U.S. Senator Rand Paul supports the removal of John Bolton as National Security Advisor due to an abject difference of foreign policy with Bolton. Also, Senator Lindsey Graham cautiously supports the removal of John Bolton from a concessionary position that Trump is correct, and the endless foreign intervention needs to have some conclusion.
Beyond the orange-man-bad democrats, and their new found political love for Bolton (their former nemesis), interestingly the strongest DC and media voices against Bolton’s removal are foreign policy voices primarily concerned about supporting Israel (Ted Cruz, Mark Levin etc).
So far today CTH notes no-one is mentioning Bolton’s failed policy on Venezuela. That policy/effort was all John Bolton; ….and that brings another point into the picture.
Can you imagine what interventionist policy Bolton was starting to formulate surrounding Hong Kong?
Typical war-hawks like John Bolton, and those within the ‘industrial military‘ circle, do not value the more forceful use of economic strategy to accomplish national security objectives. The economic approach is easily President Trump’s preferred weapon; and right now the biggest geopolitical confrontation is the U.S. -v- China.
Hong Kong is a part of the geopolitical dynamic; but it is a part President Trump is able to carve out from the larger issue. No doubt the Bolton approach would have been to send troops in/around Hong Kong, eventually drawing a conflict with Beijing. A person like Bolton would be exactly the wrong person in the game of economic chess. In my opinion Trump’s China trade strategy is much better off without Bolton mucking it up.
With Bolton gone, might we see Tom Bossert re-enter the administration?