Bolton
-
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?
-
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)
When you shake someone's deep sense of self-worth, leaving a scar in their ego, they will persistently try to diminish you through petty arguments & obsessive captious criticism of your actions, just to soothe the wound.
- Nassim Nicholas Taleb
-
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.
When you shake someone's deep sense of self-worth, leaving a scar in their ego, they will persistently try to diminish you through petty arguments & obsessive captious criticism of your actions, just to soothe the wound.
- Nassim Nicholas Taleb
-
@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.
-
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.
When you shake someone's deep sense of self-worth, leaving a scar in their ego, they will persistently try to diminish you through petty arguments & obsessive captious criticism of your actions, just to soothe the wound.
- Nassim Nicholas Taleb
-
-
@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.
-
I believe the discussion was about O'Brien and the fact that Biden's handlers rescinded his. Your "totality of evidence" claim indicates that that was because of "threat assessment". Because to admit that politics might have played a role, would weaken the rhetorical punch of "spiteful Trump".
-
It’s conceivable there’s some non-obvious back story between O’Brien and Biden that caused Biden to finally reject an extension after granting it at least twice (I’m not clear on the timeline). But the continued protection of other officials rather weakens the case that Bolton got it for hating on the fat man.
-
I've read reports that there was internal pressure on the Biden admin to continue O'Brien's. They didn't.
It's difficult to imagine intelligence agencies being able to be so specific that they can say "that guy, that guy right there, he's received death threats from Iran, but we're sure they're not after him now. Let's save 6 million and not give him protection next year". But I know, that's the world you have to live in for your "totality of evidence" theory to hold.
-
It’s like you missed my last post. Let me repeat it.
It’s conceivable there’s some non-obvious back story between O’Brien and Biden that caused Biden to finally reject an extension after granting it at least twice (I’m not clear on the timeline). But the continued protection of other officials rather weakens the case that Bolton got it for hating on the fat man.
-
"Bolton got protection for hating on the fat man" has never been a central claim of mine. I was responding to your ridiculous notion that the Biden admin should have been expected to have antipathy for Bolton, but kept his SS, which proves they are objective and fair. It proves nothing of the sort. The Biden admin absolutely should have been expected to value Bolton's life very highly.
-
And how about Mike Espers? And Pompeo? And Hook? You have yet to acknowledge what their inclusion in the list does to your overall argument, to the extent that you have one. (Of course I get that nipping at my heels is the point and you don’t necessarily have an argument).
