The Guardian is reporting that many lower level staffers working in the White House in the national security apparatus are trying to leave because they don't want to work under general Flynn, the incoming National Security Adviser. According to The Guardian, these people are worried because of stories that have been reported in the mainstream media about Flynn. The Guardian's story portrays this exodus of staffers as a bad thing, indeed a major problem for the incoming administration. That's odd. That's really odd. I mean think about it for a moment. One of the supposedly alarming stories is that Flynn deleted a tweet he sent in the week before the election that linked to a story that tied Hillary Clinton to some sort of child porn ring. I don't know if Flynn sent such a tweet or deleted it after sending it. I also don't know if Flynn was fooled by a phony story. Indeed, I don't even know if the story about Hillary was phony. I do know, however, that Flynn and his career of many decades ought not be completely ignored by a security analyst on the basis of one deleted tweet. In fact, if these security analysts are willing to flee the scene based upon such skimpy evidence, then they probably are not the sort of people we want heavily involved with America's national security. What it really means is that these security analysts are strongly supportive of the liberal/Obama world view, so the claims in the hysteria of the mainstream media resonates with them. That world view in which ideology is more important than reality, however, is just what President Elect Trump wants to jettison from the White House. What better way to do that than a wholesale replacement of personnel.
There is, of course, the rejoinder about the loss of the collective experience of all these people if they leave. In many ways, it's a basic argument of the presidential election on a small scale. Hillary Clinton argued consistently that she had a great deal of experience that would make her a better president. Trump's response, which carried the day, was that Hillary had bad experience. She never achieved anything. We've all seen the Obama foreign policy put together with the help of these fleeing analysts. A fair assessment of that mess is to say that it sucked.
Let's hope that most of these analysts leave. Washington could use a good cleaning.
There is, of course, the rejoinder about the loss of the collective experience of all these people if they leave. In many ways, it's a basic argument of the presidential election on a small scale. Hillary Clinton argued consistently that she had a great deal of experience that would make her a better president. Trump's response, which carried the day, was that Hillary had bad experience. She never achieved anything. We've all seen the Obama foreign policy put together with the help of these fleeing analysts. A fair assessment of that mess is to say that it sucked.
Let's hope that most of these analysts leave. Washington could use a good cleaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment