I had the enormous priviledge to sit down with John Bolton today and discuss at length the UNSC ceasefire, Israel, Hezb'Allah, the War on Islamofascism, Iran, August 22nd, the puppet government of Lebanon, Olmert .............listen to it all, it's a real eye opener. No holds barred, I ask the tough questions and got the hard answers.
Bolton has proven to be a straight-forward diplomat ... a man who calls it like he sees it ... a man who proudly defends , our foreign policy and our allies in the War on Terror. In 's current conflict with the terrorists of Hezbollah and Hamas, Ambassador Bolton has provided much needed moral clarity, and he has steadfastly supported 's right to defend itself against barbaric enemies willing to use indiscriminate violence and dedicated to its annihilation. Simply put, we need John Bolton's leadership at the United Nations. Unfortunately, his recess appointment expires in January of next year ... so we must act now to confirm him permanently. I'm dedicated to giving Ambassador Bolton the up-or-down vote that he was denied by Democrat obstruction.
If you think his nomination deserves a fair up-or-down vote and if you agree with his mission of cleaning up the U.N., then I urge you to join me in supporting John Bolton's confirmation as our Ambassador to the United Nations by signing this digital petition.
To sign John Bolton's Petition of Support, please click here. And then make sure to forward this petition to your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers. Right now we're at 38.1% of our goal of 6,000 digital signatures ... and, with your help in signing and forwarding this petition, I'm sure we'll reach our goal.
UPDATE: For the unedited audio version click here (it's more interesting)
Here's the unedited transcript. Much thanks to Raizen for transcribing fast, furious, and fabulous, click below link.
UPDATE: Here's the unedited transcript. Much thanks to Raizen for transcribing fast, furious, and fabulous.
Pamela: Okay. Here we are. It's Saturday. John Bolton is looking remarkably relaxed, after having suffered a tsunami of world affairs this past week. And I was hoping that Mr. Bolton, Ambassador Bolton, could shed some light on the policy change, or what is perceived to be the policy change, of the Bush administration, from "this country, Israel, can defend itself against this rain of rockets," to a hudna, which may not be how it's perceived in DC, but in the real world, down here with the real folks, it's perceived as an opportunity for the Iranian foreign legion to rearm, regroup, and we don't understand what happened.
Bolton: Well, first, there's no shift whatever in the President's view that Israel has an absolute right of self-defense against the Hezbollah attacks of July the 12th. What he has tried to do in this resolution that the Security Council has just adopted is reflect the security situation that we face in south Lebanon today, and that is that the nature of the conflict has gone on for one month, and that the cost of the conflict to Israel and innocent Lebanese has been high, and as he said the loss of innocent civilian life is a tragedy on all sides. But that doesn't mean that there's any change in the perception of the threat that Hezbollah represents, or who's sponsoring, who's funding, what underlies Hezbollah, and that's Syria and Iran. So what this resolution does is call for a full cessation of hostilities. Now let me stop there. It does not call for an immediate cease-fire. That's what Hezbollah and others have argued for for the past month. It does not call for an immediate cease-fire. And I know in UN resolutions it's often hard to work through the complexity, but this one's pretty straightforward. Ultimately, at some point everybody wants a full cessation of hostilities. So that's what it calls for. And then it says, "built upon," "built upon," meaning following after, in particular, two elements. One, a complete cessation, an immediate cessation, by Hezbollah, of all attacks on Israel, on Israeli forces, on Israeli citizens. And then second, the immediate cessation of Israeli offensive activity. Now that formulation is designed to reflect that Israel's military is acting in legitimate self-defense, and that Hezbollah is not a legitimate military. The fact is that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, so it cannot conduct legitimate military operations, whereas even as with any military the Israeli military can make mistakes, when it acts in self-defense, its overall activities are legitimate. So we did not treat the two equally, we treated them differently, and that sets the terms for, that sets the military terms, after which we want the political solution to be built that will transform the region, because we've said over and over again, and this is absolutely critical, we are not going to let a return to the status quo ante happen. We're not going to fall into the trap of saying, well let's have a cease-fire and then everybody withdraws and it's all the same all over again. The next critical point, is that the resolution seeks to protect Israel in two major respects. First, it says that there has to be created in southern Lebanon a security zone, which is free of Hezbollah. Now that security zone has to be protected by the Lebanese armed forces assisted by the international force that will go in there, and although it will be called UNIFIL, as Secretary Rice said yesterday, it won't be the same UNIFIL, at least if it works.
Pamela: Yeah, I understand.
Bolton: The concept which was brought to us by the Israeli government within days after the outbreak of hostilities was that when the hostilities stopped, the Israeli forces did not want to withdraw and leave a vacuum in southern Lebanon that would simply be refilled by Hezbollah. So the concept is that there will not be such a vacuum and that Israel will withdraw as a competent new force comes in to fill that, to prevent that vacuum from occurring. The resolution makes it clear that the deployment of the Lebanese armed forces and the enhanced UNIFIL, and the withdrawal of the Israeli forces are to be in parallel, and in coordination, which meas that the Israeli defense forces have to agree. They don't have to withdraw by a set timetable. There was a lot of pressure to set a specific date. There was a lot of pressure to have an immediate withdrawal or a withdrawal within a short period, and we rejected that. We said that when the withdrawal takes place, it will be under conditions that create that security zone and that do not permit Hezbollah to reinfiltrate. Now this is a very important point, and it is not created by the resolution alone. The resolution is the paper that sets it up. Now we're entering into a very difficult and important phase in the creation of the enhanced UNIFIL. To carry through on what Secretary Rice said, it may be the same name, but it will be a different force. There's lot of activity on that score that's going on now. There's another aspect of this resolution that's important as well. The government of Israel made it very plain that they were worried not just about southern Lebanon, which is near enough to Israel that Katyusha rockets and other rockets can be fired into Israel and hit civilian targets. Obviously they're worried about southern Lebanon, but they're also worried about the resupply of Hezbollah. And this concern is very legitimate, since, if Hezbollah reloads, it could get different kinds of equipment. It could get longer range rockets, or more longer range rockets than it has now, and that would mean that even if the southern security zone were cleared, Israel would still be vulnerable to terrorist attacks from further away. So the resolution provides that there is to be no military in Lebanon not under the control of the government of Lebanon, and no shipments of weapon into Lebanon without the permission of the government. Now in a way this is an elaboration of 1559 which was intended to allow the government of Lebanon to take full control of its territory, but there's an addition here because the resolution requires all UN member governments to comply with the requirement that they not ship arms into Lebanon without the government's permission. Now once again, this is a piece of paper, and nobody's under any illusions that the piece of paper alone will make it happen, but the new enhanced UNIFIL is also charged to work with the government of Lebanon at its borders and all entry points, to enforce that arms embargo. And then of course the resolution talks about the political elements that have to be present for a lasting solution. I would say that the resolution is not anywhere near the end of this, it's just barely the beginning, but it reflects the military situation, that the government of Israel sees, it reflects our sympathy for civilian populations in both Israel and Lebanon and it was built to be realistic and workable, and that's what we came up with.
UPDATE: CLICK BELOW FOR A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT
Pamela: So much faith in the Lebanese government I do not understand. A puppet of Syria, who is a puppet of Iran. Iran is Barzini here. You see the Godfather? Okay? So a question about it. Who props up that government? I mean if the Israeli, if the IDF, which is, although when I was in Israel, I gotta tell you, a bunch of baby-faced kids. I know they're always portrayed in the media with Darth Vader helmets and the Israeli war machine. I'm telling you, the cutest kids ever. But if they couldn't contain, and I think there's an element of that that no one really wants to talk about. I wonder how much the US government was surprised that Israel didn't go in, bing-bang-boom, and knock these suckers out. Forget about Israel for a second, even though it's difficult for me, right and wrong, good and evil, and all that. Let's discuss real politics, shall we? It's in America's best interest that Hezbollah be eliminated. I mean this is not just Israel's problem. You know who Hezbollah is. You know where they are. So I think there was an element of surprise. Do I think it's Olmert's weakness? I do. Did I campaign wildly for Bibi? I did. Do I have a vote? I don't. So I think Israel also, you know it's interesting, when I was in Israel, you could see the country was in short of like a shock, like a 9/11 shock. Here they had banked so much on land for peace and peace, even this sh--, even a bad peace, sorry about that, John, is better than a good war, so to speak, although I don't subscribe to that. I understand that the current, modern civilization does, to which they're going to pay dearly, but that's besides the point. Such stock we're putting in the Lebanese government, who is totally kowtowing to Hezbollah. You put every remark by the crying Siniora, I mean, another Godfather moment. You remember Godfather, Frank Sinatra, it was supposed to be Frank Sinatra, he's crying, you're godfather. Same thing happens, somebody slap him. So how could you have so much faith in the Lebanon government? I mean, I want to believe, John. I believe in you. I want to believe.
Bolton: I think that there's no question, but that strengthening the democratic, the pro-democratic forces in Lebanon is critical to the long-term success of 1559 and 1680, and peace between Israel and Lebanon. Hezbollah has not made the choice to give up weapons. You know, this is a so-called militia whose only argument for existence is the pretext that Shebaa farms is Lebanese territory. Shebaa farms is on the slopes of Mount Hermon. Hezbollah has in its arsenal Chinese or Iranian-built C-802 anti-ship cruise missiles to go after what? The naval units in Shebaa farms? This is an alternative government. And it's an alternative government that's a terrorist government. The people of Lebanon, the people who want peace and normal lives, understand that the chance they have to fulfill that aspiration depends on Hezbollah not prevailing, depends on eliminating the remaining elements of Syrian influence in Lebanon. Now they've had free and fair elections for the parliament. They've not had free and fair elections for the president yet. Syria still controls that. There are many elements of Lebanese society that have been corrupted by decades of Syrian occupation. That has not been fixed. So I think one of the things that we're looking at, and many others, is not just assistance for the reconstruction for the infrastructure of Lebanon, as Secretary Rice said, $50 million dollars is our first pledge --
Pamela: Yeah, where's Israel's reparations?
Bolton: -- but what we can do to support the democratic forces in Lebanon. And that will be difficult too. That will be difficult too. But that, if you look at our efforts in Iraq, our efforts in Afghanistan, it's difficult for the democratic forces in those countries, as it is in Lebanon. But don't forget, out in the Syrian diaspora, there are people, and probably even in Damascus, people are saying, well if they can vote in Iraq and they can vote in Lebanon, how come I can't vote in Syria. We have to find a way to show success in this democratic struggle, because ultimately that's the only protection we have against groups like Hezbollah.
Pamela: So if America is on this mission, an honorable and righteous mission, it has to make hard choices. For example, I never understood why we didn't take Al-Sadr out. Not in hindsight, even then. First of all you know that he is given an open invitation to Hezbollah who has set up in southern Iraq now. I mean if you're going to make tough choices, you have to make tough choices, you have to do the nasty business of war. It can't be conducted with these white gloves and, you know, kumbaya, and let's appeal to Sadr's good side, his benevolent side. You know, there is such a thing as evil, even though we as a good people, we just don't get it. The mystery of evil, we don't get it, so don't understand it, but know that it exists and fight it. I think that the very people that you refer to, that Sharansky was referring to in an interview we had just a couple days ago, the fear societies, the free societies, if you're letting these people, you're giving them basically a free hand, they're going to remain under the boot and be terrified to stand up.
Bolton: Well, I think that's exactly, it's trying to find a way to eliminate that fear that is so critical to our support for democratic government. So for example in Resolution 1595 and several other resolutions we created and have expanded the role for this international investigatory commission, looking into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. And now that commission is looking into the assassinations, by terrorists, of some 14 other Lebanese politicians, every one of whom was anti-Syrian. Every one of whom. So if by finding, by pursuing the evidence and finding out who ordered those assassinations, who carried them out, but more importantly even, who ordered them, and where those commands came from, that's important not just to vindicate the people who were killed and to bring their killers to justice, but it also shows that you can stand up to that kind of terrorism. That's one graphic element of what we're trying to do in Lebanon. But also, to the March 14 forces, the Cedar Revolution, to show that as dangerous as their situation is, they do have friends outside and we want them to succeed, because that is ultimately the only basis on which Lebanon is going to remain free and not risk either having Hezbollah as a terrorist state within a state, or even worse, take over the government entirely.
Pamela: When I interviewed Brigitte Gabriel, I don't know if you're aware of who she is, she's a great woman, and she was explaining when, you know, I was trying to understand how they became part of the government, Hezbollah, and she was saying that, you know, listen, Osama bin Laden was one of, I don't know, 53 children, 83, I'm not sure, give or take, and he had 53 or 23, whatever. She said this is what they do. Hezbollah, 25 years ago, they have four wives, they all have children, they literally gave birth to their voting bloc. And I said to her, now she's really Lebanese through and through to the core, and been fighting the good fight even before this blow-up. I said, can Lebanon be saved? And she said no. Yeah, I see. He raised his eyebrows, guys. The thing is, this is not coming from a pessimist. You know that group of, you know, you want to slap them, defeatists. But I thought that was very interesting, that they had driven out so much, and killed so many of the Christians, and they're using the Christian villages, you know they're holding them hostage as they take, you know, they launch their missiles, what happens then?
Bolton: Well, I think one reason that bringing the hostilities to a halt could be important is that the government of Lebanon has been put under a lot of pressure and for many reasons what's critical in Lebanese domestic terms is not to allow Hezbollah to be seen to emerge as having prevailed by the use of terror, because that has a further intimidating effect on ordinary people. I don't think we underestimate the difficulty of stopping Hezbollah from prevailing, or stopping their masters in Damascus and Tehran from prevailing, but to take another course of action in effect is conceding defeat. You know we have in this country a very strong Lebanese-American community, all of whom are profoundly committed to democracy in Lebanon, and there are communities of émigré Lebanese in many other countries in the world. There's a lot, not just of government sympathy, sympathy at the government level, for having democracy succeed but at a very personal level as well and a very strong commitment to doing what they can to help. So one of the things that I think we should take advantage of if this resolution in fact is implemented is thinking about how to strengthen the government of Lebanon, and the democratic forces in Lebanon, because in that sense ultimately some Lebanese are going to govern in Lebanon. They're either going to be, as they were for many years, a puppet regime under Syria, which cannot be in Israel's interest, or in the United States', or it's going to be a free and democratic Lebanon, which may well take positions different from ours or different from Israel's or different from others, that's what you get in democracy.
Pamela: But that's horse racing, that's okay.
Bolton: But that's what we ought to be working toward, and it will be hard. It has been hard for the success that they've had to date. A lot of people didn't think that Syria's military would pull out, but combined international pressure, I mean this is a case where France and the United States have worked very intensively together.
Pamela: Let me just say something. You are never going to sell me on France. Forget it, John. I mean you could sing till the cows come home, you could look me in the eye, take a lie detector test. They are snakes.
Bolton: Anyway, we're working hard with France, and with many others, and this is something we've got to be persistent in. It will be long and difficult, but we have got to persist in it.
Pamela: All right, good luck on that front. I'll leave that one alone. Okay, so now that we've been talking about really the distraction, because you know, sometimes terrorists will start a fire here so that they can blow a building here, let's talk about the real problem. First week of June, you delivered a package, that all of us in the blogosphere vomited from, to Iran. Nuclear technology and all these delicious goodies. And we put our foot down and we said the first week of July, okay, the second week of July, dadadada, and then this broke out. Now, I don't know how much you paid attention, I don't know how much you read of the Koran and Islamic teachings, but you know that this date they came up with, August 22nd, happens to be a very significant date. I am not going to go into the anniversary of the rising and the dissension into Jerusalem of twelfth imam. Okay, but I do know that it's important, and my question to you is, what's going on? What is going on with Iran? Where are you going to be on August 22nd. I'm just curious.
Bolton: Well, you know the way this worked out, was that when we passed a resolution on July the 31st, we gave Iran one month basically, to August 31st, to comply with the Security Council demand that they suspend all uranium enrichment related activity. We probably could have passed that resolution earlier, had North Korea not launched seven missiles into the Sea of Japan on the 4th of July.
Pamela: The 4th of July.
Bolton: Which meant we had to turn for ten or eleven days in really very intensive, almost round-the-clock negotiations to deal with that, but when we finished with the question of North Korea and Resolution 1695 we turned back to Iran. And I had to testify at my confirmation hearing on the 27th of July. But we passed the resolution, and we gave them a period of time to comply. That's standard in the UN, that's what we did. And we gave them to August the 31st. We did not give them to August the 22nd. A lot of people in New York, a lot of cynics said, actually, we gave them the month of August off because that's Europe's vacation month. But also unrelated to the 22nd of August. You know we are, I think, as serious about this as Secretary Rice has been about anything, that on August the 31st, if we don't have a clear and unequivocal yes from Iran, yes they will stop their uranium enrichment activities, then we will go to the Council and seek sanctions. In fact this is already on our minds, since we're now almost half-way through August, and have not only no sign that Iran is likely to come up with the right answer, but continuing indications that it's going to come up yet again with the wrong answer.
Pamela: Now you know that there are Iranian scientists present when North Korea, you know, shot those flash missiles into the water. But you see, I don't scoff at that, because I believe with every rocket that is fired, they're learning --
Bolton: There's no question about it. I will tell you, and we have said this before, that there has been substantial evidence of cooperation between North Korea and Iran on ballistic missile issues for several years. You know, the North Koreans had a moratorium on test-launching from the Korean Peninsula from 1999. They were still doing test of motors and other tests, but no launch tests, whereas Iran, during that same period was obviously continuing to develop its missile technology, conducting launch tests using missile configurations that are basically the same family, the same type of missiles as North Korea. So I think there's little doubt, that North Korea and Iran, at a minimum have exchanged information, and that the idea that North Korea had this extended moratorium on test launches didn't mean they were not learning and gaining from the information that the Iranians were getting from their test launches.
Pamela: As Hezbollah is getting with those thousands and thousands of rockets in Israel. But not to get off of my point, so here they are, you know, I'm trying to think of a couple, Angelina and Brad, these two, okay, North Korea and Iran. So we're sitting here and we're angsting over, are they building a weapon, how far along are they. What's to stop them from buying, with their petrodollars, to a starving nation -- North Korea desperately needs money -- one of their nuclear weapons?
Bolton: Well I think that has been a concern we've had with North Korea for a long time. You know, North Korea is the world's largest proliferator of ballistic missile technology, much of it sold to countries in the Middle East, and they do that because they need hard currency to support the regime in power and also to continue to support their nuclear weapons program. So there's no doubt North Korea will sell almost anything for hard currency. They counterfeit our currency, they sell drugs and weapons, and one of the principal reasons we don't think that the threat of North Korea is limited to north-east Asia, but we think it's a world-wide threat, is exactly the possibility that they would sell a nuclear weapon, or weapons components, or enriched uranium to terrorist groups.
Pamela: What do you think Ahmadinejad, I used his real name, I didn't use any of my... What's his intention?
Bolton: One can only conclude from everything that he's said, that he is continuing and in fact accelerating Iran's nuclear weapons program, and that he sees the acquisition of nuclear weapons as entirely within Iran's interest, and of course once he has that capability, his public comments can only lead us to be concerned for the worst outcome. You know in analyzing military threats you look at two things: capabilities and intentions. He's made his intentions very clear.
Pamela: Very clear.
Bolton: The only issue now is when he has the capability to, when he has the necessary capability. So that's why the question of Iran's nuclear weapons program is a matter of urgency for us.
Pamela: In addition, with the Perm 5 and the Perm 3, you know, looking at Russia. Russia's selling them this same technology, to, I mean I'm not going to take out my paperwork I won't be that obnoxious, and China too. How did you possibly expect them to be on board?
Bolton: Well in part because they've committed at the level of foreign ministers that if Iran doesn't give the right answer, doesn't suspend all of its uranium enrichment activity, that they accept that there will be sanctions and that we will do that in the Security Council. Now there remains a lot of hard work, but that's the commitment they've made and we're going to take that commitment and use it in the Security Council, but I should say we're not just going to rely on what we can do in the Security Council, because there are many steps that we can take outside the Council and are taking in Europe, in Japan, in terms of currency and other kinds of financial transactions, to explain to people that if they're doing due diligence from a business point of view, that Iran may not be the best country to do business with, and there have been signs in the press for example that Japan may be reconsidering its investment in the Azadegan oil field, which would be very sensible. A lot of that is going on, so there's, you know, we're going to wait for this answer, but a lot of preparatory work is being done if Iran doesn't give the right answer.
Pamela: And you would not be concerned that there would be another oil-for-food kind of a, you know, black market, to Iran, by the nefarious. And let's be honest, John, we're living in a nefarious world.
Bolton: Look, I think the Iranians for several years have been preparing for sanctions. We know that they've withdrawn some of their assets already from European financial institutions. I'm sure they're taking other steps as well. All of which shows the extent of their commitment to the nuclear weapons program. If they really, if this were not such a priority for them why would they limit their dealings in international financial markets? In other words if you look at what's important to Iran, what this behavior says, is that it's the nuclear program.
(Sound in background.)
Pamela: We can ignore that. I have to shut it off. I apologize. Okay. Another thing. I want to know how the UN body yesterday could sit with a straight face when Kofi Annan had the audacity, if I may be so bold, to j'accuse, how long it took for this cease-fire, weeks that it took, when it's catastrophic now in the Sudan. I'm sure you know the latest killings, murders, everything, and this years, this is decades. I'm just using that because it's the most obvious. It's not the only terrible situation in the world, but it's unconscionable to me that this man, with, in my opinion, I know you probably don't share it, absolutely no morality, absolutely no spine, is a tool, I think he's a jihadi tool. Yes I do, to make a statement like that, and not to be called out on it, John.
Bolton: Well the point for us in the Security Council this past month in the Lebanon situation has been to preserve Israel's legitimate right of self-defense. And what you heard from the Secretary General and a lot other delegations around that table was a testament, indirect, to the effectiveness of the efforts we made to make sure that Israel's right to self defense was preserved. You know, I think a lot of the concern that many of the countries raised was humanitarian, and I think we're concerned about it. I think Israel's concerned about it. But we wanted to be sure that, whatever the motives, that the situation didn't simply revert to the status quo ante, and, you know, all I can say is in the Security Council in the UN you listen to a lot of things that you know are untrue and if I spent all my time simply refuting those I couldn't get anything else done either.
Pamela: Is Israel the only country that has to justify its right to defend itself? It seems incredulous to me. It also seems incredulous to me that we're talking about humanitarian when, having just been in Israel I can tell you, it's in the cities, these bucolic little neighborhoods, these little towns, these schools with bomb shelters, it's a rain of rockets, and Israel's going out of its way, extraordinarily, in my opinion, to their own detriment, to avoid civilian casualties. It doesn't make sense to me, it's like right is wrong and wrong is right. They're accusing Israel, I think Israel's loosing this war because they're so concerned with civilian casualties, but that is the war that is being perpetrated on Israel. Hezbollah did not declare war on the Israeli army. They're having very little to do with the Israeli army. They're avoiding it at all costs. They're attacking the Israeli people, they're attacking the Jews there.
Bolton: Well, I think Dan Gillerman, the Israeli ambassador to the UN has done a very good job in his speeches in the Security Council in pointing out the effect this is having in Israel, the number of displaced persons from their homes in Israel. From Haifa.
Pamela: Two million living in shelters.
Bolton: From many of the towns in northern Israel, and for those who are staying, the fact that they are constantly in fear of the sirens going off and the rockets coming in. So this is in some senses in the media it's an unbalanced account. But that's not the first time for Israel and it won't be the last time, just as it's rare that the United States gets fair coverage in its military activities. There are some things that you just have to take as a given, as unpalatable as they are. The real issue is not being overwhelmed and keeping our eyes on the strategic objective, which is a transformation in Lebanon, the full implementation of 1559 and the elimination of the terrorist threat to Israel.
Pamela: Okay, the implementation of 1559. Who's really going to make that happen, John? Who's really going to make that happen?
Bolton: Well I think it's got to be a combination both of countries like the United States, and France, and the United Kingdom, and others that really care about democracy in that country, and the Lebanese people, and the combination of the Lebanese diaspora all around the world. It's going to take a lot of effort as I said before. There's just no question about it. But I think the resolve is there. I think since the Hariri assassination there has been a transformation in the minds of many Lebanese. They're tired of the status quo. They're acting courageously against great odds, against fear of retaliation by Hezbollah, fear of retaliation by the Syrians, but they're still standing up and we have to support them.
Pamela: Yeah, so a lot of people have a great deal of confidence in you. Cynics, people that don't trust those in government. And when you say something, we believe it, so you know, it's important to those that are really paying attention, because there's no question we're at a historical crossroads. Some really big things are coming down. I'm not Chicken Little. You know, I'd rather be dancing. Trust me. Before 9/11, believe me, look at Andrew Bostom, you know who he is, he's an Islamic scholar. There's a guy, he's a medical school professor at Brown, research this, I mean, completely brain-cracked at 9/11, and he's written these incredible, you know, encyclopediatic works about Islam. I mean things are really happening, so, I mean as long as we're conscious of that. I mean you saw the flack that Bush took because. he's finally said five years later, I mean, it was a little long in the tooth there with the War on Terror, the War on Terror, you know, it's like saying the war on cannons, the war on guns, to say, "Islamic fascism." And they won't say it in Britain. You know, in Britain they wouldn't say it. That was, I think, a big deal. It shouldn't be a big deal. If you can't name your enemy, how are you going to fight your enemy? So, you know, I think just Israel is the hot spot. It's not, it's the front lines on the war on Islamic fascism, but Iraq is too. And that's part of the problem with the media. Even the government must be surprised by the hoax, Qana, Reutersgate, the photoshopping of pictures. This is not one incident, and it's important, like when you say we have to stay focused on what we have to do, but that colors everything.
Pamela: You know, the whole humanitarian crisis was colored by this bogus, fake, Hezbollywood.
Bolton: Well that, President Bush said right after 9/11, this is going to be a long war, and Americans as a culture have a relatively short attention span, but now it's almost exactly five years after 9/11 and a substantial part of the population is still supporting it. I think this recent news of the uncovering of this plot in London, if anybody had forgotten the risks that we take if we don't eliminate this terrorist threat, or how absolutely immoral and cynical they are to have plotted to blow up that number of civilian aircraft, really, it ought to be a wake-up call, and I hope that it is, and I hope that it reminds everybody that this threat has not gone away. And it's not going to go away, unless we're persistent.
Pamela: Do you think Lieberman would have won if this came out 24 hours, or 48 hours, prior?
Bolton: Well, you know, I don't make (laughing)...
Pamela: I know you were going to say that.
Bolton: ...political predictions.
Pamela: I know you don't say that. Speaking of political predictions, your confirmation. Where are we now with your confirmation, John?
Bolton: Well, I had my confirmation hearing in July, and...
Pamela: Oh, it provided the most wonderful fodder for the YouTube, and the rest of the...
Bolton: But the Senate foreign relations committee will vote on it, or at least is scheduled to vote on it on September the 7th, and Senator Frist, the majority leader, has expressed interest in moving rapidly. We'll have to see.
Pamela: We have that petition up. Everybody's signing that petition. We're behind you.
Bolton: I really do appreciate all this support. It's just amazing.
Pamela: It's amazing that it's even happening, I have to tell you. It's shameful that it's happening.
Bolton: Keep your fingers crossed.
Pamela: No, I believe that good will prevail. And last thing I wanted to ask you. You know, last time we spoke I had asked you, you know, what your favorite book was, who were you most influenced by, and you of course gave me the old Ayn Rand, but you said John Locke [I meant Burke, argh- Atlas], and I started reading some of Locke, and I wanted to just ask you a question, if you related to him on a personal level, because he was very much his own man, a loner, beaten by the leftoids of his day, seriously, an iconoclast, and I was just wondering, if ti was purely his writing and his thinking, or if you had identified with him. This is just a personal question, I was curious.
Bolton: Well, like Edmund Burke, who I also follow quite a bit, I think it's important, if you're in public life, and you have opinions, to stand up for them, because otherwise you might as well be off in the private sector making money, and while it's true, it can sometimes be burdensome to listen to all the criticism. I think that's outweighed by the possibility that you can actually change things for the better. So, I don't mean to sound naive, but it's a choice you make, and you take the good with the bad.
Pamela: Well you're making a difference. Thank you very much.
Bolton: Thank you.
UPDATE: And Ambassador Bolton was right, I meant Burke, not Locke.
Atlas Readers: please take a moment to sign this petition. I feel very strongly about his confirmation. It is a national embarrassment that the Dhimmicats are attempting to thwart the confirmation of his nomination. I am unabashed in my support of his appointment to United Nations.