Bolton In, McMaster Out!

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: amazing
Bolton is no diplomat. And that's what you need. He's a terrible choice. He's worse than any other choice Trump could have made. Strongly dislike Bolton.

Actually he was the US ambassador to the United Nations so yes, he would be a Diplomat. Just as the President is the chief Diplomat for the Uni9ted States.

Not to mention that diplomacy isn't the National Security Advisor's job.

People are acting like John Bolton is the #ing president now or that he's going to be going to hot spots to negotiate.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Question.

What did Bolton do to NK in the years with the Bush administration? I recall Iraq and WMD's but nothing much in the way of NK.

Not much. Bush included NK in the "Axis of Evil" but overall the US tried to essentially bribe North Korea with food and energy aid for most of Bush's tenure, a policy driven by the UN. The last time Bolton was in a position of public service in DC, however, North Korea's nuclear program was still largely speculative. Things have changed over the past 9 years, with the country now actually possessing both functional warheads and missile systems which can reach the US mainland (when they don't blow up on the launch pad... a problem which we won't always have to cover our asses.)

a reply to: Involutionist

Good. If I accomplished one thing today, let it be known that I disgusted the right individuals. Redneck diplomacy works, your hystrionics are proof of that fact, boy.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: amazing
Bolton is no diplomat. And that's what you need. He's a terrible choice. He's worse than any other choice Trump could have made. Strongly dislike Bolton.

What's encouraging is that most of the Liberals along with the people who have been wrong about mostly everything over the past 10 years, are coming out against John Bolton.

I'm not wrong here, nor totally liberal. I voted Libertarian the last election. What I don't like about Bolton, is that he takes us back to the Bush era diplomacy. Invade country first ask questions later. He was instrumental in invading Iraq and leaving that country in shambles. That's not the kind of guy we want shaping our foreign policy is it? Wouldn't it be better to keep our solders home instead of getting thousands of them killed and blown up in the middle east?

I get your concern, but your characterization here is a little off. Iraq was far from an "invade first, ask questions later" scenario. We'd been negotiating with Iraq for years before we invaded them.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Not much.

Yep.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Question.

What did Bolton do to NK in the years with the Bush administration? I recall Iraq and WMD's but nothing much in the way of NK.

Not much. Bush included NK in the "Axis of Evil" but overall the US tried to essentially bribe North Korea with food and energy aid for most of Bush's tenure, a policy driven by the UN. The last time Bolton was in a position of public service in DC, however, North Korea's nuclear program was still largely speculative. Things have changed over the past 9 years, with the country now actually possessing both functional warheads and missile systems which can reach the US mainland (when they don't blow up on the launch pad... a problem which we won't always have to cover our asses.)

NK's first confirmed nuclear test was in 2006. Wasn't Bolton still in the Bush administration then?

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Question.

What did Bolton do to NK in the years with the Bush administration? I recall Iraq and WMD's but nothing much in the way of NK.

Not much. Bush included NK in the "Axis of Evil" but overall the US tried to essentially bribe North Korea with food and energy aid for most of Bush's tenure, a policy driven by the UN. The last time Bolton was in a position of public service in DC, however, North Korea's nuclear program was still largely speculative. Things have changed over the past 9 years, with the country now actually possessing both functional warheads and missile systems which can reach the US mainland (when they don't blow up on the launch pad... a problem which we won't always have to cover our asses.)

NK's first confirmed nuclear test was in 2006. Wasn't Bolton still in the Bush administration then?

He was a UN ambassador when that happened.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Not much.

Yep.

You'll get no argument from me if you wish to discuss GWB's failure to effectively use military action where needed. The man was not a great military strength president, as proved by the way we half-assed easily winnable wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I said it earlier in this thread, "kinder gentler" wars and efforts to win hearts and minds of enemies are blueprints to losing conflicts, or at least failing to maximize the potential and benefits to America out of those conflicts.

Well at least Trump and Bolton will attack North Korea if North Korea hits anyone with nukes...Trumps orange hair and Bolton’s mustache can beat North Korea.

Clock is ticking... 2021/22 question is which few cities get glassed, before reality of war and nuclear horror forces them to stop?

Life is a jigsaw, it's a shame America stands by watching someone force the wrong pieces into place...

Bolton is there to make the threat of war more real. Trump put him in place so other countries know that Trump has no problem with bombing you. I don't like bolton. He seems like a drama queen and that the enemy is everywhere even under your bed. I doubt trump will actually listen to much he has to say. Just using him as a prop on the world stage.

Looks like Trump has completed assembling his war cabinet --- all dangerous choices --- imo...albeit on a delay, by the fact that DJT didn't hire Bolton first off, because he --- seriously ---- "didn't like his bushy mustache."

The Democrat talking points with regard to Republican appointments:

-If the appointee is has not worked for a previous administration, they "lack governmental experience.'

-if the appointee HAS worked for a previous republican administration, then they are simpering war-criminal yes-men.

So, the only acceptable appointees are democrats. Listening to this logic is what led W. Bush to appoint so many democrats to the courts and deeps state.

They can pick on Bolton all they want. I still believe.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: amazing
Bolton is no diplomat. And that's what you need. He's a terrible choice. He's worse than any other choice Trump could have made. Strongly dislike Bolton.

What's encouraging is that most of the Liberals along with the people who have been wrong about mostly everything over the past 10 years, are coming out against John Bolton.

I'm not wrong here, nor totally liberal. I voted Libertarian the last election. What I don't like about Bolton, is that he takes us back to the Bush era diplomacy. Invade country first ask questions later. He was instrumental in invading Iraq and leaving that country in shambles. That's not the kind of guy we want shaping our foreign policy is it? Wouldn't it be better to keep our solders home instead of getting thousands of them killed and blown up in the middle east?

I get your concern, but your characterization here is a little off. Iraq was far from an "invade first, ask questions later" scenario. We'd been negotiating with Iraq for years before we invaded them.

It was still misguided. It destabilized the entire region. Iraq was a long time enemy of Iran and helped keep them in check. Bolton was close friends with Bush and Cheney and Rumsfield and big oil. Invading Iraq was all about military basses and oil money. Dick Cheney's company, Haliburton made $40 Billion Dollars out of Iraq and continues to make money off of Iraq. That's just one example of Bolton's Corporate colonialism. He doesn't care about world peace, he cares about making money for large corporations.

When thousands of our service men and women die because of Oil profits, that's a really bad thing. That's the guy Trump just put in there.

Wow.. Bolton really scares liberals! Good... GOOD!

originally posted by: carewemust
Wow.. Bolton really scares liberals! Good... GOOD!

No, he scares everyone. The man loves war a bit too much.

originally posted by: carewemust
Wow.. Bolton really scares liberals! Good... GOOD!

Using "pissing off liberals" as a litmus test is a dumb way to run a country

Bolton is known as a flatterer --- "He won't just confirm Trump's impulses, he'll exploit them to push a terrible agenda. And Bolton, like other new appointees, has the key qualification of being wrong about everything."

quote: Paul Krugman, March 23

twitter.com...