Ambassador Bolton Interview



GLENN: We have Ambassador Bolton on the phone with us. Ambassador, welcome to the program, sir. Thank you so much for joining me.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Oh, glad to be here. Thank you for having me.

GLENN: You bet. You've got a great book out. I just, I love the title alone, "Surrender is Not an Option." I wanted to take you through some of the points here on some of the things that are going on. You say that the Bush or the Bush administration that you knew just, you know, even a couple of months ago is changing, fundamentally changing and making some critical errors. What's going on?

Surrender Is Not an Option

By John Bolton

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Well, I think the administration is essentially in freefall when it comes to foreign policy and it's a great tragedy because it essentially involves abandoning some of the President's fundamental precepts about how to deal with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the growth of terrorism, and a shift away from some of the things he tried to do in the first term. People ascribe a different reason. Some say it's a concentration on Iraq, some say it's just lack of energy, some say it's a phenomenon of a lame duck presidency. But in any event it's a far cry from the Bush who was elected in 2000 in my view.

GLENN: Okay. I want to ask you something. I saw something yesterday in the New York Sun. It was on the front page of the Sun. I couldn't find it any place else and it was about the State Department ending an Iranian freedom project which sounded exactly like what we should be doing. It sounded exactly like we were funding some of the democracy movements inside. Why is the State Department stopping that?

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Well, it's a phenomenon that I think has been running throughout the administration, but it's particularly acute now. And I talk about this in the book. You know, a lot of what I talk about in the book is what's wrong with the United Nations, what's wrong with the bureaucracy up there and how the membership operates. But another thing I try and focus on is the State Department. Because people have the view, you know, they think they elect the President and he gets to set foreign policy. Well, in the Constitution that may be the way it appears, but in fact the State Department over the years has come to the view that really it sets foreign policy, especially in Republican administrations. And what has happened is that the dominant culture of the bureaucracy, which is not hospitable to Republican or conservative Presidents, has been patiently wearing away at the President's policies and is now in places like Iran, North Korea, the Middle East, succeeding time and time again. And this one incident that you just mention is another brick in the wall of the State Department bureaucracy reasserting itself.

GLENN: Can I -- may I ask you, and I hate to take you down conspiracy lane here. I just, I'm just -- ambassador, honestly I'm just a regular American that didn't pay attention to the world, quite honestly, before September 11th. The whole damn place over in the Middle East could have fallen into a sinkhole in the center of the Earth and I wouldn't give a flying crap, and I know that was wrong but I didn't -- I just, I live my life here in America and I thought everything was great. Now I'm watching everything and I'm watching our sovereignty go to the United Nations. I'm seeing stuff and I've got to ask ya: How is it we seem to be going down this path that is so extreme left? When you talk about the State Department having all of this power and thinking that they dictate and it is not, you know, in a conservative point of view, et cetera, et cetera, honestly the things that McCarthy brought up come to mind. I mean, what happened? How was it infiltrated? What happened to us?

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: I think this is a problem that has developed over decades because by and large secretaries of state don't pay much attention to the management of the State Department bureaucracy. And while there are many very fine civil servants there who know what the proper role of a civil servant is, there are a lot of other people very influenced by their European colleagues who think that the permanent bureaucracy basically runs foreign policy and these pesky political appointees who come in every once in a while have to be either tolerated or isolated or seduced in order to do the bureaucracy's bidding. And that's one of the reasons I think why the President now finds his policies being reversed because they are very smart, very canny, very patient and persistent bureaucracy.

GLENN: So how does a President or how does anybody fix this?

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Well, the first thing you need is a Secretary of State in my view more like Jim Baker, and this may surprise some people, but I think Baker's just about the best Secretary of State we've had in the last half century. And the one critical point that Baker never forgot and that he always stressed was that he was the President's envoy to the State Department and not the other way around and I think both Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice and I think in the book either started out in Secretary Powell's case and Secretary rice's, they fell in the reverse role. They were the State Department's envoy to the White House and that has an effect and I think you can see it playing out now in the Middle East policy, this idea of holding a peace conference with Israelis and Palestinians, maybe this month, maybe next month, who knows anymore, our deference to the Europeans trying to negotiate with Iran, which is never going to give up its nuclear weapons voluntarily. And this belief that matches the belief in the Clinton administration that you can trust the North Koreans when they say, as they say repeatedly, "Sure, we'll give up our nuclear weapons." I mean, it's been a huge U-turn for the administration on so many fronts.

GLENN: Who does the State Department actually work for? Why can't the President just say, we're clearing you guys out?

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Well, you know, Barry gold water who was the first presidential candidate that I worked for once said the solution to the State Department was to fire the first six floors, all the floors below the Secretary of State. I think that, as I said before, there are many, many strong people in the State Department, and we need an effective State Department. We need people who can advocate America's interests around the world. Today unfortunately too many of them are apologetic about our policies and about our interests, and it requires -- this is not a campaign bell-ringer issue. I understand that. But we have to have a President and a Secretary of State who are committed to changing this culture. Just as it was important to transform the defense department, and it remains important to transform our intelligence services, we need to do the same thing at the State.

GLENN: All right. Let me go to the United Nations. I am growing more and more concerned that, I mean, as you say, there is -- you know, there's an agenda at the State Department. I think there's an agenda in congress, I think there is an agenda in the White House and they are not necessarily a constitutional agenda in many cases. More importantly there is a global agenda that you see played out in the UN. We've seen it recently, and little things that most people will say is stupid but I think it's the indoctrination of our children. You've got the GI Joe doll no longer being a Marine but now answering to an international force, you have global warming that is going on, you have the Law of the Sea treaty happening in the Senate. I mean, there is a real selling of our sovereignty happening. Agree or disagree?

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: I think we're at risk. I don't think there's any question about it. The Law of the Sea treaty is an excellent example. You know, the mainstream media have not pointed out that the entire Republican leadership in the Senate has come out against the Bush administration, has come out against the treaty, and thank goodness because I think if enough citizens get in touch with their senators and express their concern, we'll find the 1/3 plus 1 of the Senate we need to block that treaty.

We went through this in the 2004 election. Senator Kerry proposed, you may remember in the debates with President Bush, what he called the global test, that American policy had to get approval from around the world in all kinds of different countries, and if we didn't get it, if we didn't pass that global test, we shouldn't pursue that policy. Well, this is the -- the issues you mentioned, global warming among others, this is a global test playing itself out still more and that's why I think next year's election is so important. I don't think our policies should be subject to a global test. I think they should be subject to the tests of our Constitution and our own institutions and representative democracy and if we're satisfied with those policies, those are the ones we ought to pursue.

GLENN: How close do you think we are with the enemies within our own gates, the strength -- I mean, I hate to even phrase it that way. The strength of the United Nations, the growing call for internationalism, et cetera, et cetera, and the apathy of much of the American people? How close are we to losing our sovereignty, do you believe?

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Well, I think it tends to dribble away over time and I think people get discouraged. I think this Law of the Sea treaty is an excellent example. It was negotiated in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I frankly thought it was dead years and years ago, but like a bad penny, it keeps coming up because the people who advocate this sort of approach are very persistent, and it covers a wide range of issues that are fundamentally domestic as well because they see they can't advance their political agenda and inside congress at the state legislature. So they go international: Gun control, death penalty, abortion rights, all of these things that, look, we have legitimate Democratic debates over them and that's appropriate. But they try, many of the advocates of gun control, abolition of the death penalty, for example, try to push it to the UN or the international arena where they know they'll have more friends around the world, and I just don't think that's where the vast majority of the American people are and I think raising the salience of these kinds of issues in our presidential campaign is so important.

GLENN: John Bolton, U.S. ambassador. Book, "Surrender is Not an Option." Back in a second.  


In the final days before the 2020 election, President Donald Trump is gaining among black voters, particularly men, because his record of accomplishments "speaks for itself" and the "façade" that President Trump is a racist "just doesn't ring true," argued sports columnist Jason Whitlock on "The Glenn Beck Radio Program" Tuesday.

Jason, who recently interviewed the president at the White House for, shared his thoughts on why he believes many black Americans — notably celebrities such as Kanye West, Ice Cube, and 50 Cent — are breaking from the "façade" that President Trump is a "flaming racist."

"I really believe the facts are starting to speak for themselves, and that Donald Trump's record of accomplishments, particularly as it relates to African Americans, speaks for itself," Jason told Glenn. "He actually has a record to stand on, unlike even Barack Obama. When [Obama] was president, I don't think he had much of a record to stand on, in terms of, 'Hey, what did he actually deliver for African Americans?' President Trump has things he can stand on and, you know, beyond that I think black people understand when he starts talking about black unemployment rate. And America's unemployment rate. And then, when you add in for black men, the façade we've been putting on [President Trump] … you know, this whole thing that he's some flaming racist, it just doesn't ring true."

Jason suggested that Trump's fearlessness, unabashed masculinity, and record of keeping his promises resonates with men in the black community. He also weighed in on how media and social media's bias plays a huge role in convincing people to hate President Trump while ignoring Antifa and others on the Left.

"I keep explaining to people, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, they're some of the most secular places on earth. And we've reduced everyone to a tweet, that we disagree with," he added.

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Megyn Kelly is not happy about the "disgusting" media coverage of President Donald Trump, specifically pointing to Lesley Stahl's "60 Minutes" interview on CBS Sunday.

On the radio program, Megyn told Glenn Beck the media has become so blinded by the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" that they've lost their own credibility — and now they can't get it back.

"It's disgusting. It's stomach-turning," Megyn said of the media's coverage of the president. "But it's just a continuation of what we've seen over the past couple of years. Their 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' has blinded them to what they're doing to their own credibility. They can't get it back. It's too late. They've already sacrificed it. And now no one is listening to them other than the hard partisans for whom they craft their news."

Megyn also discussed how she would have covered the recent stories about Hunter and Joe Biden's alleged corruption. Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Imagine sometime next year, getting called before HUWAC – the House Un-Woke Activities Committee.

"Are you or have you ever been a member of the un-woke?"

Something like that is not as far-fetched as you might think.

Last week, Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration, now a UC Berkeley professor, tweeted this:

Since the 1970s, there have been dozens of "Truth Commissions" around the world like the kind Robert Reich wants in America. Most of these have been set up in Africa and Latin America. Usually it happens in countries after a civil war, or where there's been a regime change – a dictator is finally overthrown, and a commission is set up to address atrocities that happened under the dictator. Or, as in the commissions in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, atrocities under communism. Or, in the most famous example, South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation commission addressed the decades of apartheid that ravaged that nation.

These commissions usually conclude with an official final report. These commissions and reports have served as a means of governments trying to close a dark chapter of their country's history, or provide emotional catharsis, as a way to generally move on. Sometimes it kind of works for people, most of the time it leaves people clamoring for more justice.

Here's how one professor described truth commissions in an article in The Conversation last year. He wrote:

The goal of a truth commission… is to hold public hearings to establish the scale and impact of a past injustice, typically involving wide-scale human rights abuses, and make it part of the permanent, unassailable public record. Truth commissions also officially recognize victims and perpetrators in an effort to move beyond the painful past… Some have been used cynically as tools for governments to legitimize themselves by pretending they have dealt with painful history when they have only kicked the can down the road.

See, this is the problem with a lot of "Truth" commissions – they are inherently political. Even if you trust your government and give them all the benefit of the doubt in the world that their Truth commission is trying to do the right thing, it is ALWAYS going to be political. Because these truth commissions are never set up by those who have LOST power in government. They're always established by those who have WON power.

The Deputy Executive Director of the International Center for Transitional Justice says one of the main points in these Truth commissions is that "the victims become protagonists."

A Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility.

So, who are the victims in Robert Reich's America? People like him, members of the far-Left who had to endure the atrocities of four years of a president with different political ideas. What an injustice. I mean, the left's suffering during the Trump administration is almost on the level of apartheid or genocide – so we totally need a Truth commission.

There have been lots of calls for the U.S. to have its own Truth and Reconciliation commission, especially around racial injustice.

This past June, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California introduced legislation to establish the " United States Commission on Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation."

Ibram X. Kendi – the high priest of anti-racism, and author of Target's current favorite book " Antiracist Baby" – proposes a Constitutional anti-racism amendment. This amendment would:

establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for pre-clearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won't yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.

If you think that is far-fetched, you haven't been paying attention to the Left's growing radicalism. In a Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration, a Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility. And of course, such a DOA would never stop at policing government.

We're in a dangerous, precarious moment in our history. Given the events of 2020, should Democrats gain the White House, the Senate, and the House, how many commissions will be in our future? They will suddenly have plenty of political capital to drag the nation through years of commission hearings.

And the Left's form of justice is never satisfied. You think it will stop at a T&R commission on race? MSNBC's Chris Hayes tweeted this month about the need for a commission to deal with Americans who are skeptical about wearing masks:

Or what about a Truth commission on religion? I mean, look at those reckless churches spreading Covid this year. Or this would be a big one – a T&R commission on climate change deniers.

The Left is highly selective when it comes to truth. That's why they are the very last group you want in charge of anything with "Truth and Reconciliation" in the title.

This is one of the most incredibly frustrating things about the Left in America today. The Left insists there is no such thing as absolute truth, while simultaneously insisting there are certain approved truths that are undeniable.

So, you can't question "Science" – even though that's pretty much what every great scientist in history did.

You can't question racism as the explanation for all of existence – because, well, just because.

You can't question third-party "Fact-checkers" – because the powers that be, mainly Big Tech right now, have decided they are the Truth referees and you have to trust what they say because they're using certified external fact-checkers. They just forgot to tell you that they actually fund these third-party fact-checkers. It's like if McDonald's told you to trust third-party health inspectors that they were paying for.

The Left thinks it has a monopoly on Truth. They're the enlightened ones, because they've had the correct instruction, they're privy to the actual facts. It's psychotic arrogance. If you don't buy what they're selling, even if you're just skeptical of it, it's because you either don't have the facts, you willingly deny the facts, or you're simply incapable of grasping the truth because you're blinded by your raging racism problem. It's most likely the racism problem.

The Left never learns from its own preaching. For the past 60-plus years they've decried the House Un-American Activities Committee for trying to root out communists, getting people canceled, ruining Hollywood careers, etcetera. But a HUAC-type committee is precisely what Robert Reich is describing and many on the Left want. It's not enough for Trump to be voted out of office. Americans who helped put him there must be punished. They don't want reconciliation, they want retribution. Because the Left doesn't simply loathe Donald Trump, the Left loathes YOU.

President Donald Trump's performance at last night's final presidential debate was "brilliant" and "the best he's ever done," Glenn Beck said on the radio program Friday.

Glenn described the moments he thought President Trump came across as "sincere," "kind," and "well-informed," as well as Joe Biden's biggest downfalls for of the night — from his big statement on wanting to eliminate the oil industry to his unsurprising gaffes as the debate neared the end. But, the question remains: was Trump's "brilliant performance" enough to win the election?

Watch the video be low to get Glenn's take on the final debate before the November 3 election:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.