Former UN Ambassador John Bolton — my current preference for 2016 GOP candidate — had a great appearance on Fox News last night, responding to President Barack Obama’s admission that an American embassy in Iran was a possibility:
I decided to transcribe some of Bolton’s key points:
“It’s another unforced error by the President, another example of how he’s giving away things and getting nothing in return. The way that statement you just quoted is structured is first we sign this increasingly terrible deal on Iran’s nuclear program, which would basically legitimize that program, and then he says ‘once we’ve got that out of the way then we can think about recognition.’ You know I don’t think any diplomatic step is sacrosanct. But whenever you give something up you ought to get something for it. And whether it’s Cuba or Iran or — the list is very long unfortunately — Afghanistan, we give away a lot under this President and we get nothing back.”
“Well the President is making us weak and the reason is his ideology. He believes that America is not a positive force in the world, he thinks we’re a big part of the problem. So in the case of Iran, he believes we’ve treated them badly over the years, we supported he Shah and so on, and so if America simply gives up any pretense of trying to contain this central banker for international terrorism developing nuclear weapons then the Iranian regime will say ‘Well, I guess the Americans are OK, let’s give all that up.’ It’s naive, it’s ideological, and most of all it’s dangerous for the country.”
Hey, Roger, regarding your great post — “Looking for Mr. Good President” — among the reasons why I like Bolton the most on a personal level (apart from merely agreeing with him ideologically) is because he’s the only one I can honestly say doesn’t seem to be a massive narcissist who’s been aspiring toward the presidency their whole life and would sell their soul to get it. I think Bolton cares more about making sure the US embraces the right foreign policy ideas that will actually defeat our enemies rather than just becoming the president himself. I get the sense that if he enters the race in 2016 it will primarily be just to make sure that his foreign policy views — Reaganite “Peace Through Strength” — have adequate representation in the debate and that if another, more supposedly traditionally “electable” candidate like a governor embraces his approach then he’d be content with the VP or secretary of State or some other position of consequence behind the scenes.
A thought for consideration: I think Bolton has the potential to transcend the RINO/Establishment vs Tea Party/Activist baby boomer ideology divide. While the Mitt Romney/Jeb Bush/Marco Rubio vs Ted Cruz/Rand Paul/[Whichever Random Tea Partier Wants to Audition for a Fox News Show] circle of narcissism spins around the drain it allows for the opportunity for a hawkish, Bolton message to fly over both sides’ rotting egos, providing a serious, grown-up assessment of the nature of the Islamist threat and how we can defeat it. If 2016 is to be a foreign policy election then Bolton is the one to win it, whether he’s at the front of the ticket or the back of it.
Updated: I take some of the commenters suggestions and pose a potential ticket for consideration: How About a Mike Pence-John Bolton Ticket for 2016?