Talk:John Bolton

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I accidentally pressed enter before I could complete my edit summary, but my summary was to be "I think 'controversial' is a weasel word trying to subtly undermine Bolton." DanH 16:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Is Bolton a neo-con?

If you go on the comments sections in Breitbart[1], it seems that the pro-Trump community is very, very divided on Bolton's appointment. Some support Bolton's appointment, while others not just oppose it, but strongly oppose it.

Bolton's supporters say that Bolton will bring loyalty and strength to both the NSC and the administration as a whole. His detractors on the other hand are saying that Bolton is a very dangerous man; a globalist neo-con who will trick President Trump into starting a major war (mainly because of Bolton's support for the Iraq War). Some of Bolton's detractors have even gone as far as saying that they no longer support President Trump because of Bolton's appointment.

So is Bolton the ally or the enemy? Feel free to post your opinions here.

Geopolitician 11:52, 23 March 2018 (EDT)

It's very misinformed to call Bolton a neoconservative or a globalist. It's true that Bolton favors foreign intervention, at least a lot more than most conservatives, but that is really the only issue where he agrees with neocons. For example, he strongly supports U.S. sovereignty and opposes efforts by international organizations to take away or redefine sovereignty. These articles show quite clearly that he's more of a nationalist than a globalist (in fact, in the 2000 article, he criticizes globalism by name): [2][3] Also, Bolton strongly opposes the EU,[4][5][6] and he supported Brexit.[7] Globalists seem to understand that Bolton is not one of them: [8]
Because of all this, I think Bolton is a nationalist conservative who displays that nationalism in a more interventionist way than most populist-nationalists. Also, if you look at his career, he mentored Clarence Thomas, campaigned for Berry Goldwater, was involved with the NRA, and wrote a forward for a book by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. This profile seems to clearly show that he's "a traditional conservative who is just more interventionist than paleo-cons", as you considered.
Here's an interesting article related to this topic: [9] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2018 (EDT)
Thank you for clarifying, 1990'sguy. I will try to talk some sense into the naysayers on BB now. Geopolitician 11:28, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
You're welcome. I've read the comments on BB as well as TNA, and I'm a bit annoyed that people see Bolton's hawkish positions and then somehow conclude that he's some deep state neocon globalist just because of that. They ignore the fact that he strongly opposes the War on Sovereignty and is skeptical of international organizations, as well as the fact that he closely associates himself with anti-Sharia conservatives such as Geller, Spencer, and Frank Gaffney -- and not to mention the fact that he has good relations with Breitbart and (AFAIK) The Daily Caller. Name another neocon who has those positions and is comfortable with those people and media organizations?
I think it's clear that while Bolton has been in the swamp, he's not of it. His peers at the State Department, such as Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, hated him (and blocked him from serving in a more important position), and even Bush eventually came around to disliking him. I think this is an asset for Bolton -- he will know how to operate in the Swamp, but he'll continue to push his agenda of American strength and sovereignty. Sometimes the most revolutionary people in history originally came from the establishment they worked to defeat. Also, the Trump Administration has many people, and NSA is only an advisory position, so it's not like he can single-handedly start a war. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
Here's another good op-ed article on Bolton and globalism: [10] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2018 (EDT)
Bolton might of struggled getting Senate approval as Sec. of State. While he has been approved in the past as UN Ambassador, a bloc of 20 or 30 Senators against him is sufficient to make his tenure controversial. Bolton is knowledgeable about the world & the State Dept. His and Pompeao's appointment, and the House Intel Cmte wrapping up it's investigation of DOJ/FBI, reflect the focus on draining the swamp at the State Dept, now that Lynch, Ohr, Sally Yates, Comey, McCabe et al have been removed or neutralized in the DOJ. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:04, 23 March 2018 (EDT)
For the record, while the Senate confirmed him for at least three previous positions, the Senate rejected his UN Ambassador nomination, forcing Bush to make a recess appointment. The Senate became more favorable toward Bolton after his term, but not enough to confirm him. Serving as NSA was obviously a good choice to avoid a nasty confirmation battle, which puts Bolton in the same situation as Flynn.
BTW, here's another good article that argues that Bolton is not yet another neocon: [11] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2018 (EDT)
Bolton has to be an improvement over McMaster, a globalist who I expect will cash in now by writing (to be ghost-written by a liberal) an anti-Trump book.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2018 (EDT)
Amen! Geopolitician 9:31, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
McMaster wasn't Trump's choice - he was referred to Trump by Mathis, Kelly, and Flynn in a moment of crisis. McMaster can't write anything til after he retires from the Penagon. By then, nobody will care.
Bolton is more in the position of Susan Rice (Remember? Bolton was talked about by the transition team as a candidate for Secretary of State). Obama nominated Rice to replace Hillary after Rice lied on the Sunday talk shows about Benghazi, but withdrew her nomination and put her to work as his right-hand man/woman/person/thing/transgender/other in the White House. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:40, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
It seems there are two groups of people who naysay Bolton, not counting the left in general.
The first group are the Pat Buchanan/Ron Paul types who are so vehemently opposed to foreign interventionism that they consider anybody who supports it to be globalists by default.
The second group are the Paul Craig Roberts/Richard Spencer types that agree with the Pat Buchanan/Ron Paul types that supporting foreign wars makes you a globalist by default, but go even further and claim that globalism is not a manifestation of left-wing ideology, but rather a pretext for one country or ethnic group (usually the US, the UK, or Israel/the Jews) to wage war and genocide on another country or ethnic group (usually Europe, Russia, Iran, or China). In other words this second group believes that globalism cannot be defeated unless there is regime change in the US and/or the UK, and/or when Israel is destroyed. Geopolitician 9:29, 24 March 2018 (EDT)

Bolton is smart, but I don't think he understands how fourth-generation warfare used by countries/ethnic groups/religions, etc. is significantly blunting the advantages that strong national armed forces have. Nor does he likely fully appreciate that in difficult terrain/climates defenders have a distinct advantage over foreign troops (Afghanistan and the Nazis vs. Soviets are good examples). I don't think Bolton will advise pulling out of the quagmire of Afghanistan.

North Korea is a mountainous region and would be a difficult adversary in a military conflict and would cost many South Korean and American lives. However, America/South Korea would win against the North Koreans if China does not get involved. But I don't think the cost outweighs the benefits as far as America striking first. If America struck first, I think the Chinese would get involved. In general, on moral grounds, I think striking first is bad policy and goes against Just War Theory. But in some cases it can be justified like the Israelis taking out Iranian nuclear facilities via air power.

Defeating the North Koreans requires strong sanctions (with enforcement to punish nations which allow breaching of the sanctions)/blockade. I think the North Koreans understand that Trump is not someone to be bullied. Maybe Trump is playing good cop/bad cap by picking Bolton. Trump might be gambling that by picking Bolton and beginning to increase tariffs on China, he can pressure the North Koreans/Chinese and cause North Korea to denuclearize. Conservative (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2018 (EDT)

Personally, I think too much is made of Bolton's support for the Iraq War. He was hardly a driving force. Bolton is a team player, as 94% of America supported the Iraq War at one time. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:40, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
Endeavors such as the Vietnam War/Iraq War which require considerable support from the USA after the initial conflict is over are doomed to fail because the Democrats will eventually pull support from our partners. The post Korean War period ended differently than Vietnam/Iraq though. That is probably because the South Koreans were more committed/stable partners.Conservative (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2018 (EDT)

Gatestone Institute

We should link to the Gatestone website from the mainspace, and perhaps use some of the biographical information from there. He's Chairman, and the site is a treasure trove of information on jihad and the European migrant crisis. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:30, 25 March 2018 (EDT)