John Bolton’s Policy Speech on the Eve of 9/11

John Bolton is a forceful conservative. Some discount him as a neocon, but that dismissive sobriquet fails to do justice to his principles.

He grew up in Baltimore, the son of a fireman, so Bolton learned early what an aggressive defense is and how to employ it effectively. He is the quintessential tough guy you want on your side. In other words, he is one answer to Barack Obama’s dithering lack of a genuine and robust foreign policy.

Bolton’s principled sense of justice included taking Clarence Thomas under his wing during their friendship at Yale Law School and then, later, offering advice and comfort during the ugly mess that constituted Thomas’ eventual confirmation to the Supreme Court. As Thomas said, what he endured in the bullying during his hearings was a “high tech lynching”.

Bolton’s speech came on the eve of 9/11, and that is not coincidental. America is standing up to globalists and trans-nationalist criminals like the ICC, founded in the year after 9/11. Such thugs are long overdue to be disbanded. Many of us agree with Bolton: the ICC and the UN need to go away, joining the other extra-national groups in a vast political graveyard, interred there along with The League of Nations.

Here is a list of John Bolton’s Ten Rules of Statecraft. They belong to a world neither Obama nor Clinton understands, and these rules are peculiarly American in their sentiments and form:

1.   “My philosophy is not a bean-counting, accounting ‘look at this.’ It is a philosophy that smaller government is better government, and government that is closer to the people is best of all.”
2.   “Our biggest national security crisis is Barack Obama.”
3.   “People say you favor assassination, what do you think war is? Except that it’s assassination on a much larger scale—a much more horrific scale.”
4.   “Diplomacy is not an end in itself if it does not advance U.S. interests.”
5.   “Negotiation is not a policy. It’s a technique. It’s something you use when it’s to your advantage, and something that you don’t use when it’s not to your advantage.”
6.   “My priority is to give the United States the kind of influence it should have.”
7.   “Everybody pursues their national interests. The only one who gets blamed for it is the United States.”
8.   “You could take several stories off the buildings of most U.S. government agencies and we’d all probably be better for it too.”
9.   “As somebody who writes op-eds and appears on the television, I appreciate as well as anybody that… there is a limit to what that accomplishes.”
    And the pièce de résistance:
10.   “There is no United Nations.”

If you would understand John Bolton’s worldview, read this brief book. You’ll grasp the sense of solidarity that is the fundament of conservatives and others on the Right. You may even understand President Trump and those who voted for him.

Meanwhile, this major policy speech is an elucidation of Trump’s ruling philosophy. To understand what Trump’s about, listen to Ambassador Bolton.

5 thoughts on “John Bolton’s Policy Speech on the Eve of 9/11

  1. That’s why he’s a “Bolt-on” for Trump’s foreign policy initiatives. When was previously the ambassador to the UN under Bush and the L.A. Times objected to his nomination saying that he wouldn’t be a good fit, I countered saying that he would be a “Bolt-on” with no alterations or adjustments being necessary.
    BTW, that was why GM products were so popular, you could ‘Bolton’ an Oldsmobile engine to a Chevy trans, (455 Olds to a turbo 400 Chevy trans in a Monte Carlo that would pass anything but a gas station.

  2. Ok. Bolton is a virulent neocon who supports America First principles, except the principle of not inciting wars that have no direct bearing on your security interests.

    Bolton supported the attack on Iraq; in fact, advocated the attack on Iraq before 9/11. After 9/11 he supported the attack on Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 action. The war in Iraq, incidentally, took more American lives and cost more money, than the 9/11 attack. Way to go, Bolton. We sure taught the world a lesson; we’ll get you for actions against the US that someone else performed.

    I have no problem with his dislike for the UN, the ICC, the globalist agencies, and with his threat against ICC commissioners who talk about bringing charges against US officials for war crimes. If we’re in Afghanistan, even for extremely stupid reasons, we need to win and show international officials that it’s not their place to take actions against US officials. But, at the same time, being in Afghanistan right now is as stupid, expensive, and counter-productive as the attack on Iraq, Libya and the support of Islamist “reformers” in Syria was.

    As Tucker Carlson pointed out on Fox News, why is the US intervening in the Syrian attack on the last rebel stronghold in Syria? We’re in the position of actually defending the Islamic State or ISIS, from the Syrian attack. And the whole purpose, according to Trump, of being in Syria was to defeat ISIS. Now, they’re all but defeated, but the US is trying to ensure they’re not completely defeated. If Bolton is part of this policy, I don’t care if he threatens the ICC commissars; he’s not a real asset.

    • Thank you RonaldB. [redacted for lack of civility]

      Sure negotiation and diplomacy are techniques and tools to reach goals, not ends in themselves. But why is it considered a crime, even treason, to talk to Russians? It seems that any Russian is off limits, even pretty girls who love guns.

      Trump promised peace with Russia, which would be the easiest thing in the world — just stop supporting colour revolutions and others in all the countries immediately surrounding Russia.

      Recognize that Crimea is a part of Russia and has been for hundreds of years. Attempting to get Crimea back in Ukraine and then Ukraine in the EU and NATO would mean that Russia’s most important naval base on the Black Sea would be subsumed into NATO. Obviously, this would not be acceptable to Russia — and why even want it?

      Russia hasn’t been our enemy since the fall of Communism.

      And why are we defending terrorists in Syria? And why are we allied with Saudi Arabia in their regional rivalry with Iran? Neither country is appealing, but starting a war with Iran would be worse than the war with Syria because it is bigger. All these Middle Eastern wars are doing is triggering mass immigration into Europe.

      I see no sign that Bolton has any good instincts on any of these issues.

      • Well, I agree with everything you say, except possibly what lacked civility. I assume if you read my letter, you saw that I basically agree with you. So, Bolton has a mixed value: he favors getting out of the UN, reducing the size of the US government, and taking stern action against those International Criminal Court apparatchik who think they can bite the hand that feeds them their bloated salaries, and bring charges against US officials.

        At the same time, Bolton wants to interject the US into regional disputes having no security implications for the US, and for some reason, kill tens of thousands of people in Iraq, Syria and others to bring them a democracy they don’t like, don’t understand, and probably are genetically incapable of dealing with. Plus, putting the US trillions of dollars into debt to do so, not to mention slowly killing off our special forces troops to bring one godforsaken faction in Niger into power over another godforsaken faction. One faction is Islamist; the other is faintly less Islamist…maybe. Just like in Syria.

  3. Very sad that my critical reply of this article was censored. Very unlike the spirit of freedom of speech which is allegedly so strong on this website. For the rest I appreciate this website. But crimes in the name of “justice” according to USA definition are still crimes and no alternative to the tyrannies of other powers. But unfortunately this opinion is not tolerated here.

Comments are closed.