Why John Bolton should not be confirmed as US Ambassador to the UN, and why Condoleeza Rice should resign

Since President Bush’s inauguration, and his nominations to various foreign policy posts, US status and credibility in the Muslim world has begun to decline again. Anti-Americanism is also very obviously enjoying resurgence in parts of the Muslim world, including in Afghanistan and Iraq, and also Uzbekistan and surrounding areas. The people of Iran, Syria, Sudan and Lebanon are also increasingly voicing their displeasure with US meddling, and US media mischief that is all too reminiscent of the lies, rumors, and false information that guided the United States, and its coalition partners into Iraq under false pretense. The seriousness of lost US credibility following the Iraq WMD debacle has yet to be fully felt, or appreciated here in the US. Most people in the US are unaware that there is hardly anyone in the world who takes what we say about freedom, democracy, peace, and the threat of weapons proliferation very seriously. The reality of the horrible cost of the lies that led us into the Iraq war probably will not be felt here in the US, until American military families begin to ask questions. One of their first questions might be if there was perhaps a better way, considering that the nuclear threat was fake, and WMD a hoax, for Saddam Hussein to be removed from power, and a representative government established in Iraq? Knowing what we know now, could Hussein have been removed from power without an all out invasion and war that has cost the world so many lives, caused so much destruction, and resulted in such despair?

We have not gotten angry enough about the role that Israel and Zionism played in all of this, and what Zionism has cost us in American lives, treasure, honor, and international prestige. Once we face the reality of the impact that Zionism has on US foreign and domestic policies, and the problematic effect it has on our national, and international security, we will understand why we need a new Secretary of State. We will also understand why it is of the utmost importance that the right person represents our nation at the UN.

Prior to the reelection of President Bush, it seemed that Muslim anti-Americanism was diminishing and that once again, the US was beginning to be looked upon as perhaps a naïve, often manipulated, ill informed, yet mostly well intended giant. Still upset by the 9/11 backlash, and resulting injustices carried out against Muslims that included the defamation of Islam, American Muslims to their credit, seemed to take a mostly wait and see position on the Abu Ghraib atrocities, and also on the Palestine/Israel conflict. Many went so far as even casting their votes for President Bush, and endorsing his re-election even though no real steps had been taken by the State Department to resolve issues raised by the Abu Ghraib crisis. International anxiety over the Iraq invasion was also increasing, as it became ever more clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as alleged, making it even more unlikely that Muslims would support Bush, yet many did. In respect to Muslim disappointment, it was worsened by the fact that Israel, by its own unofficial admission, had supplied most of the faulty intelligence to support the invasion. Israel had also crafted a plan for the long term occupation and subjugation of Iraq’s Shia population, called "Clean Break," that the US had blindly followed. When interviewed by Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball, Richard Perle, one of the Clean Break strategists admitted that the primary beneficiary of the Iraqi war is Israel. Through the war in Iraq, Israel not only successfully opened up another battlefield against Muslims and Islam, it also opened a vein in the arm of America that bleeds US taxpayer money, used to rescue Israel’s non existent national economy, and to increase its ability to purchase military weaponry.

Pro-Bush Muslims understood that it is better to have a US, or sole superpower that is well informed, and functioning as an independent honest broker, and arbiter of peace in the world, which was Bush’s promise. Israeli intelligence operatives were providing false and damning intelligence to our government, that caused Muslim political activists throughout the world, to all be seen as either terrorists or potential terrorists. It seemed reasonable that Muslims should find a way to work through the system, and to endorse a sincere and able candidate for President. We learned after 9/11 that repeated condemnation of the US, and agitation of already tense situations, would not yield any positive results in US/ Muslim relations. It was clear that past responses of that type merely fed into the Zionist effort to pit the US and Muslims against one another. It had become very clear that the Zionists were working to ultimately lock the US and Muslims in the Muslim world, in an Armageddon type battle, the ultimate winner of which would be Israel, the expert third player. Unfortunately, Kerry as a presidential candidate offered no alternative solutions to the momentum building behind the global drift into Zionist incited chaos and war. His proposal was to invite Israel, who he called, "the neglected ally" to participate more openly in battles against Arab, and Muslim insurgents in Iraq. This was, and is of course a non starter for American Muslims who knew that such a step would only further strengthen Israel’s leverage over the US, and lead to further US military moral capitulation, and awe of Israeli military techniques, including torture. Even though it was suspected, no one knew before the Abu Ghraib incident, the role that Israeli military intelligence was playing in Iraq.

Muslims who endorsed the President and cast their vote in his favor, did so for good reasons, including that many sincerely admire and respect his character, forth-rightness, and obvious dedication to the spread of freedom and democracy in the Muslim world. These are right and noble causes even in the very cynical world in which we live.

Ironically it is the President’s dedication to the premise that freedom and democracy lead to peaceful co-existence between nations that makes Bush’s choice for Secretary of State, and now US Ambassador to the UN so puzzling, and that also makes it so difficult to disagree with him. Our Congress has also contributed to the problem. Whereas Democrats and Republicans alike oppose the Bolton confirmation, they confirmed Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State, knowing that she shared Bolton’s contempt for the UN, thereby compromising their own credibility in the debate on Bolton. Rice was one of the primary unilateralists, pushing the President to side-step Congress and the UN, and to launch an immediate attack against Iraq, warning that if we didn’t, we might wake up to a deadly mushroom cloud. Ignoring the powerful neo-con, and Zionist lobby pushing for an immediate US unilateral attack, the President did go to Congress, and also to the UN. Signs that he, as hoped, was capable of acting independently and according to the obvious best interest of the US, while Rice proved that she couldn’t, and would not.

We are less than six months into Rice’s stewardship as Secretary of State, and the situation in the Muslim world is rapidly deteriorating. She began her tenure by seeking UN sanctions against the Sudan at the behest of her Christian Zionist cohorts that support the Christians in the South of Sudan, against Muslims in the north. Paying little attention to North Korea, she reopened the discussion on Iran’s nuclear energy program, and completely ignored Israel’s illegal nuclear weapons program. She took very aggressive and public steps to end Lebanese and US diplomatic relations, threatening to recall the US Ambassador to Lebanon, unless Syrian troops left Lebanon. Her success at forcing Syria out of Lebanon emboldened Israel, which no doubt led to the military confrontation between Hizbullah and Israel that is now taking place.

Violence has increased in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and erupted in Uzbekistan and surrounding areas. Syria was forced out of Lebanon, leaving a vacuum that could only be filled by Hizbullah, leading to a military confrontation between Hizbullah and Israel that could lead to an Israeli call for US military assistance in men and money. Israel has been trying since before 9/11 to get US military boots on the ground in Israel under the guise of fighting the war on terrorism. This confrontation between Israel and Hizbullah might be another attempt. We must all pray that it will be an unsuccessful attempt. Last week, many of the major Arab and Latin American countries met to discuss the creation of a new economic and political partnership that would essentially open up the Muslim world to greater cooperation with nations that are socialist and communist. That seems to indicate that the President is not making progress in his spread of freedom and democracy in the Muslim world initiative, yet such incidents have been almost completely ignored by our media, and foreign policy pundits who see the US almost exclusively through the lens of Israeli interest. Any Arab or Muslim move away from the US is a success for the Zionists agenda to further isolate the US. For years Zionists in the US have sought to push the Muslim world, Europe, and now also Latin America and Russia away from the US, hoping to capture US wealth, labor and military power exclusively to spread the influence of Zionism.

The media is reporting that during the campaign leading up to the US led invasion of Iraq, John Bolton requested the names of US citizens who were mentioned in conversations intercepted by the NSA, relating to WMD. According to these reports, he received the requested information, yet no one knows what it was used for. We all know that at that time, Condoleeza Rice was the head of that agency, and we also know that during that same period the name of a CIA operative whose husband very publicly challenged information that supported the false intelligence, supplied by Israel, on WMD was leaked. Do the incidents have anything to do with one another? Senator Joseph Biden requested additional information on the incident, hoping perhaps to better understand what it all means, and was denied access to the info. No one has suggested that Biden suspected that Bolton and Rice, both known to be Zionists who strongly support the Israeli Likud Party interest, might have caused that operative’s name to be leaked, when he sought to learn more about that situation.

Bolton is also credited with being the primary force that prevented the US from participating in the UN conference on Racism, and also with causing the language of a UN resolution, which said that Zionism is racism, to be removed. Bolton, is a member of the Board of Advisors at JINSA, The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, an organization that "supports a "peace through strength policy" to support Israel and works to build strategic ties between US military and US military contractors with Israel." Condoleeza Rice for her part, is reportedly a Christian Zionist Evangelical with strong ties to that movement. She has publicly sympathized with the settler’s movement in Israel, saying, "Israel was a state who in the beginning was not given a chance to survive" and " Israel survived mainly because of the hardness of the Israelis, and their willingness to give their lives for the state." Of course Bolton and Rice are within their right to hold personal political and religious views. They are prohibited by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits a national religion or ideology to be employed as the basis for US law, and public policy, from making their personal views our nation’s policy, or policy objectives. The First Amendment also prohibits their imposition of their personal views upon the people of the United States, and attempts to infuse our countries national and domestic policies with their personal and religious views. This is particularly true when those views have been proven to undermine, or compromise US credibility, and our national security, and is a minority view.

According to an article posted at AlterNet, John Bolton is also credited with bringing our Justice Department ideology in line with the neo-conservative, Israeli Likud Party agenda. It was this same US Department of Justice, some years after its "Boltonization" that played a major role in an attempt to eliminate State Department and US military policies that prohibits torture, and that recognize the Fourth Geneva Conventions. The article, written by Tom Barry for Foreign Policy in Focus, says that Bolton wrote in a 1997 op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal, that, "treaties are law only for US domestic purposes." He also reportedly said, " In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations. " Barry’s analysis of the Bolton statement proved accurate in respect to the Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo situations. Barry wrote, " In other words, international treaties signed by the US should not be considered as a body of law that the US should respect in its international engagements, but rather just as political considerations that can be ignored at will." US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took the heat for the memos that supposedly encouraged a shift in US policy on torture, yet if Barry is right, Bolton, and not Gonzales may have laid the ground work for that supposedly temporary legal and moral shift.

Recently anti-American violence broke out in Afghanistan over reports that interrogators at Guantanamo detention center desecrated the Holy Quran, in an attempt to humiliate Muslim detainees. This is similar to the approach taken at Abu Ghraib, where it was assumed that forcing Muslim men into homosexual activity would humiliate them and soften them up for interrogations. Is this enough proof that something is terribly wrong, in almost every aspect of our foreign policy towards Muslims and the Muslim world, and that these actions are not isolated and random? Aren’t we curious about where these inhumane assumptions originate, and how they find their way into US policy and practice? Are we concerned about how they effect our image, our credibility, and our ability to really promote an international common good, or interest? Is it any wonder that it was Condoleeza Rice who asked the President to nominate Bolton for the UN job?

For most Muslims, east and west, confirmation of John Bolton as US representative to the UN means that the US has lost the last of its independence, and has become a slave to Zionism. We will no longer be seen as strong, or capable of being objective, or credible and fair in our role as peace broker in the Palestine/Israel conflict, or any conflict. It will make every US action, or initiatives toward the Muslim world appear as if they are Israeli sponsored. The team, Condoleeza Rice and John Bolton, heading US foreign policy development and implementation in the Muslim world, will be a cause of serious international Muslim consternation. If the past is an accurate commentator on the future, their rule of the foreign policy roost will only bring our nation more shame, greater loss of credibility, and more war. After all that the world has endured in the name of spreading freedom and democracy, hoping to achieve a lasting peace, does it make sense that we should throw it all away? Look at the world, and recognize, that we are throwing it all away, and the only way to stop this trend, and turn the tide, is to change the face of US foreign policy, and returning it to exclusively red, white and blue.