Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 23, 2018
John Bolton – The Man With A Hammer Is Looking For Nails

President Trump congratulated Vladimir Putin to his reelection as president of the Russian Federation. It was a matter of simply courtesy to do so. The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (aka the National Security Advisor), three star general McMaster, had advised him to not congratulate Putin. (McMaster now claims differently.) That was bad advice. But it became even worse when McMaster, or someone in his shop, promptly leaked this to the press. The usual Republican nutters like John McCain grumbled and Trump was furious.

Trump decided to fire McMaster the very next day. He had it coming. Both the White House Chief of Staff Kelly as well as the Secretary of Defense Mattis wanted McMaster out. Unfortunately for them Trump chose a replacement that they did not want and will find difficult to live with.


bigger

John Bolton is not a neo-conservative. He does not dream of 'spreading democracy' or 'nation building'. He is a 'smash, burn and leave' libertarian hawk. He is also an exceptionally avid bureaucrat who knows how to get the things he wants done. That quality is what makes him truly dangerous. Bolton is known for sweet-talking to his superiors, being ruthless against competitors and for kicking down on everyone below him.

Soon Netanyahoo will have the cabinet in place in DC he always dreamed of. A hawkish Pompeo at State, a real torturer as head of the CIA and now Bolton are already sufficient to protect Israel's further expansion. Kelly and, only later on Mattis will likely be the next to get fired. That will eliminate the last people with access to Trump who have some marginal sanity on war and peace issues. Trump will be completely isolated and easy to manipulate.

Bolton has a hammer and he will find lots of nails. Like Hillary Clinton he will want to fight with Iran, North Korea, Russia, China and others in no particular order. He will want to destroy Syria. He is cozy with the Kurds and the Iranian terror cult MEK. He addressed (vid) their congress eight years in a row and made lots of money for saying things like this:

"[B]efore 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran.”

Bolton has little concern for U.S. allies except, maybe, for Israel.

His first priority will be to prevent the announced summit between Trump and Kim Jong-un. He will want more sanctions on North Korea and may argue for a 'preventive' strike against it. He does not care that such a strike will certainly kill tens of thousands of Koreans in the north and south and several thousand U.S. soldiers and civilians.

New sanctions on North Korea are problematic as Trump has just put additional tariffs on $60 billion of U.S. imports of Chinese goods. (The Chinese response is smart: Tariffs on U.S. agricultural goods from states that Trump won.) Why should China and Russia (and South Korea) help the U.S. to strangulate North Korea when they themselves are under fire? To prevent a U.S. strike that may come anyway the very next day?

The Europeans who were part of the nuclear agreement with Iran have to answer a similar question. Why offer Trump a 'compromise' over the JCPOA when the chances are now high that he will destroy it anyway?

What will Bolton do on Syria? Will he try to find a new agreement with Erdogan and drag Turkey away from endorsing Russia's polices in Syria? If he manages to do so, Syria's north will become a shared Turkish-U.S. entity and will be lost for a long time. New attacks on the Syrian government, from the north, south and east, where the U.S. re-trains ISIS into a new 'moderate rebel' army, would then open the next phase of the war.

So far the mean time of survival for Trump appointees is some six to eight months. Let us hope that John Bolton's appointment will – in the end – lower that average.

Comments

Interesting about 9-11
The Mysterious Frank Taylor Report: The 9/11 Document that Launched US-NATO’s “War on Terrorism” in the Middle East

Since the invocation of Article 5 had to be unanimous, Frank Taylor’s report would have been integral in the briefings announced to take place.
In Denmark – the country of the present author – there was a meeting in the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 October 2001, where parliamentarians were briefed by the government about the proceedings in Brussels.
Parallel briefings must have been given in the 17 other NATO capitals. In each city, the resolution must have been approved, since Lord Robertson could announce NATO’s unanimous adoption of Article 5 and the launch of the war on terror on 4 October.[8] The first bombs fell in Kabul on 7 October.
Article 5 of the Washington Treaty says:[9]
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations,…..”
That is, any military action taken by NATO is confined by the restrictions in Article 51, which emphasises the right to self-defence and reads:
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,….”.[10]
That is, military action is forbidden in the absence of an armed provocation, and the legality of the attack on Afghanistan depends exclusively on the evidence presented in Frank Taylor’s report. But it was classified together with the minutes from the pertinent meetings.
However, on 19 May 2008, the US State Department declassified the dispatch which was sent in 2001 to all US representations world-wide, including the ambassadors to NATO headquarters, regarding what to think and say about the 9/11 events.
It is titled: “September 11: Working together to fight the plague of global terrorism and the case against al-qa’ida”.
The text is freely accessible here.
The document is dated 01 October 2001. But as hinted by the URL, it seems to have been distributed on 2 October five days before the invasion of Afghanistan on October 7, 20101. That is, the day Frank Taylor gave his presentation for the North Atlantic Council and the EU foreign ministers, and the day before the US ambassadors were briefing the governments in the respective NATO capitals.
The text of the dispatch begins by requesting “all addressees to brief senior host government officials on the information linking the Al-Qa’ida terrorist network, Osama bin Ladin and the Taliban regime to the September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon and the crash of United Airlines Flight 93.”
The document appears to be a set of ‘talking points’. The recipients are instructed to use the information provided in oral presentations only and to never leave the hard copy document as a non-paper. Specifically, there is reference to “THE oral presentation”.
These instructions are followed by 28 pages of the specific text.
Tellingly, a section of this dispatch is copy-pasted into Lord Robertson’s statement on 2 October:7
“The facts are clear and compelling[…] We know that the individuals who carried out these attacks were part of the world-wide terrorist network of Al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden and his key lieutenants and protected by the Taliban.”
The conclusion is inescapable – this dispatch IS the Frank Taylor report. It is the manuscript that served not only as the basis for Frank Taylor’s presentation, but also for the briefings given by US ambassadors to the various national governments. Identical presentations were given in all 18 capitals on 3 October, four days before the US-NATO invasion of Afghanistan
Is there any forensic evidence provided in this document to serve as a legal basis for the invocation of Article 5?
Nothing. There is absolutely no forensic evidence in support of the claim that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan.
Only a small part of the introductory text deals with 9/11, in the form of summary claims like the citation in Lord Robertson’s press release. The main body of the text deals with the alleged actions of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the nineties.
On 4 October, NATO officially went to war based on a document that provided only ‘talking points’ and no evidence to support the key claim.

Posted by: PeacefulProsperity | Mar 25 2018 5:13 utc | 101

Is the mustachio-ed one’s tool really a bolt on?
Why bother going to all that trouble for junk in dimensional equality with a gnat? that is one of a nearly infinite list of queries the
immutably obsequious amerikan media will never put to the citizens’ latest secretary of state. What we will hear/see is that pseudo-controversial softball, known in Oz as Dorothy Dix questioning.
Something along the lines of:
“Welcome Secretary Bolton, congratulations on the new job We appreciate your taking time out to speak with is when you have so much on your plate with issues like our enemies interfering in the US sphere of influence the Mid-East. I guess you already have some strong ideas on how we are going to counter enemies such as Iran while still supporting our friends in Israel.”
Not even a question, the corporate media ‘mini-speech’ full of incorrect assumptions posing as facts, eg anywhere in the ME being an accepted ‘sphere of influence’ for amerika; that a nation which consistently, determinedly and premeditatedly interferes in the amerikan political process is deemed a ‘friend’ of amerika.
Will no voice in the corporate media ever query the deceits which are the accepted ‘facts’ of the empire’s criminal activities? No that was rhetorical since the answer to it is so fucking obvious. Nevertheless I cannot help but wonder how long some TV news and current affairs outlet will struggle to get by on the bones of their arses before some journo wakes the fuck up and has a punt on contrarianism as a ratings booster.
It would be effective and game changing yet it may never happen – just how stupid is that, fifty years ago the arseholes spouting “better dead than red” were types who were never at the slightest risk of having to face such a choice – only the white trash and african american cannon-fodder suffered that likelihood. Saying something as stupid as better dead than red” made sense if you knew you would never have to confront the reality. These journos are staring down the barrel of unemployment now that we’ve moved from 500 newsrooms of 60 journos each, to about 6 newsrooms of twenty hack PR rewriters each, yet not a single one has had the balls to stand up to the corporate nonsense spouters.
I don’t get it, cos even under the eminently rational bevin opinion that each one carries a field marshal’s baton in his knapsack, certain he/she will eventually cop the shoulder tap, obligatory applause then promotion to the top spot, surely at least some of ’em must have deduced that adopting a contrary angle to the media default positions could fast track their inevitable in their own minds, rise to the top.
But no, even MSDEMBC will refer to Fault-on as ‘Secretary Bolton, sir’ treating a servant of the people as if the Dolt-on was royalty and his employers are the serfs.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Mar 25 2018 6:21 utc | 102

I’ll let you all in on a little secret regarding a war with Iran.
Russia with its huge reserves of oil & gas benefits HUGELY if Iran (& Qatar & perhaps UAE & Saudi Arabia & Kuwait) have their oil and gas infrastructure destroyed.
RUSSIA benefits HUGELY.
Who doesn’t benefit?
CHINA.
In fact – China becomes more reliant by orders of magnitude on Russia if all these Middle Eastern countries are destroyed in a huge war.
The fact is – ultimately Syria is more important to Russia than Iran. Syria blocks these countries (including Iran) from building pipelines to Europe.
Who also loses out? Europe of course.
So what will Russia do if US/Saudi/UK/Israel want a war on Iran? I suspect Russia will say – you move out of and forget about Regime Change in Syria and we won’t interfere in your Iranian adventure.
And if China says to Russia “Do something” – I suspect Russia will turn around and tell the Chinese – “we took care of Syria, is your turn to take care of Iran”.

Posted by: Julian | Mar 25 2018 8:23 utc | 103


And if China says to Russia “Do something” – I suspect Russia will turn around and tell the Chinese – “we took care of Syria, is your turn to take care of Iran”.
Posted by: Julian | Mar 25, 2018 4:23:49 AM | 102

There’s a more realistic situation than the one you’ve envisaged. And in that scenario Russia would take the lead in defending Iran from the tender mercies of the Judeo-Christian Barbarians, with the full matériel support of that manufacturing powerhouse “neutral” China.
That would blow the Chickenhawk Neocons socks clean off. They’d either have to pretend not to notice China’s role, or commit to all-out war with a Sino-Russian alliance.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 25 2018 10:47 utc | 104

Hillary was a warmonger who would have started multiple wars by now. Thank god we have someone reasonable like Bolton…

Posted by: ralphieboy | Mar 25 2018 11:10 utc | 105

Hillary is a warmonger who would have gotten us into useless wars. But at least she would have sent gays and transgenders to die…now we have to take care of that matter separately and not kill two birds with one stone.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Mar 25 2018 11:43 utc | 106

Bolton and Pompeo know all about these false-flag provocations and may not be willing to go to war on false premises.
Posted by: Petri Krohn | Mar 24, 2018 11:37:39 AM | 79
He not only knew of these false-flag provocations, he was one of the provocateurs. That’s part and parcel of his modus operandi, both on the geo-political and institutional levels. Its who he is.
Bolton Fabricated Lies that Justified War on Iraq
http://therealnews.com/t2/story:21434:Bolton-Fabricated-Lies-that-Justified-War-on-Iraq
“Phyllis Bennis says new national security adviser John Bolton orchestrated the ouster of Jose Bustani, chief of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, just as he was close to an agreement with Saddam Hussein to allow intrusive weapons inspections ”

Posted by: pantaraxia | Mar 25 2018 13:19 utc | 107

bush made 9-11 happen.It was apparent that was approaching.
The zionist msm made him a hero.
The msm never did nothing about the anti-war talk,but the war on guns,that’s another story.

Posted by: dahoit | Mar 25 2018 16:23 utc | 108

Trump keeps giving the zionists gifts,but ain’t receive them very well.(bolton)

Posted by: dahoit | Mar 25 2018 16:31 utc | 109

there seems a loosely affiliated group of US nationalists to which the likes of Trump, Bannon, Bolton all belong. Many more of these. Most are or have been backed by Robert Mercer at various times. Mercer owns a big chunk of Cambridge Analytics – US wing of SCL Group.
Mercer backed a few of the Republican candidates early in the election campaign, then swung his support behind Trump when he ended up the Republican front runner. From what I can make of it, Mercer put CA behind Trump’s campaign, but Trump dumped them in favour of his own team headed by Kushner and using exactly the same tactics as SCL Group/Cambridge Analytica.
My guess is Bolton’s run with Trump will be the same as Flynn, Bannon and McMasters.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Mar 25 2018 17:09 utc | 110

John Bolton is the male version of Hillary Clinton!It Is Time For Trump To Fire John Bolton!
https://rebel0007com.wordpress.com/2018/03/23/it-is-time-for-trump-to-fire-john-bolton/
How To Solve The JCPOA ( Iranian Nuclear Deal ) Disputes With Trump And Israel
https://rebel0007com.wordpress.com/2018/03/25/how-to-solve-the-jcpoa-iranian-nuclear-deal-disputes-with-trump-and-israel/
Peace,
Andrea Iravani
Please host a Mayday Anti-war party on April 28th!Truth and world peace are apolitical!
.

Posted by: Andrea Iravani | Mar 25 2018 19:36 utc | 111

There is nothing at all that is “libertarian” (that is to say liberty loving) about John Bolton. He is indeed a hawk, war party, died in the wool, neocon. If he calls himself a libertarian he is a fraud as well.

Posted by: JT | Mar 26 2018 19:20 utc | 112

“Libertarian hawk”? Seriously? Talk about a contradiction in terms.

Posted by: Haywood | Mar 28 2018 15:00 utc | 113

Mr Trump referred to Mr Pompeo as having the same “thought process” as himself,t. Even US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who has been given a relatively free reign in her domain by Mr Trump and who has been more outspoken and media-friendly than the tacit Mr Tillerson, called the replacement a “great decision”.
“Pompeo was the most political CIA director in memory,” an administration official told Reuters, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Mr Pompeo is also on the same page regarding the Iran nuclear deal with the President.
In October, the president decided not to re-certify the historic deal, signed by Iran and six world powers – a signature foreign policy achievement by predecessor President Barack Obama. It opened the door for harsher economic sanctions to be placed on the country, the mitigation of which was a key inducement for Iran to comply with the deal. Tehran had pledged to rein in its nuclear program in return for some easing of those economic restrictions imposed on it by the US, the UN, and European Union.

Posted by: تابلوسازی | Apr 7 2018 19:37 utc | 114