Conflicts of Interest: John Bolton Wants to Turn Taiwan Into an American Military Base

On COI #416, Kyle Anzalone discusses John Bolton’s trip to Taiwan.

Subscribe on YouTube and audio-only.

68 thoughts on “Conflicts of Interest: John Bolton Wants to Turn Taiwan Into an American Military Base”

  1. There’s only one guy who would tell Bolton to ef himself but we are told he’s too evil (and Orange) to consider him.

    1. If Western Union still did telegrams and I could afford it, Bolton would wake up every morning to a knock on the door:


      1. To me, Bolton’s bloviations are so predictable that I kind of ignore them.
        If you only have a hammer (one world view involving a shooting war) everything is a nail, kind of thing.

    2. Really? You mean the guy who hired him? And the guy who brought him and evil clown Mike Pompeo to North Korea, where those two sabotaged the peace process that he started?

      1. I know you try to ignore the evil Orange one but he and Bolton hate each other and it’s not a hate bordering on love. He isn’t going to listen to Bolton nor any of his ilk if he gets back in.
        The State Department hates him along with darn near every government agency. You can’t seriously believe the guy boasting he can end the Ukraine war in 24 hours will be besties with Bolton do you?

        1. You seem to believe that Trump actually cares about anything but his money and his ego. That’s pretty far from reality. If Trump gets enough pushback against making peace in Ukraine, he’ll back off like he did with other U.S. military ventures he tried to stop.

          1. Jeff I don’t do cartoons.
            I get it, you don’t like the GOP.
            You believe everything the Democrats tell you about Trump and will repeat every outlandish thing they tell you to believe and you’ll get upset at anyone who doesn’t believe every nuance you do.
            Good for you but I prefer to look at it as who will go towards what I want more than the other one.
            I won’t waste my vote for some clown in a obscure party with no chance just so I can preen about my purity.

          2. No, you don’t even approach getting it. I hate the Democrats and Republicans equally, one more on some issues, the other more on others. I don’t get any of my information from the Democratic Party nor any of its lying propagandists. Instead, my information on Donald Trump comes from people like his relative Mary L. Trump (Too Much and Never Enough) and author David Cay Johnston, who’s written multiple books on Trump and seems to have made studying Trump his life’s work.

          3. You believe Crazy Mary? And some guy who is fixated on someone (that’s a little creepy;-)
            Sure whatever; as I shared I don’t do cartoons. If you want to reply to my posts with silly stuff I’m going to reply in kind. Don’t take it personally.

          4. Cartoons? Exactly where do you get your information?

            If you’re a Trump supporter, we have no basis for discussion on that issue. Trump is a vile pig, a racist, sexist xenophobe whose ego is the size of the universe and who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. The fact is that if Trump would have just invested the billions of dollars that he inherited in mutual funds, he’d have done much better than his incompetent business adventures, where BTW he ripped off people who work for him by not paying them. So great move supporting that jerk.

          5. There you go; a cartoon description.
            You go play with those who want to describe people as cartoons but I’m not that person.
            You have fun though.

          6. Trump and his John Birch father’s company was found guilty and/or liable of housing discrimination against Black people. I’ve heard Trump make racist, sexist, and xenophobic comments in the press. Maybe you’re all of those things too, which is why you defend Trump. All on top of the fact that, as I said, he only really cares about his money and his ego. Pretty disgusting, really.

          7. I try to put up with your silly leftwing nonsence but if you are going to namecall…go ef yourself

          8. He didn’t stop anything. He shifted troops around. We still have his troops in Syria, to steal Syrian oil, just like he said we should.

        2. Hi, I’m sort of puzzled as to why DT appointed him (kind of an assent to “listening” to him) in the first place, after his scathing commentary of all things “neocon” during the 2016 Primary period. I mean, he blasted Bush’s wars (that were openly aided and abetted by Bolton), and he trashed the loathsome Charles Krauthammer right to his face, for God’s sake, over Neoconservative led policies :-)

          1. He was told the Washington beltway folk would help him navigate a new job that he was learning how to do.
            Those are the one who tried to screw him so I kind of believe he isn’t going to listen as much to those who tell him he needs folks of Bolton’s ilk to succeed this time if he gets in.

          2. So, Trump was unaware of Bolton’s history of being a rabid warmonger? And somebody “told” him that Bolton would help navigate him in his new job? I guess that’s better than those who say Trump hired Bolton because Sheldon Adelson wanted payback for his millions in campaign contributions. Either way, not a good look.

          3. You seem to forget that Trump actually believed he was in charge of the State Department and he could control those like Bolton with his hawkish views.
            All of those folks’ books about their days in Trump’s administration are replete with stories of how they thwarted his crazy ideas like troop pull outs and such.
            If Trump is the choice between he and Joe ( or Harris if Joe’s declining cognitive abilities get any worse and they can’t cover it up anymore) it would have to be Trump. The Democrats are just blood thirsty bunch nowadays and that means someone like Kennedy won’t gain a bit of traction ( or won’t be allowed to)
            3rd party silliness is fun ( and you get to preen about how nothing is your fault) but it truly is waste of time and effort just for one’s emotional actualization is my way of thinking.

          4. Trump is better than the establishment of either party on U.S. foreign affairs issues, and on trade issues also for that matter. But on just about everything else, he’s worse, and that’s saying quite a bit. In addition to what I’ve already listed is wrong with him, and even more important, he was the worst president on the environment since Hitler/Reagan.

            If our only choices are Democrats or Republicans, screw both of them and work for change outside the electoral process, because you won’t get any substantial positive change within it.

          5. Working outside, while satisfying for some, is a futile activity in the bigger picture of national politics.
            Sure the 3rd party candidates are useful to split votes and win very close races (Perot was useful in that regard) but a Green party vote or Libertarian (around here they are just bashful GOPers or one-issue legalize weed folks) one isn’t really accomplishing a thing other than for one’s personal satisfaction for not voting for the lessor of 2 evils or the good ol Hobson’s choice type pick.

          6. Perot’s vote didn’t change the outcome. It just denied Clinton a popular vote majority.

            Voting at all is probably futile. Third party voting is no more futile than major party voting. “I can vote for what I want and not get it, or vote against what I want and not get it.”

          7. It also dampened turnout. Plus most important of all it turned close races towards Democrats by peeling off traditional GOP votes. If you don’t do a straight GOP ticket beginning at the top as you traditionally do, one also doesn’t go a straight GOP further down too.
            It was a very interesting campaign that year because I’m in Iowa.
            I even knew (and partied with a lot because I knew the family) Perot’s Iowa’s 1st campaign manager (remember that Iowa’s 1st in the nation status until this time made presidential campaigns here a very big deal)
            Then Mr. Perot announced all his State campaign managers would undergreally thorough background checks…..and he decided his business interests were keeping him too busy or someother excuse he gave in his resignation letter to Ross.

          8. Turnout in 1992 was up 5.3% over 1988.

            And exit polls showed that a large majority of Perot voters had Clinton, not Bush, as their second choice. Majority, of course, is not the same thing as unanimous. I considered myself nominally a Republican until Bush broke his “no new taxes” pledge, after which I gathered petition signatures for Perot in Missouri,.

            Popular -vote wise, the result was that Clinton won with 43% instead of 55%. In terms of electoral votes, Perot’s presence on the ballot doesn’t seemed to have changed the outcome in so much as a single state.

          9. You are referring to a different number and races.
            I was referring to the impact on close down ballot races but anyway the point was in regard to working “outside” the two party system.

            I used Perot as a futile example which did impact close down ballots and around here it helped to elect Dems. That second choice number did not translate to down ballots around here is perhaps is the best way to say what I believe you are going with that number. Turn out was not refering to national turnout but in those races down ballot that were close. Enthusiasm might be a term we could include too.

            Clinton’s success nationally sure saw similar results locally.
            Outside the system means third party or the equally futile, occupy silliness like pipeline protests or new police training centers and little Ross was just a better example than that ex-CIA McMuffin guy who crazy Beck was touting in ’16.

          10. “Futile” implies particular desired purposes/results.

            1992 was the last time I made the mistake of assuming that a third party candidate might plausibly win a presidential race.

            Nonetheless, I’ve never had good reason to consider third party politics “futile,” because I never saw winning a presidential race as the standard of success. I’ve managed winning issues campaigns backed by, and winning campaigns for lower office with candidates from, third parties. Hell, I’ve been a federal appointee twice myself. If the ingredients I have available to me are ground beef, buns, cheese slices, and ketchup it is indeed “futile” for me to expect to successfully make a souffle. But a hamburger is very doable.

          11. That’s your view and of course there the problem of agreement over what the word is defined as, to each of us.
            That’s why discussions are so hard on the net.
            Around here 3rd party just means legal weed or people who call themselves Liberterian but as they get higher office beyond that first one they turn into Republicans or just stay smalltime local politicians playing with zoning changes.
            Or we have them to slice off support of ones opponent’s.

            I used own a carpet cleaning company that cleaned the head ASMEunion hall where the State union head had his office then he embezzled, a lady became president and I helped her and Richard Trumka cover up a break-in that tried to destroy accounting records that the forensic accountant he brought with him that he was going to review …crazy Schiff;-)…but I spent several years hanging out there just observing while cleaning. They tried to unionize me but I refused to go on strike against myself was a running joke we had.
            They got behind Fred Grandy’s 3rd party flitation against the Governor. Their mailroom resembled that guy’s campaign headquarters and they were more than happy to back him despite not agreeing with most of his platform.

          12. Voting for a lesser evil is a wasted vote, and you’ll never get anything but evil if people do that. Our electoral system is totally rigged and not at all representative. I said that we need to work outside the electoral system, not voting for 3d party candidates. To be clear, I’m registered Green and always vote that way, but I’m under no illusion that it’s going to do anything substantially good.

          13. Then you believe the various Occupy actions cause change.
            That to me is “wasted” effort just as voting is to you.
            My state’s carbon sequestration pipe-line is going to be stopped via our legislators, not by those who end up doing Fed time because they burned construction equipment.
            The court system likely won’t be used but it is very unlikely that Court will expand Eminent Domain to allow a private company act as a government enitity.
            But good luck to you and your protests. The nonviolent ones are entertaining.

          14. He says things that do not have a plan. Just to focus attention on him. Without attention he would just wither away.I believe he shut down the Iowa appearance because there might not have been “enough” people there to witness his greatness, his clear thinking, hie oratorical skills. Or, there were not enough $50 bills to dole out to his cheering section.

          15. Read my other comments on this thread about Trump.

            That said, people who obsess on him, whether for or against, have been brainwashed. Trump is supposedly anti-establishment, but he’s a billionaire who will do anything for money and to pump up his ego. How exactly does that work? On the other side, he mostly governed like any other Republican president, with the exception of his tepid efforts to rein in the military and slow down international trade. So how exactly is he worse than other politicians?

          16. Then why did trump put himself through having to worry about controlling those like Bolton? Just don’t hire him. Same with Pompeo. Again, well known and hardly a dove. Why hire him? It makes no sense to hire those you have to worry about controlling.
            I won’t vote for either, again. And yes, I’m one of those who truly will waste my time and effort just for my emotional actualization. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be able to preen and such. But you, you can take pride in knowing that you leave your conscience at the door and do your duty just like they want you to and you even encourage others to be just like you. Wonderful.

          17. Oh h*ll, Trump believes he is in charge of everything, the key to everything, to the detriment of anyone in his way. He is a sociopath. It is how they think.

          18. If that’s the DSM definition (which it isn’t ) then every politician is a sociopath too.
            Even the ones you prefer.

          19. Because, again, Trump only really cares about his money and his ego. All else is secondary to him, including his supposed anti-war stances.

          20. There’s no need to ever be puzzled by anything Trump says or does. The answer to the question “why did he say or do that” is always “because he thought saying/doing that would produce results that were good for Donald Trump.”

        3. And you can’t seriously believe anything coming from a guy that says he can end the Ukraine war in 24 hours.

          1. Sure the guy is full of himself with that 24 hour boast but that’s more of a demonstration of his intent and that appears to be one of stopping the war without the usual weeks long negotiations.
            I’m pretty sure a simple phone call to the comedian explaining the facts of life as Trump sees it will be quite jarring and will end things in….let’s say 48 hours….lol.

          2. “The facts of life as Trump sees it” generally seems to be “the facts of life as he was most recently told by the person he was most recently listening to.”

          3. Sure, just like all politicians.
            Between he and Biden he’s a heck of less war-like than what the Democrat party is nowadays (AOC and Bernie just love their war don’t they?) so it’s a Hobson’s choice for me because there won’t be any other choices it appears ( as long as Joe’s health holds or his kids woes won’t get worse but then it sounds like Greene wants his “escorts” to testify which will be a hoot).

          4. Or he’s such a narcissist, he was actually being serious. But this war is too far along to think anyone can end it in short order. Trump’s “perfect” phone calls won’t do the trick.

          5. He’s being serious in that he’s negotiating and he’s doing his usual overstatement.
            A ceasefire within 24 hours is doable (wasn’t there a ceasefire just announced in Gaza?) and real negotiations begin at that point to end it.
            If the US shares that the weapons flow is over what choice does Ukraine have?
            Their piddling support grows to replace what Trump (or someother President, likely GOP) stops shipping?
            Letting Russia know that if they stop shooting, Ukraine has been told to knock it off too will likely be it needs to stop.

          6. If Trump cut off the flow of weapons to Ukraine, I would guarantee that there would be no cease fire within 24 hours. Negotiations would have to begin before that would happen otherwise Ukraine would have zero negotiating power. Ukraine, even if it has to make do with Europe’s piddling support, couldn’t possibly accept that. Plus, Trump would face so much backlash from both parties. The votes on Gaetz’s anti-war resolutions showed how many GOP members are truly antiwar. Not many.

          7. All of that is true.

            Additionally, it’s plausible to assume that if Trump was elected on a promise to cut off the flow of weapons to Ukraine, the outgoing Biden regime would spend its last two months shipping weapons to Ukraine as quickly as humanly possible.

            But let’s suppose that Trump was elected on that pledge, that Biden didn’t escalate shipments, and that the flow of US arms to Ukraine ceased at 12:01pm on January 20, 2025.

            What would the effect be?

            My guess is that it might add six months to a year to how long the war lasts. It would also decrease the already low likelihood that the Russian regime would have to sue for peace instead of being allowed to withdraw from Kherson/Zaporizhia oblasts, keep Donetsk/Luhansk, and de-escalate back to “frozen conflict” without begging for mercy.

          8. Right now at the levels being provided as Ukraine demanding more to be able to have success overall and just get their spring offensive going to another semi-promise of success.
            So a cut-off won’t have a impact for a 6 month minimum….during the winter lull in fighting that will be promised to begin in yet another Spring offensive?
            Just look at the timing of our election at the timing of that war.
            Trump begins a new term right when the fighting is pretty slow and the Ukrainians lobbying for new arms is the highest.

          9. The party follows their leader just as those reliable antiwar voices in the Democrat party are now complete war mongers (here’s looking at you, the “Squad”, the “Squaw” and everyone’s favorite commie; Bernie).
            Trump made the boast and look where we are personally in this thread; we are discussing if his “best-ever” “completely perfect” “totally doable” (say it in his voice;-) 24 hours is going to work or if we are looking at a few week wind-down to peace negotiations.
            That’s kind of where we are at this point in the ’24 race; the war party represented by Joe/DNC and some guy with his overstatements and language that has many interpretations (like any salesman does) that wants not only the war to stop but is also asking why we are paying for Europe’s war and all that entails in so many ways outside of this war.

          10. Most times I would agree. I still refer to the votes on Gaetz’s resolutions. And there were as many democrats that voted for those as republicans. It was a perfect time for the republicans to force Biden to veto something he bitched about Trump vetoing.
            You’re right that the 24 hour boast really shouldn’t be something worth discussing. I’d be extremely happy to be wrong by weeks if not months if Trump actually has a plan other than him thinking that he is the reason the war can be stopped very quickly. He seems to think our “enemies” fear him more so I guess they will cower if he returns to office.
            Trump does say the right thing on occasion. The problem with me is that he’ll say something totally different about the same subject depending on who is in the room with him at any given time. If he were discussing Ukraine with Tom Cotton, I would guess his conversation with him would be quite different than if he had been discussing Ukraine with Rand Paul. Trump is always “on”. He doesn’t have a principled bone in his body. That matters to me.

          11. It’s a simple as timing. You take the Oath in January. That war is taking a winter break; the Ukrainians are about to start putting off their upcoming Spring offensive (just as they are doing now; it’s a pattern by now) because of weather and of course they need more arms.
            Trump appears right when that is occurring saying he’s cutting off the arms.
            That’s the scenario.
            What alternatives do the Ukrainians have?

          12. I actually wasn’t even thinking about the fact that we are still in the middle of May. I think the war will be over by the end of the year. I

          13. You can’t believe anything Trump or Biden says. Jimmy Dore has shown a long list of lies of Joe Biden going back decades, some of which were even called out on mainstream TV decades ago. At least Trump’s lies are funny because they’re so outrageous and more clearly detached from reality; Biden is a more sophisticated liar.

          14. Same here. Biden has called Social Security and Medicare “sacred cows”. In the context of the current negotiations over the budget, that makes me just a little nervous.

  2. This isn’t just about defending Taiwan, this is about closing the door on the mainland. First you have Japan with a string of islands almost reaching the Artic then south of Japan another string of islands down to Taiwan then another string down to the Philippines all the way down to Australia. This is what “containing China” is all about. China will not give up Taiwan in a million years and it will be a fight to the death if some outsiders try totake it from them. The US knows this and are taking advantage of the good and patient nature of China to do what ever they think they are doing. The Chinese have plenty of cause to not trust us, it wasn’t just the Brits that waged the opium wars against the Chinese people and tried to destroy them, we the US had a hand in those wars. Our hands our bloody my friends and we should clean up our act.

    1. “China will not give up Taiwan in a million years and it will be a fight to the death if some outsiders try totake it from them.”

      China doesn’t have to “give up” Taiwan — it hasn’t controlled Taiwan since 1895.

      1. Taiwan is an autonomous part of China. Even the U.S. empire officially recognized that, though that may have recently changed now that the U.S. is planning to make war with China. “Control” isn’t the issue at this time.

        1. “China” is a geographical term, not a political term. Geographically, Taiwan is not part of China.

          “Autonomous” is a political term. Politically, Taiwan is not now and never has been a part, “autonomous” or otherwise, of the political entity called the People’s Republic of China.

          The only thing the US regime has ever “officially recognized” in that regard is that the PRC regime denies that latter fact of reality. In the position established in 1979 and in place ever since, the US regime “acknowledges the PRC’s position” that it owns/rules a separate country it has never owned/ruled (while clearly stating that it will continue to trade with that separate country, including in arms, whether the PRC likes it or not).

          1. The Chinese government would beg to differ. China certainly is a nation/state. And the U.S. certainly has recognized the One China policy, which means that Taiwan is part of China. You have a very weird view of all this, I really have no response.

          2. There are various “One China” policies.

            The PRC’s “One China” policy, as laid out in the 1972 Joint Communique is:

            “the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government of China; Taiwan is a province of China which has long been returned to the motherland; the liberation of Taiwan is China’s internal affair in which no other country has the right to interfere; and all US forces and military installations must be withdrawn from Taiwan.”

            The US’s “One China” policy, as laid out in that same document, is “The United States Government does not challenge that position.”

            The US “One China” policy was subsequently changed in the Taiwan Relations Act to merely “acknowledge,” rather than “not challenge,” the PRC’s position. That was followed by the 1982 Six Assurances:

            1. The United States has not agreed to set a date for ending arms sales to Taiwan.
            2. The United States has not agreed to consult with the PRC on arms sales to Taiwan.
            3. The United States will not play a mediation role between Taipei and Beijing.
            4. The United States has not agreed to revise the Taiwan Relations Act.
            5. The United States has not altered its position regarding sovereignty over Taiwan.
            6. The United States will not exert pressure on Taiwan to enter into negotiations with the PRC.

            The Six Assurances were modified by Congressional resolution in 2016, with the Sixth Assurance much more pointedly phrased: “The United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.”

            Those are the facts of the US position. You don’t have to like the fact that they’re facts. They’re facts whether you like the fact that they’re facts or not.

  3. Oh take me back to the ile of Formosa, another time another place long ago, near the blue Pacific Ocean , a hilltop over looking, the beauty of the sea, the air was nice and cool there, the flowers how they bloom, the world is not so cruel there, for everyone there’s room, my stay will be forever, forgotten misery, the way of peace will never, fail to be with me.

  4. An ugly man. Got out of the draft for Vietnam, admitting he did not want to die in some rice paddy there. Yet, he pushes war and the deaths of young men he would send to war. An ugly, useless man.

Comments are closed.