Bizarre, Military, Politics

Bolton Out: National Security Adviser Suggests Trump Is Lying About His Firing

President Donald Trump has tweeted that he has fired National Security Adviser John Bolton. Bolton however pointedly contradicted Trump and said that he resigned. What is clear is that another high-ranking Trump official is out — an astonishing turnover of such officials in a single Administration. However, few are likely to object on this one given the unpopularity of Bolton in Washington, which viewed him as someone who has long advocated the use of military interventions and wars. Update: President Trump responded by saying that Bolton was indeed fired and he did not resign as he has stated.

 Donald Trump said on Twitter that “I informed John Bolton last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House.” He added I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration, and therefore … I asked John for his resignation, which was given to me this morning. I thank John very much for his service. I will be naming a new National Security Advisor next week.”

However, Bolton fired back by saying on Twitter that he resigned and that Trump had not made up his mind last night.

John Bolton✔@AmbJohnBolton

I offered to resign last night and President Trump said, “Let’s talk about it tomorrow.”6,80412:10 PM – Sep 10, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy8,451 people are talking about this

Fox News host Brian Kilmeade also received a text contradicting Trump:

Oliver Darcy✔@oliverdarcy

“John Bolton just texted me,” @kilmeade says live on Fox News, where Bolton was a former contributor. “He said, ‘Let’s be clear, I resigned.'”17312:17 PM – Sep 10, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy144 people are talking about this

Trump was warned by many that Bolton was a poor choice for national security adviser given his past controversies and his hawkish views. He was also opposed based on what many said was a volcanic temper and poor interpersonal skills. The short-lived appointment again raises questions about Trump’s judgment in such selections and ongoing unprecedented turnover rate.

Despite opposition from some leading Republicans, Bolton was reportedly appointed at the urging of major financial back Sheldon Adelson.

162 thoughts on “Bolton Out: National Security Adviser Suggests Trump Is Lying About His Firing”

  1. “Amid the killings, international human rights NGO the Jubilee Campaign, which advocates for religious minorities across the world, has submitted research and data to the International Criminal Court, stating that the standards of genocide have been met in the northeastern Nigeria killings.

    The new report by the Jubilee Campaign released in July details at least 52 killings by the Fulani in the region between January and June 2019. At the same time, the Nigerian-based rights group the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law said more than 2,400 Christians were killed by herdsmen in 2018.”

    https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2019/08/27/deadly-violence-linked-to-fulani-herdsmen-take-toll-on-nigerian-christians/

  2. Dear federalist, I’d like to believe we’re the country that you read about. We’re not. The ruling class does what it damn pleases. Leone Helmsley once said, “Taxes are for the little people”. Evidently, so is our constitution.

        1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me twenty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – I am didactic, not pedantic. I let a lot of crap slip by. However, I am a stickler for correct citations.

      2. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me twenty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – takes one to know one, David. 😉

          1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me twenty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – I used to teach English and have an extensive vocabulary. I understand the definition of both words, do you?

    2. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me twenty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – prove anything there is a lie. BTW, that is an ad hominem attack.

    1. There are some things you have Authority to change by laws and some things you can’t! That’s why they are Principles! Basic principles cannot be changed, unless you change them by Constitutional Amendment, and some Principles were protected in a way that you cannot change them even by Federal Constitutional Amendment because of how they are interconnected to the State Constitution’s.

      If you want to know what they did, and how they protected these principles of republican Government, read Federalist #’s 52-58 for the House, #’s 62-66 for the Senate, and #’s 67-77 for the Executive!

      I won’t waste my time telling you what they did, I’ll leave it for you to read for yourself, since I’m sure you can read and comprehend the elucidations of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay who wrote the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights! Madison was known as the Father of the Constitution, I’m sure they should know what they did and why they did it!

  6. A federalist, if Trump can’t fire Bolton, how come he’s gone. One way or another, Trump uninvited him to the party!

  7. “Trump dropped Bolton over rumors the former national security advisor leaked one of the wildest stories of his presidency: sources”

    https://www.alternet.org/2019/09/trump-dropped-bolton-over-rumors-the-former-national-security-advisor-leaked-one-of-the-wildest-stories-of-his-presidency-sources/

    Excerpt:

    Bolton strongly disagreed with Trump’s desire to meet with Taliban leaders and his willingness to meet with Iran’s president, but three sources revealed that Trump was angry at Bolton for another reason, reported CBS News.

    Those sources, who were directly involved, said Trump was driven to distraction by his belief that Bolton or those close to him had leaked a story about the president asking whether nuclear weapons could be used against hurricanes.

    Axios reported last month that Trump had asked senior Homeland Security and national security officials multiple times to explore using nukes to stop hurricanes from hitting the U.S., and they stood behind their reporting after the president denied asking about it.

    “I got it. I got it. Why don’t we nuke them?” Trump asked, according to one source who was present. “They start forming off the coast of Africa, as they’re moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can’t we do that?”

    The White House official assured the president they would look into that, but sources said aides were astonished by Trump’s question.

    A National Security Council memo from 2017 shows that Trump asked about bombing hurricanes.

  8. These are 2 men, neither one likes to back down. But Trump is the boss. Bolton was the employee. Bolton losses.

    1. First, Trump isn’t the boss, the Union is! Second, Bolton wasn’t his employee, he also worked for the Union! Not only that he had no business in the White House because he didn’t get he consent of the Senate, which must concur on all appointments either directly, or by law for a position they create and give authority to the President, or executive department heads, to appointment without their concurrence, a privilege they can remove or change at will.

      And on top of all of that the President can’t fire anyone in government, only the House can do that with the concurrence of the Senate! Just like the President needs the advice and consent of the Senate to appoint, it takes their advice and consent to remove! The same is true of treaties!

      Wake up and try reading the constitution for yourself, instead of relying on interpretations of others who have an agenda and to profit from the misinterpretation for their own political advantage!

      1. “And on top of all of that the President can’t fire anyone in government, only the House can do that with the concurrence of the Senate! “
        *************
        Does it ever bother you that facts keep getting into the way of your childish delusions about law and political theory? You need a tattoo that warns the rest of us: “Often Wrong, Never in Doubt.” Bolton is surely fired. Today is surely Thursday. You surely have the intellectual grasp of a not-too-bright fifth grader.

      2. And on top of all of that the President can’t fire anyone in government, only the House can do that with the concurrence of the Senate! Just like the President needs the advice and consent of the Senate to appoint, it takes their advice and consent to remove!

        There was a wee controversy about that back in 1868. No, it wasn’t resolved to your satisfaction.

    2. The American public loses because both men were trying to do the best they could and the news media was trying to make trouble and spin the news.

  9. Big deal Professor Turley. Again you are spinning the story with the strong desire to call Trump a liar. Trump tells Bolton he no longer needs his services. Bolton says he will resign. That is the normal course of things. The choice in this case was Trump’s. Had the discussion not taken place Bolton wouldn’t have offered to resign.

    What is going on in your head? Hurricane story #1 of absolutely no importance, yet your focus was on lying and making a comparison of that type of opinion (attempting to call it a lie) with a horrid lie that regarded war and piece. Your dialogue doesn’t sound real except if one is used to grade C movies watched by mindless individuals.

    Now you engage in yet another trashy attempt to call Trump a liar while maintaining your credentials of being a fair and balanced intellectual though it is quite apparent that not only are’t you balanced but you are acting petty.

    It pains me to say these things to a man I deeply respect even in disagreement but enough is enough.

    1. Strong men can make a positive difference weaklings can cause wars.

      Bolton: “his handling of the United Nations in his 18 months here was based not on slogans and traditions but on recognition of stark realities. The UN, where diplomats and officials were aghast at the mere appearance of the disrupter in their midst, was better for Mr. Bolton’s presence.”

      “Most significant, Mr. Bolton’s team forced the UN to submit to an external probe into the Oil for Food program for Iraq. Led by former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, it yielded several volumes documenting vast corruption. Afterwards, the late Secretary General, Kofi Annan, said the UN should never again agree to such programs.”

      Trump May Come To Miss Bolton — As the UN Did
      By BENNY AVNI, Special to the Sun | September 11, 2019

      The chorus of hosannas sure-to-come from Washington in reaction to John Bolton’s departure from the White House reminds me of the sighs of relief at Turtle Bay in December 2006. That’s when the mustachioed American decided to leave the United Nations and forgo an uphill Senate confirmation battle to extend his recess appointment as ambassador to the world body.

      As now, the cheering then was misplaced. Just like Mr. Bolton’s approach to national security now, his handling of the United Nations in his 18 months here was based not on slogans and traditions but on recognition of stark realities. The UN, where diplomats and officials were aghast at the mere appearance of the disrupter in their midst, was better for Mr. Bolton’s presence.

      In one of his first press conferences, shortly after arriving at Turtle Bay in August 2005, Mr. Bolton laid down the law: America will veto any one-sided Security Council resolution on Israel. Proposals for such resolutions frequently arose before his arrival and gave ulcers to American diplomats that were much less blunt and more, er, diplomatic than Mr. Bolton. After that, anti-Israel initiatives at the Council started to wane, at least during his tenure.

      Mr. Bolton went out of his way to defend Israel. In the aftermath of its 2006 war against Hezbollah, diplomats debated a Security Council resolution that would end the hostilities and install a reinforced United Nations peacekeeping contingency in southern Lebanon. According to several Israeli sources, at one point Jerusalem was so eager to end the fighting that it agreed to a French-initiated resolution text.

      However, Mr. Bolton, a lawyer by trade, recognized several paragraphs in that text that could well harm the Jewish state’s security. He alerted Jerusalem to the peril and halted all negotiations in New York. The resolution was then amended on his insistence, and only then was approved with America’s — and Israel’s — blessing.

      Mr. Bolton was far from the first American ambassador defending Israel at the UN. Daniel Patrick Moynihan fought against the tag of Zionism as racism and Nikki Haley masterfully presented a compelling case on Israel’s behalf. Mr. Bolton, though, was not only a hawk fighting for the interests of America and its allies. He was also an adept fighter inside Turtle Bay’s bureaucracy .

      Which brings me to Mr. Bolton’s most important, but rarely acknowledged, contribution to the UN — confronting the Oil for Food shenanigans. That mushroomed into a full-blown scandal (at times due to strategic press leaking from an American team here that under Mr. Bolton was the most press-friendly in memory.)

      Most significant, Mr. Bolton’s team forced the UN to submit to an external probe into the Oil for Food program for Iraq. Led by former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, it yielded several volumes documenting vast corruption. Afterwards, the late Secretary General, Kofi Annan, said the UN should never again agree to such programs.

      The UN was then pushed to assemble a team looking into the heavily corrupt procurement department, followed by several indictments in United States federal court. Under pressure, Turtle Bay’s senior officials were also forced to fill out financial statements annually, to assure no conflicts of interest — a measure undertaken in any modern democracy, but one that was resisted at the UN.

      Through all this, Mr. Bolton rarely used the word “reform,” which is cavalierly thrown around Turtle Bay every time something untoward happens. Pie-in-the-sky reform schemes perennially dominate UN talk — like enlarging the Security Council, and specifically its permanent seats, to make it more reflective of the world today than the way it was when the UN was established in the aftermath of World War II.

      It will never fly. The permanent members need to approve it and, since it’s bound to usurp the five countries’ power, they never will. It also is not advisable. The 15-member council can barely arrive at significant decisions as is, so how will it do anything if it became, say, a 25-member council?

      I once suggested to Mr. Bolton the idea of shrinking the council’s membership to make it seven seats for five rotating members, and two permanent ones: China and America. Good idea, Mr. Bolton said with a wily smile, adding that instead we should have only one permanent member with veto power.

      I didn’t need to ask which one.

      A true American patriot, Bolton never shied from a good UN food fight, as suggested by the title of his book on that era, “Surrender Is Not An Option.” Historians will forever debate whether his battles truly benefited America and its allies, although I have no doubt they did.

      Few observes noticed how, by seeing the UN as it is rather than as it aspired to be, Mr. Bolton benefited the world body itself. It was forced to significantly change some of its bad old ways in the mid-2000s, and became a tad better. No doubt we will find out that President Trump’s White House similarly benefitted from his presence as well.

      1. It’s indicative of how useless the Republican Senate caucus was in 2005 that the opposition could block his appointment.

      2. Per the US Constitution, the USA owes Israel exactly sum total nothing. Stop the incessant brain washing to trick Americans into thinking the USA owes something/anything to Israel, because it does not.

        If the USA owes security to any people, than it owes freedom and liberation to the people who live under the Al Saud Krime Syndikat (Saudi Arabia), the most evil and blood thirsty military dictatorship on planet earth. SA has more “judicial” beheadings than ISIS. Its list of human rights violations is long and ever growing. But again, we don’t “owe” freedom to anyone. It’s not in the Constitution or anywhere.

        Every single US-led or assisted ME regime change has only made life worse for the world, including the USA.

        Are you pleased that Hillary killing Ghadaffi resulted in open slave trading in Tripoli? HRC assassinated Ghadaffi for his mortal sin of attempting to unite all African nations under one currency, to better deal with Western and Asian banking influence in Africa, the largest store of untapped wealth on earth.

        Video of Bolton promising American regime change in Iran, FF to 6:20: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=392&v=-c0jMsspE7Y

        The real reason Trump rightly fired Bolton: https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/oil-prices-plunge-after-trump-iran-sanctions-headlines

        1. “Per the US Constitution, the USA owes Israel exactly sum total nothing.”

          Trohar, I said nothing of that nature th.at anything but a foaming anti-Semite would interpret in my comments above. The US acts for its own people. The US correctly maintains good relationships with Israel and Israel with the US. Your ranting takes you into a dark place that I prefer to stay away from

          1. Well, thanks for agreeing with my post above. Readers take note you do not contest anything I typed.

            And what a bunch of hooie denying that most of your post is an Israel first diatribe, which it is.

            What pray tell, is so “dark” about claiming the truth that Israel can and should stand on it’s own? Only in the minds of Israel firsters is it against reason to desire to debate the merits of the USA’s relationship to certain countries, including Israel.

            Typical and 100000% predictable response from Israeli firsters like yourself: state the obvious fact that the US owes Israel (and every other nation) nothing, and be labeled the tired, useless, meaningless epithet “anti Semite.” Definition: “Not someone who hates Jews, but rather someone hated by certain Jews.”

            Anyone who desires Americans not to die in endless ME wars and give all their money to one of the richest nations on earth is to Israeli firsters an “ANTI-SEMITE.” Such persons like yourself are of then of course, by definition, “ANTI-GENTILE,” ANTI-GOYIM.”

            Just give it up already!

            1. “Well, thanks for agreeing with my post above.”

              Trohar, I agreed only to the part I copied and that involved the Constitution. The rest I didn’t bother to look at carefully since I freqeuntly don’t bother to read the junk you write. You are what you appear to be.

              This posting of yours represents your reading comprehension skill set so nothing you write or read can be depended on.

              As far as where my allegiance lies it is to the United States which exists in a very violent world. As far as being “” ANTI-GOYIM.” I have posted many times about the killing and the injustice to the Christians in the middle east. Western culture is being attacked.

              I am not sure if I already posted the following or not, but I will do so now for you to read.

              1. Christians Massacred, Media Look the Other Way
                by Giulio Meotti
                September 8, 2019 at 5:00 am

                “In the same week as the awful attack on the mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand… more than two hundred Christians were killed in Nigeria. There was hardly any mention of the latter in the news. There were no marches for martyred Christians, no tolling of church bells ordered by governments, no ‘Je suis Charlie’ t-shirts… no public outrage at all.” — Fr. Benedict Kiely, Crisis Magazine, September 4, 2019

                NASA’s satellites observed the Amazon fires, prompting world leaders to pledge to protect the rainforest. But the burning, chopping and murder of Christians is not tracked by satellites and their suffering is not seen on our televisions and newspapers. Actually, it seems in the West as if the persecution of Christians does not even exist.

                The Vatican and Pope Francis have a choice: to shed light on these persecuted Christians or be accused of willful blindness…. The Vatican should dedicate the next synod to them.

                cont: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14827/christians-massacred-media-ignore

                  1. Take note how the rabid barking dog always engages in character assassination and almost never engages in thinking. Every conservative think tank is accused of false or inaccurate information but anyone that goes to Wikipedia and actually reads the footnoted material can see this is total slime.

                    The first footnoe was taken from NBC because they were busy sliming Bolton in 2018 after being appointed by Trump to head the NSA. A totally political article was used to back up a fallacious statement. What anonymous calls false and innacurate at best is a difference of opinion.

                    Of course a more factual example of lying is the Russia Hoax engaged in by The New York Times and the Washington Post. In this example one isn’t looking at slime or a difference in opinion rather one is looking at sworn testimony. e-mails and all sorts of documents.

                    Kind of makes one recognize that anonymous is not someome to be trusted and doesn’t have the ability to think things through.

                    1. Well, I’ll try this again since it seems the WordPress monster ate my first attempt…

                      “Amid the killings, international human rights NGO the Jubilee Campaign, which advocates for religious minorities across the world, has submitted research and data to the International Criminal Court, stating that the standards of genocide have been met in the northeastern Nigeria killings.

                      The new report by the Jubilee Campaign released in July details at least 52 killings by the Fulani in the region between January and June 2019. At the same time, the Nigerian-based rights group the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law said more than 2,400 Christians were killed by herdsmen in 2018.”

                      https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2019/08/27/deadly-violence-linked-to-fulani-herdsmen-take-toll-on-nigerian-christians/

                    2. Prairie, there are slaughters all over the world as you and I know but few seem to care. There were slaughters of the Yazidi’s in the middle east and no one seemed to care. Let’s not forget the Biafrans and all the other tribal genocide in Africa and no one seems to care. There are slaughters in our inner cities run by leftists and the leftists don’t care. That tells us something about what happens when ideology becomes one’s religion.

      3. Do you deny that Bolton and William Kristol (son of a Bolshevik) are two of the prime rooters and supporters of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, renown as two of the all time worst foreign policy blunders in US history?

        Do you deny that Al Qaeda is stronger now than it was on 9-11? Do you deny that the US killing Saddam directly correlates to the rise of ISIS, and Iran growing in power by eliminating Iran’s worst military enemy in the area? Is Iraq more or less stable now since the US beheaded Saddam?

        Do you deny Bolton desired US military excursion in Iran for regime change? Do you approve of such excursion? Is Syria of any consequence to US security? Is the ME better of or worse since our military excursion in Syria?

        Do you defend the US being in bed with the Al Saud Krime Syndikat running Saudi Arabia? What was the overall benefit to the US from the US military occupying Mecca and Medina, the two most holy of all Islamic Holy Lands on earth?

        How the hell does anyone with a brain in their head defend, after more than a C of death, bloodshed, failure, and human suffering and misery, Woodrow Wilson’s philosophy that it’s the USA’s job to spread democracy around the world to make the world a better place?

        1. “Do you deny that Bolton and William Kristol”

          I don’t like William Kristol and though I am not linked to Bolton philisophically it is always good to get ideas from a knowledgeable person even when one might act in a different fashion. Trump seems to like diverse ideas. I am sorry to see Bolton go because his precense indicates a potential way the US could go. There is no stronger defense than a good offense, but you can keep rebuilding your Maginot Line.

          I would answer your questions but your lack of understanding of the complexity of foreign affairs makes it near impossible. Read Thucydides on the Peloponesian War so you can see how complex these ideas actually are. Then you might temper your tone which is that of an hysterical 2 year old.

          1. Allan said: “Read Thucydides on the Peloponesian War so you can see how complex these ideas actually are.”

            That’s a knee-slapper coming from Allan.

            1. “That’s a knee-slapper coming from Allan.”

              That statement demonstrates that whatever education you paid for was a waste of money.

                  1. Allan – I have been slowly going through the classics I missed and reading them. Some are a slog, though. And just for Benson’s information, Weart is not on the list.

                    1. Paul, the ignorance being displayed by the anonymous creatures on the list is incredible. They were born brain dead.

                  1. Prairie Rose – every women should read them as well. Although there are a couple that are iffy. I finally got around to reading Lesbos’ poetry and it both erotic and very good. She also seems to have been straight as a rail. 😉 Right now I am reading The Satyricon, in which no one is straight and one poor servant is continually sexually abused. It is a satire, btw.

                    1. Paul,
                      “every women should read them as well.”

                      Absolutely. But there is no Art of Womanliness quite as good, so I go with what’s good. Generally, the podcast/website seems to be about the art of being a good person. Lots of great stuff on there. The podcast on Bruce Lee was excellent, as was the greatest tank battle.

                      I have not read either of those works; they will have to be added to my very long book list. I have been reading The End of Education by Neil Postman, which, while not Classical, it definitely advocates for an education that includes the Western Canon.

                      I really enjoy Tully, as John Adams called Cicero. I think all middle or high school students ought to read ‘On Friendship’.

                      “Although there are a couple that are iffy.”

                      Which ones do you think are iffy? There is only so much time, so I’d want to steer towards those that are actually worth it.

                    2. Prairie Rose – some should be read just to be part of your knowledge base, however, The Satyricon is NSFW. A lot of them can be download for free from Gutenberg.

    2. The moderator is a faculty member and faculty members are other-directed people. Trump doesn’t have much of a filter, which has an ambivalent effect on public discourse. The professor reacts viscerally to anything that breaks with convention without acknowledging that a great many of our political conventions in this country are stupid and fairly novel. You want to be cautious about removing Chesterton’s fence. Respecting a long menu of p’s and q’s invented by liberals out of their ass 30 years ago is something the GOP Capitol Hill nexus does but with which Trump and a few others (e.g. Steve King) cannot be bothered. If Trump can destroy these conventions, it’s to the good, but it gets under the professor’s skin.

      Another of the professor’s baselines is the absolute discretion of the bar, the judiciary especially. To the extent Trump can break them, we benefit.

      1. You want to be cautious about removing Chesterton’s fence.

        DSS,
        Thank you for that reference. I had not heard of it before, even as I learned TQM. It reminds me of Milton Friedman’s quote: Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. They tend to erect a lot of fences without taking any down, to the point that everything seems to be a maze of bureaucracy designed to find a way around the one fence that should be a wall…the constitution.

          1. It’s in the morning’s talking points. He couldn’t figure out where else to deploy it.

          2. ” Respecting a long menu of p’s and q’s invented by liberals out of their ass 30 years ago …”

            1. Thanks. plot is the word that threw me off; especially when connected with the words liberal and decency. I believe liberals can be decent people, but not when they are plotting anything. Kavanaugh hearings, Russiagate, selling aborted baby body parts, shutting down speech, Obamacare, etc.

          3. Some people have little to say so they conjure up wothless complaints just to feel important and be noticed

              1. I note the smiley face. You are not in danger of being eaten for dinner next Thanksgiving like some of these turkeys are.

      3. If Trump can destroy these conventions, it’s to the good, but it gets under the professor’s skin.

        It would be interesting to know if the conventions he could destroy are in foreign policy. This is a good article on the subject and I believe Trump the businessman would view the opportunity costs of our foreign interventions to be a boat anchor on us domestically. I wouldn’t be surprised to discover this is where he and Bolton parted ways.

        It’s clear that our reckless, bipartisan foreign policy has created more problems than it’s solved. While it’s easy to see how much we’re spending over there, it’s harder to see what we could be doing with all of those resources if we weren’t creating more problems abroad. We need to transform the way we think about our foreign policy and take Bastiat’s cue to try to “see the unseen.”

        https://mises.org/wire/broken-windows-america%E2%80%99s-foreign-policy?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=b2531e3f9a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-b2531e3f9a-228626821

      4. TIA:
        “If Trump can destroy these conventions, it’s to the good, but it gets under the professor’s skin.“
        **************
        Those conventions, like Chesteron’s mysterious fence, do have some utilities often not readily apparent. To that extent, they are social lubricants which can clog the machine of getting something done as Trump daily demonstrates. They need an overhaul not a dismantling. JT, like most lawyers, adheres to de Tocqueville’s classic assessment of the legal profession: “lawyers belong to the people by birth and interest, and to the aristocracy by habit and taste; they may be looked upon as the connecting link between the two great classes of society.” Some of us embody more the former, some the latter but in every case we are cautious and conservative by design. Those conventions have much to admire when things are going swimmingly but less so when they aren’t. Perhaps it’s why the Romans coined the pragmatic: “Inter arma enim silent leges.”

    3. Allan,
      I agree with your assessment and it reminded me of something I noticed a while back. Take notice of JT’s style in posts such as this and those when he is writing for publication elsewhere, like The Hill. When he is writing purely for this blog, he seems far less objective and more likely to reflect an emotional argument.

  10. OMG!!! Breaking news!!! AP 9:57 EST – Trumps may ask Marianne Williamson to join his National Security Team!!! President Trump shocked the world when he said that he was considering asking the well-known anti-war advocate to join his team!

    I can not believe this! Kim whats-his-name will eat her for lunch!!!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky:
      You said it yourself: You can never have enough crazies on your foreign affairs team. Keeps the other guy off balance. I’m anxiously awaiting Maryanne’s Vulcan mind-meld with Putin.

      1. Holy Crap! I was just contacted by Marianne Williamson’s attorney who is threatening me with a defamation suit! Therefore:

        “Earlier tonight I made an error in judgment by reporting an item about the president’s National Security Team and Marianne Williamson that didn’t go through my rigorous verification and standards process. I shouldn’t have reported it and I was wrong to discuss it on this blog. I will address the issue on some later date.”

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        2. Squeeky – I cannot believe your crack investigative team failed. Parody doesn’t count?

    2. Squeeky, under normal conditions your joke might rate a weak laugh. But sadly Kim is stringing Trump along. Or Trump doesn’t care. Either way it looks unseemly. It’s like Trump has a natural affinity for strongman bullies.

      So jokes about Marianne Williamson are ‘esoteric’ to put it politely.

  11. “However, Bolton fired back by saying on Twitter that he resigned and that Trump had not made up his mind last night.”

    Neither of these statements is accurate. Bolton didn’t say that he resigned; he said that he offered to resign. Trump could have rejected the offer, and Bolton could have stayed on the job. And Bolton didn’t say that Trump had not made up his mind. He said that Trump said, “Let’s talk about it tomorrow.” Trump could have made up his mind, but didn’t tell Bolton because Trump wanted to pretend that he fired Bolton without Bolton’s having offered to resign.

Comments are closed.