Neo-conservatives tend to be extremely bloodthirsty aggressive when it comes to foreign policy (Iraq, Iran, etc.), so it’s no surprise that I found a recent op-ed in the NYT by John Bolton and John Yoo to be pretty ridiculous. They appose the START treaty signed by Obama earlier this year, but which hasn’t been ratified by Congress. At one point they claim that the treaty puts “low limits” on our nuclear warheads. Of course, they don’t bother mentioning those limits because any rational person knows that retaining 1,550 nukes for deployment is still a ludicrously high number and could destroy the planet many times over. Nevertheless, Bolton and Yoo somehow think even more are necessary for “national security.”
But the real kicker for me came right out of the gate. In the first paragraph, they decide to make their argument seem stronger by simply lying and saying that the American public opposes this treaty:
The Senate should heed the will of the voters and either reject the treaty or amend it so that it doesn’t weaken our national defense.
I agree with the first half of that sentence – because it turns out that an overwhelming majority of Americans – 70%, in fact – think the treaty should be ratified (and many think all nuclear weapons should be completely eliminated, a majority in some of the polls). But I guess it’s just easier to lie when you are trying to convince readers that your insane views are reasonable and widely held.
Filed under: Politics/International Affairs
