Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'm aruging on the basis of available evidence, the cables, the democrat primaries.
I don't think it's much of a counter argument to claim that that evdience is irrelevant on the basis of other evidence not produced that may ot may not exist and may or may not support any one view.
-
The orginal issue was whether or not the cables showed the Bush admin to be less hawkish on Iran than Saudi Arabia and hence a moderating influence in contrast to his reputation. I have been arguing in the affirmative.
-
Bolton’s critics failed to register that his appointment was, at best, a sideways move, away from the heart of policy making.
"at best".
I really don't think it's all the controversial that Bush wanted Bolton out of the White House and dumped him on the UN.
Still, going back to my original point, I'm not inclined to take Bolton's word on anything. His acount of back then tends to be a little self-serving and he's certainly been making some pretty stupid criticisms of Obama recently.
If Saudi Arabia was Ok with Israel bombing Iran why are you dismissing the cables which show they wanted the US to bomb Iran? In any case in your scenario it was Bush that stopped the bombing by Israel which shows him in just a good a light as if he had ignored the Saudi wishes.
-
ah, Bolton was "moved sideways" a nice way of putting things in a rather glowing account of his career. "away from the heart of policy making", not the greatest vote of confidence in him from Bush.
But I really don't understand why you think Bolton has much credibility or how that would help your argument.
As for Iran, you dismiss the cables, prefering "informed speculation". I'm not sure how that works.
-
I don't know why the link doesn't work its:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwen_maddox/article659968.ece
-
I think anyone spending more than a brief moment considering it would think it's very unlikely.
you have a greater faith in Bush's decisions regarding the UN than me. I'm not sure that Bush shifting someone from the White House to the UN was considered a promotion, certainly not at the time:
When President Bush appointed Bolton in August 2005, while Congress was in recess, it was seen by many as an extravagantly provocative move. Many capitals took the choice of an over-fluent critic of the UN as a message that the US, already struggling in Iraq, still did not need friends.
But in that reflex of outrage, Bolton’s critics failed to register that his appointment was, at best, a sideways move, away from the heart of policy making. The move reassured conservatives that their views would still shape foreign policy, and yet it detached Bolton from the hour-to-hour debates.
So you dismiss what the cables have said and what other evidence shows about Saudi attitudes towards Iran are but are quite prepared to justify your own arguments with unattributed "informed sepculation" you "think" might have occured.
-
So Bush appointed a known lying self promoter to the most important ambassadorial job of the lot to get him out if the way?
you think that's unlikely?
But I've lost track of why Bolton having any sort of credibility is important for your argument.
I think there has been informed speculation that Saudi Arabia has offered to clear the airspace required for such a crack.
so you're quite certain that we cannot know if Saudi Arabia wanted the US to bomb Iran but on the other hand quite certain that Saudi Arabia wanted Israel to bomb Iran.
-
He was and is a member of the hugely influential ...
Bolton was and is a lying self-promoter who never misses an opportunity to inflate his role in things. Bush sent him off to the UN for a short stint to get rid of him.
I think the intial point was that Bush was not a comeplete war-monger, that in the face of pressure to bomb Iran from some Arab countries he didn't.
None of that is news. Some of Iran's neighbours are highly agitated about Iran's nuclear program and the US has for some time had to manage their anxities which was why during the democratic primaries Clinton suggested extending a nuclear unbrella over the Gulf States guaranteeing them security if Iran went nuclear to deter the Gulf states from developing their own nuclear weapons.
-
And we know from the words of people like Bolton...
I'm not inclined to trust his words on anything.
So, we have the cables that show the US did not attack Iran despite the pleas of some Arab countries but that evidence is worthless because there might be other secret documents that showed ...what exactly?
There are two facts that one can be certain of - Saudi Arabia wanted Iran bombed and Iran was not bombed. I'm not sure how any even more secret cables could negate those.
The evidence is that despite pleadings from Saudi Arabia Bush did not bomb Iran. The only possible evidence to the contrary would be if Iran had been bombed. Which is not the case - a fact not at the mercy of whatever remains undisclosed.
Also, there's nothing new here. That there were Gulf states that wanted the US to stop Iran is nothing new, there was at least one exchange during the democrat primaries that revolved around that. It's one of the reasons the US is so concerned about Iran's nuclear weapons program - it will cause an arms race with Saudi Arabia and others getting the bomb.
-
High level ME communications (or any high level communication) is not to be found in these cables.
so when the cables show the US in a good light, as James pointed out with Iran, then that can't possibly be true because there's the really secret stuff we don't know about.
Which of course could only show the US in a bad light.