Why Democrats oppose John Bolton

"My objection isn't that he's been a bully, but that he's been an ineffective bully," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat.

Why yes, I'm quite certain that a Congress and White House run by Democrats would result in a saner, juster, and more peaceful foreign policy for the United States. Uh-huh.

Incidentally, I only belatedly caught this bit from the letter by the AIPAC Democrats:

"The goal of the invasion in Iraq was not to remove one threat in favor of another. The President's stated goal was to establish a strong liberal democracy in Iraq, which would help to bring stability to the Middle East."

WTF??? Where were these guys in 2003? Remember weapons of mass destruction--for bureaucratic reasons "the one issue that everyone could agree on", as Paul Wolfowitz candidly ackowledged?

Oh, by the way, the other two "fundamental concerns" cited by Wolfowitz were "support for terrorism" and "the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people."

Yeah, that invasion turned out real well on all three counts.

As for bringing "stability to the Middle East," when was that ever a goal of this administration?

"Creative destruction is our middle name."

"What we're seeing here, in a sense, is the growing -- the birth pangs of a new Middle East."