General Keith Kellogg, who I have known for a long time, is very much in play for NSA - as are three others.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 17, 2017
Politico: Trump says he's considering Kellogg and three others for NSA
President Donald Trump said Friday that he is considering keeping Keith Kellogg on as his permanent national security adviser, but there are also three other names “in play” to succeed Michael Flynn, who was ousted from the job on Monday.
Trump signaled his interest in Kellogg, a retired Army lieutenant general, in a tweet: “General Keith Kellogg, who I have known for a long time, is very much in play for NSA - as are three others,” he said.
The president tapped Kellogg to fill the national security adviser role on an interim basis after the unceremonious departure of Flynn, who was asked to resign in the wake of reports that he had improperly discussed sanctions on Russia with the country’s ambassador and then misled the public and Vice President Mike Pence about it.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: So much for the story that Retired Vice Adm. Robert Harward turned down the job because of staffing issues .... White House denies Flynn replacement pick turned down job over staffing dispute (The Hill).
More News On Who May be The Next National Security Adviser
Trump scrambles to find top national security aide -- Reuters
Here's who Trump could pick to replace Flynn as national security advisor -- CNBC
Harward turns down national security adviser job. Who else is there? -- CSM
9 comments:
Hope for someone smarter than Flynn. Flynn was good on Russia but dead wrong on Iran. The next one should go after Saudi Arabia instead.
WNU Editor: So much for the story that Retired Vice Adm. Robert Harward turned down the job because of staffing issues .... White House denies Flynn replacement pick turned down job over staffing dispute (The Hill).
https://www.google.ca/amp/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/2/14/14613220/white-house-contradiction-flynn?client=safari
LMFAO
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thestar.com/amp/news/world/2017/02/03/daniel-dales-donald-trump-fact-check-updates.html?client=safari
I agree Jay. As I had mentioned yesterday .... I did not like President Trump's answer on the Flynn firing. My guess is that he regrets doing it .... and now he has to live with it. This is something that I have noticed about President Trump since the summer. When he does something unpleasant and that he does not like .... what should be a simple message gets confused and mixed up.
I should also add that his supporters do not really care when he his facts are wrong .... their dislike for the media and their errors and biases are more intense. CBS Face the Nation host John Dickerson is onto something .... and that is my 21:00 EST post
John Bolton would be my preference.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2017/01/acarepeal.png
Of course the Trumpista's don't care about facts and reality.
We saw it with the Bush II supporters, until the daily return flights of flag draped coffins and Iraqi Politicians flying to Tehran seeking the blessings of the Mullah's.
Then they suddenly pretended they were never Republicans, never voted for Bush II, etc.
As long as President Bannon keeps "hippie punching", he'll have their support, no matter that they lose their healthcare, their retirements, their homes, their jobs.
Russ,
I actually like John Bolton. I really do. I think he is a patriot.
Unfortunately he doesn't understand diplomacy very well. While being a "hawk" is good and has its place at times, this seems to be all he has to offer. When confronting those who are stronger than you as is the case with Russia and possibly China as well, at least this is my very considered opinion, it's probably not a good idea to be bellicose.
A better approach is a soft spoken approach, look for common ground, try to add value to them, don't give them an obvious reason to want to hurt you, but make sure you are well enough defended that any attack on you would be pyric enough to ensure they don't attack you in the first place. Take this approach and good outcomes are possible. Take this approach and good outcomes are possible and even probable.
While we cannot "know" the outcome of a conflict in advance and opinions can be wrong, Russia and China can hurt us very, very badly. As such, the bellicose approach of a John Bolton would seem to not be a good one. DJT has been rather bellicose at times toward China. We need them to renegotiate the trade agreement as the status quo is not sustainable for us. DJT will need a way to climb down gracefully from his rhetoric.
I would suggest as the national security advisor someone who is on friendly terms with the leaders and VIPs of Russia and China that they respect and trust. This would give us a reasonable chance of renegotiating the trade agreement with China in a manner that is beneficial to both countries and in the case of Russia ending Cold War II which we don't need and likely don't have the resources to prosecute effectively.
Editor,
As for Mr. Flynn, he lied to POTUS and the VP or he forgot what he talked about. If so, it would seem reasonable that he would be terminated. If an employee of a corporation lies to the CEO or forgets the details of a very important conversation and a conversation with the Russian ambassador for an incoming national security advisor would be a very important one, obviously such a person would expect to be fired or at the very least "written up" and their life mad so miserable they'd quit the job of their own accord. At least this is the story right now. Very respectfully before we know what is to "like" or "dislike" about the answer it seems we would need to know the full details about the conversation between Mr. Flynn and the Russian ambassador.
If I were DJT and I caved to pressure to fire someone who didn't need to be fired, I'd probably regret the decision too. The Russian leadership and Mr. Flynn had good relations. It is possible that real diplomatic progress was being made to defusing the tensions surrounding Cold War II and possibly negotiating an end to it or at least cooling tensions down. By someone's decision to release certain information to the media months of careful diplomacy may have been upended in one fail swoop. I will reiterate Cold War is something America does not need, likely cannot afford, and likely doesn't have the resources to prosecute effectively. If someone can negotiate an end to this, this would be good for all sides. I don't think Russia or anyone else needs this either. I suppose it is possible that one person's idea of a "traitor" is another person's idea of a "patriot."
Boulton,
LMFAO
Post a Comment