John Bolton: Obama Administration “Doesn’t Fundamentally Believe In National Missile Defense”

Video

by Matt Schneider | 9:12 am, December 28th, 2010

» 27 comments

Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton appeared with Tucker Carlson last night on Hannity to discuss his strong disapproval of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). Bolton believed the ripple effects of the treaty would cost America “for years to come” and Tucker even described alleged liberal rationale for the treaty as “grotesque.”

The START treaty, if ultimately ratified by the Russian parliament, would require the drawing down of nuclear warheads of both the U.S. and Russia over the next seven years from current levels of 2,200 each to 1,550. Tucker was first annoyed that Obama rushed the treaty through the lame duck Senate, when in fact the hurry was unnecessary since Russia will not vote on it until the end of January. Bolted explained it was politically vital for Obama because the new batch of Republicans arriving in January never would have approved it.

More significantly, Tucker was confused by the basic theory behind the treaty:

Carlson: Why does it make the world a safer place when the U.S. gets rid of its own nuclear weapons? Isn’t a strong, well-armed America the key to harmony in this world?

Bolton: Of course it is, but not in the ideology of the Obama administration. They really believe that it’s America’s nuclear capability that’s the problem, not the source of strategic stability.

Bolton added a few more reasons for his displeasure, including Obama’s naive notion that if we reduce our nuclear arsenal then maybe other countries will too, the faulty cold-war mentality of focusing on Russia rather than real potential threats in North Korea, Iran and elsewhere, the belief that pulling back from our nuclear capabilities hurts the U.S., and Bolton’s assertion that the “administration doesn’t fundamentally believe in national missile defense.”

Tucker can’t fathom why liberals would oppose missile defense, and Bolton theorizes:

Their argument is we have to be vulnerable to a Russian first strike, and if we have missile defense, it would frustrate the Russian’s ability to destroy us. This is what mutual assured destruction is based on.

Although this conversation was interesting to see the conservative worst-case scenario critique of nuclear disarmament, if a liberal viewpoint was included, the conversation certainly would have been more enlightening. Supporters of START would argue it’s not the dismantling of national security Bolton seems to suggest nor a focus on Russia. Instead, they would claim the treaty was necessary in order to preserve the inspection process and to keep rogue terrorists, the real threat, from getting their hands on any loose nuclear weapons from an otherwise large and growing Russian supply. Consider that an effort to help make the debate “fair and balanced” and now “you decide.”

Watch the clip from Fox News below:

Fox News Channel, Hannity, John Bolton, Start Treaty, Tucker Carlson

Fox News: Serving the Freeper community since 1996

Another pussy who likes to talk tough. I hope he runs since he is a freak.
The Real Royal King

Doesn’t this guy realize that he is thoroughly discredited and no one serious and credible gives a damn what he thinks? If it weren’t for FOX “News”, particularly Greta O’Van Susteren, he would have long ago faded away into a well-deserved oblivion.
Judge Mental

“Supporters of START … would claim the treaty was necessary in order … to keep rogue terrorists, the real threat, from getting their hands on any loose nuclear weapons from an otherwise large and growing Russian supply.”

In everything I’ve read about START, there has been no mention that the treaty addresses this issue. In fact, in an opinion piece published in the WSJ, Condoleezza Rice (who supported conditional ratification) implied that it did not:

“Ratification of the treaty also should not be sold as a way to buy Moscow’s cooperation on other issues. The men in the Kremlin know that loose nukes in the hands of terrorists—some who operate in Russia’s unstable south—are dangerous. That alone should give our governments a reason to work together beyond New Start and address the threat from tactical nuclear weapons, which are smaller and more dispersed, and therefore harder to monitor and control.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703814404576002094121743636.html?KEYWORDS=start+treaty+rogue
Scott_in_MI

Russia/USSR was notorius for violating past treaties with the US, so what makes us think they’ll respect this treaty? Of course the US will follow the treaty’s guideline, while Putin works behind our back to screw us once again.
lazzzlo

Supporters of START would argue it’s not the dismantling of national security Bolton seems to suggest nor a focus on Russia. Instead, they would claim the treaty was necessary in order to preserve the inspection process and to keep rogue terrorists, the real threat, from getting their hands on any loose nuclear weapons from an otherwise large and growing Russian supply. Consider that an effort to help make the debate “fair and balanced” and now “you decide.”

That’s actually not a bad synopsis. I’d always want to have a John Bolton on my team because he does present a “worse case scenario” point that you should never trust the Russkies!

We play chess with them in Europe and a fair amount of their nukes are not tallied. They don’t want NATO to accept any encroachment…Poland for example.

I’m old enough to see some of the differences between the earlier nuke talks and this. But it is “sorta” good that you still have to be aware of a potential threat just in case.

My generation and earlier ones dealt with the paranoia of “drunken” leaders who would push the button on a whim. It doesn’t work that way, but Russia has lost a lot of fissable weaponery and it probably has been sold.
lazzzlo

fissionable
Truth

Scott_in_MI said:
Russia/USSR was notorius for violating past treaties with the US, so what makes us think they’ll respect this treaty?

Look, you got to start somewhere. The Russians have no reason to do anything different. Their enemy is the same as ours. Besides how many nukes does it take to destroy the world? Given our arsenal we could destroy the world many times over.
lazzzlo

“Besides how many nukes does it take to destroy the world?”

What if it isn’t so grand? That is what Bolton is arguing for/against.
What if it is a backpack nuke…there are a lot of very intelligent people out there that have their own priorities.

People improvise.
Truth

lazzzlo said:
“Besides how many nukes does it take to destroy the world?” What if it isn’t so grand? That is what Bolton is arguing for/against.What if it is a backpack nuke…there are a lot of very intelligent people out there that have their own priorities. People improvise.

I agree, but that is the point of START. To make sure we have accoutability for all nukes so they don’t fall in the hands of that backpack bomber.
http://TheDividedStatesBlog.com Publius219

Two fundamentally dishonest men having a fundamentally dishonest conversation.
Oregon Conservative

Fact: Liberals hate Bolton because he’d mop the floor with all of them in a debate over National Security.
Fact: Liberals hate Bolton because he takes on one of the most sacred cows of the Democrat Party, the U.N..
Fact: Liberals hate Bolton because he part of the successful Bush legal team during the 2000 vote recount debacle.

The Florida recount has to be one of my all time favorite “suck it libs” stories. Herr Gore wanted wanted a standardless recount of counties where he felt he could steal the election. In a study conducted in 2001, it was found in Gore’s preferred standard, Bush still won. However, in the same study it was found that if the whole state was counted, we might have suffered a Gore Presidency. Liberals, losers when trying to cheat, but too afraid to become possible winners.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html
The Real Royal King

Publius219 said:
Two fundamentally dishonest men having a fundamentally dishonest conversation.

What a wonderful, true, succinct point.

Oregon Conservative said:
Fact: Liberals hate Bolton because he’d mop the floor with all of them in a debate over National Security.
Fact: Liberals hate Bolton because he takes on one of the most sacred cows of the Democrat Party, the U.N..
Fact: Liberals hate Bolton because he part of the successful Bush legal team during the 2000 vote recount debacle.

The Florida recount has to be one of my all time favorite “suck it libs” stories. Herr Gore wanted wanted a standardless recount of counties where he felt he could steal the election. In a study conducted in 2001, it was found in Gore’s preferred standard, Bush still won. However, in the same study it was found that if the whole state was counted, we might have suffered a Gore Presidency. Liberals, losers when trying to cheat, but too afraid to become possible winners.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html

If I wanted to begin a war of choice resulting in the deaths of over 3,000 Americans, and the injuries of tends of thousands of more Americans, and the deaths of over 100,000 people in the conquered and occupied nation, John Bolton is the first man I would turn to, OR Con. I guess deaths and injuries don’t much matter to you.
Oregon Conservative

The Real Royal King said:
If I wanted to begin a war of choice resulting in the deaths of over 3,000 Americans, and the injuries of tends of thousands of more Americans, and the deaths of over 100,000 people in the conquered and occupied nation, John Bolton is the first man I would turn to, OR Con. I guess deaths and injuries don’t much matter to you.

So two years into Obama’s term, are these wars still “Bush’s wars?”

Your deflections of why Bolton is the boogeyman to Liberals is duly noted.
Nachi

Bolton & Carlson. Fine GOPster intellectual twins! A trifecta with Hannity.
ROCKSTEADY

Oregon Conservative said:
are these wars still “Bush’s wars

They will Always be Bush’s Wars.It will be taught in history classes at school.Everyone in the World knows they are and always will be Bush’s Wars.
http://reddit.com Jon

I’m pretty sure John Bolton is a muppet or at least based off one.
lazzzlo

Bolton isn’t far off on his beliefs from Henry Kissinger.

I don’t like him but he isn’t a dumb man.
lazzzlo

I never saw the true difference between him and Jean Kilpatrick.
http://reddit.com Jon

ROCKSTEADY said:
They will Always be Bush’s Wars.It will be taught in history classes at school.Everyone in the World knows they are and always will be Bush’s Wars.

Exactly, Bush choose to start them and sink untold billion/trillions into them… now it’s all Obama’s fault for not being able to wrap it up in less than 2 years.

When you open a huge can of worms like the Bush administration did… in nearly every sector of society (economy, healthcare, education, military,)… it becomes a huge clusterfuck the next president will have his whole legacy judged by. Really shitty deal.
Just4thefax

Fact: Just need to find way to clone Bolton and replace a few dozen of Ozero’s Czars with him and we will be doing just fine continuing all of Bushes plans from gitmo to Afghanistan! True American hero onboard!
http://www.facebook.com/people/Kenneth-Glenn-Koons/1313421958 Kenneth Glenn Koons

God bless Tucker and Bolton. Americans rarely remember the past , treaties, issues, bills unless they are done in this past week! But, go back to WWII, go back to all the broken treaties the Soviets have broken: nearly 200 since 1945 starting with the Yalta agreements. And on it goes. This naif in the WH knows nada about our military our defense and offensive planning. He is a unilateral disarmer as so many of these progressive socialist Dems are in Congress. Bolton might even make a good VP if a strong guy like Pence, Thune, or Kasich ran for the top spot. We need a strong military and national defense. Even our southern border is a danger spot for our domestic defense. This guy in DC does not even understand how the Islamofascists are a danger to us and our allies and thinks his own arrogance and charm will bring America down a peg or two so we can be part of the wonderful multicultural international community under the UN. Enough of this .
lazzzlo

Jon said:
Exactly, Bush choose to start them and sink untold billion/trillions into them… now it’s all Obama’s fault for not being able to wrap it up in less than 2 years.

When you open a huge can of worms like the Bush administration did… in nearly every sector of society (economy, healthcare, education, military,)… it becomes a huge clusterfuck the next president will have his whole legacy judged by. Really shitty deal.

We are talking about Bolton?

Look at the Clinton administration and foreign policy. They started with Somalia and stopped but certainly did deal with Yugoslavia.

Brutal sh*t.

It amazes me when people think the US hasn’t been at war except in Iraq.

We are always going to be the bad guy. But if we aren’t here…who else is going to be?
Grammie

Hey, Lazzlo, glad to see you alive, well and up and about. I was seriously concerned that you might have contracted a terminal case of “dip poisoning” during your last appearance here. :)
OxyCon

Everyone knows Obama basically looks down on America and has a huge chip on his shoulder. The only thing Obama likes about America is that a hollow fraud with little actual accomplishment, other than attaining titles like himself, can become essentially the King, who gets to eat free wagyu steak all the time and mingle with his favorite basketball players and celebrities whenever he wants. For Obama, America is like being at the right Oprah show at the right time and getting a free car.
TrollJuice

Sounds like a coward to me:

Bolton supported the Vietnam War and enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard, but did not serve in Vietnam. He wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book “I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered the war in Vietnam already lost.”[14] In an interview, Bolton discussed his comment in the reunion book, explaining that he decided to avoid service in Vietnam because “by the time I was about to graduate in 1970, it was clear to me that opponents of the Vietnam War had made it certain we could not prevail, and that I had no great interest in going there to have Teddy Kennedy give it back to the people I might die to take it away from.”
Wisco

For once in my life, I hope Bolton’s right. Missile defense systems are a scam. They don’t work. People in the pentagon refer to advocates as “missile defense moonies.”
http://none pyrope

Wisco said:
For once in my life, I hope Bolton’s right. Missile defense systems are a scam. They don’t work. People in the pentagon refer to advocates as “missile defense moonies.”

I suppose your “friends in the Pentagon” would prefer using huge butterfly nets mounted on B52s to catch missiles headed our way?