![spilttobill:
zachfey:
spilttobill:
zachfey:
vaughnshirley:
Via thedailywhat:
Photo of the Day: Journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling reunite with their families upon arrival at Burbank, California.
[via.]
It was great to see the release. However, for a contrarian point of view on the whole thing listen to this interview with John Bolton. He called it a “knee jerk desire to negotiate” and wondered what implications this will have for the three American hikers recently taken captive by the Iranian security forces. I can’t say I totally agree, but he makes a decent argument.
I’m totally unable to take John Bolton seriously, at all. To wit: he’s an unabashed war pig and isolationist.
The main reason I posted the interview was not to reassess the (hopefully) legacy of John Bolton, but to show an angle of coverage about the release that had been crowded out by the Bill Clinton superhero narrative and the emotional return of a mother to her four year-old daughter.
But since we’re on the topic and since I’ve nothing to do all day, a few words on John Bolton. We probably agree about his views, but I don’t think it’s wise to ignore him. He was at one time a very influential policy maker and remains influential as a commentator. Saying the UN is a tool that the U.S. uses to achieve its own national interests when it feels like it may sound “war piggish” and isolationist to you, but it sounds like reality to me. It doesn’t meet our ideal of what the UN should be, but it is the unfortunate truth. The greater point, I think, is just because a commentator is an asshole and we disagree with him, doesn’t mean there isn’t any value to his arguments.
{This is def an asymmetric response, my apologies}
I pretty much agree with that - the US goes along with the UN when it suits our purposes, and we’ve got an impressive list of flouted UN resolutions to back that up. Bolton does indeed represent that unfortunate reality. However, I don’t think there’s any value to his arguments, especially vis-a-vis the release of these journalists, which is why I replied with that video.
John Bolton represents the most regressive and atavistic fringes of American foreign policy. He doesn’t believe in negotiation, he believes in the use of force and intimidation. He consistently spurns the notion of any kind of diplomatic engagement on the tenuous grounds that it “legitimizes rogue regimes” and “makes the US appear weak / our enemies appear strong.” That’s bullshit, and that sort of attitude is exactly the reason the US is a global pariah whose only claim to authority is our sheer monopoly of means of violence.
His proffered solutions for dealing with our state-designated “enemies” are almost without exception either sanctions (which harms the people and not the regime,) or direct violence (as is the case with his frequent calls for military action against Iran, Syria, North Korea and Pakistan.) Honestly, I do think he should be ignored, because his ideals are a heady draught of nationalism mixed with militarism, and I’m of the opinion that those are two of our most self-destructive impulses.
Yeah, I’m with you. Right-wing motive is too often buried under layers of rhetoric, classic Straussian method. Bolton’s value lies exclusively in his transparency, not his ideas.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/b9vfl4b63qrv5nto6H5erDyRo1_400.jpg)
Via thedailywhat:
Photo of the Day: Journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling reunite with their families upon arrival at Burbank, California.
[via.]
It was great to see the release. However, for a contrarian point of view on the whole thing listen to this interview with John Bolton. He called it a “knee jerk desire to negotiate” and wondered what implications this will have for the three American hikers recently taken captive by the Iranian security forces. I can’t say I totally agree, but he makes a decent argument.
I’m totally unable to take John Bolton seriously, at all. To wit: he’s an unabashed war pig and isolationist.
The main reason I posted the interview was not to reassess the (hopefully) legacy of John Bolton, but to show an angle of coverage about the release that had been crowded out by the Bill Clinton superhero narrative and the emotional return of a mother to her four year-old daughter.
But since we’re on the topic and since I’ve nothing to do all day, a few words on John Bolton. We probably agree about his views, but I don’t think it’s wise to ignore him. He was at one time a very influential policy maker and remains influential as a commentator. Saying the UN is a tool that the U.S. uses to achieve its own national interests when it feels like it may sound “war piggish” and isolationist to you, but it sounds like reality to me. It doesn’t meet our ideal of what the UN should be, but it is the unfortunate truth. The greater point, I think, is just because a commentator is an asshole and we disagree with him, doesn’t mean there isn’t any value to his arguments.
{This is def an asymmetric response, my apologies}
I pretty much agree with that - the US goes along with the UN when it suits our purposes, and we’ve got an impressive list of flouted UN resolutions to back that up. Bolton does indeed represent that unfortunate reality. However, I don’t think there’s any value to his arguments, especially vis-a-vis the release of these journalists, which is why I replied with that video.
John Bolton represents the most regressive and atavistic fringes of American foreign policy. He doesn’t believe in negotiation, he believes in the use of force and intimidation. He consistently spurns the notion of any kind of diplomatic engagement on the tenuous grounds that it “legitimizes rogue regimes” and “makes the US appear weak / our enemies appear strong.” That’s bullshit, and that sort of attitude is exactly the reason the US is a global pariah whose only claim to authority is our sheer monopoly of means of violence.
His proffered solutions for dealing with our state-designated “enemies” are almost without exception either sanctions (which harms the people and not the regime,) or direct violence (as is the case with his frequent calls for military action against Iran, Syria, North Korea and Pakistan.) Honestly, I do think he should be ignored, because his ideals are a heady draught of nationalism mixed with militarism, and I’m of the opinion that those are two of our most self-destructive impulses.
Yeah, I’m with you. Right-wing motive is too often buried under layers of rhetoric, classic Straussian method. Bolton’s value lies exclusively in his transparency, not his ideas.
