September 19, 2019

"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.... 'He ripped Trump, without using his name, several times,' said one attendee... 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...."

Politico.

191 comments:

Michael K said...

Politico lost all credibility years ago. I don't doubt the quote but who cares ?

AlbertAnonymous said...

Politico...

This is where the discredited NYT writers will go work after the Kavanaugh 2.0 story debacle.

chuck said...

Bolton is predicted to become a Democrat favorite. Let's see how that works out...

rehajm said...

He’s a war monger or a dove, depending on the circumstances...ha ha. Just kidding! He’s both...

Gahrie said...

If the lunch was private, how do we know what he said there?

Robert Cook said...

Bolton discredits himself every time he opens the hairy hole in his face.

Wince said...

By saying "fired" in the headline didn't Politico start the report by calling Bolton a liar?

Infinite Monkeys said...

Bolton also said that any negotiations with North Korea and Iran were 'doomed to failure,'

Then I'm glad he's not part of the negotiations. If you assume you'll fail, you'll likely be proven correct. Yes, there is a chance they will fail. Probably a good chance, but I like that Trump approaches them with optimism. (Or at least appears to be optimistic.)

mockturtle said...

Seems like all one has to do is bash Trump to become an instant rock star to the Progs. Bolton will become a media darling, now. Probably show up on The View and maybe even a regular on MSNBC.

Wince said...

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...."

Trump set the stage for Iran to attack China's oil supply?

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

What amazes me is how utterly tone deaf these Establishment clowns are. They apparently think their butt-hurt, their greed, their preening war-mongering, is somehow invisible to the American public.

Sebastian said...

Ah, so Bolton is getting "strange" new respect.

Anyway, 10, 15 years ago I would have been very sympathetic to Bolton's hawkishness. Not so much now.

Can't be doing same old, same old, which hasn't worked. Can't risk war when Americans don't want it. That means you gotta try something different.

In Afghanistan, especially: different means out. The right attitude is not to care about the Taliban, as long as they don't harm us.

There's time to hit the Iranians, if needed -- and I suspect we may.

Birkel said...

This benefits Bolton and Trump.

narciso said...

No this is the way they always are, of course they horded the fact there was no 'missile gap' they didnt know that fidel kept a second home 9n giron beach, they didnt what to do with vietnam, re the rope dancer.

Carol said...

It's pretty obvious that Americans are tired of neverending war now. I know I am.

So, 1939 again?

Amadeus 48 said...

"He ripped Trump, without using his name, several times."

Well, that is definitive.

Bolton and Trump disagreed about tactics. I am SHOCKED. I have never heard that suggested before. I thought Bolton wanted more time to work on a book, and he quit, or was fired, or something. Now Trump can safely engage in a flame war with Bolton and Politico, the whole while quietly engaging in whatever he is engaging in with his new NSA, who appears to have the same views as Bolton, but without the leaking.

narciso said...

That was the embargoed roman a clef from victor marchetti, where a disgruntled analyst does what boyce and ames and hansen would later chose to do.

CJinPA said...

Bolton might really think that, and he might be right. But he needs to come out and deny he said this. Lie if necessary. Save it for when Trump is out of office. Then you can go nuts.

rcocean said...

In case you haven't noticed, the MSM reports that EVERY ex-Trump subordinate has negative things to say about him. And if they say something good about Trump, we don't hear about it. Notice how Mattis suddenly disappeared from the MSM news cycle once he refused to trash Trump. As for Bolton, he's another one of those "foreign Policy Experts" who are always "experts" despite being wrong 75% of the time

Carol said...

So, please blame Israel our our middle east engagement, but we've also been doing the Saudis' bidding for a long time. They're the ones all freaked out about Iran.

Why doesn't KAS itself strike back at Iran? Stupid question I guess.

Carol said...

Should be "people blame Israel..."

narciso said...

Just more 'hair on fire' im not buyimg it, they wouldnt even let them at the door at gatestone.

Rick said...

Can't risk war when Americans don't want it.

We don't have to invade to end their ability to attack outside their borders. If Iran keeps this up - attacking other countries and shipping - we'll sink their Navy and bomb their missile sites then leave them to stew in their impotence.

Americans don't have any interest in drawn out and doomed nation building. We now understand Muslims have little interest even when the opportunity exists. But short term reaction to threats is a different matter entirely.

narciso said...

That link from matt brodsky where the iranians not only admitted fault but threatened further attacks

narciso said...

We have three waves of foreign expeditions, central america in the late 19th and early 20th, far asia in the mid 20th and middle east from a similar interval in the late 20th and early 21st

mockturtle said...

The Saudis have an impressive array of military aircraft. Let them defend themselves.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Disagreements are fine. This is back-stabbing asshole behavior. Of course the hacks in the press are probably making it worse that it really is.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

There is no winning.
If we attack Iran - (and i wish we could - at least off with the radical Islamic overlords) - then we are WAR mongering.

if we don't, then we are letting them get away with murder.

rhhardin said...

was 'disrespectful' to the victims of 9/11

Screw the victims of 9/11 if they're still milking it for victimhood. Get over it.

Browndog said...

Monday, a Green Beret was killed in Afghanistan.

He was 41, on his 4th tour.

AustinRoth said...

So, Trump disagrees with and does not follow the advice of an advisor, and the advisor gets butthurt.

How is that news? Advisors are just that. They don’t get to make the decision.

Kevin said...

Shorter Bolton: Trump won’t keep doing what’s obviously not working!

cacimbo said...

I do not think inviting Taliban for chats on 9/11 was a great idea. But odd how this attack is from the left. Keep hearing NPR hosts twist themselves in knots trying to explain how Trump is bad for NOT retaliating - a position they would normally champion. Guess this is part of their attempt to depress Republican turnout on election day. With #metoo, Russian collusion, impeachment, phony cries of a collapsed economy...... all failing they are desperate.

doctrev said...

Is Bolton trashing Trump BECAUSE he wants to completely discredit the Democrats with the American public? I usually hesitate to use the concept of 4-D chess, but there's no other explanation for how Trump's opposition wants to be tied to a broader scale war on Iran while supporting an Iran deal! That's utterly insane!

rcocean said...

Trump has been a perfect Foreign Policy President. No New Wars. Of course, the MSM paints Trump in the worst way possible. If he talks tough, its TRUMP WILL BLOW UP WORLD! If Trump is diplomatic, than its TRUMP IS AN APPEASER! Everything so far, shows Trump is much more trustworthy and patriotic on Foreign Policy than anyone sine Reagan. That Mittens is in love with Bolton just shows what a clown he is.

dreams said...

We all know Trump isn't a typical Republican politician, he does what he thinks is right which often requires a backbone. He's not afraid of what people might say.

traditionalguy said...

The Shia and the Sunni literally need people to kill to atone to allah for sin. Trump has figured out that sending them young American troops for the Muslim suicide bomb makers to sacrifice is a bad move. President Reagan figured that out 36 years ago after Iran slaughtered 241 Marines asleep in their Lebanon barracks where they were sitting ducks. And Trump does not lust for a Globalist cut of the wealth from Afghan Heroin Labs run by the CIA for 17 years. Which is one reason the is out to kill him.

mccullough said...

I’d love to see Bolton go fight in Afghanistan. He’s an arm chair tough guy.

His way didn’t work in Afghanistan. It’s almost 20 years. At this point, Trump can host the Taliban at Mar A Lago for all I care. Let’s get the troops out of there.

JAORE said...

My former boss and I disagreed many times. But (and here is the key) HE was the boss. After I voiced my objections he sometimes changed his position and sometimes did not. Whichever outcome I went with his direction. Could have resigned if it were bad enough. If I had I'd STFU about it.

Mike Petrik said...

The strategic importance of the Middle East to the US has diminished, but our old guard diplomatic corps and foreign affairs experts are still recommending policy through 1995 lenses. Dogmatic pacifism is stupid, but so is the incessant use of unproductive or counterproductive military options.

I suspect Trump fully understands that Iran is a bad actor not to be trusted. I also suspect that Trump sees the Saudis in much the same way and is therefore hesitant to view the conflict in entirely one-sided terms. Instead Trump assumes that both Iran and SA will pursue their agendas without regard to US interests and does not find that objectionable.

Trump is a deal-maker who seeks win-win solutions. Accordingly, he sees war as a last resort that is irrationally expensive in terms of both blood and treasure. Instead he prefers negotiated realpolitik alternatives unencumbered by the morality play conceits of our foreign policy establishment.

gahrie said...

Seems like all one has to do is bash Trump to become an instant rock star to the Progs. Bolton will become a media darling, now. Probably show up on The View and maybe even a regular on MSNBC.

Bolton appeared regularly as a pundit before he worked for Trump. Why wouldn't he go back to doing what he did before?

Robert Cook said...

"That link from matt brodsky where the iranians not only admitted fault but threatened further attacks"

What link? Where?

Hagar said...

John Bolton does not play well with others.

donald said...

I’ll tell you why Carol. Because they can’t. They have bought billions of dollars worth of military equipment but don’t know how and are too cowardly anyway to do anything. They exist because if the US.

My brother teaches a technical and dangerous course of studies for officers. His classes are infested with ME princes who are ranking officers in their country’s militaries. Without fail, they come into the classes, are arrogant, insulting and pay exactly no attention during the courses. When it’s done he fails them, and then they receive their certifications anyway from the command.

Fuck them.

Anonymous said...

Here's a crazy idea; how about letting Saudi Arabia handle their response to Iran's attack.
Why is it that the USA always has to get involved in all of this?
And what about the allies of Saudi Arabia in the Mid-East; where the hell are they?

And what about all the other nations of the world that rely on Saudi oil; have not heard any of them offering any help?

It's about time that the USA ends it's self-appointed role as policeman of the world, esp. in the Mid East where the Arabs hate (but tolerate as needed) the USA.
They got the oil money to buy any weapons they need.

The USA needs to stay out of the s**thole that is the Mid East.

Jersey Fled said...

Sounds like Trump made a good decision letting Bolton go.

Let Saudi Arabia respond to the Iranian attack. Maybe with a bit of deniable stealth help from the U.S.

Jason said...

If he's that indiscreet and that disloyal Trump was right to fire him.

Drago said...

Shorter GOPe/dems/establishment: Sure sure, we've been screwing things up for about 70 years now, but if you just give us one more chance we "guarantee" things will work out this time....even though its really all just the same old "stuff".

Big Mike said...

Certainly seems as though Trump had good reason to say “You’re fired!”

Bay Area Guy said...

Trump 2, Bolton 0

Bolton has a valued voice that deserves a seat at the table. But last time I checked, as an ADVISOR, he got 0 votes from the American people, whereas Trump got 63 Million. At some point, ADVISORS need to remember that sometimes their ADVICE is not taken.

Also, when the ADVICE is often to invade or bomb, well, the American people are kinda fatigued by that type of ADVICE that in the last 20 years, hasn't worked out as planned.

Francisco D said...

One advantage to Trump is that he is a practical man not driven by a strict foreign policy ideology. That is a benefit at a time when opposite ideologies (Bush v. Obama) have shown themselves to be either counterproductive or extremely expensive.

steve uhr said...

Trump apparently didn’t understand how inviting the Taliban to Camp David would be a gut check to those who lost a family member or friend on 9-11 or the war in Afghanistan. How could he be so tone deaf?

It’s noteworthy that none of the comments on this blog support the Camp David invite. Because you all have more humanity than the narcissist in chief. (I didn’t mean that as a complement to you all. Any number is > 0)

Trump can’t stand disagreement. he detests anyone who puts principles above loyalty.

stever said...

Someone has a book to sell!

Rick.T. said...

How soon is too soon after 9/11?

(Think through what we did after WWII with Japan and Germany before responding.)

Robert Cook said...

"Here's a crazy idea; how about letting Saudi Arabia handle their response to Iran's attack."

How about another crazy idea? Prove that Iran was behind the attack before taking it for granted they did and speaking about it as if it were known fact.

Seeing Red said...

I read the Iranian government tacitly agreed this attack was to try and bring down Trump 2020 election.

He chose to refrain. Smart move. If a Rat pres did the same, it would still be a smart move.

Qwinn said...

I wonder if Cook has ever heard an accusation made against the US where he leapt quite this quickly to, "Hey now, let's get some proof before you smear the country!"

Cause I've never seen it. I do see other people have to say that to Cook all the time though, whenever Cook talks about the US.

Sebastian said...

"Accordingly, he sees war as a last resort"

That's my impression. Trump's approach seems to be: get as much as you can for as little as you can. Therefore, spending more time, using cheap talk, is a low-cost attempt to get a better result. On the other hand, in a different situation, tariff escalation and a table image of being willing to escalate further may be necessary.

If you have a hierarchy of preferences, that's the rational way to do things. But does Trump want anything in particular, or is not just process but also product fluid?

Oso Negro said...

@Steve Uhr - Did you lose a person? Did you or any of your children server? What are your qualifications to speak for this group? To me, since we refuse to kill enough people or burn the poppy fields, talking to the Taliban seems quite reasonable, AFTER 18 years of half-assed efforts.

traditionalguy said...

The Saudi Oil Fields of Aramco need defending from massed missiles. Sounds like a busines expense to Trump. We sell them a defense or Putin will sell them one. But invading Iran is a non starter. Meanwhile, China's oils supply is threatened.

narciso said...

Follow down from here:
https://mobile.twitter.com/RJBrodsky/status/1174661114984128514

cubanbob said...

steve uhr has a point. Why talk to these savages? We have been far too kind and gentle for too long. I say bug out completely and then nuke every square inch of Afghanistan just to be sure they never bother us again.

As for Trump and Iran, he isn't in a hurry. First as stated by others here, this is Saudi Arabia's problem, it is Europe's problem it is China's problem it is not our problem. Iran keeps making more bellicose threats, that works for further justifying a retaliation by a coalition of Arab countries ( with support from others). Also looking at the photos of the missile wreckage, two things are obvious, they are too sophisticated for a bunch of Yemenite goat herders to build or acquire or launch by themselves and second english language markings on the wreckage and on the data plates on them are indicative of suppliers that are not of Iranian producers. Very embarrassing for those involved. I suspect Trump is going to go in that direction for pushing a lot harder sanctions on Iran. And with that the Iranian's might be crazy enough to try another attack which would justification for basically bombing the crap out of Iran by a coalition of numerous countries.

Qwinn said...

BTW, if in response to my last anyone is tempted to defend Cook because Cook never pushed Russiagate, you need to understand that Cook didn't object to Russiagate because it made the US look bad. He objected to it because it made Russia look bad. Same reaction that The Nation and whatshisname, the sockpuppet "Good day sir!" leftie pundit had.

Drago said...

Qwinn: "I wonder if Cook has ever heard an accusation made against the US where he leapt quite this quickly to, "Hey now, let's get some proof before you smear the country!"

Amusingly, Cookie is a believer in the laughable October Surprise conspiracy nut-cakery the left launched against Reagan to try and explain away Carters loss in 1980.

Drago said...

Uhr: "It’s noteworthy that none of the comments on this blog support the Camp David invite."

False, as demonstrated earlier on this very thread.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

"The Saudis have an impressive array of military aircraft. Let them defend themselves."

This. The Saudis can bring the pain anytime they please against Iran's Cold War air defenses. If they can't be bothered to, why would we give it a second thought?

Jerry said...

If what you're doing isn't working - and since it doesn't seem like we've got the will to unequivocally burn the Taliban to the ground (yes, including nuke 'demonstrations'), lesser steps are a lot like fighting a recurring staph infection without antibiotics.

So at some point you've got to do something different. Trump's approaches to what have been pretty much a constant in the diplomatic world are different - and we may (again, MAY) be getting some leverage in NK and with China. The approaches we'd been using for decades weren't producing any results, so we'll see if these do.

(What bothers me is that we've only got, at best, 5 more years of Trump. Think China and NK would love to run the clock out and get back to 'Business As Usual'? I sure do.)

Now Bolton... he may (MAY, I say) have his thinking locked into a 'kinetic response' paradigm. No fault on him, but using a hammer where a prybar may be more suitable to get results can cause more harm than the original problem. And you know the saying - "if all you've got is a hammer, everything's a nail."

Trump's trying a different tactic, and Bolton couldn't deal with it. We'll see what comes of it... because what we're doing sure doesn't seem to be progressing much.

Michael K said...


How about another crazy idea? Prove that Iran was behind the attack before taking it for granted they did and speaking about it as if it were known fact.


Hey, you sound like the guy to do that. Go on over and check it out. After all, Obama and Hillary saw to it that our intel networks in Iran were all rolled up and executed so we are limited in what we know but you can solve that.

Rick said...

Qwinn said...
I wonder if Cook has ever heard an accusation made against the US where he leapt quite this quickly to, "Hey now, let's get some proof before you smear the country!"


He answered this when he claimed the US is entirely at fault for current and future conflict with China and Russia. When you know America is at fault for things that haven't happened yet it's quite clear the position isn't based on anything other than anti-Americanism.

Amadeus 48 said...

It is a legitimate criticism of Trump to say that he does not appear thoughtful and his decisions appear to be based on hunches as much as strategic considerations. I suspect that in internal meetings he appears to have just thought stuff up. I am sure that veteran advisers walk out shaking their heads.

Because the news reporting and analysis of this administration is so adversarial and bad, Trump's ideas never get a proper airing. But I do know that it is not easy to win a trade war; that Putin is difficult to deal with and should not be trusted; that a lot of people in Central and South America would like to come here; that China is playing a long strategic game, but they are nowhere near as rich as their phony data suggests; that our allies are happy for us to spend for their defence; and that the Iranian leadership really does wish death to America.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...


"Uhr: "It’s noteworthy that none of the comments on this blog support the Camp David invite.""

I fully support the Camp David invite. Sure, any peace-with-honor dumbshow is inevitably going to cede Afghanistan to the Taliban but 18 years is long enough. Let's get it done and move on.

wildswan said...

The Iranians are trying to get the US to respond at the time and place of their choosing and in the way they want so they lowered the Saudi output because they wanted the Crusaders to invade Islamic territory right now. Why should we? Trump stepped up sanctions on Iran lowering their output. Why not?

By offering to talk to the Taliban Trump found out exactly how the Taliban would deal with him. The Taliban tried to get the upper hand by committing an atrocity which they thought they could do probably because they thought Trump would be like Obama and let it go for the sake of the negotiation. Trump just sent them away, now knowing how they negotiate with him. Similarly, after three years Trump has met with all sorts of foreign leaders, always trying to negotiate, not trying "to get to know them" or "send a signal" or travel randomly at taxpayer expense to select, exotic locations. And so he now knows definite things about how many nations negotiate with the US President right now. John Bolton and others should look at that history as well as the history they've always known when they advise Trump.

narciso said...

Because it would bring an attack on all us basrs from bahrain to oman?

rehajm said...

It’s noteworthy that none of the comments on this blog support the Camp David invite

While I would object to actually sitting down with Taliban leaders around a table at Camp David I can appreciate the value of the invite in the course of larger negotiations. A bluff perhaps? I don't know and neither do you. Apparently a sit down Taliban leaders at Camp David didn't happen, so that's where we are.

If there were loved ones of 9/11 who associate Taliban with Al-Qaeda and found it objectionable that's unfortunate. I can also appreciate that they aren't the only stakeholders.

narciso said...

I wouldnt have picked that date, but youd hold in what alternate location.

narayanan said...

@narciso et al >>> what is the truth about what I'd heard -

that USA had to pack its literal shit = feces of its service members out of KSA and Kuwait after the First Gulf War? so as not to defile Muslim holy land with infidel droppeings?

!!World still has pristine deserts in both places!!

Earnest Prole said...

Silly John Bolton. If Barack Obama had invited the Taliban to Camp David, of course it would have sent a terrible signal and have been disrespectful to the victims of 9/11. Likewise if Obama had failed to respond to an Iranian attack on an American drone, of course Bolton would have been correct to link Iran’s subsequent brazen attack on an American ally to that failure. What Silly John Bolton forgot is that the president is not Barack Obama, it’s Donald Trump, and what’s pusillanimous and short-sighted for a black Democrat is brave and visionary for an orange Republican.

narciso said...

Well we relocated to al udeid air base, the al thanis and the sauds are like the hatfields and the mccoys

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

Whatever the grievance, after 18 years you've gone from avenger to colonizer. The least we could do is sell those poppies to China.

Gusty Winds said...

Trump is making efforts to end and 18 year war. These people and their signals.

He is also resisting punching the tar baby when it comes to military conflict with Iran. Once you get the first fist in there, you're stuck. Trump ain't no Br're Rabbit.

Isn't anybody else sick of American sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers dying in the Middle East? I am. Trump obviously is too.

Tell Bolton to dye that ridiculous mustache.

Gunner said...

I hope Althouse posts something about the libtard jackals now harassing Katie Waldman for dating Stephen Miller. They enjoy bullying women the most.

narciso said...

Well the iranians took that shotdown drone in 2012 and reingenered, obama traded bergdahl for the negotiating team, a high level intel officer defected to iran and we didnt know for 6 years

narciso said...

Thats the opium wars, that the chinese are payong us back with fentanyl. Its called unrestricted warfare. Now this abquaig strike hit china right in the kidneys

Bay Area Guy said...

Having talks or cancelling talks with the Taliban is a process question - subordinate to the harder question, namely, how many American troops, if any, should we keep in Afghsnistan to promote stability?

Why some of the usual suspects here are conflating this issue with the bombing of Saudi oil fields is a mystery.

Hagar said...

I think something in Iran will go WHUMP!!!, but in order to be "commensurate," it has to be arranged so that it can be claimed the Romulans did it.

Michael K said...

a high level intel officer defected to iran and we didnt know for 6 years

Nothing new in the CIA history. We had a Castro spy running our Cuba policy for 20 years.

Why do you think the CIA history is called "Legacy of Ashes?"

The Timmerman book has a lot to say about Ana Montes who is serving 25 years for espionage on behalf of Cuba. She had a long career and, according to Timmerman, was virtually the director of US policy toward Cuba for nearly 20 years. She caused terrible damage to our attempts to spy on Cuba and may have insinuated herself with members of Congress, some of whom are conspicuous in their opposition to US policy. Scott Carmichael, the DIA counterintelligence agent who caught her, has written a book about her career. According to Carmichael and Timmerman, her analyses, written by a Cuban spy, are still being used for policy! As Carmichael says:

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

That dumbshit Obama pulled out of the wrong country, and he chose to do so based on the idea that the conflict in Afghanistan is the just war. Perhaps, but how much better off would the Middle East be if we had continued to be a stabilizing force in Iraq and allowed Afghanistan to slide back into it's traditional medieval shitholery.

rehajm said...

I mean on Game of Thrones warring factions meet on the battle field to negotiate and avoid confrontation all the time. Never seems to work, though...

Drago said...

Earnest Prole: " Likewise if Obama had failed to respond to an Iranian attack on an American drone,..."

LOL

Really stretching now I see.

Li'l baracky handed the Iranians billions and billions in cash, dumped sanctions, allowed them free reign throughout the ME as well as paved the Iranian's way to develop nukes with a wink and a nod from the West for.......words.

Meanwhile, Trump's sanctions and squeeze policies have the mad mullahs on the economic ropes and is choking them to death.

But in Prole world, those are simply inconvenient truths and can therefore be disregarded.

The Iranians would give anything to have li'l baracky and his Fine Arts lead on Iran back running the show. But go ahead Prole, you just keep pretending that the Iranians are leading Trump around by the nose all you want.

BTW, how many American sailors have the Iranians moseyed on out to sea to reel in these days?.........(doubtful Clausewitz-like Prole even remembers that....)

Drago said...

BAG: "Why some of the usual suspects here are conflating this issue with the bombing of Saudi oil fields is a mystery."

No its not.

They have nothing else to jabber about since all their predictions, and I mean every single one of them, about Trump economic and foreign policies have disappeared into the wind as if they were never even there.

Now its just orange man bad 24/7.

narciso said...

and there was a thirty year asset in the state deparment, kendall myers, who worked in the European languages section of the company training section, I wrote about him,

Big Mike said...

Bolton’s complaint about the 9/11 date reminds me of little Dickie Durbin refusing to negotiate on behalf of Dreamers with his complaint about Trump referring to shithole countries as “shithole countries.” Neither Bolton nor Durbin can honestly argue against Trump’s policies so they make a fuss over nits.

narciso said...


Much like fulton Armstrong, a cuba sympathizer and long time foil for Bolton, (who Kerry unwittingly burned,


http://narcisoscorner.blogspot.com/2009/06/belling-cat-myers-spy-ring.html?view=magazine

narciso said...

well no, what can we reasonably expect to have the Taliban abide by. look up shaj shuja, to see what happens with those who side with the wrong party,

NEO-FIDO said...

That is Bolton alright

J. Farmer said...

A few thoughts...

1) Bolton's departure is a relief.
2) I see O'Brien's appointment as a win for Pompeo, who has not been a good SecState IMO
3) I ordered O'Brien's book While America Slept. From what I was able to read on Amazon, it sounds like pretty boilerplate Republican foreign policy, and the descriptions of O'Brien as "Bolton lite" seem apt.
4) I agree with Bolton that we shouldn't be negotiating with the Taliban, but not for the reasons he has. We have no need to negotiate with them, and negotiations are a bad idea. We should just leave.

elkh1 said...

Yeah, lob a few Tomahawks may stop Iran's drones and make the Great Satan a sick joke to the world.

Now, it's time for the Saudis to wage wars on Iran, we can support them. But we are not getting in another twenty years war.

Talibans cannot be trusted. Neither can the Afghan govt. Enough is enough. Get the hell out of the hell hole.

Earnest Prole said...

But in Prole world, those are simply inconvenient truths and can therefore be disregarded.

I called Bolton silly; what more do you want from me?

narciso said...

the problem with that strategy is what happened in gaza and southern Lebanon, when the Israelis pulled out, also there must be parameters when we don't redeploy under fire, but realistically there's nothing the ghazi are willing to abide by,

Skeptical Voter said...

Who knew that snakes wore moustaches?

Jim at said...

Well, the Taliban/Camp David/9/11 thing was stupid.

stlcdr said...

I'm sure there's an aircraft carrier full of planes loaded with bombs that just happen to be in the area.

It may just so happen that while trump is playing nicey nicey with the Taliban that some of their (what they thought) hidden bases are blasted to oblivion. Trump will now say to them 'how would you like to continue this conversation?'

J. Farmer said...

@elkh1:

Now, it's time for the Saudis to wage wars on Iran, we can support them. But we are not getting in another twenty years war.

The Saudis have been bogged down in a war in Yemen for nearly five years now. I doubt highly that they have the ability and the resources and the willingness to launch what would be a protracted military engagement with Iran.

Jim at said...

And to clarify, yes. Get us out of Afghanistan. Eighteen years is more than long enough. If it takes inviting the Taliban to Camp David to do so, do it.

But there are 51 other weeks in the calendar year. Doing it around 9/11 was an unforced error.

narciso said...

Now there are parallels with alexander haig, who wanted to go after the sanctuaries in Nicaragua, rather than other objectives,

Drago said...

Prole: "I called Bolton silly; what more do you want from me?"

See if you can figure out why your Trump is like obama analogies are ludicrous on their face. That will get you about 25% of the way there.

Or don't.

Sam L. said...

I just TOTALLY believe everything in POLITICO. suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurRE I do.

William said...

And this is news, why?

narciso said...

I don't either, now there were plenty of guests, chris ruddy among them, who could have witnessed this event, but politico is anathema to anything Bolton or the gatehouse institute would propose, so I'm not buying it, O'Brien btw was walker's foreign policy advisor during the last campaign,

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

the walls are closing in. Adam Schitt(D) has insider spy info on Trump called operation whistle-blower.

Adam Schitt works for the SS.

Michael K said...

I doubt highly that they have the ability and the resources and the willingness to launch what would be a protracted military engagement with Iran.

I agree but who, exactly, is getting squeezed by the oil thing ?

China !

Earnest Prole said...

See if you can figure out why your Trump is like obama analogies are ludicrous on their face.

Isn't that the entire point? Obama and Trump are completely different even when they do identical things.

narciso said...

very solid vetting,


https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/09/womens-march-votes-off-new-board-member-zahra-billoo-over-anti-israel-tweets/

Qatar is like the famed qumar in the west wing, they were financing a group much like al queda called the baji, and it came from the defense minister, who ultimately was executed and then the Bartlett administration pulled a coverup, the last was borrowed from Charles mccarry's better angels,

narciso said...

this was the link from last night:


https://mobile.twitter.com/RJBrodsky/status/1174473278901116930


Francisco D said...

I agree with Bolton that we shouldn't be negotiating with the Taliban, but not for the reasons he has. We have no need to negotiate with them, and negotiations are a bad idea. We should just leave.

You miss the whole point of negotiations. They do two very important things:

1. Give the appearance of statesmanship on the American side, something demanded by sophisticated NYT readers and;

2. Provide employment for otherwise worthless diplomats, dignitaries and duplicitous politicians.

Nichevo said...


Drago said...
Earnest Prole: " Likewise if Obama had failed to respond to an Iranian attack on an American drone,..."

LOL

Really stretching now I see.


Right? Like if Obama had not responded to the Iranians bringing down our RQ-170 UAV. Fortunately then he nuked Tehran so Iran doesn't make trouble anymore.

mockturtle said...

Talibans cannot be trusted. Neither can the Afghan govt. Enough is enough. Get the hell out of the hell hole.

Like Brexit, no negotiations necessary. Just leave. As Paul Simon wrote [and sang]:

Just slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free

Unknown said...

Guy who has been wrong for 20 years now. Sorry, no sale.

hstad said...

OMG, what a surprise, guy was just fired and now criticizes his former boss' foreign policy. LOL!

Drago said...

Prole: "Isn't that the entire point? Obama and Trump are completely different even when they do identical things."

The "things" are not identical because the scenarios are completely different.

Any discussion regarding Trump interactions with Iran that doesn't begin with how Trump has turned them into an economic basket case thru sanctions and pressure on our EU "partners" to cease dealings with Iran is a fairy tale discussion and not worth having.

Further, the effort by Trump to construct an anti-Iran coalition (including Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc) in order to constrain the regional goals of Iran must also be included as the baseline in any discussion of Trump's interactions with Iran.

But then again we are "deal"ing with Prole, who thinks that as long as 2 "deals" both have "deals" in their name everything is all "same same".

madAsHell said...

You know, I'm really just not going to listen to someone-said-something-untoward-about-Trump reporting. It's puerile, reflects a shallow understanding, and is only loosely based on actual events.

Michael K said...

The "things" are not identical because the scenarios are completely different.

They are kind of similar. Obama gives Iran pallets of cash; Trump takes them away. It's just a vector thing.

narciso said...

and fiorino aspillaga, (he was signal intel trainee in Havana in 1963) who defected in 1987, revealed the entire company network on that island, were double agents, now five years later, the head of alpha's military committee was also revealed to be a double agent, why is that important, because he may not have been the only one,

narciso said...

re Carolyn glick who is part of a splinter party, Netanyahu is still the only one that can form a govt, not gantz,

Tank said...

Trump likes to negotiate. Bolton likes war. One of them had to go, it wasn’t going to be the president.

narciso said...

well that's convenient:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/19/andrew-mccabe-criticize-doj-inspector-general/

Iman said...

Trump is doing the right thing by strengthening the sanctions. Iran would like nothing better than to bait the US into a war. They think themselves playing the victim would cast us in the aggressor role. There is nothing wrong with dealing with them covertly.

mockturtle said...

And it's clear to me that neither the Taliban nor al Qaeda want us out of Afghanistan, either. Our presence proved them with momentum, not to mention weapons and $$.

mockturtle said...

wants us out of Afghanistan, and provides them with momentum....

John henry said...

said one attendee...

Do I need to know any more at all about this story?

Bullshit forecast? About 97.3%

John Henry

Leland said...

I'm reading Mattis' book. They said Mattis ripped Trump in his book. That is not what I read in Mattis' book. I'm pretty sure they don't know what Bolton really said at a private lunch.

Bob Smith said...

And just like that, warmongering right winger John Bolton morphs into hero of the people.

Gojuplyr831@gmail.com said...

Isn't it much more disrespectful for 9/11 victims and American dead in Afghanistan to delay negotiations and have more people die because of liberals phony sensitivity?

narciso said...

the Taliban, are just the latest iteration of the ghazi, who carried the jezail, the 19th century version of the ak 47, who fought the brits in three wars in the northwest frontier and 50 expedition, the leaders had many names the mad mullah of malakand, the fakir or Waziristan, (they looked for him for 25 years, he died in bed right before world war 2

Howard said...

Blogger J. Farmer said... @elkh1:

Now, it's time for the Saudis to wage wars on Iran, we can support them. But we are not getting in another twenty years war.

The Saudis have been bogged down in a war in Yemen for nearly five years now. I doubt highly that they have the ability and the resources and the willingness to launch what would be a protracted military engagement with Iran.


Exactly. Iran would eat the Saudis lunch. They couldn't fight themselves out of a wet paper sack.

But none of this matters because Trump is genius

wholelottasplainin' said...

Drago said...

Amusingly, Cookie is a believer in the laughable October Surprise conspiracy nut-cakery the left launched against Reagan to try and explain away Carters loss in 1980.
*********

Was that the one where George Bush the Elder supposedly flew secretly to Paris in the back seat of an SR-71 to negotiate with the Iranians? The one promoted by Gary Sick(o)?

Or was it the one where George Bush the Younger's draft dodging docs were secretly flown to Paris in the back seat of an SR-71?

I ferget....

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

"I doubt highly that they have the ability and the resources and the willingness to launch what would be a protracted military engagement with Iran"

No, I wouldn't bet on the Saudis in a guerilla war, but when it comes to offensive air power they are the 800lb. gorilla in the region. They could blow up huge amounts of Iranian infrastucture with relative ease and there isn't much the Iranians could do to stop them. Which makes me wonder if Cookie doesn't have a point about fingering Iran for the oil attack.

Big Mike said...

You know, if a country isn't able to win a war -- and under George W. Bush and Barack Obama we weren't -- then maybe that country should try to end that war? Just a thought.

wholelottasplainin' said...

cubanbob said...
steve uhr has a point. Why talk to these savages? We have been far too kind and gentle for too long. I say bug out completely and then nuke every square inch of Afghanistan just to be sure they never bother us again.
**********************

Yeah, that's the ticket: just annihilate the entire country's population and forget about it. Never mind we would obliterate those on our side. No need to sort that out.

As they said during the 13th century Albigensian crusade against Cathar heretics:

"Kill them all, for God will know his own!"

So, Cubanbob: should we have done that to Cuba when Fidel refused to knuckle under?

SNORT

narciso said...

why did I mention malakand its not an offhanded remark,


https://web.archive.org/web/20110629110221/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1752338.ece

mockturtle said...

Exactly. Iran would eat the Saudis lunch.

That's fine, Howard. And they can drink the Saudis' milkshakes, too, for all I care.

narciso said...

Thats where at least one of the 7/7 london bombers trained.

Michael K said...

But none of this matters because Trump is genius

Thank you for your in-kind contribution to Trump 2020. The left never misses an opportunity to look like humorless scold.

Sort of like Warren, come to think of it,.

Take a look at this map and think about "National Popular Vote" laws.

Unknown said...

Bolton wrong about everything for 20 years, but now the darling of the left. Boy, I didn't see that coming ( oh wait, of course I did).

Tank said...

Big Mike said...

You know, if a country isn't able to win a war -- and under George W. Bush and Barack Obama we weren't -- then maybe that country should try to end that war? Just a thought


That’s some crazy talk there.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

"Exactly. Iran would eat the Saudis lunch. They couldn't fight themselves out of a wet paper sack."

How? The Iranians have no way to project conventional military power at Saudi Arabia that doesn't involve being slaughtered in their masses in the open from above. As long as the Saudis don't want to occupy a foot of Iranian territory, they can blow shit up all day long. Iran, on the other hand, is almost entirely dependent on asymmetrical warfare. Which is fine when you're trying to defend a piece of earth, but basically no more than civilian-targeting terrorism otherwise. It doesn't win wars for the away team.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

Of course, if you have nukes...

I was thinking the other day about Saudi Arabia and nuclear weapons. Is it that wildly improbable that a Soviet nuke or two made it's way into Saudi hands? Really, why wouldn't they make that happen? I understand about nuclear forensics but, with the will and the money, it would hardly be impossible to keep your new toys on the qt.

Guildofcannonballs said...

So now it's not the author, Althouse, but us readers: stuck smelling hate each inhalation at a time, all nicotine infused fucking cigarettes.

And we all got to smell it because the driver is an asshole.

Except the driver isn't quite the same asshole anymore, since they rebutted smoking and indeed changed the culture.

So now what?

Milwaukie guy said...

As an armchair general [Avalon Hill, anyone?], I think the best scenario for military conflict with Iran is to seize Kharq Island, which is about 50% of something for Iran. Take it, defend it, sink or shoot down anything in the way and then ask for a cease fire. Of course, ask our partners to join in.

Not that I'm wishing for it but it'd be a great war game.

Guildofcannonballs said...

More on topic than conceives the 80 IQ, Althouse.blogspot.com has issues.

Loading.

It just keeps spinning and spinning and .. you know.

But every other website I got to, usually shortly, the spinning thing stops. But not at Althouse.

Have these fucks figured it out? Ha. Ha> HAHAHA.\

My boy Trump got you figured eight figures ago.

Fuck Kevin Bacon and his six, we got you 8 8 8 figures ago. And you still lookin' like you know.

Guildofcannonballs said...

So now we focus on how lucky we are, and why.

It ain't because of Althouse, yet.

Our spirit enlightened through my mere meager self, is enough.

It always has been.

To succeed.

narciso said...

Wrong country, the kingdom has tried develop nukes in collaboration with pakistan, china has supplied then cs 27 nucleat capable missiles

Quaestor said...

Now we know why Bolton got fired. The world is divided into executives and advisors, or bosses and proles if you will. Everybody gets to play both roles, if only at the grocery store. It is evident John Bolton thought Trump hired him to be a boss.

narciso said...

These missiles
https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/30/why-did-saudi-arabia-buy-chinese-missiles/

narciso said...

And these:
https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-cia-helped-saudis-chinese-missile-deal-227283

Guildofcannonballs said...

Lon Horiuchi our whatever, alone, is a simple mistake.

That Fort Hood fuck.

Are they still susceptible? Those men and women serving? I hope they all, each and every single one, break the rules to kill those killings.

But otherwise, should I be dead? I've done a Hell lot less than Randy Weaver's dead wife.

She was murdered by the State of America.

Ralph L said...

Iran, on the other hand, is almost entirely dependent on asymmetrical warfare.

I'll bet KSA is entirely dependent on contractors for maintenance of their American toys.

Guildofcannonballs said...

I don't discount a great "hey she wanted it, being married (E: as an editor, I will show you what you need to think, assuming if I don't you will follow the rules Lon Hario9us followed and not my intentions that you must follow, after you leave here and make.


When I reference simiple I mean Blood, like the COens' produced before preduction was a thing,

YOU DON'T EVEN KNOQ!

Blood Simple was more complex than their books and interviews, we all know that.

We all know that.

Bragging because you are so talented taxes are for little people has hurt "big" people "big" time.

Oh, we were fraud's the whole time, just got lucky, after filming some junk, and then, you know what? poof!

tHE COEN'S SUPERCEDED ANY THOUGHT I ATTEMPEDT TO HAVVE.

I understand a decade or two, but guys...

Guys....

Just give up.

Guildofcannonballs said...

I've spent 10,000, yes that's not a misprint, 10,000 hours attempting to write The Big Lebowski 2.0.

I've failed.

It ergo can't be achieved.

narciso said...

Well the dude would be about 70 now, i wasnt that keen on coen films except arizona and fargo, although burn after reading is almost a sober depiction of the company

Michael K said...

I think the best scenario for military conflict with Iran is to seize Kharq Island, which is about 50% of something for Iran. Take it, defend it, sink or shoot down anything in the way and then ask for a cease fire. Of course, ask our partners to join in.

The Joint Chiefs wanted Carter to take out Kharg Island when then "students" took the hostages. He didn't and here we are.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Unless.

Guildofcannonballs said...

THat's one Hell of word.

How many offed because "unless" I was worse than them luckwise I'd not have to do this.

Guildofcannonballs said...

So now it's not the author, Althouse, but us readers: stuck smelling hate each inhalation at a time, all nicotine infused fucking cigarettes.

And we all got to smell it because the driver is an asshole.

Except the driver isn't quite the same asshole anymore, since they rebutted smoking and indeed changed the culture.

So now what?

Because of the power young genitals attract, Althouse ought be Being Althouse and nothing less and nothing more, if such concept were conceivable.

Ralph L said...

We couldn't bomb the Taliban back to the Stone Age because they'd like it.

narciso said...

Tmi guild, the politico piece is but a palimpsest on which one writes the real story, bolton is not one who tells things anonymouslt mmy he tells it to your face.

narciso said...


The left has latched on to this story; the righr for the most part has not

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ignore-javad-zarifs-comments-about-all-out-war

mockturtle said...

Ralph L. suggests: We couldn't bomb the Taliban back to the Stone Age because they'd like it.

They probably wouldn't even notice.

narciso said...

Well the taliban has sanctuaries in quetta peshawar and lahore, they are supported by the boys of aapbara (isi) and sizable portions of the pakistani army

narciso said...

Sometimes they feed on their former masters:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nydailynews.com/news/world/sultan-amir-tarar-aka-colonel-iman-pakistani-spy-taliban-mentor-dies-militants-captivity-article-1.149551%3foutputType=amp

Ben Lange said...

Here’s the Trump strategy, in case you’re bad at pattern recognition:
1: Hint at willingness to negotiate or compromise with your opposite number.
2: Wait as they, sensing weakness, begin escalating their demands (or misbehavior).
3: Walk away, saying ‘hey, I tried, but some people just won’t be reasoned with.’
This is how you show you’re willing to make concessions but you never have to. He’s done it to the Dems, to Kim (twice) and now the Taliban. Bonus points if they were already on their way here and he left them holding the bag.

Narr said...

Avalon Hill--just the beginning. Through Dunnigan and SPI/S&T -- still have decades of the magazine games. Did Squad Leader playtesting, and demos at Baltimore c. 1980

Narr
Wargame Convention, Milwaukee once

narciso said...

In other news:
https://mobile.twitter.com/jabeale?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Guildofcannonballs said...

I think I might have sat and ate at Summerfest with the drummer or bass or rhythem or someing of the guys who put toghether this song: *But I don't know

Guildofcannonballs said...

It's like we know likliness goes:

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=sistar+hazel+all+for+you&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Birkel said...

Earnest Prole: Trump and Obama are identical.
Robert Cook: Iran dindunuffin.
J Farmer: The 150 billion Obama gave Iran means Saudi Arabia is a country that cannot defend itself.

Me: Those fucking guys are lunatics!

Guildofcannonballs said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB-QXgtoItA

1000 steps beyond.

Guildofcannonballs said...

King Trump be do king theeegns.

Guildofcannonballs said...

King Trump:

He do King Trummmp things.



1000 steps beyond.

https://cumulus.hillsdale.edu/Buckley/

Oops.

Guildofcannonballs said...

https://cumulus.hillsdale.edu/Buckley/

narciso said...

Aurprise:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/19/whistleblower-complaint-now-looks-like-democrat-effort-to-protect-joe-biden-from-investigation/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Quaestor said...

We couldn't bomb the Taliban back to the Stone Age because they'd like it.

Back? Is it possible to bomb the Taliban forward to the Stone Age?

Rusty said...

Prediction; We -the USA-will not go to war with Iran. As some one, maybe somebody here , has stated. Iran wants a war with the US to unify their country. Just ratchet up the sanctions. They are circling the drain economically. let them go down. We won't have to lift a finger.

Robert Cook said...

"The Joint Chiefs wanted Carter to take out Kharg Island when then 'students' took the hostages. He didn't and here we are."

Here we are, where? We could have made some form of partnership with Iran years ago. In recent years, we forged an agreement with Iran on its development of nuclear technology, but Trump just 86'd it unilaterally and for no reason.

We are here because of enduring and intransigent U.S. bellicosity toward Iran.

Howard said...

Expert on why Saudi Arabia won't explicitly blame Iran for attacks: 'They would be toast'

https://www.foxnews.com/media/saudi-arabia-iran-oil-attacks-trump-pompeo

Birkel said...

Robert Cook just has to blame America First.
And always.

Fucking lunatic.

Lincolntf said...

Cook is a bozo. We are "here" because the international community has decided that a nuclear-armed Iran dominating the region and threatening the entire world in a few years is better than fighting today. Cowardice and appeasement are all they know, and all they can understand. Iran has about a dozen warships in it's entire Navy. It would take until lunchtime today to sink every one of them, drastically reducing Iran's ability to menace the world's shipping security and greatly reducing the volatility in the Gulf. But, see, that can't happen, because some people crave perpetual warfare and Iran gives it to them.

Michael K said...

We could have made some form of partnership with Iran years ago.

But we did Cook ! It was called "Hostage and captor." You really are a fool.

Ray - SoCal said...

Having Bolton go around and trash Trump for not being a warmonger probably helps Trump with moderate voters.

With the current players in Afghanistan, there was a 1% or less chance, there would be no attack before the Camp David negotiations. To many Taliban factions wanted an attack. The attack made Trump the reasonable one, showing he tried to negotiate...

The country that needs to be negotiated with is Pakistan. Without their support, 90% of the Taliban activities would end shortly. Iran also supports the Taliban.

It’s amusing how China and Europe are paying the premium due to Iran’s attack... and it’s actually helping the US economy.

Robert Cook said...

"But we did Cook ! It was called 'Hostage and captor.' You really are a fool."

I know you are, but what am I? (I mean, if you're going to engage in this sort of childishness...which is to be expected.)

Robert Cook said...

"Cook is a bozo. We are 'here' because the international community has decided that a nuclear-armed Iran dominating the region and threatening the entire world in a few years is better than fighting today. Cowardice and appeasement are all they know, and all they can understand. Iran has about a dozen warships in it's entire Navy. It would take until lunchtime today to sink every one of them, drastically reducing Iran's ability to menace the world's shipping security and greatly reducing the volatility in the Gulf. But, see, that can't happen, because some people crave perpetual warfare and Iran gives it to them."

We're all bozos on this bus, bub, you not least among us.