My OperaJohn Bolton, one year later.
Thursday, January 17, 2008 5:36:49 PM
In a sense, it's futile to really suggest what people like Bolton are arguing, because at any moment their message will morph into a different shape. But let's put down some suggestions anyway. And then you can watch the interview with John Stewart below. Which is interesting for the only reason that Stewart draws out a line of reasoning from Bolton that is supposed to make sense. Or, he asks questions to get Bolton to talk about why he reasons like he does. Which is torture, but still interesting.
So consider this - the subject of the interview, and Bolton's book, is the bureaucratic battles needed to be fought in order to advance policies of various kinds. But in the end, it's about Russia and China "giving cover" for North Korea and Iran in order to get their nuclear deals going. In other words, what he's actually saying is that the bureaucratic wrangling, and the reason the US opts out of the IMB treaty, and pisses on the NNPT, is because they see China and Russia using these as cover to conduct nuclear trade. And since they do not have, naturally, the moral guidance the US has that makes them trade nuclear arms with Pakistan, Israel and India.
Making Bolton in effect argue against any treaty where the US does not have explicit right to dictate the terms. I hardly think it's possible to argue that this is not a logical conclusion from what Bolton argues.
So in the end we come right back to the beginning, where Bolton rationalises rank american exceptionalism based on fear of nebulous threats against the US, as well as non- specific beneficial aspects for the US, in advancing their non- specific agenda. While in practice, it is sabotage and rejection of any and all practical treaty obligations to other countries that might actually make sense. But that is never the issue - the issue is wrapping US exceptionalism in something that does not appear to be that aggressive. Or in effect giving whatever is the US policy at the moment a way to be excused internationally.
I mean, really - do we see a pattern here? Because this is deja- vu all over again - noone buys this crap except for americans who are high on presidential elections.
(Interview below the fold).
So consider this - the subject of the interview, and Bolton's book, is the bureaucratic battles needed to be fought in order to advance policies of various kinds. But in the end, it's about Russia and China "giving cover" for North Korea and Iran in order to get their nuclear deals going. In other words, what he's actually saying is that the bureaucratic wrangling, and the reason the US opts out of the IMB treaty, and pisses on the NNPT, is because they see China and Russia using these as cover to conduct nuclear trade. And since they do not have, naturally, the moral guidance the US has that makes them trade nuclear arms with Pakistan, Israel and India.
Making Bolton in effect argue against any treaty where the US does not have explicit right to dictate the terms. I hardly think it's possible to argue that this is not a logical conclusion from what Bolton argues.
So in the end we come right back to the beginning, where Bolton rationalises rank american exceptionalism based on fear of nebulous threats against the US, as well as non- specific beneficial aspects for the US, in advancing their non- specific agenda. While in practice, it is sabotage and rejection of any and all practical treaty obligations to other countries that might actually make sense. But that is never the issue - the issue is wrapping US exceptionalism in something that does not appear to be that aggressive. Or in effect giving whatever is the US policy at the moment a way to be excused internationally.
I mean, really - do we see a pattern here? Because this is deja- vu all over again - noone buys this crap except for americans who are high on presidential elections.
(Interview below the fold).
