Last fall in our continuing series at Blog for Arizona, I posted Questions for Martha McSally: Are you a Neocon war monger like your endorser John Bolton?:
Martha McSally’s views on foreign policy and national defense just moved up to the top of my list of topics that I want to
depose her ask her campaign questions about with this announcement on Thursday (the local media should do the same). Bolton PAC Makes First Endorsement:
Former United Nations ambassador John Bolton’s political-action committee will make its first endorsement on Thursday, backing former Air Force colonel Martha McSally in her race against Arizona Democratic representative Ron Barber.
* * *
The John Bolton Super PAC (he also has a regular political action committee) will support candidates who share his vision for a muscular American foreign policy and the need to revive America’s role in the world.
* * *
McSally will receive a total of $10,000 from Bolton’s organization . . . “I am honored to have the support and endorsement of Ambassador Bolton, a great American who has advocated for our freedom against enemies worldwide,” McSally said in a statement.
Oh Hell No! On a Batshit Crazy scale of 1 to 10, John Bolton breaks the scale blowing past 11. Martha McSally is the first endorsement for Bolton’s Super PAC? And she calls this reckless war monger “a great American”?
This endorsement should be setting off alarm bells and warning sirens all over Southern Arizona today. Shit just got real.
On Sunday, Rep. Martha McSally joined her Arizona Republican Caucus members in an op-ed at the Arizona Republic expressing their opposition to the P5+1 world powers nuclear agreement with Iran. Iran nuclear agreement is dangerous mistake. I am confident that McSally’s position is purely partisan and reflexive opposition, like that of of her ideological colleagues. I seriously doubt that she has given it studied and serious consideration.
Which raises another series of questions for Martha McSally: since you are beholden to John Bolton for his endorsement and campaign contribution, do you support his renewed call to bomb Iran? John Bolton Tells Alan Colmes That He Wants To Strike Iran:
[I]n this week’s Versus with Alan Comes (video) on Foxnews.com, Alan Colmes attempts to draw out John Bolton’s secret desires with respect to U.S.-Iran policy.
* * *
Alan Colmes lets John Bolton expound his opinion, which mirrors the rest of the far right: this agreement which is designed to prevent acquiring the sufficient uranium enrichment to make a bomb, is no good, no matter what. The reason? We can’t trust Iran, ever.
* * *
The only two possible scenarios with Iran are either 1. they get a bomb or 2. we bomb their facilities and stop them. Iran can’t make military grade uranium under the terms of this agreement, Alan reminds Bolton. Bolton is not having any of that, he is immune to facts. When Alan asks him if he’d support a bombing campaign, he said that he absolutely would. He also agreed that a Republican President, god forbid, would also support a strike on Iran and entangle us in another unpopular, costly war that would be unwinnable.
Colmes reminds Bolton that we’ve had an abhorrent history of regime change whereby Bolton disagreed. He cited the swiftness with which we ended Saddam Hussein’s government, but Colmes reminded him of the abject failure of what followed. He explained to Bolton that regime change begets nation building, and this is something that has never worked for the U.S. in the Middle East.
At least Bolton is consistent. In march of this year he published an op-ed in the New York Times entitled To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran. In early June, he wrote in the Israel National News, Ambassador Bolton: Israel Must Strike Iran Soon . And Bolton recently wrote in the LA Times about the P5+1 world powers nuclear deal with Iran, The consequences of a bad deal with Iran:
If diplomacy and sanctions have failed to stop Iran, diplomacy alone will fail worse. Like it or not, we now face this unpleasant reality: Iran probably will violate the deal; it may not be detected doing so and if detected, it will not be deterred by “snapback” sanctions. So we return to the hard question: Are we prepared to do what will be necessary to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons?
Obama most certainly is not, which means the spotlight today is on Israel.
If Israel strikes, there will be no general Middle East war, despite fears to the contrary. We know this because no general war broke out when Israel attacked Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in 1981, or when it attacked the North Korean-built Syrian reactor in 2007. Neither Saudi Arabia nor other oil-producing monarchies wanted those regimes to have nuclear weapons, and they certainly do not want Iran to have them today.
However, Iran may well retaliate. At that point, Washington must be ready to immediately resupply Israel for losses incurred by its armed forces in the initial attack, so that Israel will still be able to effectively counter Tehran’s proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, which will be its vehicles for retaliation. The United States must also provide muscular political support, explaining that Israel legitimately exercised its inherent right of self-defense. Whatever Obama’s view, public and congressional support for Israel will be overwhelming.
Remember, John Bolton was completely wrong about everything he ever said about the Bush-Cheney regime’s unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq, and he is still making excuses to this day to explain away how very wrong he was. This is not someone from whom anyone should be taking advice on matters of war.
This muscular call for the U.S. (and Israel) to reject diplomacy and to start a war with Iran is essentially what Arizona’s Republican Caucus was saying in its op-ed in the Arizona Republic, if not so clear and direct as Bolton.
So, Rep. McSally, do your share your endorser and campaign contributor John Bolton’s call for the U.S. (and Israel) to forgo diplomacy and to start a war with Iran? I am your constituent, Rep. McSally, I have the right to know your answer. Post it in the comments.