BREAKING: McMaster Out and Bolton in

[TomSea]

John Bolton: 'Bomb Iran'
by Kelly Cohen  | March 26, 2015 10:34 AM

As Iran gets closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon, a weapon should be used against it.

At least that's what John Bolton, a former U.S. diplomat who served as the ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006, thinks in a New York Times op-ed titled "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran."

"Iran's steady progress toward nuclear weapons has long been evident. Now the arms race has begun: Neighboring countries are moving forward," Bolton wrote, "driven by fears that Mr. Obama's diplomacy is fostering a nuclear Iran."

Read more at: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/john-bolton-bomb-iran/article/2562073

The Rand Paul types will be against this move, this was pretty brash to actually pen an editorial to bomb Iran.

Of course, a foreign policy genius and man  of integrity like Trump; knows that Bolton certainly understands a lot of the bureaucracy in DC, could be of use for something like that....and that view has been voiced previously.

[TomSea]

Bolton is a warmongering Bush neocon, he is a terrible pick and if Trump listens to him that will
be ANOTHER broken campaign promise.

Yes, I hope it's just because Bolton knows about how the bureaucracy works. Also, yes, he was there under Bush, but it was researched and even posted here, he had little to do with the Iraq war... now if there are other things in the past, I'll look at it.

He's a good soldier, he's supported Trump time and time and time again in the many interviews he's given on Fox...so, if being a good soldier means, not to somehow get us into some needless conflict. Good. I hope per that NY Times piece, that he's just not way to hawkish on Iran. That we can have some reason and go to the best most viable solution.

I understand, Bolton was excellent as a UN ambassador.

And when one says Bolton understands the bureaucracy, that may well mean, cleaning house from the Obama-leftovers, which supposedly is a problem.

[Sanguine]

Bolton is a terrible choice. Broke the radio in a '78 Granada I was driving back in '89 when his song "How Am I Supposed To Live Without You" came on. Just awful.

No, wasn't that the Bolton with the curly blonde ringlets?  He was adorable.

[GtHawk]

Just last Friday......

No changes in White House personnel planned, Sanders says

Sanders said reports of McMaster's imminent firing are "not accurate," adding that White House Chief of Staff John Kelly told White House staff that "no personnel changes at this time" are planned.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/03/16/No-changes-in-White-House-personnel-planned-Sanders-says/3381521227558/

Sanders said to be contemplating a name change to Lianne Yerasoff.

And what she said may have been God's own truth, with old lightning thumbs at the helm it might just have been a spurn(not a misspell) of the moment decision.

! No longer available

[Sanguine]

Bolton is a warmongering Bush neocon, he is a terrible pick and if Trump listens to him that will
be ANOTHER broken campaign promise.

Do you read these threads before you post?  Go see response #21 by TomSea.

[GtHawk]

Yes.  Seriously.   

[Right_in_Virginia]

The Rand Paul types will be against this move, this was pretty brash to actually pen an editorial to bomb Iran. 

Agree.  But the Rand Paul types don't get a vote on this.  Although I'm wondering about our plans for Iran now, too ... 

BTW, Bolton also penned an essay on why attacking NK first is to our benefit. 

@TomSea

[edpc]

Do you read these threads before you post?  Go see response #21 by TomSea.

@Sanguine
@TomSea


Except for the fact it's not true.


An unabashed proponent of American power and a strong supporter of the Iraq war, Bolton was unable to win Senate confirmation after his nomination to the U.N. post turned off many Democrats and even some Republicans.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/23/look-at-last-4-us-ambassadors-to-united-nations.html

[TomSea]

@Sanguine
@TomSea


Except for the fact it's not true.


An unabashed proponent of American power and a strong supporter of the Iraq war, Bolton was unable to win Senate confirmation after his nomination to the U.N. post turned off many Democrats and even some Republicans.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/23/look-at-last-4-us-ambassadors-to-united-nations.html

Okay, I'm all ears, what part of the Iraq war did Bolton plan?

I don't see where posts are numbered but I think this is the post referred to.

Bolton has backed Trump continuously over the past two years, so the usual bitter words are just pretty funny really. So, Bolton has this integrity but let's forget this other! Nonsense!

That said, Bolton is seen as being Neo-Conish; but history shows, he basically had nothing to do with the US going to Iraq, though, he was in the Bush administration. That's all Powell and the others.

So, if you want to call "supporting" a war, "planning, all the paper work, logistics", fine. That's absurd but run with it if one must. I guess Sean Hannity now has a lot to do with how the Iraq war went.

[edpc]

Okay, I'm all ears, what part of the Iraq war did Bolton plan?

I don't see where posts are numbered but I think this is the post referred to.

So, if you want to call "supporting" a war, "planning, all the paper work, logistics", fine. That's absurd but run with it if one must. I guess Sean Hannity now has a lot to do with how the Iraq war went.

Perhaps you missed the part where @jpsb referred to Bolton as a warmongering Neocon.  His support of the Iraq War and bombing of Iran in the mid 2000s supports that assertion.  Whether he was part of the invasion plans is immaterial.

[TomSea]

But what about Bolton? Fred Fleitz, his former chief of staff at the State Department, recently penned a piece refuting much of his critics’ case: Bolton (full disclosure: a colleague of mine at the American Enterprise Institute) was not involved in Iraq war planning although, once the U.S. committed, he advocated for victory rather than engage in the opportunistic flip-flops of some colleagues and current Secretary of State John Kerry. To support troops in harm’s way even after the political winds change is responsible leadership.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/12/05/rubin-john-bolton-no-loose-cannon/

@edpc

It's hard to make a case, Bolton helped design, implement, was an architect of the Iraq war. Now, if supporting the invasion makes it so, okay, so did Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, Joseph Lieberman and so on.

[TomSea]

Perhaps you missed the part where @jpsb referred to Bolton as a warmongering Neocon.  His support of the Iraq War and bombing of Iran in the mid 2000s supports that assertion.  Whether he was part of the invasion plans is immaterial.

Yeah, it is material. If you can't even refer to an exact post as to what you call "untrue"; and now, we are hunting down JPSB's post, I think this argument is over. You just want to talk negatives about Trump and Bolton without defending it, you want an easy debate. Go look for it elsewhere.

[TomSea]

What a joke if we calling "supporting a war", now part and parcel to involvement.  How many Senators, Representatives would we be looking at. Nonsensical argument. I would think when one says Botlon had nothing to do with the Iraq war as a member of the Bush administration, that's what that means. Not if some office secretary coffee maker supported it and now it becomes some great involvement.

[edpc]

Yeah, it is material. If you can't even refer to an exact post as to what you call "untrue"; and now, we are hunting down JPSB's post, I think this argument is over. You just want to talk negatives about Trump and Bolton without defending it, you want an easy debate. Go look for it elsewhere.

There's no debate.  Bolton was a Neocon in favor of rampant use of American power to nation build and project power.  That's indisputable.  Your defense that he was not an architect of the invasion is a plate of pitiful, covered in weak sauce.

[TomSea]

There's no debate.  Bolton was a Neocon in favor of rampant use of American power to nation build and project power.  That's indisputable.  Your defense that he was not an architect of the invasion is a plate of pitiful, covered in weak sauce.

You can't even point out what you call "untrue" so your argument is a joke. No one stated he wasn't a Neo-Con or has that reputation. Your argument is deceptive, it is shown to be false in itself for whatever you are talking about, one can't even know. Was Bolton involved in the Iraq war, no he wasn't as a cabinet member.

Now, I hope the moderators and others look at your weak deceptive debate if you can only resort to ugly behavior and can not argue honestly. Call someone's post untrue, can't find what it is you are talking about, etc. etc. veering towards insults.

@edpc

[corbe]

   Bolton will be OUT within a year, anyone want to BET ($20 to Myst)?

[TomSea]

For the record, I have known from reading past stories, people's feelings do change with time though I doubt that is the case here,  the honorable Senator Cruz from the lone star state of Texas has spoken well of Bolton, it's hard to think this was when Flynn stepped down, some time ago already:

Cruz to Trump: Name John Bolton as national security adviser
CNN Digital Expansion DC Manu Raju
By Manu Raju, Senior Congressional Reporter

Washington (CNN)Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is urging President Donald Trump to name John Bolton as his national security adviser, a move that would win conservative support but would anger other Republicans over the former United Nations ambassador's role during the Iraq War.

"One person I think would be very, very strong is John Bolton," Cruz told CNN. "He's someone who understands the world, he understands the threats of radical Islamic terrorism."

Continued: https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/17/politics/ted-cruz-john-bolton-national-security-adviser/index.html

I know he said this,  I didn't readily find a youtube video for backup.

Ted Cruz says John Bolton is “reluctant” to start wars and should be Trump’s new national security adviser
Jack Hunter, February 17, 2017 6:01 pm
https://rare.us/rare-politics/ted-cruz-says-john-bolton-is-reluctant-to-start-wars-and-should-be-trumps-new-national-security-adviser/

Okay, for the record, this does not look like a neutral article, it is in fact, written by the "Southern Avenger"(?) I think he is called, Jack Hunter....so, this kind of gives the Rand Paul side. I hope that isn't offensive to anyone. It's better than quoting Salon or Huffpo for example. These articles can still be useful in figuring out what someone said per their quotes, not the editorial content.

[edpc]

You can't even point out what you call "untrue" so your argument is a joke. No one stated he wasn't a Neo-Con or has that reputation. Your argument is deceptive, it is shown to be false in itself for whatever you are talking about, one can't even know. Was Bolton involved in the Iraq war, no he wasn't as a cabinet member.

Now, I hope the moderators and others look at your weak deceptive debate if you can only resort to ugly behavior and can not argue honestly. Call someone's post untrue, can't find what it is you are talking about, etc. etc. veering towards insults.

@edpc

How about the fact Bolton was Undersecretary at the time when Bush gave the SOTU in Jan 2003, where he mentioned the yellowcake purchase from Africa.  As part of the anti-proliferation team, he was definitely part of the planning for justifying the invasion.

However, lawmakers questioned whether Bolton had not disclosed information about his being questioned regarding the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's (search) identity. They had learned that in 2003 Bolton had spoken with the State Department's inspector general as part of a joint investigation with the CIA into Iraq's attempts to purchase yellow-cake uranium from Niger.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/08/01/democrats-decry-bolton-appointment.html