Why Bolton's former employer, George W. Bush, included Saddam Hussein's support for terrorists like MEK in his propaganda justifying the invasion of Iraq in 2003?
The American Conservative's Jordon Bloom ran into a befuddled John Bolton at the Republican National Convention yesterday and had a timely question for him:
He was on his way in to observe the speeches, and I knew he wouldn't have much time to answer more than a question or two in passing. So I asked the most important one: given the definition laid out in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, was he at all concerned that his advocacy on behalf of the Iranian dissident group the MEK could be defined as material support for terrorism under the PATRIOT Act?
Bolton, visibly flustered at the suggestion that he is a terrorist supporter, disputed the premise before cutting me off:
"I don't know what you're up to, but you're flatly wrong, and I'm busy, so if you'll excuse me."
He is indeed a busy man, but if he ever cares to take some time out of his day to explain why I'm wrong, my email is jbloom[at]theamericanconservative.com. Or he could take it up with Glenn Greenwald or Larison.
Oh, how I'd love such an inquiry from Bolton. Perhaps Jordan could also ask why Bolton's former employer, George W. Bush, included Saddam Hussein's support for terrorists like MEK in his propaganda justifying the invasion of Iraq in 2003. "Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization," reads a document in the archives of the White House's website, "which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians." Is Bolton proud of this point of commonality between him and Saddam?