Robert Harward likely to be next NSA, replacing ousted Flynn

Cubo de Sangre said:
Yep. So all the more important that good people involve themselves, regardless of their chances of success. Nobody in government really gets to just make whatever decisions they want. Failure and compromise are to be expected.

I really don't know shit about Powell's work history or accomplishments. I will say that any endorsement whatsoever on his part to invade Iraq is a monumental blunder and definitely not good for America.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's the simple explanation: he didn't feel, for one reason or another, that his presence would be a positive impact to the country. Powell had deep reservations on the war in Iraq, but towed the line out of loyalty and sense of duty. Powell gave legitimacy to the war that it didn't deserve. Maybe Haward doesn't want to be in the same position.

Anyway, going by Jack's dumpster fire analogy, if you can't catch it early enough sometimes the best thing you can do is just step back, let it burn itself out, then be ready to clean up afterwards.
 
Rod1 said:
In theory yes, but good people joining could also spell legitimacy to a failed administration.

As i said before Powell told Bush that Iraq was not going to be a smooth ride, he told Bush that diplomacy and international support was needed before going to war and Bush didnt listen, instead he told Powell to sell the war on Iraq in the UN.

Powell being a military man, was loyal to the office until Bush left the office.
Click to expand...

As of yet the administration is neither illegitimate or a failure. And quite frankly, once again, to me that prospect's all the more reason to get involved in spite of fundamental disagreements.

I hear you, but war is pretty extreme so if one doesn't support it then one shouldn't be convincing others to do so. Most decisions aren't going to be some huge moral quandary and some towing of the company line is just how shit goes.

What more can I say? I see it both ways while you and Jack appear to see it just the one. Not sure there's a right and wrong here. But I am fucking certain that given similar circumstances I would take the job so as to help my country the best I could.
 
Higus said:
Maybe that's the simple explanation: he didn't feel, for one reason or another, that his presence would be a positive impact to the country. Powell had deep reservations on the war in Iraq, but towed the line out of loyalty and sense of duty. Powell gave legitimacy to the war that it didn't deserve. Maybe Haward doesn't want to be in the same position.

Anyway, going by Jack's dumpster fire analogy, if you can't catch it early enough sometimes the best thing you can do is just step back, let it burn itself out, then be ready to clean up afterwards.
Click to expand...

As I've said, that's his choice. He has a right to it and his reasons. Am I the only one not entitled to an opinion on the matter?
 
Not sure he wants to give up a 7 figure job at lockheed to partake in the circus.
 
Jack V Savage said:
This is the problem. Anyone with any integrity and competence is not going to want to be associated with this dumpster fire administration, but they're still running the executive branch and still need good people.
Click to expand...

well there were people willing to be associated with obama's dumpster fire administration and gwb's, so it cant be that hard
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
If you like Flynn that's cool. I haven't researched either dude. Just going by what I see.

Love the Judge, but I'm still waiting for him to provide the proof that it was members of the intelligence community that leaked all the shit the Russians are being accused of.
Click to expand...
intercepting phone calls from Russia?
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
What more can I say? I see it both ways while you and Jack appear to see it just the one. Not sure there's a right and wrong here. But I am fucking certain that given similar circumstances I would take the job so as to help my country the best I could.
Click to expand...

I brought up the issue. People who have integrity and are competent don't want to be associated with the administration (which could make them complicit), but the inability of the administration to fill key positions with good people is a problem, too. Then you responded by attacking the patriotism of people who would choose one option (the one I'd describe as putting country first). For you to now circle back and claim that you see it both ways and others don't is pretty stunning.
 
Jack V Savage said:
I brought up the issue. People who have integrity and are competent don't want to be associated with the administration (which could make them complicit), but the inability of the administration to fill key positions with good people is a problem, too. Then you responded by attacking the patriotism of people who would choose one option (the one I'd describe as putting country first). For you to now circle back and claim that you see it both ways and others don't is pretty stunning.
Click to expand...

You sure it's not bizarre?

Not wanting to be associated with an administration is about personal best interest and not that of the country. If the guy thought he'd suck at the job so be it. But to me if you think your country needs you but decide to put your reputation first then that's not what I'd call patriotic. Quite the opposite.

@Rod1 already did a better job of making this point by bringing up Powell. My response was that Powell should have better consulted his conscience when he leveraged his reputation to drum up support in a war he didn't believe in. That would have certainly been the time to resign. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't have taken the job to begin with. Powell might have helped us avert the historical blunder had he resigned and spoke out against the war. I'm sure that would have carried more weight if he had declined the job then sniped at the decision from the outside and without being privy to all of the intelligence that the position made available to him. I also made the point that this is an extreme example and that no matter what the job there are things you have to tow the company line on.

Can you respond to this without repeating yourself or concocting a misleading synopsis?
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
As of yet the administration is neither illegitimate or a failure. And quite frankly, once again, to me that prospect's all the more reason to get involved in spite of fundamental disagreements.

I hear you, but war is pretty extreme so if one doesn't support it then one shouldn't be convincing others to do so. Most decisions aren't going to be some huge moral quandary and some towing of the company line is just how shit goes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if you are forced from day 1 to accept some shitty conditions, like being forced to use Flynn men as opposed to you, then i guess he felt it was not in his good interest or that of the nation.

And i disagree with no-failure, if there was not a failure why did Flynn resigned and if Flynn resigns isnt it normal for his people to resign with him? otherwise it seems that the admin is still going to use Flynn, just have him work from the shadows with his staff being present in security meeting and Harward being gagged from the start.

How can Harward be confident that Flynn staff is going to work for him?
 
Rod1 said:
Yeah, but if you are forced from day 1 to accept some shitty conditions, like being forced to use Flynn men as opposed to you, then i guess he felt it was not in his good interest or that of the nation.

And i disagree with no-failure, if there was not a failure why did Flynn resigned and if Flynn resigns isnt it normal for his people to resign with him? otherwise it seems that the admin is still going to use Flynn, just have him work from the shadows with his staff being present in security meeting and Harward being gagged from the start.

How can Harward be confident that Flynn staff is going to work for him?
Click to expand...

Like I said, if he thinks somebody better will get the job and that's his motivation then great. But I seriously doubt that. If he would have taken the job but won't because he can't hire and fire whoever he wants then I don't see the patriotism.

Experiencing a failure and being a failure aren't the same. I couldn't begin to speculate on your CT hypothesis.

If it's too daunting for him to show a little faith in his future co-workers or try to make the best of it in order to help his country when called upon then he's either not too worried things will go to hell or he's more concerned with things other than the nation's future.

For reference:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriotic

having or showing great love and support for your country
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I'm not feeling the love and support in homie's decision.
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
Like I said, if he thinks somebody better will get the job and that's his motivation then great. But I seriously doubt that. If he would have taken the job but won't because he can't hire and fire whoever he wants then I don't see the patriotism.

Experiencing a failure and being a failure aren't the same. I couldn't begin to speculate on your CT hypothesis.

If it's too daunting for him to show a little faith in his future co-workers or try to make the best of it in order to help his country when called upon then he's either not too worried things will go to hell or he's more concerned with things other than the nation's future.

For reference:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriotic

Sorry, but I'm not feeling the love and support in homie's decision.
Click to expand...

If they were regular WH staffers or if they were not associated with Flynn i would see the point, but since they were brought by Flynn to help Flynn and Flynn resigns for an scandal then i would certainly expect his men to go with him.

This is all speculation since we werent privy to the talks, but i seriously doubt it was as simple.
 
Rod1 said:
If they were regular WH staffers or if they were not associated with Flynn i would see the point, but since they were brought by Flynn to help Flynn and Flynn resigns for an scandal then i would certainly expect his men to go with him.

This is all speculation since we werent privy to the talks, but i seriously doubt it was as simple.
Click to expand...

Yep, lots of speculation and pretty much boils down to opinion. But like I said, I don't see any love or support in his decision so my view that patriotism didn't play much of a role is hardly refuted by anything we do know.
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
You sure it's not bizarre?

Not wanting to be associated with an administration is about personal best interest and not that of the country.
Click to expand...

Not wanting to be part of activities that threaten the fundamental values of America and cause suffering around the world, however, is not. And taking high-ranking positions appointed by the president is great for your career. So an honest summary of the actual argument pretty much leaves you with nothing to say.

Cubo de Sangre said:
Can you respond to this without repeating yourself or concocting a misleading synopsis?
Click to expand...

The misleading synopsis was yours (typical for you--as accusing someone else of doing what you're doing).
 
Jack V Savage said:
Not wanting to be part of activities that threaten the fundamental values of America and cause suffering around the world, however, is not. And taking high-ranking positions appointed by the president is great for your career. So an honest summary of the actual argument pretty much leaves you with nothing to say.



The misleading synopsis was yours (typical for you--as accusing someone else of doing what you're doing).
Click to expand...

Incisive.
 
Harward and Petraeus both turned down the spot because they want nothing to do with KT McFarland as their deputy. Now there is a movement behind getting John Bolton into the spot, and supposedly he wants it as well. Tillerson also wants his own deputy in State, so getting Bolton out from there (Trump forced him on Rex) would please the SOS as well. And quite possibly the only bigger war hawk with Iran hard on would replace Flynn.
 
@Cubo de Sangre

Apparently its not only being forced to have Flynn staff there what troubled Harward, its also a problem with Bannon.

The administration was rebuffed by its first pick for a national security adviser replacement, Naval Vice Admiral Robert Harward, who cited family and financial considerations for declining the post. However, sources told MSNBC's Chris Hayesthat Harward made his final decision after watching Trump's bizarre press conference on Thursday. Trump reportedly would not meet Harward's conditions for taking the job, which included hiring authority and a restructuring of the NSC to eliminate Trump strategist Steve Bannon's role.

Bannon, a political strategist and former chairman of alt-right Breitbart News, was elevated to the NSC's principals committee via a Trump executive order. The president has been harshly criticized for the move by former national security officials and politicians, who see it as the politicizing of the council.
Click to expand...

http://www.newsweek.com/nsc-official-craig-deare-fired-criticizing-trump-reports-558484
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,691
Messages
55,434,932
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top