Uh-Oh…the liberals are having a conniption, they’ve decided that President Trump ousted Gen. McMaster and brought in Amb. John Bolton because he is assembling a war cabinet. After all, Bolton has a reputation as a saber-rattler and there were stories (sadly on the conservative side) that McMaster fought against Trump’s pro-Israel policies, he supports the Iran deal, thinks Trump was too hard on North Korea, and not hard enough on Russia.
Allow me to start with the McMaster rumors–-BULL!
This site has already addressed General McMaster’s strong relationship with Israel. He was one of the authors of the president’s strategy announced in October that he was not going to recertify the Iran deal and giving the lousy deal’s supporters in Congress and in Europe six months to make better before the U.S. pulled out. A Wall Street Journal editorialreleased after today’s announcement praised McMaster for helping the President maneuver through the North Korean crisis. As far as Russia goes, McMaster’s policy before the 2016 election was to re-think the way the U.S. military approached Russian aggression without getting the nation into World War III–but he did not eliminate the possibility of talks.
So why is McMaster out and Bolton in? It isn’t ideology because McMaster’s take on the issues is probably closer to the President’s than Bolton. What I’ve been hearing is a matter of style. General McMaster is an incredibly talented strategist however, his style is too verbose for the president. Per the Washington Post, “The president has complained that McMaster is too rigid and that his briefings go on too long and seem irrelevant.”
As for Ambassador Bolton, he was chosen for a few reasons. Bolton’s style is very direct and bottom line. The president knew that if he was going to replace McMaster it would be best if he did it with a well -known name, to calm down the claims of chaos. And finally, while it’s true that the Ambassador is more “hawkish” than the General, despite what the liberal media claims— President Trump likes to be challenged with differing positions (just as long as the challenger understands that once the president makes his decision it’s time to fall in line).
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed last month, Bolton outlined a legal case attacking North Korea before it can develop a first strike against the U.S. capability. To be honest, despite the more dramatic language, his argument wasn’t far removed from the President who promised that rocket man would not be allowed the ability to put a nuclear weapon atop a missile that can reach American territory or the territory of our allies.
Over the past year, Ambassador Bolton has periodically visited the White House, to advise the POTUS. Those visits built a relationship between the two...