Posted on 03/26/2018 4:59:55 AM PDT by huldah1776
The announcement Thursday night that former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton would replace Gen. H.R. McMaster as President Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor confirms the arrival of a new, distinctive voice in the Trump administration. On no issue will Bolton’s firm stance present a bigger departure from establishment dogma than his support for an independent Kurdistan.
Bolton has vocally, consistently supported the establishment of an independent Kurdish state, arguing that the Kurds have proven their ability to govern themselves and earned the support of the United States through their reliable cooperation with Washington against a number of jihadist threats, most prominently the Islamic State (ISIS).
The Kurdish people are divided among territories belonging to Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, making enemies of all these governments. For decades—and in particular recently, when all four countries faced a growing ISIS presence threatening their stability—Kurds of a variety of factions have proven willing to risk the lives of their armies to defend overlapping interests with America. They take their alliance with the United States seriously and rely only on support from Israel among their neighbors.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
This isn’t doctrine. It’s one of the fundamental distinctions that set Trump apart from his competitors in 2016.
No, actually it isn’t. You armchair isolationists incessantly try to fit Trump’s entire agenda as POTUS into your narrow and rigid foreign policy agenda.
1. worse than Mr. Clean?
2. three names of who would be better?
I think it all depends on whether Trump is able to boss Bolton, or anyone. Maybe Bolton is sharp enough that he will be helpful when working with a good president. Like a skilled anything (lawyer, whatever) that is being paid to achieve an end.
I think if Trump finds that Bolton doesn’t obey, Bolton will be bye-bye.
Allen West
That's all you need to know about Bolton.
Bolton is pro US sovereignty. If one disagrees with him about Milosevic that's fine, but to call him a foreign corporate and government shill is not correct.
What the heck does that mean -- especially in the context of a well-documented track record where he's been pushing for U.S. military intervention all over the globe in places where "U.S. sovereignty" isn't even on the radar screen?
I guess it depends on how far you twist the words “globalist” and “neocon”. That you call him either is an opinion not based in fact. That Bolton was a proponent of starting a war, say in Iraq, does not make him either. In his role of UN Ambassador he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the American Constitution was not subject to international opinion. He put the US’s interests FIRST. He was unabashedly Patriotic to the dismay of the liberals. That is not the behavior of a globalist, it is the opposite.
I’m scratching my head here trying to understand the support here on FR for a senior national security nominee who would have fit perfectly in a Hillary Clinton administration.
LOL. That may be the dumbest thing I’ve ever read on FR. Good day.
Agree with you on that. Bolton has a new boss. He will put America first.
What the heck does that mean -- especially in the context of a well-documented track record where he's been pushing for U.S. military intervention all over the globe in places where "U.S. sovereignty" isn't even on the radar screen?
I'm pretty sure I've covered Bolton's dealings with the UN here numerous times. It's as I said above.
Yup.
If it were just Iraq you would have a valid point. It's almost easier to look back over Bolton's career and list the places where he was NOT pushing for U.S. military intervention.
In his role of UN Ambassador he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the American Constitution was not subject to international opinion. He put the US’s interests FIRST. He was unabashedly Patriotic to the dismay of the liberals. That is not the behavior of a globalist, it is the opposite.
I think we just don't agree on how a "neo-con" and a "globalist" are defined.
I don't think John Bolton really has the U.S. Constitution at heart in any of his dealings. That's not necessarily a fair criticism (since his background is in international law), but I don't recall seeing Bolton running around the lecture circuit explaining how U.S. foreign policy is rooted in constitutional law.
If anything, Bolton's incessant calls for U.S. military campaigns all over the world without any formal declaration of war have no basis in constitutional law at all.
What compelling U.S. interests have been at stake in places like Iraq, Iran, Syria and Serbia/Kosovo -- to name just the most notable places where Bolton has been a loud cheerleader for U.S. military intervention?
See Post #34.
And in his dealings throughout most of his career he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that his foreign/military policies were not subject to the U.S. Constitution, either.
Thanks for the info. If you don’t think Trump can control Bolton, let Trump know.
Is Bolton better than Mr. Clean?
Hey, are you a US citizen?
Yes. I don’t know if Bolton is any better than his predecessor. I wouldn’t trust either of them.
Ok FRiend. I guess we will see.
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.