Bolton
-
My mistake was a case of ChatGPt disinformation.
Yes, bad Biden, bad. I wonder if they ever explained why.
Point being, this is not Trump being Trump and omg what will we do. This is normal politics, and it is not fair to frame it any other way.
Might be a reasonable argument had he not given protection to Bolton, who made a living on fox news calling him and Obama idiots for a decade.
That’s why I asked if he ever gave a reason.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
President Trump is very vindictive. It is pretty obvious that the removal of secret service and remove of security clearance for Sec. Bolton was due to his dislike of him.
President Trump currently controls the "sandbox" and if he doesn't want a certain person to be in the sandbox, it is his right to kick them out, weather it makes sense or not.
@taiwan_girl said in Bolton:
President Trump is very vindictive. It is pretty obvious that the removal of secret service and remove of security clearance for Sec. Bolton was due to his dislike of him.
President Trump currently controls the "sandbox" and if he doesn't want a certain person to be in the sandbox, it is his right to kick them out, weather it makes sense or not.
I think Pelosi has been one of the most powerful Speakers in the last 25 years. Perhaps the most powerful.
You want vindictive? Look up the word in the dictionary and you'll see her picture.
-
My mistake was a case of ChatGPt disinformation.
Yes, bad Biden, bad. I wonder if they ever explained why.
Point being, this is not Trump being Trump and omg what will we do. This is normal politics, and it is not fair to frame it any other way.
Might be a reasonable argument had he not given protection to Bolton, who made a living on fox news calling him and Obama idiots for a decade.
That’s why I asked if he ever gave a reason.
My mistake was a case of ChatGPt disinformation.
Yes, bad Biden, bad. I wonder if they ever explained why.
Point being, this is not Trump being Trump and omg what will we do. This is normal politics, and it is not fair to frame it any other way.
Might be a reasonable argument had he not given protection to Bolton, who made a living on fox news calling him and Obama idiots for a decade.
That’s why I asked if he ever gave a reason.
I guess we'll never know, but let's give Biden (or his handlers) the benefit of the doubt that his personal feelings about a Trumpian political operative played no role.
You can go ahead and land there, in that comfy position, content that you'll never hear any reason. Because you won't.
-
Or we can assume he holds no grudge against Bolton, whom all of us have heard excoriating him and Obama on national television, but detests this guy O’Brien, whom no one here could have named yesterday.
-
Or we can assume he holds no grudge against Bolton, whom all of us have heard excoriating him and Obama on national television, but detests this guy O’Brien, whom no one here could have named yesterday.
Or we can assume he holds no grudge against Bolton, whom all of us have heard excoriating him and Obama on national television, but detests this guy O’Brien, whom no one here could have named yesterday.
Bolton was an outspoken, famous never-Trumper throughout Biden's term. An important ally against the most important enemy. You know that. But it's all about what Bolton said on Fox 15 years ago. You think I am disgusted by you because of your sig. I'm disgusted by you because you're disingenuous, every day here.
-
It’s true that Bolton warned against Trump, like the vast majority of Trump’s cabinet level picks. But that doesn’t change the fact that he was highly critical of Biden with respect to Afghanistan, Iran, and Israeli conduct of the current war. I mentioned the Obama administration only to point out that he’s been critical for decades, not months.
-
It’s true that Bolton warned against Trump, like the vast majority of Trump’s cabinet level picks. But that doesn’t change the fact that he was highly critical of Biden with respect to Afghanistan, Iran, and Israeli conduct of the current war. I mentioned the Obama administration only to point out that he’s been critical for decades, not months.
It’s true that Bolton warned against Trump, like the vast majority of Trump’s cabinet level picks. But that doesn’t change the fact that he was highly critical of Biden with respect to Afghanistan, Iran, and Israeli conduct of the current war. I mentioned the Obama administration only to point out that he’s been critical for decades, not months.
And the fact that he's among the most credible and effective never-Trump allies the Biden admin had against enemy #1, he even wrote a book, do you suppose, jon, that that might override what Bolton said, in what I am sure were civil political disagreements, on Fox, or maybe WSJ op eds? Do you suppose that would provide reasonable motivation for Biden and his handlers to consider him an ally?
Education is extremely important.
-
An ally? No.
We’re they appreciative of the majority of Trump’s cabinet picks who came to view him as a dangerous self-interested tool and communicated that to the world? Sure. But how many of the others got secret service protection? McMaster? Milley? I don’t think so (to be fair I didn’t check)
-
An ally? No.
We’re they appreciative of the majority of Trump’s cabinet picks who came to view him as a dangerous self-interested tool and communicated that to the world? Sure. But how many of the others got secret service protection? McMaster? Milley? I don’t think so (to be fair I didn’t check)
An ally? No.
We’re they appreciative of the majority of Trump’s cabinet picks who came to view him as a dangerous self-interested tool and communicated that to the world? Sure. But how many of the others got secret service protection? McMaster? Milley? I don’t think so (to be fair I didn’t check)
So Biden's handlers would not have been motivated to consider Bolton a friendly, the maybe most effective and outspoken never-Trumper in the country. Who likely told them he was writing a book. A friendly to the extent that they'd do him the favor of extending him SS protection, based on other factors such as the Iran threats, which we've already discussed, and which you know didn't exist for the rest of the cabinet. Yet you still play the "but why not the rest of the anti-Trump cabinet?" card.
This discussion is gross, as are all discussions where you're wrong and can't admit it (which is to say all discussions where you're wrong), but I'm morbidly fascinated by it.
-
Well a guy that goes on tv and criticizes you isn’t really a friendly. The book was published while Trump was still in office, by the way.
Remind what it is I’m wrong about? You’ve agreed Trump’s pulling of his protection was motivated by spite. I’ve agreed the administration welcomed negative comments about Trump from Bolton and the vast majority of others who worked in his orbit. I just don’t think being one of that group was enough to get you secret service protection. I really think the administration took the specific threat to him seriously. They even issued an arrest warrant for an Iranian national who tried to hire a hit man for both him and Mike Pompeo in 2022.
Pompeo and his aide Brian Hook still receive protection. Neither wrote any books but they were heavily involved in the assassination of Soleimani. Also CBS tells me Biden initially extended O’Brien’s protection along with others from the Trump administration. If they later dropped O’Brien but kept Hook, SoS Pompeo, SecDef Espers, etc it seems like this was based on threat analysis not partisan affiliation.
-
Well a guy that goes on tv and criticizes you isn’t really a friendly. The book was published while Trump was still in office, by the way.
Remind what it is I’m wrong about? You’ve agreed Trump’s pulling of his protection was motivated by spite. I’ve agreed the administration welcomed negative comments about Trump from Bolton and the vast majority of others who worked in his orbit. I just don’t think being one of that group was enough to get you secret service protection. I really think the administration took the specific threat to him seriously. They even issued an arrest warrant for an Iranian national who tried to hire a hit man for both him and Mike Pompeo in 2022.
Pompeo and his aide Brian Hook still receive protection. Neither wrote any books but they were heavily involved in the assassination of Soleimani. Also CBS tells me Biden initially extended O’Brien’s protection along with others from the Trump administration. If they later dropped O’Brien but kept Hook, SoS Pompeo, SecDef Espers, etc it seems like this was based on threat analysis not partisan affiliation.
@jon-nyc You're wrong two sentences up from where you ask me what you're wrong about. The categorical claim that anybody who's gone on TV and criticizes an admin will be locked out of "friendly" status forever, even if that same person, in the future, makes moves to forcefully and credibly damage your most important opponent. Not even that could cause that admin to consider you an important asset for their cause. A friendly. Because you went on TV and criticized them in the past. That's what you're wrong about.
You’ve agreed Trump’s pulling of his protection was motivated by spite.
What I actually said was that if Bolton had been in Trump's good graces, Trump would have extended him. As it was, Trump did a reasonable thing, which was to remove the detail.
-
He never granted it to begin with. Biden was the one who initially granted it when he extended that of others in the first Trump admin.
And Bolton’s criticisms of the administration continued into late 2024.
But I’ll stand by that. Liz Cheney was a friendly ally. Bolton was a perennial critic who criticized Trump.
-
Ok. You can continue to believe that Bolton's prominent status as one of the most effective and vocal and credible Trump critics, would not be enough to counterbalance his civil disagreements with the Biden administration. Those civil disagreements would dominate the perspective of said admin, who would consider him an unfriendly, even as that unfriendly was a champion in the war against the reputation of their opponent in the upcoming election.
I'm happy to end the discussion there, thank you.
Education is extremely important.
-
Ok. You can continue to believe that Bolton's prominent status as one of the most effective and vocal and credible Trump critics, would not be enough to counterbalance his civil disagreements with the Biden administration. Those civil disagreements would dominate the perspective of said admin, who would consider him an unfriendly, even as that unfriendly was a champion in the war against the reputation of their opponent in the upcoming election.
I'm happy to end the discussion there, thank you.
I'm happy to end the discussion there, thank you.
I’m not quite yet. You can look at the totality of Bidens actions via a vis maintaining, or not maintaining, SS protections and decide that Bolton must have kept his because he wrote a book critical of Trump. In my case it seems obvious given the totality of information that it was more likely based on threat levels.
You could also look at Trumps behavior similarly and decide it was driven by threat level assessment. I think his refusal to grant Bolton protection back in 2020 gives the lie to that.
Here I’m happy to end it.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
It’s true that Bolton warned against Trump, like the vast majority of Trump’s cabinet level picks. But that doesn’t change the fact that he was highly critical of Biden with respect to Afghanistan, Iran, and Israeli conduct of the current war. I mentioned the Obama administration only to point out that he’s been critical for decades, not months.
And the fact that he's among the most credible and effective never-Trump allies the Biden admin had against enemy #1, he even wrote a book, do you suppose, jon, that that might override what Bolton said, in what I am sure were civil political disagreements, on Fox, or maybe WSJ op eds? Do you suppose that would provide reasonable motivation for Biden and his handlers to consider him an ally?
-
I'm happy to end the discussion there, thank you.
I’m not quite yet. You can look at the totality of Bidens actions via a vis maintaining, or not maintaining, SS protections and decide that Bolton must have kept his because he wrote a book critical of Trump. In my case it seems obvious given the totality of information that it was more likely based on threat levels.
You could also look at Trumps behavior similarly and decide it was driven by threat level assessment. I think his refusal to grant Bolton protection back in 2020 gives the lie to that.
Here I’m happy to end it.
@jon-nyc I'm happy you were able to confirm your priors, without resorting to the most ridiculous idea presented in this thread - that the Biden admin shouldn't have seen value in protecting a champion of the war against Trump's reputation. You should have hand waved a "totality of evidence" motte to begin with, it would have been faster. It's non-disprovable, so it's safe.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Bolton:
Do you suppose that would provide reasonable motivation for Biden and his handlers to consider him an ally?
I think to some extent, yes. The "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing.
Yeah it's sort of obvious. Jon has abandoned his stance on this though, to the relief of anybody who cherishes real discussion and who might have just had lunch.
