Rand Paul Explains Why John Bolton is ‘Dangerous’ and Shouldn’t be ‘Anywhere Near the State Department’ [VIDEO]

They say if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.

Senator [score]Rand Paul[/score] was asked specifically what he thought of former UN ambassador John Bolton, and he did not abide by that axiom. Bolton was one of the top contenders for Secretary of State until Trump tapped Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson for the job. The former UN ambassador is still being considered for a job somewhere in the Trump administration, perhaps as undersecretary of state.

The Kentucky Senator’s criticism of John Bolton and others including Rudy Giuliani is well known. His main criticism is that he sees them as “unrepentant” Iraq War and regime change proponents. It’s one thing to have initially supported those ideas but then come to the realization that they were mistakes. But, according to Senator Paul, it’s something else entirely to still hold on to those ideas, not having learned anything from these past mistakes.

When asked by the Morning Joe hosts what comes to mind when he hears the name John Bolton, Paul said that he “can’t think of a nice word” to associate with him.

Trending: Obama Forgot He is No Longer President, Shows Up at G20 Summit

“I’m trying to think of a nice word, but I can’t think of a nice word,” he replied with a smirk. “But what I would say is he’s dangerous. He has a naive understanding of the world, and I don’t want him anywhere near the State Department, because he’s an unrepentant advocate of regime change and the Iraq war, and hasn’t learned any of the lessons of the last two decades.”

Host Joe Scarborough followed up, asking Paul if Bolton still thinks the Iraq invasion in 2003 was a good idea, “even though we found no WMDs.”

[As an aside – ironically, the basis for the Iraq invasion in 2003 was a CIA assessment, which claimed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. This CIA report, if you recall, was scoffed at by liberals.

The original unexpurgated assessment document was released a couple years ago and published for the first time last year in March. Business Insider noted, “The CIA couldn’t prove that his regime had actually resumed producing chemical and biological agents and cast doubt on the actual extent of Saddam’s program.” In other words, they had a lot of speculation based on circumstantial-at-best evidence. No actual evidence. Sound familiar?

And yet, now, liberals are so quick to point to a similar CIA assessment “proving” that Russian hackers meddled with our election to help Trump win. If you don’t believe the CIA assessment, then you must hate America.]

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming…

Paul responded:

“He promoted a false assumption, the WMDs, but also he promoted that it would be very quick, we wouldn’t have to stay very long, no big deal. But he’s still promoting the same thing. He says the Iraq War was justified and he’d do it again.

“Not only that, he’s promoting the same kind of thing for Iran. He would bomb Iran and has said it repeatedly over and over again. His only argument is we didn’t bomb them soon enough. He would still bomb Iran and he thinks it would be a cake walk, we would be greeted as liberators. We would have embassies open in 20 days.

“It’s a naive understanding and we don’t need anymore of that in the State Department.”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend