Lindenberger: Trump’s Critics Should Be Slow To Make Bolton Out To Be A Hero

By Michael Lindenberger

John Bolton is no hero.

He has just been playing the part lately, given that he’s all but unique among top Republicans in his willingness to tell the truth about President Donald Trump. That’s admirable.

None of that means his critics are wrong when they call his offer to testify score-settling and self-serving. And it certainly needs cross-examination.

Never mind for a minute that that’s precisely why the Senate should vote Friday to subpoena his testimony. He and other witnesses have information relevant to senators’ decision to acquit Trump or remove him from office. Refusing to hear that testimony would be extraordinarily cynical.

Such a refusal would tarnish the verdict and stain the Senate when trust in our institutions is already threadbare. How could Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — not to mention Texas’ own two senators, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz — allow that to happen?

But back to Bolton. Valuable testimony aside, he remains a tremendously misguided foreign policy hawk whose exit from the White House last March made everyone on the planet safer. Democrats’ lionizing of him in order to magnify the impact of his testimony is a mistake. For one thing, the testimony could be less damning for Trump than it seems. For another, it’s as-yet uncorroborated and entirely untested. Bolton himself has not been cross-examined or even put under oath.

Bolton’s influence in the administration was destructive. And it’s worth remembering that Trump’s stated views on war are closer to where contemporary Democrats are than are Bolton’s — and by a long shot.

When Trump named Bolton to the post almost two years ago, I winced. The last thing Trump needed, I wrote at the time, was war-whisperer Bolton in his ear. Steadier hands had left the administration in droves and Trump was increasingly isolated from experienced, sober-minded advisers. Would he have the guts or even just the basic knowledge necessary to keep us out of wars we should avoid, when his top security adviser was such a demonstrated hawk on Iran, North Korea and other major hot spots?

It seemed doubtful. Former Ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns told me at the time that Trump’s “mercurial” and “sometimes uninformed” decisions on foreign policy mixed poorly with Bolton’s extraordinary hawkishness.

“Trump is still very inexperienced in foreign relations,” said Burns, also a retired career foreign service officer. “He needs someone around him who can speak truth to power and provide objective advice.”

Burns was the guy to ask. He was ambassador to NATO and then undersecretary of state for political affairs under former President George W. Bush, who himself was initially inexperienced on the world stage.

Bolton lasted a year and a half, and now he’s back with information about Trump’s foreign policy machine. Senators should listen to his account — and prosecute it, too. If cross-examination supports his testimony, it may well turn out that Bolton is that rarest of Washington creatures: an honest man. That’ll be worth cheering. But honest or not, he’s still the last person America needs in a position of trust or influence on foreign affairs.

That was true when Trump unwisely hired him, and it was true when he smartly sent him packing. It’s still true, no matter what happens in the Senate.