The result that matched my query best, was from The Washington Times, of which I am no fan. Over the years, this has been a Republican rag, no better than fox news. Maybe even a little worse. I was pleased with the content:
"Former Obama national security adviser Susan E. Rice on Monday urged her new counterpart in the Trump White House, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, to get rid of a national security wing led by presidential strategist Stephen Bannon.
“Hope you will be able to choose your team, have direct reporting and daily access to POTUS, and can eliminate Strategic Initiatives Group,” Ms. Rice wrote in a congratulatory note to Lt. Gen. McMaster on Twitter.
The Strategic Initiatives Group is a layer of the White House National Security Council that’s led by
[ ] [b]annon."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/20/susan-rice-urges-hr-mcmaster-get-rid-stephen-banno/?
The remainder of the article was only a few more sentences and simply discussed McMaster's appointment by trump and a very brief overview of his credentials. The Washington Times may not have meant to support the removal of goebbels-bannon from the NCS. The reference to Susan Rice, may have been made knowing that their readership would find her as a source for such a call to be reason for goebbels-bannon to remain. But they sure didn't make it sound that way. Maybe The Washington Times is not happy with trump et.al. either. Maybe they are not happy with goebbels-bannon. I certainly don't know, but I appreciated the information and it was the only result that presented this nice little tid bit.
Next I read a new York Times (NYT) article. I learned that McMaster will remain on active duty. This will become an interesting piece of information later on in this post. When announcing McMaster's appointment to reporters, trump said, “He’s a man of tremendous talent and tremendous experience". That's all well and good, but what about what is obviously a missing key ingredient in much of the trump administration, integrity?!? The report in the NYT noted that "a senior administration official who insisted on anonymity" said that "General McMaster had the aura of disruption that Mr. Trump has valued in several cabinet secretaries". This is bothersome to me. Change can be ok, but disruption has a negative connotation. Who was the "senior administration official [that] insisted on anonymity"? Hey........maybe, maybe it was gobbels-bannon who once said, “Lenin wanted to destroy the state and that’s my goal too.” Hmmmmmmmm!!??!!
General McMaster said to trump publicly, after the announcement was made that, “I’m grateful to you for that opportunity, and I look forward to joining the national security team and doing everything that I can to advance and protect the interests of the American people.” What he "can" do may be limited by trump, rather than having the ability to run the NSC as he might want to.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/us/politics/mcmaster-national-security-adviser-trump.html
Why's that Bill? Funny you should ask. As soon as I read that McMaster was going to remain on active duty, it occurred to me that as commander in chief, trump will have more power over McMaster than if he were a private citizen. In my readings, the only article that spoke to this issue was, surprisingly, The Guardian a British publication. The Guardian article pointed out that, "At least one other candidate for the job, McMaster’s ally David Petraeus, dropped out of the running after insisting on the independence to select his own staff.
It continued by saying:
"[O]ne of McMaster’s friends, Petraeus’ former executive officer Pete Mansoor, said that as a serving military officer, McMaster was not in a position to attach many preconditions to his service. "I don’t know if there were any conditions attached or not, but someone serving in uniform obviously has less leverage over a president than a retiree who can say no and get on with his life,”" Mansoor is a retired army colonel who teaches military history at the Ohio State University. Mansoor also pointed out that, “[h]e will do a fantastic job as national security adviser given the constraints under which he’ll have to operate. There’s obviously an alternative center of foreign-policy and national security decision-making in the White House in the form of [s]teve [b]annon’s Strategic Initiatives Group,” referring to a new and parallel White House power center that NSC officials are concerned about.
A small bright ray of hope for us comes from both Mansoor and John McCain. Mansoor's words seem to be genuine and has no political or professional stake, so to me he is trustworthy. I also have some trust for McCain due to his opposition to much of what trump has done. MaCain tweeted:
John McCain
✔@SenJohnMcCain
Lt Gen HR McMaster is outstanding choice for nat'l security advisor - man of genuine intellect, character & ability http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=22A583B0-4B7A-417A-BE94-C70D54FE0B26 …
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/20/susan-rice-urges-hr-mcmaster-get-rid-stephen-banno/?
The remainder of the article was only a few more sentences and simply discussed McMaster's appointment by trump and a very brief overview of his credentials. The Washington Times may not have meant to support the removal of goebbels-bannon from the NCS. The reference to Susan Rice, may have been made knowing that their readership would find her as a source for such a call to be reason for goebbels-bannon to remain. But they sure didn't make it sound that way. Maybe The Washington Times is not happy with trump et.al. either. Maybe they are not happy with goebbels-bannon. I certainly don't know, but I appreciated the information and it was the only result that presented this nice little tid bit.
Next I read a new York Times (NYT) article. I learned that McMaster will remain on active duty. This will become an interesting piece of information later on in this post. When announcing McMaster's appointment to reporters, trump said, “He’s a man of tremendous talent and tremendous experience". That's all well and good, but what about what is obviously a missing key ingredient in much of the trump administration, integrity?!? The report in the NYT noted that "a senior administration official who insisted on anonymity" said that "General McMaster had the aura of disruption that Mr. Trump has valued in several cabinet secretaries". This is bothersome to me. Change can be ok, but disruption has a negative connotation. Who was the "senior administration official [that] insisted on anonymity"? Hey........maybe, maybe it was gobbels-bannon who once said, “Lenin wanted to destroy the state and that’s my goal too.” Hmmmmmmmm!!??!!
General McMaster said to trump publicly, after the announcement was made that, “I’m grateful to you for that opportunity, and I look forward to joining the national security team and doing everything that I can to advance and protect the interests of the American people.” What he "can" do may be limited by trump, rather than having the ability to run the NSC as he might want to.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/us/politics/mcmaster-national-security-adviser-trump.html
Why's that Bill? Funny you should ask. As soon as I read that McMaster was going to remain on active duty, it occurred to me that as commander in chief, trump will have more power over McMaster than if he were a private citizen. In my readings, the only article that spoke to this issue was, surprisingly, The Guardian a British publication. The Guardian article pointed out that, "At least one other candidate for the job, McMaster’s ally David Petraeus, dropped out of the running after insisting on the independence to select his own staff.
It continued by saying:
"[O]ne of McMaster’s friends, Petraeus’ former executive officer Pete Mansoor, said that as a serving military officer, McMaster was not in a position to attach many preconditions to his service. "I don’t know if there were any conditions attached or not, but someone serving in uniform obviously has less leverage over a president than a retiree who can say no and get on with his life,”" Mansoor is a retired army colonel who teaches military history at the Ohio State University. Mansoor also pointed out that, “[h]e will do a fantastic job as national security adviser given the constraints under which he’ll have to operate. There’s obviously an alternative center of foreign-policy and national security decision-making in the White House in the form of [s]teve [b]annon’s Strategic Initiatives Group,” referring to a new and parallel White House power center that NSC officials are concerned about.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/20/trump-appoints-hr-mcmaster-national-security-adviser
A small bright ray of hope for us comes from both Mansoor and John McCain. Mansoor's words seem to be genuine and has no political or professional stake, so to me he is trustworthy. I also have some trust for McCain due to his opposition to much of what trump has done. MaCain tweeted:
John McCain
✔@SenJohnMcCain
Lt Gen HR McMaster is outstanding choice for nat'l security advisor - man of genuine intellect, character & ability http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=22A583B0-4B7A-417A-BE94-C70D54FE0B26 …
The small ray of sunshine for me from McCain is that he believes McMaster is a "man of genuine ...... character" Let's hope that character equals integrity.
No comments:
Post a Comment