Uncivil Discourse

Because civility is overrated.

Thursday, May 26, 2005

John Bolton: A Motherfucker of Legendary Proportions

I wasn't going to write anything about Bolton, since I don't think there's a ton more to be said, but the Hackish Professor approvingly links to this piece of tripe:

Voinovich has disgraced himself and disgraced this country.

Who do we want representing us as we engage the terrorists worldwide?

Voinovich and other metrosexuals in touch with their feminine sides or a tough guy like Bolton who has a take no prisoners outlook?
You know, I hadn't heard the "If we don't do blank, the terrorists win" line in a while. As before, I still think it's a winner. Think about it. You spot a hot woman or man in a bar. The sight immediately induces daydreams of weeklong sex romps. But before, you weren't secure enough to try to go attempt the pickup. Now you don't need confidence, because you can just tell the hottie that if you two don't get down to business, the terrorists win. After all, those damned Islamofascists hate wanton, carnal, lust-filled sex, and so every time we fuck, we're really striking a blow for freedom!

So there's a lot of potential there. Unfortunately, we've moved away from this to talking about the "culture of life" (more on this tomorrow). And really, how are you going to work that in to your long term plans to get laid as often as possible? "If we don't fuck long and hard, it'd violate the sanctity of life?" Yeah, right.

But anyhow, back to Bolton. RickinVA, whose anus the blog in question leaked slowly out of, describes Bolton as a "tough guy who takes no prisoners." But Bolton wasn't so tough when it came to Kosovo, as displayed on the O'Reilly Factor back in 1999, back in the good old days when Fox Nooz was just a small piece of the right-wing echo chamber, just a tiny little fart from that anus, y'know, the kind that precedes a mighty and torrid unleashing of shit.

Bolton began by stating, "I think that the United States is now involved in a conflict where it has no tangible national interest, where it has no clear objectives in mind, and where the ultimate outcome could be very risky for what our real interests are, as evidenced by the fact that we've already severely strained relations with Russia." Can't you see those exact words (maybe replace "Russia" with some other country) coming out of some liberal wonk's mouth over Iraq? Bolton, for the record, got a big boner over the idea of invading Iraq. But here, he seems to be doing his best Michael Moore impression.

O'Reilly, back before Al Franken caused a permanent twitch, added that we have a humanitarian interest, if not an immediate interest, and "And I find it difficult to stand by and watch another Cambodia, another Rwanda, unfold. And I believe the United States has a responsibility here."

And here, Bolton asks the magic question: "Let me ask you this, Mr. O'Reilly. How many dead Americans is it worth to you to stop the brutality?"

That's a damned good question. And since what we're hearing from the right is that the turning of the Iraq War into a crusade for democracy and babies was not a retcon, but the primary goal all along, why hasn't Bolton and his ilk been on Bush to ask that question? After all, Bolton adds "And the president has to be able to justify to himself and to the American people that Americans are about to die, or may well die, for a certain specific American interest."

Now, don't get me wrong, Bolton and his mustache is asking a good question. "Is it worth the loss?" is an important thing to ask. But when it comes to Iraq, it's not one Bolton, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, or any of the dumbasses who used the word "cakewalk" with regard to that country have ever asked.

And Bolton's motherfuckery continues, assisted by the Administration. Last September, Bolton gave testimony on Syria's capacity to have WMDs. The White House won't turn over documents requested by Congress concerning this testimony. Gee, I wonder why. There's a wide suspicion that Bolton exaggerated the intelligence and helped prepare the testimony himself, something he told Congress he didn't do. We already know he's tried to transfer/fire analysts who gave analysis that didn't square with his agenda.

He's an amoral bootlicker, too. During the hearings, he was asked about Rwanda, where he claims, concerning the US non-action, "We don't know if it was logistically possible to do anything different."

Oh, Bolton knows. He knows that the main reason Clinton couldn't do anything was that in the wake of Somalia, there was too much criticism from the right (and the left, particularly those types who, regardless of what happens, are convinced the two parties are "the same"). And when it came to anally raping that dead horse, John Bolton was right there in front. See, Bolton is a cocksucker of immense proportions. He's a continually lying motherfucker, a jackass whose assholeness cannot be conceived of by us finite beings. No wonder the right loves him so much.

As for Voinovich, while I have no great love for him, he gives me at least a little hope. This war has brought out the worst in us, from torture to blatant racism. We've lost a good lot of our soul to it. But maybe it, along with some other developments such as the filibuster battle, has helped to kick some Republicans and conservative Democrats in the ass and realize what it is that they've helped turn us into. Maybe, just maybe, it's possible to get away from a deal with the Devil. It's likely Bolton is going to be confirmed and that this is a complete non-starter. Unfortunately, I don't think this is the same party that had the good sense to bail on shitlicker extraordinaire Richard Nixon when they realized the consequences of being loyal sycophants. But a glimmer's there. What comes of it is up to them, but we should try to encourage it.