2. That fact that his "solution" involves a course of foreign military intervention without any border protection or immigration enforcement here at home is Exhibit A in support of my contention that John Bolton is completely full of sh!t and has no interest in protecting Americans here in the U.S.
It’s indeed impossible to take seriously what anyone like Bolton says regarding the security of the nation, when they conveniently ignore the immigration issue, and when they have a history of supporting open borders and amnesty.
One problem with the internet is that we post what we please anonymously behind the curtain of screen names. This encourages us to indulge in irresponsible nonsense and to fill in the blanks with our fantasies when we have insufficient information. We indulge conspiracy claims, use inappropriate descriptive terms with abandon, make claims beyond all artional restraint, etc.
I became acquainted personally with John Bolton when he was a Yale undergraduate and continuing through his time at Yale Law School. He is the son of a Baltimore fireman, making him of somewhat more modest background and upbringing than most at Yale back then (late 1960s, early 1970s) when he also served as Executive Director of Lux et Veritas, Inc., a student-alumni group slamming the genuinely "globalist" Yale Administration of Yale President Kingman Brewster. Brewster spent his tenure on his knees before Yale's radical left and substantially damaging the university. You can read a lot about it in books of the late Robert Bork.
I have not seen or talked with John Bolton in decades but character counts and he has and always has had character. He is quite bright and quite principled and always has been. Likewise, he is a man of measured judgment. It is not without reason that the left fears a John Bolton in charge of American foreign policy, a man who understands that all is not diployakkery.
You and I have often agreed here and sometimes disagreed. On this matter of John Bolton, and knowing John Bolton as I do, I can tell you that you should be ashamed of yourself. Your characterizations of John Bolton are quite inaccurate and quite unjust. I gather that you are a "paleo" and therefore allergic to interventionist assertions of American military strength. You are entitled to that opinion but it is hardly in synch with modern American conservatism of the Bill Buckley era and forward. The conservatism of James Burnham, of Jeanne Kirkpatrick, of Ronald Reagan, ad not that paler defensive variety that was forever blasted to smithereens by the attack on Pearl Harbor coupled with Hitler's depradations in Europe and the unrelieved evil of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, and now bin Laden and the Islamofacisti.
Protecting Americans certainly requires strict border enforcement. exclusion of all immigration of Muslim immigrants unless and until there is a reliable test for radicalism (not likely) and such immigration somehow serves OUR American interests as a nation and not merely those of the business "community."
Sitting around doing nothing by way of interventionism makes no more sense than open borders or encouraging Muslim immigration. There are solid reasons why wimpy Neville Chamberlain and his American counterparts (Lindbergh, McGovern, etc.) are reviled by sensible Americans for their knee jerk pacifism in the face of external threats and why Winston Churchill, MacArthur and Patton are admired.