It just doesn't look good, arguing with intelligence
Lost in the afterglow of what Ann Coulter called the lamest State of the Union speech of all time was an actually significant utterance from Trump. Using words not written for him to read, haltingly, off a TelePrompter, he arbitrarily dismissed the Congressional testimony of the heads of each of our intelligence agencies; all, to a man and woman, contradicting pretty much everything he says about the threats our nation faces.
Thats far more consequential than evanescent calls for the high-minded politics of which hes incapable.
Trump claims ISIS is defeated; they said its reconstituted, engaging new tactics. Trump says North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat; they said Kim has no intention of relinquishing his nuclear ambitions, and is hiding his activities. The Iran deal is failing, swears Trump; theyre following its conditions, say our intelligence agencies. Theres no threat from climate change, insists Donald; the opposite, squared, is what the intelligence community understands. Nor did they confirm a security crisis at our southern border.
Claiming theyre naïve, Trump spurned those leaders, all of whom he appointed. Virtually alone among his appointees in having expertise in the positions for which they were chosen, theyre even more unique in their willingness to tell it like it is, rather than offering him only what he wants to hear.
Merely a week past my frolic amongst happy amphiscians, its jarring to consider the implications of a president who absents himself from daily intelligence briefings, already pared down to a third-grade comprehension level, and who, when he cant avoid hearing it, disregards the information those agencies provide. Who, according to reports, gets angry when shown material that belies his preferred beliefs, causing people to avoid giving it to him. The implications should be obvious, even to Trumpists, so consider it we must. In a world where hyper-partisanship didnt require otherwise thoughtful people to excuse the inexcusable, no one would defend such dereliction.
-more-
https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/schwab-it-just-doesnt-look-good-arguing-with-intelligence/?utm_source=DAILY+HERALD&utm_campaign=c62ad82008-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d81d073bb4-c62ad82008-228635337
Haggis for Breakfast
(6,831 posts)is usually an offense that results in a court-martial.
Civilian equivalent: Recall or Impeachment.
What are we waiting for ?
Stuart G
(38,414 posts)Martin Eden
(12,863 posts)... in the context of this POtuS being a Russian agent.
trev
(1,480 posts)This is the mental state of the entire MAGA realm.