I’ve been saying there is too much emphasis on the presidential race. Maybe I’m wrong. With the exception of Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul the current crop of Republican wannabes are entertainers if nothing else. The front runners should tumble out of a clown car when they arrive at the next debate. The real joke is how often they tell us how serious this election is! How serious can it be when Rick Perry could not name three bureaucracies he would shut down? Romney is against the healthcare bill, or is he for it? I’m not sure. Gingrich moved into second place according to the latest poll. No surprise there. Gingrich is a teacher and the most Washington insider of all insiders; so you know the media loves him. On the plus side the most inept of all Republican nominees in the last century, Bob Dole, was said to be a Gingrich clone. That’s a plus for Gingrich because Dole is starting to look good. The latest knee-slapper came from Herman Cain speaking about Mitt Romney: “. . . Cain said, ‘He has a reputation of being a Wall Street guy,’ . . .” http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/herman-cain-on-anita-hill-joke-i-got-a-laugh-out-of-it/ Am I missing something here? Herman Cain is a Federal Reserve guy. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black (no racial pun intended). Cain was asked if he would accept the VP spot. After tagging Mitt with the Wall Street guy label, it’s no wonder he said no to Romney: Cain draws a line on taking VP slot GOP candidate says, 'I'd have to work with someone that I could complement' http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=366985 That brings me to possible vice presidents without any known-vices. Last December I suggested John Bolton as Sarah Palin’s VP. Sadly, Sarah is not running, but Bolton is still my choice for vice president. I think he would compliment any conservative president but especially Michele Bachmann. Of the many things I’ve learned about Bolton over the years, I’ve never known him to be wrong. The enclosed article in two parts is an example. A brilliant example when you compare Bolton to Joe Biden and the Administration’s foreign policy. Iran on Nuclear Threshold By Jed Babbin on 11.11.11 @ 6:09AM We told you so, and now there's only one response -- and it isn't Ron Paul's. Was it only eight years ago that John Bolton, speaking at an American Spectator dinner, told us that Iran had been lying about its nuclear weapons program since 1981? I thought it was longer ago but Wlady Pleszczynski, my long-suffering friend and editor, once again came to the rescue. The date was Wednesday, November 12, 2003. So for eight years -- almost to the day -- between Bolton's admonition and this week's UN report that Iran was on the threshold of developing a nuclear weapon, the West has been earnestly deluding itself while Iran relentlessly pursued its atomic ambitions. All through the Bush years, there was one round of sanctions after another and dire warnings to Iran that it would be more "isolated" if it not cooperate with the "international community." The mullahs are evil, not stupid. They benefited from the steady stream of aid -- and nuclear assistance -- from Russia. The shopkeeper nations of Europe and too many others made it safe for Iran to mock the American protestations. China and Russia tittered to the press and opposed the sanctions, sometimes no more seriously than we pushed the resolutions for them. Willful blindness toward Iran's nuclear weapons program, first fashionable among the intelligentsia, soon became an identifying characteristic of not only the international elite but also of the old Blame America First crowd. We now even have a Republican presidential contender among the latter. Ron Paul has asked that with other nations having nuclear weapons -- China, India and Israel -- among them, why Iran wouldn't want nuclear weapons. He apparently sees no difference between a nuclear Israel and a nuclear Iran. Perhaps the perfect symbol of this gibbering international class is the Nobel Committee. In its 2005 Peace Prize award announcement it said the prize, awarded jointly to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Mohamed ElBaradei, was "for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way." ElBaradei was Iran's apologist, its explainer-away, and its living shield against international consequences for its actions. Under him, the IAEA was purblind, denying that whatever it saw added up to a nuclear weapons program. On March 20, 2006, I warned that President Bush's policy of relying on the UN to block the mullahs' nuclear ambitions would have an inevitable effect. I wrote then, "The President is in the process of putting the UN in control of the Iran nuclear issue. This will result, in all probability, in allowing Iran enough time to achieve nuclear weapons." In November 2007 we were given the risible 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which informed us that our intelligence community had "high confidence" that Iran had quit any steps toward nuclear weapons development in 2003 and had not resumed it. Now, two years after ElBaradei retired, we have a new IAEA report that confirms more than what we knew and all of that which we suspected. Iran is on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon, and possibly the ability to deliver it. The IAEA report released this week concludes, based on information provided by ten nations and gathered in its own investigation, that Iran is close to achieving its nuclear ambitions. The report concludes, among many other things, that: • Going back to the 1980s, Iran has been conducting undisclosed uranium enrichment, including the separation of plutonium. • Iran has been acquiring "nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network." • Iran has been working "on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components." • The IAEA -- since 2005 -- has been aware that "Iran had been engaged in activities involving on a so-called green salt project, high explosives testing and the re-engineering of a missile re-entry vehicle to accommodate a new payload." We still do not know precisely when Iran will have a nuclear weapon and the ability to deliver it. But as the IAEA report makes clear, that moment is upon us. What to do? Our European-minded president is not going to do what is necessary. He and his co-EUnuch friends will seek more sanctions, which will only serve to grant Iran the time it needs to complete the development of its indigenous nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them against Israel, against Americans, and against anyone who may stand in the way of Iran's hegemony over the Middle East. Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has made hatred of America a part of Iran's religion. His words, recounted in my book In the Words of Our Enemies, are worth repeating here. In a speech to high school students on March 14, 2005, Khamenei explained why hatred of America is a religious obligation: You can see that some twenty-six years after the revolution, the Iranian people still chant the slogan of "death to America." This is because they know that if they become neglectful of the plots being hatched against them by the global arrogance, they will surely suffer defeat from those plots. In fact, the "death to America" that is chanted by our people is similar to the phrase "I seek the protection of Allah against the cursed Satan…In the same manner, "death to America" is also meant for the Iranian nation not to forget that the world's hegemonic powers who formerly had great interests in this country and who lost those interests because of the Islamic Revolution are always trying to once again secure those interests and increase their wealth at the cost of hindering our country's progress and destroying the bright prospects of our talented youngsters. Iran has been fighting a one-sided war against us since 1979. In Iraq and Afghanistan, in Lebanon and wherever else they have been able, they have taken American lives. Let's be perfectly clear: there is no possibility that Iran can be deterred peacefully from developing, deploying, and using nuclear weapons. The time to foment revolution against the mullahs has passed. Our choices, and Israel's, are only two. Either take military action to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons development sites or accept the risks of a nuclear-armed Iran. There's no use saying that the Iranian people want to befriend us. They don't, or those who do are too few and too far out of power to make any difference. There's no use saying that some diplomatic exercise -- especially sanctions -- could still work. They can't. No nation has, by negotiation, changed the mullahs' course since they took power 32 years ago. And while China, Russia, Venezuela and other nations refuse to abide by the sanctions, they are mooted. And there's no use in saying military action -- ours or Israel's -- won't be effective, because it obviously can be. Air (and naval air) forces, cruise missiles and special operations units, working in tandem, can interdict Iran's nuclear plans for years at a time. Cyberwar can -- as the Stuxnet worm proved -- damage and disrupt the Iranian nuclear program.
PART TWO: Obama will take no such actions. Which leaves it to Israel which must attack Iran if it is to survive. Israel is a one-bomb country: so small that any nuclear weapon exploded in a city will destroy the nation. They should attack Iran soon, and I believe they will. The Israelis should target the mullahs themselves, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and their command and control structure before going after the nuclear sites. If Iran can counterattack, Israel may face destruction by conventional means. But if they hit hard and fast, and keep hitting Iran for two or three days straight, they can win. Good luck, gents. You're going to need it. And you'll be fighting our battle for us. About the Author Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/11/iran-on-nuclear-threshold
Bolton has been a prominent participant in some neoconservative groups such as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf (CPSG). He's an Israelis firster.... and Bachman is dumb as a brick. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton
To Margot; And youre a Muslim-firster. The difference is that Bolton does what he does for America, while you do what you do for Islam.
As an American Christian, Israel is NOT the centerpiece of US foreign policy. Bolton is no stranger to not letting reality get in the way of whatever bellicose campaign he is waging, including ones involving presumed unconventional weapons programs in states he doesn't like. When he was an undersecretary of state in the Bush administration, he agitated about a presumed biological weapons program in Cuba. When public statements he tried to make on the subject went beyond any available information, and intelligence officers he wanted to concur in those statements refused to do so, Bolton responded by browbeating the officers and demanding to their superiors that they be fired. http://www.irandiplomacywatch.com/2011/06/insanity-on-iran-john-boltons-testemony.html Do YOU put AIPAC and JINSA before US interests?
If Romney was a Baptist.. This would be a done deal.. You are all religious freaks willing anyone not a Mormon a free pass. Make sure you mention any flip when mentioning Romney. Like how he at least DID HEALTH CARE AND A BALANCED BUDGET at the same freaky time. Paul and MB haven't done a blessed thing except .. TALK. TALK TALK TALK.. and did they mention jobs ? Nope.
To Margot: As a self-declared Christian you always appear to be as much against Israel as you are for Islam. Your link is from the Iran Diplomacy Watch. Get real. And whats with the yarmulke in the photo? How about a picture of Hussein wearing Muslim headdress just to show youre fair and balanced? Try this link for some accuracy on Bolton: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=162079
I don't like Bolton for the same reason I don't like Cain, never held office before. I like Gingrich/Bachmann.
To PatriotNews. I understand your position, but Bolton has a lot of government experience none in elected office as you say. Nevertheless, his foreign policy expertise and views would be a big plus for any conservative president. I look at this way: Biden was in the US senate for 35 years. What the hell good is he doing for the country?
So.. Romney is branded a Wall St . insider at a time when Jobs and the economy is JOB #1 ? Newt and Bolton are Political insiders ? Gee like we need the same garbage all the time from politicians. Hint..You have the Military experts and think tank advisers who have studied these situations for years to call upon for advice. You go to them for military advice. Now ..like who do you go to for job creations and balanced budgets ? The Military ? Sponge Bob ? Attackers from Mars ? ACK ack ack ? Or some one with Political experience..along with Balancing a budget with executive experience..and with a business background of turning bad investments around ? There is only 1 and he is a conservative..HONEST ..non cheating ..non abusive leader with that proven track record. The people you champion probably couldn't SELL CAIN'S pizzas at bowling alleys..they are 1 dimensional people..like hiring Tiger Woods to be a head foot ball coach based upon his golfing sporting experience ? That's all Paul is..MB..Newt..Santorum..and Cain. Good at what they did..Not nearly the best at what they did..just average.. and maybe a little less when compared to their equals at the time. At every step Of Romney's life he has been near or at the top of ANYTHING he is involved with.. including your sacred religion. Be it Education.. religious training.. Business savvy...Olympic games..charitable giving..or leading a Democratic state as a conservative.
Well I sat next to Bolton on a plane once and asked the stew to move me immediately after take off. He's a creep. What you have failed to pick up. Flanders.. is that AIPAC is lobbying to forbid any diplomacy with Iran.
Interesting; the same thing was said about John F. Kennedy during his successful run for President. They were afraid that Vatican City would be running the White House and hence the country. But of course that never happened.
To MnBillyBoy: I never needed the intricate details of Romneys business dealings. Knowing the business he was in was all I needed. So the details in the linked article are for you every time you tell us how successful he has been at everything he puts his hand to. Also, the myth that Romney is the guy who can beat Hussein plays right into the medias practice of building up a Republican so he gets the nomination then knocking him off in the general election. The article tells us this: The White House, though, is already preparing a less flattering portrayal, trying to frame Mr. Romneys record at Bain as evidence that he would pursue slash and burn economics and that his business career thrived by enriching the elite at the expense of the working class. No conservative should count on Romney beating Hussein. November 12, 2011 After a Romney Deal, Profits and Then Layoffs By MICHAEL BARBARO http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/u...-showed-profits-and-then-layoffs.html?_r=2&hp
Of course they didn't. They are Republicans. They are still stuck on the false mantra of deficit reduction. They don't create jobs, they destroy them. All because they have their panties in a twist because a black man they falsely label a liberal is in the White House.
Flanders, I'm having a real problem understanding your ideology, one thing for sure, it is unique!!! The "emphasis" on the 2012 National Elections is solely to (as Bachmann uses for a theme) make Obama a "One Term President" and frankly from my study of US History, getting him and his administration out of control, including a good number of lifetime bureaucrats, they have placed or promoted. I have no idea, how many department have been set up, especially under Health Care and the EPA gained authority, but repeal, dismantling with new limited powers of each , must be restored. Said another way four more years, EVEN with a Republican Controlled Congress, believe your concern, will not get the job done and make any future reform impossible, IMO.... I seriously don't think most Republicans, Independents, including "Reagan Republicans or those calling themselves "Tea Partiers", understand the differences in the running a campaign to win a PRIMARY and that of a General Election, which are great. Not many, IF ANY of the Candidates will drop out before the Iowa Caucus's. It really doesn't take much money, organization or effort, to make as many of the debates as each wishes and each knows the polls can and will fluctuate a great deal. I don't hear the name Bolton brought up very often, but agree and am somewhat impressed. With the current "birther issue" being used against Marco Rubio (would guarantee Florida) and Palin not of much value to most ticket combinations Bolton would make a good choice, though I'd really prefer seeing him back in the US Ambassador post.... As of today I still believe Perry will be the eventual Republican nominee, with a 50% chance, Gingrich with a 40% chance, leaving a 10% possibility for the rest. Romney's problems ARE NOT all being Mormon, which is important to Southern and Western Voters, but he really has changed his viewpoints to what were REQUIRED in the Northeast and polls don't reflect any more acceptance today than over the 6 years, he has been campaigning.
To jackson33: I refuse to go along with voting for RINO just to beat the Democrat. The “two” parties have been playing Ping-Pong with voters for decades, and all the while the government grew and grew. Incidentally, a few months ago John Bolton considered entering the race for a specific reason: John Bolton says he is seriously considering a GOP presidential run in 2012, because of President Barack Obama’s dismal record in safeguarding national security, according to a story written by the former U.N. ambassador Monday on the website Humanevents.com. http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/Bolton-Obama-national-security/2011/08/09/id/406597 A specific reason is a far cry from the vague “Let’s beat the Democrat.” crap establishment Republicans sell so they can all get back to business as usual. Bolton did not enter the race, but he would still make a good VP overseeing foreign policy.
Off your candidate topic, and I find Bolton excellent. But Iran working on its nuclear WEAPONS program since 1981? How do they not now HAVE a stockpile of nuclear weapons? WE started in 1942, ice cold. There was no information anywhere. All there was was a partially accepted theory of splitting atoms. From that cold start to THREE YEARS LATER, we dropped 2 different kinds of functional nuclear weapons on Japan. Now Iran has been working on it for 30 years and have yet to succeed? They're "getting close?" Pakistan and India both HAVE the bomb. Iran has oil, which equals money. Bribery is a way of life in India and Pakistan. IRAN COULD HAVE PURCHASED THE BOMB PLANS DECADES AGO. N. Korea has the bomb and NK needs money desperately, IRAN has money, how can they NOT have the bomb? And thousands of Iranian scientists have been educated in the USA, Europe, and Russia. All have the bomb. And massive amounts of science about nuclear weapons is available online. How can Iran NOT already have a stockpile of nuclear bombs? Maybe not enough for them to use YET, but they have to have already built one or more.
To Dan40: I always assumed that Iran would get the bomb because it has the money. I never looked at it the way you point out. Now that you mention it I have to agree. If youre correct, America should be more concerned over Iran getting a delivery system. North Korea is working on a long range delivery system, and China has nuclear submarines capable of launching nuclear missiles when submerged. No matter where the enemies are at in developing first strike capabilities retaliation has to be Americas overriding foreign policy as it was throughout the Cold War; so maybe it is time to consider sending SAC bombers toward aggressive enemies 24-7. SAC bombers, along with the sure knowledge that retaliation would be swift and total, held the Soviet Union at bay for 40 years. Unfortunately, there are many more global government traitors in Washington today than there was when the Soviet Union was the primary enemy. The United Nations might not let America retaliate. Thats not an exaggeration. The UN always rules against this country, and Americas influential UN-lovers always agree. Finally, at the end of WWII the primary selling point for establishing the United Nations was preventing nuclear war. The global government crowd will do everything in their considerable political power to protect the UN by denying that a war is a war. They did it in the war against Islamic fundamentalists; they will continue to do it when the war escalates to nuclear. More so if an attack comes from a communist country like China-North Korea. The most important question of all is what to do should a nuclear bomb, or a biological weapon, be detonated in an American city without clear evidence of who planted it? The longer it takes to find that evidence the less likely retaliation becomes. Americas enemies are counting on it knowing that leading Democrats and the UN will demand proof that will stand up in a courtroom just as they insist enemy combatants be tried as criminals.
Flanders.. My counter on the Bain argument is that Romney did what was necessary for success.It is making the hard choices..LEADERSHIP. In a debate Romney would simply ask.."what have you slashed and burned for success ? " Entitlements ? Welfare ? unemployment ? Getmo..? How about GM ? Fannie and Freddie ? Using tax payer $$$ to bailout friends ( unions ) while letting others (non unions ) fail... TRY explaining that to America. Is Bringing home the troops on political timetable a recipe for success or failure ? Is SLASHING OUR DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCTION creating jobs or destroying them ? There are many debate counters to what Romney might use against Obama..Romney is not going to roll over and play PERRY.
Dialogue is the only way out of this impasse.. unless you really want another war in the ME to pacify Israel.
To Margot: No it isnt. Dont talk to terrorists and only support Israel when it defends itself. As to war in the Middle East: Let Arab Muslims know that the fallback strategy of engaging in terrorism against an occupying force wont work because there will be no occupation after the shooting stops. Reason: There wont be anything left to occupy.
Israel is just as guilty as Iran.. Maybe worse because of their ambitions in Lebanon and Syria all these years.. Flanders, how many Americans do you want so see killed in the blowback? Iraq, Syria and Southern Lebanon would erupt.. Oil will go to $200 a barrel and there will be gas shortages. There will be oil strikes in Nigeria, Sudan and Libya. Just how important is it to YOU that Israel continue to build Jewish only housing in occupied territory?
To Margot. You read my threads so you must know that I never engage in the Israeli-Palestinian debate, but you keep trying anyway. You got all of the Muslim talking points in. Theres just one thing: They sound like a list of Muslim threats if they do not get their way. Intimidating and terrorizing people only works with people who cant, or wont, fight back; so its not a question of how many Americans will be killed. It is a matter of how many Muslims are willing to die in an all-out war? The number will be astronomical should America and its allies bring all of their military to bear so they dont have to occupy Lebanon, Syria, Iran, or any Muslim country.
