Remember it was the multiple adulterous affairs that shot down Bernie Kerik's nomination as Fatherland Security Chief, rather than the corruption and incompetence.
It's all about the sex.
And now, according to The Raw Story, Larry Flynt has the goods on John Bolton.
Corroborated allegations that Mr. Bolton’s first wife, Christina Bolton, was forced to engage in group sex have not been refuted by the State Department despite inquires posed by Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt concerning the allegations. Mr. Flynt has obtained information from numerous sources that Mr. Bolton participated in paid visits to Plato’s Retreat, the popular swingers club that operated in New York City in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
The first Mrs. Bolton’s conduct raises the presumption that she fled out of fear for her safety or, at a minimum, it demonstrates that Mr. Bolton’s established inability to communicate or work respectfully with others extended to his intimate family relations,” said Mr. Flynt. “The court records alone provide sufficient basis for further investigation of nominee Bolton by the Senate.” These court records are enclosed here as an attachment. Mr. Flynt continued, “The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations must be free of any potential source of disrepute or blackmail.”
the sheeple only listyen to the sex.
MONETARY rape by the bush maladministration just doesn't get their blood boiling, even if it's THEIR MONEY.
It's the Jeri Ryan thing all over again isn't it? Even if the allegations turn out to be only half true (who knows which half), Bolton's not going to smell of roses.
Just like his defenders say being an asshole doesn't disqualify him for the position. As a matter of fact, Bolton probably wants in on some of the hot foreign sex action he might get at as ambassador to the U.N.
Captured Al-Qaeda Kingpin Is Case of 'Mistaken Identity'
Remember last week, when newspapers were trumpeting the capture of "the third in line behind Bin Laden"? Turns out they got the wrong guy:
THE capture of a supposed Al-Qaeda kingpin by Pakistani agents last week was hailed by President George W Bush as "a critical victory in the war on terror". According to European intelligence experts, however, Abu Faraj al-Libbi was not the terrorists' third in command, as claimed, but a middle-ranker derided by one source as "among the flotsam and jetsam" of the organisation. Al-Libbi's arrest in Pakistan, announced last Wednesday, was described in the United States as "a major breakthrough" in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden.
Bush called him a "top general" and "a major facilitator and chief planner for the Al- Qaeda network". Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, said he was "a very important figure". Yet the backslapping in Washington and Islamabad has astonished European terrorism experts, who point out that the Libyan was neither on the FBI's most wanted list, nor on that of the State Department "rewards for justice" programme.
Another Libyan is on the FBI list — Anas al-Liby, who is wanted over the 1998 East African embassy bombings --- and some believe the Americans may have initially confused the two. When The Sunday Times contacted a senior FBI counter-terrorism official for information about the importance of the detained man, he sent material on al-Liby, the wrong man.
I wonder whether Newsweek is going to retract their "Got him!" story from this week's issue.
How about a follow-up on the captured letter that supposedly indicated that the insurgents in Iraq were becoming discouraged?
Old habits are hard to break. European-Americans started doing it 400 years ago. Invade the territory of a darker-skinned people, although they have never attacked you. Bring overwhelming military technology, leaving them little chance to defend themselves. When they dare to fight back, using whatever means they can, cry "Foul! Unfair! Savages! Terrorists!" Blame the victim.
[....]
But I should not rush to judgment. After all, these professor are experts in international law. They explain that civilized nations have developed rules of war, to tell everyone what is fair and what is not. I'm just having a bit of trouble understanding these rules. After many hours of watching network TV news, here is what I have learned:
If we spend 12 years destroying a nation's anti-aircraft defenses, then drop tons and tons of bombs on a defenseless people, that is fair.
If some of them take off their uniforms and fight in civilian clothes, that is unfair.
If we use sanctions for 12 years to deny a nation any new military technology, while we build several generations of new computer-based weapons to use against them, that is fair.
If they turn a school into a military base, that is unfair.
If we order our uniformed soldiers into a battle where they might be killed, that is fair. We call those soldiers heroes.
If they have people who wear civilian clothes and volunteer for missions where they will surely be killed, that is unfair. We call those suicide bombers cowardly, villainous, and insane.
If we invade their country, knowing that this may very will trigger terror attacks in the U.S., putting thousands of U.S. civilians at risk, that is fair.
If they place guns next to private homes, putting civilians at risk, that is unfair.
So now I get it. The basic principle that determines the rules of war is crystal clear. If we do it, it is fair and within rules of war. If the Iraqis do it, it is unfair and violates the rules of war. By definition.
The British figured out this principle back in 1776, when their neatly arrayed, technologically superior redcoats were bedeviled by colonists, who used tactics they had learned from the Indians.
Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer reminds us (April 1): "How easy to forget that our own war for independence was largely fought by 'irregulars' condemned as terrorists by the British because they would snipe from behind scattered trees rather than fight from the tight parade formations that were the civilized form of warfare in those days. Ours is a long history of covert actions, political assassinations, special ops, anti-democratic coups and dirty tricks that are, even today, being used in Iraq. And we claim that the ends of U.S. policy are so noble that even clearly illegal means, such as a preemptive invasion, are justified."
The ends justify the means. And our ends are so noble. We are so civilized, so far superior to the life of savagery our enemy lives. That is why, if we do it, it is fair. If they do it, it is unfair. By definition, blame falls on the victim.
Los Angeles Times columnist John Balzar (April 6) also asks: "Will the Seeds of Freedom Take Root in the Mideast's Soil?" He just wants the Arabs to understand us Americans. We are romantics, sentimental and often naive, he tells them. "Our president is such a man, and he has dared to proclaim that war will liberate an oppressed people in Iraq." Since we are a democracy, we have the right to dissent, and many of us "see misguided imperialist motives by our leaders, and a forfeiture of morality."
So is our president a sentimental romantic or an immoral imperialist? Balzar's rather bizarre argument is that the Arabs themselves, not Bush and his advisors, will determine the answer. He tells Arabs that they must decide whether to "take a chance on Bush's promise of opportunity or decide on confrontation, or seek some other path. Whichever view prevails depends on you." The Arabs, not the White House or the Pentagon, will determine U.S. policy and "the order of this coming new world." If we turn out to be imperialists, it is the Arabs' own fault!
Yet Balzar immediately tells the Arabs that in fact the choice has already been made for them. We are obviously liberators and not conquerors, he implies, precisely because we are giving them the freedom to determine the future: "You are empowered. Self-determination? This is no longer something for the future. We call it voting with your feet. Drink it in. This is what democracy tastes like." The sooner they welcome their conquerors, the sooner they will be just like us. They will even have the right to dissent - though not, apparently, to dissent from being just like us.
Four centuries ago, the first English invaders came to these shores with the same vision of innocent righteousness. They were sure they were here to do God's will. So how could they not be righteous and innocent? They were inviting the Indians to receive the Lord's salvation. If the Indians declined - if they chose deceitful terror over enlightened civilization and had to be exterminated - whose fault was that? Surely their own.
Blaming the victim is a very old game here in America. Sadly, much of our public swallows it whole. And there is no end of it in sight. The only question is which victims we will be blaming next.
