In an op-ed today for the WSJ, Bolton cheers that the time to attack Iran is now and the perfect start to an Obama presidency would be an invasion of Iran.
Options on Iran are more limited, but meaningful efforts at regime change and assisting Israel should it decide to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities would be good first steps.For people like John Bolton and the remaining remnants of George Bush supporters, war is an obsession. It's all they can do to strut their masculinity around and call anyone who doesn't support war without end an anti-American. But their war-craze has limits. It's war they don't have to fight and die in. Like Bolton said in the 60s when he was of prime fighting age and when his country needed him most, he didn't want to "die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy," but supporting the endless war in Vietnam gave him no such hesitations. The same is true today. War is to be cheered and romanticized just as long as he doesn't have to be the one doing the fighting and dying. War cheerleaders cannot get enough of watching on television war footage or reading on their computer screens how great war is.
More importantly, though, is the decision by the WSJ to allow such a low-ranking and peasantry of importance as someone like John Bolton to enter their op-ed pages. The American people overwhelmingly rejected the notions and ideology of Bolton, George Bush and John McCain. What they say and do does not matter. Their voice is but a lone distant sound in what now guides American policy. Giving them room on a national newspaper is like giving credence to people who believe the sun revolves around the earth-- it's a long ago, anciently discarded belief. Likewise, there's really no reason anything Bolton says should be of enough value to place in a national newspaper or on any cable television news channel. The right wing just can't quite understand how unpopular they are.
Posts
