Trump removes JCS and DNI from National Security Council

Wishful said:
Unless the anonymous sources produce their evidence, it would seem to be an internal matter.
Click to expand...

A shrewd response worthy of Putin. The failing Washington Post broke the story, and they are by definition dishonest, so why would anyone believe it? Of course, it's an internal matter. For one thing, it's possible it was Trump himself who authorized Flynn to chat up Kislyak. For another, isn't it about time for Congress to launch another Benghazi investigation?

The emergence of Senator Al Franken from the shadows this weekend is intriguing. I'll have to track down his book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them".
 
Last edited:
I am reminded of a poster I saw in an Oceanside, CA storefront circa 1982 or so. It just came to mind as I read the 101st post on this thread and reflect upon the current news cycle stories. The poster read:

"When you are up to your ass in alligators, its hard to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp."
 
sean007 said:
No one seems to care that (reportedly) nine Intelligence Community members broke their oaths to leak this intel to members of the press - ostensibly for purely partisan political purposes.
Click to expand...

Captain Renault: I am shocked- shocked- to find that gambling is going on in here!
 
AJC said:
Maybe the most honest statement the man has ever uttered.
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate? On a different thread, maybe? Or a different forum? Like breitbart.com? Or newsmax.com? Or 400lbmansittingonhisben.com?
 
Last edited:
cb7893 said:
Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...
Did not vote for the man. Think he is an embarrassment. But based on an objective read of history, the statement is more truthful than most of what comes out of his mouth.
 
Perhaps. Which doesn't mean it is not frightening. I believe that we are supposed to at least aspire to be better.
 
cb7893 said:
Captain Renault: I am shocked- shocked- to find that gambling is going on in here!
Click to expand...

Believe me, I am no babe in the woods when it comes to the backstabbing machinations that are considered normal in the political theater. I am merely observing the difference in coverage of this event, then say ... the Valerie Plame fiasco.

The media in this country rightly deserve every bit of ridicule they have coming to them.
 
sean007 said:
Believe me, I am no babe in the woods when it comes to the backstabbing machinations that are considered normal in the political theater. I am merely observing the difference in coverage of this event, then say ... the Valerie Plame fiasco.

The media in this country rightly deserve every bit of ridicule they have coming to them.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Obama's administration wasn't pilloried in the press?
 
I hate discussing politics on this forum but here are my own observations:
  • Tweeting every thought that comes to mind: Bad form - shouild be pilloried
  • Flynn as NS advisor lying to VP Pence: Very bad form - should be pilloried
  • Kellyanne Conway hawking Invanka's stuff: Just plain stupid.
  • Trump complaining about businesses like Nordstrom's inventory decisions: Very bad form. Waste of his time. Should be pilloried.
  • Trump changing direction about One China rule: Wise choice. Should be praised by the press.
  • Short commentary about North Korea missile: Good form. Should be paraised by the press.
  • Decision making discussion about the missile in public view at his resort. Violation of OPSEC and should be pilloried.
  • Choice of De Vos as EdSec. - Blatantly unqualified. Should be pilloried.
  • Choice of Maddis as DEFSEC - Very qualified - Should be praised by press.
  • Choice of Gorsuch as SC nom - Very qualified - Should be praised by press.
  • Choice of Miller as WH spokesman on Sunday shows yesterday - Horrible - deserving of ridicule.
Much more out there, but it isn't all black and white. I prefer to look at each incident on its own merits or lack thereof.
Overall, not a great start for someone I hope and pray will improve with time.
 
scoutpilot said:
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Obama's administration wasn't pilloried in the press?
Click to expand...


According to the PEW Foundation, their analysis of the media coverage during the first 100 days of the past three presidents:

Bill Clinton : 28% favorable / 44% neutral / 28% unfavorable

George Bush : 22% favorable / 50% neutral / 28% unfavorable

Barack Obama : 42% favorable / 38% neutral / 22% unfavorable
 
sean007 said:
According to the PEW Foundation, their analysis of the media coverage during the first 100 days of the past three presidents:
Bill Clinton : 28% favorable / 44% neutral / 28% unfavorable
George Bush : 22% favorable / 50% neutral / 28% unfavorable
Barack Obama : 42% favorable / 38% neutral / 22% unfavorable
Click to expand...

That's an interesting breakdown. Do you have the link? Also: I'd agree that Obama was treated well in the majority of media outlets at the start of his presidency, and that it went downhill from there. It's also true that he won his first term with a resounding popular vote victory (+7.2% ) and an actual majority of the population supporting him in a high turn-out year. Something that can't be said for Clinton or Bush or Trump.

But mostly: can't we agree that Donald Trump stands in pretty stark contrast with presidents who've preceded him on both sides of the aisle?

No other president has had their nominee for the Supreme Court speak critically of their statements about the judiciary. Or had two senior Senators from their own party -- McCain and Graham, of course -- write a strongly worded rebuke of one of their Executive Actions. Or had a tendency to tweet inflammatory things at 3am. Or had a senior advisor break ethics rules on network TV by directing people to buy his daughter's products -- such that it motivated the House Ethics Chair, from his own party, to ask for an investigation and possible censure. And so on and so forth. And we're less than a month in.

How would people suggest the press report on these things -- things that have repeatedly inspired criticism and shock from within his own party -- without sounding negative? It's not like they're making this stuff up. It's happening and other people are responding critically and they are then reporting on this.

AROTC Dad's rundown seems pretty accurate to me. Accordingly, I saw articles praising both the Mattis and Gorsuch choices as sound decisions.
 
Well, I am new to this, and I am participating as a parent. My child has accepted her appointment to USMA. I am proud of her accomplishment and her drive. She is an optimist, and wants to serve her country and defend the Constitution. I become more concerned every day (maybe every hour) with what is happening. Here is the latest link on Flynn. I may not have voted for President Trump, but I truly hope for the best for our country. Perhaps some of you with more experience have some wisdom. Here is the latest headline. Now the question becomes, who will be appointed, and can they control Mr. Bannon?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials
 
sean007 said:
According to the PEW Foundation, their analysis of the media coverage during the first 100 days of the past three presidents:

Bill Clinton : 28% favorable / 44% neutral / 28% unfavorable

George Bush : 22% favorable / 50% neutral / 28% unfavorable

Barack Obama : 42% favorable / 38% neutral / 22% unfavorable
Click to expand...

Numbers like these are mostly meaningless, except to the analysts who sell their analyses.

Bushes numbers, fairly or not, were probably related to the circumstances of his election, the delay in beginning to fill his cabinet, and both Houses of Congress having Demo majorities.

Obama's high favorable numbers were probably related the fact that he won a resounding victory and Bush's numbers were so low on his way out. He also had, what was considered at the time, an unassailable National Security team. If you recall, even Senator Clinton received high marks with a Senate Confirmation a vote of 94-2. Having Demo majorities in both houses also helped.

In both cases, neither new President handed the press, or SNL for that matter, the piles of material President Trump has. A notable example would be his choice of Nat'l Security Advisor, a just retired (fired) DIA Director who accepted money from the Russian gov't.

If Flynn is fired, I'm curious who Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner will pick as a replacement?
 
xyz321 said:
Well, I am new to this, and I am participating as a parent. My child has accepted her appointment to USMA. I am proud of her accomplishment and her drive. She is an optimist, and wants to serve her country and defend the Constitution. I become more concerned every day (maybe every hour) with what is happening. Here is the latest link on Flynn. I may not have voted for President Trump, but I truly hope for the best for our country. Perhaps some of you with more experience have some wisdom. Here is the latest headline. Now the question becomes, who will be appointed, and can they control Mr. Bannon?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials
Click to expand...

I am not wiser, but I am probably older. I remember the late 1960's and early 70's. This is nothing. We were losing hundreds of boys every month in SE Asia. Americans were bombing Americans. American soldiers shot American college students. This country prevailed. What we are living through is proof that the system is working. Would we rather the President simply issue orders that were cleanly and efficiently executed?

I would predict that if your DD is an optimist and honors her oath to the constitution, her greater challenge will be learning to deal with the institutional disfunctionality of the Big Army and the DOD. It is a challenge for all large organizations, but most large organizations don't have $trillion+ budgets with 535 members of the Board of Directors. If my DS (AROTC 1Lt) is managing it, then anyone can. All that disfunction and Washington politics gets subsumed by the day to day business of being accountable to and responsible for members of a team and getting a job done. With a Commission and a USMA ring, there is no other place she will get the responsibilities and opportunities at such a young age upon commissioning.
 
Three weeks in. The histrionics in this thread would have you believe that Stevengali Bannon would have goaded Trump into a Greg Stillson decision by now.
 
cb7893 said:
I am not wiser, but I am probably older. I remember the late 1960's and early 70's. This is nothing. We were losing hundreds of boys every month in SE Asia. Americans were bombing Americans. American soldiers shot American college students. This country prevailed. What we are living through is proof that the system is working. Would we rather the President simply issue orders that were cleanly and efficiently executed?

I would predict that if your DD is an optimist and honors her oath to the constitution, her greater challenge will be learning to deal with the institutional disfunctionality of the Big Army and the DOD. It is a challenge for all large organizations, but most large organizations don't have $trillion+ budgets with 535 members of the Board of Directors. If my DS (AROTC 1Lt) is managing it, then anyone can. All that disfunction and Washington politics gets subsumed by the day to day business of being accountable to and responsible for members of a team and getting a job done. With a Commission and a USMA ring, there is no other place she will get the responsibilities and opportunities at such a young age upon commissioning.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your kind response, and it is good to see the system beginning to work. My historical memories are more of the "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall" era. Reading history is not the same as living it. Hopefully, as they say, this, too, shall pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top