By Jon Dougherty
(NationalSentinel) National Security Adviser John Bolton criticizedÂ The New York Times on Monday following POTUS Donald Trump’s surprise visit to North Korea following the G-20 Summit in Osaka, Japan, over the weekend after the paper claimed the administration would settle for a “nuclear freeze” with the hermit kingdom.
What’s more, Bolton hinted there should be legal consequences for the paper’s attempt to “box in” the president diplomatically over the national security implications of failing to come to terms with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
“I read this NYT story with curiosity,â€ Bolton tweeted. â€œNeither the NSC [National Security Council] staff nor I have discussed or heard of any desire to ‘settle for a nuclear freeze by NK.’ This was a reprehensible attempt by someone to box in the President. There should be consequences.”
I read this NYT story with curiosity. Neither the NSC staff nor I have discussed or heard of any desire to “settle for a nuclear freeze by NK.” This was a reprehensible attempt by someone to box in the President. There should be consequences. https://t.co/TTRPQkksza
— John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) July 1, 2019
According to the Times, a nuclear freeze â€œessentially enshrines the status quo, and tacitly accepts the North as a nuclear power, something administration officials have often said they would never stand for.â€
It falls far short of Mr. Trumpâ€™sÂ initial vowÂ 30 months ago to solve the North Korea nuclear problem, but it might provide him with a retort to campaign-season critics who say the North Korean dictator has been playing the American president brilliantly by giving him the visuals he craves while holding back on real concessions.
While the approach could stop that arsenal from growing, it would not, at least in the near future, dismantle any existing weapons, variously estimated at 20 to 60. Nor would it limit the Northâ€™s missile capability.
The administration still insists in public and in private that its goals remain full denuclearization. But recognizing that its maximalist demand for the near-term surrender of Mr. Kimâ€™s cherished nuclear program is going nowhere, it is weighing a new approach that would begin with a significant â€” but limited â€” first step.
The paper said the first step was getting the North to shutter its primary nuclear fuel production site at Yongbyon in exchange for the most onerous sanctions against them being lifted. The Times noted further that Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rejected this because the bulk of the North’s nuclear production capacity is outside of Yongbyon.
â€œThe idea now is to get Mr. Kimâ€™s new negotiating team to agree to expand the definition of the Yongbyon site well beyond its physical boundaries,â€ theÂ TimesÂ reports. â€œIf successful â€” and there are many obstacles, including the North accepting intrusive, perhaps invasive inspections â€” it would effectively amount to a nuclear freeze that keeps North Korea from making new nuclear material.â€
And as before, the paper goes onto question whether POTUS really wants full denuclearization or if he just wants a sort-of, kind-of ‘victory’ he can hang is hat on.
That’s typical, but that’s what Obama did when it came his vaunted ‘nuclear deal’ involving Iran — a deal that TrumpÂ quit.
So you have to ask yourself a question, keeping in mind the Deep State’s use of the Times as a propaganda outlet to undermine the president: Given his record of sanctioning the North; sanctioning Russia; hitting Russia’s power infrastructure; imposing tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese imports; and threatening Mexico with tariffs if it doesn’t do more to interdict migrants…does Trump seem like someone who is prepared to accept less than what he’s demanding for America?
- Follow Jon Dougherty onÂ Parler
Subscribe to ourÂ YouTube channel
Subscribe to ourÂ Brighteon channel
Sign up for ourÂ daily headlines newsletter