The Volokh Conspiracy

Any truth to the rumor that John Bolton looked at George Monbiot and said “I crap bigger than you” before he turned and walked away?

Slow news day at the Telegraph?

In the movie, Jim Nabors can play the part of Monbiot. Don Notts, unfortunately, is not available to play Bolton. (Google indicates that I am not the first to suggest Nabors for the part.)

Monbiot is not the only resident of over-sweetened breakfast cereal land encountered today. Vincent Bugliosi was on with Mancow explaining how it was that he thought that George the Junior Bush should be arrested for murder. Bugliosi was complaining that Mancow was not taking him seriously. Mancow explained that if Bugliosi wanted serious treatment, he should be on a different radio program. Bugliosi was on the show immediately following Alex Jones. Whoever books that program is a genius.

I'm waiting for Monbiot to try that move here in the US, preferrably in a state with a newly-polished Stand Your Ground law.

Thorley--Now you have me thinking of Bolton as Sinatra from SNL's bit "The Sinatra Group":

Frank Sinatra: "You don't scare me. I've got chunks of guys like you in my stool!"

Monbiot did as good a job in planning and executing this "arrest" as the Bush Administration did in planning and executing the Iraq war.

Setting aside all the other ways in which the question is moonbatty, what does Monbiot think Bolton had to do with the Iraq war (*)? Bolton may have rhetorically supported it, but even in speech-unfriendly Europe, I don't think verbal support for a war makes one a war criminal.

Good point, a lot of us were so amused by the ridiculous image of Gomer Monbiot trying to enact a “citizen’s arrest” of a man who has probably chunks of guys like him in his stool that we missed the larger implication – what Monbiot was actually advocating was criminalizing political disagreements.

Monbiot stated in a news conference that he was going to do a citizen's arrest on Bolton. Afterwards, he complained that he was kept away from Bolton by the police. But when he was in the room, he began asking Bolton questions directly, so it's obvious that he could have simply walked up and at least attempted the arrest.

Mr. Moonbat clearly put his tail between his legs, and only used the police to excuse his cowardice.

I don't follow this. Generally speaking, the fewer laws there are, the more general and vague they'll be. The more laws there are, the more specific they'll be. It's the difference between a constitution and a tax code.

Nobody, so far as I know, has ever been criminally prosecuted over some vague statement in the Constitution unless there was also a statute at issue. But that's not what I'm talking about.

In theory it's not a bad idea to forbid weapons in school. However, virtually anything can be used as a weapon if someone uses it as a weapon. So in theory a student could be disciplined for bringing a backpack, having a tire iron in the trunk of his car, or wearing a belt. Plus, is a ceremonial sword, such as a student might have for a history class project, really a weapon if its primary function is to be looked at? No matter how those questions get answered, the real answer is that a weapon is whatever a school administrator decides is a weapon on any given day of the week. And I myself do not trust bureaucrats, including school administrators, to have common sense; just because a student hasn't been expelled -- yet -- for wearing a belt and carrying a backpack doesn't mean some creative school adminisrator somewhere won't rise to the occasion.

I don't mean to hijack this thread and change the subject to school administrators. My broader point is that if government agents are going to make trouble for someone, they really should be required to do so based on laws that make it clear in advance what's being forbidden. A creative mind can turn just about anything into a "war crime".

In addition (sorry, hit "post" too soon, the reason you want fewer laws is that the more laws you have, the more opportunities there are for a creative bureaucratic mind to find something in them somewhere that allows him to go after someone. "Everyone is presumed to know the law" may have worked fine when there were few laws and mostly they dealt with violence and fraud.

Setting aside all the other ways in which the question is moonbatty, what does Monbiot think Bolton had to do with the Iraq war (*)?

It's at this link.

My broader point is that if government agents are going to make trouble for someone, they really should be required to do so based on laws that make it clear in advance what's being forbidden.

Agreed.

the reason you want fewer laws is that the more laws you have, the more opportunities there are for a creative bureaucratic mind to find something in them somewhere that allows him to go after someone. "Everyone is presumed to know the law" may have worked fine when there were few laws and mostly they dealt with violence and fraud.

I think the trade off is between fewer laws and more (or at least more specific) laws. The former is desirable for the reasons you mention, but specificity is essential to prevent the overbroad application you also complain about. There's a tension there which is probably impossible to adjust precisely.

Mr Bolton said the war was legal, partly because Iraq had failed to comply with a key and binding UN resolution after the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

Same old same old.

Forget the UN resolution. Gulf War 1 was a defensive war against Iraqi aggression approved by everyone from the Politburo of the SU, to the UN SC, to NATO, to the Syrian Baathists. It was stopped by a ceasefire that was persistently violated by IRAQ for the next 12 years. When a ceasefire is violated, the aggrieved party gets to resume the war. As with North Korea with whom we've had a violated ceasefire for more than 50 years, or Iran with whom we've been at war since 1979, we were free to resume hostilities any time.

Perfectly legal under principles of international law generally accepted by countries that have sufficient armed forces to have an opinion.

Weedy eurotrash lack the strength or the will to allow their opinions to rise to the level of "generally accepted principles". After all, once they are absorbed into the Caliphate, their generally accepted principles will be quite different.

PLR, go ahead and enumerate them for the benefit of us poor uninformed.

Public_Defender:

"Bolton's role was as real as Saddam's WMD's."

What WMD's? Well, why don't you ask your Democrat heroes:

''[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.'' -- From a letter signed by Dianne Feinstein, Tom Daschle, &John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

AND:

This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, &Tom Lantos among others

AND:

''Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities'' -- From a resolution submitted by Tom Harkin on July 18, 2002

AND:

''Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.'' -- Madeline Albright, 1998

AND:

''Saddam will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983'' -- National Security Adviser &Convicted Thief Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

AND:

''Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.'' -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

AND:

''The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.'' -- Robert KKK Byrd, October 2002

AND:

''There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He has had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001. He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.'' -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

AND:

''What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.'' -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

AND:

''The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.'' -- Bill Clinton in 1998

AND:

''In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.'' -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

AND:

''I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.'' -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

AND:

''Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.'' -- Tom Daschle in 1998

AND:

''Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.'' -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

AND:

''I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.'' -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

AND:

''Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.'' -- Al Gore, 2002

AND:

''The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.'' -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

AND:

''We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.'' -- Bob Graham, December 2002

AND:

''Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.'' -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

AND:

''We have, ah, known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.'' -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

AND:

''I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.'' -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

AND:

''There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.'' -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

AND:

''The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.'' -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

''We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.'' -- Sen. Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

AND:

''We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.'' -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

AND:

''Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.'' -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

AND:

''Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons. U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.'' -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

AND:

''As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.'' -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

AND:

''Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.'' -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

AND:

''There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.'' -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

AND:

''I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

AND:

''Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.'' -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

PLR,

Coward.

I'm of the opinion that anyone who invokes the Kellogg-Briand Pact as an actual legally binding treaty pretty much automatically fails the argument.

The article PLR linked also ignores the plain language of the treaty:

The high contracting parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

Is "citizen's" in "citizen's arrest" a misnomer in the U.K.?

This guy does a huge discredit to those of us that rationally insist that Bush was off his rocker (see: McLellan).

Maybe Monbiot had him confused with Officer Joe Bolton.

Bolton should've gone along with it to let Monbiot make a bigger fool of himself.

Smokey you correctly identified the major flaw in the Bush 43 administration -- actually believing that any Democrat elected to federal office would, under any circumstances, tell the truth, about any subject.

PD -- as an Obama supporter, please name, provide the geographic location and name the capital cities of each of the "57 states" that the Senator stated that he had campaigned in. Bonus point if you can provide that information for the "58th state" he was referring to when he said that he had not yet campaigned there.

Like so many on the Left, Monbiot was a campaigner against the Afghanistan campaign - it was mostly about oil, doncha know, that and neo-colonialism in general.

Hello LM,

Against the Afghanistan campaign, from the Left?

Many in the U.S. and many outside of the U.S. So no, I'm referring to MoveOn types and many other Leftists within the U.S., as well as many outside of the U.S., Monbiot was one prominent representative of that entire class. Whether that comprised "most" on the Left, I simply do not know.

Btw,

The media and academe (Monbiot garnering the larger portion of his reputation as a member of those two socio-political castes) as apologists for war crimes and genocide is a huge subject in and of itself (and yes, "huge" is the right term). Not all media and academically supported war crimes and genocide are as direct or as consciously complicit as Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) in the case of Rwanda; as Hildebrand, Porter, Chomsky and Herman (and others) in the instance of Cambodia; as Walter Duranty and others during the Ukrainian genocide; etc., but they are noteworthy nonetheless, and terribly underreported and inadequately examined. Not surprising, since it would amount to the fourth and fifty estates, such as they are in their contemporary and hugely empowered form, critiquing themselves.

Too, not being "as directly or comsciously complicit" as RTLM or as Duranty or as Herman, Chomsky & Co. doesn't represent a very high standard, given the subject matter is genocide and war crimes as conceived when the light of day is allowed to shine more fully on the subject matter. For example, the western press's reporting relative to Iraq has often been abyssal - CNN's Eason Jordan merely representing one particularly low standard and example - likewise, reporting during the early and later years of Vietnam, Sheehan's and Halberstan's reports reflecting a particularly corrupt set of reports in and of themselves and which additionally set the foundations for subsequent mendacious and misapprehended reporting out of that theater.

This is in fact a huge topic, but as the fourth and fifty estates are now hugely empowered, those critiques are going to have to come from quarters, for the most part, other than the traditional confines of those two mega-empowered estates.

Free Pinochet!

Re: PLR's link to Monbiot's thinking...
"John Bolton orchestrated the sacking of the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Jose Bustani."

I don't think there was any disagreement about this. The U S Government believed that Bustani was not aggressive enough to challenge the iraqis over on-site inspections, and that Bustani's protocols were unlikely to discover any hidden WMD. That's hardly a war crime. Instead, Monbiot sees a grand conspiracy to wage war, as if Bustani was somehow an impediment to the war cabal within the U S leadership.

"Mr Bolton helped to promote the false claim...that Saddam Hussein had been seeking to procure uranium from Niger"

Actually, the Niger government was of the opinion that the Iraqis made trade contact specifically to obtain uranium, although no one from the Iraq trade delegation used the word "uranium." Somehow, in all the hoopla about Mr Wilson and his CIA wife, who arranged for his paid trip to Niger, this fact is mislaid consistently. Wilson reported, correctly if held to a very narrow definition, that the Iraq trade delegation never asked to buy uranium. However, the Niger trade minister who met with the Iraqis face-to-face concluded that was exactly what the Iraqis wanted. He sent them packing and reported to his government that the Iraqis obviously wanted to buy uranium. The iraqis never brought up the ostensible reason for the initial trade contact (toaster overs or something - I don't remember). If we trust the actual bureaucrat who sat across a table from the Iraq trade delegation, they wanted uranium. At the time, Niger had a long-standing policy of not selling uranium to Iraq, so this was not a subject which could have been broached openly. One might question the opinion of the Niger government officials, but to call Bolton's acceptance (of the same opinion) a "lie" is, well, untruthful and deceitful.

Also, concerning the inevitable cracks about missing WMD's, I suggest interested readers Google "Iraqi Perspectives Project". This is the recently released report on translated Iraq documents. In at least one pre-war conference, our friend Saddam asks a general about using "special weapons" if the U S invaded. If GWB et al were deceived, apparently so was Hussein. We may never find out when the stocks of WMD were destroyed or moved to another country, but the evidence is quite strong that Iraq was at the least maintaining and funding dual-use technology which could be quickly converted to the production of WMD.

Funny how so many different countries and non-Republicans could be sincerely mistaken about the WMD, but George Bush and his cronies all lied about the same estimation. Fault the intelligence if you like - that's a no-brainer, but why impute dishonesty for Bush and company holding the same opinion as most of the intelligence services in the Western world?

Managing the post-war Iraq has been a complete disaster, poorly planned and executed. The current administration has a lot to answer for in this regard. But that's another subject altogether....

Still, he conflated the confidence he understandably had about the presence of WMD's with a certainty of their presence which he expressed publicly.

So you'd prefer it if he and other President's concealed their thoughts and intentions, and acted covertly for concealed motives?

Strange.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp

TDPerkins,

You've lost me. How does that follow from my comment?

Maybe I wasn't clear. What he expressed was certainty, when his actual state was confidence. Confidence is debatable. Certainty isn't.

BTW, what are the abbreviations that follow your initials?

But, all in all, the decision to invade could be understood after serious scrutiny to have occurred in good faith.

... depending on one's level of credulity...

Why is this still an issue? Is it that the Left is psychologically incapable of giving up talking points that have been thoroughly discredited?

In much the same way the neo-right is incapable of answering the question of the existence of WMD in 2002-2003, after inspections and the Blix report.

Smokey,

If you have a comment on what I actually said, I'll be happy to respond. Until then, I'll leave you to do as you wish with your straw man.

jccamp,

The problem with the likes of Monbiot is they really believe their determinist scenarios. In that regard their ilk are well represented on both the left and the right, though in Europe the balance is certainly further left.

Smokey,

The only charitable interpretation I can muster for that comment is that we define "certain" differently.

jccamp:

I couldn't have said it better myself. The indisputable fact that the Sadman used WMD's on his own Kurdish population [and mustard gas during the Iran-Iraq war] makes the deniers look silly. And those Democrat statements in the 5/29 3:34 post above are as 'certain' as anyone's gonna get in politics.