Caroline Glick appears to have a regular gig at Breitbart. Smart of them to feature an outstanding writer.
Here’s part of her essay on John Bolton’s recent appointment [with my emphases —D]:
President Donald Trump’s decision to appoint former UN Ambassador John Bolton to serve as his National Security Advisor is arguably the most significant single step he has taken to date toward implementing his America First foreign policy.
The news hit America’s enemies and competitors — from Pyongyang to Teheran to Moscow to Beijing — like a wall of bricks Thursday night.
Early criticisms on the political right of Bolton’s appointment have centered on two points. First, it is argued that Bolton, who has been involved in U.S. foreign policymaking since the Reagan administration, is a creature of the Washington foreign policy swamp.
While it is true that Bolton is from Washington – or Baltimore, to be precise – and although it is true that he held senior foreign policy positions in both Bush administrations, he has always been a thorn in the side of the establishment rather than a member of that establishment.
For the better part of three decades, Bolton has bravely held positions that fly in the face of the establishment’s innate preference for appeasement. He was a vocal critic, for example, of then-President Bill Clinton’s disastrous nuclear diplomacy with North Korea.
The 1994 “Agreed Framework” that Clinton concluded with Pyongyang was touted as a peaceful resolution of the nuclear crisis with North Korea. In exchange for shuttering – but not destroying — its nuclear installations, North Korea received light water reactors from the U.S. and massive economic relief. As Bolton warned it would, North Korea pocketed the concessions and gifts and continued to develop its nuclear weapons. In other words, far from preventing North Korea from developing nuclear weapons, the Agreed Framework preserved the North Korean nuclear program and enabled the regime to develop it effectively with U.S. assistance.
For his warnings, Bolton has been reviled as a “warmonger” and a “superhawk” by the foreign policy elite, which has gone out of its way to undercut him.
President George W. Bush appointed Bolton to serve as UN ambassador in 2005 in a recess appointment. Three moderate Republicans on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, Lincoln Chafee (RI), Chuck Hagel (ND), and George Voinovich (OH), signaled that they would oppose Bolton’s confirmation, blocking it.
At the time, rumors surfaced that then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had quietly undercut Bolton’s confirmation in private conversations with senators. Those rumors were denied, and Rice publicly supported Bolton’s confirmation. But in 2016, Rice, along with her mentor, former secretary of state James Baker, and her deputy and successor as National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley, openly opposed President Trump’s intention to appoint Bolton Deputy Secretary of State. At the same time, all three lobbied Trump to appoint outgoing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
Bolton was a vocal opponent of Rice’s nuclear diplomacy with North Korea, undertaken after Pyongyang conducted its first nuclear test in 2006. He also opposed Rice’s pursuit of diplomatic ties with Iran through negotiations in Iraq. In both cases, as events showed, Bolton’s criticisms were all in place.
Rice’s nuclear diplomacy with North Korea emboldened the regime and enabled its continued testing of nuclear weapons and development of ballistic missiles.
In Iran’s case, Rice’s negotiations with the Iranians in 2007 and 2008 set the stage for President Barack Obama’s nuclear talks with Tehran, which led to the 2015 nuclear deal. That deal, like the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea, preserves, rather than dismantles, Iran’s nuclear program while providing Iran with the financial means to expand its regional power through its terrorist proxies.
On the other hand, Bolton’s actions while in office brought extraordinary benefit to US national security. For instance, as Bush’s undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, in 2003 Bolton conceptualized and launched the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). The purpose of the PSI was to empower nations to interdict ships suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction, delivery systems, and related materials from states and non-state actors of proliferation concern. Originally launched with 11 state members, today the PSI has 105 state members. Its members have interdicted multiple ships suspected of transferring illicit weapons systems to other states and to non-state actors.
Like Trump, Bolton is an opponent of international treaties that bind the U.S. in a manner that may be antithetical to its national interests and prefers bilateral agreements that are tailor-made to defend America’s national interests. Bolton was a firm opponent of the Rome Treaty, which established the International Criminal Court. He worked avidly to vacate America’s signature from the treaty. Due largely to his cogent opposition, the Bush administration decided not to submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification. Bolton concluded 100 bilateral treaties with nations committing them never to present complaints against U.S. military personnel before the tribunal.
Bolton’s nationalist convictions, and his refusal to join the foreign policy elite in its adoration of diplomacy, whatever the substance, over a firm, fact-based pursuit of America’s national interests lies at the heart of the foreign policy establishment’s opposition to him.
Indeed, the level of hostility the foreign policy establishment has directed towards Bolton over the years has been so ferocious, it is a testament to his diplomatic skills, and success, that he has managed to persevere in Washington, in and out of office for forty years.
As to the second charge by conservative critics, that Bolton is a neoconservative interventionist, the fact is that he is neither a neoconservative nor is he a knee jerk interventionist. Rather, Bolton supports the judicious use of American power in the world to advance U.S. national security and economic interests when the use of force is the best way to achieve those interests.
It is true that Bolton supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. But it is also true that he opposed the nation-building strategy that stood at the root of America’s failure to achieve its aims there.
It is also true that like many of the neoconservatives, Bolton is a firm supporter of Israel. However, Bolton is actually far more supportive of Israel than the neoconservatives are. As a nationalist, he supports U.S. allies because he understands that the stronger America’s allies are, the better able they are to defend their interests. Since American allies – particularly Israel – share America’s interests, the more powerful they are, the more secure America’s interests are, and the less the U.S. needs to assert its power abroad. Bolton supported — indeed, urged — Israel to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations during the Obama presidency. Rather than treating Israel as what Rice referred to patronizingly as America’s “special friend,” Bolton views Israel as America’s most powerful ally in the Middle East. He opposes Palestinian statehood and an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank.
[…]
You can read the rest of her essay here, at her own website. You’ll also find her many links, not included in this excerpt.
For additional information on what Bolton’s appointment means for The Swamp, see Conservative Tree House’s post. Sundance, the admin for CTH, often has been prescient regarding Trump’s moves.
On a personal note, both the Baron and I were glad to see John Bolton back on the political stage. As the Baron said, “He’s one of the grownups. I don’t have to agree with everything he says to be confident that he can handle the job.”
Both of us would rather have had him as the new Secretary of State, but that would never get confirmation. The entrenched interests in the Senate would never, ever have agreed to it.
Well it has made CAIR mad. Tells me President Trump picked the right man.
Okay. Trump picked a man who likes to clean house. And the cesspit he’s agreed to clean out is a stinkin’ mess.
Absolutely NO. If we are ever to stop the endless streams of refugees, we must stay away from the Middle East unless directly provoked. Dictators like Bashar Al-Assad will prevent migration from Syria and has already offered to take back refugees. I imagine if Bolton had his way, we would have to topple Assad because freedom/democracy.
Bolton does not promote “democracy” anywhere but in America. You’re right: you’ve only “imagined” what he’d do without being knowledgeable about his past record.
Agree
Bolton favored ousting Libya’s dictator, Gaddafi, even though Gaddafi offered to get rid of his nuclear and chemical weapons, and in fact used his military to prevent refugees from migrating to Europe.
But super-nationalist Bolton didn’t want to give up his idea of glorious US intervention in Libyan affairs.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/22/john-bolton-iran-north-korea-217700
This is Politico, and it is after the fact of Bolton’s appointment. It would have more credibility had it been made months ago.
Look at the man’s own words and his record while he was actually serving.
Bolton like McMaster is a member of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) let us not be hoodwinked.
Bolton’s memberships are wide-ranging. What did he do for the CFR?
Caroline Glick appears to have a regular gig at Breitbart. Smart of them to feature an outstanding writer. Here’s part of her essay on John Bolton’s recent appointment:
… The news hit America’s enemies and competitors — from Pyongyang to Teheran to Moscow to Beijing — like a wall of bricks Thursday night.
– – – – – – – – – – –
How rude of Ms. Glick, just after having been praised as an outstanding writer, to write a sentence like that. How can a wall of bricks hit anyone? A wall is by nature stationary, and doesn’t go around hitting anyone. She probably meant “a ton of bricks”.
My favorite nit-picker; or as the B says, “our nitpicker in chief”. I was hoping you’d fall into that tarbaby of a mixed metaphor. They’re irresistible, aren’t they? If you believed in Hell and then found yourself there, the amount of wrong-speak, crooked frames, and other imperfections would have you gaga in short order.
Ms. Glick’s misdescription of the nature of brick walls would have gone unnoticed had she not just been lauded for being an outstanding writer. This praise put me on the lookout for admirable examples of this talent, when — like running into a wall of bricks — I ran into her description of a ballistic wall.
“The news hit his enemies like a ton of bricks.”
Actually, it hit ALL of us, Americans, like a ton of bricks..
Bolton, the Neo-con, war-hawk, who pushed for the Iraq war
under baby Bush.
Trump the imbecile, has just set us up – loaded the bases – now for what the Deep State wants…
But, We, THE PEople, are tired of wars…one after another!
God help us!
This lack of knowledge regarding John Bolton is both puzzling and alarming.
The neo-cons hated him for not being a hawk. He was indeed in favor of war in Iraq for the sake of removing Saddam Hussein, who had WMD (he moved them to Syria), and who was actively engaged in using some of those WMD on his own Iraqi Kurds. In one fell swoop, Saddam killed 10,000 of them with chemical sprays. Many more died in subsequent years from complications following.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack
And don’t forget the widespread agreement in the UN re the sanctioning of Iraq. It wasn’t just Americans involved; much of the EU took part, as they also did in the subsequent boots on the ground.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq
Some of our allies were queueing up to get oil illicitly. We looked the other way as much of Europe was oil-starved, particularly France.
Bolton was a get-in-get-out strategist. And that was Trump’s pov at the time, too.
Trump is not an imbecile. You simply don’t like his choices. That doesn’t affect his IQ. Choose words very, very carefully. They can be boomerangs for the speaker.
Let’s look at Trump. Trump’s main issue on the campaign, an issue that kept Christian Evangelicals supporting him when the Hollywood tapes came out, was building a wall to protect US borders.
The Omnibus Spending bills, that Trump SIGNED, without a gun actually held to his head, specifically, in so many words, keeps funds from being applied to actually building a wall using modern prototypes. The bill that Trump signed actually goes against his main campaign issue.
The range of explanations for Trumps actions grow narrower.
It’s all very well to advocate a get-in-get-out policy for toppling Iraqi dictator Hussein. So, how many times in the past has the US followed that strategy and avoided the mudpits of nation-building? Well, no matter. Maybe next time is the charm. The chances of testing the theory that the next time, we’ll get it right, go up dramatically with Bolton’s appointment. We’ll have a good chance of testing the military quickie with Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, Iran, North Korea…
And I know Trump, during the campaign, specifically criticized nation-building by the US. I have every confidence that this campaign promise Trump will keep, given the dramatically different circumstances causing him to break his promises concerning the wall, chain migration, H1-B visas, amnesty, etc, etc.
Trump’s policies have been a disappointment. However, I stand by my original feeling of relief: he’s not Hillary Clinton. And aside from the MSM, most observers say immigration is down.
http://dennismichaellynch.com/under-trump-family-visas-have-decreased/
I’ll leave the rest of your assertions since those are merely opinions without sources. Time will tell if Bolton proves to be a good fit.
I think he will work out well with Trump. After all, he is a Bolt-on. 🙂
This means we’re not getting out of the middle east anytime soon.
Get ready for war!
The swamp just got wider and deeper. And GoV seems to become a part of it.
Please back up your assertions with facts. Insulting us isn’t fact-based; it’s merely your opinion.
I had the dubious pleasure to meet John Bolton and have a conversation with him at a conservative conference in DC about a dozen years ago.
I never met a more obviously unhinged man.
Now it might be that he solely tried to impress Miss Pamela Geller whose fake boobs he couldn’t stop ogling but the man relentlessly spouted such aggressive interventionist platitudes that even Newt Gingrich, who was on the fringe of that conversation, was visibly cringing.
Look at his record! The facts are all there. He lied about WMD in Iraq. He has a long standing beef with Tehran. He WILL attack Iran. He calls for a new arms race with the Russians. He incited Israel to bomb Iran and almost had his way. He is a warmonger and rabid zionist and not an American patriot.
Look at the pattern of Trump’s new appointments:
Mike Pompeo, the former CIA chief, is Trump’s new secretary of state. Gina Haspel, a gleeful torturer, becomes the CIA’s new spymaster and now BOLTON, the worst interventionist you can possibly come up with, is our NatSec advisor?
I’ll let you fill in the blanks as to where this is going.
Btw, I have no intention to insult you but I think you are insulting the intelligence of your readers by endorsing the junta that is forming against the American people in DC.
Thank you. That was an up close and personal assessment that speaks to Bolton’s character. And yes, Ms. Geller did have that effect on men. I noticed it previously. Well, Bolton then fits right in with Trump’s “big boobs” domestic policies, for sure. (But neither of them is in the same class as Clinton…and having Bill Clinton NOT in the White House in any capacity continues to be a relief).
But that character flaw doesn’t make Bolton an interventionist. I will continue to believe in the reality of Iraq’s WMD, based on Assad’s admission that he was the recipient of Hussein’s WMD, and the facts relating to SH’s use of WMD on his own Kurds, and on the Shi’ite Iranians during their war. IOW, there was a busy WMD facility in Iraq which was closed down as the Allied troops began to prepare to move in. Turkey’s last-minute back-track on permitting Allied troops to use the American base there gave SH breathing room to get rid of the evidence. And that evidence is based on his actual use of WMD against two groups of people.
—————–
As for Gina Haspel being a “gleeful torturer” – ProPublica has issued a large retraction on that slander:
https://www.propublica.org/article/cia-cables-detail-its-new-deputy-directors-role-in-torture
————–
I don’t see Bolton as an “interventionist”; I see him as an “America First” strategist. He predicted how the so-called Arab Spring would end – called it right, sadly enough.
You have “no intention” to insult me but…then you proceed to do just that. Hard to maintain courteous discourse sometimes, isn’t it?
Ok, Dymphna, let’s just agree to disagree.
I am extremely weary of “lesser evils”. Yes, you’re right, there’s probably no-one worse than Hillary and her Chicago school ilk. But does that mean we have to take everything that comes our way pretending that “there is worse”? What does that make us but appeasers.
The way I see it is that we are paving the road to hell here with our good intentions. If we continue this way we will end up with European style mob and oligarchy rule.
The way things are going it’s either that or digging out from nuclear ashes sometime very soon.
What happened to:
“… to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Please read the letter on raymcgovern.com written by VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) sent to Trump requesting he rescind her name for this appointment.
Please cut-and-paste whatever parts of that post you find pertinent. The top post there says the admin is getting married and suggests searching for what I need. Given my flare-up of Complex Regional Pain Disorder, ain’t doing that. And please cut and paste links on your comments so that the impaired among us can simply click a link rather than have to cut and paste your URL. Like this:
http://raymcgovern.com/
Meanwhile, you might want to check Propublica’s full-throated retraction of its claims about Haspel, which I previously noted on this thread. You’ll notice the URL seems to point to Haspel’s guilt.
https://www.propublica.org/article/cia-cables-detail-its-new-deputy-directors-role-in-torture
On Feb. 22, 2017, ProPublica published a story that inaccurately described Gina Haspel’s role in the treatment of Abu Zubaydah, a suspected al-Qaida leader who was imprisoned by the CIA at a secret “black site” in Thailand in 2002.
The story said that Haspel, a career CIA officer who President Trump has nominated to be the next director of central intelligence, oversaw the clandestine base where Zubaydah was subjected to waterboarding and other coercive interrogation methods that are widely seen as torture. The story also said she mocked the prisoner’s suffering in a private conversation. Neither of these assertions is correct and we retract them. It is now clear that Haspel did not take charge of the base until after the interrogation of Zubaydah ended.
Our account of Haspel’s actions was drawn in part from declassified agency cables and CIA-reviewed books which referred to the official overseeing Zubaydah’s interrogation at a secret prison in Thailand as “chief of base.” The books and cables redacted the name of the official, as is routinely done in declassified documents referring to covert operations.
The Trump administration named Haspel to the CIA’s No. 2 job in early February 2017. Soon after, three former government officials told ProPublica that Haspel was chief of base in Thailand at the time of Zubaydah’s waterboarding.
We also found an online posting by John Kiriakou, a former CIA counter-terrorism officer, who wrote that “It was Haspel who oversaw the staff” at the Thai prison, including two psychologists who “designed the torture techniques and who actually carried out torture on the prisoners.”
The nomination of Haspel this week to head the CIA stirred new controversy about her role in the detention and interrogation of terror suspects, as well as the destruction of videotapes of the interrogation of Zubaydah and another suspect. Some critics cited the 2017 ProPublica story as evidence that she was not fit to run the agency.
Those statements prompted former colleagues of Haspel to defend her publicly. At least two said that while she did serve as chief of base in Thailand, she did not arrive until later in 2002, after the waterboarding of Zubaydah had ended.
The New York Times, which also reported last year that Haspel oversaw the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and another detainee, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, published a second story this week making the same point. It quoted an unnamed former senior CIA official who said Haspel did not become base chief until late October of 2002. According to the Times, she was in charge when al-Nashiri was waterboarded three times.
James Mitchell, the psychologist and CIA contractor who helped to direct the waterboarding of both suspects, said in a broadcast interview on March 14 that Haspel was not the “chief of base” whom he described in his book as making fun of Zubaydah’s suffering.
“That chief of base was not Gina,” Mitchell told Fox Business Network. “She’s not the COB I was talking about.”
Mitchell’s book, “Enhanced Interrogation: Inside the Minds and Motives of the Islamic Terrorists Trying to Destroy America,” referred to the chief of base in Thailand as both “he” and “she.”
We erroneously assumed that this was an effort by Mitchell or the agency to conceal the gender of the single official involved; it is now clear that Mitchell was referring to two different people.
ProPublica contacted Mitchell in 2017 to ask him about this passage in his book. Facing a civil lawsuit brought by former CIA detainees, he declined to comment.
At about the same time, we approached the CIA’s press office with an extensive list of questions about the cables and Haspel’s role in running the Thai prison, particularly her dealings with Zubaydah.
An agency spokesman declined to answer any of those questions but released a statement that was quoted in the article, asserting that “nearly every piece of reporting that you are seeking comment on is incorrect in whole or in part.”
The CIA did not comment further on the story after its publication and we were not aware of any further questions about its accuracy until this week.
The February 2017 ProPublica story did accurately report that Haspel later rose to a senior position at CIA headquarters, where she pushed her bosses to destroy the tapes of Zubaydah’s waterboarding. Her direct boss, the head of the agency’s Counterterrorism Center, ultimately signed the order to feed the 92 tapes into a shredder. Her actions in that instance, and in the waterboarding of al-Nashiri, are likely to be the focus of questions at her confirmation hearings.
Dean Boyd, director of the CIA’s office of public affairs, praised Haspel’s 30 years of public service and said Thursday in a statement that her qualifications and capabilities would be evident in the hearing process.
“It is important to note that she has spent nearly her entire CIA career undercover,” Boyd said. “Much of what is in the public domain about her is inaccurate. We are pleased that ProPublica is willing to acknowledge its mistakes and correct the record regarding its claims about Ms. Haspel.”
A few reflections on what went wrong in our reporting and editing process.
The awkward communications between officials barred from disclosing classified information and reporters trying to reveal secrets in which there is legitimate public interest can sometimes end in miscommunication. In this instance, we failed to understand the message the CIA’s press office was trying to convey in its statement.
None of this in any way excuses our mistakes. We at ProPublica hold government officials responsible for their missteps, and we must be equally accountable. This error was particularly unfortunate because it muddied an important national debate about Haspel and the CIA’s recent history. To her, and to our readers, we can only apologize, correct the record and make certain that we do better in the future.
Considering some of the jokers who’ve allegedly been in charge of the CIA, her appointment can’t do any further harm than the Crazy Inmates Association has visited on us already.
You know whose opinion I’d trust in this current imbroglio? Clare Lopez. But who knows if she’ll speak out.
It has come to the point that everything is politicized by the Left. And I don’t doubt that those who are fighting Trump’s various appointments are leftists for the most part. The others are paleocons. Our political spectrum has become so fractioned/factioned that one could envision it as a circle instead of a spectral line. Where the circle attempts to meet you find fiercely divided look-alikes. Paleocons on one side, BLM on the other. The polarization is such that while they are in some ways like-minded, the particulars of their views serve to repel them away from one another.
I feel all three appointments were spot on. The only anti American junta that existed was the 8 years under comrade Obama. Thank God Hillary lost. She would have been a disaster!!
On a lighter note – Its enjoyable to watch the left heads explode!
I value your comments and your personal observations.
I do not value your comment that GoV seems to have become part of the Washington swamp.
If you look at my comments above, I also believe Bolton is just the wrong man for a true “America First” policy that withdraws US involvement in numerous regional and civil conflicts that have no implication whatsoever for real US territorial security. I also believe Trump is gliding from his campaign promises of protecting the borders, and the population, of the US from immigration and inundation. I have no problem with his tariffs, but I have a huge problem with inflating the already-bloated US military with more dollars so we can pick fights with Russia in Russia’s sphere of vital interests, i.e., the Ukraine. Hundreds of billions of dollars for military expeditions, but not one cent for civil defense.
But, Baron and Dymphna have provided a forum for information on the Muslim inundation of Europe and the US and Canada. They provided venues for open, civil discussion, in no way filtering out opinions different from them. They act at great personal sacrifice to maintain a consistent, highly-informative website on the coming catastrophes. So, where is the justification for accusing them of becoming a swamp creature because they have an opinion you disagree with?
I seem to pretty much agree with the opinions of Pat Buchanan on the subject.
https://www.vdare.com/articles/patrick-j-buchanan-is-trump-assembling-a-war-cabinet
I think the US is completely unprepared for a real war, and that a shooting conflict with China or Russia could involve a real existential threat to us. The Democrats, and particularly, the racial identity groups are not going to work to pull together. A stress will collapse the structure of the country, rather than pulling it together.
But, the greatest resource we have is open discussion, which is what we get at GoV.
Thank you for the kind words.
I agree with you re the bad effects of a real shooting war, but I don’t think we’re anywhere near that. Mr. Buchanan is a paleocon, but that’s been a long journey. Like Bolton, he was a supporter of Goldwater. But then, I think Hillary was too, so that doesn’t prove anything.
A shooting war with either Russia or China – or even Cuba – has a vanishingly small chance of becoming a reality. The real existential threat from China is its buying up of North American assets across the whole continent. The UK has a separate but similar problem with Russian wealth absorbing so much of London’s real estate. (Heck, maybe the Saudis and the Russians will come to blows over the vanishing British housing market.)
Trump was smart to side with PM May in her attack on Russia’s behavior re the use of poison (even if she did it to buy time with her domestic problems) By doing so, Trump has co-opted the Brit hostility toward him. Wait to see *that* change now that he’s publicly defending the UK’s decision and matching it by kicking out some of Russia’s “diplomats” (mighty similar to our “diplomats”) – in Seattle, iirc. Putin has no choice but to escalate on that, but it’s a limited escalation and all the players know it. Lots of bluff, but no genuine martial thunder.
The 20th century is well and truly over. Cyber-warfare is where we are now. And everyone gets to play whether they want to or not.
@Ronald
“… where is the justification for accusing them of becoming a swamp creature because they have an opinion you disagree with?”
I have no problem with dissenting opinion. To disagree is the only way to find the truth.
That being said, the Bolton nomination is one more step in the wrong direction concerning the Middle East. More wars in that region will create more muslim immigration to Europe and the US. Which in turn will exacerbate the problems GoV is reporting on.
Is that what we want?
At the least, support for Bolton is shortsighted, at worst it is support for the detached, warmongering DC swamp elite and their profit-oriented, interventionist foreign policy.
The inherent danger of a swamp is that you might not notice right away that you stepped into it and when you do notice it might be too late. Imo support for Bolton is such a first step.
I am wearing my water wings and a Saint Christopher’s medal; the B is my certified lifeguard.
I do hope Bolton has his medal of Saint Jude; he’s gonna need it.
I must be missing a whole lot about Bolton’s views on preemptively attacking other countries. But then I don’t trust either side that put up characters like Clinton, Bolton or Trump as “saviors”. None of these people are going to save anyone. Both upper echelons are working together. Bolton sees preemptively attacking countries like North Korea as legal cases, pure surgery,the global political game that ignores the dead, the cannon fodder, all the consequences that follow. I agree with just about every issues on this site but not this site but with all respect I think you are being had.
Yes! Let’s dispense with saviors, please. There aren’t any, never have been any, and looking for them is a waste of time and energy. Even George Washington, a good general, made errors when it came to governance.
We need skilled politicians and policy advisors and they’re in short supply. The crafty ones are sitting this out, waiting for Trump to fail so they can move in to pick over the remains.
I’ve listened to Bolton speaking on foreign policy issues a numerous times over the years and I can’t think of a better candidate. The horror reaction to his appointment from Iran was evidence enough. The guy is not trying to stir up war but believes the military option remains on the table. He also has a better understanding of the Koranic root of Jihad violence, something McMaster and his co-Obama doctrine travelers would not acknowledge. I think “Little Rocket man” will be getting sweaty palms.
Heh. “Little Rocket Man” has gone on a visit to China and some are predicting he won’t return.
http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2018/03/will-kim-jong-un-return-from-china.html
Don Surber was a journalist in West VA who was fired for his conservatism. Over the long period I’ve been reading him, he’s often presciently on target. It will be interesting to see if he’s right this time.
Interesting article about Bolton et al here: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-27/pat-buchanan-asks-trump-assembling-war-cabinet
Sounds like Buchanan. And Zerohedge. IIRC, Ronald B mentioned Buchanan’s views in a previous comment.
Time will tell if they prove to be correct. Bolton may even be a (figurehead) anachronism in the new battlespace, consisting as it does – not of guns and cannon fodder – but of zeroes and ones. Which may well render Bolton superfluous.
Ok, Dymphna – good luck!
And keep those water wings handy – see you on the other side – hopefully. 🙂
personal note: just discovered Bishop Robert Barron – cool guy, interesting material, you might like him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF0JNwud9K0
Cheers
R.
Synchronicity! I just found him last week…a most interesting fellow. Modern-day Bishop Sheen. Or an American C.S. Lewis, if CSL had ever deigned to inhabit You Tube.