>>Which is why I actually like the author of the article. Knowing that the editor will slap an imprecise qualification in the subcaption ("John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations" - which is not exactly true), he strategically inserted a preemptive correction somewhere deep inside the text: "Mr Bush's ambassador to the UN".
>
>However much Bolton's credentials offend your politics, his analysis is pretty good. (of course this is because it pretty much matches what I've been saying here for 2 years or more <g>)

Just like some analyses put by Vojislav Šešelj were spot on - and I can't find any other good word to say about the guy. Because in the very millisecond he switches from analysis to what to do about it, he's gone wrong.

>Israel is very sensitive about people with nuclear ambitions talking about wiping them of the face of the earth. Even if the big talkers are bombastic Persian or Arab blowhards with delusions of empires past, they would do very well to put themselves through a reality check.

>There are some hard men in Tel Aviv. Sometimes American politicians whose idea of a "tough fight" is a nasty floor vote forget that "national security" isn't just a campaign issue to the Israelis. They had their 911 a long time ago.

Yep, but then the Palestinians have one that lasts for 60 years now and shows no signs of abating - with the trigger happy Israeli government sitting on 150 long ones. I only wish there was one, at least one, American government which would slap hands on _BOTH_ sides and say "get serious about making peace, or else none of you get a single billion until you do", and mean it. Put all of the middle East and all the warring countries in a strict embargo (it doesn't work, but it makes politicians on one side feel better and on the other side get richer ;).