Posted on 06/22/2020 6:16:37 AM PDT by knighthawk
On Election Day 2016 I was in the green room at Fox News in midtown Manhattan waiting to go on the air, as was Ambassador John Bolton.
I asked John if he had already voted, to which he replied, “Yes, for Trump. He’s an idiot, but anybody is better than Hillary Clinton.”
That’s why I had my doubts when Bolton lobbied so aggressively for and became President Trump’s national security adviser less than two years later.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Bolton has devolved into a hateful man who knows full well that his actions are aiding the demented leftist Biden and the communists who control him to achieve power and ultimately destroy the American nation. No punishment is too severe for Bolton.
Then why didn’t you tell the Trump advisers you idiot?
These passive Republicans just drive me nuts
Great article. This is the problem with life in the swamp. Everyone is trying to do well for themselves and few are trying to do good for the country.
Since we are eliminating historical figures, I propose Benedict Bolton as the new face of treason.
The term neocon works well for people like him.
[Then why didn’t you tell the Trump advisers you idiot?
These passive Republicans just drive me nuts]
I get that he was annoyed about Trump’s failure to launch significant airstrikes against Iran. Well - Biden will hand the Middle East over to Iran. Mark my words - if Biden wins the election, Iran will launch a pincer attack from Iraq and Yemen and unify the oil-producing Gulf states under its rule, with no reaction other than stern words from a Biden administration.
DC is full of Boltons.
Trump seems to think there is some value in hiring such people. We can't know if it is because he wants a different perspective from among his advisers or if it is because he wants to keeps his enemies close (and know what they are thinking). But whatever it is, Trump has had more experience hiring and firing people than anyone in DC, so there must be a reason for this that simply is unknown to the public.
Trump has done this for his entire career and, in the end, he and his projects have been extremely successful. Ergo, there must be a method to his madness.
Just maybe those Dem and their media allies were on to something when they were savagely attacking Bolton during the Bush years and during the Obama years when Fox gave him a platform to spout his neo-con warmongering nonsense. Maybe he really is a hate filled, twisted, demented Dr. Strangelove type.
I know, I know but as far as the MSM goes, think stopped clock or blind squirrel or something like that
You might recall Ms. McFarland leaving the administration just a couple of months after the inauguration...
Turned out the FBI was trying to build a false case against her and send her to prison too.
Maybe she wasn't really in a position to say anything at the time, or maybe her attention was on other things.
Or maybe there's some other answer to your question... I have no idea myself, so all possibilities remain open...
Bolton Strangelove.
Love that image.
“Trump has done this for his entire career and, in the end, he and his projects have been extremely successful. Ergo, there must be a method to his madness.”
I read a very persuasive argument that simply having a notorious neocon warmonger in the room when negotiating with a non-ally was enoigh to have the other guys think to themselve, “uh-oh.” Trump used the mere sight of him to tip the scales in the US’s favor. And, love him or hate him, Trump really does want to tip things in our favor, to do what’s best for Americans.
That is a very good argument for having Bolton on staff.
After Sessions, Bolton is Trumps next worst appointment.
It’s amazing how many truly crappy people he picked.
He could have saved himself a lot of grief had he picked people that were more loyal to him.
Too bad our colleges and universities no longer allow provocative (i.e. different) points of view.
Bolton’s problem is simple, he does not comply with the ideals of our constitution, the President is in charge because he is elected. Bolton is an adviser and not in charge of our foreign policy or security. Everything else is conversation. He can have an opinion but in his case he acts like the idiom about opinions and A holes. At the end of the day, whom did he “work with”, well, Bush the squish who would have bombed Mars if Bolton said to do it.
Trump handles employees like used tampons. Bolton’s departure read like an episode of “The Apprentice”. A guy who has been near the pinnacle of power for decades was handled like an unpaid Congressional intern, just like many of the other people fired by Trump. Instead of the bland “I thank him for his diligent efforts” that accompanies the typical Washington firing, Trump crowed about Bolton’s dismissal, just as he did for many of his peers in other cabinet positions. Bolton probably figured one good turn deserves another.
But what about the big picture, John? How the heck could you give a hand to the feeble-minded moron who is running against Trump? And that description fit even before the recent onset of what appears to be impending senility.
Over the weekend, the lovably salty vice president confessed to advising President Obama not to order the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound because there wasn’t absolute proof that the Al Qaeda leader was in the Abbottabad residence. “Mr. President, my suggestion is, don’t go.” Biden reenacted for an audience at a congressional retreat.
Surely, no one should fault a leader for hesitating over a commando raid that posed such significant risks to everyone involved. And it certainly took guts to admit the flawed decision in public (even if he was just trying to make his boss look good). But it was also a reminder that he may want to downplay the foreign policy aspect of his political biography.
The Persian Gulf War In 1991, Biden voted against the successful Gulf War though most historians now believe it was a well-executed, agile use of American power. According to a report in The New York Times back then, Biden “scorned the other members of the anti-Iraq coalition” because they saddled the U.S. with most of the hard sacrifices. ]
John Bolton's role over the years has been completely misunderstood by an awful lot of people on both sides of the political aisle ... and deliberately whitewashed by others. There's far too much focus on his role in various positions in government over the years. The REAL focus should be on what he's been doing BETWEEN his government jobs.
I had this guy pegged years ago as a malignant, pernicious, globalist @sshole. I'm not complaining or being vindictive about this, but I took plenty of crap from a lot of people right here on FR when I said so years ago.
Another Freeper posted a response to a post I made on an old thread about John Bolton from 2018. A link to this thread is posted here -- and my posts on this thread are worth reading (especially Post #60 and its reference to the links there):
John Bolton: The Wisdom of This Choice Is Made Clear in the Panic of Liberals
At the risk of sounding self-aggrandizing ... I never bought into the bullsh!t that has been peddled incessantly in conservative circles about this @sshole for years.
Anyone who thinks John Bolton has become a traitor and turned on President Trump with the publication of his book hasn't been paying attention. He was never working as the National Security Advisor in the first place. Even as the National Security Advisor he was working all along for the same foreign and corporate interests that have been paying him for years in between his government jobs.
You want proof of this? Just take a look at this video clip:
Why John Bolton Wants a Fringe Group to Rule Iran (NYT News)
I have no interest in vouching for the accuracy of a New York Times report, but the content of the video clips presented there is beyond dispute:
1. John Bolton gave that speech in July 2017. Who employed him at that time, and -- more importantly -- what were the sources of his employer's revenue?
2. That speech was given to a group called the Mujahedeen Khalq -- known by their English abbreviation MEK. This is a group of Marxist Iranian dissidents living in exile who had been pushing for an overthrow of the Iranian regime for decades.
3. The MEK had been designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. government until 2012. Why would John Bolton be giving a speech in 2017 to an Iranian dissident group that had been designated as a terrorist group for the entire duration of time he had ever served in the U.S. government before then?
4. The MEK is still considered a terrorist group by BOTH the Iraqi and Iranian governments TODAY -- most likely because the MEK's militia had been sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein after they fled from Iran.
5. Wait a minute ... Hasn't John Bolton been an unapologetic cheerleader for every U.S. military action against Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime in Iraq -- even to this day, after thousands of American lives (of people unrelated to John Bolton, of course) and trillions of dollars have been pissed away and Iraq is still a dysfunctional Islamic sh!t-hole?
6. And here's the biggest question of all, folks ... Why was John Bolton giving a speech to the MEK in July 2017 in which he promised: "Before 2019, we here will celebrate IN TEHRAN!"
If you want to know why John Bolton wrote his anti-Trump screed, just find the answer to a simple question:
Who paid him to give that speech to the MEK in 2017?
I agree. It is a shame, but true.
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.