when he was an infant. Since that was the case, it’s highly unlikely Barack Hussein Obama emulated his father for any reason or in any significant ways. He only visited him once as a teenager so he can’t have made that major of an emotional connection.

    If there had been grounds to prevent him from running for the Presidency, he wouldn’t have been approved to run for office. I don’t happen to think his speech to the West Point cadets was any great shakes, but so what? I would have written him an entirely different type of speech and it still would have come in for criticism of this sort.

    • pookieamos

      That was nicely said , I couldn’t agree more !

      • Alleged Comment

        LOL! Are you his mother?

    • Alleged Comment

      BULLSHIT!

      The negro’s father was his mentor. He looks like Frank Marshall Davis, as well as Malcom X.

      Since the mother like dark-skinned people who saw her as a piece of raw meat to pass around it may be hard to judge who is the Negroe’s father since they all look alike.

      But since we see they all act alike it’s not hard to see he pulled the negroe’s side.

      • Americana

        Oh, please, irrationality isn’t to be tolerated. (_DELETED_FOR PLUTONIUM COMMENTARY).

    • Nam Marine

      Bite me commie Libtard !

    • kikorikid

      The “Kenyan” Father was a Muslim and
      Obama is Shariah Compliant. (Shariah Compliance=
      “Workplace Violence”. The “Public”, the Left, voted
      for a “persona” , one without a history. AFTER the
      election and with extraordinary effort, his history
      in coming out of the fog. It’s ugly, it’s dirty and should
      bring nothing but shame for those who voted for him.

  • Alleged Comment

    We should be reaching level II with these scum.

    We start PELTING them with eggs wherever we see them.

    Level III is next.

    And what is Level III if I may ask?

    We start pelting them with hard-boiled eggs.

    Please don’t ask about Level IV.

  • JAMES

    Obama is leading the country down the road to destruction, step by step by step
    Heads up martial law is coming.

  • pookieamos

    Damn , that was nicely said !

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    Fool me once, shame on you.

    Fool me twice, shame on “me” (“democrats”, “progressives”, socialists)

  • Nam Marine

    Yes Obama is different. He is a Communist, Muslim Sodomite and hates
    America !

  • tjke

    Yes, he is a fraud and a traitor

  • MrUniteUs1

    Think how many lives did President Obama saved when he averted a war between Russia and the Ukraine. He did this with out putting one American soldiers life at risk.

  • MrUniteUs1

    Bolton was a draft dodger?

  • skf1999

    John Bolton is a rightwing loon. Thank God his RECESS APPOINTMENT as Ambassador to the UN was rejected. Now he’s just another demagogue for hire spewing garbage to the tin foils hats’ delight.