Former National Security Advisor John Bolton has published a tell-all tome under a locust-cloud of publicity and lawsuit.

Having resigned in September from a soon-to-be-impeached (that December) president’s administration, he doggedly refused to testify under oath, before Congress, about what he’d seen and heard while serving the people of the U.S.

According to advance reports, Bolton harshly criticizes Democrats for limiting the scope of their indictment brought against Trump.

“Had Democratic impeachment advocates not been so obsessed with their Ukraine blitzkrieg of 2019,” he now writes, “. . . the impeachment outcome might well have been entirely different.”

Bolton publishes this sentence now, hoping perhaps that we’ll all forget the testimony of his deputy Fiona Hill, who did take the trouble to testify under oath that her supervisor (Bolton) had told her while still in office, “I am not a part of whatever drug deal . . .” the President’s men were then “cooking up,” and that Trump’s personal lawyer (Rudy Giuliani) was “a hand-grenade who’s going to blow everybody up.” And there’s more — much, much more.

So, which is worse — Bolton’s hypocrisy after the facts, or his complicity in the acts? My question here represents a falsely binary choice — of course.

Because everybody knows what to expect from what the president calls the “phony media,” even when the truth posed by the question itself is as clear as sunlight . . . or a writer’s irony.

Clearly, things are beginning to change for the better. It’s not only time for a Green New Deal, but also for a Black Lives New Deal, a Women’s New Deal and an Anti-Viral New Deal.

All of the above call for our renewed commitment to critical thinking, global compassion, economic equity, and not least — sensitivity of expression: One sentence at a time. We can do it.

James Winchell

Walla Walla