Bolton Rewriting History - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 36 (permalink) Old 03-26-2007, 03:12 PM Thread Starter
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
(Thread Starter)
Bolton Rewriting History

John Bolton: Bush never said Saddam was 'imminent threat' David Edwards and Josh Catone
Published: Sunday March 25, 2007
Former ambassador to the UN John Bolton on CNN's Late Edition today made the case that, over four years into the Iraq war, removing Saddam Hussein was "unquestionably" the right thing to do, even though he did not turn out to have the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that formed the basis for the Bush administration's case for going to war.
"[Saddam Hussein] and his regime were the threat to international peace and security. The president never made the argument that he constituted an imminent threat," Bolton said.
However, on more than one occasion, administration officials used the term "imminent threat" to describe Iraq in the run up to the war.
"This is about imminent threat," said then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan on February 10, 2003.
"When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" was Donald Rumsfeld's message in November 2002, implying that Iraq would need to attack the US to become more of an immediate threat than it was.
Vice President Dick Cheney in August 2002 used the similar term "mortal threat" saying, "What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
Denying that the White House used the specific nomenclature "imminent threat" is a common defense of Bush administration officials.
In 2004, then-Director of the CIA George Tenet defended his organization's prewar estimates of Saddam Hussein's military might by saying, "They never said there was an imminent threat."

BLITZER: So what should the U.S. be doing about this?
BOLTON: Well, I think the president has got a very aggressive strategy in response. And I think the Iranians need to know that we will pursue their agents, their military, their intelligence people inside Iraq and that the president has full constitutional authority, whether it is through the doctrine of hot pursuit or whatever else he needs to do, to protect Americans from Iranian attacks.
BLITZER: The Iraq situation, from your assessment four years into this war, is what?
BOLTON: I think there are analytically two questions that you have to ask about Iraq. The first is, should we have overthrown Saddam Hussein? I think the answer to that, based on all we know now, remains unquestionably yes. That was the right thing to do.
BLITZER: Even though he didn't have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction?
BOLTON: He himself and his regime were the threat to international peace and security. The president never made the argument that he constituted an imminent threat. It was the existence of the regime that was the threat. And that is why it was right to overthrow it.
BLITZER: But the president, with all due respect, and the secretary of state, when he went to the U.N. Security Council, they gave the impression there was an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein.
BOLTON: No, sir.
BLITZER: That he was about to use those stockpiles in an awful way.
BOLTON: No, sir. In the 2003 State of the Union message, the president took on the imminent threat argument and rejected it. He said, some have argued that the threat must be imminent, but since when have terrorists or dictators ever given advance notice of their intentions?
It was the regime that constituted the threat as large majorities of both houses of Congress had recognized in the late 1990s.
BLITZER: So even though the intelligence was wrong, and there were no stockpiles, you still think the U.S. should have gone to war against Saddam Hussein, even though many other analysts then and obviously since then, felt he was contained in a box with the no-fly zones, the sanctions, and he really wasn't causing much harm to people outside of his own country?
BOLTON: I think the decision to overthrow him was unquestionably correct. I don't think somebody like him or Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong- Il are really susceptible to classic theories of deterrence.
I think there is a second question analytically that it's fair to ask, and that is, after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, was the conduct of policy correct? And I think on that question, reasonable people can disagree.
In hindsight I'd have turned responsibility back to the Iraqis a lot earlier than we did. The question now going forward is, what is the best strategy? I think the president's surge is really the only strategy there is.
DP is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 36 (permalink) Old 03-26-2007, 03:18 PM
~BANNED~
 
deathrattle's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Vehicle: 1992 W126 300 SE
Location: Head in the clouds
Posts: 11,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
^^^^
That freaky 'Ned Flanders' look-alike was on BBC Question Time last week. A complete arse.
deathrattle is offline  
post #3 of 36 (permalink) Old 03-26-2007, 03:57 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
old300D's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jul 2003
Vehicle: '83 240D
Location: Denver
Posts: 3,774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Jon Stewart ripped him a new one last week too. Poor old guy, reduced to speaking with two-bit pundits.

OBK #35

old300D is offline  
post #4 of 36 (permalink) Old 03-26-2007, 05:13 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
Date registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 480
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Bolton is doing what he is paid to do. Unfortunately, he's working for another country and George Wanker Bushit was too dumb to see it.

Say no more.

240Joe
240Joe is offline  
post #5 of 36 (permalink) Old 03-26-2007, 05:22 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor
John Bolton: Bush never said Saddam was 'imminent threat' David Edwards and Josh Catone
Published: Sunday March 25, 2007
Former ambassador to the UN John Bolton on CNN's Late Edition today made the case that, over four years into the Iraq war, removing Saddam Hussein was "unquestionably" the right thing to do, even though he did not turn out to have the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that formed the basis for the Bush administration's case for going to war.
"[Saddam Hussein] and his regime were the threat to international peace and security. The president never made the argument that he constituted an imminent threat," Bolton said.
However, on more than one occasion, administration officials used the term "imminent threat" to describe Iraq in the run up to the war.
"This is about imminent threat," said then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan on February 10, 2003.
"When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" was Donald Rumsfeld's message in November 2002, implying that Iraq would need to attack the US to become more of an immediate threat than it was.
Vice President Dick Cheney in August 2002 used the similar term "mortal threat" saying, "What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
Denying that the White House used the specific nomenclature "imminent threat" is a common defense of Bush administration officials.
In 2004, then-Director of the CIA George Tenet defended his organization's prewar estimates of Saddam Hussein's military might by saying, "They never said there was an imminent threat."

BLITZER: So what should the U.S. be doing about this?
BOLTON: Well, I think the president has got a very aggressive strategy in response. And I think the Iranians need to know that we will pursue their agents, their military, their intelligence people inside Iraq and that the president has full constitutional authority, whether it is through the doctrine of hot pursuit or whatever else he needs to do, to protect Americans from Iranian attacks.
BLITZER: The Iraq situation, from your assessment four years into this war, is what?
BOLTON: I think there are analytically two questions that you have to ask about Iraq. The first is, should we have overthrown Saddam Hussein? I think the answer to that, based on all we know now, remains unquestionably yes. That was the right thing to do.
BLITZER: Even though he didn't have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction?
BOLTON: He himself and his regime were the threat to international peace and security. The president never made the argument that he constituted an imminent threat. It was the existence of the regime that was the threat. And that is why it was right to overthrow it.
BLITZER: But the president, with all due respect, and the secretary of state, when he went to the U.N. Security Council, they gave the impression there was an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein.
BOLTON: No, sir.
BLITZER: That he was about to use those stockpiles in an awful way.
BOLTON: No, sir. In the 2003 State of the Union message, the president took on the imminent threat argument and rejected it. He said, some have argued that the threat must be imminent, but since when have terrorists or dictators ever given advance notice of their intentions?
It was the regime that constituted the threat as large majorities of both houses of Congress had recognized in the late 1990s.
BLITZER: So even though the intelligence was wrong, and there were no stockpiles, you still think the U.S. should have gone to war against Saddam Hussein, even though many other analysts then and obviously since then, felt he was contained in a box with the no-fly zones, the sanctions, and he really wasn't causing much harm to people outside of his own country?
BOLTON: I think the decision to overthrow him was unquestionably correct. I don't think somebody like him or Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong- Il are really susceptible to classic theories of deterrence.
I think there is a second question analytically that it's fair to ask, and that is, after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, was the conduct of policy correct? And I think on that question, reasonable people can disagree.
In hindsight I'd have turned responsibility back to the Iraqis a lot earlier than we did. The question now going forward is, what is the best strategy? I think the president's surge is really the only strategy there is.
Neat thing about history: Anybody can write it. You don't like this guy's version? Fine, get off your ass and do better. It's a free market of ideas out there. Sell yours.

B
Botnst is offline  
post #6 of 36 (permalink) Old 03-26-2007, 06:16 PM Thread Starter
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Neat thing about history: Anybody can write it. You don't like this guy's version? Fine, get off your ass and do better. It's a free market of ideas out there. Sell yours.

B
You like his version?
DP is offline  
post #7 of 36 (permalink) Old 03-26-2007, 06:18 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor
You like his version?
I recognize it for what it is: One version.

Which version that will be ascendent in 10 years, 20 years, 100 years is anybody's guess. If you want your version considered you better get out there and write it. Otherwise, Mr Bolton's history will prevail.

B
Botnst is offline  
post #8 of 36 (permalink) Old 03-26-2007, 06:32 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
old300D's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jul 2003
Vehicle: '83 240D
Location: Denver
Posts: 3,774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
I recognize it for what it is: One version.

Which version that will be ascendent in 10 years, 20 years, 100 years is anybody's guess. If you want your version considered you better get out there and write it. Otherwise, Mr Bolton's history will prevail.

B
With the way things are spilling out now, I seriously doubt that.

OBK #35

old300D is offline  
post #9 of 36 (permalink) Old 03-26-2007, 06:36 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by old300D
With the way things are spilling out now, I seriously doubt that.
pardon, my foil hat slipped.

I cannot figure-out what you seriously doubt. Hint?

B
Botnst is offline  
post #10 of 36 (permalink) Old 03-26-2007, 06:43 PM Thread Starter
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
I recognize it for what it is: One version.

Which version that will be ascendent in 10 years, 20 years, 100 years is anybody's guess. If you want your version considered you better get out there and write it. Otherwise, Mr Bolton's history will prevail.

B
Ok, what version did unfold in front you or were you sleeping? I clearly heard and read Bush's comments or was that a dream and history will prove me wrong?
DP is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Critique of rewriting history Botnst Off-Topic 0 03-07-2007 06:24 AM
    My Friend Charles Bolton, R.I.P. Teutone Off-Topic 0 12-24-2006 12:06 AM
    Bolton bolted deathrattle Off-Topic 65 12-05-2006 09:28 AM
    Now, where is our detailing guru host, Bolton? Drew Detailing and Car Care 9 08-29-2002 12:24 PM
    Taped a Mercedes SL history show on History Channel... Guest (MBNZ) R/C107 SL/SLC Class 0 03-31-2002 06:27 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome