Home | About | Donate

Dangerous and Reckless: John Bolton, Trump's New National Security Adviser


#1

Dangerous and Reckless: John Bolton, Trump's New National Security Adviser

CJ Werleman

John Bolton, former ambassador to the United Nations under the Bush administration, has been appointed by US President Donald Trump as his third national security adviser, replacing HR McMaster.

While a great many troubling figures have travelled in and through the doorway of the Oval Office, none come as frightening and reckless as Bolton, and I include Henry Kissinger, a man responsible for the deaths of three million in Indochina, and Steve Bannon, an unashamed white nationalist.


#2

Trump is using Bolton’s appointment to take the public lens off of Russia and put it onto the ME, especially Iran. This will work for a while. Getting stuck with Bolton will end up being a thorn in Trump’s side, though, as Bolton is pure poison lacking nuance. Drink quickly Mr. Trump before the rest of us have to.


#3

Just read, in addition, that his John Bolton SuperPAC bought $1.2M of psyops from Cambridge Analytica, early in their period of Facebook scraping. Where did this “public servant” get $1.2M? The Mercers. Dangerous indeed.

Can a National Security Advisor continue to run a superPAC with his name on it?


#4

Pure psychopathic war-mongering piece of human excrement. How evil bastards like this are repeatedly given powerful government positions is beyond me, and a serious indictment of our dysfunctional “democracy.”


#5

The only thing Trump knows how to do is to be a vacuous celebrity.

He sees this government gig as a reality TV show where he is the star, the director, the executive producer and writes all the scripts. He refuses to listen to briefings and instead relies on Fox News almost exclusively for his policy decisions, because they are TV stars, like he is. He trusts them, because as TV stars, they are bigger than life to him.

I doubt he knew who Bolton was, or that Bush had appointed him to the U.N. post until he became a talking head on Fox News. Trump has been increasing the TV people on his staff and getting rid of the generals, and it’s pretty easy to see that he takes none of this seriously. He is playing a role, and enjoying the celebrity, the applause and the attention tremendously.

I am at a total loss to explain why Hannity or O’Reilly haven’t taken the press secretary job yet…


#6

Hiring people whom one could easily prosecute means hiring people whom one controls–not that this control belongs much to Donald Trump, who responds to factions who will not advertise themselves to us as such.

This is the mafia practice of having confederates “prove themselves” by engaging in high crimes.

Hiring people whom one controls so thoroughly does not happen out of love, but because one has a task that requires someone who cannot afford a conscience. Gina Haspel, Pompeo, Bolton all suit. And both “Security Advisor” and CIA Director are partly domestic titles.

What’s planned? I have to guess, but there have been hints. Here we are talking about Iran, but Iran is a step in the encirclement of Russia and China, most likely with the idea of militarily forcing some sort of accord before the eventual economic preeminence of China as the dominant land mass, the greatest center of water-driven energy, the largest area of irrigated fertile ground, and the largest human population becomes manifest. Iran will come at a greater domestic cost than have Iran and Syria. Probably some or all of the parties in question were not in favor of the next plan to be executed, whatever that may be. The American population may be expected to respond as well; the building domestic surveillance and the new torture nanny at the helm of the CIA probably show us the nature of the planned response, potentially something along the lines of what we saw for so many years in South and Central America in the hands of these same organizations and, to some extent, the same individual people, though many have aged out of the system.

It seems that the idea is to play a multi-decade game of chicken with these countries, whose sole deterrents to an elite that is obviously willing to burn through lives and resources is a nuclear response. That may mean releasing what is left of an American republic.

It might be good to check out Daniel Ellsberg’s recent The Doomsday Machine for some insight into just what sorts of control over nuclear responses do and do not exist, as well as what sort of thinking has been and presumably still is standard.


#7

I was told in this forum that HRC would lead us into WWlll. I didn’t believe it.

I did believe, however, that Trump would lead us into war against iran or NK.

Of course, that was before NK had nukes and ICBMs, so Iran remains.

This is me saying I told you so.