Posted by DanielS on Sat, 24 Mar 2018 09:00 | #

...the ultimate goal of this Alt-Right/Jewish alliance/coordination (against left ethno-nationalism) is an imperial feudalistic (exploitative) relationship with as much of Asia and the third world as possible.

Posted by Bolton also instrumental in clean break Iraq phase on Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:59 | #

Posted by Bolton acts not for US but Israel against Lebanon on Sat, 31 Mar 2018 12:38 | #

Bolton Acted Against US Interests to Push Israel’s Agenda in Lebanon

Posted by Israeli jets penetrating Iranian airspace on Wed, 04 Apr 2018 02:21 | #

​New Observer, “US-Supplied Israeli F-35 Stealth Jets Penetrate Iranian Airspace”, 2 April 2018:

US-supplied Israeli F-35 stealth jets have penetrated Iranian airspace for first time, making renewed Jewish attack upon that country a distinct possibility as tensions increase in the region once again

       

According to a report in the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Jarida, as repeated in The Jerusalem Post, Israel’s new F-35 stealth fighter jets circled at high altitude over Iran and even flew over three towns: Bandar Abbas, Esfahan and Shiraz, all associated with Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.

It was reported that the F-35 jets were not detected by either Iranian radar or by Russian radar based in Syria, which means an Israeli strike on Iran is now both logistically and technically feasible.

A F-35 could fly to Iran and back twice without refueling, but this is believed to be the first time such a maneuver has been attempted.

       

This news comes in the same week that John Bolton, the former American Ambassador to the United Nations, was appointed to US President Donald Trump’s national security team.

Bolton is an avowed neo-Con and supporter of foreign military intervention; even to this day he believes the 2003 invasion of Iraq was right. He is a strong supporter of the Jewish state, and has advocated for the USA to enact “regime change” in Iran.

The USA’s foreign policy is controlled by the Jewish lobby, and no doubt any military action that Israel took in Iran would be backed up by American firepower.

Israel admitted last week that it had bombed a Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007, and has also admitted to bombing Iranian/Hezbollah sites in Syria during the civil war in that country.

There have been strong warnings against a strike on Iran by many ex-servicemen across the West. Fears that such attacks causing a large regional or even world conflict are distinctly feasible.

With so many Israeli-allied American forces and Iranian-allied Russian forces currently on active duty in the Middle East, a small incident could quickly escalate.

Trump is possibly one of the most pro-Israel US Presidents ever, and no doubt the Jewish lobby-controlled foreign policy apparatus in Washington will get its way.

Trump has already announced his attention to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, and has also hinted that he may consider a one state solution, which will entail Israel annexing the occupied West Bank.

Furthermore, any new conflict in the Middle East would only worsen the nonwhite invasion of Europe. Only a small percentage of the nonwhites currently invading Europe come from Iran, but that nation is a key trafficking route where Afghans and Pakistanis are moved towards Turkey.

Any instability would result in a situation like Libya, where armed anarchy allows smugglers to expand their activities and profit even more from the invasion route.

It is no coincidence that Trump’s moves to end the Iran deal have emboldened Israel to plan and rehearse attacks against Iran.

Jerusalem now not only has upgraded the F-35 fleet, and is now free to do as it wishes—a development which could have disastrous consequences for the entire world.

Posted by John Bolton on Sat, 20 Oct 2018 07:39 | #

In addition to being a talented interviewer, Jim Giles did surprisingly well in securing interviews with high profile individuals. Here is an interview with John Bolton in 2008.

Posted by Preston vs Bolton on Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:47 | #

Preston vs John Bolton

Posted by John(((1/8)))Bolton on Fri, 03 May 2019 00:26 | #

Bolton lends to the argument that even (((1/8))) can be virulent:

NPR, Journalist Explains John Bolton’s Push For ‘Aggressive Use’ Of American Power, 2 May 2019:

Bolton is President Trump’s third national security adviser, after Generals Michael Flynn and H.R. McMaster. Trump was familiar with Bolton’s views because Bolton had made hundreds of appearances on Fox News as a guest, and then as a paid commentator. On Fox, he’d advocated for military strikes on Iranian training camps and for forced regime change in North Korea. Earlier in Bolton’s career, he served in the George W. Bush administration as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs and as U.N. ambassador. He advocated for the invasion of Iraq and told Filkins he still thinks the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein was correct.

Dexter Filkins, welcome back to FRESH AIR. So as you point out in the piece, the Trump administration has no permanent secretary of defense, no secretary of homeland security, no ambassador to the U.N. What does it mean in terms of the power John Bolton has now in his role as national security adviser?

DEXTER FILKINS: Well, the national security adviser, just by virtue of the geography of that job - it’s in the West Wing. It’s right down the hall from the Oval Office. It’s an incredibly powerful position. You know, Bolton sees the president every morning. He sees him or he talks to him in the evening. It’s just, the proximity of that job to the presidency gives the occupant of that job just an enormous amount of power. So just on its face, you know, you’re in the pole position there. But I think in this administration because, you know, it’s a revolving door in the rest of the government pretty much all the time - Jim Mattis, the secretary of defense, he’s gone. There hasn’t been - no replacement has been named so there’s an acting secretary of defense. There’s no ambassador to the United Nations. There’s no secretary for homeland security.

So it’s just kind of a big vacuum. I think it’s fair to say that makes his job even bigger and gives him even more influence than you would ordinarily have. So I think in that administration, when you’re talking about foreign policy, you’re basically talking about John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, and that’s it.

GROSS: And are they on the same page on most things, Pompeo and Bolton?

FILKINS: I think so. I think so. I had a funny conversation about Pompeo and Bolton together with an unnamed Western diplomat who knows them both. And they said, look, you know, Pompeo is really only interested in what Trump is interested in. So you can’t really sit down and talk about the world with him. Bolton, on the other hand, you can talk about anything. You can talk about aid programs in Africa, and he’s well-briefed. He knows about it. But Pompeo has a much more political outlook.

GROSS: So you’re saying Pompeo is there to amplify Trump’s views. Bolton has very strong views of his own.

FILKINS: Yes, he does.

GROSS: So the title of your piece is “John Bolton On The Warpath.” I know he’s a hawk. Does the piece imply that he’s going to lead us into war?

FILKINS: No, but I think it fairly raises a lot of questions. And I think the basis of the piece is this, which I was kind of surprised to find - this divergence of world views between Bolton, on the one hand, who’s been a hawk his whole life. He’s for aggressive use of American power. He’s advocated bombing North Korea. He’s advocated bombing Iran. And then on the other hand, to the extent that President Trump has a world view, it is he wants to stay home. It’s America first. He’s pretty close to being an isolationist. He doesn’t want to - you know, he doesn’t want to partake in this kind of entire international architecture that was set up after the Second World War, whether it’s the World Trade Organization, or NATO or EU. He doesn’t want to pay for any of that stuff, and he doesn’t want to get involved.

So Trump, I think it’s fair to say, doesn’t really want to launch new military operations. They do not see eye to eye on things. I tried to kind of, you know, figure out what it is they talk about when they get together (laughter) for that reason.

GROSS: If Trump and Bolton have such opposing world views when it comes to the possibility of military intervention or war, why would Trump choose him? Why did he choose him?

FILKINS: Well, I think there’s - that’s a really good question. I think there’s two reasons for that. One is that, you know, I think he’s, Bolton, is kind of emotionally appealing to Trump. You know, Bolton was a very highly paid analyst on Fox News. He was on there few times a week. One of the revelations is - for me was I got to look at Mr. Bolton’s financial disclosure, which you’re required to submit for a job like that. And yeah, there was lots of stuff in there. So I think he was being paid $600,000 a year - this is just part of his income, but - $600,000 a year to be on Fox. And so every night, he’s banging away, talking tough. And I think that appeals emotionally to Trump. He’s like, he’s a tough guy. Plus he just sees him all the time. ‘Cause they didn’t really know each other very well.

I think the other reason is there were - H.R. McMaster had been the national security adviser before John Bolton. And there was a kind of a pretty large group of Trump allies who had decided that McMaster had to go. They didn’t like him. They thought he wasn’t supportive enough of Israel and of, you know, the current leadership there. And so they pushed him out. I mean, I think it’s fair to say they lobbied very hard to get him out, and they worked pretty hard to get Bolton in. So I think it was a confluence of those two things.

GROSS: What did Bolton advocate for as a highly paid commentator on Fox News?

FILKINS: (Laughter). Well, he, as I mentioned, he - and I went through a lot of stuff that he said on the air. And, you know, I think he’s finding - I should say, before I answer that question - I think he’s finding, you know, it’s a little different when you’re in power, as opposed to being out of power. But on Fox, talking tough - strike North Korea, if necessary, before they acquire an ICBM capability. Strike Iran in various, you know, various ways and in various contexts. That’s, like, at a minimum. And support Israel in its kind of what I think is a covert or actually pretty hot war that’s going on with Iran and Syria.

So really aggressive use of American power. But I think even more than that, not just - you know, not just dropping bombs. I think that Bolton’s worldview is he’s extremely skeptical of international agreements, whether they’re treaties or, again, the whole kind of architecture that was built by the United States over the past 70 years. You know, whether it’s NATO, or the EU, or the U.N. or the World Trade Organization, all those things which, you know, that’s the world we live in. And he is - and these are, you know, treaties and commitments, and bilateral agreements, multilateral agreements. He’s deeply skeptical of all those things. And he says, essentially, in - he has said this on Fox News, but he’s been very articulate about it in his writing, which is, every time you sign a treaty or a multilateral agreement, you give up a little bit of your sovereignty.

And so I think he sees - his view of America is as a kind of colossus operating unilaterally wherever it wants. And, you know, if you pick up friends along the way, great. But they’re not going to be your friends for long. ‘Cause there’s no such things as friends in the international system. There’s only interests. And only interests endure. And so don’t get sentimental about it. Just carry on.

[...]

So you just grabbed John Bolton as a ferocious critic of Iran. And when he moved into his office as national security adviser in the Trump administration, he hung a framed copy of Trump’s executive order nullifying the nuclear agreement with Iran. I’m sure President Trump liked that because it was his order. But did you see it when you interviewed Bolton? Did you see it framed…

FILKINS: Yeah. Yeah, he gave me a little - you know, he gave me a little tour around the office, and that was the first thing he pointed to. He said, you know, this is the executive order nullifying the agreement with Iran. Very - he was very happy about that.

GROSS: So why did he hate the deal so much?

FILKINS: That’s a good question. I think - somebody told me in my piece that Bolton has a kind of anal obsession with Iran which is, like, not explicable. I think Bolton would - in his defense, he would say - in fact, I asked him this question. I said, why are you obsessed with Iran? And he said, because of nuclear weapons. That’s why I think about Iran. And his aide said to me, the first thing John thinks about when he wakes up in the morning is how to protect the American people from the threat of nuclear weapons, and so - which is, you know - none of which is unreasonable.

I think that when they - but their view of Iran is just very, very dark, and it’s much darker than the Obama administration - the view that the Obama administration had. The Obama White House basically saw Iran, and they thought, OK, look. These guys are doing bad stuff all around the world. They’re not particularly nice people, but we can make a deal with them. And we can make a deal that’s verifiable and which will be in everyone’s interests. We can try to stop their very, you know, deliberate progress towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. And the rest of it - you know, we just hold our nose. And that was, like, the Obama view.

And I think the Bolton view - and it’s not necessarily Trump’s view, but the sort of - Bolton represents a huge part of Washington that believes that Iran is a - is not just a serious threat, but cannot be trusted to make a deal. And basically, the regime there has to be changed, as well. And I think - they don’t really say that publicly. They’re not allowed to use the words regime change. But they’re trying to cripple the economy, and I think they’re making a lot of progress on that front.

So I think that - cancel the nuclear agreement on one hand, and crush the economy on the other. And let’s see where that goes. As one of - as a, let’s say - a senior administration official said to me, if we cripple the economy - which I think we can do - and the Iranian people decide that - in their anger that they want to get rid of their government, well, you know, good luck to them. And I think that’s kind of where we are. That’s the White House policy towards Iran right now.

GROSS: But, you know, somebody else told you that the Obama administration sanctions were to punish the Iranian regime, but these new sanctions are punishing the Iranian people. And people express to you in the piece the fear that the sanctions are so tight they will lead to war with Iran, as opposed to a regime change.

FILKINS: Well, I think that’s one of the fears. The - I think one of the things that the United States kind of bureaucracy, I should say - the kind of - the experts in the government have learned over the past decade or so is just how sweeping American sanctions can be, particularly with regard to financial controls and financial sanctions. The United States essentially controls the international financial system.

And so if the right restrictions in - put in place, you can - which I think we’re seeing now in Iran - you really can cripple an economy. And so what the Trump administration is trying to do with Iran right now is basically shut down as completely as possible their ability to export oil. And that’s - you know, that’s, like, 90% of their government revenue. It shut down their ability to export oil and then basically drive the economy to collapse. And I have to say they’re making a lot of progress in that regard.

The - I think when they - when Trump came into power, the Iranians were exporting something like 2.9 million barrels of oil a day. They’re now below a million. And they’re going to - the Trump White House is going to keep pushing that lower. Inflation is just - is galloping Iran. Unemployment is very, very high.

So they’re doing - I think they’re achieving their objective, which is - at the moment, which is to cripple the Iranian economy. What comes out of that - you know, that’s kind of anyone’s guess. The - you know, they think - they believe, I think, pretty strongly that they can essentially foment an uprising or foment a collapse of the regime. I’m - you know, a lot of people I talked to are pretty skeptical that - you know, yes, they can collapse the economy, but does that necessarily take us where we want to go? Does that necessarily change the regime?

And - ‘cause, like, the regime - you know, the people at the top - they’re always the last people to suffer. They’re always going to eat well, and they have, you know, their bank accounts abroad. So - and, you know, we know that the Iranian regime is willing to kill as many people, kill as many Iranians as they need to to stay in power, as we saw in 2009. So where does this all go? Unclear, but they think they can - yeah. If we make the Iranian people miserable enough, they will rise up.

GROSS: Let’s talk about John Bolton’s background…

[...]

Let’s talk about Bolton’s background. In 1985, Bolton joined the Reagan Justice Department.Let’s talk about Bolton’s background. In 1985, Bolton joined the Reagan Justice Department.

And he was involved in the Iraq War. So you can just chart his career, and it takes you through the whole rise of the Republican establishment as we now know it.

[...]

[...]

So Bustani told me, I thought that if I could engage the Iraqi government and I could send these inspectors in, they could go in and they could determine - because we didn’t think that they had a chemical weapons production capability - we could basically show that, and we could maybe help stave off an invasion - and say, look, the Iraqis don’t - they let us in. They don’t have chemical weapons.

And so he was working towards that end and, I think, you know, pretty earnestly. And again, in the run-up to the war - so one day after the Iraqis had indicated that they were willing to sign and willing to come on board and allow inspections, John Bolton turned up in his office in The Hague and, you know, closed the door and sat down and said, I’m here at the request of Vice President Cheney. And we would like you to resign.

And Bustani was kind of stunned, as he described to me. And he said, I refused. I - and then he said Bolton threatened him and threatened his family. And he said, look; we want you to quit. We know where your daughters live. We know where your sons live. We know where your wife lives. It’s time for you to go…

Posted by Jack Posobiec Zionist on Thu, 11 Jul 2019 07:25 | #

Jack Posobiec is a ZlONIST Agent

Posted by Censorship Network on Sat, 31 Aug 2019 01:42 | #

Zl0NlST AGENT CENS0RSHlP NETWORK REVEALED!

Posted by John Bolton on Tue, 10 Sep 2019 17:59 | #

John Bolton: Trump’s national security adviser is out

12 minutes ago, BBC World:

US President Donald Trump says he has fired his National Security Adviser John Bolton.

“I informed John Bolton last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House,” he wrote.

“I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions,” Mr Trump wrote, adding that a new national security adviser would be appointed next week.

The firing comes after Mr Bolton argued with Mr Trump over the administration’s peace talks with the Taliban.

While it is certainly good to be rid of the war mongering Bolton…

Critics of Trump’s motive might argue that he is bargaining with endemic terrorism - the Afghanistan Taliban infested regions are places where American military pressure should be applied. The Taliban, left unencumbered in its Afghanistan redoubts, has provided a breeding ground for terrorism that will attack the west and non-Muslim societies at the next possible opportunity. They provided the training ground for Osama Bin-Laden’s 9-11 attack.

Recall Netanyahu’s remark after 9-11, “it was good for Israel.”

Further attacks from the Taliban could provide another opportunity for Israel to further Operation Clean Break.

The Taliban and Osama Bin Laden attack the WTC on 9-11 - of course! that means attack Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

The Taliban attacks the USA or Europe in 2020? Of course, attack Iran…

Something like that.

Posted by John Michael Bolton: bad taste fusion on Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:16 | #

          The epitome of bad taste, musically and geopolitically

 
Someone combined John Bolton with Michael Bolton and I can’t unsee it.

TODD SPENCE
@Todd_Spence
·
Sep 11

Trump, on the firing:

#BREAKING President Trump on John Bolton Firing:

“He made some very big mistakes when he talked about the Libyan model for Kim Jong Un that was not a good statement to make.”

Trump adds: “John is known as a tough guy. He’s so tough he got us into Iraq.”

Posted by John Bolton on Tue, 28 Jan 2020 17:19 | #

John Bolton’s Final Betrayal. Will His Testimony Lead to Trump Conviction?