You have commented 0 times on Rantburg.

We're sorry, but only human beings are allowed to comment on Rantburg. If you're a human being, please take this simple test to prove it. If you're not, get lost.

Caveman
Scizophrenic mouse
The Hindenberg, though not its finest hour
Some wine is red, some wine is white. Some people drink wine most every night
A rose, possibly the Rose of San Antone but not the Yellow Rose of Texas
Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Photo
Home Front: Politix
Interagency Consensus: Another Term For: Deep State
2019-11-13
[Red State] As the Ukraine phone call saga unfolds, those of us following the drama have become aware of a new term, "The Interagency." The Interagency, is the de rigeur term for what has improperly become a decision making component of the National Security apparatus that bypasses or in extreme cases, overturns the Article II authority of the President of these United States. This unelected group of individuals representing different agencies (hence the term, "Interagency") appears to believe that they, by virtue of their vast knowledge and experience, should be the rightfully making foreign policy decisions, not the duly elected President.

This attitude has become so prolific, that serving military officers seem to believe that their opinions outweigh those of The President. Moreover, they appear to believe that they, not The President, actually get to determine U.S. Foreign Policy. Witness the opening statement to Congress by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a mid level staffer on the National Security Council, emphasis mine
In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine’s prospects, this alternative narrative undermined U.S. government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.

"...harmful to U.S, government policy." Where does this young officer get off?! Doesn’t he know that according to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, that it is The President of these United States who determines foreign policy? Doesn’t he know from his attendance at the Army’s Command and General Staff Officer Course that he is a staff officer? Doesn’t he know that his role is merely advisory? Apparently not.

Giving him a huge benefit of the doubt, I believe at some time in the past, he possibly did. But like many in the deep state, those who were once apolitical, he has become enamored of his own abilities and his own place in the government universe. I believe these folks truly believe that they, not the elected officials who happen to pass through every four years, should be determining the course of U.S. foreign Policy and Intelligence. They, after all, are ever so much more qualified to decide such things...at least that is what’s apparent from Vindman’s testimony.
Posted by:Besoeker

#2  It's why it's so important to sack those who fail or consistently give incorrect or untimely advice.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2019-11-13 05:27  

#1  they, by virtue of their vast knowledge and experience

That about their record of success?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2019-11-13 02:11