home
As was Axelrod (1.00 / 2) (#16)
by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 06:37:46 PM EST
That comparison is both noxious and dumb. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 06:43:55 PM EST
Steve Bannon has long trafficked in racism, anti-Semitism, neo-Nazism and white nationalism, and is an unbridled far-right crackpot. While David Axelrod is not one of my favorite people, he's certainly done none of those things.

Parent
Axelrod sat in (1.00 / 3) (#20)
by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 06:50:57 PM EST
the meetings all the time.
No different than Bannon being there,
Well, except for the transparency, this Administration is letting everyone know Bannon will be sitting in.
Axelrod just sort of showed up, with no notification to the press

Parent
That is a falsehood (5.00 / 4) (#21)
by vicndabx on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 07:04:05 PM EST
For a so-called non Trump supporter you sure have all the talking points down.

I did not speak or participate. I sat on the sidelines as a silent observer with Gibbs because we would be called upon to publicly discuss the president's decision on that critical matter and the process by which he arrived at it.


Parent
Heh. Axelrod is an "alternative fact." (5.00 / 4) (#22)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 07:09:25 PM EST
;-D

Parent
Axlerod (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by FlJoe on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 07:15:09 PM EST
was not a principal, plenty of aides and other functionaries sit in with little fanfare. Axlerod did not displace the DNI or the CJCS.

Parent
Military.Com (1.00 / 2) (#25)
by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 07:35:55 PM EST
http://tinyurl.com/h8n9u6q

Much ado about nothing

Parent

Ah yes the backtrack (5.00 / 4) (#26)
by vicndabx on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 07:44:07 PM EST
you keep telling us that

much ado about nothing

sorry, we don't believe you. You keep calm and carry on though.

Parent

Oh, the White House (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 08:22:04 PM EST
who lies about every little thing even unimportant things like crowd sizes denies it. You're such a Trump apologist. Is Putin paying you?

Parent
I would add (none / 0) (#29)
by vicndabx on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 07:52:38 PM EST
it's not surprising military would make statements indicating they don't expect to be sidelined out of a key role they play. Further, active military would not publicly second guess their commander in chief, which is why you heard from a former secretary and other security chiefs.

Don't downplay things you would've been all up in arms about previously Mr. Email.

Parent

No (none / 0) (#30)
by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 07:57:09 PM EST
Actually, everyone goes running around like chicken little, and then everything settles down when all the facts are known

Parent
No (none / 0) (#35)
by FlJoe on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 08:21:30 PM EST
it's fkng insane right from the get go. Why should Bannon, a purely political operator with zero relevant experience sit on the council? There is absolutely no logical reason to do so.

What facts are yet to be known? The whole premise of this move is ignorant and dangerous at best, terrifyingly nefarious at worst.

We know the facts Trevor, it is you running around trying to defend the insane actions of the man you don't support.

Parent

This is seriously FUNNY (5.00 / 4) (#33)
by Yman on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 08:09:23 PM EST
the meetings all the time.
No different than Bannon being there.

Yeap - "no different" at all.  Well, except for the fact that all Axelrod did was observe the meetings to gain an understanding of the issues.  He didn't speak and was not a participant,  Oh, ... and the fact that he never even attended an NSC Principal's Committee meeting, let alone be named a member of the committee.

But other than that, ... yeah.  "No different".

Heh.

FACT CHECK: Spin Aside, Trump's National Security Council Has A Very Big Change

Parent

This is just stupid Trevor (5.00 / 3) (#64)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:56:44 PM EST
The difference between being a principal and sitting in are night and day. My spouse attends meetings where he is not a principal. You know what that means? Sit down, shut up. You are only there to be informed. You do not speak unless spoken to and asked to speak. My JCs aren't principals? They can sit there and shut up! Holy Phuck!!#! $@$!#! $

Parent
Agreed. (none / 0) (#73)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 03:15:04 AM EST
As senior legislative policy analyst for the Speaker of the State House, I sat in on numerous meetings with the governor and his / her staff, as well as House majority caucuses. My role was the same as your husband's, to listen and observe. I did not speak unless I was asked a question directly by one of the principals, or if my boss asked me to further explain a certain bill in more specific detail.

We would have discussions afterward with my boss, obviously, where he allowed us to freely share our opinions about what we saw and heard. But as staff, we knew that we were not part of the decision making process. We had to respect our place accordingly, and further remember that whatever was said by the principals behind closed doors was expected to stay there.

Aloha.

Parent

I'm reading many of my friends (none / 0) (#80)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 07:56:56 AM EST
Afraid now of the military being used against them. This "break" serves to "break" the military away from the President. I'm glad, count me glad. The mil will all focus on Mattis and to a lesser degree Kelley. He can always fire  Mattis and Kelley, but he loses the soul of the troops.

I hope he doesn't ever go there, but he's Donald Trump. He will probably go there at some point. Posse Commitatis has loopholes my spouse has long pointed out.

Parent

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft