Posted on 09/13/2019 8:22:10 AM PDT by Rummyfan
On the eve of the annual 9/11 observances, America's National Security Advisor John Bolton was either fired (per Trump) or resigned (per Bolton). The dispute is being portrayed as one between a Bush-era neocon and an "America First" Trump. But that is something of an over-simplification. As I wrote upon Bolton's appointment a year and a half ago:
Bolton is viewed with suspicion as a 'neocon', which is not a term of much practical use these days. But then so was his predecessor - H R McMaster. So the substitution might be of no more significance than a neocon whom Trump likes the company of taking the job of a neocon whom Trump finds a bit of a cold fish. There may be a little more to it than that: McMaster was complacent, and conventional to a fault; Bolton is a realist, and harder-headed about the illusions of mankind. Beyond that, McMaster belonged to the group of foreign-policy panjandrums who expected Trump to move towards them; Bolton has moved towards Trump.
And, having moved towards Trump, he came to have ever more reservations about what he found there. Whatever the President now says, at the time Bolton's appointment was a Trump choice reflecting a desire to regain control of an administration in danger of being neutered by the GOP establishment...
(Excerpt) Read more at steynonline.com ...
It serves him (and us) very well. Is that you, jebbie?
Perhaps alter, but not necessarily stop. Good way to communicate, but it is time for him to use it in a more measured manner. Become the statesmen he can, and should be. He might as well start now projecting that persona. It will help him immensely for his reelection bid as well.
Reagan - “Grenada”?? Funding the Mujahadeen in Afhanistan??
“Throwing away lives” is a matter of interpretation.
Some would say abandoning Afghanistan to the Taliban would be throwing away the lives of those who sacrificed for us there already.
Turn down the brightness, hal! I am on PDJT’s side here. It was the guy to which I responded who’s chiding the President. Although I seldom use it, Twitter is the only way he can communicate with the American public directly.
If it gets filtered through the LSM, it gets folded, spindled and mutilated before it reaches the ears of their adoring fans.
The irony is, without “international law,” there would be no United States of America as there could be no recognition of our Declaration of Independence.
British common law specifically, and expressly forbid such an action, so our founders had to turn to internationally recognized law & legal treatise.
Not at all to International Law, but to an international array of national and individual entities.
==================================================================
Not at all to the International Law of 2019.
Absolutely to "international law" of 1776.
That was intentionally put in quotes, lower case, for a reason.
Back in 1776, Natural Law (the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God) was in effect, international law in that most civilized nations recognized it to one degree or another going back millennia prior.
Thomas Jefferson, and the rest of the founders, appealed to these "international laws" or Natural Law.
The Declaration of Independence and International Law
David Armitage The William and Mary Quarterly Vol. 59, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 39-64 (26 pages)
Thomas Jefferson on the Law of Nations
Charles M. Wiltse The American Journal of International Law Vol. 29, No. 1 (Jan., 1935), pp. 66-81
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.