In comments to reporters on Wednesday, President Trump is continuing to reject the idea of starting a war with Iran. After dismissing Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) calls, saying not starting a war was a sign of strength, he continued to roast Graham, citing Graham’s support for the Iraqi War, and saying reporters should ask “how did going into Iraq work out?“
Graham is being predictably hawkish, but it seems that he’s in a minority in the Senate, where even many of his fellow Republicans are expressing reluctance to escalate precipitously, and are urging debate on the matter instead of hasty action.
Speaking of hawks, President Trump is reportedly facing intense criticism behind closed doors from recently fired John Bolton, who attended a closed-door lunch on Wednesday during which attendees say he repeatedly ripped Trump for policy decisions.
Bolton’s objections, surprising nobody who was paying attention, were to Trump’s interest in diplomacy. Bolton insisted that diplomatic overtures to both Iran and North Korea were doomed to fail, and even trying to hold talks sends a “terrible message.”
I hate to say it but – Trump just might BE the adult in the room…
Sure, unless he’s talking about being “locked and loaded” or threatening obliteration. I guess it depends on which day of the week it is.
Jaw jaw is better than war war..
Jaw Jaw includes devastating sanctions sanctions.
Compared to everyone else in the administration and most in Congress he is.
Any other Presidential hopeful from the last cycle would have launched strikes on Iran already. All the NPC Trump haters can pound sand.
“Any other Presidential hopeful from the last cycle would have launched strikes on Iran already.”
Highly unlikely that either Johnson or Stein would have.
As for Hillary, yeah, she would probably have been as bad as Trump. Hell, if I hadn’t seen them in the same place together, I’d assume he was just her in drag.
He’s not. So don’t bother saying it.
I’ll say this then.. He’s nobodies fool – particularly the neocon set who will glibly steer a leader down the path to disaster, then slink off to their think tag gigs for a monetary reward from the WarPig Industry and the Zios .. Or do I repeat myself?
Sometimes I love Trump.
Bolton will be hired as an expert on all MSM shows….beating the drums for US exceptionalism, endless wars and more Russophobia.
It’s moments like this from Trump that are really juicy and pleasurable.
I even hate to say it but sometimes on issues of war and peace, Trump is one the most sensible presidents in the past century.
then again I think of all the misery in his sanctions of Venezuela, Cuba, north Korea, Iran etc etc and his support for the barbaric saudis in their war against poor Yemen, (and the continuing US presence in Syria, what an irritant!) and it just frigging infuriates me!!
but this not wanting to intervene and attack Iran is sensible and I’ll give him that much. plus mocking Lindsey Graham and saying, well, how did that work out, is just precious
“not wanting to intervene”
Whether he bombs Iran, or not, doesn’t change the fact that he IS, in fact, intervening.
I tend to agree, Michael. Indeed, DJT’s one of the most sensible presidents on issues of war and peace in the past century. He wanted to withdraw all US troops from Syria (which Barack Obama had deployed as far back as 2011), but Pompous Pompeo and Bonkers Bolton sabotaged it.
Yes, his support for the barbaric Saudis in their war against Yemen is quite infuriating indeed. However, this not wanting to intervene and attack Iran’s quite sensible, plus mocking Lindsey Graham and saying, well, how did that work out, is simply precious;)
So Trump doesn’t like being criticized.
Big surprise…
He’s complaining about Graham, not because Graham is a war monger, but because Graham is usurping Trump’s position in that role. Graham’s call implicitly suggests Trump is a weakling by not striking Iran immediately. Trump is just using this to score points with his base.
The Republicans are concerned because, even though no sitting President during war time has ever lost an election, the President’s party has, especially in the following midterms. So the Republicans don’t want to be blamed for starting an “unnecessary” war, just like Trump – at least, not before an election.
Doesn’t mean they don’t want war. And it doesn’t mean they can’t gin up – as they have been doing all along – that the war is “necessary.”
After all the criticism of Saudi Arabia over the Kashoggi incident, Republicans are concerned over starting a war solely because of Saudi Arabia. But if the media spins it right, this is not a show stopper.
Again, so what? The election is 14 months away. What happens the day after? What happens if the Houthis hit Saudi Arabia again before or after that? How often can the US blame Iran for attacking a US “ally” before the US has to respond? How long can Trump stop a war we don’t even know for sure he doesn’t want?
Stop thinking in terms of the 24 hour news cycle. Ask the next question.
From an article on today’s page at Antiwar.com:
Factbox: Trump’s new national security adviser, in his own words
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-adviser-obrien-factbox/factbox-trumps-new-national-security-adviser-in-his-own-words-idUKKBN1W32P2
“Bolton Lite”…
Yeah, tell me again how Trump is “the adult in the room…” when he’s replacing “Tweedle-Dum” with “Tweedle-Dee.”
This is not how you reduce tensions and produce a productive negotiation in foreign policy. It’s “Trump Savior Syndrome” in action to believe otherwise.