Trump’s Appointment of John Bolton Is Terrifying
The New York Times writes: Trump’s decision to oust H.R. McMaster and replace him with John Bolton signals the President is looking for advisers to be more supportive of his instincts.
That’s the very most charitable interpretation that could possibly be conceived in this case.
How about this one: Trump, embroiled as he is with scandals running in dozens of different directions, understands that only a war will sufficiently distract Americans’ attention to allow him to remain in office much longer. Enter war criminal Bolton, who recommends preemptive strikes against both Iran and North Korea.
There’s no way to spin this otherwise: that’s terrifying.
Craig,
I’ll agree John Boltan is an acquired taste. His lack of tact and modesty are unattractive traits as is his fierce and often intensely aggressive intelligence.
While an efficient, if brash administrator, John Boltan needs a very strong and level headed boss. Were I the US President, I would not employ John Boltan as my National Security Advisor.
Nor should President Trump.
President Trump needs an advisor with the qualities of Colin Powell. An experienced strategist with strong administrative abilities and level headed judgement. John Boltan is an ideologue with extreme, (although often perceptive) idea’s. His ideology is that of an international bully, he will urge an inexperienced and impressionable President to become embroiled in the sort of ill-considered military adventures that have been the hall mark of US foreign policy in recent decades resulting in the waste of so much US capital and lives, without achieving any positive benefit.
John Boltan has undeniable talent as a commentator, but not in a position of authority.
It may become necessary to wage war against North Korea as a last resort. The problem for the US in appointing Boltan is credibility. If General McMasters, Kellogg or Colin Powell, or even Rex Tillerson, claimed no other option was viable, the world could be assured they had done their best to avoid conflict, and sometimes war is the price of lasting peace.
The same can’t be said of Boltan. Even if right, doubt will exist as to his motives.
Craig,
Here’s a curious fact recorded in the Wall Street Journal.
Remington is the oldest gun manufacturer in the US, yet like most other gun makers it’s seen a sharp decline in gun sales since the election of President Trump, driving the gunsmith to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy !
Following the 2016 Presidential election customers apparently saw less reason to own firearms under President Donald Trump.
Do people people actually feel safer, or has the need ‘stockpile’ weapons lessened ?
Bizarrely, it’s a combination of both ! It appears the average gun owner/nut feels more secure that the US isn’t going to suffer any radical uprisings, invasions or civil disorder under Trump and gun sales have dropped by 40 % !
Go figure……:)
The explanation for this is clear: Trump poses no threat to gun ownership; the “buy now” motivation no longer exists. The Kenyan-born Muslim socialist was clearly comin’ for yer guns and the crooked elitist was going to “cancel the Second Amendment” (presidents can do that, right?). Trump, on the other hand, gets the highest possible ratings from the NRA, and gun owners are one of the few demographics left in full support. His solution to losing 7200 children to gun deaths is to arm the teachers! If the problem is gun violence, the only solution is more guns. Why stockpile something that is fully available in hundreds of thousands of retail locations?
Craig,
I don’t doubt that may be part of the reason, but it doesn’t explain a drop in gun ownership among people who aren’t ‘stockpiling’. Gun ranges and shooting clubs are also losing business.
Incidentally, why always exaggerate ? The President’s suggestion was quite sensible. He suggested allowing teachers who had been ex-military or were currently serving as reservists or part time deputies, to join a program were they would receive the same fire arms training as peace officers.
Several states and counties accepted have accepted this suggestion. It’s not an ideal suggestion, but far more practical than waiting around than doing nothing.
Why do you think a minimum wage security guard would be superior to a teacher who was an ex-veteran teacher with combat experience ? Or a teacher who also serves as a part-time deputy, in a siege situation ?