Posted on 12/15/2019 6:07:30 PM PST by janetjanet998
Of course it was discussed.
So what? All relations between nations are either quid pro quo or war.
Quid pro quo when dealing with other nations is the President's JOB. When FDR sent the destroyers to Britain in 1940, he demanded basing rights for the US in the Caribbean.
Why wasn't he impeached, if quid pro quo between nations is a high crime?
In other words, Bolton is a throwback/fossil from a time that is a distant memory for many people, if they were even alive in the Reagan era.
There is nothing wrong with ‘quid pro quo’ or what is more commonly known as ‘tit-for-tat’.
It is the foundation of ‘diplomacy’.
The only time it should be considered harmful or illegal is when it is done as blackmail or extortion to cover up other criminal activity.
That may be, but don’t we need at least of couple of people like that to have an input ?
If we are going to base our nation’s actions on the input of elected/appointed leadership, shouldn’t we have a variety of opinion. A devil’s advocate, so to speak ?
IIRC, the Israeli’s had a devil’s advocate concept in their governmental decisions. One extra man who would propose something extreme or in complete opposition to the general concensus.
Bolton may be a throwback, a fossil, but there is much value in the phrase SPARE THE ROD, SPOIL THE CHILD.
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.