Gingrich: John Bolton will be my secretary of state

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich promised conservatives on Tuesday he would ask former U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton to be his secretary of state if he’s elected president next year, according to several of those who met with him.

Hours later he repeated that vow publicly to the Republican Jewish Coalition, winning a round of applause.

“If he accepts it, I will ask John Bolton to be secretary of state,” said the former House speaker, who national polls show has vaulted to the top of the Republican presidential field and leads in three of the first four states that will vote for the next Republican nominee.

washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/7/gingrich-john-bolton-will-be-my-secretary-state/
 
Hoo-boy… that alone is reason to reject Gingrich all in itself. I wasn’t a Gingrich supporter before, but I am definitely against him now.
 
Bolton is a foreign policy genius. This is fantastic news.
 
Dale_M said:
Hoo-boy… that alone is reason to reject Gingrich all in itself. I wasn’t a Gingrich supporter before, but I am definitely against him now.
Click to expand...
Please explain why? Statements are one thing, explaining the reasons why are another.
 
mary_bobo said:
Please explain why? Statements are one thing, explaining the reasons why are another.
Click to expand...
Because he is a war-monger. He was, in part, responsible for the US invasion of Iraq. And then, two years later when Iraq was at the depth of chaos, he began lobbying the Bush administration to attack Iran. He lobbied for years, despite being shuffled out of the inner circle during the second administration. When President Bush left office, he began pushing for Israel to attack Iran.

He is an aggressive neo-conservative with a warped understanding of the world. Several times he has announced to the press that an Israeli attack on Iran was imminent, based upon his analysis of Israeli defense forces. He is a unilateralist, which would have the US defy world opinion and give the middle finger to our allies…as we did when we invaded Iraq.

Would you be willing to explain why you think Bolton is a foreign policy genius?
 
John Bolton is a zealous neocon who seems eager for more war. How a Christian can be supportive of him is difficult to understand. What a disaster that would be! Besides, aren’t two wars enough?
Code: 
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."

 This announcement is just one more reason to oppose Gingrich. Add it to his ethical problems when he was Speaker in Congress (he was ousted by his own party), his unbridled vanity, his careless tongue, his lobbyist activities for Freddie Mac, his flip-flop on critical issues, his mistaken priorities (e. g., $500,000 credit line at Tiffany's!), opposition from many responsible GOPers such as Christie, Rove, Scarborough and others, his questionable personal life. etc. His nomination will be cheered loudly by Obama and the Democrats. There will be considerably more dirt than has come to public attention already, and women, family-values folks, and millions of other voters will sit on their hands, vote third party, or reluctantly support the reelection of Obama. .
 
Dale_M said:
Because he is a war-monger. He was, in part, responsible for the US invasion of Iraq. And then, two years later when Iraq was at the depth of chaos, he began lobbying the Bush administration to attack Iran. He lobbied for years, despite being shuffled out of the inner circle during the second administration. When President Bush left office, he began pushing for Israel to attack Iran.

He is an aggressive neo-conservative with a warped understanding of the world. Several times he has announced to the press that an Israeli attack on Iran was imminent, based upon his analysis of Israeli defense forces. He is a unilateralist, which would have the US defy world opinion and give the middle finger to our allies…as we did when we invaded Iraq.

Would you be willing to explain why you think Bolton is a foreign policy genius?
Click to expand...
He would be an upgrade over the clown we have there now.
 
Roy5 said:
John Bolton is a zealous neocon who seems eager for more war. How a Christian can be supportive of him is difficult to understand. What a disaster that would be! Besides, aren’t two wars enough?
Code: 
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."

 This announcement is just one more reason to oppose Gingrich. Add it to his ethical problems when he was Speaker in Congress (he was ousted by his own party), his unbridled vanity, his careless tongue, his lobbyist activities for Freddie Mac, his flip-flop on critical issues, his mistaken priorities (e. g., $500,000 credit line at Tiffany's!), opposition from many responsible GOPers such as Christie, Rove, Scarborough and others, his questionable personal life. etc. His nomination will be cheered loudly by Obama and the Democrats. There will be considerably more dirt than has come to public attention already, and women, family-values folks, and millions of other voters will sit on their hands, vote third party, or reluctantly support the reelection of Obama. .
Click to expand...
If that’s he wants to spend his money on - at Tiffany’s, surely that is up to him. What has that got to do with his presidential intentions? Are you seriously telling me that you really care what Christie, Rove, Scarborough’s comments on other issues other than their opinion on Gingrich?

Regarding your claim of ethics violations, Democrat David Bonior brought 75 charges against Newt, these charges were investigated by the IRS and Newt was found innocent of all the charges.

nytimes.com/1999/02/04/us/irs-clears-foundation-linked-to-gingrich-s-ethics-dispute.html
 
_Abyssinia said:
If that’s he wants to spend his money on - at Tiffany’s, surely that is up to him. What has that got to do with his presidential intentions? Are you seriously telling me that you really care what Christie, Rove, Scarborough’s comments on other issues other than their opinion on Gingrich?

Regarding your claim of ethics violations, Democrat David Bonior brought 75 charges against Newt, these charges were investigated by the IRS and Newt was found innocent of all the charges.

nytimes.com/1999/02/04/us/irs-clears-foundation-linked-to-gingrich-s-ethics-dispute.html
Click to expand...
Apparently, some people have an issue with a private citizen who can afford a half-million line of credit at a jewelry store, but have no issues with the President spending millions of taxpayer dollars on taking extravagant shopping trips with his family all over the world. 🤷 At least Newt pays his own bills.
 
I don’t recall his ever announcing, gleefully, “We came, we saw, he died”, then laughing when any foreign leader was sodomized and killed. At least he hasn’t done that.

I have no recollection of his working to get rid of U.S. allies or turning nations over to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Well, then too, I don’t recall his ever saying that homosexual rights are the number one human rights issue or telling other nations their poor can just starve to death until they allow homosexual “marriage”.

One could do worse than John Bolton. One has.
 
The definitive “neocon” would be someone like Norman Podhoretz.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Podhoretz

or: nndb.com/people/402/000048258/

… when he was only 37 years old, he wrote his autobiography, “Making It”.

or “perhaps” … David Horowitz

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz

nndb.com/people/812/000049665/

archive.frontpagemag.com/bioAuthor.aspx?AUTHID=4

davidhorowitztv.com/

Horowitz “probably” started out wayyy too left to be considered a “liberal”.

… so, basically, lifelong, leftist, liberal, left-wing Jews who began to articulate politically conservative * views.

By that “definition” or those exemplars, there is no way that John Bolton could be considered a “neocon”.

[BTW, Bolton is Lutheran:

http://www.nndb.com/people/329/000048185/*
 
Many neo-cons have been Jews, but others have not been. John Bolton certainly exemplifies the attitude of neo-cons when it comes to foreign affairs. He never sees an opportunity for war that he wants to pass by. Whenever he comes on Fox, we can expect an alarmist let’s-hate someone. He would not be satisfied with only two wars, and soon urge us to attack Iran, Syria, and/or others - as other neocons already have urged. I presume I would be officially reprimanded here on CAF if I fully expressed my thinking on Bolton. Yes, I would use very sharp language.
Bolton as Secretary of State would be disastrous for the USA and the world. That Newt has announced his choice (is it really true?) is enough to make me anti-Newt. It is such a wild, irresponsible choice that in an Obama-Gingrich contest I would sit on my hands, vote third party, or vote for Obama. I love America too much to want such an irresponsible and dogmatic extremist in such a key position. When I think of Bolton, the war-eager, paranoid leaders of Germany in the '30s come to mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top