Thread by @FrankJannuzi

The “imminent” emergence of a new DPRK military capability does NOT constitute an “imminent threat” of DPRK attack, and Bolton knows this all too well. His deliberate conflation is beneath a man of his intellect, and marks his op-ed as pure militaristic propaganda.

Absent evidence that DPRK is about to attack us - that an ATTACK is “imminent” - there is NO “legal case” for attacking North Korea based on their “imminent” acquisition of a new military capability. There is no evidence that they are preparing to strike. Bolton is fear-mongering

Bolton is not a stupid man. He is counting, however, on the American people being dumb if he expects them to buy his argument on North Korea.
DPRK developed nukes in 2006. We’ve been living with nuclear armed North Korea for 12 years.

Bolton would have us believe that even though we’ve been living with nuclear armed DPRK since 2006, the North’s improving missile capabilities now force us to launch a war the Pentagon predicts will be catastrophic. I call BS. This is same Bolton who helped blunder us into Iraq.

At any point during the past 11 years, DPRK could have put a nuke on a boat and steamed it into Long Beach. DPRK is a threat. DPRK is NOT an “imminent” threat, either in reality, or as a matter of law, justifying US preemptive strike.

Bolton’s argument is proven specious by his very ability to waste several column inches arguing that we should attack North Korea because it poses an “imminent threat” - which HE notes has traditionally meant a threat leaving ‘no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation’

If threat were truly imminent, leaving use of force as ONLY means to address it, we would have NO TIME for “ambassador” Bolton’s fascinating historical lesson in WSJ. If there is time for us to read Bolton’s WSJ op-ed advocating war, there is time for diplomacy to prevent war.

That’s the thing about the use of force against “imminent” threats - one doesn’t have time to draft, publish, and debate op-eds in situations where the legal definition of imminence has been met.
Let’s be clear:Bolton is advocating for a “preventive” attack on nuclear-armed DPRK

Bolton is NOT advocating for a “preemptive” attack against an truly imminent threat.
And he knows it.
He doesn’t want his readers to know it.
If he wants to start war to “prevent” DPRK from acquiring nuclear capable ICBM, he should say so. He should not dress it up as necessity.

Bolton’s own words, if read closely, make clear that he is NOT talking about an imminent threat. He admires Israel’s strikes on Iraq and Syria, NEITHER of which were preemptive - both were “preventive” strikes.
Some may say that’s fine - and we should follow Israel’s lead.

Couple of wee small problems following Israel’s example against Osirak:
1) Neither Iraq nor Syria actually had NUCLEAR WEAPONS when Israel attacked.
2) Neither had thousands of artillery tubes ready to rain death down on Jerusalem in retaliation.

One other wee small problem with “ambassador” Bolton’s argument.
Nowhere in his op ed does he bother to mention our South Korean allies.
Let me say that again. He doesn’t MENTION them. Once. At all. Nada. Zilch. With me so far?

Bolton is calling for US war of choice - a war that would be launched NOT out of necessity against an imminent threat, but rather, out of fear.
This war would be triggered by men lacking strategic thinking, creativity, courage, and self-confidence. Small men, with big hair.

Bolton doesn’t consider Souh Korea at all. Whoopee, “America First.”
Except we can’t prosecute a war against DPRK without our South Korean allies. And our brave ROK allies - who have shed blood for US in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice) - don’t want to fight unnecessary wars!

And of course, it goes without saying that to prosecute Bolton’s folly against DPRK, he is prepared not only to ignore our allies in war planning, but also to sacrifice their lives BY THE MILLION in the war’s execution.

United States “Ambassadors” are supposed to advance US interests, not foreign interests. But the title used to imply that the holder of that high office would at least feign awareness and concern for the views of foreign powers - especially our treaty allies!

Perhaps that is why the United States Senate - even though controlled by the GOP with a Republican President - NEVER confirmed the nomination of “ambassador” Bolton to ANY ambassadorial post!

His Senate confirmation hearings in 2005 make for great reading. I especially commend the testimony of Carl Ford - fellow Republican conservative.

Perhaps Senate understood THEN what we all can see now: Bolton is smart, but lacks wisdom and compassion.
villagevoice.com/2005/04/12/wan…

Re-upping this thread - in light of Bolton talk with @WhiteHouse for an “imminent” job opening...

unroll