PDA

View Full Version : Bolton accuses administration of leaking story on Israeli planning along Iran border



Rockntractor
03-30-2012, 10:03 AM
Former U.S. diplomat John Bolton alleged Thursday that the Obama administration leaked a story about covert Israeli activity in order to foil potential plans by the country to attack Iran's nuclear program.

Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the George W. Bush administration, was responding to an article in Foreign Policy magazine that quoted government sources claiming Israel had been granted access to airfields in Azerbaijan -- along Iran's northern border.

The article did not state exactly what the Israelis' intentions were, but it suggested it could point to a possible strike on Iran.

"I think this leak today is part of the administration's campaign against an Israeli attack," Bolton claimed on Fox News.

The White House did not respond to Bolton's claims Thursday.

Bolton, a Fox News contributor, noted that a strike launched from Azerbaijan would be much easier for the Israelis than a strike launched from their own country -- jets could stay over their targets longer and worry less about refueling. But he said tipping the Israelis' hand by revealing "very sensitive, very important information" could frustrate such a plan.

Speaking afterward to FoxNews.com, Bolton said he didn't have hard proof that this was an intentional administration leak to halt an Israeli attack.

But he noted widely reported comments from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in February that he thinks the Israelis could strike as early as April. If that's the case, Bolton said, then it would be "entirely consistent" for the administration to try to avoid that impending outcome.

The Foreign Policy article quoted what were identified as "high-level sources ... inside the U.S. government." It specifically mentioned "four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers."

One intelligence officer, who was unnamed, told the magazine that the U.S. was "watching" the activity and was "not happy about it."

The Foreign Policy article did not specify whether any of the information came from the White House, and there is no direct evidence that this was a coordinated leak.

"Clearly, this is an administration-orchestrated leak," Bolton told FoxNews.com. "This is not a rogue CIA guy saying I think I'll leak this out."

"It's just unprecedented to reveal this kind of information about one of your own allies," Bolton said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/29/bolton-accuses-administration-leaking-story-on-israeli-planning-along-iran/#ixzz1qbnpVsxh
This explains Dolby's eagerness to post this story yesterday.

txradioguy
03-30-2012, 10:13 AM
Sounds exactly like something they would do.


Especially in light of this:


A spokesman for Media Matters for America, which communicates directly with the White House in a weekly "strategy call," boasted in 2010 of President Obama's mistreatment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a forum held by Al-Jazeera.



http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?48055-Media-matters-boasts-to-al-jazeera-Obama-mistreated-netanyahu

Starbuck
03-30-2012, 10:15 AM
If Bolton says it, then it is probably true. There will be great celebration in the inner circles of Israel when Obama is gone.

txradioguy
03-30-2012, 10:18 AM
If Bolton says it, then it is probably true. There will be great celebration in the inner circles of Israel when Obama is gone.

Followed by a great sigh of relief.

Rockntractor
03-30-2012, 10:20 AM
If Bolton says it, then it is probably true. There will be great celebration in the inner circles of Israel when Obama is gone.

I was disappointed when the rumors of Bolton running for president didn't come true, I would happily have voted for him.

txradioguy
03-30-2012, 10:24 AM
I was disappointed when the rumors of Bolton running for president didn't come true, I would happily have voted for him.

Secretary of State John Bolton has a nice ring to it though.

http://www.electstevedawes.com/

AmPat
03-30-2012, 10:40 AM
Former president and worst president ever, Barrack The Racist Commie Obama is a better title.

Arroyo_Doble
03-30-2012, 10:46 AM
If Bolton says it, then it is probably true. There will be great celebration in the inner circles of Israel when Obama is gone.

Which nation should the President be concerned about, Israel or his own? If he thinks a war in the Middle East between Iran and Israel (no telling who else gets involved after that) would not be in the interests of the United States of America, shouldn't he work to prevent it?

txradioguy
03-30-2012, 10:51 AM
Which nation should the President be concerned about, Israel or his own? If he thinks a war in the Middle East between Iran and Israel (no telling who else gets involved after that) would not be in the interests of the United States of America, shouldn't he work to prevent it?


At the fundraiser, Biden also assessed his and Obama's re-election prospects. He expressed confidence in their chances against any of the Republican candidates, but also concerns about the campaign being overtaken by events. "I don't think we'll be beaten by those candidates," Biden said. "I think we'll be beaten -- if we are -- by something happening in the Eurozone, or something happening in the Gulf, which could be difficult for us, or this barrage of Super PAC money.


http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/biden-i-dont-want-real-job…you-have-produce/455066

Rockntractor
03-30-2012, 10:58 AM
Which nation should the President be concerned about, Israel or his own? If he thinks a war in the Middle East between Iran and Israel (no telling who else gets involved after that) would not be in the interests of the United States of America, shouldn't he work to prevent it?

Cutting the throat of one of our biggest allies is not in this countries best interest but I think Obama has his own group of allies that work against our country with him.

Arroyo_Doble
03-30-2012, 11:00 AM
Cutting the throat of one of our biggest allies is not in this countries best interest but I think Obama has his own group of allies that work against our country with him.

Do you think a war in the Middle East between Iran and Israel serves our interests as a nation?

noonwitch
03-30-2012, 11:01 AM
Which nation should the President be concerned about, Israel or his own? If he thinks a war in the Middle East between Iran and Israel (no telling who else gets involved after that) would not be in the interests of the United States of America, shouldn't he work to prevent it?


I would say the US, although we should continue to value Israel as an ally.

Bolton makes this claim, then states that he has no proof of it.

txradioguy
03-30-2012, 11:02 AM
Do you think a war in the Middle East between Iran and Israel serves our interests as a nation?

Someone has to do more than just talk. Israel seems ready to do just that. And since they have a vested interest in stopping Iran...probably moreso than we do...who are we to get in their way of doing what this President and his staff seems incapable of doing...which is stopping Iran.

Rockntractor
03-30-2012, 11:03 AM
Do you think a war in the Middle East between Iran and Israel serves our interests as a nation?

If supporting our alley means war yes. You have zero honor, people like you and Obama will not keep your word on anything.

Arroyo_Doble
03-30-2012, 11:06 AM
I would say the US, although we should continue to value Israel as an ally.

I agree. The notion that the President of the United States should be more concerned about another nation than his own, is bizarre. And Israel isn't even a NATO level ally.


Bolton makes this claim, then states that he has no proof of it.

Bolton says alot of things .........

Rockntractor
03-30-2012, 11:10 AM
I agree. The notion that the President of the United States should be more concerned about another nation than his own, is bizarre. And Israel isn't even a NATO level ally.



Bolton says alot of things .........

You don't sell out the military secrets of your best allies or no one will trust you.

Odysseus
03-30-2012, 11:20 AM
Secretary of State John Bolton has a nice ring to it though.

http://www.electstevedawes.com/
Agreed. If nothing else, the exodus of rats from Foggy Bottom would be fun to watch.

Which nation should the President be concerned about, Israel or his own? If he thinks a war in the Middle East between Iran and Israel (no telling who else gets involved after that) would not be in the interests of the United States of America, shouldn't he work to prevent it?

He's more concerned with the effects of a Middle Eastern war on his approval ratings and reelection prospects, since it might interfere with him having more room to give concessions to the Russians.

Leaking classified information that was provided by an ally in order to undermine the ally's critical security requirements destroys trust and confidence, but doesn't prevent anything, it just makes it more difficult for that ally to operate. The mission will continue, because Israel has no choice in the matter (or do you not believe that Iran will use nuclear weapons in a first strike on Israel, as they have repeatedly said that they will do?), but it will now continue without our being in the loop. Since the Iranians will not believe that we aren't in the loop, and will, in fact, place equal blame on us for any Israeli action, then Obama has guaranteed that we will be caught flat-footed when Israel does act, because they sure as hell won't trust us again. And let's not forget that Iran is at war with us, as they have repeatedly stated. An Iranian nuke doesn't need an ICBM to reach us. They can hand it off to terrorists, or use their new port facilities that Hugo Chavez has so thoughtfully provided to them to bring it close to our coastline. There is also solid evidence of Mexican drug cartels working with Iran and other Islamists, which means that a nuke could be smuggled across our southern border. That means that the cities that are most at risk are San Diego, Dallas, San Antonio and Houston.

Obama's actions have failed to stop any raid, but have reduced its chances for success, and further endangered the US, which now has far less intel coming from Israel or any other Middle Eastern state (the Saudis, Jordanians and Iraqis aren't too keen on living under Iranian nuclear hegemony, either). He's not so much shot us in the foot as stabbed us in the eyes.

Oh, and our NATO ally in the region, Turkey, just had a lovely tete-a-tete with Iran, in which Erdoğan defended Iran’s nuclear program and expressed solidarity with their response "to the arrogance of the Western countries.”

Arroyo_Doble
03-30-2012, 11:25 AM
Since the Iranians will not believe that we aren't in the loop, and will, in fact, place equal blame on us for any Israeli action, then Obama has guaranteed that we will be caught flat-footed when Israel does act, because they sure as hell won't trust us again.

You really think Iran would have given us a pass had Israel attacked them before this leak (I am going on the assumption it is true .... not always the case with anonymous sources)?

AmPat
03-30-2012, 11:29 AM
Which nation should the President be concerned about, Israel or his own? If he thinks a war in the Middle East between Iran and Israel (no telling who else gets involved after that) would not be in the interests of the United States of America, shouldn't he work to prevent it?
What "work" is the moron accomplishing (or even attempting)? I don't call ratting out your ally as a low life traitor "work."

Odysseus
03-30-2012, 01:39 PM
You really think Iran would have given us a pass had Israel attacked them before this leak (I am going on the assumption it is true .... not always the case with anonymous sources)?

No, Iran would be targeting us on general principle. The point is that I'd rather that they not have functional nuclear weapons when they do it.

As for the rest, your BS about our expecting Obama to put Israeli interests ahead of ours is a typical straw man. The US and Israel share a common enemy in Iran, but Israel is closer, and therefore the threat to them is greater, but don't pretend that Iran will not target us. We're in this together, and undermining our ally is nonsensical.

Bailey
03-30-2012, 01:42 PM
Which nation should the President be concerned about, Israel or his own? If he thinks a war in the Middle East between Iran and Israel (no telling who else gets involved after that) would not be in the interests of the United States of America, shouldn't he work to prevent it?

Ya and Iran getting nuclear bombs that could wipe out Israel is much better then doing nothing. Sure if Iran hit them we'd wipe Iran out but it wont help Israel out any.

Starbuck
03-30-2012, 03:11 PM
Which nation should the President be concerned about, Israel or his own? If he thinks a war in the Middle East between Iran and Israel (no telling who else gets involved after that) would not be in the interests of the United States of America, shouldn't he work to prevent it?

You know, that's actually a very prescient question.

But the discussion should be how he should work to prevent it. And turning in Israel for making advance preparations is not my idea of how we should go about it.

txradioguy
03-31-2012, 05:22 AM
You really think Iran would have given us a pass had Israel attacked them before this leak (I am going on the assumption it is true .... not always the case with anonymous sources)?

Why should we care whether Iran would "give us a pass" or not?

AmPat
03-31-2012, 10:41 AM
I agree. The notion that the President of the United States should be more concerned about another nation than his own, is bizarre. And Israel isn't even a NATO level ally.



Bolton says alot of things .........Yeah, true, but O Blah Blah blathers more.

Janice
03-31-2012, 11:51 AM
Yeah, true, but O Blah Blah blathers more.

Yes. And when they do speak, which ones speech can have a positive or negative impact on the lives of millions? Perhaps even nations.

Wei Wu Wei
03-31-2012, 02:08 PM
Bolton is admitting himself that there is no evidence for these claims, it's just pure speculation. It's funny how fast people are willing to take wild speculation as fact as long as they want to believe the conclusion, while actual sourced data is consistently shrugged off whenever the conclusion (or even the reporting source) is disliked.

Starbuck
03-31-2012, 04:08 PM
Bolton is admitting himself that there is no evidence for these claims, it's just pure speculation. It's funny how fast people are willing to take wild speculation as fact as long as they want to believe the conclusion, while actual sourced data is consistently shrugged off whenever the conclusion (or even the reporting source) is disliked.

Speculation, sure. But who knew about Israel's activities? Bolton didn't. The Israeli's probably didn't turn themselves in, but now we're just speculating again.

Speculation is perfectly fair. Did you expect that there should be no discussion until the smoking gun is produced? Hold your breath.:biggrin-new:

Odysseus
04-01-2012, 10:24 AM
Bolton is admitting himself that there is no evidence for these claims, it's just pure speculation. It's funny how fast people are willing to take wild speculation as fact as long as they want to believe the conclusion, while actual sourced data is consistently shrugged off whenever the conclusion (or even the reporting source) is disliked.

It is speculation by a career diplomat who understands the details of how things work at the State Department. It is also supported by the MO of prior State Department leaks, included CIA leaks, during the Bush Administration. It was the State Department that set up and leaked the Plame affair, as well as providing the media with the details of the highly classified program of monitoring terrorists' financial transactions, the CIA's detention of al Qaeda operatives overseas and the NSA's tracking of electronic communications between terrorists and their agents in the US.

Let's put it another way: We'd better hope that these leaks are deliberate, because if they aren't, if they are simply how the State Department routinely operates, then we are in far bigger trouble.