Flynn's departure – an enigmatic ejection - Alan Keyes

[TomSea]

Flynn's departure – an enigmatic ejection

By Alan Keyes

Something about the resignation of Michael Flynn makes no sense to me. As the chief of the National Security Council's staff, the National Security Adviser has, during my lifetime, always been one of the president's most important and confidential advisers. The job has required frequent contact with the chief executive, as well as a relationship involving the utmost trust, discretion, and confidentiality. Given the job's nature, it's hard to accept the notion that the occupant of that position would engage in an ongoing dialogue with another nation's ambassador without being sure that all he did and said had his president's approval. It's especially hard to see this happening in the very early stages of the National Security Adviser's tenure.

Yet this is precisely what we are supposed to believe was the case with Michael Flynn's conversations with Russia's ambassador to the United States. And what is more, we are supposed to believe it happened during the always delicate transition period, when the president-elect's associates and advisers are the main focal point of public attention, there being no coteries of departmental and agency officials to share the burden.

If Michael Flynn was fit for the National Security Adviser position, what sense does it make to assume he was acting without consulting his boss? If he consulted his boss, and the president was fully informed, why would the account of the conversation he gave to the vice president be of more than secondary importance? On the other hand, if he did not fully consult with and inform the president-elect, is that fact alone grounds for dismissing him from his position? The relationship with Russia is not just a critical aspect of the national security of the United States, it is important to war or peace for the entire world. It's unimaginable that a competent national security adviser would converse with Russia's envoy, especially on matters actively fraught with confrontational implications, and leave the president-elect in the dark. It would also be inexcusable.

Continued: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/keyes/170221