Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mudslag, Feb 6, 2017.
He's surrounded himself by people that we can't trust. And people he can't trust.
He also thinks he's smart enough the understand things from the Cliffs Notes. It's a dangerous situation.
Trump wasn't briefed?
What the hell did he think he was signing? Does Trump run his businesses that way? Signing whatever bits of paper his subordinates put in front of him without reading what's written on it? Without understanding the issues at play?
There is probably no more important group in the Executive Branch of Government than the National Security Council. It is supposed to act as the nation's top body for identifying threats to our national security - be they terrorism, hostile foreign powers, attacks on our infrastructure, natural disasters, cyber-security. The NSC is supposed to balance the the views and experience of the professional military and intelligence communities, with the Sente-confirmed civilian Secretaries of the various Departments.
If there was one job that Donald Trump needed to get done between November 9 and his inauguration, it was putting together an effective National Security Council. And he wasn't briefed? He didn't have the time or the inclination - in between Twitter storms and Fox News interviews? Who, exactly, is running the National Security Council today. Right now, this morning - if there was an outbreak of a deadly infectious disease in South Florida. If an Iranian gunboat exchanged fire with a US destroyer in the Persian Gulf. If the Chinese unveil a totally unknown stealth fighter. If the Russians launch a cyber-attack on Estonia. Who is making the decisions as to how the US would respond? Steve Bannon - who is responsible to no one. Or Michael Flynn, who is clearly not fit to manage anything.
That is the lamest, most pathetic and damning excuse I've ever heard from any Administration.
Democracy = Frredom to Suceed, Freedom to put an inept con man in charge, Freedom to Self Destruct. Kinda makes an reasonable argument for a benevolent dictatorship but with a competent dictator.
source of this leak? anonymous unverified source? In any case, this would be heavily on Priebus - as COS he would be the one in charge of filtering this stuff.
Seconding @vrDrew remarks... and those of @yaxomoxay as well.
And who penned this gem before the prez got to sign it?
Definitely thought Priebus would be having a look through the papers headed to that desk. Maybe ol’ Reince needs a clerk now the GOP is shoveling legislation in that direction. Priebus making too many assumptions.
lol i have a little deed transfer I like signed while Trump has the pen out some time. i’ve always liked the view of the Lincoln Memorial from the far end of the Reflecting Pool. Just a little spot on the grass there would be fine.
[photo credit: Steven Ainsworth]
Well, of course he does! That is the Hollywood version of what a CEO does, and Trump is nothing if not a Reality TV CEO.
Trump works hard all day, every day. But, in Trump's mind, "working hard" means riding herd on his current flock of worker bees, adding one here and firing one there to adjust it as time progresses. He doesn't need to "understand" what it is they are doing; so long as they look busy, they must be getting the job done.
This is why he spends every day trying to create a photo-op of himself behind a big desk signing a leather-bound folio with old men in spiffy suits smiling and clapping. Because that's what a President is, in his mind's eye. It's why he cares so much about the clothes his press secretary wears, or the voice he uses when advocating for the President's policies. It's why he obsesses so much about the size of his rallies, or the size of his inauguration, or the numbers on his polls.
He's working hard to create the appearance of being the best President ever. Other people can deal with the intricate policy details.
Oh, come on, @yaxomoxay: Seriously, do please sit up and pay attention to what is going on.
This is entirely par for the course, and is entirely to be expected.
We know that Mr Trump doesn't like, listen to, heed, or take advice, and then, when things go pear-shaped, or wonky, like a bullying brat in the schoolyard, he does not "own" his actions but prefers to blame "others" by hanging them out to dry.
Mr Trump wasn't briefed because Mr Trump doesn't rate experts, doesn't like listening to anyone, cannot take advice, especially advice he doesn't wish to have to hear, lacks patience, is capricious, does not like to be given what he thinks are instructions, has the impulse control of a two year, and the bottomless self-regard of a fully fledged narcissist.
He did not want to listen to anyone about anything: This is entirely on his head - and is the sort of thing he should have given serious thought to during his transition.
There was thread here which questioned firstly, the appointment of Mr Bannon to chair this council. Of course, this appointment was going to be subject to Senate scrutiny - and rightly so. Anybody holding such such a position ought - as a matter of course - face questions as to their suitability and eligibility.
That Mr Trump didn't, couldn't or wouldn't see this merely serves to underline - as if this was further needed - his total unfitness and unsuitability for holding high office.
And secondly, there was the attempt to exclude General Dunford (Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), and the Director of National Intelligence from the right to automatically attend all such meetings by insisting that they can attend such meetings by invitation only "when issues pertaining to their areas of responsibility and expertise are to be discussed".
Of course, it hardly needs pointing out - or, it should hardly need pointing out - that the position of Director of the Intelligence community, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are the only two positions that are regarded as "statutory advisers" to the NSC; it goes without saying that they ought to be present at all such meetings from before the beginning to after the end.
Appointing Mr Bannon to that position was bad enough, but then, to seek to exclude the genuine experts from discussion and input, - and offering critical questions and advice - was nothing short of lunacy, and gross irresponsibility.
He's just trying to give the poor besieged man a break.
Uh... the article says the opposite, that Trump is furious because he wasn't briefed on it - while he desired to be. I don't believe that he wasn't briefed, as that would be Priebus' job to do.
Look @yaxomoxay - do take a long, hard look at the consistency of the pattern of behaviour that Mr Trump has displayed to date.
Now, I don't doubt Mr Trump's fury, but I do doubt his veracity and his version of events.
Put bluntly, I think he is deflecting attention from his own carelessness and negligence and seeking to offload the blame onto someone else (Priebus) for his own mistakes.
Now, granted, this could also be part of an internal power struggle; the model of "governance" - if it can be dignified by describing it as such - apparently favoured by Mr Trump will most certainly generate turf wars. And he is the kind of cretin - his opinion of such things formed by reality TV, and his own version of corporate life - who thinks that having your team at one another's throats is probably a good idea.
In any case, we know that he doesn't like briefings, - during his transition he didn't even attend his intelligence briefings, and he was clearly unprepared for the challenges of high office, above all the administrative challenges.
The shambles of his administration to date gives ample proof of this.
I think that Mr Trump - for whom concerns such as consideration, loyalty, courtesy, gratitude, basic manners - are alien - is - as usual - seeking to deflect the blame onto someone else and is - entirely characteristically - refusing to want to own his own mistakes.
He doesn't like taking advice, dislikes "experts", dismisses or excludes advisors, loathes people who stand up to him, and seem unable to tolerate the sort of individual who will "speak truth to power" among his staff.
They will have learned the lesson that he gets angry when he hears something he doesn't like hearing.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that he never gave a second's thought to possible consequences and pushback - or perfectly sensible questions - to the appointment of Mr Bannon to the NSC? And that - during his transition - this never came up? Not once?
But that is even more damning.
What does Donald Trump think the National Security Council does? Does he think it's just some sort of make-work program to give prestigious sinecures to campaign supporters?
The Order went out under Donald Trump's signature. He sat down at the Resolution desk and scrawled his spiky signature on it. Did he not read it first? Did he not understand what was written there.
A Chef Executive can be forgiven for glossing over an Executive Order recognizing National Butterfly month or inviting a children's dance troupe to perform at the Easter Egg Roll. But anything to do with the country's National Security has absolutely got to be something he understands and is fully briefed on before he thinks about signing it.
Within certain (statutory) limits a President is entitled to make changes to the way the National Security Council works. But if he's going to make changes, he owes it to the Nation he leads to understand exactly what the heck he's doing. No excuse for Mr Trump on this one.
And if you remember, I mentioned this problem months ago, before the elections.
Trump will have to face the harsh reality of slamming own's face against the bureaucracy and DC's power games. So far he has shown to be a fast learner, and he has been in power just a few weeks; too early to decide. Having this kind of issues is not abnormal within the first weeks in office, although I don't like what happened with the NSC.
Of course we're basing this conversation on the now typical "unnamed source," of which papers are so full today.
Well, if this is true it is certainly interesting.
I'm not privy to how things work at the desk of the President, if the President actually reads through each and every document he signs or if after discussion and a 3rd party drafting he gets the cliff notes version verbally and assumes everything is correct.
It sounds like there could be some serious communication or quality control or trust issues within the Trump administration. Maybe Steve Bannon will get a $10m sign on bonus hidden in Trumps next executive order. Ironic how this alleged incident involves a breakdown in oversight and security in regards to an appointment to the National Security Counsel.
Or Trump is now attempting to backpedal the appointment for some reason while making it look like a clerical error.
I would like to see this story a little more confirmed, it almost sounds too good to be true. Even if it was true I can't see the administration admitting this blunder.
Cue Kelly Ann Conway incoherent and nonsensical defense of the issue when asked in her next interview. Or Spicer berating the press for insinuating such a thing could be true.
You have to sign it to see what's in it.
No. That's not what is happening here.
It's not "Washington bureaucracy" that's tripping up Trump. There are statutory rules governing the makeup of the National Security Council. But every President has to abide by them. And Steve Bannon's appointment to the Principal's Committee - and the removal of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Director of National Intelligence - clearly violate those laws. If there are competing power groups within the White House itself (as in Bannon, Flynn, and Priebus having different agendas) - then that is a failure of Trump himself to set priorities and clearly defined areas of responsibility to his own people.
If Trump is too lazy, confused, or stupid to understand (or at least get competent legal advice) what he is signing then he has only himself to blame.
trump should get used to it has bannon takes over.
Ha! Donald J Trump never blames himself. For anything. Ever.
Maybe Priebus should have a look at what this one does, in case Trump's too busy: Julia Hahn, a protegée of Bannon, was just named a special assistant to the President. If you read the whole piece then perhaps you can argue over which party's politics Hahn actually favors but it's possible they wouldn't even be American.
There’s an old saw about Washington, D.C., that staffers in their twenties know more about the minutiae of government than their bosses do. Whether they wield real power is a different question. Julia Hahn, the twenty-five-year-old Breitbart News reporter who has just been named a special assistant to the President, could be a test case. Hahn is a protégée of Stephen Bannon, the White House chief strategist and former Breitbart chairman, who has been referred to as “Trump’s Rasputin.” (On Twitter, he is often called #PresidentBannon.) When Hahn wrote for Breitbart, her primary beats were immigration (she wanted less of it, especially from Muslim countries) and the perfidy of Republicans who, in her view, sold out American interests—especially the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan. In dozens of vituperative articles, Hahn called Ryan a “third-world migration enthusiast” and a “double agent” who was secretly campaigning for Hillary Clinton.
Some have suggested that hiring Hahn is Bannon’s way of putting Paul Ryan “on notice,” to use a Trumpian locution. William Kristol recently told the Washington Post that Hahn will “be Bannon’s Bannon and will make Bannon look moderate.” This would be a feat, given that Bannon has declared that his “goal” is “to destroy the state.” When he was running Trump’s campaign, he called Trump “a blunt instrument for us,” adding, “I don’t know whether he really gets it or not.”
So when do we start the "Get Rid of Steve Bannon (and Julia Hahn) Protest / March?" This is far more important in the long-term.
(this is a serious post, not being sarcastic)
The Simpsons predicted this years ago, they just got the name of the president wrong
It just boggles the mind.
Even I am truly surprised.
What a poor president you guys have.
I would expect that the story is false.
If he signed a paper, I expect that he had been told what it was. Or, he would have at least skimmed it / quickly scanned it with his eyes before he signed it.
He would have at least generally known what the paper was saying.
unnamed sources have been a staple of the media for decades. Hell does Deep Throat ring a bell? Being unnamed in no way dismisses the information they are providing. Dismissing a story simply because there is no named source is ignoring the reality of how not only Washington works and has worked for as long as there has been gov and a media to put it in check. For someone you claim is a fast learner, the man still has childish rants with people over twitter, he whines any time someone calls him out for the dumb **** he continues to pull or when someone goes against him. The man has taken full re***d to levels we never knew existed.
Given all the leaks that are coming out of the WH, at some point you have to ask yourself, what the hell is going on there that warrants it all. Two weeks in and Trump's WH is in complete disarray. Something that no other administration has ever experienced til now.