Say No to Bolton

Wars gut an administration, Republican at least; one should not squander the goodwill Trump has. Sure, the press was against Bush. I wish Dubya would come out an defend what went on back then.

‘zackly.

There certainly is that . . .

I’d love to see Bolton. He will rock the boat. He may have been a Bush guy but whenever I see him tv I like him (there may be stuff I’m unaware of) but generally I like him and his nomination would make libs head spin.

...but I’m pretty sure Trump is going to try to appease the elites by bringing in a few of those...

Bring in a few of them to preside over the shutdown of the numerous departments that we'd like to see gone; education, energy, ATF (should be a convenience store, not a federal agency)...

When the job is finished they'll be out of work.

Back in the day I did a lot of digging into the background of Gingrich. When I learned of his connection to Alvin and Heidi Toffler, he immediately went on my 'not to be trusted' list.

I doubt Newt liked Toffler because he was a Marxist. It was because he was a "Futurist".

Not that I think Toffler was a good futurist. I remember when I was in school, we were required to read Future Shock.

What a waste of time that was.

Much opposition to Bolton because he supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003. So, who is on the list of experienced US diplomats, or potential Secretaries of State, who opposed the invasion of Iraq?

he is an opportunist/populist.

> Folks, Iraq is more stable and at peace with it’s neighbors than it has been in at least 30 years.

I don’t know where you got that illusion from, but Iraq is a complete mess and is not even at peace internally. And parts of it are now owned by ISIS.

Iraq is not a oomplete mess. It is fighting against ISIS to take back towns, bu it isn't a raging unstable nation. You don't have factions going at each other wholesale..

> If we had left Iraq with a contingency force as was planned, ISIS would never have been able to do what it did. We should have taken it out.

That’s irrelevant as ISIS is a US government (Clinton/McCain) creation.

It's not irrelevant, but thanks for the response. It goes without saying we should not have sent weapons or fund to that region.

> The Kurds were happy. The Sunnis were happy. The other sect in country was happy.

Get me some metrics on this one and I’ll consider its validity.

I don't need to. You know as well as I do the Kirds were not attacking Iraq and demanding nationhood on their own. They were being left alone, and that suited them fine.

You know that.

> Hussein had attack four of it’s neighbors. He had attacked Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.

He attacked Iran because he was armed and supported by the United States. He attacked Kuwait because the Bush administration gave him the green light to do so. Israel attacked him first. And Saudi Arabia was only attacked in the most marginal way, while they were hosting a half-million invasion force. Please don’t rely on this silly, discredited argument.

The United States DID NOT arm Iraq against Iran. It did it's best to not to arm either nation at the time of this war. We let it play out as each side had it's strength sapped over the length of the war. I do believe at one point we did some arming, but it was more to keep both sided competitive than to assure victory for one. We didn't want Iraq to win. We didn't want Iran to win. Addressing this as the U.S. backing one side or the other is silly. If the U. S. did such a great job of arming Iraq, why didn't Hussein simply win the war. That makes the charge silly. The most that can be claimed here, is that we kept Husseing competitive. That is exactly what we should have done.

We didn't enter the conflict. As for Kuwait, we were treated to one communicative exchange by our media that made it seem like Bush told Hussein he could go into Kuwait. And as we know, the media has always been our best friend EVER. I'm not convinced Bush baited Hussein in there. If you wish to believe it lock stock and barrel, be my guest. I think that's laughable. We just don't know for sure.

Didn't Israel take out a nuclear power plant under construction? Yes it neutralized a nuclear arms threat in the region. It did not try to harm Iraqi citizens or it's government. A considerable amount of time had transpired before the Gulf War, and Israel was not threatening more actions aginst Iraq. So Iraq's attack against Israel was unprovoked. You know why Iraq chose to do that? It wasn't because Israel had attacked it's nuclear faciltiy a decade earlier. It was because it wanted nations in the region to side with it. It figured if it could draw Israel in, it would garner support for Iraq against the U. S. Nations in the region sided with the U. S. anyway. Those scuds fired into Saudi Arabia were very poorly aimed. It's not a minimalist attack when those scuds could land just about anywhere.

As for Saudi Arabia hosting half a million troops, the U. S. gave Iraq an ultimatum. Get out of Kuwait or we're coming over. He refused to get out of Kuwait. We came over. We were not the agressor nation.

> He would not stop threatening his neighbors.

Propaganda. Any nation on earth with the capacity to defend itself from invasion could be accused of this.

Do we move tens of thousands of troops up to the borders of Mexico and Canada, in volations of international ultimatums that left our leadrship in tact after a war?

So evidently you have your facts mixed up. This wasn't propaganda and not every other nation could be accused of the same thing.

So not every nation can be accused of this.

> He would not stop saying he supported terrorist acts against the U. S.

Did that bad man hurt you with his words?

You're being juvenile here. There were terroist attacks in Europe and he voiced support for them. He made speeches that included language that he would support any terrorist activity aginst the West, and specifically the United States. Your response to 3000 dead here, is to try to belittle me for bringing this up. Did we want more 09/11s? Did we want to take a chance on him following through on his threats? No, so we didn't. Not quite so laughable huh.

> He was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel.

Israel’s business, not America’s.

It was an international pattern of open support for terrorists. If he was that willing to openly support terrorism in Israel with cash incentives, what might he be doing secretly?

Is it your thought that Israel should have attacked Iraq over it? You really don't grasp the hornet's nest that would have stirred up?

> He would move his troops up to the borders in violation of the understanding after the first gulf war.

Not America’s business. If not for the Bush admin invitation to invade Kuwait, would never have been our business.

What is it with you and your trust in the MSM over Bush? I don't happen to like Bush, but you are are far too trusting of the Leftist arm of propaganda in the U. S. Globalists aren't the only evil operatives on the planet.

> Then 09/11 came along, and we decided to make an example of him.

And lo and behold, it turns out in the end that the perpetrators of 9/11 were Saddam’s biggest enemies. Great move, I’m sure it will look fantastic on those geniuses’ resumes.

Your grasp of the Middle East sinks lower with each new comment. Things in Saudi Arabia are not as crisp and distinct as you think they are. The Wahabbi sect of Islam is very hostile to the West. The Monarchy there maintains control despite it being a moderating force. It has to walk a fine line there. What makes that even more difficult, is that the government parcels out money to the royals. The Saudi King has something like 105 sons and daughters. Imagine the proliferation of family members that he provides an income to. So some son, cousin, or other family member somewhere along the line gets money, and then parcels it out further. When one of these guys provides funds to a group, they don't necessarily know what that group will do with it.

So some son of a son of a son hands out what amounts to a minimalist sum to one of his support groups, and they do something with it. Immediately it is assumed that the Saudi King supported the actions of a group about to take down the United States.

The really silly part of this, is that Saudi Arabia has it's money invested in the West. Taking out a major target in New York would do what? It would immediately devalue Saudi Holdings globally. They could expect a hit of 25 to 50% overnight? This not to mention the bad publicity of an attack being credited to them directly.

There is a very big question mark hanging over the claim that the Saudi Government was involved in 09/11. I tend to doubt it. It would be a suicidal move. Where would the Saudis move their money to protect it? There was no other place.

This is the talk of conspiratorialists, and I'm not buying in.

A large contingent of the Saudi Family was in the United States on 09/11/2001. So what I have to believe, is that Saudi Arabia would attack the nation of a close family friend, the Bushes, that Saudi Arabia would want to take a 25 to 50% hit on their foreign holdings, and would plan the actions to take place with a large contingent of royal Saudi Family members in the country.

Impossible? No. Likelihood? Silly... .

> There is no terrorist type activity directed against the U. S. in Iraq.

> That is an accomplishment.

There wasn’t any to begin with (but there actually is now).

No there isn't. But thanks for driving home your gasp of things.

Going from zero to zero at the cost of innumerable lives and trillions of taxpayer dollars is not an accomplishment; it is a crime against Americans, a crime of massive proportions

In the mind of a child maybe...

When we took these actions, we were much more exposed to oil supplies and the effect of global markts.

We took down a dictator and a threat to not only his own people and people in other nations in the region, but the threat of assitance to terrorists groups outside the region (read that globally).

You are so far off base on this it's a waste of my time to discuss it with you, and a waste of other people's time to read what were writing to each other.

You educate?

Thanks for the twisted rendition of what is going on here.

You’re way in over your head.

I hope to hell Bolton doesn’t become part of this administration.

He was worse after he served. He posed with Pelosi, he worked with Hillary on something.

If you didn’t even know about the pipeline routes that lie at the heart of the Syrian war, then you’re in no position whatsoever to even form a reasonable opinion about what’s going on, never mind explain the reality of the situation to someone else.

At this point you have ceased to learn and are now digging into whatever psychological barriers are between your previous understanding and the since-revealed truth. It’s up to you to overcome that. God bless and good luck.

There you go again - making suggestions without personal info like actually knowing the person you talk about.

Bolton is a neocon, Gingrich isn’t.

I agree about Ralph Peters acting like a moron. He said on tv before the election that Hillary was better than Trump.

When it mattered, Gingrich was a neocon. As he will be again the next time it matters.

The man is completely untrustworthy and it amazes me that not everyone can see it.

Bolton is not a neocon. Bolton worked on the Goldwater campaign and has been a Goldwater conservative his entire life. Bolton worked for Reagan as an asst attorney general and BOLTON was specifically chosen to be the man who guided ANTONIN SCALIA through the confirmation process for Scotus.

Liberals greatly fear Bolton because he is no nonsense.

"Bolton is not a neocon."

Perhaps I am wrong about Bolton, I thought he was a Bushbot. I'll take another look.

He was appointed to a recess apptmt to the UN by Bush. A recess apptmt is Bolton helping someone out. He got in trouble with the media for calling Kim jong il(?) A stupid SOB or something like that. He is a hardline Goldwater conservative and trusted counselor of the Reagan administration.