I don’t know how many of you have been following the impeachment trial of one Donald John Trump. I’ve watched some of the proceedings, and it has been at various times hilarious, painfully dull, and infuriating. It seems now, though, that it has come down once again to the question of whether or not to allow relevant witnesses to testify before the Senate; particularly former National Security Advisor John Bolton, whose forthcoming book has been strategically excerpted and propagated by anonymous reviewers in the White House. With respect to this, I find myself in rare agreement with Ezra Klein, who this week commented on how crazy it makes him that we’re all focusing on witnesses when we already know what the President did …. he said it himself. Whether or not you think that’s enough really just comes down to party affiliation.
Just a word about Bolton. This man is an ideologue and a warmonger. His views are so toxic regarding war and peace that he failed to win confirmation from a Republican Senate back in the 2000s. I don’t know him, but I believe he is neither a Trump acolyte or a never-Trumper. I think it’s likely that he merely saw in Trump an instrument of power – the belief that, though Trump, Bolton could climb higher than he had ever done before and push his policy agenda forward in a way that had been unthinkable previously. Over his brief tenure as NSA, he supported coups in Bolivia and (attempted) in Venezuela, helped carry us to the brink of war with Iran, derailed detente with North Korea, and quite a bit more. Quite a roster of grisly accomplishments in just a few months. Dream come true for that guy.
So to all of you center-leftists out there who may be singing the praises of John Bolton just lately, don’t forget – he is a walking disaster, book passages or no. His prescriptions for foreign policy would have us plunging into war again and again. It may be, though, that he doesn’t feel one way or the other for the President, thus his willingness to spill. What is obvious is that Bolton got himself hired by doing a little Trump dance on Fox News, then took up a position that allowed him to affect the course of American foreign policy in a meaningful way. That’s all he cares about. Trump can be damned, or not … it depends on what’s best for Bolton’s agenda.
Iowa Votes. Big week ahead, people, and I don’t mean impeachment. Barring disaster, I’ll do a post on the Iowa Caucuses. Stay tuned.
It’s hard for me to see how these calls for military action and pulling up the drawbridge aren’t simply appeals to cowardice. Seriously – the vast majority of the loudest hawks and anti-immigrant fanatics are also fierce defenders of an over-broad interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Given that many, many more Americans are killed by heavily armed family members, neighbors, or strangers than by terrorism, this is an almost astonishing level of hypocrisy. Even more disturbing is the ludicrous background assumption, expressed most consistently on Morning Joe and by career hawks like John McCain, that if we had simply invaded Syria in 2012, all would be sweetness and light in that sorry nation today. Is there any factual basis for that assumption? The question never arises.
I confess, this Bergdahl-as-a-traitor obsession is simply astounding. Didn’t think they would go there, but apparently they have. The man spent five years as a captive of the Taliban, is finally released, and the reactionary pundits (and some of the centrists, as well) have been roasting him and his family alive ever since. This is trial by media, and they keep stoking the flame higher and higher, trotting out retired colonels and former Army comrades of Bergdahl who paint this craven picture of the young man, none of it based on demonstrable fact. My reliably conservative neighbor came out of his house the other day spouting this line about Bergdahl being a “deserter”; pretty much parroting what’s being said on Fox News.