Not a whole lot, according to John Bolton. Adam Serwer had some similar thoughts about Bolton’s Post op-ed.
Meanwhile, in something so ridiculously predictable it was destined never to have been part of the Iraq-invasion debate of 2002-3 — not that I predicted it, but it should have at least occurred to me — Saddam Hussein told his FBI interviewers that he was bluffing about WMDs in order to spook Iran. Imagine that Saddam was still in power. He wouldn’t have tolerated an Iranian nuclear weapon. Would anyone seriously believe that if the Iraqi Air Force bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, it would cause the Iranian people to conclude that they were misgoverned, and their hardline, nuke-seeking leaders brought them to the brink of destruction?
Update: Tom Ricks FTW.
Login Here




1 Comment
Spotlight


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
I can’t help but think that Ricks is on to something he didn’t quite pursue. I mean the problem isn’t Bolton, but rather that the Post is willing to give him access to their editorial page despite his long standing record of not having been right about, well, anything.
It seems to have become impossible for folks like Bolton to disqualify themselves from the public discourse.