Posted on 02/17/2017 3:33:26 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Hugh Hewitt has been all over this idea lately.
(TWEETS-AT-LINK)
Bolton was a candidate for Secretary of State during the transition period, then a candidate to be a key undersecretary at the Department under Rex Tillerson, and then more recently … nada. His name hadn’t been mentioned in connection lately with any major staffing positions, which is odd given that Trump reportedly came to admire him from his appearances on Fox News. (Also a key qualification for KT McFarland in landing her job as deputy NSA, apparently.) Bolton had two big problems in landing a job at State. One: Rex Tillerson allegedly had “misgivings” about him, whether because of Bolton’s ostentatious hawkishness or because a newbie diplomat at the head of the Department might fear being outmaneuvered by an ambitious, experienced old hand beneath him. And two, more importantly: Deputy positions at cabinet agencies require Senate confirmation, and Bolton has always been viewed as tough to confirm. The left despises him and might well be able to scare centrist Dems into voting lockstep against him; Rand Paul also despises Bolton for his hawkishness and has vowed to oppose him. That leaves a paper-thin majority of 51 votes to confirm him assuming zero other defections among the Senate GOP. And plenty of other Republicans, starting with Bob Corker, are said to have “misgivings” about Bolton. He might be unconfirmable.
But that’s the virtue of the NSA idea. The national security advisor isn’t subject to Senate confirmation. Because he’s merely an advisor, he can be on the job tomorrow if Trump merely says the word. And lo and behold:
(TWEET-AT-LINK)
Don’t get too excited, though. He’s not the only candidate:
(TWEET-AT-LINK)
Trump himself named Keith Kellogg as a fourth possibility this morning, but not until late this afternoon did anyone say anything about Bolton. How come? Why was he an afterthought in this?
The easy explanation is that it has to do with his hawkishness. He was always a weird foreign-policy fit for an Iraq critic like Trump; I think Trump appreciated Bolton’s interventionist bravado in his Fox appearances, but maybe as he’s thought more carefully about the direction of his administration, he realized that having a NATO booster and Russia skeptic as his right-hand man on national security is destined to lead to internal conflict and frustration over policy. On the other hand, Gen. Mattis is also a NATO booster and Russia skeptic and he appears to be one of Trump’s favorite aides. Maybe the deeper reason for Bolton’s afterthought status is that he’d insist on real power to shape policy as NSA and Trump’s inner circle doesn’t seem to be in the mood to share that power with outside advisors and department chiefs. The last thing Trump and Steve Bannon need as they discuss detente with Russia and woo pro-Putin nationalist parties in Europe is John Bolton staffing up with conventional Republican hawks and consolidating power over the National Security Council. Bolton’s personality may simply be too strong to be the sort of deputy that Team Trump is looking for.
And of course, there’s always that mustache. Yee-ikes.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Why not pipe down, Ted? Try to rebuild your tattered cred on somebody else’s back, you’ve trod on this one enough.
I like Bolton. I’d just like to clarify, though, if he is more interested in going to war with Russia or ISIS.
Most people on the Saudi payroll want war with Russia. I’m more interested in wiping out ISIS, and then focus on bridges and highways back home.
Isn’t Bolton too moderate on social issues for the majority of conservatives?
Which “social issues” will he be dealing with as National Security Advisor?
Aides are important, someone has to get the coffee.
are you worried about the social philosophy of the national; security advisor? I don’t see the connection.
I was helping out at a briefing there where a brigadier general was sent out for coffee and sweet rolls. I was not a flag officer, of course, but being an integral part of the briefing I wasn’t available as a gofer. His aide-de-camp was somewhere else, I guess.
I’m looking at the risk of Bolton going “soft”, sometime in the future, because of his lack of social conservatism. It might not happen, but it’s something to, not, ignore about Bolton.
I’m looking at the risk of Bolton going “soft”, sometime in the future, because of his lack of social conservatism. It might not happen, but it’s something to, not, ignore about Bolton.
Why? Is ISIS looking at implementing late-term abortions or OTC birth control? Is al Qaeda pushing for gay marriage?
He would be an excellent choice
“Lindsey Graham says he is a “big John Bolton fan.” John McCain thinks Bolton is great too. If Graham and McCain are your ideal leaders, then Bolton is your man.”
Yup, it’s like the Obama hires. If he wanted them, I don’t. I would much rather Sebastian Gorka as NSA.
My sister-in-law is smarter than McCain and Graham put together.
I agree. I would consider him an acceptable choice for the job. I put loyalty at a premium right now for Trump, he needs a circle of people he can truly trust. Bolton is a very smart and capable person, but I think it’d be important for Trump to make sure they are on the same page in terms of world view. Bolton has been loyal and doesn’t mind speaking his mind and going against the grain which Trump will like. I believe Trump’s greatest threat politically right now is McCain, and his committee in the Senate, so if there is a side benefit to cooling that relationship down it would be a plus.
we disagree. He’s strong on defense and not rolling over to bad guts. don’t care if he likes gay marriage or drug legalization, I want a strong defense. The same reason i wanedt Guiliani as a special investigator for four years laying lone ranger.
It is kinda’ funny, the guy that W. had to appoint to the position while Congress was in recess is all of a sudden a tool of . . . Congress.
Indeed, and I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, the first replacement o'bammy made was to remove him as ambassador to the UN.
Things that make you go "hmmmm?"
FMCDH(BITS)
I agree. Bolton would be a great choice. Bush haters probably don’t remember that Condoleeza Rice overode any action by Bolton. He was not a Bush lackey, but one of the best at understanding the UN and the Middle East. I did not like either Bush, but you shouldn’t always throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Wasted lives on an investment which never had even the most remote possibility of success.
Dump the old failure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.