John Bolton Fired

I will admit. I am not a fan of John Bolton.  So I think this was a good move for the President. Particularly, after what happened with Afghanistan. I, like many Americans are tired of the endless, useless wars.

I know Tucker will be happy with this.

What do you guys think?

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/10/trump-says-he-has-fired-john-bolton-as-national-security-advisor/

7+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

37 thoughts on “John Bolton Fired”

  1. But I thought Trump was just a puppet of the NeoCons. Next thing you know Steve Bannon will be fired too.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  2. Bolton just stopped being Satan to the left. He is now Ambassador Bolton. Enjoy it John. Next week you will be Satan again.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  3. Oh, stuff it, Tulsi!  Whyncha do us all a favor and take a header off the wheel of life?  There must be somebody in the Hindu pantheon who will catch you….

    S’a riot— as Kevin pointed out, the Left has always hated Bolton.  I think Trump should come out and say, yes, his account is correct, sorry to lose him; he and I are just two strong personalities who disagree…

    .We don’t want Bolton doin’ the Scaramucci….

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  4. There’s a lot of outrage that Trump was, apparently, planning to negotiate with the Taliban.  But on the other hand, we’ve heard such outrage about how we left Iraq.  And on yet another hand, everybody wants to get outta Afghanistan.

    Is  there, presently, a “government of Afghanistan “, which has any real power?  Or is it the Taliban  who has the power?   I mean, if the “government” could or would control the Taliban,  we  wouldn’t have ever been involved,  would we?

    So now, if we’re trying to negotiate,

    with whom else can we do it?

    It looks like Trump was gonna try to treat with them,  they were in charge, whether we like it or not, so…..but they couldn’t maintain even a veneer of civilization, on the very verge of  the summit: being invited to Camp David!

    He tried.  They effed it up. That’s all.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  5. Robert A. McReynolds:

    John Walker:
    Tulsi Gabbard weighs in.

    I am in complete agreement. Bolton is a bomb them all Neo-con. No more forever wars.

    Funny thing is that Gabbard’s main complaint about Trump in her recent Dave Rubin interview was that he’d hired Bolton. Now that Bolton’s gone, is she gonna support Trump? Because it seems to me that her views are closer to Trump’s than those of the Democrat clown car.

    6+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  6. drlorentz:

    Robert A. McReynolds:

    John Walker:
    Tulsi Gabbard weighs in.

    I am in complete agreement. Bolton is a bomb them all Neo-con. No more forever wars.

    Funny thing is that Gabbard’s main complaint about Trump in her recent Dave Rubin interview was that he’d hired Bolton. Now that Bolton’s gone, is she gonna support Trump? Because it seems to me that her views are closer to Trump’s than those of the Democrat clown car.

    That is an excellent question. My thinking is that she will now want to see some demonstrated policy shifts. You may fire the Neo-con bastard but are you going to actually implement a different approach to foreign policy? We have to remember that she actually met with Trump early in his presidency on the basis of his foreign policy stance during the campaign. She thought he was someone with whom she could deal. She is very serious about changing our foreign policy.

    0

  7. Robert A. McReynolds:

    John Walker:
    Tulsi Gabbard weighs in.

    I am in complete agreement. Bolton is a bomb them all Neo-con. No more forever wars.

    The problem about forever wars is not “bomb them all”.

    The problem is the fantasy that there are just a few people who need bombing and the rest are all good people. In fact they are better than you and I and should be allowed to move here.

    We have a forever war in Afghanistan because we were too restrained.

    Others are willing to test us because they know that we are restrained.

    5+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  8. ctlaw:

    Robert A. McReynolds:

    John Walker:
    Tulsi Gabbard weighs in.

    I am in complete agreement. Bolton is a bomb them all Neo-con. No more forever wars.

    The problem about forever wars is not “bomb them all”.

    The problem is the fantasy that there are just a few people who need bombing and the rest are all good people. In fact they are better than you and I and should be allowed to move here.

    We have a forever war in Afghanistan because we were too restrained.

    Others are willing to test us because they know that we are restrained.

    They poke us because they interpret restraint as a sign of weakness.

    And, in fact it is.   We have tried to wage limited war, but even at that we have one hand tied behind our back.

    Before we can directly and honestly deal with the threat from Islam, we must deal with the threat from our own Left.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  9. Robert A. McReynolds:
    You may fire the Neo-con bastard but are you going to actually implement a different approach to foreign policy?

    Trump has hardly been a neocon tool thus far. He’s certainly less of a hawk than the Democrat party line or Hillary Clinton.

    More to the point, Gabbard’s knock on Trump is that he had surrounded himself with neocons. Curiously, Bolton was the only one she named in the Rubin interview, if memory serves. Haley is long gone. Only Pompeo remains. One person hardly constitutes being surrounded. Not sure he even qualifies as a neocon.

    I’m waiting for her to throw her support to Trump since he removed the only objection she had.  Not holding my breath for that.

    0

  10. ctlaw:

    Robert A. McReynolds:

    John Walker:
    Tulsi Gabbard weighs in.

    I am in complete agreement. Bolton is a bomb them all Neo-con. No more forever wars.

    The problem about forever wars is not “bomb them all”.

    The problem is the fantasy that there are just a few people who need bombing and the rest are all good people. In fact they are better than you and I and should be allowed to move here.

    We have a forever war in Afghanistan because we were too restrained.

    Others are willing to test us because they know that we are restrained.

    You misunderstood me. Forever war does not simply mean in any one engagement. It is a way of saying that when one boogeyman is slain another will be conjured up by folks like Bolton for which only the US war machine—and all of its publicly traded defense contractors—can defeat. There are no boogeymen only excuses for over credentialed tools to show off their realpolitik while their rich defense industry friends/donors make money. All while the middle class in large part sends their sons and now daughters to die.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  11. drlorentz:

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    You may fire the Neo-con bastard but are you going to actually implement a different approach to foreign policy?

    Trump has hardly been a neocon tool thus far. He’s certainly less of a hawk than the Democrat party line or Hillary Clinton.

    More to the point, Gabbard’s knock on Trump is that he had surrounded himself with neocons. Curiously, Bolton was the only one she named in the Rubin interview, if memory serves. Haley is long gone. Only Pompeo remains. One person hardly constitutes being surrounded. Not sure he even qualifies as a neocon.

    I’m waiting for her throw her support to Trump since he removed the only objection she had.  Not holding my breath for that.

    Certainly you are not going to take her statement about being surrounded and apply it to only this very moment? Trump is not a Neo-con. He isn’t much of anything ideologically. But he did surround himself with Neo-cons. Even Townhall—a site you have praised before—says that Trump is surrounded by Neo-cons. https://townhall.com/columnists/rachelmarsden/2019/01/23/trump-needs-to-rein-in-the-neocons-within-his-administration-n2539667

    So Tulsi is more correct than you know.

    0

  12. Robert A. McReynolds:
    Certainly you are not going to take her statement about being surrounded and apply it to only this very moment? Trump is not a Neo-con. He isn’t much of anything ideologically.

    If he’s not a neocon and his policies are not neocon, then there is no objection. He can “surround” himself with people having a variety of opinions; that’s what a good executive does. Bolton was not part of the original crew and was only in the administration for about half its duration so far. So I’ll respond in kind: Certainly you do not take her statement about being surrounded and apply it only to the time Bolton was in office.

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    But he did surround himself with Neo-cons.

    I don’t know what fraction of Trump’s foreign policy and military team are neocons, and I suspect you don’t either. “Surround” makes it sound like that was the only opinion he had access to. Evidence is required for such a claim. Clearly, the fact that he fired Bolton is contrary evidence that the neocons own the White House.

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    Even Townhall—a site you have praised before—says that Trump is surrounded by Neo-cons

    That was a cheap shot.Need I point out that, even though I may have referred to an article (probably by Schlichter) at Townhall, that does not imply my lending credence to each and every thing published there. But don’t take my word for it, simply read what it says under the author’s byline:

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.

    Just for clarity, I do not endorse or agree with everything (maybe not even most things) published at Townhall. Does the fact that you linked to it imply that you do?

    Edit: You have misrepresented the content of the Townhall piece. Nowhere does it say that Trump surrounded by neocons. Rather, the author is arguing that these influences need to be reined in: that “Trump’s instincts are correct” but he has to keep an eye on these guys. Quite different from being “surrounded.”

    0

  13. MJBubba:

    ctlaw:

    Robert A. McReynolds:

    John Walker:
    Tulsi Gabbard weighs in.

    I am in complete agreement. Bolton is a bomb them all Neo-con. No more forever wars.

    The problem about forever wars is not “bomb them all”.

    The problem is the fantasy that there are just a few people who need bombing and the rest are all good people. In fact they are better than you and I and should be allowed to move here.

    We have a forever war in Afghanistan because we were too restrained.

    Others are willing to test us because they know that we are restrained.

    They poke us because they interpret restraint as a sign of weakness.

    And, in fact it is.   We have tried to wage limited war, but even at that we have one hand tied behind our back.

    Before we can directly and honestly deal with the threat from Islam, we must deal with the threat from our own Left.

    ?Then how do you explain the USSR loss in Afghanistan. THEY certainly showed no restraint.

    0

  14. Devereaux:

    MJBubba:

    ctlaw:

    Robert A. McReynolds:

    John Walker:
    Tulsi Gabbard weighs in.

    I am in complete agreement. Bolton is a bomb them all Neo-con. No more forever wars.

    The problem about forever wars is not “bomb them all”.

    The problem is the fantasy that there are just a few people who need bombing and the rest are all good people. In fact they are better than you and I and should be allowed to move here.

    We have a forever war in Afghanistan because we were too restrained.

    Others are willing to test us because they know that we are restrained.

    They poke us because they interpret restraint as a sign of weakness.

    And, in fact it is.   We have tried to wage limited war, but even at that we have one hand tied behind our back.

    Before we can directly and honestly deal with the threat from Islam, we must deal with the threat from our own Left.

    ?Then how do you explain the USSR loss in Afghanistan. THEY certainly showed no restraint.

    Any time you go to talk about the USSR, you are wading into complicated territory.   I have a few thoughts.

    When the Soviets crashed into Kabul and assassinated the Afghan president, oil had recently spiked to an all-time high.  The price of oil stayed up until it slumped in 1986.   Meanwhile, other sectors of the Soviet economy were on the ropes because they could not keep up with the amazing productivity gains of the West, led by America.   The oil slump was killer; it would be over 15 years before oil sustained a price as high as it had been from 1979 through 1985.   (It helps to understand that oil is critical to the Russian economy.)   Their economy was roughly half the size of America in 1979.   Over the decade that the Soviets were in Afghanistan, their entire economy was falling behind.   America went from 2.5 times the Soviet GDP per capita to 3 times the Soviet GDP per capita.   As things were falling apart at home, their ability to support their occupation in Afghanistan was greatly diminished.

    You must keep in mind that it was only two years from the Soviet pullout from Afghanistan to the complete collapse of the Soviet Union.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  15. drlorentz:

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    Certainly you are not going to take her statement about being surrounded and apply it to only this very moment? Trump is not a Neo-con. He isn’t much of anything ideologically.

    If he’s not a neocon and his policies are not neocon, then there is no objection. He can “surround” himself with people having a variety of opinions; that’s what a good executive does. Bolton was not part of the original crew and was only in the administration for about half its duration so far. So I’ll respond in kind: Certainly you do not take her statement about being surrounded and apply it only to the time Bolton was in office.

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    But he did surround himself with Neo-cons.

    I don’t know what fraction of Trump’s foreign policy and military team are neocons, and I suspect you don’t either. “Surround” makes it sound like that was the only opinion he had access to. Evidence is required for such a claim. Clearly, the fact that he fired Bolton is contrary evidence that the neocons own the White House.

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    Even Townhall—a site you have praised before—says that Trump is surrounded by Neo-cons

    That was a cheap shot.Need I point out that, even though I may have referred to an article (probably by Schlichter) at Townhall, that does not imply my lending credence to each and every thing published there. But don’t take my word for it, simply read what it says under the author’s byline:

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.

    Just for clarity, I do not endorse or agree with everything (maybe not even most things) published at Townhall. Does the fact that you linked to it imply that you do?

    Edit: You have misrepresented the content of the Townhall piece. Nowhere does it say that Trump surrounded by neocons. Rather, the author is arguing that these influences need to be reined in: that “Trump’s instincts are correct” but he has to keep an eye on these guys. Quite different from being “surrounded.”

    His policies are more Neo-con than not. Launching missiles into Syria in March 2017, carrying on with support to Saudi Arabia in Yemen, and flirting with regime change in Venezuela. I will say this, I think it was Trump that prevented war with Iran in the early part of the summer. The Neo-cons wanted that so bad, and I think he prevented it.

    I know this, Mattis was brought to the Pentagon from the military and is now on his way to Raytheon I believe. The current acting Sec Def came out of a pro war think tank. And before that the guy filling the post came from Boeing and is back there now. McMaster is think tanking at the Hoover Institute. Then you throw in Rince Preibus. I will also throw this in:

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/step-toward-rational-national-security-council/

    I will certainly credit Trump for some of the outsiders he did bring in, but they seemed to have zero effect on policy and were gone in a flash.

    I linked to it because I recognize that at the very least it has some credibility with you, so I avoided the “ oh that’s a biased source” response. And if the needed to be reined in would it not imply the are at the least running a bit wild and therefore are evidence of a fairly sizable faction? That’s not a misrepresentation at all. There is also this:

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/trump-and-the-neoconservatives/

    And this which lists off some other names:

    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/17/Return-Neocons-Trump-s-Surprising-Cabinet-Candidates

    And I forgot to mention Elliot Abrams at State. He is a huge Neo-con thug intellectual.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/trumps-neocon-elliott-abrams/515784/

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  16. MJBubba:

    Devereaux:

    MJBubba:

    ctlaw:

    Robert A. McReynolds:

    John Walker:
    Tulsi Gabbard weighs in.

    I am in complete agreement. Bolton is a bomb them all Neo-con. No more forever wars.

    The problem about forever wars is not “bomb them all”.

    The problem is the fantasy that there are just a few people who need bombing and the rest are all good people. In fact they are better than you and I and should be allowed to move here.

    We have a forever war in Afghanistan because we were too restrained.

    Others are willing to test us because they know that we are restrained.

    They poke us because they interpret restraint as a sign of weakness.

    And, in fact it is.   We have tried to wage limited war, but even at that we have one hand tied behind our back.

    Before we can directly and honestly deal with the threat from Islam, we must deal with the threat from our own Left.

    ?Then how do you explain the USSR loss in Afghanistan. THEY certainly showed no restraint.

    Any time you go to talk about the USSR, you are wading into complicated territory.   I have a few thoughts.

    When the Soviets crashed into Kabul and assassinated the Afghan president, oil had recently spiked to an all-time high.  The price of oil stayed up until it slumped in 1986.   Meanwhile, other sectors of the Soviet economy were on the ropes because they could not keep up with the amazing productivity gains of the West, led by America.   The oil slump was killer; it would be over 15 years before oil sustained a price as high as it had been from 1979 through 1985.   (It helps to understand that oil is critical to the Russian economy.)   Their economy was roughly half the size of America in 1979.   Over the decade that the Soviets were in Afghanistan, their entire economy was falling behind.   America went from 2.5 times the Soviet GDP per capita to 3 times the Soviet GDP per capita.   As things were falling apart at home, their ability to support their occupation in Afghanistan was greatly diminished.

    You must keep in mind that it was only two years from the Soviet pullout from Afghanistan to the complete collapse of the Soviet Union.

    OK. I’m just a simple jarhead. ‘Splain this to me. You are talking USSR and its economy. We’re talking Afghanistan, and the comment was that we were losing because we weren’t harsh enough. I understand the Russian dependence on oil (and the fact they have high extraction costs so the barrel cost has to be high for it to be profitable for them). But what I don’t get is how this makes a difference in their harshness in Afghanistan. They were brutal – and they still lost. Seems to me in my simple logic that their experience takes away the “we weren’t tough enough” argument.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  17. There are many differences between the Russians and us in Afghanistan.

    First, we were in the right and Ivan was in the wrong.

    Second, the Russians had us and Pakistan aiding the insurgents. We should have used our full military power against anyone aiding the Taliban. That brings us back to the first item.

    Third, the Russians wanted to occupy and control Afghanistan. We just needed  to kill our enemies. It should not have mattered to us if we had to kill every person in that country and leave it uninhabitable for 1000 years. That would’ve been a feature not a bug.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  18. And we didn’t really need to do much of it ourselves. After the northern alliance swept in, we should’ve just told them to keep killing Taliban until there were no more Taliban.

    Regarding Pakistan, we should l have threatened to arm India if the Paks aided the Taliban.  I’m sure the Indians could have made good use of two Kitty Hawk class aircraft carriers and a gift certificate to the aircraft boneyard out in the desert.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  19. Whoa! I get “Kill ‘em all and let God sort it out,” but you seem to have taken it to new heights. ?Are you really willing to exterminate ALL Afghanis, ‘cuz that’s what you sound like.

    The Northern Alliance was in no position to kill off the Taliban. Taliban were, and are, mostly Pashtun tribesmen; the NA is not. Pashtun are by far the majority ethnic group in Afghanistan. Even with our backing, the NA could perhaps have gotten their  independence, but the large part of Afghanistan would have remained Taliban.

    You don’t get victory by exterminating a whole nation. You get it by making the opposition decide that it’s not worth fighting anymore. The Germans tried exterminating the Jews – and ended up with things like the Warsaw Ghetto. Then they tried it on the Russians – and while initially Russian units were surrendering to the Germans wholesale, when word got out the Krauts were just killing them all, SUDDENLY the Russian resistence stiffened seriously.

    Use of force in serious but limited ways helps promote what you are looking for; use of force to exterminate the opposition wantomly is usually counterproductive.

    4+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  20. Devereaux:
    Use of force in serious but limited ways helps promote what you are looking for; use of force to exterminate the opposition wantonly is usually counterproductive.

    That was the great disconnect in what was promised regarding Afghanistan and what actually happened.  When the 2001 “Authorization for Use of Military Force” was enacted, it authorised [section 2(a)]:

    That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

    This was passed 98-0 in the Senate (2 not voting) and 420-1 in the House (10 not voting).  The only nay vote was representative Barbara Lee of California.

    This says nothing whatsoever about long-term occupation, “nation building”, drafting new constitutions, etc., etc., 19 years later etc.  The folly and futility of this (told from experience in Iraq, not Afghanistan) is well documented in Peter Van Buren’s 2011 book We Meant Well.

    Ron Paul voted for this authorisation.  What he, and many people who voted for it expected, and were told, was that what was intended was a punitive expedition to overthrow the Taliban who permitted Al Qaeda to operate in the country, destroy Al Qaeda bases and forces, then get out, informing whoever succeeded the deposed government that if they permitted hostile forces to use their territory again, “We’ll be back, and next time no more mister nice guy.”  That is a perfectly plausible mission, and one which probably could have been accomplished in less than a year.  (Indeed, most of it was accomplished in a few months, before mission creep and Wilsonian utopianism gripped the executive branch.)

    Empires have been trying and failing to civilise Afghanistan since at least the time of Alexander the Great.  At some point it makes sense to be realistic and, if you need something from there such as natural resources or a transportation corridor, deal with whoever is in power in the parts you’re concerned with to get what you want, but otherwise erect a cordon sanitaire around the mess to keep whatever trouble is inside from getting out.  That seems to be the approach China is taking, securing mineral rights to rare earth metals and copper, while building telecommunications and transportation infrastructure.

    5+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  21. That is also how our nation was conceived. We were never organized, nor did the people ever want, empire. Or continuing war. Or international police. Condoleeza Rice recently said something that is worrisome. She said there are things that need doing that only the US is positioned to do.

    ?What exactly ARE those things. ?Why do we worry about “balance of power” in a region. Those issues are regional ones; let the region settle them. I believe we are traders at heart. We LIKE commerce. We just need an even playing field (though I don’t mind it tipped our way some).

    That’s one reason I just don’t understand all the clamour for us being “in” the Mideast. NOTHING there but Israel to be concerned about. A treaty with Israel of mutual support would help insure its further existence. (And as an aside, I see no reason we don’t back Israel annexing the West Bank. It is historically Jewish and they have been attacked and fought over it often enough to merit their annexation of it.) ?What in tarnation are we doing in Syria. Mattis has an answer that I just don’t agree with, but Mattis is a war general. He would have been SO much better as the Commadant of the Marine Corps than Sec of War.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar

Leave a Reply