|
Click The Pic To Donate  |
Posted on 04/05/2017 11:09:27 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
This is the type of adjustment that effective organizations make, although that's surely not the way you're going to hear it reported
This never made sense to me from the get-go, but I guess sometimes you try something different just to see if it would be better, and you find out before long that it’s not. The explanation when they first did it was that Joint Chiefs would be included on an as-needed basis, but that based on the nature of the NSC’s day-to-day work, they didn’t need to be there all the time. Bannon did, I guess, because the politics of security decisions needed to be consistent with the substance.
This could be the result of the woman who left the White House. If they have found the leaker, Bannon’s role may not be required.
Don’t know if this is true as it’s being portrayed but this with Trump’s response to the Syrian attacks so far lead me to believe that we may be losing Trump to these vipers.
I can’t get anyone to explain to me why it is a good thing that Bossert can’t set the agenda for the meetings related to his department.
Why is it a good thing that he doesn’t get to do it for HSC.
Yeah Yeah..I know he can ****IF**** McMaster says he can.
A few other Bannon articles today.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;q=quick;s=Bannon
|
Click The Pic To Donate |
In the article linked from Drudge's headline, it says that Bannon was on the committee as a check against Michael Flynn. He's gone now. Bannon only attended one meeting, and felt he wasn't needed in that role anymore since H.R. McMaster was chosen as National Security Advisor. Bannon wanted McMaster in the role, and McMaster was given the authority to reorganize the committee, which he has. I see Drudge is saying Rick Perry will fill Bannon's place.
Of course the press is going to make a big to-do about it. No matter what happens in this White House, the media is going to make it look like it's because of tension, bad feelings, power struggle, yada, yada, yada.
I agree. I still hope Trump is just saying this to placate while pursuing a realist foreign policy.
Rick Perry is because of Energy Dept.
Good shake up , eye on Target and USA interest only.
Agree.
Trump is an effective executive. Slow to hire, fast to fire.
I’m not going to question his judgment here.
He moves at a tempo that the DC Swamp neither can match nor comprehend, imo.
I don’t know. Trump said, “I’m very flexible, just because I had one position doesn’t mean I won’t go the other way”. Why do you suppose he said that? They are trying to pull his foreign policy in the standard direction. We’ll know which way it goes and based on how it goes I’ll know if Trump has control yet. It’s not looking good
He is saying I am not a Ideologue.
Hey, Vince Ferrer, happy feast day today!
Agree. Very bad turn. Was one of my biggest reasons for supporting Trump. I fell for, “Wouldn’t it be nice to start getting along with other countries?!” Apparently the puppet masters can manipulate even someone like Trump into ‘endless war for endless peace’.
Why would Trump nominate Flynn but trust him so little as to put a babysitter with him? Frankly, if that spin is true, it's way more disturbing than "you know what, I made a mistake. Bannon doesn't belong there."
Yea, well he hasn’t even TRIED his Russian shift because of all this fake Russian garbage. It seems that if he’s not an ideologue and willing to talk to Russians he ought to do that before the drumbeats of war. I don’t blame him because I know if he were in power he would certainly try. It’s just unfortunate that he’s not yet in power. Who knows if he ever will be.
That’s my take, too.
He’s already made up his mind that Assad dropped the chem. weapons and not McCain’s terrorists. Haley blamed Russia at the UN in a big show. Looks to me like his chance to change relations with Russia is now over. McCain’s wet dream.
Indeed. I’m concerned too and got flack when I mentioned this once before on here a few weeks ago. If you get time, check out the first 30 minutes or so of this newscast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2AN3lzcvFY
If so, this is a problem created by the fact that Trump brought people into his Administration who weren’t fully behind his agenda. We look at people like Cohn, Haley, McMaster (who won’t say radical Islamic terrorism and (at least according to CNN) clashes with Trump) who, for various reasons, don’t fully align with what Trump ran on and see they are pulling him away from that. Cohn is a democrat. Haley and McMaster are neocons. People like Steve Bannon - he needed a Cabinet full of them. Trump may have had competing power centers in his business, but as President, he is surrounded by a competing power center with the deep state, political establishment, media, and full wrath of the liberals against him. What he didn’t need is division in his cabinet. Everyone should be on the same page, supportive of Trump’s agenda, and ready to go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.