John Bolton strikes (out) again.
His op-ed piece in Wednesday's Financial Times, "Britain Can't Have Two Best Friends," generated four letters to the editor on Thursday and five more today.
Needless to say, all nine letters admonished Bolton's typically vituperative views. Or, as one of the letter headers put it, "Why give a forum to such a loathsome individual?"
Indeed.
The thrust of Bolton's piece was, among other things, to warn the new government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown that Britain's "long, slow slide into the European porridge" is to risk its "special relationship" with the U.S.
...that disagreements over Iraq ("as contentious and important as Iraq is") and global warming do not reflect a "tectonic shift"
...that a union with the EU would -- and should -- threaten Britain's seat on the UN's security council (Bolton sees the EU as one body that only requires one seat)
...that the U.S.-U.K. intelligence relationship would create tension and risk, should the U.K. "very privately" reveal what it knows to European colleagues
"...that the U.K. might waver in its support "if [George W. Bush] decides that the only way to stop Iran is to use military force." Therefore, Bolton asks, would Britain support America or allow "Iran to goose-step towards nuclear weapons"?
He concludes his piece with
"I will wait for answers to these and other questions before I draw conclusions about "the special relationship" under Mr Brown. But not forever."
And no one's holding their breath.
As usual, I found John Bolton's xenophobic arrogance and moral blindness mind-numbingly insufferable. His prattling on about the loyalties in the US-UK relationship vis-a-vis Europe sidesteps the fact that the unprovoked Iraq war, which Bolton reduced to merely "contentious and important," is a colossal disaster and humanitarian crisis, while the willful denial of global warming by George W Bush justifiably earned the scorn of the rest of the reality-based planet.
And really, of what real value was the pooled US-UK intelligence of 2003 now that we know it was manipulated and "sexed up" in order to rationalise the invasion of Iraq?
Bolton's audacity in asking "If Mr Bush decides that the only way to stop Iran is to use military force, where will Mr Brown come down?" ignores Dubya's 73% disapproval rating of his handling of Iraq -- an unwinnable war that has cost the lives of thousands of troops and over US$1 trillion -- and highlights the hypocrisy of securing "freedom" for oil-rich Middle East dictatorships with questionable nuclear facilities while discounting the threat of North Korea's established nuclear program.
But we are not alone in our shock at Bolton's contempt for all things anti-neocon. Some best-of quotes from the LTE's:
"While I relish provacative writing as much as the next man, I find John Bolton's latest contribution to your pages patronising, threatening and adolescent....It seems to me that international diplomacy in this complex, dangerous world is not best pursued by the divisive mentality displayed by Mr. Bolton."
"I suspect that what Mr Bolton really means is that he is waiting for some kind of mainstream support in the UK for his idiosyncratic views of life and the universe -- in which case he should be prepared to hang on until doomsday."
"John Bolton's assertion (August 1) that the UK cannot have two best friends, and that he will wait for answers "but not forever", reeks of the simplistic and arrogant analysis that has led the US into the most disastrous foreign policy quagmire in its history."
"Well, since he uses the option of military action against Iran as benchmark, he can get his answer right away. The majority of British citizens opposing a campaign against Iran is even larger than the one against the Iraq war."
"August is known as the silly season for news stories, but stories surely do not come much sillier than John Bolton's contribution on August 1.
It is odd that, despite having been US ambassador to the United Nations, Mr Bolton does not seem to have studied the UN charter very carefully. If he had, he would have seen that neither France nor Britain can cease to be permanent members of the Security Council other than by their own decision; and neither Gordon Brown nor Nicolas Sarkozy seems to be rushing towards that exit, even if the European Union's new reform treaty had not made it clear that sacrifice of permanent membership of the Security Council was not on the menu."
And finally, my favourite:
"Gordon Brown should never be asked to choose between the US and the EU. The result would be a disaster for the US, Europe and the world.
Fortunately, Mr Bolton's views on any foreign policy topic are now largely discredited and disregarded. Unfortunately, it will take my country [U.S] decades to repair the damage done by the debacle in Iraq and by Mr Bolton and his ilk. Let us hope his most recent myopic recommendation regarding the best way to handle Iran's nuclear weapons programme at this time is regulated to the dustbin of history, where it belongs."
As far as I'm concerned, considering that his imperialistic former bosses have shattered the world's respect for US foreign policy since 9/11, John Bolton can keep his conclusions about the US-UK "special relationship" -- and all other opinions about international relations -- to himself.