“Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts.”
— Londo Mollari, “Ceremonies of Light and Dark”, Babylon 5

Who’s in charge?

Yesterday:

Statement from the National Security Advisor Ambassador John Bolton
National Security & Defense
Issued on: May 5, 2019

In response to a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings, the United States is deploying the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and a bomber task force to the U.S. Central Command region to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force. The United States is not seeking war with the Iranian regime, but we are fully prepared to respond to any attack, whether by proxy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or regular Iranian forces.

Like anyone is surprised?

In 2010:

[….]Question: …Why does the United Nations allow Iranian President Ahmadinejad to address the U.N. Assembly and then recognize his government when he frequently denies the Holocaust and says it was an elaborate falsehood circulated by Jews and Jewish friendly nations such as the U.S.?

Ambassador Bolton: Well, this, that, that’s because that’s the U.N. is. I mean, this is a, uh, this, this is, it’s not, it’s not, I think most Americans look at Ahmadinejad and the fact he is a Holocaust denier, uh, and say we shouldn’t even let him into the country. But, uh, we have agreed, uh, as a member of the United Nations through what’s called the Headquarters Agreement, obviously it’s headquartered in New York, that, uh, heads of state, foreign ministers, diplomats from any U.N. member who come to the United States to come to New York to do U.N. business will be admitted to the country. We can restrict their other activities, uh, but that’s what it, that’s what it means to, uh, have the U.N. functioning. Uh, and it’s also part of one of the basic premises of the U.N. that I think, uh, it’s, it’s very hard for us to understand, and that’s the so called principle of sovereign equality. Is that every member of the U.N. in the General Assembly is equal to every other member of the U.N. So the United States has one vote in the General Assembly and so does Palau. Uh, and, and you can go on down the list of the hundred and ninety-two member states of the U.N. The way the U.N. functions, uh, is a, is the product of decades of cultural development. Uh, and it is the way that it is and it is extraordinarily difficult to change. What that means to me is that, uh, the U.N. has very limited, uh, functionality. It can do some limited number of things well. Some of the specialized agencies of the U.N. do important humanitarian work, uh, they do important scientific work, they do, uh, work in areas that nobody even thinks about the, like the Universal Postal Union that helps handle the transfer of mail between countries, uh, and which functions with, us, essentially no attention at all. Where the U.N. doesn’t work is in the political decision making area, the field of human rights, the field of international security which should have been, uh, one of its, uh, principal responsibilities, in large part because of this culture that has developed, uh, and that, uh, basically requires treating every country just like it’s every other country. So, Fidel Castro, when he was able, would come and speak at the U.N. During the cold war you’d have dictators from all over the world. Uh, today you have, uh, uh, countries like Iran and North Korea, uh, that use the U.N. and, and, and it’s, uh, and the opportunities that presents just like any other country. Uh, we, we may find this very difficult to accept. We do find it very difficult to accept, but that’s the way the U.N. is. That doesn’t mean it’s a good thing it just means that’s the way the U.N. is and to me it indicates how limited, uh, are the benefits we’re gonna get from a system that is developed that holds those kinds of cultures. [applause]

[….]Question: …Tonight during your discussion you were talking about Iran’s developing nuclear program. I was wondering what the U.N. or the U.S. would do, um, to intervene when the, um, the, Iran’s, um, threatening Israel, um, Israel’s sovereignty? And do you think it would make a difference if Mousavi got elected in the past Iranian, um, election because most of the power lies within the theocracy and, aya, Ayatollah Khamani?

Ambassador Bolton: Well, I, I don’t, I don’t think the election fundamentally would have changed very much. But I think that the fraud that was, uh, so visible in last year’s election, uh, actually helped demonstrate to a lot of Iranians just how, uh, illegitimate, uh, the Islamic Revolution nineteen seventy-nine has become. I think it’s a very unpopular government in many respects. And I wish the United States, both during the Bush administration and the Obama administration, had done more to supply the opposition with support so that when that fraudulent election had occurred, if we had really given them the resources we might have had an opportunity to see the regime overthrown. Uh, that didn’t happen, we didn’t give them adequate support, either in two thousand nine or in the years preceding that. Uh, and so that opportunity has slipped away and I think it will be quite some time before it comes back. The fact is that, uh, because we have engaged in, uh, now nearly eight years of diplomacy with Iran they have used that time to overcome essentially all of the complex scientific and technological obstacles that stand in the way of a nuclear weapons program. They’re very close to having a weapons capability, it’s really a matter for them when they decide they’re gonna do it. Uh, the diplomacy has failed, the sanctions have failed, uh, so I think today, uh, there are really only, uh, two options facing us with respect to Iran’s nuclear weapons. One is, and this is the most likely option, that indeed they do get nuclear weapons and we’ve got to deal with the consequences of a nuclear Iran. The only thing that will stop that is the second option, which is that some outside power uses preemptive force to strike against the nuclear weapons program, uh, and destroy as much of it as, uh, might be possible, thus setting Iran back, two, three, four, maybe more years. That that is in itself not a complete solution to the problem, but two to four years in, in this business is nearly infinity. I think there’s no chance that the Obama administration will use force. I once thought there was a chance that President Bush would use force. That obviously didn’t happen. I’m not even holding my breath on this administration. Which means that the choice, it’s a very [applause], it’s a very, it’s a very unpleasant choice for Israel, is between seeing Iran get nuclear weapons and taking preemptive action. Uh, military force here is a very unattractive, uh, outcome. It’s very risky, uh, there could be enormous, uh, potential consequences, uh, but in Israel’s case, uh, nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran, uh, could bring, uh, a second Holocaust, this time a, a nuclear holocaust. And, uh, I don’t think that’s something that they want to wait and find out about. When Israel has faced, uh, a potential nuclear threat in the past it has not hesitated to act, uh, preemptively. It destroyed, uh, Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor outside of Baghdad in nineteen eighty-one, as I mentioned a few moments ago it destroyed the North Korean reactor in Syria, uh, in September two thousand seven. Uh, so given, given the alternative of a nuclear Iran I think the military option is very much on the table for the Israelis. I don’t know what they’re gonna do but I don’t think they have much time. Both because, uh, that Iran is increasingly close to actually having a nuclear weapons capability and because, uh, at, at some point the Russians may yet deliver the, uh, what we call the S three hundred air defense system, a very sophisticated air defense system that Israel couldn’t penetrate, uh, which would effectively eliminate the Israeli military option.

So, I think we’re very close to a decision by Israel and, uh, and the consequences that will, that will, that will flow from that. [applause]

“No blood for oil.”

Previously:

Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 1 (June 18, 2010)

Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 2 (June 20, 2010)

Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 3 (June 20, 2010)

Blood for oil (November 22, 2018)

A while back:

From: Representative Vicky Hartzler [….]

Date: Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:00 AM

Subject: View From the Capitol – Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler’s Newsletter for the Week of May 21-25, 2012

To: [xxxxxxxxxx]

[….]

Gas prices are impacting the family budget. They have doubled since President Obama moved into the White House. Most economists agree that the price we pay at the pump is tied directly to supply and demand, meaning greater supply of gasoline would bring about much lower prices. Yet, President Obama has consistently stood in the way of efforts to increase supply. He has discouraged the use of American energy, put a moratorium on off-shore drilling, and delayed the issuing of drilling permits. His rejection of the Keystone pipeline project that would bring much-needed oil from Canada is the latest in a series of poor decisions to appease environmental extremists while increasing our dependency on Middle Eastern oil.

[….]

That was then, this is now.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) today via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

I voted for #KeystoneXL to create American jobs and bolster our energy security. [….] 12:21 PM – 9 Jan 2015

A satirical reply:

Fake Vicky Hartzler ‏@VickiHartzler

.@RepHartzler I voted for a law written to benefit one foreign oil company at the expense of the dumb old environment. You’re welcome! 3:02 PM – 9 Jan 2015

Where will all that much needed oil derived from Canadian tar sand go? Just asking.  

Ah, yes, the Keystone XL pipeline.

Previously:

Padding Mary Landrieu’s resume (November 18, 2015)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): shifting tar sands (November 15, 2014)

We need the Keystone XL pipeline because? – part 3 (November 15, 2014)

We need the Keystone XL pipeline because? – part 2 (November 14, 2014)

Charles P. Pierce is meaner (November 14, 2014)

And then all hell broke loose (November 13, 2014)

We need the Keystone XL pipeline because? (November 13, 2014)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) [file photo].

Senator Claire McCaskill issued a statement on Facebook about her vote yesterday in support of the Keystone XL pipeline congressional construction permit and she received a lot of comments from her political base. A lot of comments:

[….] I DO NOT stand with you on your very wrong vote! You campaigned on the premise that you understood rural Missouri so you should remember we value our land and resources and wish to keep them clean and free from pollution.

[….] No, no, no. Sen McCaskill, these pipelines spill and there’s very little benefit for the communities in their path. And burning the tar sands will mess up our climate. Stop trying to win over Republicans. It won’t work.

[….] I respectfully disagree.

[….] You need to resign

[….] You will be primaried because of this.

[….] Claire, how in the world does this boost America’s energy security? The oil is produced in Canada, transported by pipeline through the United States and exported through Texas and put on the international market. What jobs are created by building the pipeline quickly evaporates and the American taxpayer are stuck with the bill of doing any cleanup that comes from any spills. Environmentally, this oil is the dirtiest and nastiest to take from the earth and process. It’s unbelievable that you’d support this pipeline and it’s quite sad that you choose to pander to those who would never support you in any election or in most any venture.

[….] I must say, I am disappointed.

[….] I have supported you for a long time, but not on this issue.

[….] At least 41 of your colleagues have some common sense and give a dam about the environment.

[….] I cannot support you on this Senator Claire

[….] I will take your stance into consideration when you are up for reelection. At the very least with the GOP we know where they stand. I am disappointed to say the least.

[….] Very poor decision. May impact my future voting.

[….] Puke. How about a sustainable infrastructure jobs bill including solar power? I know you have to appease the Missouri demo/republcan’ts, but a spine is more important.

[….] Perhaps you should have a chat with Elizabeth Warren who seems to get it about this issue. Very disappointed in you

[….] Fifty permanent jobs. Yippee.

[….] I’m a longtime supporter of yours and believe in your work but passionately and wholeheartedly disagree with you on this.

[….] Sorry I totally disagree with you on this. Our country needs to put it’s collective mind into developing renewable clean energies so that future generations actually have non toxic world to live in. Stop catering to fossil fuel industries.

[….] This lifelong Democrat is feeling the nausea of spin, Senator. This is Canada’s oil pipes thru the US with zero requirements for any of it to remain in the US. The about face on supporting the pipeline as a “job creator” like tax cuts for billionaires is pathetic. If you vote for this the pipeline I hope it runs behind the back yard of your house and you are willing to have MO Democrats hold you accountable if one drop of oil leaks on our land, rivers or water supply.

[….] I’m sure the Koch bros approve this message. I do NOT!

[….] Less than 50 jobs,Claire. Stop.Trying.To.Pander.To.People.Who.Will.Never.Vote.For.You! Democrats acting like republicans and running away from the President is what lost us the Senate.

[….] Sorry, Claire. It’s got less than nothing to do with America’s energy security.

[….] This pipeline creates 35 permanent jobs! On the other hand when the pipeline breaks, which everyone knows it will, there is no way to clean up the tar sands and you hurt our planet. No job is worth the environment!

[….] This is definitely going to impact my support for you. I’m disappointed to say the least.

[….] Sorry Claire you’re wrong on this

[….] I have been incredibly thankful for you supporting equal rights. I am highly disappointed and completely disagree with you on this issue.

We need to be good stewards of our environment and invest in clean energy solutions. Aside from environment impact, the jobs created will be temporary and how many of them will be outsourced to “undocumented workers”?

I hope you sincerely reconsider your position in event the new congress will bring this back up.

[….] I never saw a pipe that doesnt leak.

[….] Claire, you are wrong on this one. Ask your supporters. They vote NO!

[….] Is the purpose of this pipeline an avenue for Canada to ship oil to China? Won’t it create less than 50 permanent jobs. Would rebuilding America’s bridges be a great way to create lots of jobs?

[….] You’re wrong…Just a handful of jobs after construction is completed and the US gets nothing but a pipeline for BIG OIL to use to export Canadian dirty oil..You should be ashamed for your support..

[….] Then let Canada export to the west coast of their country since the oil is going to China anyway. Oh Snap! Their people are too smart for that.

[….] What’s your plan when our water supply is polluted beyond help? You sold out Claire…….I will remember when election time comes up……and I am a Die Hard Democrat……..You sold out.

[….] You’ve lost me on this one senator and I ask you to reconsider.

[….] Shame on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[….] I would like for her to explain how the pipeline benefits the citizens of Missouri.

1. It will reduce State revenue

2. It will cut railroad jobs

3. It will increase gas prices

4. It gives neighboring states a no-tax revenue source for infrastructure

5. We are on the hook for clean up

6. Diverts funds that could be used to develop solar and biomas to oil companies

It doesn’t even benefit America.

1. Moves Canadian oil to foreign markets bypassing US markets.

2. Cuts into US owned railroad profits and US railroad jobs

3. Allows Transnational companies to evade US taxes

4. Gives more profit to political manipulators

Claire, along with the Blunt and the Republicans persons are not just wrong they are enemies of the state.

[….] I am VERY disappointed in your vote for this bill!! Just how do you justify your support?

[….] Disappointed in your choice Clair. Can’t support you on this.

[….] I’m disappointed in your vote. It sounds like you have been drinking the GOP kool-aid.

[….] losing interest in supporting you Ms. McCaskill….

[….] Sorry Senator, you are wrong on this one. We don’t need the minimum number of jobs that would be created (even for construction). The damage to America’s water supply and ecology in general is potentially catastrophic. Let the Canadians do this if they want it. It won’t help America’s energy security, this oil will go on the international market, probably to China. I am very disappointed by your vote.

[….] I’m also surprised and disappointed. Estimates of 40,000 jobs has been discredited, and the environmental risk is real.

[….] I’m very disappointed in your actions of late. Maybe next time think about those who vote for you rather than those who might (but probably won’t) vote for you.

[….] This is extremely disappointing. The market situation takes precedence over the continued existence of the species too often. I thought you were better than that.

[….] No Claire, you do not want to support this , it is too dangerous!!!

[….] As a long time supporter of you Senator, I have to say respectfully, you are wrong on this issue. Polluting the US environment to pad the pockets of oil companies is not a risk we are willing to take. I suggest you listen to those who sent you to represent. Democrat re-elections are always tough in a red state, and it’ll be even harder while driving your base away.

[….] I believe you need to have different analysts researching this subject so they can feed you more accurate information. You are right though this is only about how it gets to market. It comes from Canada and will do nothing more than travel through the U.S. before going to market. The U.S. will take the environmental and cultural hit and get no benefits. The money will be in the oil company pockets with very few permanent jobs created. This does nothing for American security – it is not our oil.

[….] Very disappointed. How about getting behind renewable energy? Working on our infrastructure?

[….] I have supported u till now, not on this one!

[….] Disappointed. We have Republicans to spout these talking points. We don’t need Democrats to start on it, too!

[….] So sorry Srnstor McCaskill but you are wrong on this one. I’m very disappointed.

[….] Claire McCaskill is WAY TOO SMART to buy this line. Dig deep enough and we’ll probably find all kinds of connections to the petrochemical industry. I thought she was a person of integrity. She can never be trusted again.

[….] I would hope that the overwhelmingly negative response from the people who have taken the time to support/follow your page would give you an idea of how unfortunate and disappointing your decision was for the people who elected you to represent them.

And about thousand more responses along the same vein.

Somehow I don’t think the number of Keystone XL pipeline workers willing to man phone banks and go door to door at the next election is going to offset the hemorrhaging in the base.