The left and the Bolton nomination

The left's media pundits have viciously conveyed their unequivocal dislike for John Bolton's nomination by President Trump as national security adviser.  No epithet has been omitted in characterizing his political views and opinions.  They call Mr. Bolton a war hawk, the second most dangerous man in the Washington, and a pusher for a preventive strike against Iran and North Korea nuclear facilities.  Interestingly enough, the Lebanese newspaper al-Akhbar, associated with Hezb'allah, called him a "zionist hawk."  Not for the first time, leftist media viewpoints are somehow aligned with direct enemies of the West.  Should any military action occur during Bolton's incumbency, they would eagerly pin him with a "war criminal" label.

Amid all the attacks, the left missed the boat on three significant points.

Firstly, Bolton has tremendous experience in international matters and enjoys a high level of respect from his colleagues.  During the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations, he worked for the State Department, the Justice Department, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.  His government service included such positions as undersecretary of state, assistant attorney general, and U.S. ambassador to the U.N., each marked by multiple achievements.  John Bolton's qualifications for the job are outstanding, to say the least.

Secondly, the opinions expressed by Bolton through various media outlets over time, branded by his opponents as overly hawkish, would not necessarily be carried through into his decision-making and actions as national security adviser, given his vast experience in the diplomatic arena.  Even CNN stated that "his past comments are now behind him."

And last but not least, just a few weeks back, left-wing "pacifists" were greatly outraged by President Trump's accepting a proposal for a direct meeting with Kim Jong-un.  Immediately after the announcement, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof called it "a dangerous gamble and a bad idea."  Paul Waldman from the Denver Post was "trying to imagine" what would Republicans would have said if Hillary had been elected the POTUS and decided to meet with Kim: "[t]hey [the Republicans]'d say that North Korea can't be trusted, because it has made agreements in the past to restrict its nuclear program and then cheated.  They'd say that she was being naive, getting snookered by someone who's obviously more clever than she."  Well, I don't have any doubts that Kim is more clever than she.  Secretary of state Clinton failed to save the lives of our ambassador to Libya and three other Americans in September 2012, with all the sovereign power of the U.S. at her disposal. 

So when Trump agrees to meet the North Korean leader for direct talks rather than contemplating an attack on his nation's nuclear facilities, it's a "bad idea."  When the president nominates John Bolton, known as being a diplomatic tough guy, as his national security adviser, it's a terrible idea as well.  So the question is, should we or should we not manifest a forceful and realistic approach to the dangers of a potential nuclear strike against us and our allies?  Simple logic is not the strongest feature of the left, but could leftists at least make a clear choice?

The left's media pundits have viciously conveyed their unequivocal dislike for John Bolton's nomination by President Trump as national security adviser.  No epithet has been omitted in characterizing his political views and opinions.  They call Mr. Bolton a war hawk, the second most dangerous man in the Washington, and a pusher for a preventive strike against Iran and North Korea nuclear facilities.  Interestingly enough, the Lebanese newspaper al-Akhbar, associated with Hezb'allah, called him a "zionist hawk."  Not for the first time, leftist media viewpoints are somehow aligned with direct enemies of the West.  Should any military action occur during Bolton's incumbency, they would eagerly pin him with a "war criminal" label.

Amid all the attacks, the left missed the boat on three significant points.

Firstly, Bolton has tremendous experience in international matters and enjoys a high level of respect from his colleagues.  During the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations, he worked for the State Department, the Justice Department, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.  His government service included such positions as undersecretary of state, assistant attorney general, and U.S. ambassador to the U.N., each marked by multiple achievements.  John Bolton's qualifications for the job are outstanding, to say the least.

Secondly, the opinions expressed by Bolton through various media outlets over time, branded by his opponents as overly hawkish, would not necessarily be carried through into his decision-making and actions as national security adviser, given his vast experience in the diplomatic arena.  Even CNN stated that "his past comments are now behind him."

And last but not least, just a few weeks back, left-wing "pacifists" were greatly outraged by President Trump's accepting a proposal for a direct meeting with Kim Jong-un.  Immediately after the announcement, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof called it "a dangerous gamble and a bad idea."  Paul Waldman from the Denver Post was "trying to imagine" what would Republicans would have said if Hillary had been elected the POTUS and decided to meet with Kim: "[t]hey [the Republicans]'d say that North Korea can't be trusted, because it has made agreements in the past to restrict its nuclear program and then cheated.  They'd say that she was being naive, getting snookered by someone who's obviously more clever than she."  Well, I don't have any doubts that Kim is more clever than she.  Secretary of state Clinton failed to save the lives of our ambassador to Libya and three other Americans in September 2012, with all the sovereign power of the U.S. at her disposal. 

So when Trump agrees to meet the North Korean leader for direct talks rather than contemplating an attack on his nation's nuclear facilities, it's a "bad idea."  When the president nominates John Bolton, known as being a diplomatic tough guy, as his national security adviser, it's a terrible idea as well.  So the question is, should we or should we not manifest a forceful and realistic approach to the dangers of a potential nuclear strike against us and our allies?  Simple logic is not the strongest feature of the left, but could leftists at least make a clear choice?