Rick Perry added to NSC (National Security Council)

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by PracticalMac, Apr 5, 2017.

  1. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #1
    News flash (ABC13 App), getting links when up.
    Finally, link here.

    Bannon out, Perry in.

    Out of frying pan and into fire??
     
  2. JayMysterio macrumors 6502

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge
    #2
    Well, least it wasn't one of the 3 departments he wanted to get rid of?

    Or was it, and he forgot?
     
  3. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #3
    The major role of the Department of Energy is to oversee the safe production, use, and storage of the nation's nuclear materials.

    You can say what you will about Rick Perry, but he does have Government experience as Governor of Texas, and as Energy Secretary, he will attend NSC meetings having been briefed by his professional staff as to issues related to the nation's energy security.

    It is entirely appropriate that the US Energy Secretary be part of the NSC. If Rick Perry was not fit to be Energy Secretary, then it was incumbent on the Senate not to confirm him.

    That is entirely different to the situation with Bannon, who is responsible to absolutely no one, has no special national security experience or knowledge, and has no specific access to National Security information.
     
  4. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #4
    He didn't even know that the dept of energy was in charge of our nation's nukes when he was up for the job. The senate didn't care.
     
  5. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #5
    Agreed, he has a reason to be there. That said the Senate shouldn't have confirmed him given he had little to no knowledge of the job other than as it related to oil.
     
  6. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #6
    Perry does not have direct oil industry experience, being a governor is helpful but not ideal as DOE Secretary where broad industry knowledge would be best.

    Bannon is (ideally) fully responsible to Trump, was "serving on the destroyer USS Paul F. Foster as a surface warfare officer in the Pacific Fleet and, afterwards stateside as a special assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon.[37] Bannon's job at the Pentagon were among other things handling messages between senior officers and writing reports about the state of the Navy fleet worldwide", so not ideal but not in from cold.

    Perry may be good as DOE head as he sometimes bucks Republican stands.
    ...maybe not.
     
  7. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #7
    Most members of the National Security Council (with the exception of the National Security Advisor) have to undergo confirmation by the Senate. They are also responsible for their various Departments or Agencies.

    None of that was true of Bannon. His role and responsibility at the White House and within the Administration as a whole was - and is - entirely unclear. And the presence of such a person as part of the Principals Committee of the NSC was fraught with potential issues.

    The NSC Principals Committee handles most day-to-day matters involving the National Security of the US, things that don't require the immediate attention and decision of the President. And each member of the Principals Committee is accorded the respect and authority congruent with the Agency, Department, or other function within the Government that they represent. If it is a diplomatic issue, then the Secretary of State or the UN Ambassador will generally make the call, with the advice of - for instance the Joint Chiefs and intelligence directors. If Rick Perry speaks up at a meeting, then the other particpants will assume he is doing so from a Dept. of Energy perspective, and that he is relying on information and reports he has received in that regard. If he starts talking about naval operations or the future of NATO, other NSC members will take that into account.

    Having Bannon at the table, in a participatory role, was a potential "loose cannon". Was he speaking for the President? Where was he getting the information that led him to express those views? The other NSC members could not know that, and were rightly concerned about an individual with no defined responsibilities or authority disrupting what would normally be a collegial discussion of serious issues, one that usually - but not always - leads to some form of consensus.

    Bannon's service as a Navy officer several decades ago was of no consequence.
     
  8. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #8
    I agree with you... wow!!!!
     
  9. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #9
    Thank you for enlightening me on these details.
    Now I better understand the functions and the interactions.

    I would agree that DOE would should be there, to inform status of energy reserve, and nukes.
     
  10. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #10
    Tossing El Banahan out with the trash surprised me enough to make me spit out my morning coffee.
     

Share This Page