Fear of Nukes and Neocons
We have a highly energized group of Readers Who Comment this morning about John Bolton's suggestion on the op-ed page that "Israel's decision of whether to use military force against Tehran's nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever. "
Bolton, you will recall, was given a recess appointment by President George W. Bush to be ambassador to the United Nations, where he served from August 2005 until December 2006. He resigned when the Senate would not confirm his permanent nomination to that position.
The first flood of comments were overwhelmingly opposed to Bolton, and to The Washington Post for giving him a platform. The majority of comments at this hour seem to oppose an Israeli strike. But other voices are heard, including several suggesting that it was useful to know what neocons like Bolton are thinking. Some expressed concern that an Israeli attack on Iran would unite the Iranian people at a time when there are clear signs of unrest.
We'll start with jack824, who wrote, "An exhaustive (and sometimes not incorrect) analysis of the current situation but not one scintilla of thought as to what happens after the first bomb drops. This is the same kind of testosterone fueled thinking that brought us Iraq. If you're proposing to go on the offense at least pause to ask 'What then?' "
rlyoung311 said, "The Post ill serves the public interest by publishing the ravings of this war-mongering liar..."
But biswashira wrote, "It is wrong on many counts to criticize Washington Post for bringing thoughts and ideas of John Bolton to us. The fact is inside and outside of US Congress and the White House, there are many powerful forces who really believe in what John Bolton telling us... So, by bringing John Bolton to the reading public, WaPo is providing us a valuable journalistic service..."
antypasa said, "All well and good, except the best publicly available analysis shows that a military strike will not only partially successful in the short run, and at most set back the weapons program by a couple of years. In the meantime, the people will rally around the regime--the opposite of what Bolton imagines in his fantastical wishful thinking. Plus, the entire region will go mad, there will be chaos, and Israel will face immediate attacks on two fronts..."
JimMaclean wrote, "Now that serious cracks are emerging in the Iranian Theocracy for the first time since the revolution, the country rests on a hairspring balance with people from all levels of society demanding real change from the mullahs... The one gilt edged guaranteed way to unite a country behind an unpopular leader is to have a traditional enemy comit an act of war..."
robertholcomb said, "Mr. Bolton is once again oblivious to the law of unintended consequences. His past performance in government was a discredit to our nation. Why is such a narrow minded person given a forum in the Post? Shouldn't newspapers be used to advance truth rather than simplistic neo-con fantasies?"
ordak100 wrote, "...When more than 80% of Iranians go to polls and vote under the existing system, it is no longer a "regime" but a republic, chosen and accepted by the people, for the same people (and not a bunch of neo-cons in America and Israel). But again and since Eisenhower, you people have been saying that Cuba is going to collapse and capitulate.....LOL, LOL...."
JamesMeeker said, "We shouldn't strike Iran, but we should do everything we can (secretly) to make sure that if Iran cannot be stopped any other way, that Israel has every tool available to get it done."
qualquan wrote, "Putting all these neocons on its pages makes me doubt WaPo and [Fred] Hiatt's loyalty to our country. This is really becoming toxic." [Hiatt is the Post's editorial page editor.]
Frigistan said, "Bolton is just a reminder of the Bush nightmare. He's good to keep around though to remind us of where we were. Kinda like that judge letting Charles Manson live to remind everyone what true evil is. Yes Bolton, we despise you that much."
Xavisev suggested that "Neocons are preparing US public opinion to accept a strike by Israel and the possibility of deeper US involvement in their favor."
JaysonB said, "...I would not suppress Bolton' free speech (preferring to bring him up on treason charges) but I question why he always has ready access to the o-ed pages of the Post and the NY Times."
allknowingguy said, "This article is about a potential Israeli strike, not a US attack. John Bolton has no influence on Israel, he is just telling us that an Israeli action just got more likely so don't be surprised..."
But wbgonne wrote, "I really want to know why the Washington Post continually prints opinion pieces by disgraced and discredited Neocons. There are lots of people with thoughtful, intelligent views on foreign policy and they should be heard. We've just endured 8 years of the chest-pounding war-mongerers, who have been proven wrong on everything over and again. Please, WashPo, stop."
We'll close with JoeDon, who said, "It's refreshing to see that this rag has finally added some credible (read "conservative") columnists to it's editorial page..."
All comments on this article are here.
Posted by: Robzview | July 5, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: spamsux1 | July 4, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: markoller | July 3, 2009 7:06 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: ChrisFord1 | July 3, 2009 3:47 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: BrettPaatsch1 | July 3, 2009 3:23 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: spidermean2 | July 3, 2009 3:00 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: George20 | July 2, 2009 10:32 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: staterighter | July 2, 2009 9:29 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: patrick3 | July 2, 2009 7:59 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: TRACIETHEDOLPHIN | July 2, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: qualquan | July 2, 2009 11:59 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: LHO39 | July 2, 2009 11:42 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: millionea7 | July 2, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: jaxas | July 2, 2009 11:19 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: simplesimon33 | July 2, 2009 9:53 AM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.