John Bolton Hints At Run in 2012, Supports Gay Issues
Conservative lawyer and diplomat John Bolton (he resigned as UN Ambassador under George Bush in 2006) has dropped hints that he might put his hat in the presidential ring in 2012. In an interview with Tucker Carlson's right-leaning Website The Daily Caller, Bolton suggests that he might consider running if only to put a spotlight on national security issues.
AOL News points out that Bolton tends to be a bit trigger-happy in his beliefs about how to deal with other nations:
Bolton opposed this week's renewed Middle East peace talks, warning that failure would hurt Washington's influence in the region. He has assailed the administration's "policy chaos" in Afghanistan. And he has unabashedly called for a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities while accusing the White House of leaving the U.S. defenseless by canceling missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic (the administration later announced a scaled-back defensive shield).
A summary of Bolton form one political strategist:
"John Bolton would provide an interesting voice in a Republican presidential debate," said Democratic strategist Paul Begala in a preview of likely party talking points. "He, of course, wants to invade countries -- lots of countries -- seeing Afghanistan and Iraq as a warm-up for bombing Iran. And then, who knows? Continue through the alphabet to Iceland and Ireland?"
Bolton has been quite supportive of several gay rights issues, having this to say about DADT: “I don’t think there is any good answer to the question why shouldn’t gays and lesbians who want to serve their country be allowed to do it.”
He's also taken a very progressive approach toward marriage equality confessing that it is "going to happen."
I think Bolton is only trying to get Ken Mehlman's attention.
Apparently "we" have subverted from within; now they are falling like dominoes to see who can out-gay who in the Republican camp.
(Yes, I said "out-gay" and "camp" and "Republican" in the same sentence!
Posted by: Another One's Down and OUT? | Sep 4, 2010 8:30:29 PM
@Brad, since Pres. Obama has already started a war with Iran and North Korea. Obama is cleaning up a war as best he can and he hasn't been actively starting the war. Bolton thinks the peace talks are foolish. Whether they work or not, at least Obama is attempting to discuss things with a level head. I don't need a a president who thinks international relations is a dick measuring contest. Bolton views war as too much fun and doesn't really know how to weigh life.
Obviously he won't win, but the big problem with him building the narrative during the primaries is that he'll help to shift the focus away from other republicans bigoted views to war and fear mongering. If we want our rights we need them to be front and center in this next election like never before not ignored because of bullshit war theories this guy (and other neo-cons) have.
@Princely54, some neo-cons are liberal in that they believe that we should go to war with all countries who are different from us and remake them in our images. It's not really the way liberal is used domestically, but more so it means liberal in the sense that our liberal way of life (believing that all people have an inherent right to life, liberty, and property) is what neo-cons want to spread. That end isn't different from Hilary and Bill Clinton's view of the world (or quite a few Democrats), but the difference is that the Clinton's believe in a sort of Fukyama-esque world where our economic relations and soft power influence will cause others to embrace our liberal values and the American way of life.
Posted by: Joe | Sep 4, 2010 8:55:12 PM
Also wanted to add:
Whereas Bolton and his crazy neo-cons believe you should just change people by force and against their will by whatever dangerous means necessary.
Posted by: Joe | Sep 4, 2010 8:56:12 PM
Look what the the neocon economic "foreign policy" did for south america and mexico! Innit great? And that catastrophe margaret thatcher is also a neocon. The neocon economic plan has been a proven failure.
Posted by: TANK | Sep 4, 2010 9:38:01 PM
Keep believing these Republicans you hear! That is all!
Posted by: Snousha | Sep 4, 2010 9:52:02 PM
Bolton does what he says, unlike the Liar Obama. Since he will support the constitution, and is relentlessly pro-american, I would vote for him. And as a gay republican, I can tell you that even in lowly Louisiana, where I am an elected official, many of those in power are sick of the anti-gay rhetoric promulgated by the extreme right, and especially republican women's clubs who are voicing support for gays. First hand experience. Everyone seems to have a favorite gay person. And now they know their friends do too.
Posted by: ted | Sep 4, 2010 10:47:03 PM
re: Ted
Facts please. The ONLY anti-constitutional act you have from Obama is holding detainees that can't be charged with a single crime but is held because of a belief that they might commit a crime in the future (May 2009.)
Some say Obama has some problems because he refuses to prosecute war crimes (that are known) from previous administrations. GOP could probably take him down if they went that road but that probably wouldn't look so good for the party.
Bolton is pro-American? As compared to whom? Whoever you disagree with? He's pro-Israel at the sake of America's defense. He has zero credibility around the world and only gets is way by bullying people around. He pushed Iraq WMD theories (and still does.) See these are the facts...and they are fun.
Republican women's clubs have ZERO power to make policy change...
Posted by: Shawn | Sep 4, 2010 11:20:38 PM
BOLTON ONLY SUPPORTS GAYS IN THE MILITARY BECAUSE HE NEEDS MORE CANNON FODDER!
GET REAL GAY REPUBLI-TARDS, THE NEO-CONS WITH THEIR MILITARY VENTURES AND BIG SPENDING ARE DESTROYING OUR AMERICAN COUNTRY AND OUR FREEDOMS!
THE NEO-CONS MUST BE OPPOSED BY ALL.
Posted by: A Real Patriot | Sep 5, 2010 12:27:25 AM
Princely54, the entire Middle East, except for democratic Israel, is unstable whether the U.S. intervenes or not. The Islamic countries of the world were human rights disasters long before the Iraq war. I think you're bright enough to understand the difference between causes and excuses.
The neo-conservative agenda (as opposed to the oil agenda of their corporate allies) was to root democracy into the geographic heart of Islam. It failed not because the U.S. failed, but because the Arabs are incapable of democracy.
Posted by: Max | Sep 5, 2010 1:58:21 AM
Awaiting the fall of the proverbial next-shoe when warmonger Bolton reveals that he's gay.
Posted by: darkmoonman | Sep 5, 2010 3:21:17 AM
To Joe and Max,
First of all thanks for keeping this conversation going in a respectful manner -- it's rare to find that on the internet at all these days.
As for Joe's (and to some extent Max's too) comment that 'liberal in the sense that our liberal way of life (believing that all people have an inherent right to life, liberty, and property) is what neo-cons want to spread' is a real stretch. Wolfy, Rumsfeld and Bolton may SAY that's their goal, but I don't believe or agree that people with half a sense of reality or a healthy dose of cynicism believe that to be their goal at all! It's a verbal smokescreen backed up by not ONE action to justify their stated goal. Their brand of 'democracy' is just garden variety 'capitalism' -- which is much confused with democracy these days in just about all quarters. They wanted a market economy out of the effort, not real democracy. It's as if I said, I am going to rob your house for your own good because only then will you understand the value of owning your own property. It's laughable on it's face and I just don't accept their reinterpretation of common English understanding (via language, not culture.)
Regarding Max's statement that 'the middle east is unstable whether the US intervenes or not' isn't a totally defensible reasoning for invading the region and pushing it closer to the brink. As David Cross once said (in paraphrase): "Yeah, invade Iraq, because those people have fucked with us....mmm...NEVER!" No amount of re-imagining history will allow us to say that Saddam was threatening us. That's what was SAID by Bush, but all evidence is to the contrary. Words vs Actions: Bush (and the US) loses. Now we have a far, far worse situation in the region thanks to random and dangerous actions from the previous (and current) US President.
The world is more dangerous than a decade ago thanks to 'straight shooters' like Bolton. I don't think anyone need worry that he'll ever get within a continent's length of the presidency, but I feel compelled to comment nonetheless.
Posted by: princely54 | Sep 5, 2010 3:50:53 AM
F.Y.I. Max: Israel is an Apartheid-State, NOT a democratic country!
Posted by: Mega | Sep 5, 2010 10:47:30 AM
This has nothing to do with being a liberal or a Democrat or an Obama-supporter, or, for that matter, being gay. Or not. The point is that John Bolton is evil. Who in their right mind, after 10 years of seemingly ceaseless war, would want to continue to deplete American resources (fiscal, intellectual, human, etc.) on more?
American "supremacy" is no longer within sight because of past failed policies of interminable war. It was going to slip by anyway, as history has shown time and time again. Fighting - literally fighting and killing - to hold onto it is self-destructive and dangerous. Anyone who does not see that is insane. Wouldn't it be nice to live in a somewhat more peaceful, calm, and - gasp - multilateral world? In our futile attempt to maintain some exclusive, superlative position in the world, we have ceded our quality of life.
Posted by: Andalusian Dog | Sep 5, 2010 10:51:48 AM
It's only futile if you believe it. It's precisely that attitude that is behind 40% of americans believing that china has a larger economy than we do. It does not. Yet we believe it's inevitable...that american prosperity is doomed...pathetic, really. To give up so easily, and without a whimper. To believe in some kind of fate and historicism...pathetic. The new "manifest destiny".
Posted by: TANK | Sep 5, 2010 1:00:03 PM
The pro-gay meme of the Republican party this election cycle is interesting. I think it's probably as cynical as most political rhetoric, but there could be internal pressure from gay staffers and business leaders. However, the religious right lost the last election and therefore lost the right to manage the agenda--a change of course due to internal competition, like pulling a pitcher out during the seventh inning.
Posted by: anon | Sep 5, 2010 3:37:26 PM
The pro-gay meme of the Republican party this election cycle is interesting, it's also a total myth. These pro-gay Republicans are almost exclusively not in office or running for office. The only place they hold any sway is in the media. The Republican party agenda is currently controlled by the religious right and the teabaggers (both decidedly not pro-gay), and neither John Bolton nor any other allegedly pro-gay conservative is going to change that any time soon.
Posted by: Ernie | Sep 5, 2010 4:00:40 PM
Please note that the Republicans who are giving lip service to gay issues are not currently in office. Those who actually have any political power are still against us.
Posted by: Phil | Sep 5, 2010 5:36:19 PM
Great he supports "gay-issues" he only wants a nuclear war...
Posted by: Dave | Sep 7, 2010 12:49:37 PM