Trump’s Choice of Bolton Reflects American Greatness

[GURPS]

President Trump is tired of the failed establishment foreign policy of appeasement. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was replaced over the Iran deal. The new lineup of Pompeo heading the State Department and Bolton cleaning house at the NSC shows Trump is ready to get tough on the Mullahs and the Norks.

McMaster spent his tenure at the National Security Council ruthlessly forcing out Trump supporters while protecting Obama holdovers. His obstructionism enabled the leakers undermining the president. He refused to call out Islam, put a Hamas apologist on the Israel desk, and blocked the investigations of the eavesdropping and unmasking efforts aimed at the future president by Obama associates.

Now that’s over and done with. And the worst of the Democrats are already ranting and raving.

Rep. Keith Ellison, Rep. Adam Schiff, Rep. Gerry Connolly, Rep. Betty McCollum and many other lefties don’t want Bolton. Ellison called him, “dangerous”, Rep. Boyle dubbed him a “dangerous radical”, Rep. Bass accused him of “peddling hatred of Muslims”, and Rep. Don Beyer wailed, "Trump desperately needs tempered and measured voices around him, Bolton is neither of those things."

John Bolton is actually tempered and measured. He’s been tempered by his struggles against a bureaucracy more interested in protecting careerists and their agendas than defending America. And he has been measured by the President of the United States as a voice he wants around him.


Trump’s Choice of Bolton Reflects American Greatness

 

[Hijinx]

President Trump is tired of the failed establishment foreign policy of appeasement. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was replaced over the Iran deal. The new lineup of Pompeo heading the State Department and Bolton cleaning house at the NSC shows Trump is ready to get tough on the Mullahs and the Norks.

McMaster spent his tenure at the National Security Council ruthlessly forcing out Trump supporters while protecting Obama holdovers. His obstructionism enabled the leakers undermining the president. He refused to call out Islam, put a Hamas apologist on the Israel desk, and blocked the investigations of the eavesdropping and unmasking efforts aimed at the future president by Obama associates.

Now that’s over and done with. And the worst of the Democrats are already ranting and raving.

Rep. Keith Ellison, Rep. Adam Schiff, Rep. Gerry Connolly, Rep. Betty McCollum and many other lefties don’t want Bolton. Ellison called him, “dangerous”, Rep. Boyle dubbed him a “dangerous radical”, Rep. Bass accused him of “peddling hatred of Muslims”, and Rep. Don Beyer wailed, "Trump desperately needs tempered and measured voices around him, Bolton is neither of those things."

John Bolton is actually tempered and measured. He’s been tempered by his struggles against a bureaucracy more interested in protecting careerists and their agendas than defending America. And he has been measured by the President of the United States as a voice he wants around him.


Trump’s Choice of Bolton Reflects American Greatness

No problem at all in understand why Ellison doesn't want him.
Ellison is in favor of Sharia law. Either that or he is apostate.

 

[Yooper]

McMaster spent his tenure at the National Security Council ruthlessly forcing out Trump supporters while protecting Obama holdovers. His obstructionism enabled the leakers undermining the president. He refused to call out Islam, put a Hamas apologist on the Israel desk, and blocked the investigations of the eavesdropping and unmasking efforts aimed at the future president by Obama associates.

I think this is probably true as the result of McMaster's temperament rather than a matter of politics. From what little I know of LTG McMaster he seems pretty middle of the road. He is very tough and a straight arrow (I don't think anyone can disagree; his performance as a young officer at 73 Easting and his dissertation turned book "Dereliction of Duty" prove that) and that made him wonderfully competent but thoroughly boring (I heard him speak once and my sense is that he probably did bore PDT with his long PP briefings). PDT doesn't like boring and The Republic doesn't need that either at this point.

Rave all you want about Bolton. I rave on the positive side (he was my pick for Nat Sec Adv from the start). Flynn was a great choice because Flynn was both an intel professional and aggressive concerning strategy. That meant that he was not acceptable for Trump's critics, so out he went as a result of a (criminal, on the part of the govt) "process crime." Because this happened so early in his administration Trump needed to get a Nat Sec Council in place he went for really competent, but very middle-of-road in McMaster.

But to be honest, we don't need "business as usual" in these times; we need aggressiveness.

In comparing McMaster and Bolton, think Bradley-Patton.

So why do we need somebody aggressive? Well, common sense really from a geopolitical and/military perspective. Sun Tzu makes the point that the object of one's strategy should be victory, not "let's get along." So the best way to put in place your goals is to defeat those who do not share your goals or who are actively working against your goals. Whether the U.S. has "morally just" goals is for you to decide (and for another discussion), but I think that the U.S. was, is, and will remain (so long as we have spine) the world's best hope.

I think we should all agree that we want to "defeat" the enemies of our national interests (via both hard and soft power (if you are unfamilar with these terms, please do some reading before you do some critiquing)).

But, also, where do we fight? Well, for all you out there who are concerned that the U.S. is wrongly all over the place (literally) I've got some news for you: unlike sports, in war it's always better to fight an away game. There is no home field advantage when it comes to actually putting bullets downrange.

Bolton understands this. McMaster, while understanding this in a theoretical sort of way, did not have the temperament (again, strictly my personal opinion/assessment) necessary for the game we are playing now. Again, think Bradley in his roles as a combat commander, Army Chief of Staff, and first Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: he hated aggressive commanders (remember his dislike for Patton (too aggressive, re: Berlin, Russians, etc.), as well as his dislike of MacArthur (Bradley changed his views from victory on the Korean peninsula to containment on the Korean peninsula). This "temperament angle" may very well explain Mattis' desire for something different in the NSC....

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[BOP]

The thought occurs to me on a continual basis that Joe McCarthy was right.

 

[littlelady]

I think this is probably true as the result of McMaster's temperament rather than a matter of politics. From what little I know of LTG McMaster he seems pretty middle of the road. He is very tough and a straight arrow (I don't think anyone can disagree; his performance as a young officer at 73 Easting and his dissertation turned book "Dereliction of Duty" prove that) and that made him wonderfully competent but thoroughly boring (I heard him speak once and my sense is that he probably did bore PDT with his long PP briefings). PDT doesn't like boring and The Republic doesn't need that either at this point.

Rave all you want about Bolton. I rave on the positive side (he was my pick for Nat Sec Adv from the start). Flynn was a great choice because Flynn was both an intel professional and aggressive concerning strategy. That meant that he was not acceptable for Trump's critics, so out he went as a result of a (criminal, on the part of the govt) "process crime." Because this happened so early in his administration Trump needed to get a Nat Sec Council in place he went for really competent, but very middle-of-road in McMaster.

But to be honest, we don't need "business as usual" in these times; we need aggressiveness.

In comparing McMaster and Bolton, think Bradley-Patton.

So why do we need somebody aggressive? Well, common sense really from a geopolitical and/military perspective. Sun Tzu makes the point that the object of one's strategy should be victory, not "let's get along." So the best way to put in place your goals is to defeat those who do not share your goals or who are actively working against your goals. Whether the U.S. has "morally just" goals is for you to decide (and for another discussion), but I think that the U.S. was, is, and will remain (so long as we have spine) the world's best hope.

I think we should all agree that we want to "defeat" the enemies of our national interests (via both hard and soft power (if you are unfamilar with these terms, please do some reading before you do some critiquing)).

But, also, where do we fight? Well, for all you out there who are concerned that the U.S. is wrongly all over the place (literally) I've got some news for you: unlike sports, in war it's always better to fight an away game. There is no home field advantage when it comes to actually putting bullets downrange.

Bolton understands this. McMaster, while understanding this in a theoretical sort of way, did not have the temperament (again, strictly my personal opinion/assessment) necessary for the game we are playing now. Again, think Bradley in his roles as a combat commander, Army Chief of Staff, and first Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: he hated aggressive commanders (remember his dislike for Patton (too aggressive, re: Berlin, Russians, etc.), as well as his dislike of MacArthur (Bradley changed his views from victory on the Korean peninsula to containment on the Korean peninsula). This "temperament angle" may very well explain Mattis' desire for something different in the NSC....

--- End of line (MCP)

Well, two things. We happen to know Flynn’s exteneded family, which are awesome in
their own right. Flynn has lost his house and has financial problems now, because of legal fees because of the crap that has become our gov. What happened to Flynn is wrong. He was a fall guy, and it was not because of Trump. Flynn was too honest for his own good; like any honorable military man would be. My father always told me I was too honest for my own good. Now, I get it. I am 63 so I am sure you get what I am saying. My father was in the Army (also a geophysicist ..drill here guy for Amoco, and a Boy Scout leader to the max, including Philmont and Jamboree) along with many fam members and past relatives. His workplace was the red brick Amoco building on Lee Circle in NOLA; now Lee is gone, and that is my middle name. My hub is a Marine. We, also, happen to know the Bolton’s because John’s wife runs in my hub‘s biweekly running group. I have always thought Bolton was awesome, even on his down time. Go, Trump, and God bless America! Does it count that I was a Girl Scout?

And, as far as the rest of your post, I can’t comment. You know way more than I do. Thank you for your input.

And, may I ask what ..end of line MCP means?

 

[Yooper]

And, may I ask what ..end of line MCP means?

It's from "Tron" (1982). The "Master Control Program" character/program says this.... That's the MCP in my avatar to the left. "I'm with Flynn" also references "Tron." I liked the update but prefer the 1982 original.

 

[littlelady]

It's from "Tron" (1982). The "Master Control Program" character/program says this.... That's the MCP in my avatar to the left. "I'm with Flynn" also references "Tron." I liked the update but prefer the 1982 original.

Thanks!

 

[Hijinx]

This whole stinking mess has comes from a political party that refused to do as historically political parties have done since the beginning of our country.

They refused to allow for the peaceful transition of the duly elected President.
They have fought the man and his appointments from the start.
They haven't opposed any particular appointment. They opposed them all.
They have usurped the power of the President,in a manner I consider traitorous and treasonous.

Certain members started screaming Impeach before the Inauguration.
Admittedly this came from the bottom of the barrel as far as mental acuity is concerned.

But not one member of that party has acted as Americans,and adults, they have acted as kids--children who lost. And poor losers at that.