"The incoming national security advisor aims to ax dozens of White House officials as he dismantles McMaster’s NSC."
| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| John Bolton will finally let Donald Trump be Donald Trump on foreign policy |
| 2018-03-24 |
| h/t Instapundit Will newly appointed National Security Adviser John Bolton help feed Donald Trump’s foreign policy instincts? Let’s hope so. The established narrative from the president’s critics has been that President Trump lacks the knowledge, experience and temperament to successfully manage America’s national security affairs. By this reasoning he had to be surrounded by an "axis of adults" to restrain his impulsiveness, lest the U.S. blunder into global conflict based on a stray Tweet or sudden tantrum. ...But the Trump administration’s foreign policy has been successful because of the president, not despite him. His "blunt, hard edge" style is better suited for the dangerous world we live in than the cool detachment of Obama-era "leading from behind." And if President Trump has disrupted the old way of doing things, it is only because the status quo was failing. He is winning in ways the old model would never have predicted. ...With respect to North Korea, critics feared that President Trump’s tough, almost contemptuous exchanges with "Rocket Man" Kim Jong Un, and veiled threats of preemptive military strikes might lead to devastating conflict. John Bolton and Mike Pompeo have taken similarly hawkish stances on dealing with Pyongyang. Yet instead of going to war, Kim reached out to the president, saying he is "committed to denuclearization." ...Previous presidents kept the China trade and North Korean issues separated, but trade is Washington’s primary point of leverage in the Sino-American relationship. If the president can get a better trade deal for American workers while also encouraging Beijing to make Pyongyang see reason and abandon its nuclear weapons, he could be in the running for a Nobel Peace Prize. And Bolton and Pompeo are likely to help him get there. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #19 Between 1950 and 1979. The US didn't produce anything in China, buy anything from China or sell anything in China. They were still the #1 economy in the world during that time. How was China doing during that same time period? All this noise about how the US "needs" China is only spoken by those without a basic knowledge of recent world history. All the US gets from China now is cheaper labor and sometimes/maybe access to the Chinese market for some of its companies. What China does for the US can be replaced. Perhaps not easily but it can be done. Where will China replace the massive US market? China perhaps has never learned the old saying, "don't bite the hand that feeds you." China already bans facebook/youtube/twitter/google and a whole bunch of others. No loss there. |
| Posted by: Herb McCoy7309 2018-03-24 19:38 |
| #18 The tariff club was made for the one way street trading nations and their exclusionary import rules. But I believe the main reason for the putting the threat of tariffs out there was due to China. They have talked a nice game but they still continue their predatory behavior, and they don't do sh*t about the Norks. Just talk and circumvention of sanctions. It is about time we weaned ourselves from the Chicoms. They need us more than we need them. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2018-03-24 19:24 |
| #17 I'm starting to think Trump should have brought in a bunch of WWF wrestlers and put them in top jobs with orders to clean house. Make everyone defend their job and then laugh as they quit rather than be subjected to being judged by someone they felt was beneath them. Sure they might have had one or two body-slam incidents and lawsuits but it'd be worth it. Then after a year you could put Bolton and others into position to rebuild the various departments. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2018-03-24 19:12 |
| #16 With Trump signing the latest budget... Let's suppose Trump did veto the bill: Congress can override a veto with a 2/3rds majority in both houses. The Senate was 81-14 in favor. The House was 256-167. Wouldn't take a big swing to get to 2/3rds in the House given that "avoiding a shutdown" and/or "spiting Trump" provides cover. I'm not sure the bad PR would be worth it. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2018-03-24 18:42 |
| #15 Bolton Expected to ‘Clean House’ "The incoming national security advisor aims to ax dozens of White House officials as he dismantles McMaster’s NSC." |
| Posted by: Anomalous Sources 2018-03-24 18:01 |
| #14 With Trump signing the latest budget, I don't think the Libtards have to worry about bed-wetting. Bolton won't last 18 months. |
| Posted by: Clem 2018-03-24 15:34 |
| #13 Even if he turns out to be a mediocre selection, and Trump and he don't hit it off, his presence in the cabinet and the liberal bed wetting and gnashing of teeth it will engender will provide plenty of satisfaction for POTUS, and me as well. Please permit him to speak freely, and often. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2018-03-24 15:00 |
| #12 Bolton is a good choice. He'll take the job seriously. And since the MSM is apoplectic it just proves my point. |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2018-03-24 14:29 |
| #11 And if "we all die in a fire," where will China and Europe get that $525 billion a year from? At some level, kill-the-host comes into play. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2018-03-24 12:53 |
| #10 I agree, "trade deficit" is a slippery thing to use as a basis for any economic planning. In the sense that steel tariffs, for example, are supposed to support our "strategic industrial base," I'd say if that strategic base needs artificial support, we have a bigger problem. In the sense that tariffs are a sop to unions, well, unions were another of those bribes to stave off communism. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2018-03-24 12:50 |
| #9 Look, the whole trade deficit thing came about after WWII when the USA said, "OK we're going to bribe you to stay on our side and not go Communist, so we'll open our markets wide open to your goods. But feel free to keep our goods out to benefit your own people." The problem is, after the Cold War ended, nobody bothered to change this. The globalists loved having influence and happily traded prosperity for American workers for it. NAFTA was the beginning of the end for the American working class. Then they had the bright idea of admitting China to the WTO, thinking for some bizarre reason that China would just break out in democracy, a system that China has never had. Surprise, that didn't happen and today China is experiencing unprecedented success with their "sell to America, keep our internal markets closed off" plan. We have the privilege of paying $375 billion every single year to trade with China. Europe, we pay $150 billion. We're getting royally fucked and the globalists don't care because do they give a shit about us deplorables? We can go die in a fire for all they care. With tariffs, everyone loses but the American worker. It's about time we re-adjusted our economy to reflect the fact that we don't have to bribe Cold War allies any more. It's been a long free ride for everyone on our backs and now it's coming to an end. |
| Posted by: Herb McCoy7309 2018-03-24 12:20 |
| #8 Many US trading items, the Chinese never buy in the first place. Pirated Silly-con Valley software, pirated Hollyweird "content." The Chinese were never going to buy it, so considering it "lost trade income" is absurd. On the other side, nobody in the US is in a position to steal Chinese make tires or car batteries or furniture or electronics or on and on. Unless we revert to making physical stuff that they would rather buy than make for themselves, the problem has no fix to speak of. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2018-03-24 12:03 |
| #7 China is making a fucking mint from mercantilism right now. Japan's troubles stemmed from the fact that their economy was built on a ponzi-like scheme called 'credit ordering', not on the fact that they made a mint by exporting while not allowing imports. Everyone screams "but it's going to hurt the global system of trade!" Yeah, that's right. The only beneficiaries will be the American people. Exactly who globalists despise the most. |
| Posted by: Herb McCoy7309 2018-03-24 10:38 |
| #6 The Japanese and the Chinese are notorious for tilting the field. Shipping a US made car to Japan costs three times as much as shipping a Japanese made car to the US. Plus they have these myriad inspections and requirements that compliance must be verified on each auto creating months of delays. Try shipping a Whirlpool refrigerator to China and see what happens. What Trump is doing is forcing FAIR TRADE on the Chinese and Japanese and making the rules the same. Both countries hide tariffs and embargoes inside rules, regulations, and endless fees. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2018-03-24 09:56 |
| #5 ...see how long it took the Japanese to recognize the American patent on integrated circuits, referred to as 'chips'. How much money did they make on that 'free trade'? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2018-03-24 09:34 |
| #4 Define "worked for the Japanese...." |
| Posted by: DooDahMan 2018-03-24 08:27 |
| #3 Like some people who intentionally conflate legal immigration with illegal immigration, too many people conflate fair trade with free trade. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2018-03-24 08:01 |
| #2 Worked pretty well for Japanese. Works for Chinese right now. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2018-03-24 06:55 |
| #1 Trump's protectionist/mercantilist trade polices baffle me no end. Can someone show me some history where such policies have been successful? Besides, it reeks of Corporatism (read: Fascism). |
| Posted by: DooDahMan 2018-03-24 04:44 |