Highbrow MSNBC Analyst: John Bolton is Such a Warmonger He'd Probably "Invade Uranus"

Is there a bigger meathead on MSNBC than Cenk Uygur? He's got a lot of competition for the honor, of course, but this clip gets his name in the discussion. Clearly, Uygur won some kind of 'next-person-off-the-D-train-becomes-an-MSNBC-host' lottery, because I can think of no other plausible explanation for his employment at the alleged news network.

Who does he think he is anyway, messing with the 'Stache? The 'Stache eats U.N. bureauweenies for lunch. He could devour a halfwit cable news mimbo like Uygur with both hands tied behind his back, blindfolded.

On the other hand, making a funny about 'Uranus' does seem almost sophisticated compared to Keith Olbermann's uninspired fart jokes. So at least it's a tiny step in the right direction.

They've now advanced to 3rd-grade humor at MSNBC!



Via Breitbart. Cross-posted.

'A Post-American Speech By Our First Post-American President'

Let's hear it for The 'Stache.

Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton tells NRO that President Obama’s address to the U.N. was “a post-American speech by our first post-American president. It was a speech high on the personality of Barack Obama and high on multilateralism, but very short in advocating American interests.”

“It was a very naïve, Wilsonian speech, and very revealing of Obama’s foreign policy,” says Bolton. “Overall, it was so apologetic for the actions of prior administrations, in an effort to distance Obama from them, that it became yet another symbol of American weakness in the wake of the president’s decision to abandon missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, and his recent manifest hesitation over what to do in Afghanistan.”

“The most significant point of the speech was how the president put Israel on the chopping block in a variety of references, from calling Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegitimate to talking about ending ‘the occupation that began in 1967.’ That implies that he supports going back to 1967 borders,” says Bolton. “Obama has a very tough road ahead. He is frequently taking the side of the Palestinians, who don’t have a competent leader who can make hard decisions and compromises in the future.”

Hey John, don't sugarcoat it.

Bolton’s conclusion: “It was all extremely naïve. The president did everything he could to say: ‘Can’t we all just get along?’”

Ouch.

But hey, one of Obama's heroes enjoyed the speech: The corspe from Havana.

Barack Obama's call for action on climate change and his admission that rich nations have a particular responsibility to lead has received strong praise from an unusual source — U.S. nemesis Fidel Castro.

The former Cuban leader on Wednesday called the American president's speech at the United Nations "brave" and said no other American head of state would have had the courage to make similar remarks.

Of course they wouldn't. Previous presidents actually liked this country.

Pelosi: Selling Out Eastern Europe a 'Brilliant' Move

Just imagine what this dunce might say if if we treated our allies like friends rather than throwing them under the bus and selling out to Vladimir Putin.

President Obama's decision to scrap a controversial Bush-era missile shield for Europe yesterday calmed Russian fears of a new Cold War -- but outraged critics, who said it weakened the West.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev praised Obama's "responsible approach."

But critics said Obama was needlessly kowtowing to the Kremlin on the eve of his meeting with Medvedev next week at the United Nations.

"It's just, unambiguously, a bad decision," said John Bolton, former UN ambassador in George W. Bush's administration.

"Russia and Iran are the big winners. I just think it's a bad day for American national security."

Sen. John McCain, Obama's Republican rival in the presidential race, called the reversal "seriously misguided."

On the other hand, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it was a "brilliant" move and described it as a "giant step forward."

Obama opted for what he said was a cheaper, more flexible strategy to meet the challenge of Iran's ballistic missiles. He said new intelligence data showed the greatest danger came from Tehran's shorter-range missiles, not the long-range ones anticipated in Bush's multibillion-dollar plan.

Of course now that the Iranians are ready to roll with their own nukes, does Obama have any plan to stop them?

Of course not.

Once the Bush administration committed to the deployment, I grudgingly supported it: We couldn't hang the East Europeans out to dry after strong-arming them for commitments.

Now the Obama administration's made the mess immeasurably worse. It's a lose-lose situation for us -- and for our allies.

Moscow believes we just signed over a new lease on Eastern Europe. And we didn't even get a tin of caviar. Will the Obama-Putin Act go down in history as the post-modern Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

Probably more like Neville Chamberlain waving a piece of paper saying we had peace in our time, but we'll see.

If anything, Obama has impeccable timing.

Ironically, Obama's announcement came on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland at the start of World War II -- an event that underscores Warsaw's longstanding fear of aggression from the east.

Moreover, Obama's cave-in to Putin & Co. might make sense if it were part of a quid pro quo -- namely, a firm Russian commitment to take a harder line against Iran's nuclear ambitions. But Moscow has signaled that fresh sanctions against Iran would be "a serious mistake."

Another big winner in this? Why, Obama's pals at GE and MSNBC. Somehow I doubt his flakcs there will utter a single word of criticism.

Obama 'Reaches Out' to Enemies

No, silly, not Republicans. They're just too evil, brimming with hatred and fomenting all those raucous mobs opposed to his divine plan to bestow health care upon the huddled masses.

No, reaching out to the GOP would just be going too far for his supporters, especially his buddies at the Daily Kos.

Rather than making peace with his fellow Americans, our fearless leader is looking to get cozy with the enemies of America.

U.S. President Barack Obama has started reaching out to some of Pakistan's most fervent Islamist and anti-American parties, including one that helped give rise to the Taliban, trying to improve Washington's image in the nuclear-armed state.

Obama's special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, is initiating dialogue between the United States and religious parties previous administrations had largely shunned, both sides said.

"The purpose is to broaden the base of American relations in Pakistan beyond the relatively narrow circle of leaders Washington has previously dealt with," explained Vali Nasr, senior adviser to Holbrooke.

John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during the Bush presidency, questioned Holbrooke's timing for trying to engage Taliban sympathizers on the eve of elections in neighboring Afghanistan, where U.S. forces are battling the hardline Islamic group.

"As a general proposition, democracy in Pakistan is fragile enough now that negotiating with people that some on the democratic side of the Pakistani spectrum would think themselves are terrorists strikes me as fairly risky," Bolton said.

"What we ought to be doing is making sure that our ties with the military are strong because the gravest risk is radical penetration of the military."

At one of this week's sessions, Liaqat Baloch, a top member of the religious, right-wing Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) party, told Holbrooke he welcomed the new administration's public change in tone toward Muslims around the world.

But Baloch said he was disturbed to see "no change in practice" in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where Obama has stepped up military operations against the Taliban on both sides of the border.

Holbrooke invited Jamaat-e-Islami, whom some U.S. officials compare to the banned Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, to visit the heavily guarded American embassy compound in Islamabad, seeking to dispel long-running rumors that thousands of U.S. Marines would be based there.

Holbrooke rejected the party's complaints about a Western "assault" on Islam, saying "that could not be further from the truth" with Obama, who has roots in the religion, now in the White House.

Fazl-ur-Rehman, whose Jamiat-e-ulema-e-Islam party was active in rousing support for the Taliban in 1990s, also got an audience with Holbrooke and his team.

Rehman denies al Qaeda's responsibility for the September 11, 2001, attacks, and once warned that if U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan, no American in Pakistan would be safe.

This is change? Having dialogue with 9/11 deniers?

Good grief. I would suggest if this gets the proper coverage it deserves Obama's sinking poll numbers will drop even more precipitously.

Beck Talks with Rove & Bolton on Mexican Border Problems (VIDEO)

First of all, you gotta love Glenn's intro about his "former" employer, and how they would have made him intro John Bolton and Karl Rove. But even funnier is Rove's "Darth Vader" impression.

After that, Glenn had a real back-and-forth with the both of them on Bush's apparent lack of action regarding Mexico, the narco-terrorists, the border, and illegal immigration. Rove and Bolton appear as apologists for the border failures, but at least hear them out. Hey, I'm not saying forgive them (or Bush for that matter), but they are obviously privy to more info than are we.



I certainly hope we do get something done on the border. It's not getting out of control; it IS out of control!

UN joins forces with Marvel Comics

In a move reminiscent of storylines developed during the second world war, the UN is joining forces with Marvel Comics, creators of Spider-Man and the Incredible Hulk, to create a comic book showing the international body working with superheroes to solve bloody conflicts and rid the world of disease.
The comic, initially to be distributed free to 1m US schoolchildren, will be set in a war-torn fictional country and feature superheroes such as Spider-Man working with UN agencies such as Unicef and the “blue hats”, the UN peacekeepers.

So they are going to distribute the comics propaganda to our children in school. Here is the UN's stated goal.

The UN’s goals are somewhat different: according to its website, it hopes the comics will teach children the value of international co- operation and sensitise them to the problems faced in other parts of the world.

Now it seems to me there is only one portion of the world that isn't interested in cooperation. You know that sector that gets enraged over cartoons and teddy bears and other silly things. Why aren't they giving them the comic books instead of the indoctranation kiddie programming they have now? Silly me I know the US is the seat of evil in the world, but that seat is located in the UN building.

And just for old times sake here is John Bolton showing some love to the UN.

NY Times Faults Bush on Syrian Nuke Program

Just harken back to 2003 for a minute. Suppose George W. Bush called a press conference and told the world he had evidence Syria was building a covert nuclear facility and the United States was prepared to take action.

What do you suppose the reaction would have been from the media?

Well, now we know for sure they indeed were building such a facility and, thankfully, the Israelis took it out.

Yet here we now have the New York Times pointing the finger at the admiistration, taking them to task for not doing something.

Just imagine the reaction if we leveled the place four years ago.

Yet Another Photo of Site in Syria, Yet More Questions

To their credit, the Times manages to hold off until the second paragraph before taking Bush to task.

The mystery surrounding the construction of what might have been a nuclear reactor in Syria deepened yesterday, when a company released a satellite photo showing that the main building was well under way in September 2003 — four years before Israeli jets bombed it.

The long genesis is likely to raise questions about whether the Bush administration overlooked a nascent atomic threat in Syria while planning and executing a war in Iraq, which was later found to have no active nuclear program.

A senior American intelligence official said yesterday that American analysts had looked carefully at the site from its early days, but were unsure then whether it posed a nuclear threat.

In the time before the Iraq war, President Bush and his senior advisers sounded many alarms about Baghdad’s reconstituting its nuclear program. But they have never publicly discussed what many analysts say appears to have been a long-running nuclear effort next door.

If Bush came out on national television holding up satellite images of what he said was a Syrian nuke plant, the New York Times and the nutroots would have gone wild, accused him of doctoring photos.

You just cannot win with these people.

Of course, back in 2003, John Bolton raised the specter of Syria developing nukes, but was dismissed by some in the intelligence community.

Apparently, he was right all along.

The progress of the site in late 2003 also raises new questions about a disagreement at the time between intelligence analysts and John R. Bolton, then the State Department’s top arms control official.

In the summer of 2003, Mr. Bolton’s testimony on Capitol Hill was delayed after a dispute erupted in part over whether Syria was actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. Some intelligence officials said Mr. Bolton overstated the Syrian threat.

“There was disagreement about what Syria was interested in and how much we should be monitoring it,” Mr. Bolton said in an interview yesterday. “There was activity in Syria that I felt was evidence that they were trying to develop a nuclear program.”

I wonder who those intelligence officials are and whether they're man enough to step up and apologize to Bolton?