You betcha…

And I notice that you have quoted and linked to such bastions of nonpartisan journalistic integrity as the NYT, WaPo, and the Boston Globe–while unfairly besmirching Fox News in your original post.

Methinks you should do yourself a favor and broaden your sources of news input.

In the meantime, would you really like to see a nuclear arms race in Northeast Asia? If someone doesn’t do something soon to deter North Korea, South Korea and Japan may have no choice but to oblige.

In a 2004 testimonial before Congress, Bolton stated, “Another unmistakable indicator of Iran’s intentions is the pattern of repeatedly lying to … the IAEA … when evidence of uranium enriched to 36 percent was found, it attributed this to contamination from imported centrifuge parts.” Isotope analysis later came forth that supported Iran’s explanation: foreign contamination accounted for most of the observed enriched uranium. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447.html)

After September 11, Bolton claimed Sudan was pursuing germ warfare, a claim the CIA never supported. (http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2005/04/29/in_citing_sudan_dangers_bolton_went_beyond_cia/)

The list goes on and on. Bolton has repeatedly lied and spun intelligence to support his own ideologies.

Ummmm. A liar? That would be an ad hominem attack on John Bolton that fails to address the issue at hand. I mean, get real. What do you really know about his motives, except for the fact that you hate his weltanschauung and, apparently, his moustache?

See the third paragraph of your previous comment:

“I argue that I have as much to contribute to the dialogue as any other pundit.”

A real “pundit” would refrain from going all ad hominem on someone.

You have failed to refrain. Face it.

What say you?

I’m sure a person who consulted with John Bolton would take any criticism of his former colleague as a personal assault. Perhaps Stanton should recuse himself from writing on matters pertaining to Bolton in the future before he embarrasses himself with any further typos or “thoughts.”

While many may advise I bow before the mighty intellect of a man who one time assisted with research and design for Google Earth images, I argue that I have as much to contribute to the dialogue as any other pundit. Of course, alternative news contributors are frequently viewed as “unserious,” or a “threat,” but I think we can all contribute to the dialogue, even if we make embarrassing typos and unthinkingly defend our criminal associates.

Unsurprisingly, Stanton doesn’t address my original thesis: John Bolton is a liar, and unqualified to ever give anyone foreign policy advice ever again. That’s not surprising, since acknowledging Bolton’s mistakes would automatically discredit Stanton’s “accomplishments.”

http://freekorea.us/2009/05/25/nuclear-groundhog-day-in-north-korea/

The verb “beclown” is kind of judgmental, don’t you think? Even harsh? (Yes, he misspelled it.)

The main thesis of my argument is that John Bolton has been widely discredited in the intelligence community (a charge I noticed you didn’t touch.) My point is that we can’t take a man, who has now lied repeatedly whilst gathering intelligence for the sake of propping up his own biased ideologies, seriously. Really, he’s a joke, and a paranoid joke, at that.

The most recent intelligence as reported in the Times indicates that “The North may be trying to speed up the process by forcing Washington into direct talks, say experts.” That’s good news for fans of diplomacy, and the opposite of what fear-mongering John Bolton suggested in the WSJ.

I’m sure we can both agree any deaths (whether American soldiers or innocent civilians) should be avoided at all costs, and one way to do that is to exhaust every option before using military intervention or we allow cowards like John Bolton to play war from afar with others’ lives.

PS: No where have I ever stated to be an unbiased journalist. I’m wildly biased against stupidity, whether the stupidity comes from Democrats (as it does 50% of the time,) or Republicans.

So Bolton said:

“Even worse, Iran and other aspiring nuclear proliferators will draw precisely the same conclusion: Negotiations like the six-party talks are a charade and reflect a continuing collapse of American resolve. U.S. acquiescence in a second North Korean nuclear test will likely mean that Tehran will adopt Pyongyang’s successful strategy.

It’s time for the Obama administration to finally put down Kim Jong Il’s script. If not, we better get ready for Iran — and others — to go nuclear.”

And somehow you construed that statement to mean:

“If North Korea doesn’t kill us, Iran sure will.”

Is that it? Seems like a terribly simple-minded translation of Mr. Bolton’s concern over 1) nuclear proliferation, and 2) his appraisal that North Korea’s success at developing a nuclear program in the face of international opposition may embolden others interested in developing similar nuclear programs.

Can you assure us, in no uncertain terms Ms. Kilkenny, that a level-headed person such as, say, Mr. Ahmadinejad is not eyeing this turn of events with great interest? Can you provide us with vast proof (your words, Ms. Kilkenny) that Iran is only interested in developing nuclear power–that Fareed Zakaria is correct in asserting that Iran is not interested in nuclear weapons? Can you provide us with ample evidence that the continuing Iranian program of building centrifuge cascades for Uranium enrichment is totally benign?

By the way, the “continuing collapse of American resolve” of which Mr. Bolton speaks, and the “U.S. acquiescence in a second North Korean nuclear test” he bemoans, began in the Clinton Administration. Bolton is not accusing President Obama of anything. He’s talking about a failed US policy vis–à–vis North Korea in general–a policy which began with the Clinton administration, continued unabated through the Bush administration, and which currently shows no signs of changing in the current administration.

Notice I said the Bush administration. Yes, they failed, too.

Bush cronies? Glad to see you’re maintaining your journalistic objectivity and integrity.

Oh, wait. Are you a journalist? I forgot to ask. Frankly, it’s hard to tell by reading your post.

By the way, I didn’t fail to notice your comment that “men like John Bolton…led the nation to war and have since cost the lives of around 5,000 American soldiers.”

How about men like Franklin Delano Roosevelt who led the nation to war and cost the lives of over 6,000 American Marines.

In just one battle.

At Iwo Jima.

In just over 30 days….

Please tell your audience what you think of that?

Just saying.

Now excuse me while I get back to a remedial reading of my first level English class textbook. I have been told it would benefit me.

Bolton and his apologists need to provide a solution rather than broadly stating Obama needs to “get tough” with Kim. What does that mean? Does it mean invading another country and costing more American lives, and the lives of innocent civilians? If so, one need only look to Iraq and Afghanistan to see the future of that kind of hasty decision.