Mr. Diplomacy "Ambassador" John Bolton says Bush Administration is going soft, "not the same".
"The State Department has adopted the European view [on Iran] and other voices have been sidelined,". Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "is overwhelmingly predominant on foreign policy".
Poor man, now he is giving interviews to the Jerusalem Post.
Sanctions and diplomacy have failed and it may be too late for internal opposition to oust the Islamist regime, leaving only military intervention to stop Iran's drive to nuclear weapons, the US's former ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.
Worse still, according to Ambassador Bolton, the Bush administration does not recognize the urgency of the hour and that the options are now limited to only the possibility of regime change from within or a last-resort military intervention, and it is still clinging to the dangerous and misguided belief that sanctions can be effective.
As a consequence, Bolton said he was "very worried" about the well-being of Israel. If he were in Israel's predicament, he said, "I'd be pushing the US very hard. I am pushing the US [administration] very hard, from the outside, in Washington."
http://www.jpost.com/...
...Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza are all in the middle of a civil war. Pakistan and Egypt are filled with extremist groups, and now Bolton thinks is time for regime change in Iran. The neo-cons have not backed down one iota. It still is the Clean Break Plan, and Syria is next on the list. But it's interesting to note, Condi is no longer one of the cheerleaders.
UPDATED
Found this interesting:
Hidden NYT Correction on Iran Lies
Two days ago the NYT had a page A1 report on Iran Cracks Down on Dissent. It ran with a photo of a man being manhandled by the Iranian police.
Michelle Malkin and the usual bunch of warmongering folks jumped to the story with additional pictures.
But the story was wrong and the NYT did "correct" the story, though you will only find the correction when you somehow go back to the original article linked above.
The headline over the article said that Iran was cracking down on dissent and "parading examples" in the streets, and one paragraph in the article also said that young men detained for wearing tight T-shirts or western-style haircuts had been "paraded bleeding through Tehran’s streets by uniformed police officers." The Times caption on an official Iranian news agency photograph that ran with the article said that it showed a police officer punishing a young man in public for wearing un-Islamic clothing by forcing him to suck on a plastic container normally used for intimate hygiene, a punishment the article also asserted was for that offense.
But the man in the photograph, according to widespread Iranian news reports, was one of more than 100 people arrested recently on charges of being part of a gang that had committed rapes, robberies, forgeries and other crimes. The caption published on the Web site of the news agency, Fars, had said only that the man was being punished as part of a roundup of "thugs" in a Tehran neighborhood.
So how did this happen?
This was from Moon of Alabama, Billmon might still be missing but Bernhard's picking up the slack:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/...