The reason there has been a war on Bolton is not because anyone really thinks he is a hawk, as they often claim, but because he is a stalwart opponent of transnational progressivism and an opponent of the International Court, etc.
The reason there is a war on Trump is not because of Russia but because as a proponent of national sovereignity, as a nationalist, he is an opponent of transnational progressivism, a race/gender/tribal/identity politics/group rights ideology that is a bigger threat to the US and western civilization than any nation or even jihadists.
Who then, are the supporters of transnational progressivism? Human Rights Watch, Soros, any idiot who has ever been in favor of the International Court, Merkel, hordes of Democrats, and some RINOs. Strobe Talbot of the Brookings Institution. Guess who else is part of Brookings?
Oh, that would be British-born US citizen Fiona Hill. So, what is her position on national sovereignity, the International Court, etc? Is it in line with Talbot and Brzezinski of Brookings, or is it in line with Bolton?
Of interest is this link : https://nationalinterest.org/article/democracys-trojan-horse-1155
I think both sides would agree this is a very negative article for John Bolton.
Has he responded yet?
I don’t have a disagreement with parts of our thoughts there. I do have a problem with him trying to make trouble for Trump on his exit. Yesterday there was a headline mentioning drugs and the Trump calls in connection with Bolton.
It does seem to me he has jumped the shark a bit.
I don’t think of him as a warmonger. If the press he’s getting right now is accurate, he’s a problem.
It is possible they are trying to destroy him so he won’t be a factor in the future.
As I have said previously, he always struck me as a very astute guy.
I’d hate to see him flame out, but I’ve seen others do it.
I’m still keeping an eye on how things progress from here.