Bolton
-
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.
-
Remind me... Has Trump pulled the security clearance of everybody in his previous administration that criticized him?
-
Here we’re talking about secret service protection
-
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.
-
So what’s the alternative theory? They kept Bolton’s protection because he vocally pissed on Trump and they kept Pompeo’s and Esper’s and Hook’s because????
-
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).
-
I suspect there is some sort of back story with O'Brien which made Biden's handlers drop him. Having worked for Trump in some capacity is not enough, if that's the point of your comparisons with Pompeo et al.
Again, you have to live in a world where the intelligence services are able to 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". So, just to be clear, that's the world you live in, right?
