Oh, he definitely does, I think. Just isn't willing to go overboard to get it. Bolton served a purpose there previously...he could be the bad guy, and let Iran know that Trump might take military action. Now, I think Trump wants to tone that down, hence this move. Think Trump asked for his resignation, and Bolton gave it. Not sure which category that falls into. ;-)
Who can blame Kim? We want Kim to forfeit his only form of protection from a regime attack - nuclear weapons. In order for Kim to do that, he has to believe America won't attack him once left defenseless, hard to do that with guys like Bolton in charge. So GOOD, maybe our odds for a peace deal just went up. Maybe our odds for nuclear war just went down. Do you guys not want peace? The left needs to quit attacking Trump from the right, it's pathetic.
What makes you think "the Left" doesn't want peace? Because we criticize trump's choices around his national security team?
This was a critique on firing John Bolton. Critiquing Bolton being fired just to take a shot at Trump doesn't sound like someone who wants peace. Sounds like the left attacking the Trump from the right, which is a horribly pathetic thing to do, it shows people with no morals, principles or dignity, just party hacks. Let's see what Mr.Frum has been saying, along with that tweet, which was clear to me. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/bolton-must-now-speak-out/597784/ Speak Up, John Bolton As I expected, he's glorifying Bolton to attack Trump.
i expect Bolton to remain silent, working on a tell-all book about his time in Trump's WH, and will strategically release it around sept 11 next year.
Which part of it? I think there are about 3 points in my post which I will individualize. - Kim not wanting to do a peace deal due to fear of being attacked by the USA after denuclearizing - aka "Libya model" makes sense, especially with Bolton in the admin, combined with the comments he made. - It's good that Bolton is gone, chances for peace just went up, chances of nuclear war went down (relative to where they were before WITH Bolton in the admin) - It being pathetic for the left to attack Trump from the right. The left attacking Trump for firing Bolton makes no sense to me.
First off... David Frum isn't "the left". He is a conservative republican and was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush and later authored the first book about Bush's presidency written by a former member of the administration. He was credited with inspiring the phrase "axis of evil" in Bush's 2002 State of the Union address. He is a board member of the republican Jewish Committee.
You missed my point and are proving it at the same time IMO. You are left, RR is left, yet you guys seemed to take that jackasses right-wing critique (tweet) about Bolton being fired serious. Again, just how it seemed to me.
My uneducated guess is that in an argument over the Taliban, Bolton insulted Trump and that's why he's out. It was too abrupt to be tactical. Trump fired him. The way Bolton tells it, he 'offered to resign.' Offering puts the ball in Trump's court to decide the future of his employment. If Bolton wanted credit for breaking up with Trump first, he should have immediately tweeted 'I Quit!' while still standing in the Oval Office.
[QUOTE="MojoMan, post: 12597193, member: 39750"[/QUOTE] He did appoint him in the first place when he knew exactly who he was. That seems sorta dumb. You didn't see Obama appointing zealots, firing a bunch of appointees, or losing them to felony convictions. It's a matter of competency in governance.
Bolton was the United States Ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006 as a recess appointee by President George W. Bush.[8] He resigned at the end of his recess appointment in December 2006[9][10] because he was unlikely to win confirmation from the Senate, of which the Democratic Party had gained control at the time.[11][12] You know the sad thing is, the US could dominate Cuba and Venezuela with commerce. It's only the political influence of the oligarchs that were deposed from the countries that fire up the communist rhetoric. Much like Taiwan and Hong Kong, there is a long enough period governance that the status of 'sovereign nations' should be accepted. Instead of outright opposition you could have an influencing role directing their futures.
