Down Goes Bolton!

[Elfdart]

John Bolton is fired.

Sept. 10, 2019, 11:04 AM CDT / Updated Sept. 10, 2019, 11:17 AM CDT
By Shannon Pettypiece and Adam Edelman

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has fired National Security Adviser John Bolton after a string of disagreements between the two over how the U.S. should handle North Korea and Iran.

Trump announced on Twitter that he had asked for Bolton's resignation, which he received this morning, after the president had "disagreed with many of his suggestions."

“I informed John Bolton last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House. I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration, and therefore I asked John for his resignation, which was given to me this morning,” Trump said on Twitter.

Looks like Trump did his one good deed of 2019. Bye, bitch!

[Effie]

I'm sure having Tucker Carlson as the primary voice dictating American foreign policy will be a marked improvement.

[mr friendly guy]

Bolton denies being fired. He quit. LOL.

[Zaune]

You all realise his replacement is almost certainly going to be someone even worse, right?

[Gandalf]

You all realise his replacement is almost certainly going to be someone even worse, right?

Probable kleptocrat versus proven warhawk? Probably worth the dice roll.

[Effie]

You all realise his replacement is almost certainly going to be someone even worse, right?

Probable kleptocrat versus proven warhawk? Probably worth the dice roll.

Well, in this case Bolton's nominal replacement is his protege and his effective replacement as an advisor is a man who has a TV show about the need to protect White America from nonwhites.

[mr friendly guy]

You all realise his replacement is almost certainly going to be someone even worse, right?

But how long will his replacement last for?

[Mr Bean]

You all realise his replacement is almost certainly going to be someone even worse, right?

But how long will his replacement last for?

And also, Bolton was actively trying to get the US into a shooting war if not with Iran then with China and if not with China then (Convenient third world country with resources) and if not (Convenient third world country with resources) then he was probably planning on attacking Denmark for their rich mercantile gold reserves. The only way we'd get a worse replacement that Bolton is if we go from an active war mongering neo-con to a competent active war mongering neo-con and those guys died, drank themselves stupid or hate Trump. Besides those men of action (Like Cheney Xenu Forbid) rub Donald's ego the wrong way which is why he won't do something like call in still alive Kissinger.

[houser2112]

I don't understand why he gave Bolton the job in the first place. Trump said he didn't want to entangle the US in foreign wars, but he put known warhawk Bolton into the role?

[Vendetta]

I don't understand why he gave Bolton the job in the first place. Trump said he didn't want to entangle the US in foreign wars, but he put known warhawk Bolton into the role?

Hard Man Cred.

It's one of the primary currencies of the strongman leader that Trump wants to be seen as and consistently sucks up to.

[Khaat]

I don't understand why he gave Bolton the job in the first place. Trump said he didn't want to entangle the US in foreign wars, but he put known warhawk Bolton into the role?

1, it allowed Trump to claim Hard Man status (as previously noted) and 2, it would allow Trump to command the hardest man he could hire for the job, boosting his own ego. Gotta remember, Trump hires "the best people" so he can ignore their advice and think with his gut, which knows everything apparently.

[Effie]

I don't understand why he gave Bolton the job in the first place. Trump said he didn't want to entangle the US in foreign wars, but he put known warhawk Bolton into the role?

Bolton shouldn't be understood as a warhawk, he should he understood as someone with a unilateralist view of US foreign policy. Trump picked him because Trump loathes the fact that the US is beholden to other countries in alliances and defense pacts and international organizations. So Trump's staff selected Bolton as a middle finger to the rest of the world.

Bolton, however, is also someone who latched onto neoconservatism without really believing in it. So he has a belief that American power should be used to confront and suppress governments like Iran's because they threaten to establish hegemony and displace American power. Trump 1) fundamentally sees Iran as being a similar kind of state to his vision of America, and 2) fundamentally doesn't believe in the use of American power in a way that can be seen to benefit people who aren't Americans, so Bolton would eventually have to go, to be replaced by someone more pliable as the frontman while Fox News people provide the actual foreign policy directives.

[Esquire]

Counterpoint: Bolton was one of the last people with any real foreign policy experience willing to work for this administration. He was dangerous and deeply terrible, but a known quantity. No one, especially the President, knows who the next NSA will be or what they might talk the President into doing.

[Elfdart]

I don't understand why he gave Bolton the job in the first place. Trump said he didn't want to entangle the US in foreign wars, but he put known warhawk Bolton into the role?

Just part of the GOP's Faustian Bargain with Trump: cut taxes on rich people, appoint fascists to the courts and hire war whores and they'll cover for him no matter how heinous his acts.

[The Romulan Republic]

Meanwhile, the current acting National Security advisor and Bolton replacement Charles Kupperman once argued that nuclear war with the USSR was winnable, describing nuclear war, with all the cold detachment of a true psychopath, as "...in large part a physics problem."

https://huffingtonpost.ca/entry/charles ... 5fc88212fd

President Donald Trump’s acting national security adviser, former Reagan administration official Charles Kupperman, made an extraordinary and controversial claim in the early 1980s: nuclear conflict with the USSR was winnable and that “nuclear war is a destructive thing but still in large part a physics problem.”

Kupperman’s suggestion that the U.S. could triumph in a nuclear war went against dominant theories of mutually assured destruction and ignored the long-term destabilizing effects that such hostilities would have on the planet’s health and global politics.

Kupperman, appointed to his new post on Tuesday after Trump fired his John Bolton from the job, argued it was possible to win a nuclear war “in the classical sense,” and that the notion of total destruction stemming from such a superpower conflict was inaccurate. He said that in a scenario in which 20 million people died in the U.S. as opposed to 150 million, the nation could then emerge as the stronger side and prevail in its objectives.

His argument was that with enough planning and civil defense measures, such as “a certain layer of dirt and some reinforced construction materials,” the effects of a nuclear war could be limited and that U.S. would be able to fairly quickly rebuild itself after an all-out conflict with the then-Soviet Union.

“It may take 15 years, but geez, look how long it took Europe to recover after the Second World War,” Kupperman said. Referring to the Japanese city on which the U.S. dropped the first atomic bomb in 1945, he also claimed that “Hiroshima, after it was bombed, was back and operating three days later.”

At the time,Kupperman was executive director of President Ronald Reagan’s General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament. He made the comments during an interview with Robert Scheer for the journalist’s 1982 book, “With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush, and Nuclear War.”

The National Security Council did not immediately respond to questions on whether Kupperman, 68, still holds the same views of nuclear conflict as he did in the early 1980s. Kupperman’s seemingly cavalier attitude toward the potential death of millions of people was criticized at the time both by Democratic politicians and arms control experts.

“It seems reasonable to suggest the crazies are in charge of the nukes,” Jeremy Stone, president of the Federation of American Scientists, wrote about Kupperman and his colleagues in 1984.

Contemporary nuclear experts similarly criticize Kupperman’s beliefs as wrongheaded and dangerous.

“Kupperman’s comments might as well have come straight from the script of (the film) ‘Dr. Strangelove.’ He was part of a group of defense analysts at the time who weren’t shy about sharing such views,” said Kingston Reif, director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Washington-based Arms Control Association, who first noted Kupperman’s views in a Twitter post in January when Kupperman was hired as the deputy national security adviser.

“The simple fact is that a nuclear war can’t be won and must never be fought,” Reif said.

"Kupperman's comments might as well have come straight from the script of 'Dr. Strangelove.'"
But rather than being sidelined as a relic of Cold War hubris, Kupperman now holds one of the most powerful positions in the White House. Although his role is temporary, civil rights groups have also already called on him resign over his extensive ties to the Center for Security Policy, an anti-Muslim think tank founded by conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney.

Gaffney is a prominent anti-Muslim activist who repeatedly promoted the conspiracy theories that members of President Barack Obama’s administration were working to enforce Islamic law in the U.S., that the Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated top levels of government and that Obama was secretly Muslim himself. Kupperman served on the board of directors for Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy between 2001-2010.

“CSP has continuously promoted Islamophobic conspiracy theories, and anyone, like Mr. Kupperman, who has so closely associated with them for so long is ― at the very least ― complicit in their brand of anti-Muslim bigotry and should not be entrusted with one of the highest-ranking security roles in the United States,” Council on American-Islamic Relations Executive Director Nihad Awad said Tuesday.

Before joining the NSA, Kupperman served as an informal adviser to Bolton and worked as a defense industry executive at Boeing and Lockheed Martin. He was a critic of the Iranian nuclear deal and in 2017 co-signed a letter to Trump backing Bolton’s plan to withdraw from the agreement.

Here are excerpts of Kupperman’s comments from his interview with Scheer:

On what kind of life we could visualize after a nuclear attack:

It means that, you know, it would be tough. It would be a struggle to reconstitute the society that we have. It certainly wouldn’t be the same society [as] prior to an exchange, there is no question about that. But in terms of having an organized nation, and having enough means left after the war to reconstitute itself, I think that is entirely possible. It may take 15 years, but geez, look how long it took Europe to recover after the Second World War.

On disagreeing with the Physicians for Social Responsibility organization’s view of nuclear war:

Scheer: But in terms of nuclear war, do you factor in what those doctors were saying?

Kupperman: Yes, that is why I want to have a civil defense system, because it can be very effective in reducing casualties. That is my point. If doctors are so concerned about it, the answer isn’t necessarily disarming the United States or cutting our weapons programs. … it might be having a civil defense program. You can make a very good case that is exactly what those doctors ought to be shouting for.

Scheer: But they say that it is impossible to protect the population from nuclear attack.

Kupperman: Yes, but the thing is, nuclear weapons have certain effects and if you take steps to deny those effects, you save a lot of people. And unless you are right in the middle of ground zero, you are not going to have a lot of burn victims if you take those steps. And if you evacuate these people out of the targeted areas, or what you think are targeted areas, they are not going to get burned or destroyed.

On society surviving nuclear war:

Scheer: Is it possible to survive it with your civilization intact?

Kupperman: Well, it is possible to survive it with a certain amount of society intact, it depends on what steps we take to ensure that survivability. It certainly won’t be the same as before the war. But generally societies have been intact ― like Germany and Japan and Western Europe in the Second World War weren’t the same after the war as they were before. But generally societies have been intact. The question really gets down to political credibility in the conduct of your foriegn policy. If you look like you are serious about defending yourself and your allies with real civil defense programs and other measures, I think that has political credibility with the adversary. An adversaryisn’t going to take somebody seriously if they don’t take steps to protect themselves. Nuclear war is a destructive thing, but it is still in large part a physics problem.

Scheer: What do you mean?

Kupperman: Well, sheltering yourself against nuclear effects can be done, it just depends on how much effort and money one wants to spend on it, but a certain layer of dirt and some reinforced construction materials can assure the survivability of somebody, assuming they aren’t at ground zero of a detonation. Hiroshima, after it was bombed, was back and operating three days later. So it is certainly a destructive weapon, and nobody wants a nuclear war, but I don’t think the United States in the past has been serious enough about planning for its survival in the event of a nuclear war...

On winning nuclear war “in a classical sense”:

Kupperman: It depends on what one considers all-out. If the objective in a war is to try to destroy as many Soviet civilians and as many American civilians as is feasible, and the casualty levels approached 150 million on each side, then it’s going to be tough to say you have a surviving nation after that. But depending on how the nuclear war is fought, it could mean the difference between 150 casualties and 20 million casualties. I think that is a significant difference, and if the country loses 20 million people, you may have a chance of surviving after that.

Scheer: Would that mean the other nation would survive as well? You’re not talking about winning a nuclear war, you’re talking about a stalemate of some kind.

Kupperman: It may or may not be a stalemate, depending on who had more surviving national power and military power.

Scheer: So you think it is possible to win?

Kupperman: I think it is possible to win, in the classical sense.

Scheer: What does that mean, “in the classical sense”?

Kupperman: It means that it is clear after the war that one side is stronger than the other side, the weaker side is going to accede to the demands of the stronger side.

Meet the new warmonger, same as the old warmonger.

Edit: For some reason I'm getting a message saying the link isn't secure/private- I'm not sure why. I didn't get it when I linked to the article from another site, and I'm sure I copied the link correctly.

[mr friendly guy]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/ ... cy-1501932

Bolton unloads on Trump’s foreign policy behind closed doors

Oh this should be good.

John Bolton, President Donald Trump’s fired national security adviser, harshly criticized Trump’s foreign policy on Wednesday at a private lunch, saying that inviting the Taliban to Camp David sent a “terrible signal” and that it was “disrespectful” to the victims of 9/11 because the Taliban had harbored al Qaeda.

Bolton also said that any negotiations with North Korea and Iran were “doomed to failure,” according to two attendees.

All the North Koreans and Iranians want to do is negotiate for relief from sanctions to support their economies, said Bolton, who was speaking before guests invited by the Gatestone Institute, a conservative think tank.

“He ripped Trump, without using his name, several times,” said one attendee. Bolton didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Bolton also said more than once that Trump’s failure to respond to the Iranian attack on an American drone earlier this summer set the stage for the Islamic Republic’s aggression in recent months.

At one point, Bolton, a previous chairman of Gatestone, suggested that had the U.S. retaliated for the drone shootdown, Iran might not have damaged the Saudi oil fields.

And what Trump says.

On Wednesday afternoon, Trump pushed back strongly.

“Well, I was critical of John Bolton for getting us involved with a lot of other people in the Middle East,” he told reporters during a visit to the U.S.-Mexico border south of San Diego. “We’ve spent $7.5 trillion in the Middle East and you ought to ask a lot of people about that.“

“John was not able to work with anybody, and a lot of people disagreed with his ideas,” Trump added. “A lot of people were very critical that I brought him on in the first place because of the fact that he was so in favor of going into the Middle East, and he got stuck in quicksand and we became policemen for the Middle East. It’s ridiculous.“

No honour among these two right?

[The Romulan Republic]

Let the rats fight among themselves. I have no side in this fight, and my only hope is that they inflict the maximum possible damage on each other.

[ray245]

I wonder if people like Bolton are even capable of realising their causes don't have the political support necessary to push through their advocated policies even amongst their own party? There's so much hubris that I wonder if such people can ever be convinced that their position is a mistake?

[Knife]

Speculation is rampant on who the 'white house officials' are who informed the intelligence officer who then did the whistle blower case currently setting Washington on fire. Would not be surprised one bit if Bolton was a source due to him being all bent out of shape on getting canned.

Don't get me wrong, he's a piece of shit and one of the few (only?) things about Trump is he does not seem interested in the wars the Neo-Con's have wanted for 40 years. But he also strikes me as a spiteful shit who would turn on his former Master and cough up good stuff.

[The Romulan Republic]

Speculation is rampant on who the 'white house officials' are who informed the intelligence officer who then did the whistle blower case currently setting Washington on fire. Would not be surprised one bit if Bolton was a source due to him being all bent out of shape on getting canned.

Don't get me wrong, he's a piece of shit and one of the few (only?) things about Trump is he does not seem interested in the wars the Neo-Con's have wanted for 40 years. But he also strikes me as a spiteful shit who would turn on his former Master and cough up good stuff.

My Mum's theory is that the whistle blower was, or was connected to, Dan Coats, the former Director of National Intelligence, who was fired by Trump just three days after the call, and shortly before the story hit the headlines.

The Guardian seems to be suggesting that the whistleblower could have been connected to Trump's rejection of Coats' deputy, Sue Gordon:

https://theguardian.com/us-news/2019/se ... ng-ukraine

Three days after his now infamous phone conversation with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Donald Trump abruptly fired his director of national intelligence in favour of an inexperienced political loyalist.

According to a New York Times report, the White House learned within days that the unorthodox call on 25 July with Zelenskiy had raised red flags among intelligence professionals and was likely to trigger an official complaint.

That timeline has raised new questions over the timing of the Trump’s dismissal by tweet of the director of national intelligence (DNI), Dan Coats, on 28 July and his insistence that the deputy DNI, Sue Gordon, a career intelligence professional, did not step into the role, even in an acting capacity.

Instead, Trump tried to install a Republican congressman, John Ratcliffe, who had minimal national security credentials but had been a fierce defender of the president in Congress. Trump had to drop the nomination after it emerged that Ratcliffe had exaggerated his national security credentials in his biography, wrongly claiming he had conducted prosecutions in terrorist financing cases.

Despite the collapse of the Ratcliffe nomination, Gordon was forced out. She was reported to have been holding a meeting on election security on 8 August when Coats interrupted to convince her that she would have to resign.

In a terse handwritten note to the president, Gordon said: “I offer this letter as an act of respect and patriotism, not preference. You should have your team.”

The Office of the DNI (ODNI) and its inspector general has the authority to receive whistleblower complaints from across all US intelligence agencies and determine whether they should be referred to Congress.

“We all knew Coats’ departure was coming because he had clashed with the president on several issues. What was weird was the president’s forcefulness in not wanting Sue Gordon to take over as acting director,” said Katrina Mulligan, a former official who worked in the ODNI, the national security council, and the justice department.

“I was hearing at the time that Sue was getting actively excluded from things by the president that she would ordinarily have taken part in, and she was being made to feel uncomfortable,” said Mulligan, now managing director for national security and international policy at the Center for American Progress.

“And then the president tried to install someone who was clearly unqualified,” she added. “Now the timeline of the whistleblower in the White House raises a lot of questions about the Sue Gordon piece of this.”

John McLaughlin, the former acting CIA director, said the fact that Ratcliffe’s nomination was dropped and the job of acting DNI ultimately went to an intelligence professional, Joseph Maguire, was a sign that the intelligence community was so far resisting political pressure from the White House.

Maguire faced tough questioning in Congress this week about his initial refusal, on justice department guidance, to refer the whistleblower complaint to Congress.

“On politicisation, my sense is that the community is holding the line against it although undoubtedly dealing with more or less constant pressure,” McLaughlin said. “I felt kind of bad for the acting DNI, an honourable man with impeccable service to the nation. I believe he made some honest errors in judgment rather than yielding to political pressure. Throwing him into this job in these circumstances on such short notice is a little like assigning me on a navy Seal mission.”

[Knife]

Yeah, it's probably both and more.