It's one thing to disagree with President Obama's foreign policy. It's another thing to accuse him of not caring much about it on a news network that bills itself as “fair and balanced.” But John Bolton, who would have no way of knowing much about President Obama's thinking, announced on On The Record last night that Obama is more interested in “restructuring our daily life” than in keeping Americans safe. Shameful.
Greta Van Susteren hosted a “special” report on President Obama's foreign policy last night. In her opening, she asked, “Is the leader of the free world living up to this title? Is he leading?” To get answers, Van Susteren turned to an almost all-Republican line up, including Karl Rove. But first up (after a long mash-up of other criticism) was John Bolton. Van Susteren didn't seem to think it worth telling her viewers that Bolton is an advisor to Mitt Romney's campaign.
Near the end of the interview, Bolton announced: The president's biggest problem is he just doesn't pay enough attention to national security. It doesn't interest him. Again, this distinguishes him from the long line of presidents going on a bi-partisan basis, going back to Franklin Roosevelt. Obama does not wake up every morning thinking, 'What threats does the United States face today and what do I have to do to keep America strong?' He's much more interested in restructuring our domestic way of life and we have paid a price for that over these three and a half years.
That's a pretty outrageous statement. But not to Van Susteren. She didn't challenge a word.
Each and every time I hear it, I remember my elementary school teacher telling us how important it is to change your tooth brush as soon as it gets all matted (like Bolton’s mustache).
If any strip is going to be torn off Bolton, it’s got to be that cartoon Christmas tree-flocked piece of furry duct tape clinging to his upper lip like a barnacle of bs.
He has also gone out of his way to diffuse the situation before it becomes even more of an incident, while juggling our right to free speech in the matter of investigations into the hate group behind the film.
Let’s compare that to how Romney offended China. Egypt. England. Poland. The entire Middle East. Hell, even us- you really think the 47% comment played no role in his newest slide?
I know who wins on foreign policy, an it ain’t your boy.
Sure, TTB. That’s why Osama bin Laden and Muammar Gaddafi are dead, KSM is in prison, and there’s been a nearly fourfold increase in drone strikes in Pakistan since President Obama took office.
Oh, and guess who else apparently "doesn’t pay enough attention to national security: The Talking Toilet Brush himself . . .
Bolton has long spoken in favor of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (also known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK), “an armed Islamic group with Marxist leanings” which has long been on the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. According to the State Department, the MEK “[f]ollow[s] a philosophy that mixes Marxism and Islam.” In the 1970s, MEK members, who “had been trained by the Soviet Union in guerilla warfare and supported Khomeini . . . assassinated U.S. military officers then working in Iran. MEK members actively took part in the 1979 seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, according to a U.S. government report.”
On January 25, 2011, Bolton drew a standing ovation at a Brussels conference in support of the MEK, giving a speech in which he “backed MEKâs legitimacy, and the notion of removing it from the list of terrorist organizations.” Georgetown law professor David D. Cole has pointed out that “the United States government has labeled the Mujahedeen Khalq a ‘foreign terrorist organization,’ making it a crime to provide it, directly or indirectly, with any material support [including] engag[ing] in public advocacy to challenge a groupâs ‘terrorist’ designation,” under the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.
Can we only hope?