The hysteria over whether or not President Trump and his National Security Advisor, John Bolton may or may not have had a conversation about withholding weapons shipments to the Ukraine in return for an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden’s activities, has the hatemongers, mainstream media, democrats in general and the House impeachment managers (Shift and Nadler) absolutely apoplectic.
The relevant question is, if the conversation between Bolton and Trump did take place is that a crime? After all, isn’t the ongoing impeachment trial about whether or not President Trump committed a crime? Let’s cut to the bottom line, whether or not that conversation ever took place is, in fact, absolutely irrelevant and immaterial.
Let me illustrate the issues of conversations and plans with what may have been an actual foreign policy occurrence in the Trump White House. September, 2017 the North Korean Foreign Minister, Ro Yong-ho, in an address before the United Nations, stated, “A North Korean missile strike against the US mainland is inevitable.” What should the president have done about it, nothing? Doing nothing would have been irresponsible simply because the president is constitutionally responsible for US foreign policy and, by extension, national security.
Here is what may have happened; at least we should all hope it did. There would be an emergency meeting of the National Security Council principals, most notably the Secretaries of State and Defense and the National Security Advisor. Following that meeting they would huddle with the president and there would likely be a press release something like this:
“The National Security Council met today to discuss the reckless assertion by the North Korean Foreign Minister that a strike on the US is inevitable. The Security Council spokesperson said that in considering a response to such a strike, everything is on the table.”
We have all learned over the years that “everything-is-on-the-table” is Washington speak for, the-entire-spectrum-of-options. In this case on one end of the spectrum would be a nuclear strike, on the other end do nothing and courses of action in between.
That is called contingency planning. Contingency planning is simply the answer to the question, what if? What if North Korea does make a preemptive strike on the US? What every prudent leader does in such a case is to cause the options to be put into an actual set of contingency plans. Why is that the responsible thing to do? Because if North Korea does strike, we do not want to be caught flat-footed staring at a blank sheet of paper.
In this scenario, the planning could even include prepositioning special weapons and delivery systems somewhere in the western Pacific region.
Contingency planning, that is what responsible leaders do. Just to finish this thought, let’s say that the conversations the president had in the Oval Office with Secretaries of State and Defense got leaked and the New York Times headline the following day is, US PLANS NUCLEAR STRIKE ON NORTH KOREA. While the statement is technically correct, it is also completely out of context and extremely damaging to foreign relations.
In the current Washington environment, that type of headline is certainly not beyond the realm of possibilities. The Trump haters, the mainstream media’s hate mongers, democrats and particularly the democrats in the House of Representative would all be in concert citing abuse of power by the president. That is not an overstatement, because what is going on right now in the Senate is a perfect case in point.
What the president talks about with his closest advisors in the Oval Office is not a crime nor is it abuse of power.
Back to John Bolton.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that President Trump said to Bolton, “Hold up on the shipment of aid to Ukraine until I get an agreement that they will investigate Joe and Hunter Biden”. Did the president actually hold the shipment until he got a commitment for an investigation? Absolutely not. Did he actually link the shipment and the investigation issues together in a conversation with Ukraine President Zalinski? Absolutely not. Saying and doing are two entirely different actions. Is saying it in the Oval Office a crime? Of course not.
What in the hell is this impeachment all about? Where is the crime? Whatever the president and John Bolton talked about (the operative word is “talked”) is irrelevant, immaterial and every lawyer and reasonably-minded adult in the Senate chamber should know that.
We should not forget to put the Ukraine situation in perspective. Russia invaded Ukraine; Ukrainians were fighting for their lives and ask the US for help. Obama sent $1 billion worth of MREs, other soft goods and VP Biden. Ukraine is the most corrupt nation in Europe. President Trump is actively working to curb the annual flow of tens of billions of dollars in “aid” to corrupt nations around the world. Before sending nearly $400 million in additional aid to Ukraine it would be reasonable to assume that he had serious discussions with his senior advisors about Ukraine’s corruption.
Bottom line, highly classified, sensitive, conversations do take place and must take place every day if the president is to properly do his job. Labeling leaked conversations we do not agree with as abuse of power is absurd.
The larger issue: What will future administrations be like if the President is fearful of having sensitive conversations with senior subordinates? What will the state of our future national security be if we are fearful of performing necessary, detailed, highly classified contingency planning? For those who see that outcome as acceptable, you can thank Nancy Pelosi.
Where is the intellectual honesty in the Bolton hysteria in particular and in the overall impeachment monstrosity?
Marv Covault, Lt Gen, US Army, retired