I'm talking about g-b's removal from the national Security Council (NSC)! This occurred last Wednesday, April 5th. Unfortunately, I have had other issues to discuss. There's always something. Now what is happening is that various voices from the White House are stumbling all over themselves to 'explain' what this particular trump debacle has been all about.
It all started one dark weekend night when g-b wrote an executive order and plopped it down in front of d.j[ackass] for his signature. Just like a scene out of M.A.S.H. , trump signed it without knowing what he was signing (supposedly). Bing! g-b is on the NCS, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is off and even more disturbing is that g-b heads up the inner circle of the NCS, the Principals Committee. The calls for his removal have been persistent since that point in time. It seems that these ongoing calls for his removal may have worked. I believe that at the very least our voices played a part in his removal.
So..........who's saying what?
I'll start with General H.R. McMaster, the National Security Adviser (head of the NSC). He is down playing g-b's removal. First of all, it is noteworthy that g-b was removed because that's what McMaster wanted .......... apparently. On FOX News Sunday (using FOX as a source for information is making me gag), McMaster responded to questioning on why he "pushed" for g-b to be removed from the NSC. He answered
"This is not as significant as it appears, I think. I think what the president was doing was making clear that he is going — in terms of permanent membership on the National Security Council — to have those permanent members who are there for every meeting ... to be those who will give him their advice on the long-term interests of the American people."
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/328026-mcmaster-downplays-removal-of-bannon-from-role-on-nsc
What a bunch of gobbley goop. Did he really say anything? Next is g-b's take on his dismissal along with what his minions in the White House are saying. I found the following in a New York Times article. In a statement put out by g-b, himself, g-b said:
“Susan Rice operationalized the N.S.C. during the last administration. I was put on the N.S.C. with General Flynn to ensure that it was de-operationalized. General McMaster has returned the N.S.C. to its proper function.”
Huh? They must have a gobbley goop dispenser in the White House. This article points out that trump is the person that removed g-b, but that the dismissal was "orchestrated" by McMaster who "insisted on purging a political adviser from the Situation Room where decisions about war and peace are made." This is in line with previous history when George W. Bush’s last chief of staff, Josh Bolten, barred Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s political adviser, from the NSC. trump did not make this decision. He wasn't smart enough to understand that he was swimming against the tide of history and simply allowing a dangerous person to help make life and death decisions. He needed someone of reasonable character to figure it out for him.
A White House official who insisted on anonymity reported to the New York Times that g-b "resisted the move [and] even threaten[ed] at one point to quit if it went forward" The article further points out that g-b's "camp denied that he had threatened to resign and spent the day spreading the word that the shift was a natural evolution, not a signal of any diminution of his [ ] influence."
The article also reports that "[g-b's] allies said privately that [g-b] had been put on the principals committee to keep an eye on [ ] [t]rump’s first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn".
Lastly, I want to point out that the Times article threw this tidbit in:
"..... behind the scenes, White House officials said, the ideologist who enjoyed [tump's] confidence became increasingly embattled as other advisers, including [ ] [t]rump’s daughter and son-in-law, complained about setbacks on health care and immigration. Lately, [g-b] has been conspicuously absent from some meetings."
Notice that the sources do not say that jivanka had anything to say about g-b's kkk & nazi support.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/national-security-council-stephen-bannon.html?_r=0
There you have it; a tale of two twits (trump and g-b, not McMaster).
A White House official who insisted on anonymity reported to the New York Times that g-b "resisted the move [and] even threaten[ed] at one point to quit if it went forward" The article further points out that g-b's "camp denied that he had threatened to resign and spent the day spreading the word that the shift was a natural evolution, not a signal of any diminution of his [ ] influence."
The article also reports that "[g-b's] allies said privately that [g-b] had been put on the principals committee to keep an eye on [ ] [t]rump’s first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn".
Lastly, I want to point out that the Times article threw this tidbit in:
"..... behind the scenes, White House officials said, the ideologist who enjoyed [tump's] confidence became increasingly embattled as other advisers, including [ ] [t]rump’s daughter and son-in-law, complained about setbacks on health care and immigration. Lately, [g-b] has been conspicuously absent from some meetings."
Notice that the sources do not say that jivanka had anything to say about g-b's kkk & nazi support.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/national-security-council-stephen-bannon.html?_r=0
There you have it; a tale of two twits (trump and g-b, not McMaster).
No comments:
Post a Comment