Bolton on Israel

BOLTON: Yes, well this whole idea of proportionate force is just something that's been dreamed up in U.N. and academic circles. Let me give you another example. Was the United States limited after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to a proportionate response? We sink as many aircraft carriers and battleships as they sank, and we have to stop our use of force at that point? Of course not. We were entitled as a legitimate exercise of the right of self-defense to eliminate the threat, and that's what we did. LOWRY: And Ambassador, why is it that Israel seems to be the only country in the world that evokes this kind of condemnation when it simply defends itself? BOLTON: Well I think it's not only Israel, and this to me is one of the really important parts about this debate about the right of self- defense and this argument about the proportionate use of force. Because while the focus is certainly on Israel, Israel in a sense is a surrogate for the United States. God forbid another attack comes against us, and we have a president who decided to respond to it, we will be criticized for the disproportionate use of force. We weren't criticized for overthrowing the Taliban, although, that was certainly a much larger operation than even the September attacks, but we were criticized for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. The notion of proportionate force is something that can easily be turned against the United States. So the way this debate turns out over Israel has implications that go well beyond this current clash in Gaza. ... BOLTON: Well, Iran is one of Hamas' main funders, and it's been a supplier of arms and equipment and training over the years. And this is important because Hamas is basically a Sunni Arab group, and Iran obviously is Shia and Persian. This is a demonstration of the reach, the scope, the power that Iran has in the Arab world, and why we're looking at potentially a multi-front war here, not just in the Gaza Strip, but potentially by Hezbollah, the terrorist group in Lebanon attacking Israel from the north as it did in the summer of 2006. And indeed, the continuing Iranian quest for nuclear power. So while our focus obviously is on Gaza right now, this could turn out to be a much larger conflict. LOWRY: Now Mr. Ambassador, in your view, how does the equation change if and when Iran acquires a nuclear weapon? If the region's inflamed now and in conflict now, how is it different when Iran acquires that extra bargaining power if you will? BOLTON: Well, I think it gets much worse. Their ability to threaten and intimidate Israel and the Arab states in the region, obviously substantially increase. Every problem in the region that we have now gets worse once Iran gets nuclear weapons, and I am afraid we are ever closer to that point. I think sad to say the Bush administration's efforts following the lead of the European Union have entirely failed, and I don't think there's anything at this point standing between Iran and nuclear weapons other than the possibility of the use of military force, possibly by the United States, possibly by Israel. I don't see the Bush administration doing it, so it could well come down to Israel, and that's why the role of Iran here in citing this Hamas violence could be important because I think we are playing on a larger chess board.  ... COLMES: You would strike Iran right now? BOLTON: I would have done it before this. I think we're in a very dangerous position. I think at this point, as I say, there's nothing that stands between Iran and nuclear weapons, and if they get them, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, possibly Turkey, others in the region will get them, and the risk of somebody using nuclear weapons will rise dramatically. COLMES: Is there a risk -- if we were to do what John Bolton, Ambassador Bolton is saying what he who do, is there a risk in pushback in that by going after Iran, we introduce an even broader powder keg in the Middle East? BOLTON: Well, I think you've got a much worse situation with Iran with nuclear weapons. I'll say it again. I think the use of military force against Iran's program is very unattractive. But compared to Iran with nuclear capability, I think you have to look at it. COLMES: So if we do that, they strike back, are we then in danger of creating a broader war? BOLTON: I think in many Arab states in the region, although they wouldn't say it publicly, they'd be doing the equivalent of popping champagne corks because the Arab states don't want Iran with nuclear weapons any more than Israel does. What Iran could do is what's already happening in the Gaza Strip or what might happen if they unleashed Hezbollah, terrorist attacks on Israel. That's why the calculus for Israel's leaders at this point is so difficult and so complex and so risky, but whatever their circumstance is now, they are far worse with Iran with nuclear weapons. Real Clear Politics (Fox News)

My God this guy knows his shit. I'm telling you, I want John Bolton for president. Kick ass and leave the names for the history geeks.

Israel has been taking hits for years. They need to end the problem. Hamas is pushing Israel in the direction of genocide or religion-ocide or stop-shooting-missiles-at-my-citizens-ocide.. I'm getting to the point I'm just plane mad. How dare Europe hate the Jews this much? How dare Europe take sides because they need oil. 

I better stop here before I get myself in politically correct trouble. I'm about to rant about many thousand year old hatreds and how Europe only gave Israel to the Jews to kick them out of Europe. I better stop.