Bolton:Trump ok'd China's camps, didn't know UK had nukes, thought Finland was Russia

[Dill]

(06-19-2020, 11:47 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Never happened never happened? Or never happened like Trump never paid off Stormy Daniels never happened? Or never happened like Trump never knew his lawyer paid off Stormy Daniels never happened? Or never happened like Trump did in fact pay off Stormy Daniels as was correctly reported the entire time, but only to spare Melania’s feelings because Trump is a sensitive, caring husband who places his wife’s well being above his own political ambitions never happened?

I haven’t read the book so I was wondering what bfine read in the book that has him not defending defending Trump again.

Some folks are rather open about their reluctance to read primary sources--Grand jury transcripts, FBI reports, and certainly books that document Trump illegalities and violations which occurred "in confidence."

They'll prefer instead a version filtered through Barr, Pompeo, Giuiliani and Trump himself.

Corroboration of Bolton via Mattis, Kelly and others will be just more "but Trump."

[fredtoast]

(06-18-2020, 11:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't give him credit for the hire; never was a fan. I just didn't see folks in this thread taking issue with Bolton's comments. Seemed they were applauding them

If Bolton was outing Trumps gay lovers or discussing Trump's sexually transmitted diseases then I would have a problem with him divulging secrets.  But these are issues of national security.  It is his duty as a patriot to inform potential voters how dangerously incompetent Trump is as President.


BTW I still disagree with Bolton on almost every policy issue.  But he has joined a LONG LIST of people I disagree with on policy who also think Trump is dangerously incompetent.

[Dill]

(06-19-2020, 04:53 AM)samhain Wrote: I don't seem to recall the right having many misgivings about embracing Dick Morris when he turned on Bill Clinton.  He was one of Bill's closest advisors for a significant part of his political life then did all he could to crap on Bill and His down the road.

And he had much less credibility than Bolton.

Another interesting feature of the current defense of Trump's "confidential" abuse of public trust is that the same defenders of Trump secrecy had so little problem with revelations/leaks of Hillary and Obama communications made "in confidence." 

All manner of confidential emails between Hillary and Chelsey, Hillary and heads of state, and Hillary and Obama, have been gleefully referenced in support of alleged Benghazi "violations" which, after all, turned out to be perfectly normal government/personal business hyped to Fox-level hysteria.

No chants of "lock him up" for Trump's repeated ACTUAL abuses of power--unless "him" refers to the various messengers.

Astounding, but it is really as if many Trump supporters/defenders don't grasp the principles of accountability and transparency which are FUNDAMENTAL to democracy.  They fix on certain leaders and legitimize them through unshakeable faith, the way past societies revered Popes and kings, whom they placed above law and accountability, and whom they defended from any treasonous attacker who questioned such leaders' competence and morality.  We may have a democracy at the moment, but some of us still grasp political authority in pre-democratic terms. Perhaps more now than a generation ago.

[samhain]

(06-19-2020, 12:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If Bolton was outing Trumps gay lovers or discussing Trump's sexually transmitted diseases then I would have a problem with him divulging secrets.  But these are issues of national security.  It is his duty as a patriot to inform potential voters how dangerously incompetent Trump is as President.


BTW I still disagree with Bolton on almost every policy issue.  But he has joined a LONG LIST of people I disagree with on policy who also think Trump is dangerously incompetent.

The last sentence is all that needs to be said.  You're always going to have the other party to disagree with on policy.  What you hopefully are not going to have is a real existential threat to democracy like Trump to contend with come November.  We can all go back to bashing the PNAC neocons and military industrial complex denizens at a later date.  They can return to their tree-hugger/poor people hating ways, too.  What's important is that we get rid of this garbage human being in office before the country implodes on itself.  

[*Nately120*]

The fact that anti-Trumpers even have long-standing high ranking Republicans as allies is pretty telling in itself.  Bolton kissed the boots of Reagan, Bush, Bush and Trump and now he's on their side?  No matter how typical and dismissive Trump's fans want to make this look, it ain't.

[hollodero]

(06-19-2020, 12:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If Bolton was outing Trumps gay lovers or discussing Trump's sexually transmitted diseases then I would have a problem with him divulging secrets.  But these are issues of national security.  It is his duty as a patriot to inform potential voters how dangerously incompetent Trump is as President.

But this is a bit tricky now... in principle, a president should have the right that his discussions with his advisors stay confidential. I think this is a sound principle and I find it tough to step away from it just because Trump is such an illiterate moron. Which, of course, he absolutely is and Bolton doesn't really need to reval that.

On the other hand, it could be about matters of national security that Trump endangers. But if Bolton has to inform someone about Trump misdeeds, publishing a book is not the way to go about this. He could blow the whistle, or take the chance to testify in Congress, but doing neither and selling a book with this stuff instead? I don't consider that ok.

Also, we all rightfully slammed Trump for accidentally revealing too much information to Lawrow. If Bolton did something of that kind (which I don't know happened), he also deserves critizism for it and no excuse of a greater purpose. 

[hollodero]

(06-19-2020, 03:03 AM)Dill Wrote: So a gentle disagreement with you--there was more behind the choice of Bolton than an occasional glimpse on Fox and a recommendation from Hannity. Bolton is not someone one chooses because one wants to stay out of wars.  And I think Bolton was restraining Trump more than vice versa--especially Trump's impulses to violate law and protocol--and so he had to, as Bfine puts it, "rectify" his mistake by "firing" Bolton when he quit, to look for someone who would play ball, legal or not. 

OK agreed, Iran policy probably played a role. He does not like people contradicting him publicly (probably also not privately) and McMaster did that, so he needed someone who did not. But I still think it is mostly about vanity. I think ripping up the Iran deal was mostly about vanity too. There seldom is any real policy background behind Trump's decisions, imho, and people tend to overanalyze his steps. He did not like the Iran deal because it was Obama's Iran deal, and also there I do not see much else behind it.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-19-2020, 03:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: But this is a bit tricky now... in principle, a president should have the right that his discussions with his advisors stay confidential. I think this is a sound principle and I find it tough to step away from it just because Trump is such an illiterate moron. Which, of course, he absolutely is and Bolton doesn't really need to reval that.

On the other hand, it could be about matters of national security that Trump endangers. But if Bolton has to inform someone about Trump misdeeds, publishing a book is not the way to go about this. He could blow the whistle, or take the chance to testify in Congress, but doing neither and selling a book with this stuff instead? I don't consider that ok.

Also, we all rightfully slammed Trump for accidentally revealing too much information to Lawrow. If Bolton did something of that kind (which I don't know happened), he also deserves critizism for it and no excuse of a greater purpose. 

Classified material should remain classified. Revealing Trump asked if Finland was a part of Russia isn’t classified.

But, Bolton ain’t no LTC Alexander Vindman who risked his career to do his duty. Bolton found a way to profit from this situation which makes him a Republican.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

wow.

A Republican posing as a Patriot chose personal gain over country.

Color my worldview shattered.

Anything else I miss?

[*bfine32*]

(06-19-2020, 11:07 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What did Bolton reveal?

Leaks show he reveals things discussed in confidence.

To me it's irrelevant if he asked his advisor if the moon was really made of cheese.

[*bfine32*]

(06-19-2020, 12:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If Bolton was outing Trumps gay lovers or discussing Trump's sexually transmitted diseases then I would have a problem with him divulging secrets.  But these are issues of national security.  It is his duty as a patriot to inform potential voters how dangerously incompetent Trump is as President.


BTW I still disagree with Bolton on almost every policy issue.  But he has joined a LONG LIST of people I disagree with on policy who also think Trump is dangerously incompetent.

Is it his Patriotic duty to get $32 per book?

Not knowing Finland wasn't part of Russia is an issue of National Security?

I'd assume he had the title as advisor to advise. IMO revealing things publicly spoken to you in confidence as your role as advisor seems like cheap shots at best, criminal at worst. But some feel it's his patriotic duty to turn a profit off it.

[*bfine32*]

(06-19-2020, 03:56 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Classified material should remain classified. Revealing Trump asked if Finland was a part of Russia isn’t classified.

But, Bolton ain’t no LTC Alexander Vindman who risked his career to do his duty. Bolton found a way to profit from this situation which makes him a Republican.

Seems you and Fred have polar opposite opinions on what should be discussed.

[hollodero]

(06-19-2020, 03:56 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Classified material should remain classified. Revealing Trump asked if Finland was a part of Russia isn’t classified.

No, but that's where the snake bites its tail a bit. For it also is not an information the public needs to know. And it sets a precedent you might not really want to be set.

It opens the door for basically everyone to publish a book about conversations with the US president, who will lose the possibility to share his thoughts in confidence. Which is a bad development. You don't want to put your president in a situation where he constantly has to wonder if his counterpart will share the conversation with the public.

Which is why I can really understand what bfine is saying here. Presidential advisors should be bound to discretion. Except when actual laws are broken, in which case they should not choose a book deal to tell about it.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-19-2020, 04:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Leaks show he reveals things discussed in confidence.

Ah, I see. Your lack of detail exceeded even my low expectations. Seems despite being unable to cite a single example, you’re upset . . . “because Trump.”

What specifically has your knickers* in a bunch?



*Normally, I would use the idiom “panties in a bunch.” However, deductive reasoning allows me to conclude bfine is too conservative to wear panties as his personal choice of women’s fine undergarments preferring something more traditional to gird his loins.

[Dill]

(06-19-2020, 03:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: But this is a bit tricky now... in principle, a president should have the right that his discussions with his advisors stay confidential. I think this is a sound principle and I find it tough to step away from it just because Trump is such an illiterate moron. Which, of course, he absolutely is and Bolton doesn't really need to reval that.

On the other hand, it could be about matters of national security that Trump endangers. But if Bolton has to inform someone about Trump misdeeds, publishing a book is not the way to go about this. He could blow the whistle, or take the chance to testify in Congress, but doing neither and selling a book with this stuff instead? I don't consider that ok.

Also, we all rightfully slammed Trump for accidentally revealing too much information to Lawrow. If Bolton did something of that kind (which I don't know happened), he also deserves critizism for it and no excuse of a greater purpose. 

That is certainly possible, but I'll be surprised if that is case, give that (unlike Trump) Bolton knows how to manage classified information and the consequences of mismanagement.

The issue here, by the way, wholly about national security. 

Some talk about Trump's ignorance and missteps as if they were of no more consequence than an ignorant fan on this message board making incorrect claims about the rules of football. A fan who thought that the LA rams were part of the AFCN or that a cornerback lines up under center would not affect how the Bengals actually drafted and prepared game plans and managed actual games. It's a free country, right? People can say and believe what they want.

But imagine that fan were suddenly made franchise owner on the ground that someone with no actual football experience, who claimed to know "more than the coaches," would be best suited to clean the Bengals swamp? The GM, coach, and coaching staff might steady him at first, but if inclined to run the show himself, he would eventually fire any resistance and appoint his own people, who agreed with and praised his decisions no matter how crazy. The "fake sports news" would be all over the Bengals very soon discussing weirdly timed onside kicks and 5-6 Hail Mary's a game, the turnover in coaching staff, crazy draft picks, and impending bankruptcy. And the losing record would sober even the most supportive fans, though the fan owner would blame the "losers" he fired.

Most Americans don't know foreign policy any better than South Americans know American football. They have difficulty reading "the record" since wins and losses are so far apart in time and often ambiguous. But to the foreign policy establishment (not to mention our Allies) it is a VERY BIG DEAL if the guy who has the ultimate say on global strategy doesn't know whether Finland is part of Russia and whether the UK has nukes or not. If that guy is ready to pull troops from Korea one day and can't remember he was going to do that the next, if taking out an Iranian general on another countries sovereign soil seems a cool idea--that guy's impulse decisions will have much greater consequences than those of a bad NFL owner.

And that is why it will be important to hear Bolton out, whether he is personally dishonorable or a cur or a 'walrus' or whatever. If what he says can be corroborated, then Trump, again, is the far greater problem. We DO need to know if Trump thought Finland a part of Russia.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-19-2020, 04:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is it his Patriotic duty to get $32 per book?

Not knowing Finland wasn't part of Russia is an issue of National Security?

I'd assume he had the title as advisor to advise. IMO revealing things publicly spoken to you in confidence as your role as advisor seems like cheap shots at best, criminal at worst. But some feel it's his patriotic duty to turn a profit off it.

Don’t be such a socialist and hate on capitalism.

[*bfine32*]

(06-19-2020, 04:31 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Ah, I see. Your lack of detail exceeded even my low expectations. Seems despite being unable to cite a single example, you’re upset . . . “because Trump.”

What specifically has your knickers* in a bunch?



*Normally, I would use the idiom “panties in a bunch.”  However, deductive reasoning allows me to conclude bfine is too conservative to wear panties as his personal choice of women’s fine undergarments preferring something more traditional to gird his loins.

Details have been given throughout this thread. I think you've even commented on a couple of them. But as I've said: to me it does not matter if he asked what the moon was composed of.

I have specifically stated that a former NSA should not be making public (especially for profit) anything discussed between he and a sitting POTUS.

The rest of your post is typical and uncalled for.

[hollodero]

(06-19-2020, 04:32 PM)Dill Wrote: And that is why it will be important to hear Bolton out, whether he is personally dishonorable or a cur or a 'walrus' or whatever. If what he says can be corroborated, then Trump, again, is the far greater problem. We DO need to know if Trump thought Finland a part of Russia.

I call Bolton a despicable walrus for he's despicable, not because he's a walrus. Walrusses are cool.

To the larger point. Where do you draw the line? What does the public need to know? The next time, it could be a Biden advisor who writes a book about Biden's mental lapses while they were discussing stuff, or what that person believes to have remembered about those lapses.
And folks might just as well say we NEED to know if Biden is mentally incapable of being commander in chief, if he knows everything he needs to know, or if he has the right stances on this and that. As I said. You set a precedence and then theres really little to counter the opinion of conservatives that it is totally ok to inform the public about conversations an advisor had with president Biden.

Btw. Finland's prime minister taught Trump to rake the forest floors to avoid wild fire. I figure Trump did not take this guy as some kind of Russian governor.

[Dill]

(06-19-2020, 04:29 PM)hollodero Wrote: It opens the door for basically everyone to publish a book about conversations with the US president, who will lose the possibility to share his thoughts in confidence. Which is a bad development. You don't want to put your president in a situation where he constantly has to wonder if his counterpart will share the conversation with the public.

Which is why I can really understand what bfine is saying here. Presidential advisors should be bound to discretion. Except when actual laws are broken, in which case they should not choose a book deal to tell about it.

These are good points.   There are all kinds of things people thought we shouldn't do before Trump. E.g., mental health professionals followed the Goldwater rule. Previous presidents remained silent about the current one, etc.

But Trump has gone so far out of bounds, with no accountability, that in consequence many are breaking those unwritten norms because the normal options, like whistleblowing and IG reports, have been neutralized under cover of a regime party--to the cheers of millions.

Our president didn't know Finland was an independent country (if Bolton is right).  I can't help feeling rather stressed and desperate, repeatedly hearing such things about the guy in charge of US diplomacy and national security strategy. Before Trump I'd have agreed--silence unless laws are broken. But now I insist it is material--a matter of public and national interest--whether a president has basic, 8th-grade knowledge of global affairs, and most especially with respect to a president given to breaking laws.

Yes, I agree. Going forward presidents will be more nervous about communicating with advisors who may kiss and tell. But unfortunately that is now the lesser evil. This is what our government and policy experts are complaining about when they publicly fret about the institutional consequences of Trump's constantly violating norms with impunity, while rewarding bad people and punishing good. The institutions break down from within. Responsibilities are unclear even if incentives to misbehave are not. The gears grind. The machine breaks when needed (like during a pandemic).

[fredtoast]

(06-19-2020, 04:29 PM)hollodero Wrote:  For it also is not an information the public needs to know.

It absolutely is something we need to know because we are the ones who decide who gets to be President.

It is very important for us to know if Trump is a complete moron.