Posted on 11/12/2016 4:20:06 PM PST by MagillaX
Looks like Ambassador Bolton is trying to promote himself for a position in Trump's cabinet. He is a Bush guy and one of the so called geniuses that got it wrong No way should he be in consideration
CFR is a huge red flag for me. It’s not something I want to see in any resume for someone to work in an administration.
I just trashed Cruz for his wife being a CFR employee, so it is a very big deal to me.
I am not sure what a new nation carved out of Iraq would accomplish on behalf of the CFR.
Do you folks have any thoughts on that?
When people say “neocon” these days, they’re talking about the cabal that intentionally designed the Global War on Terror to be a permanent and perpetual operation.
Sorry. My bad!
I was thinking Col. Peters!
Sorry, Ambassador john Bolton.
> I am not sure what a new nation carved out of Iraq would accomplish on behalf of the CFR.
Follow the money. It would benefit the Saudis immensely, and the Saudis have been buying out our government for decades now.
Nope. Not without guy at the top. Doesn’t happen.
Not my problem. Neocon meant Neocon for 20-something years.
I know what you folks think about that. I know what Trump thinks about it.
Folks, Iraq is more stable and at peace with it’s neighbors than it has been in at least 30 years.
If we had left Iraq with a contingency force as was planned, ISIS would never have been able to do what it did. We should have taken it out.
The Kurds were happy. The Sunnis were happy. The other sect in country was happy.
Hussein had attack four of it’s neighbors. He had attacked Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.
He would not stop threatening his neighbors. He would not stop saying he supported terrorist acts against the U. S. He was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel.
He would move his troops up to the borders in violation of the understanding after the first gulf war.
Then 09/11 came along, and we decided to make an example of him.
I have never disagreed with that, and I never will.
There is no terrorist type activity directed against the U. S. in Iraq.
That is an accomplishment.
How does carving out a nation for the Sunnis help Saudi Arabia?
I appreciate the concern of bringing in some old hands in the new Administration. But, listen. When had Donald J Trump been reluctant to make personnelchanges when necessary?
I think this was one of his greatest strengths in the campaign” recognizing when to pivot, change direction, and change leadership at the top of his organization.
Natural gas pipeline routes. It’s what the war was about since the beginning. If you weren’t aware of that then the whole Syria situation must have been a complete mystery.
Let me be explicit. Saudi and Qatar paid Hillary Clinton to destroy Syria so that those pipelines could be laid across Syrian territory.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/opinion/to-stop-irans-bomb-bomb-iran.html
We may have to deal with Iran severely, but we also may not.
I like Bolton and Bachmann, but they are real hawks. One thing we learned from the Bush years is to be careful before we plunge into something. They could be advisors but severe caution needs to be exercised. Bolton to his credit, was supportive of Trump whenever I saw him.
Open Letter to the President [Clinton]
February 19, 1998
Dear Mr. President,
Many of us were involved in organizing the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf in 1990 to support President Bush's policy of expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Seven years later, Saddam Hussein is still in power in Baghdad. And despite his defeat in the Gulf War, continuing sanctions, and the determined effort of UN inspectors to fetter out and destroy his weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein has been able to develop biological and chemical munitions. To underscore the threat posed by these deadly devices, the Secretaries of State and Defense have said that these weapons could be used against our own people. And you have said that this issue is about "the challenges of the 21st Century."
Iraq's position is unacceptable. While Iraq is not unique in possessing these weapons, it is the only country which has used them -- not just against its enemies, but its own people as well. We must assume that Saddam is prepared to use them again. This poses a danger to our friends, our allies, and to our nation.
It is clear that this danger cannot be eliminated as long as our objective is simply "containment," and the means of achieving it are limited to sanctions and exhortations. As the crisis of recent weeks has demonstrated, these static policies are bound to erode, opening the way to Saddam's eventual return to a position of power and influence in the region. Only a determined program to change the regime in Baghdad will bring the Iraqi crisis to a satisfactory conclusion.
For years, the United States has tried to remove Saddam by encouraging coups and internal conspiracies. These attempts have all failed. Saddam is more wily, brutal and conspiratorial than any likely conspiracy the United States might mobilize against him. Saddam must be overpowered; he will not be brought down by a coup d'etat. But Saddam has an Achilles' heel: lacking popular support, he rules by terror. The same brutality which makes it unlikely that any coups or conspiracies can succeed, makes him hated by his own people and the rank and file of his military. Iraq today is ripe for a broad-based insurrection. We must exploit this opportunity.
Saddam's long record of treaty violations, deception, and violence shows that diplomacy and arms control will not constrain him. In the absence of a broader strategy, even extensive air strikes would be ineffective in dealing with Saddam and eliminating the threat his regime poses. We believe that the problem is not only the specifics of Saddam's actions, but the continued existence of the regime itself.
What is needed now is a comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime. It will not be easy -- and the course of action we favor is not without its problems and perils. But we believe the vital national interests of our country require the United States to:
Recognize a provisional government of Iraq based on the principles and leaders of the Iraqi National Congress (INC) that is representative of all the peoples of Iraq.
Restore and enhance the safe haven in northern Iraq to allow the provisional government to extend its authority there and establish a zone in southern Iraq from which Saddam's ground forces would also be excluded.
Lift sanctions in liberated areas. Sanctions are instruments of war against Saddam's regime, but they should be quickly lifted on those who have freed themselves from it. Also, the oil resources and products of the liberated areas should help fund the provisional government's insurrection and humanitarian relief for the people of liberated Iraq.
Release frozen Iraqi assets -- which amount to $1.6 billion in the United States and Britain alone -- to the control of the provisional government to fund its insurrection. This could be done gradually and so long as the provisional government continues to promote a democratic Iraq.
Facilitate broadcasts from U.S. transmitters immediately and establish a Radio Free Iraq.
Help expand liberated areas of Iraq by assisting the provisional government's offensive against Saddam Hussein's regime logistically and through other means.
Remove any vestiges of Saddam's claim to "legitimacy" by, among other things, bringing a war crimes indictment against the dictator and his lieutenants and challenging Saddam's credentials to fill the Iraqi seat at the United Nations.
Launch a systematic air campaign against the pillars of his power -- the Republican Guard divisions which prop him up and the military infrastructure that sustains him.
Position U.S. ground force equipment in the region so that, as a last resort, we have the capacity to protect and assist the anti-Saddam forces in the northern and southern parts of Iraq.
Once you make it unambiguously clear that we are serious about eliminating the threat posed by Saddam, and are not just engaged in tactical bombing attacks unrelated to a larger strategy designed to topple the regime, we believe that such countries as Kuwait, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, whose cooperation would be important for the implementation of this strategy, will give us the political and logistical support to succeed.
In the present climate in Washington, some may misunderstand and misinterpret strong American action against Iraq as having ulterior political motives. We believe, on the contrary, that strong American action against Saddam is overwhelmingly in the national interest, that it must be supported, and that it must succeed. Saddam must not become the beneficiary of an American domestic political controversy.
We are confident that were you to launch an initiative along these line, the Congress and the country would see it as a timely and justifiable response to Iraq's continued intransigence. We urge you to provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish.
Sincerely,
Hon. Stephen Solarz
Former Member, Foreign Affairs Committee, U.S. House of
Representatives
Hon. Richard Perle
Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Former
Assistant Secretary of Defense
Hon. Elliot Abrams
President, Ethics & Public Policy Center; Former Assistant
Secretary of State
Richard V. Allen
Former National Security Advisor
Hon. Richard Armitage President, Armitage Associates, L.C.; Former Assistant
Secretary of Defense
Jeffrey T. Bergner
President, Bergner, Bockorny, Clough & Brain; Former Staff
Director, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Hon. John Bolton
Senior Vice President, American Enterprise Institute;
Former Assistant Secretary of State
Stephen Bryen
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
Hon. Richard Burt
Chairman, IEP Advisors, Inc.; Former U.S. Ambassador to
Germany; Former Assistant Secretary of State for European
Affairs
Hon. Frank Carlucci
Former Secretary of Defense
Hon. Judge William Clark
Former National Security Advisor
Paula J. Dobriansky
Vice President, Director of Washington Office, Council on
Foreign Relations; Former Member, National Security
Council
Doug Feith
Managing Attorney, Feith & Zell P.C.; Former Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy
Frank Gaffney
Director, Center for Security Policy; Former Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces
Jeffrey Gedmin
Executive Director, New Atlantic Initiative; Research
Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Hon. Fred C. Ikle
Former Undersecretary of Defense
Robert Kagan
Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Zalmay M. Khalilzad
Director, Strategy and Doctrine, RAND Corporation
Sven F. Kraemer
Former Director of Arms Control, National Security Council
William Kristol
Editor, The Weekly Standard
Michael Ledeen
Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Former
Special Advisor to the Secretary of State
Bernard Lewis
Professor Emeritus of Middle Eastern and Ottoman Studies,
Princeton University
R. Admiral Frederick L. Lewis
U.S. Navy, Retired
Maj. Gen. Jarvis Lynch
U.S. Marine Corps, Retired
Hon. Robert C. McFarlane
Former National Security Advisor
Joshua Muravchik Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute Robert A. Pastor
Former Special Assistant to President Carter for Inter-
American Affairs
Martin Peretz
Editor-in-Chief, The New Republic
Roger Robinson
Former Senior Director of International Economic Affairs,
National Security Council
Peter Rodman
Director of National Security Programs, Nixon Center for
Peace and Freedom; Former Director, Policy Planning Staff,
U.S. Department of State
Hon. Peter Rosenblatt
Former Ambassador to the Trust Territories of the Pacific
Hon. Donald Rumsfeld
Former Secretary of Defense
Gary Schmitt
Executive Director, Project for the New American Century;
Former Executive Director, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
Max Singer
President, The Potomac Organization; Former President, The
Hudson Institute
Hon. Helmut Sonnenfeldt
Guest Scholar, The Brookings Institution; Former
Counsellor, U.S. Department of State
Hon. Caspar Weinberger
Former Secretary of Defense
Leon Wienseltier
Literary Editor, The New Republic
Hon. Paul Wolfowitz
Dean, Johns Hopkins SAIS; Former Undersecretary of Defense
David Wurmser
Director, Middle East Program, AEI; Research Fellow,
American Enterprise Institute
Dov S. Zakheim
Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense
Syria objected to making money of those pipelines going across their soil?
Quick question then, if not Bolton or Newt then who? Who is someone totally out of the blue Trump could pick? Who would maybe in agreement to get the Kurds their own country? They seem to be the only sane group over their other than Israel.
> Folks, Iraq is more stable and at peace with it’s neighbors than it has been in at least 30 years.
I don’t know where you got that illusion from, but Iraq is a complete mess and is not even at peace internally. And parts of it are now owned by ISIS.
> If we had left Iraq with a contingency force as was planned, ISIS would never have been able to do what it did. We should have taken it out.
That’s irrelevant as ISIS is a US government (Clinton/McCain) creation.
> The Kurds were happy. The Sunnis were happy. The other sect in country was happy.
Get me some metrics on this one and I’ll consider its validity.
> Hussein had attack four of it’s neighbors. He had attacked Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.
He attacked Iran because he was armed and supported by the United States. He attacked Kuwait because the Bush administration gave him the green light to do so. Israel attacked him first. And Saudi Arabia was only attacked in the most marginal way, while they were hosting a half-million invasion force. Please don’t rely on this silly, discredited argument.
> He would not stop threatening his neighbors.
Propaganda. Any nation on earth with the capacity to defend itself from invasion could be accused of this.
> He would not stop saying he supported terrorist acts against the U. S.
Did that bad man hurt you with his words?
> He was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel.
Israel’s business, not America’s.
> He would move his troops up to the borders in violation of the understanding after the first gulf war.
Not America’s business. If not for the Bush admin invitation to invade Kuwait, would never have been our business.
> Then 09/11 came along, and we decided to make an example of him.
And lo and behold, it turns out in the end that the perpetrators of 9/11 were Saddam’s biggest enemies. Great move, I’m sure it will look fantastic on those geniuses’ resumes.
> There is no terrorist type activity directed against the U. S. in Iraq.
> That is an accomplishment.
There wasn’t any to begin with (but there actually is now). Going from zero to zero at the cost of innumerable lives and trillions of taxpayer dollars is not an accomplishment; it is a crime against Americans, a crime of massive proportions.
It’s time for you to do the background research. I can only educate you so far in this format.
And the Bush Admin almost expanded the theater of operations into Syria because Assad allowed Jihadis to plan attacks from there and have camps. ISIS has many fathers.
And on to other news and posters, Christian persecution started pretty much immediately after the invasion back in ‘04, it’s just been a lot worse against ISIS.
Assyrian (Christians, Chaldeans) news here: http://aina.org
They even had an article there about some sort of possible national resettlement program in Iraq.
Yes, “Not to be trusted” is exactly the phrase to describe him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.