John Bolton and John Stewart Liebowitz are both pro-Zionists who (like the current Bush administration and Democratic Congress)place Israel's interests ahead of US interest by proxy. Only Israel benefits from these endless Middle East wars (aided by the UN). Iraq is the beginning. As we commit war-crimes in Baghdad, the US gov't commits treason at home by opening mail, eliminating habeas corpus, using the judiciary to steal private lands, banning books like "America Deceived" from Wiki, conducting warrantless wiretaps and engaging in illegal wars on behalf of AIPAC's paramour. Soon, another US false-flag operation will occur (sinking of an Aircraft Carrier by Mossad) and the US will invade Iran, (on behalf of Israel). Then we'll invade Syria, then Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon (again) then ....
Final link (before Google Books bends to gov't demands and censors the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

To JackD:

John Stewart is a "pro-zionist"? Apparently I'm watching a different show!

Whilst I agree that many of the things you suggest are happening in your post/rant, I think you should loosen your tin-foil hat a bit.

You make the rest of us "conspiracy theorists" look bad.

I read a few paras: that's some BAD writing Jack.

vis-a-vis Iraq - France was so right, we were so wrong.

Obviously, JackD has been sipping a little too much Jack Daniels...whew, Jon Stewart a Zionist? Wow, that's a new one to me.

In the meantime, can't wait to see Stewart and "The Mustache" together; hope Jon doesn't get lost in all that above the lip fuzz!

Well, that show just blew me away. My goodness, Jon was looking pretty articulate on the fly. Bolton did not get too far and the audience was having none of what he had to say. Honestly, I could not believe his support of Bush and his policies.

I am sure that clips of their exchange will soon be flying through cyberspace.

Bolton and Stewart have different reasons for claiming that France doesn't matter. Bolton makes the claim because Chirac didn't go along. Stewart because it makes for good comedy. In a few months after Sarkozy is elected and France becomes a huge American ally (and considerably to the right of BushCo), let's see if the Boltons and other wingnuts change their tune.

I agree that Stewart did a pretty god job of challenging Bolton's arguments. Bolton efforts to dismiss Stewart's points out of hand failed pretty miserably as the audience wouldn't out up with it and you could see Bolton getting angry. It kind of shows how difficult it is to be a bully when you're alone in a crowd.

There was one point that Bolton made several times that really got my blood boiling. He kept arguing that the President and his advisors should be pretty much free to do whatever they wish because he "won" the election (as though democracy ends when the votes are counted and can be put back in a box on a shelf until the next time the polls open!). Bolton argued that Bush's job is to represent the people who voted for him and that effective Congressional oversight would undermine the principle of democratic rule.

Unfortunately for Bush and Bolton and the rest of the wingnuts, the President isn't elected to serve the half of the country that voted for him, his is elected to serve the entire country, including supporters of the opposition. The government and the Constitution aren't prizes to be won by the candidate who collects the most votes, they are responsibilities that can only be fulfilled when the president rises above the partisan politics and begins to govern. Obviously, no president operates in a vacuum and it is impossible to govern wholly with disregard for political concerns, but this White House has never even tried to move beyond politics, which explains why they are so abysmally incompetent at governing the country.

This turned out to be one of the better "debates" on the Daily Show I thought. Bolton though confirmed the essential problem with the Bush, that he sees himself as a King rather than a President and he's there to "serve" those who voted for him, rather than the entire country. It will be nice when Bolton isn't even awarded the attention of a Comedy Central audience.

One problem, among many, with the Bush-Cheney-Rove-Bolton administration is that they believe they are there to govern for - and represent - the 50 percent of the country that voted for them.
The rest of us - the ones that didn't vote for them - are irrelevant to these guys. That was apparent in Bolton's comments to Jon Stewart.
Bolton is wound so tight that it looked like he was ready to blow a few times when Stewart offered a differing view.
I thought Stewart handled himself well in the face of such arrogance and certitude. And then today I read where Bolton says the U.S. may have to bomb and take military action against Iran.
Typical neo-Con; they come up with the strategies, (flawed at that), for wars and then other people's children, sons and daughters, spouses, fight those wars for them.

Chesire1, we were both boiling over Bolton. The other thing I wanted to crush his skull over was that crap about "democracy theory".

Here's a democracy theory for you John: "You're a geeky asshole! Like that teacher in Fairy Odd-Parents that are always chasing Timmy's fairy godparents..."

Bolton is an Idiot and didn't even have his facts straight! He discounted Stewart's observations on the Lincoln White House as being historically wrong.

Hah, Bolton in fact was historically wrong and in my mind embarrassed himself as being no better educated than an inner city high school student.

This just shows the depth of this administration's incompetence.

so very sad for our great nation.

In case you don't own a TV, you can legally view different segments of the show, as well as Colbert, at http://www.comedycentral.com/

I usually jet over there once or twice a week :)

The discussion on this website overlooking one aspect of Bolton's argument that is difficult to argue with: Bush and the administration's conduct in the Attorney General case. The AG's are charged with executing the policy of the executive branch by definition, so, those that do not believe in the ideals or the beliefs of that executive can be replaced. To wit, Clinton fired and replaced all 93 Attorney Generals as soon as he took office.

The idea is that the AGs serve the executive branch but their conduct is checked by the other branches of government. Only until recently has the legislative branch actually been a check on executive power, but, as much as one may not agree with executive policy at the moment, congressional oversight of the administration's conduct in the Attorney General matter oversteps traditional political balance.

The biggest, most obvious issue, however, is that the administration refuses to be truthful about its actions. If it had greater transperency and rather, clearly mentioned its firing of the AGs, the current situation may not have occured.

Samir, I think you're a little confused regarding the current Justice Department scandal. For starters, it wasn't a group of attorneys general that were fired, it was a group of federal prosecutors. Second, yes, Clinton did replace all 93, and when Bush took office, he also replaced the majority of federal prosecutors. It didn't make news then because it's very commonplace for the president to appoint his own set of prosecutors. The difference is the timing of the replacements, mid-term, when all were receiving positive performance reviews. The issue here is that the Justice Department is obliged to the rule of law, not the whims of the administration regarding which cases to pursue.

I must say it looks like Bolton is running for something. some time ago I read that bush was going to push him into the UN as an undersecretary. If that happens it will be the neocon weasel into the hen house. Bolton is an arrogant and rude nobody who should not be given such importance. why does CNN and FOX and Blitzer etc all love John Bolton. you tell me please