“I think this administration, if its policies were pursued for an extended period of time, would take us into decline, but there’s nothing wrong with this country that a real president couldn’t cure.” I like this. A lot. Jay Nordlinger's cover piece on Bolton hit the stands today -- I am a huge supporter of John Bolton for the obvious reasons and the not as obvious ones: his unwavering dedication to individual rights. I was an early supporter -- an original "Blog for Bolton" -- and proud of it. I would work for this campaign, something I have never done. ‘The Man with the Mustache’ John Bolton, Goldwaterite, Reaganaut, and phenomenon Two summers ago, Nattional Review took one of its cruises, this one to the eastern Mediterranean. We had several hundred passenger-readers aboard, and a slate of speakers. One of them was John Bolton, the lawyer and foreign-policy official. On the platform, he was really wowin’ ’em, with his hard-hitting foreign-policy analyses. Over the next couple of days, our passengers kept murmuring, “Bolton is really fantastic. He’s just the kind of man we need. Wouldn’t it be great if he ran for president?” The next time we were on the platform, I said to the audience, “I’ve been hearing a lot of ‘Bolton for President’ rumbles. We know he’s rock-solid on foreign policy. But what about his domestic views? For all we know, he’s a socialist—as some of the best hawks have been.” Bolton, with a glint in his eye, leaned into his microphone and said, “I don’t think you have to worry about that.” One doesn’t. On election Day 1964, John Bolton, 15, got permission to be absent from school: in order to pass out leaflets for Goldwater. “That was my formative political experience,” he says, the Goldwater campaign. Unlike his fellow Goldwaterite, Miss Hillary Rodham, he remained a Goldwaterite, unalloyed. His favorite line from The Conscience of a Conservative, the senator’s 1960 book, is, “My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them.” Bolton says, “Individual liberty is the whole purpose of political life, and I thought it was threatened back then”—in 1964—“and I think it’s threatened now.” Moreover, the Bolton groupies aboard that ship may get their wish: Bolton is thinking about running for president in 2012, and he’s thinking about it hard. He first thought about it in 2008, during the general-election campaign. “I was watching what was happening in 2008, and I thought, ‘How can this be?’” What he meant was, How could vital issues of national security be receiving so little attention? Then Barack Obama was elected. And, “as I followed his obsession with restructuring our entire domestic way of life, it became completely clear to me that our willful ignoring of national-security policy was going to cost us.” Someone, Bolton felt, had to raise the vital issues. “I write, I give speeches, I appear on television—but the only way in contem- porary American circumstances to make those issues as salient as they should be is to run for president.” The idea of a Bolton presidential run seems implausible, fanciful, odd. Other people have used stronger words: “preposterous,” “ridiculous,” “cuckoo.” Bolton has never held elective office, and has never run for office. But he thinks these are unusual times, in which an unusual candidacy might have a place. He himself uses the word “unorthodox”: an unorthodox candidacy, an unorthodox campaign. And he could not be more serious about the idea. In our recent interview, he was mainly careful to use the conditional: If I ran, I would . . . But sometimes he slipped into tenses more certain. And he has no interest in a symbolic, quixotic, or selfish run. “People have said to me, ‘Well, if you ran, you might get more speaking appearances, and you could sell another book.’ Frankly, that’s the last thing on my mind. If I get in, I’ll get in it to win.” He was born in Baltimore in 1948, to Jack Bolton, a firefighter, and Ginny Godfrey Bolton, a homemaker. Neither graduated from high school. Their son graduated from high school, and went on to Yale College. He wrote in his book, Surrender Is Not an Option, that, as a “libertarian conservative” on campus, he was regarded as a “space alien.” He was also a scholarship kid: and appalled at the rich kids who staged “student strikes,” in protest of this or that. These “strikers” demanded that everyone else do as they did, which Bolton would have none of. “I had an education to get, and the protesters could damn well get out of my way as I walked to class.” Bolton has not infrequently been a conservative among liberals, or leftists. He once compared working at the State Department to being an undergrad at Yale. In our interview, I asked him, “Do the people who staff the Obama administration remind you of your college classmates?” He responded that most of them probably were his college classmates. A couple of days after this interview, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial that amused Bolton. It referred to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “streets-of-Baltimore grit.” (Pelosi is an adoptive San Franciscan who grew up in Baltimore.) Bolton repeated that phrase with glee: “‘Streets-of-Baltimore grit’!” Both Pelosi’s father and her brother were the mayor of Baltimore. As far as Bolton’s concerned, that family was elite. His undergraduate degree in hand, he went to Yale Law School, where he studied with Robert Bork, among luminous others. One summer, he was offered two internships: one at NATIONAL REVIEW, the other in the office of Vice President Agnew. He went with Agnew—who would not fare as well as NATIONAL REVIEW. Two of Bolton’s fellow students at law school were Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham. “I remember him as very gregarious, never in class, always talking to someone out in the hallway or in the dining room or something like that. I remember her as very rigid, unfriendly—hard-core left-winger.” WHEN the first Reagan term came, Bolton went to work for the U.S. Agency for International Development. When he left the agency, his colleagues gave him asouvenir: a dummy hand grenade mounted on a little base. On the base were the words “John R. Bolton, Truest Reaganaut.” That souvenir sits in Bolton’s office today. And he says it has meaning for a possible presidential run: “They gave me that after two and a half years in the bureaucracy. There were a lot of people who were Reaganauts going in, as there are always people who are conservatives going in. But they don’t act like conservatives after they get there. There is a skill to maneuvering the bureaucracy. And I think one argument I could make would be, I’ve never run for office, I’m not a conventional politician, that’s for sure, but I have been in government, and I know how it works. I have actually gotten things done in the government.” Even his critics, who are numerous, would concede the truth of that. In the second Reagan term, he was in the Justice Department, as an assistant attorney general. One of his jobs was to smooth judicial nominations. Sometimes, the Reaganauts were success- ful, as with Antonin Scalia. Once, they were spectacularly unsuc- cessful. About the Democrats’ treatment of Bork, Bolton has just one, pointed word: “Disgusting.” In due course, Vice President Bush was elected president. And Bolton moved to the State Department. NATIONAL REVIEW published an article about him by William McGurn, who years later became Bush 43’s chief speech- writer. The title of the article was “Jim Baker’s Right-Hand Man.” And McGurn asked, “How does a man who wears Adam Smith ties survive in a Bush administration?” (This administration, remember, was regarded by much of the Right as unconservative, or even anti-conservative.) The answer was, Just fine, thank you. Bolton tells me that he considers Baker “the best secretary of state since Dean Acheson.” He continues, “I say that because he and Bush 41 had an incredibly tempestuous period in history, and they navigated through it with great success.” Bush 41 had only one term. When Clinton came in, Bolton perched at the American Enterprise Institute, the think tank in Washington. He also practiced law—and did some ferocious practicing in November and December of 2000. This was during the “Florida recount” that pitted George W. Bush against Vice President Al Gore. In the days immediately after the election, Bolton was in Seoul, and Baker—who was appointed to lead the Republican legal effort—called to say, “Get your ass back here.” Bolton was in Florida for 31 days. Later, Donald Rumsfeld would refer to him as “Mr. Hanging Chad.” Bolton thought that chances for success were slim. Traditionally, Democrats are much better at street fighting than Republicans. “We were surrounded by all these labor-union lawyers and criminal-defense attorneys, and I thought, ‘They’re gonna clean our clocks.’ But we won. And that is, I think, almost exclusively due to Baker.” After W. was sworn in, Bolton went back to the State Department, serving as undersecretary for arms control and international security. His most notable achievement was to lead the diplomat- ic push for the Proliferation Security Initiative—the program that soon took Qaddafi’s WMD out of business. At the beginning of his second term, Bush nominated Bolton to be ambassador to the U.N. The Democrats blocked him, with the help of a few “weak-kneed Republicans who flutter in the heart.” (Those words were Al Haig’s, spoken to Bolton.) So, Bush gave him a recess appointment. He took obvious delight in his ambassador’s performance. Once, he said to Kofi Annan, the U.N. secretary-general, “How’s Bolton doin’? Has he blown the place up yet?” But Bolton’s tenure at the U.N. ended after 16 months, as the recess appointment was expiring. Also, Bolton was growing disillusioned with Bush, Condoleezza Rice & Co.: whose policies, particularly on North Korea and Iran, struck him as Clintonesque. He returned to the American Enterprise Institute, wrote his book, signed up with Fox News, and became a star of the conservative commentariat: maybe the go-to foreign-policy analyst. He writes up a storm, at least one piece a week. And he writes for a variety of publications. In the first week of December, he had two pieces about WikiLeaks on consecutive days. One appeared in the Guardian, Britain’s foremost left-wing newspaper, and the other appeared in Human Events, the American conservative weekly. In addition, he has been studying presidential campaigns, in the process of thinking about one of his own. Very few non-politicians have grabbed the nomination of a major party. Bolton knows a lot about Wendell Willkie, the corporate lawyer who was the Republicans’ 1940 nominee. In 1904, the Democrats nominated a New York judge, Alton B. Parker. Eisenhower, of course, had won a world war: a superior credential to the presidency of Columbia University (also on his résumé). How about non-politicians who have run and not been nominated? Recently, in 1996 and 2000, Steve Forbes, the magazine publisher, ran for the Republican nomination. He was promoting free-market ideas that other candidates either disagreed with or shied from voicing. Gary Bauer, a prominent social-conservative activist, ran for the Republican nomination in 2000. Wesley Clark, a general, ran in the Democratic primaries of 2004. But mainly presidential races have been for experienced pols. Bolton is a strong personality, one of the stronger in our public life. His adversaries call him hotheaded, bullying, and extreme. Someone in the press dubbed him “Lightning Bolton.” The North korean government paid him the high compliment of labeling him the “envoy of evil.” His admirers call him dynamic, princi- pled, and bracing—a welcome splash of cold water. In my expe- rience, he has a ready laugh, and no end of enthusiasm, no end of vigor. He seems like the kind of person who bounds out of bed every morning, itching to get at the work and challenges of the day. He reads everything, and is informed to the gills. He is almost freakishly articulate. Ask him any question—even one out of left field—and he spits out several paragraphs, as though he has been preparing the answer for days. He talks in an English that smacks of Maryland. The word “water” sometimes comes out like “would-er.” Nixon and Would-er-gate. Words like “three” come out a little bit like “thray.” (This tendency sneaks up to Phila- delphia too.) Unlike many a Republican candidate, and president, he says “Democratic party,” rather than “Democrat party.” And I have always found one thing anomalous about his speech: He pronounces “negotiate” like a Brit, “ne-go-see-ate,” rather than like an American, “ne-go-shee-ate.” His rationale for running? As mentioned above, his belief that Obama has ignored national security, and that this has left the United States in a dangerous position, globally. Our friends and enemies alike are recalibrating their policies, in response to American weakness and drift. Iran swaggers around almost unchecked. In the last two years, the Chinese have been “near- belligerent in their assertion of territorial claims.” As Bolton sees it, Obama is not remotely up to the job of American leadership or world leadership. And “it’s absolutely critical that we have a more informed debate on foreign and national-security policy than we’ve had the last two years.” I talk back to him a little on one point: Bolton keeps saying that Obama is ignoring foreign policy, when other conservatives might say that he is simply wrong in his judgments on foreign policy. Bolton responds that Obama would prefer to ignore foreign policy, and, when that is impossible, goes ahead and makes the wrong decisions. What’s more, those decisions are overly influenced by his domestic and political considerations. For instance, he orders a surge in Afghanistan—but then imposes a deadline for with- drawal, in order to appease his liberal base. Bolton tells a story about John kennedy. After the Bay of Pigs disaster, the president talks to Nixon, the former vice president who was his opponent in the election just months before. As one version of the story goes, kennedy says to Nixon, “It really is true that foreign affairs is the only important issue for a president to handle, isn’t it? I mean, who gives a shit if the minimum wage is $1.15 or $1.25, in comparison to something like this?” Bolton says that Obama has not had this realization: that foreign policy can dwarf all else. Bolton quickly says—he says almost everything quickly—“I understand that the economy’s in a mess, and that this is the pri- ority. And I don’t dispute that people are concerned about the state of the economy.” If he runs, he will not be a one-note Johnny (his term), harping on dangers abroad. But he suspects that foreign policy will have much more prominence in the 2012 campaign than it did in the 2008 campaign. The flow of events will see to that. In all likelihood, one of the televised debates in September or October of 2012 will be devoted to foreign policy. And “Obamawill be very good at that point at pretending to be the commander- in-chief. We have to have a Republican who will be able to look him in the eye and beat him in that debate. You can have lots of people writing talking points for you, and you can have lots of people writing posts on your website, but, out there, it’s one on one. And if we’re not prepared to win that debate—we’re gonna be in trouble.” He goes on to say, “I’ve heard over and over that people don’t vote on the basis of foreign policy.” This may be so, Bolton allows. But he makes two points. First, national security has long been more important in the Republican party than in the Democratic party. Second, people look at foreign and national- security policy to find out what qualities a candidate may have— qualities such as leadership, judgment, and perseverance. Foreign policy is a window into character. If you can trust a candidate with foreign policy, you can trust him with a lot. Buy the magazine -- read the whole thing. He's head and shoulders above the field. This is the problem. If it were just a few fringe extremists, the world would not be fighting this pox on humanity with enormous, incalculable resources. And what, pray tell, are the 'moderates' up to? Building a victory mega-mosque at Ground Zero, of course, and propagandizing blasphemy (Islamic law) as "islamophobia." Muslims in bomber's town get £500,000 to combat terror... but don't give police a single tip-off Daily Mail Longtime Atlas readers are painfully aware of the savage murder of the French Jewish young man, Ilan Halimi (previous Atlas coverage here). Tonight, Friday evening (shabbat), the verdict was read, a repeat of July 2009, when the verdict was also read "in a show of disrespect for the family of Ilan Halimi, victim of the most atrocious anti-Semitic crime committed in France since World War II," on a Friday night—the Sabbath. The 2009 verdict was such a gross miscarriage of justice, Justice Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie instructed the prosecutor to appeal the verdict in the Gang of Barbarians case. A new trial was scheduled. Ilan Halimi was targeted, tortured for weeks and murdered because he was Jewish. The murder of Ilan Halimi can only be described as an unspeakable horror, and yet typical of the rising Islamic Jew-hatred and violence against the Jews. A group calling itself the Muslim Barbarians targeted Jewish men for torture and murder. Their first attempts to kidnap a Jew were unsuccessful, despite the lure of a beautiful girl. Ilan Halimi was not so lucky. He did not escape the Islamic homemade concentration camp the Muslim Barbarians had set up. The banality of evil lived in that apartment building. Apartment dwellers, all Muslims, heard Ilan's screams and cries of torture over a period of three weeks, and yet did not call the cops. The screams must have been loud because the torture was especially atrocious: the thugs cut bits of flesh off the young man. They cut his fingers and ears. They burned him with acid. They poured flammable liquid on him and set him on fire. Not only did those in the building not go to the police -- they did nothing at all. Worse, many took part in the tortures. After weeks of systematic and unspeakable cruelty: On February 11, four days after the abductors stopped communicating with the family, Halimi was found, still alive, not far from a railway line at Sainte-Genevieve-des-Bois, about 15 kilometers south of Bagneux. He was naked, handcuffed, and bleeding profusely. He was incapable of speaking. His entire body — or “80% of it,” according to police — had been butchered. He died of his wounds on the way to the hospital, just a few minutes after he was discovered. New York Sun here. Tonight, Nidra Poller is in Paris covering the verdict for Atlas readers. Verdict in the Gang of Barbarians appellate court trial Paris December 17, 2010 Nidra Poller The verdict in the appeals trial of 17 members of the Gang of Barbarians, guilty in diverse degrees of luring, kidnapping, and torturing Ilan Halimi, was announced this Friday evening. Ilan Halimi’s mother, sisters, and brother-in-law, who are observant Jews, could not be in court to hear the verdict handed down two hours after the beginning of shabat.. The verdict in the lower court trial had been rendered at 10 PM on Friday July 13, 2009. Jail terms were increased for seven of the seventeen defendants; the other ten were unchanged. The defense lawyers were exasperated. “All of this for nothing!” If it were nothing more than a few years added to the prison terms of seven defendants, one might be tempted to agree that it was not worth two and a half months of hearings at great expense of time, effort, and public funds. The plaintiffs’ lawyers, on the contrary, were deeply satisfied. Why? This time, they say, the presiding judge organized the hearings in such a way that the full weight of the ordeal in all its horror was rendered. The mastermind Youssouf Fofana, who called himself the “Brain of the Barbarians,” was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Ilan Halimi, with aggravating circumstances of anti-Semitism. After the public prosecutor appealed the lower court verdict for the seventeen defendants, Fofana interjected an appeal on his own behalf. And then withdrew it. He was expected to appear in court, however, as a witness. But he created so many disturbances in the first days of hearings that the judge refrained from summoning him thereafter. In the absence of Fofana, whose unrepentant vice had dominated the first trial, the vices of the other defendants were, according to lawyers for the plaintiffs, brought to light. If, as the defense lawyers would have us believe, the aim of the retrial was to radically increase the severity of the punishment, the whole operation could be seen as futile. The trial, once more, was held behind closed doors—without any media presence-- on the grounds that two of the defendants were under eighteen when the crime was committed. Elsa Vigoureux, who writes a blog for Le Nouvel Observateur weekly, covered the lower court trial in great detail… from one side. Her blog was based almost exclusively on information slipped to her from defense lawyers. She told me, in a private conversation, that she also had the file of the investigation (which is supposed to be made available to a very limited number of people involved in the case). This time, lawyers for the plaintiffs decided to inform certain journalists, primarily from a Jewish radio station, Radio J. And Ms. Vigoureux showed far less interest in the case. Could we say that the lower court trial was a smokescreen and the appeals trial a sincere attempt to render justice based on a thorough examination of the facts and the personalities involved, revealing the extent of their cruelty and the twisted nature of their minds? The picture that emerges this time is consistent with the horrors endured by Ilan Halimi, held prisoner for 24 days in a makeshift death camp. His jailors and tormentors could not hide, this time, behind a sociological screen… wayward youths manipulated by a monster. The monstrosity of each and every one came to light. Behind closed doors. The next step is to make those truths public, with the help of those who defended the victims of the Gang of Barbarians.
BOLTON 2012: “INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY IS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF POLITICAL LIFE"
MUSLIMS IN JIHADI BOMBER'S TOWN GET £500,000 TO COMBAT TERROR... BUT DON'T GIVE POLICE A SINGLE TIP-OFF
Friday, December 17, 2010
ILAN HALIMI: VERDICT IN THE MUSLIM "GANG OF BARBARIANS" APPELLATE COURT TRIAL PARIS
Saturday, 18 December 2010
One teenage gang member admitted having put out a cigarette on Halimi’s face “because he didn’t like Jews.”
Posted by
Britannia Radio
at
22:04
Posts
