Comments on: The “dangerous” Bolton replaces McMaster

By: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove — Sun, 25 Mar 2018 13:04:21 +0000

[…] neo-neocon discusses Bolton replacing McMasters […]

By: The Other Chuck

The Other Chuck — Sun, 25 Mar 2018 04:49:10 +0000

Oldflyer:

He appears to be a person who views the world objectively and seriously.

I’ve followed Bolton since he was nominated to be U.N. Ambassador. He is a good friend of Pam Geller (AtlasShrugged) and has helped her and appeared at various of her events over the years. As you say, he comes across as clear-minded, and I would also add, passionate and unyielding.

In reading through his many, many editorial pieces and in surveying his interviews you will find that his first impulse in solving disputes is military action. That is where the hawk reputation comes from, and it is well deserved. He was an early advocate and supporter of the Iraq War. Trump was not and remains to this day a fierce opponent.

So, why did he pick Bolton?

By: Oldflyer

Oldflyer — Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:12:00 +0000

I am confused; not that that is an unusual state.

I have never met Bolton; but, I have seen and heard him on TV countless times. He has invariably come across as a cheerful, courteous, even self-effacing man, who faces issues with a clear-minded perspective. He appears to be a person who views the world objectively and seriously. I have the sense that he does not believe that neglect, benign or otherwise, is an effective policy for dealing with difficult issues.

So, I could say that I do not know where the reputation for abrasiveness originates; but, of course, I do. I sincerely believe that for those who oppose Bolton, “abrasiveness” is short hand for he tells the truth; and has little patience for dissembling by others. Therefore, he is not “one of us” in the diplomatic world..

By: AesopFan

AesopFan — Sat, 24 Mar 2018 16:59:44 +0000

At least John Bolton works for the USA, which is more than can be said for some of the past holders of his varied positions.

By: ken

ken — Sat, 24 Mar 2018 15:58:51 +0000

If the left is highly unhappy, he is the correct choice. That simple.

By: Lorenz Gude

Lorenz Gude — Sat, 24 Mar 2018 11:57:35 +0000

@Mark30339

Nice point. I think it must be true that anyone with strong opinions appointed to a post in DC would find a lot of resistance from the permanent bureaucracy. Just as true of an Occupy type appointee at Treasury determined to jail some bankers trying to work through a bunch of Goldman alumni. Heck, that might be good for a mini series along the lines of “Yes, Minister.”

By: Molly Brown

Molly Brown — Sat, 24 Mar 2018 05:59:42 +0000

The left said all the same things about RWR and his advisors. And I believed them.
Look how wrong you can be.

By: J.J.

J.J. — Sat, 24 Mar 2018 03:29:46 +0000

Bolton is a hard-nosed realist. He was interviewed on Fox News shortly after his Tweeted appointment. When asked what our policy toward North Korea will be, he quickly pointed out that his role was as an advisor – that our policy toward North Korea would be decided by the man elected to do that job, the President. He is confident and has firm opinions about security issues, but he also knows what his job is – to advise.

IMO Bolton is not pro war. He is, as T explains, a believer in peace through strength and the will to use your strength should it become necessary. That scares appeasers. I like the man and his style.

By: Geoffrey Britain

Geoffrey Britain — Sat, 24 Mar 2018 02:06:04 +0000

Finally, finally Trump will hear a voice that speaks bluntly about uncomfortable realities. The ONLY thing that will prevent N. Korea and Iran from achieving nuclear ICBM capability is the certainty that it will result in war with an America that has once again embraced Gen. Curtis LeMay's POV, "If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting."

By: miklos000rosza

miklos000rosza — Sat, 24 Mar 2018 01:57:07 +0000

Melissa Rossi, an American journalist now living in Barcelona who made a great deal of money out of her anti-Iraq War stance, and Mikal Gilmore, an editor at Rolling Stone, author of the award-winning book “Shot in the Heart” (about the execution of his older brother, Gary Gilmore), have both flipped out over Bolton — though how much of their hysteria is real and how much reflects how they wish to be seen is a question that ought be asked.

They’re both over 60 years old and came of age during the 1960s and 70s. I’m reminded of those members of the British intelligentsia who violently opposed rearming in the 1930s no matter what Hitler and Mussolini were up to — a pose which left the U.K. drastically unprepared for war in 1939. George Orwell famously called such pacifists “objectively pro-Hitler”….

Right now, in 2018, whose side will Russo and Gilmore be on should some level of war break out between America and Iran and/or North Korea? They loathe President Trump and anyone who has supported him on any issue.

There are many, many others who’ve publicly expressed similar sentiments, from The New Yorker and the New York Times, the Washington Post, on down to tiny blogs. Will any of these people rethink their positions or admit to second thoughts? How can they without losing face and alienating their friends?