The Factual Errors In John Bolton's “BOMB IRAN!” Op-Ed In The NYT

[G_j]

Last edited Sun Apr 5, 2015, 01:07 PM - Edit history (1)

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/04/factual-errors-john-boltons-bomb-iran-op-ed-new-york-times-care/

THE FACTUAL ERRORS IN JOHN BOLTON’S “BOMB IRAN!” OP-ED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES – AND WHY YOU SHOULD CARE

BY JON SCHWARZ
@tinyrevolution YESTERDAY AT 2:12 PM

Last week, at a crucial moment in nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, the New York Times published an op-ed by former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton titled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” As I pointed out at the time, the Times accidentally undermined him by linking one of his key claims to an explanation of why that claim was wrong. After I asked about it, the Times changed the link.

Bolton’s many other factual mistakes, detailed below, have also not been corrected — on top of which, Bolton failed to make a relevant disclosure about his paid work for a group that advocates the overthrow of the Iranian regime. It’s worth dwelling on these problems a bit given that Bolton’s perspective has a significant constituency in Congress — which could still derail the accord the White House is closing in on with the Iranians.

• Bolton: the Obama administration has “abandon[ed] the red line on weapons-grade fuel…”

This is false. Natural uranium contains only 0.7% uranium-235, the isotope needed both for nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Uranium can be used as reactor fuel when enriched to 3-5% uranium-235, but it only becomes weapons-grade when enriched to about 90%. The “Joint Plan of Action” agreed to in 2013 by Iran, the U.S. and other nations capped Iran’s permitted ability to enrich at 5%, the level of reactor fuel. Under the framework announced this week, Iran will agree not to enrich uranium beyond 3.67% for at least fifteen years. There’s no evidence that the Obama administration ever considered a long-term agreement that would allow Iran to enrich uranium to 90%, or indeed anywhere past 5%.

..MUCH MORE...

[still_one]

1. NY Times has seemed to go out of their way to give a voice to those who want war. They should have

never let Judy Miller go, she fits perfectly in what the NY Times as become.

Two days before the deal was announced, the NY Time had a piece saying the deal was about to fall apart. The BBC gave a different impression.

I choose to believe the BBC at the time.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. EVERYBODY seems to want to give Republicans the opportunity to spout their crap....

It's a pattern. Places like the Times are 95% Republican objections until the deal is done (despite the objections) and then they coldly report the actual details of the deal and then they allow Republicans all the space they want to whine and cry.

[still_one]

20. That is a good point

[riderinthestorm]

2. Very important article! Big K & R! Hope everyone reads this nt

[G_j]

3. yes

I agree.. thanks

[Major Nikon]

4. Does anyone really expect Ned Flanders to tell the truth?

[Aerows]

18. At least Ned Flanders

doesn't line his pockets by spreading fear, lies and pretending to be an expert.

Okay, Ned Flanders is religious, so he does do the first two, albeit probably not intentionally, but Bolton does all three, particularly the last one very much intentionally.

[H2O Man]

5. Recommended.

Thank you for this!

[suffragette]

6. For Bolton, from PNAC to AEI, pushing war and regime change is always his objective

Thanks for posting this important article.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. Reagan and Bush had Bolton at State and USAID, he was mentored by Jesse Helms, a bigoted fuck.

I know many people on DU insist that Reagan era Republicans were super moderate and excellent persons with solid economic ideas, but they were fascists, criminals and those who still draw breath still use each one to lie and dissemble.

[WillyT]

8. K & R !!!

[calimary]

9. john bolton is a Factual Error on two legs.

All he knows how to do reliably or effectively is grow thick facial hair.

[caraher]

12. Seriously

No thinking person needs to read past the words "by John Bolton" to realize there would be "factual errors" (and worse)

[mountain grammy]

10. Amazing what Bolton and his band of criminals get away with

under cover from the New York Times, who sees "no factual errors" in Bolton's op ed. None so blind as those who refuse to see.

[2naSalit]

15. and/or also

paid to wear the blindfold which they cheerfully do without objection.

NYT = tabloid rag.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

11. Only one way we should bomb Iran

That's if John Bolton and the rest of the neocons ride the bombs Slim Pickens style.

[2naSalit]

13. Big K&R

[spanone]

14. 'facts' and 'truth' have little relevancy these days...even in the nytimes

[annabanana]

16. Lies truly don't matter to this crowd.. As long as the narrative

has the desired effect.

[Aerows]

17. Bolton is desperate to be relevant

He wants those sweet, sweet "expert analysis" positions on every talk show that line his pockets.

The only thing he is an expert on is *Be afraid, be very afraid, and listen to me!*.

Which is why virtually no one except Fox News takes this idiot seriously, and even Fox is backing away from his raving lunacy.

[G_j]

21. Unforunately, I'm afraid there are too many

who actually do take him seriously. That's scary.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

23. He already is The Walrus.....

People come up to him on the street and say, "Coo coo ca choo."

[Takket]

22. Bolton is a murderous scumbag of the highest order

he functions in lockstep with the cheneys, rumsfelds et al that want Americans killed to satisfy their lust for war and military profits. he is a traitor and should be treated as such along with the rest of the Iraq architects that want phase 2 to happen in Iran

[G_j]

24. ---