John Bolton Acid Flashback - The Age of Not Giving a Shit:
Back on March 24, 1999, John Bolton appeared on Bill O'Reilly's Fox "News" show. This was, of course, before the 2000 election, when Fox "News" was just an ominous fart from a distant foul anus, and O'Reilly, post-Lewinsky, pre-Franken, was not quite as much of a crazed wolverine, ready to chew off his own leg if it was in a trap. But, still, a meeting between Bolton and O'Reilly is something like a rap session between Dracula and the Wolfman, all snarls, spit, and hair.

Bolton was there to talk about Clinton's Bosnia policy, which, as ought to be well-known by now, Bolton vociferously, viciously, and vomitously opposed. O'Reilly, however, is, if nothing else, consistently thirsting for foreign blood, and he believed the U.S. had a role in halting the atrocities of Milosevic. Said O'Reilly, "America's decision is this. Stand by and let the people in Kosovo get slaughtered or stop Milosevic and his army. Those are the options . . . America has to act in this situation or accept genocide and chaos in the Balkans."

Bolton, whose moustache only extended down two feet from his nose at that point, confronted O'Reilly, saying, "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." Which, in retrospect, is as apt a description of the current Iraq conflict as you might find. But Bolton's definition of "national interest" can never really be pinned down, except "whichever way the chemicals in my brain are working that day." If a "democratic" Iraq is in the U.S.'s interests, than how is not a democratic, non-genocidal central Europe?

O'Reilly (who, this conversation aside, really needs to be sodomized with a microphone) said, "Well, I would agree that we don't have an immediate interest. But on a humanitarian basis, both you and I know the Serbian army can go into Kosovo and crush those people and do pretty much what they want to do to them. And they will, based upon what they've done in Bosnia, based upon what they tried to do in Slovenia. These are brutal, brutal people. They are not a civilized, disciplined army. 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." O'Reilly thus demonstrated that he reads the newspapers and he saw The Killing Fields. But, still, give credit where it's due; it's pretty close to what many on the left said at the time.

And then Bolton went all Bolton on O'Reilly, which means he puffed up his chest like an angry lizard ready to rut, his moustache rising electrically above his eyes. It's a frightening sight, one that the people of Sierra Leone already have legends about and spells to cast the image out of their minds.

BOLTON: Let me ask you this, Mr. O'Reilly. How many dead Americans is it worth to you to stop the brutality?

O'REILLY: I don't think I would quantify that because...

BOLTON: I think you have to quantify it. I think if you don't answer that question...

O'REILLY: ... I think if you're going to be a superpower...

BOLTON: ... you're ducking the key point that the commander in chief has to decide upon before putting American troops into a combat situation. We are now at war with Serbia. 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.

O'REILLY: And I think the American military people over there understand that because of the status of America as the superpower policeman of the world, which we are whether we like it or not, there are some situations where we will have to put ourselves at risk for a long-term objective. And that long-term objective is basically not letting butchers like Milosevic run around and do what they want with impunity while we have the power to stop it.

BOLTON: I want to...

O'REILLY: And I think that's a very important point.

BOLTON: ... Then I want you to answer the question. How many dead Americans is it worth to you? Because that is the question we are now facing.

Bolton continued to emphasize that point, over and over: is it worth that loss? It's a potent question, and it's one that neither the demented John Bolton nor the President nor Donald Rumsfeld nor Dick Cheney cared to answer in regards to Iraq. The 'Stache continued, "You have to say as a consequence of the deployment of military force that you are willing to suffer dead Americans. And I think your unwillingness to face that, and the president's unwillingness to face that, frankly, is the fatal flaw in your logic . . . You cannot say that there is a sufficient American interest involved to warrant the casualties that I think we're about to face. And that's where the president is likely to come unstuck, because he does not have the political support in this country at the moment for the long-term sustained campaign you're talking about." Guess it's a good thing that there were no American combat casualties in Kosovo, no? Guess it's a good thing that there are no American combat casualties in Ir . . oh, wait . . .

You wanna know why Bolton, a motherfucker of epic proportions, is the kind of amoral cocksucker who'd pick you up in a bar, go back to your apartment, fuck you in the ass, and then shit on your couch before setting the whole place on fire as he's leaving? Because of his evasiveness on the Rwandan slaughter, massacre, genocide. In the hearings of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, Russ Feingold asked Bolton directly about whether the U.S. should have done something differently. Bolton answered, "We don't know if it was logistically possible to do anything different."

But back in the day, in 1994 and 1995, Bolton knew differently. Here's some recent history: one of the reasons that Clinton didn't go into Rwanda, with or without the U.N., is because of the vicious criticism from the right (and, let's be honest, left) on the U.N.'s Somalia debacle. And John Bolton was right there, ready to pile on and declare multilateralism dead. In 1995, on CNN, Bolton said, "I think what you're seeing today in Mogadishu represents the final collapse of the Clinton administration's policy of assertive multi-lateralism. That policy was really born in Somalia after the successful effort of the Bush administration to clear the channels for humanitarian relief. The Clinton administration changed that policy dramatically into what they called 'nation building.' That has obviously failed. It's a terrible disaster for the U.N., but I would stress, a disaster more for the Clinton administration's foreign policy than for the U.N. itself." Ahh, with Clinton in the White House, it was easy to project so much of that U.N. hatred into the Oval Office.

Yep, Congress and others went nutzoid about the Black Hawk Down. As Bolton said in 1999 on CNN, "I think the Somalia example shows that even a relatively small number of casualties are unacceptable to the American people when there's no national interest involved." Well, sure, as long as Clinton-haters can use the ruined nation of Somalia to bash the then-President. Well, sure, as long as you lie about the national interest of later conflicts.

Bolton is a lying sack of shit, a scumbag whose career has been made comforting politically powerful conservatives, a provocateur whose ego knows no bounds, an asshole beyond any human's reasonable comprehension of assholishness. And, of course, that means he is the perfect man to represent George Bush's United States at the U.N.