,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I am a little bit surprised by this description: "Mr. O’Brien is no ideological firebrand in the mold of Mr. Bolton." nytimes.com/2019/09/18/us/…
I haven't yet read the whole book, but Amazon offers the introduction for free: amazon.com/While-America-… He describes himself, explicitly, as an ideological firebrand in the mold of Mr. Bolton. 
Every word that that's available for free (I may yet buy the book) says, "I am an ideological firebrand in the mold of Mr. Bolton."
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. I reckon we need an ideological firebrand in the mold of Mr. Bolton in that role--
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. I reckon we need an ideological firebrand in the mold of Mr. Bolton in that role--
It has deterrence value. But the deterrence value would be greatly enhanced if we clearly explain to the world that the NSA is still an ideological firebrand, so you still have to worry that we might react to provocation very, very violently.
Bolton, in the same article, is said to have "pushed Mr. Trump to take military action against Iran and wore contempt for the federal bureaucracy on his sleeve." This is, supposedly, in contrast to Mr. O'Brien.
"Unlike his firebrand predecessor," the Guardian says, theguardian.com/us-news/2019/s…. Described everywhere as "affable," "low key," and "sunny."
I don't quite know what to make of the disparity between his opinions and the widespread view that he's sunny.
