The Democrat Deep State witnesses have too high of an opinion of themselves and who makes decisions on foreign policy
Sharyl Attkisson:
The Deep State operators seem to have the sam,e reaction to George W. Bush even though he was much more likely to flatter them. The CIA seemed especially angry with him that he had acted on their misguided intelligence about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction when in fact, he should have been angry with time for giving him such wrong information. Trump, on the other hand, is more likely to ignore their advice and turn out to be right about such things as moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, recogniZing the Golan Heights as Israeli territory and their control over Judea and Samaria. He also had a better grasp of the corruption in Ukraine that was exploited by the Bidens.
There is more.
Many will debate the substance of the public impeachment testimony against President Trump. To me, each of the Democrats’ witnesses of the past two weeks appeared to be well-intentioned and hard-working, and seemed genuinely to believe they know what’s best.
But a picture also emerged of U.S. diplomats who appear to believe they, rather than the U.S. president, have the ultimate authority to determine our foreign policy. And if the president doesn’t go along? He clearly must be wrong — in their view. Or, even worse, he’s a traitor. He’s to be obstructed. Taken down.
In an odd turnabout, they actually make the case for President Trump’s mantra that we need to “drain the swamp.”
One can first look at the language witnesses used as they vented about Trump’s tutelage in ways that veered far from relevance to the impeachment allegations. They conveyed hurt feelings, bruised egos and strong differences of opinion. At times, the testimony sounded a bit like a human resources conference or psychotherapy session.
The diplomats testified that they were “shocked and devastated” to learn that Trump and Ukraine’s new president did not have faith in them. They complained that, under Trump, “foreign service professionals are being denigrated and undermined” and the State Department isn’t getting the “attention and respect” it deserves. They expressed “disappointment” that Trump had the nerve to defy the federal agencies by not discussing “any of our interagency agreed-upon talking points” in Trump’s first call with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. They were “embarrassed” in front of Ukrainians when they didn’t have answers about U.S. policy.
Former Ambassador William Taylor called the team that Trump relied on the “irregular channel.” Taylor was among those who described feeling excluded or left out, at times, along with former National Security Council official Fiona Hill, diplomat George Kent, and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the U.S. national security adviser who oddly confirmed under oath that he’d been repeatedly approached and offered the job of defense minister in Ukraine earlier this year.
It was hard not to notice that virtually the entire U.S. diplomatic staff never spoke about executing U.S. foreign policy as determined by the president of the United States — the man in charge, according to the Constitution. Instead, they spoke as if their primary mission was to advocate for Ukraine and its new, unproven president whom President Trump was sizing up. They spoke of protecting “longstanding” or “official” policy — against Trump’s wishes. When Trump differed with their assessments and relied on his chosen adviser, his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, they collectively lost their minds.
Strangely, these diplomats seemed determined to prevent, at all costs, President Zelensky from making a real commitment to investigate corruption, even when it allegedly involved U.S. money, U.S. elections and/or U.S. political figures. Strange, because that seems at odds with admissions by the same diplomats that corruption is a major problem in Ukraine, that a corruption probe into the Ukrainian company Burisma was stopped midstream in 2014 — just before the company hired then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son, a hire that raised broad concerns about the appearance of a possible conflict of interest — and that Ukraine should resume its investigation into Burisma.
...
The Deep State operators seem to have the sam,e reaction to George W. Bush even though he was much more likely to flatter them. The CIA seemed especially angry with him that he had acted on their misguided intelligence about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction when in fact, he should have been angry with time for giving him such wrong information. Trump, on the other hand, is more likely to ignore their advice and turn out to be right about such things as moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, recogniZing the Golan Heights as Israeli territory and their control over Judea and Samaria. He also had a better grasp of the corruption in Ukraine that was exploited by the Bidens.
Comments
Post a Comment