Tag Archives: John Bolton

Political Rants

Truth and ideology.

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.

Political Rants

The line up.

Bolton’s gone. We survived Bolton. That’s something to celebrate, at least. When Trump hired him, I honestly didn’t see how we would avoid a precipitous war with Iran, but thus far it hasn’t happened and now Johnny Mustache has died and gone to Fox. Good riddance.

Now that I’ve got THAT out of my system, just a head’s up that I’m going to do another debate night notebook this week. The major Democratic presidential candidates will all be on one stage this time around, and I’ll be tapping random stuff into my tablet as they spar. It’s either going to be really interesting or the usual bland corporate show we’ve gotten previously. Really a much stronger chance of the latter, but we’ll see.

First comment: What the hell corporate network is this debate on? This is the problem with this model of campaign debates. They become proprietary content, and as such, none of the other networks will talk about the details until the program’s over.

Next, health care. This exchange reveals what tremendous douchebags the so-called moderates are.  They roll out the same tired conservative arguments about people loving their health insurance. I can tell you, I’ve had what was described as a “cadillac” plan, and it was no great shakes. Why anyone would love their policy is beyond me. All I can say about the centrist plans is this: a public option is going to end up being an insurer of last resort, which is essentially what we have now. The only justification for it is preservation of profit.

Still too many ... but better.

Forty eight minutes in, I would say that Harris is doing herself some good. Bernie sounds hoarse, unfortunately – probably a lot of rallies. I haven’t heard a lot of Warren in the last half hour, which is annoying. Booker has gotten a few good comments in.

Lots of praise for Beto on stage for his time with victims in El Paso. Kind of a competition. O’Rourke gave a good speech on assault weapons, credit where credit is due.

Bernie and Warren have their hands up. Finally, another question for Warren, more than an hour in. Both she and Bernie make impassioned arguments against gun violence from a systemic perspective.

Some short takes:

  • Andrew Yang on immigration: “The water’s great.” What
  • Someone should elect Mayor Pete the next Bayer aspirin man.
  • Beto is speaking Spanish again. He’s makes some sense on immigration.

First foreign policy question is a trade question: tariffs on China. They seem to be attacking Trump more this time around. Warren is asked about trade policy, and she tilts against corporations. Good answer. Bernie takes a shot at both Biden and Trump on trade. Booker takes a shot at Trudeau’s hair. Harris makes a short joke to Stefanopolis. Warren argues for leaving Afghanistan, pretty eloquently. Mayor Pete argues for a 3 year sunset on every AUMF. Booker talks about veterans.

Bernie swats back a cheap shot about socialism and Venezuela. Climate change question: Warren gets specific and concise. Yang asked about education, gets some cheers. (Still no tie. Good on him for that.) Warren talks about universal pre-K.

Bernie makes an argument for more investment in education, debt cancellation via a tax on Wall Street speculation. Biden grinds out a response, muddled as hell.

Where was climate change? In the margins … again. I’ll post more on the reactions next week.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Iraq 3.0.

Despite the occasional bleat that no one wants war and that we are not seeking conflict in the Gulf, the United States continues to move closer and closer to some kind of clash with Iran. Administration officials are blaming the Iranian government for attacks against tankers owned by nations who still do business with Iran, citing non-existent evidence of sabotage by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – evidence contradicted by the owners of the Japanese ship that was attacked. Right wing blowhards like Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas are advocating for strikes against Iran, and this is treated as a serious policy proposal. Various spokespeople for the administration’s ever-emerging policy even raised the possibility of the U.S. providing naval escorts for commercial ships in the Gulf, modeling it on the tanker war phase of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

Who says I'm blowing smoke out of my ass? It's the ship, damn it, the ship!

This last bit fascinated me. It’s so unusual for our leaders to even mention the Iran-Iraq war, I suspect largely because we had a dog in that fight … and the dog was named Saddam Hussein. (Also, one of the ships we sent to the Gulf on that particular mission was the U.S.S. Vincennes, which on July 3, 1988 shot down Iran Air flight 655, killing all 290 passengers on board, 60 of whom were children.) If this is the mark of a successful policy to be imitated, god help us. Few Americans will recall that Saddam Hussein started that war, in 1980, using chemical weapons liberally against the Iranians – weapons whose primary components were purchased from (West) Germany, I believe. One of the principal outcomes of the Iran-Iraq war was the invasion of Kuwait, subsequent Gulf War, then the 12-year strangulation and ultimate invasion of Iraq by the U.S.

This is to say that war can sometimes sound a lot simpler than it actually turns out to be. People like Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, of course, are driven by ideology and really don’t care if their war with Iran turns out to be a disaster. But aside from the very crucial questions of whether the policy is right or legal, I think it’s fair to say that this administration’s deliberate push from functional diplomacy to the brink of armed conflict is reckless and potentially catastrophic, given the current state of international affairs. We are desperately in need of action on the ensuing climate crisis, and these nutjobs are driving us into another pointless war, damn the consequences.

I strongly suggest you contact your congressional representatives and urge them to oppose this policy. The switchboard is 202-224-3121. You may also want to use the Stance app, which is very easy to use when phoning your house member and senators. Right now, it’s our best chance at heading off this madness.

luv u,

jp