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.
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?