The Next President is...

[brickhistory]

It's curious how the past Administration received, largely, a pass here at Baseops due mainly to the auto-racisim charge that was leveled at dissent.  Now that there's a white boy with a bad combover in the seat, it's game on.

 

I am absolutely digging the amount of consternation and gnashing of teeth that this administration is causing on both sides of the political aisle.

There have been comments in this thread about how even the GOP greybeards are aghast at Trump & Co. and their nascent methods of governing.

The first, obvious question is "How well did those greybeards work out and improve our position at home and abroad?"

Oxen are being gored and I am pleased.

[17D_guy]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

It's curious how the past Administration received, largely, a pass here at Baseops due mainly to the auto-racisim charge that was leveled at dissent...

What?  Cite your source.  It was quiet on here until I pointed out the silence, then everyone got back on track with the political discussions on the Internet.

Prior Admin got lambasted on here on the regular.  For example - inept international diplomacy, to firing CC's for their staff's leaks, to overuse of drones, "gun control" was always a big one.  

Too much zipper-suited-sun-god up in here to go with the "racism" charge and not get demolished with facts and "go for quals."

The lack of self-critical political evaluation you're advocating for because you allege the other admin didn't get it is stupendous.  But then, ceding 70 years of American leadership abroad doesn't seem like a big deal to you, so I'm not surprised.

We'll all see how it goes.  I found your latest portrait:

[brickhistory]

Quals:

- American citizen

- seen a few Administrations

- able to read/write/draw my own conclusions about politics, the political establishment, and recognize hypocrisy of whatever political bent.

- sadly, the only pilot quals are all too seldom used FAA-issued PPL from some decades ago.

Never much of a Heath Ledger/dark Batman genre.

And I'd go with this for me over characterization.

Since 'facts' are important to you, perhaps you can stick with those in your arguments versus personal attacks.

I can play that and am not too shabby at it, but then we become liberals if we stay on that path.

I do have standards after all.

 

edited to remove superfluous personal achievement stuff.

Edited February 4, 2017 by brickhistory

[17D_guy]

If that's really what you took from my statement suggest reading glasses to go with the beers and firearms.

[daynightindicator]

It's worth noting that for the first time in history, a political strategist will have a permanent role on the principals committee of the NSC.

You can be as cynical as you want to be, and say that all decisions are political, but the facts of the matter are that no other NSC regularly included a political strategist. And in those cases where one was invited to meetings (I.e. Axelrod) there was significant consternation.

Politics has no role in national security decisions, and past presidencies have borne that out in the constitution of their NSCs.

This is a new, and concerning, twist.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Herk Driver]

Politics has no role in national security decisions, and past presidencies have borne that out in the constitution of their NSCs.

This is a new, and concerning, twist.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Is it worth noting that a political advisor is sitting on the NSC? Absolutely.

Look, I am no fan of Bannon and I think having him there is a mistake...but your statement that I quoted above shows your naïveté of politics and national security decisions.

Go back and look at the Johnson Whitehouse and his Tuesday lunches which marginalized the NSC, for one example, along with just about any other decision. National security decisions are NOT made in a vacuum and they are not shrouded in some cover of "it's the right thing to do". Every decision is political.

Wring your hands about Bannon, if you want. I will buy you a scotch and we can discuss it at length but don't try to make this sound like more than it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[brickhistory]

8 hours ago, daynightindicator said:

It's worth noting that for the first time in history, a political strategist will have a permanent role on the principals committee of the NSC.

You can be as cynical as you want to be, and say that all decisions are political, but the facts of the matter are that no other NSC regularly included a political strategist. And in those cases where one was invited to meetings (I.e. Axelrod) there was significant consternation.

Politics has no role in national security decisions, and past presidencies have borne that out in the constitution of their NSCs.

This is a new, and concerning, twist.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

*cough*  Ben Rhodes  *cough**cough*

[nsplayr]

19 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

*cough*  Ben Rhodes  *cough**cough*

Ben Rhodes was the Deputy National Security Advisor. 

[tk1313]

One of the most intelligent military minds to have ever lived.

 

Edited February 4, 2017 by tk1313

[Herk Driver]

Ben Rhodes was the Deputy National Security Advisor. 

For Strategic Communications...

He was a speechwriter...let's be honest.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html?_r=1&referer=https://cdn.ampproject.org/v/foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/06/a-stunning-profile-of-ben-rhodes-the-asshole-who-is-the-presidents-foreign-policy-guru/amp/?amp_js_v=7

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Lord Ratner]

Politics has no role in national security decisions[/url]

Sheer lunacy.

The only difference now is that instead of the political advisors listening in the corner then bending the president's ear after, the discourse can happen with all other players present. If politics have no role, why is the secretary of state on the PC? Or do only international politics have a role in national security?

[nsplayr]

This story highlights exactly why you don't want high level political figures (like Bannon) involved in national security decisions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/02/04/the-white-house-cabinet-battle-over-trumps-immigration-ban/?postshare=7731486222921115&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.b20f15d565f1

Good on Sec. Kelly for refusing Bannon's "orders" and using the chain of command (i.e. POTUS). Kelly, Mattis, Tillerson, CJCS, are in the chain of command for their various agencies and departments and all report to the President - Bannon or anyone like him is distinctly not in that chain.

Re: Rhodes...call him unqualified if you want, but his portfolio was NATSEC issues based on his role as Deputy National Security Advisor. President Trunp has several of those in his admin and they are all appropriate attendees to NSC meetings and that decision-making process. Not as principals (that would be Flynn), but I'm sure they're in the room and they should be.

Unless the President wants to dual-hat Bannon as the National Security Advisor, he has no place on the PC. Unless he's also a deputy NSA or NSC staffer of some kind on top of his role as chief strategist, he shouldn't even be in the room, let alone trying to tell the DHS Secretary what to do. 

In my opinion, W did this right based on accounts of the process he ran. He had his political folks and his NATSEC folks and they had a bright, clear line between those two portfolios. He, as the President, sat in the middle and over everything and alone or with the VP made the appropriate decisions on if and when politics played a role in national security decision making and vice versa.

Now, I think Bush made lots of foreign policy mistakes, but FFS they at least ran the interagency process in a logical, deliberate manner and respected and upheld the institutions that exist solely to help the President succeed. 

Edited February 4, 2017 by nsplayr

[BFM this]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

This story highlights exactly why you don't want high level political figures (like Bannon) involved in national security decisions.

You don't like Bannon.  Got it.  Neither do I for that matter, but this doesn't pass the sniff test, unless your indignation applies across previous administrations as well.  Do I need to name names?  I could go back to at least Reagan off the top of my cranium, but I'm sure the Google machine will help me find earlier examples.

Copy: the WH has been running the first few weeks like a rally car race, with fender scuffs to prove it.  The article that you provided was that at the end of the day they are adults and found their designated lanes.  Like the author said at the end: a tie.

[Lawman]

Found this entertaining

Because screw that bitch and her "it's my turn" mentality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

This story highlights exactly why you don't want high level political figures (like Bannon) involved in national security decisions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/02/04/the-white-house-cabinet-battle-over-trumps-immigration-ban/?postshare=7731486222921115&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.b20f15d565f1

Good on Sec. Kelly for refusing Bannon's "orders" and using the chain of command (i.e. POTUS). Kelly, Mattis, Tillerson, CJCS, are in the chain of command for their various agencies and departments and all report to the President - Bannon or anyone like him is distinctly not in that chain.

Thank you for proving my point. Wanna check that article again?

It's unfortunate, but in this media environment, reading, seeing, or hearing it in the news isn't enough.

[Igloowhite]

One need only look at political advisor Colonel House advising  President Woodrow Wilson on matters of state or Truman's "Kitchen Cabinet" when addressing MacArthur's insubordination and it would play politically and most significantly when Robert Kennedy (although appointed Attorney General) considered the political angle above all else, even during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Politics cast a giant shadow regardless the arena.

[daynightindicator]

You don't like Bannon.  Got it.  Neither do I for that matter, but this doesn't pass the sniff test, unless your indignation applies across previous administrations as well.  Do I need to name names?  I could go back to at least Reagan off the top of my cranium, but I'm sure the Google machine will help me find earlier examples.
Copy: the WH has been running the first few weeks like a rally car race, with fender scuffs to prove it.  The article that you provided was that at the end of the day they are adults and found their designated lanes.  Like the author said at the end: a tie.

Please, name names. As actual NSC PC principals. In the 70ish year history, the NSC has not had permanent PC members that were political strategists.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[norskman]

17 hours ago, nsplayr said:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/02/04/the-white-house-cabinet-battle-over-trumps-immigration-ban/?postshare=7731486222921115&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.b20f15d565f1

 

Fake news 

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58965b8ce4b0c1284f26473f?utm_hp_ref=donald-trump

[BFM this]

Please, name names. As actual NSC PC principals. In the 70ish year history, the NSC has not had permanent PC members that were political strategists.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Who said that any of them were permanent members? Rove, Jarrett, Emanuel, Axelrod; none of them were statutory NSC members, yet they all participated in meetings and discussions as Bannon is now.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[nsplayr]

Dudes, there's a huge difference between a reporter getting something wrong and some guy just making shit up to get clicks. 

The paper posts a correction and updates the article plus admits mistakes. Fair enough. Should have got it right the first time and verified sources better.

Romanian guy writes that Trump is eating little children's hearts for breakfast at the White House. Unrepentant and will even tell you directly that he just made everything up to get ad dollars from clicks.

One of those is fake news and the other is the normal ups and downs of journalism.

Or it's all the same, morally equivalent.

https://www.google.com/amp/insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/54120

Kind of like Putin is a killer...there are a lot of killers or there. Are we so innocent?

Y'all know you would have completely lost your GD minds if Obama had said that, regardless if there's a kernel of truth to it. 

[nsplayr]

3 hours ago, BFM this said:

 

Who said that any of them were permanent members? Rove, Jarrett, Emanuel, Axelrod; none of them were statutory NSC members, yet they all participated in meetings and discussions as Bannon is now.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

 

Cite one source that Rove ever attended an NSC meeting. My understanding is that he was never permitted to attend. 

Access = power. This is court politics signaling that Bannon has more power than someone like Coats as DNI or Dunford as CJCS, which many people find very troubling.

A permanent seat at the PC table is way different than occasional attendance to broader NSC meetings when the President seems it appropriate. 

Also Rahm was the Chief of Staff, like Reince, and has a far different role than the political strategists. Let's talk apples to apples here. 

[disgruntledemployee]

What are you so afraid of?  That politics play into national security decisions? 

BTW, I think I once read that a president (last 30 yrs?) rarely ever used the NCS.  Law says he gets to have one and calls out specific positions, but does the law mandate how the NCS is used?  And I'm too old or lazy to look up sources.

Look, the Pres is going to listen to whomever he wants for whatever reasons, just like all the ones in the past.  If the Pres thinks that putting a politics guy in the fish bowl to "stir it up" because he thinks that may yield better results, let him try it.  If the dude fucks it up, he'll get fired.  I heard 2x Obama holdovers got canned already for not following orders.  Did O ever fire anyone?  And I'm not talking about the touchy feely mention of someone resigning but was actually fired.  This Pres flat out fired two people.

Now I've got to get ready to see Tom Brady lose it tonight, you all have fun out there.

Out

[Prozac]

24 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

If the dude fucks it up, he'll get fired.  

Maybe. Or maybe we'll find ourselves in a conflict in the South China Sea. Seriously, the stakes are extremely high here. That's why many are so concerned. 

[matmacwc]

Somewhere in the cobwebs of officer school I remember learning that military action was an end to political means.

[Blue]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

Seriously, the stakes are extremely high here. That's why many are so concerned. 

Ah, yes.  Because the National Security Councils of the past gave been so infallible, and have such an impressive track record of good decisions......