You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Ted Cruz: Why not John Bolton for national security advisor?
2017-02-19
[Hot Air] Bolton was a candidate for Secretary of State during the transition period, then a candidate to be a key undersecretary at the Department under Rex Tillerson, and then more recently ... nada. His name hadn’t been mentioned in connection lately with any major staffing positions, which is odd given that Trump reportedly came to admire him from his appearances on Fox News. (Also a key qualification for KT McFarland in landing her job as deputy NSA, apparently.) Bolton had two big problems in landing a job at State. One: Rex Tillerson allegedly had "misgivings" about him, whether because of Bolton’s ostentatious hawkishness or because a newbie diplomat at the head of the Department might fear being outmaneuvered by an ambitious, experienced old hand beneath him. And two, more importantly: Deputy positions at cabinet agencies require Senate confirmation, and Bolton has always been viewed as tough to confirm. The left despises him and might well be able to scare centrist Dems into voting lockstep against him; Rand Paul also despises Bolton for his hawkishness and has vowed to oppose him. That leaves a paper-thin majority of 51 votes to confirm him assuming zero other defections among the Senate GOP. And plenty of other Republicans, starting with Bob Corker, are said to have "misgivings" about Bolton. He might be unconfirmable.

But that’s the virtue of the NSA idea. The national security advisor isn’t subject to Senate confirmation. Because he’s merely an advisor, he can be on the job tomorrow if Trump merely says the word. And lo and behold:
Posted by:Besoeker

#3  W "acted on the intelligence given him" and Bolton supported that objective but also knows full well the problems at Foggy Bottom and the UN. Who was responsible for that faulty intel, including the Five Eyes? I think Bolton would be an excellent advisor with a broad scope of vision. Anyone the vitriolic Left opposes, has automatic creds in my view.
Posted by: Whavish Thusoling5684   2017-02-19 11:13  

#2  Ambassador Bolton, to this day, maintains invading Iraq and sending Saddam to hell was morally just and strategically wise. President Trump, on the other hand, has repeatedly said the decision was "stupid" and even suggested Dubya "lied" about Iraqi WMD. Perhaps, a better fit for John in a DJT administration would be Rex's henchman over at Foggy Bottom.
Posted by: DepotGuy    2017-02-19 09:33  

#1  Oh God no.
Posted by: Herb McCoy7309   2017-02-19 01:34  

00:00