Daily Mail: BREAKING NEWS: Trump FIRES his national security advisor H.R. McMaster and brings in Bush's U.N. ambassador John Bolton in another White House shake-up
* Trump's second national security advisor, three-star Army general H.R. McMaster is finally out after months of speculation
* John Bolton, a hawkish conservative who was George W. Bush's ambassador to the United Nations will replace him April 9
* Trump called McMaster, whom he has clashed with repeatedly 'a friend' and said: he as 'very thankful' for his service
* Bolton is the son of a Baltimore firefighter who's known in Washington for his brush-like moustache and his curmudgeonly Fox News Channel appearances
* He is a fierce opponent of the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal but a cheerleader for Bush's Iraq war – which Trump has called a waste of blood and treasure
* Bolton's afternoon visit to the West Wing on Thursday was followed by a flurry of activity as press aides drafted statements and Trump was delayed a half-hour from a scheduled speech in the East Room
President Donald Trump will replace National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster with John Bolton on April 9, the White House announced late Thursday.
Bolton, a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is a hawkish conservative with a pugnacious streak – and a frequent guest on the Fox News Channel.
He is also a fierce opponent of the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal.
At one time a vacillating potential presidential candidate, the curmudgeonly Bolton will be the third person to be Trump's chief national security aide in his 14-month presidency.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Was this the final reason for the firing? ..... Who Leaked President Trump's Briefing Papers To The Press? (March 21, 2018). And so much for the promise last week from Chief of Staff Kelly that everyone's job in the White House was safe .... Kelly Tells White House Staff Their Jobs Are Safe (Bloomberg).
More News On President Trump Firing His National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster
HR McMaster replaced by John Bolton as national security adviser — live updates -- CBS
McMaster out, Bolton in as Trump’s national security adviser -- AP
Trump ousts McMaster, taps Bolton as national security adviser -- Reuters
McMaster to Resign as National Security Adviser, and Will Be Replaced by John Bolton -- NYTimes
John Bolton to replace HR McMaster as national security adviser -- Politico
Gen. HR McMaster resigning as national security adviser -- ABC News
Trump replaces HR McMaster as national security adviser with John Bolton -- CNN
10 comments:
Will Bolton have to shave his moustache?
“we are confident that Saddam Hussein has hidden weapons of mass destruction,” 2002.
What is old is new again, and he's from the TV! Nice choice Pres. oatmeal brains.
Neocons are tougher than cockroaches, notwithstanding their buffoonery, idiocy and psychosis for violent resolution to all the world's problems, they'll never die.
MAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anon,
"....buffoonery, idiocy, and psychosis for violent resolution to all the world's problems..." I like your terms, however, I would have used "pathologically insane" to describe such people. I think we mean the same thing.
I think we would agree that anyone who thinks "all" of the world's problems can be solved by violent resolution or even if they could be that all of them should be is to use your words "buffoonery, idiocy, and psychosis." With that said some of the world's problems can only be solved by violent resolution. Others not so much.
Furthermore I think we would agree that going out of one's way to inflame a new Cold War with Russia or worse a coherent argument could be made that the US and the "west" went out of their way to actually start this new Cold War is not a particularly good idea. I would call it "a special kind of insanity."
The only reasons that seem to make any sense for why this was done are 1.)the political career of Hillary Clinton needed to be saved at any costs. The media being in her corner amplified her insanity and they even start to believe their nonsense. 2.)US foreign policy is often based upon ideology meaning the crafters of this policy are often easily manipulated by foreign powers or domestic special interests.
President Trump seems to have lost his way with regards to foreign. Candidate Trump was right to call out NATO members who aren't contributing properly and other worthless "allies." Candidate Trump was also right when he appeared to act as though he would be willing to consider a much more reasonable approach toward Russia than either Obama Administration or candidate Clinton had seemed willing to consider.
Anon,
A change in foreign policy truly would have a chance of making our country great. To make it great again is to imply that it ever was great in the first place which is dubious at best and probably inaccurate.
Something else that has potential is the invention of fracking. This truly could make America a powerful country perhaps even the most powerful on earth. It does make us vurnerable to foreign invaders who might wish to steal our resources and our wealth.
Very respectfully, neo conservatives have not survived because they "are tougher than cockroaches." They are actually quite weak. How they have survived is by melding themselves to whoever has power assisting them and adding value to them. Then, if and when, things go wrong the neo conservatives serve as the fall people for those who hold the power. Rinse, repeat, and do over again.
OK. America is the most the powerful country on Earth, has been for about 80 years and there is no possible way for any foreign power to invade, conquer or steal anything. Two oceans and the blessings of geography see to that. At least for the next century.
As far I can tell US foreign policy is based on on the hegemony of an entire hemisphere, which no other country has ever achieved, including Great Britain.
This allows allows us to mess around in the eastern hemisphere and not suffer grave consequences because we can always create enough GDP to account for any really stupid and expensive mistakes and then make more stupid and expensive mistakes. We're blessed by geography to be reckless and dumb and, so far, get away with it.
Anon,
First paragraph, if a politician or leader blithely believes such nonsense, we and they are in trouble. The notion of the US as the most powerful country on earth is an article of faith not supported by fact as proved in Syria when the Russian airforce outclassed ours nearly every time.
"As far as I can tell..." I think you misread. If GB couldn't achieve this, then the US who is not even close to what GB was in terms of power relative to the tine period then there is no possible way for America to achieve this. To even have such a goal would be pathological insanity and no one in the world would work with us on anything. In other words there'd be no foreign military operations as no one would cooperate with us. Very respectfully it's more complicated than that.
For the two oceans and any blessings of geography to work, one needs a well trained, properly deployed, and properly equipped force. The US essentially none of this at the moment except for a nuclear arsenal assuming it actually works.
For what its worth, I think the goal needs to be end at least 95% of all foreign deployments within 5 years. This can be accomplished by forging good workkng relations with these governments. They are used to taking advantage us. This is going to be quite an adjustment for them. Once this is done, we can properly deploy our forces to give us the best chance to properly defend America. Also, a military that has essentially been ground to powder in a series of fruitless operations around the world that neither advance American economic or security will in many cases need to literally be rebuilt from the ground up.
While there is still much that can go wrong, it is very likely that the diplomatic strides have been made with regards to ending NK/SK conflict because DJT properly called out South Korea during the campaign as not carrying their weight. I believe this is diplonatic speak for user and abuser of America and its people and this isctge correct assessment.
Once served notice that Anerica's military would not serve as SK's military arm and b!tch boy for an indefinite period of tine they decided it might be a good idea to actually work for peace.
"At least for the next century..." Actually Russia, China, both of them together or them with some combination of their allies could probably conquer America within a few months. The costs might be higher than they'd want. Actually we can't "know" until a
such a conflict takes place. Fortunately most Americans don't believe the "next century" nonsense. Very respectfully such would be the height of hubris.
Also, fracking has the potential to make us a very, very wealthy nation. To assume that someone cannot or will not try and steal that and to assume someone is not capable is the height of hubris as well. Having a properly deployed, well trained, eell led, and well equipped military is vital to protecting these things as well our our broader interests. Who knows we might even need to or want to ecpand someday. We need a capable military that's not tied up in fruitless and senseless operations to achieve this.
When did the Russian airforce outclass the u.s in Syria, l must have missed those dog fights.
Don't confuse lack of political will to use your assists with the actual potential performance of those assets.
Rebecca Ballhaus
✔
@rebeccaballhaus
Trump introduces Marillyn Hewson, CEO of Lockheed Martin, as Marillyn Lockheed. Tells her of the F-35: “It’s stealth. You cannot see it. Is that correct? It better be correct.”
10:01 AM - Mar 22, 2018
2,091
1,581 people are talking about this
Fazman,
The editor reported on this some time ago and I analyzed it. You are a regular reader and commenter on this site. I'm surprised you missed it. Frankly I get tired of having to repeat the analysis regularly. I will try again and will try and be brief. Before beginning I will point out that I find it fascinating how people can often analyze the exact same data and come to completely different conclusions!!
Russian pilots reported achieving a superior position relative to American fighter pilots in "pretty much every encounter." If one achieves a superior position in such an encounter, they would be able shoot down the adversary in a dog fight should they have chosen to do so. The American side was slow to respond. Had this been inaccurate we would have expected a faster response from the American side.
The Russian leadership rewarded these pilots with medals and awards. To do so if this was inaccurate reporting would be like giving out a "participation trophy." There is no greater morale killer than doing such a thing. For a military this would be even worse as the fighter pilots would know the truth. This provides further evidence that the reporting is accurate. The USAF had it handed to them over Russia.
When the US finally did counter this, the arguments were rather bland, unenthusiastic, and the tone of the reporting and the body language seemed like someone despirately wanted something to be over or worse was trying to cover a lie. In contrast, Russian reporting on this was enthusiastic and the body language of the pilots and other personnel observed in videos demonstrated an enthusiasm that would have been very difficult to fake, if not impossible to do so. Sill more evidence the Russian Air Force handed it to the USAF over Syria.
The editor no doubt so all of this. His conclusion was that the USAF pilots were ordered not to respond explaining how the Russians were able to achieve this. Very respectfully I find such an analysis, to put it charitably, wanting. First of all to order military personnel to act in such a way would be DEVESTATING to morale. USAF pilots are leaving the USAF in droves. Morale is extremely low across all branches of the US military. I'm getting off topic. Pilots might well obey such an order, however, they would be essentially being asked to commit suicide should the Russian pilot choose to shoot them down. No one in their right mind does this. Still more evidence the USAF is not on par with the Russian Air Force.
While I could be wrong, it seems the only conclusion is the Russians beat the Americans handily. Had these been actual fights US losses would have been huge and Russian ones minimal. Since the problem hasn't been addressed, there is no reason to think today would be any better.
Does POTUS know about this? Has he been informed? There has been talk about withholding things from him. It's very troubling, in this context, that one of his most trusted advisors is being denied the proper clearances for what seem like purely partisan political reasons.
For those who do not live in America or have ties to it, it is easy for them to make blithe assumptions about certain things. For those from America knowing they will bear the brunt of such decisions and their heads and those of their family members are on the chopping block should we or an "ally" miscalculate, extreme circumspection is required in these matters.
Very considered conclusion based upon a careful examination of the evidence that is available: we need to end Cold War 2 and we need to end it NOW. So far Russian demands are not unreasonable. The longer we continue on this path the greater their demands are going to become and the worse our position will be. When in a hole the first step is to STOP DIGGING!! We have dug ourselves a very deep hole here. Maybe I am wrong about all of this. As stated, I find it fascinating how different people can analyze the same evidence and come to completely different conclusions.
Jay,
The practice of referring to a CEO by the name of the company especially a successful one is a common one in America that dates at least to the mid 1990s and probably longer. This would not only have been expected but to not do so would have been insulting to her. Those without business backgrounds in America may not be aware of this. Oh well now it has been explained. Now you know.
Referring to "stealth" as the same as "invisible" is probably a metaphor. When something is extremely costly it is common practice in America, especially the business world, to state it better have exaggerated capabilities. Everyone generally knows this. It is a way of placing decision makers and Lockheed Martin that this product had better deliver. To assume this is not a metaphor would require extraordinary evidence. Such evidence seems lacking. As such, the only reasonable conclusion would seem to be that this is a metaphor.
Now that you have received a primer on how business lingo works in America, you will be less likely to reach the wrong conclusions. I hope this helps.
Post a Comment