Trump, Fed Up with His Own Advisors — Again

[EasyAce]

By Jim Geraghty
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trump-fed-up-with-his-own-advisors-again/

. . . [A]nyone with two eyes can see that the temperamental, erratic Trump keeps getting fed up with staff who tell him things he doesn’t want to hear, particularly in the realm of national security. In 31 months, this president has had two secretaries of defense, two acting secretaries of defense, two secretaries of homeland security, two acting secretaries of homeland security, two secretaries of state, one acting secretary of state, two CIA directors, and three chiefs of staff.

The curt tone of James Mattis’ resignation letter and not-so-subtle allusions to what makes a good leader in his new book indicates that the former secretary of defense departed the job with great frustration about Trump’s worldview and how he treated U.S. allies.

Many who go to work for Trump seem to leave their jobs exasperated and angry. Many of the president’s fans will insist upon interpreting this as just a bad series of cabinet picks who turned out to be insubordinate, lazy, bad at their jobs, or secretly opposed to the president’s agenda. Do you think everybody Trump chose for all of these positions turned out that way? And if every one of them turned out to be such a lousy choice . . . at what point does that reflect upon the man who’s choosing them?

When the president’s agenda includes inviting the Taliban to Camp David, reinstating Russia into the G-7, buying Greenland, nuking hurricanes, and slowing down assistance to Ukraine, it’s not hard to understand why members of the military and intelligence community would have friction while working with Trump . . .

[mystery-ak]

Great article...I agree Jim..

[OfTheCross]

By Jim Geraghty
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trump-fed-up-with-his-own-advisors-again/

. . . [A]nyone with two eyes can see that the temperamental, erratic Trump keeps getting fed up with staff who tell him things he doesn’t want to hear, particularly in the realm of national security. In 31 months, this president has had two secretaries of defense, two acting secretaries of defense, two secretaries of homeland security, two acting secretaries of homeland security, two secretaries of state, one acting secretary of state, two CIA directors, and three chiefs of staff.

The curt tone of James Mattis’ resignation letter and not-so-subtle allusions to what makes a good leader in his new book indicates that the former secretary of defense departed the job with great frustration about Trump’s worldview and how he treated U.S. allies.

Many who go to work for Trump seem to leave their jobs exasperated and angry. Many of the president’s fans will insist upon interpreting this as just a bad series of cabinet picks who turned out to be insubordinate, lazy, bad at their jobs, or secretly opposed to the president’s agenda. Do you think everybody Trump chose for all of these positions turned out that way? And if every one of them turned out to be such a lousy choice . . . at what point does that reflect upon the man who’s choosing them?

When the president’s agenda includes inviting the Taliban to Camp David, reinstating Russia into the G-7, buying Greenland, nuking hurricanes, and slowing down assistance to Ukraine, it’s not hard to understand why members of the military and intelligence community would have friction while working with Trump . . .

I'm of the opinion that President Trump doesn't like to be disagreed with or take blame.

So, people are likely to be fired as scapegoats or for not being sycophants.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I think the President simply did not want Bolton around to keep speaking for the administration (which he did frequently; especially in the Middle East).

Not only is Bolton in favor of staying indefinitely in Afghanistan, reports in the Israeli press have hinted for weeks that Bolton was teaming with Netanyahu to take "bold" steps against Iran, with implied US support. There may have been an unholy alliance forming between the two that exceeded Bolton's pay grade and was outside the administration's strategy for peace in the Middle East.

I suspect this is one of the reasons the President--- for the first time---did not take the Israeli PM's phone call while at the G7, who was nervous that POTUS was going to meet with Iran (he wasn't) and wanted to talk him out of it.  The Israeli press has also been taking notice that the POTUS has not made a gesture (so far) to help pull Netanyahu across the victory line in the elections scheduled next week. 

By this time in the April election the President had had Netanyahu to the WH, recognized Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights and tweeted "hailing the special relationship" between himself and Netanyahu several times.  The Trump administration made a final potential election gift to Netanyahu on April 8, hours before the polls opened in Israel, when the president officially designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist organization.  (https://www.timesofisrael.com/trouble-in-paradise-trump-conspicuously-absent-from-netanyahus-re-election-bid/)

Bolton was effing up one of the President's and the administration's strongest alliances and relationships. 

Keeping Bolton would have been worse for the administration and the country than any snarky article taking aim at the President for his decision.

[EdJames]

I think the President simply did not want Bolton around to keep speaking for the administration (which he did frequently; especially in the Middle East).

Not only is Bolton in favor of staying indefinitely in Afghanistan, reports in the Israeli press have hinted for weeks that Bolton was teaming with Netanyahu to take "bold" steps against Iran, with implied US support. There may have been an unholy alliance forming between the two that exceeded Bolton's pay grade and was outside the administration's strategy for peace in the Middle East.

I suspect this is one of the reasons the President--- for the first time---did not take the Israeli PM's phone call while at the G7, who was nervous that POTUS was going to meet with Iran (he wasn't) and wanted to talk him out of it.  The Israeli press has also been taking notice that the POTUS has not made a gesture (so far) to help pull Netanyahu across the victory line in the elections scheduled next week. 

By this time in the April election the President had had Netanyahu to the WH, recognized Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights and tweeted "hailing the special relationship" between himself and Netanyahu several times.  The Trump administration made a final potential election gift to Netanyahu on April 8, hours before the polls opened in Israel, when the president officially designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist organization.  (https://www.timesofisrael.com/trouble-in-paradise-trump-conspicuously-absent-from-netanyahus-re-election-bid/)

Bolton was effing up one of the President's and the administration's strongest alliances and relationships. 

Keeping Bolton would have been worse for the administration and the country than any snarky article taking aim at the President for his decision.

That is certainly part of it..... very much so....

[Bigun]

I think the President simply did not want Bolton around to keep speaking for the administration (which he did frequently; especially in the Middle East).

Not only is Bolton in favor of staying indefinitely in Afghanistan, reports in the Israeli press have hinted for weeks that Bolton was teaming with Netanyahu to take "bold" steps against Iran, with implied US support. There may have been an unholy alliance forming between the two that exceeded Bolton's pay grade and was outside the administration's strategy for peace in the Middle East.

I suspect this is one of the reasons the President--- for the first time---did not take the Israeli PM's phone call while at the G7, who was nervous that POTUS was going to meet with Iran (he wasn't) and wanted to talk him out of it.  The Israeli press has also been taking notice that the POTUS has not made a gesture (so far) to help pull Netanyahu across the victory line in the elections scheduled next week. 

By this time in the April election the President had had Netanyahu to the WH, recognized Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights and tweeted "hailing the special relationship" between himself and Netanyahu several times.  The Trump administration made a final potential election gift to Netanyahu on April 8, hours before the polls opened in Israel, when the president officially designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist organization.  (https://www.timesofisrael.com/trouble-in-paradise-trump-conspicuously-absent-from-netanyahus-re-election-bid/)

Bolton was effing up one of the President's and the administration's strongest alliances and relationships. 

Keeping Bolton would have been worse for the administration and the country than any snarky article taking aim at the President for his decision.

As you are already aware, I am on the Bolton side of this argument and strongly believe the president will soon come to regret what happened today but will never admit it publicly.

[EdJames]

As you are already aware, I am on the Bolton side of this argument and strongly believe the president will soon come to regret what happened today but will never admit it publicly.

One of the rare times that we see differently on a matter such as this; perhaps why we are both still kicking!

 
 

[mystery-ak]

As you are already aware, I am on the Bolton side of this argument and strongly believe the president will soon come to regret what happened today but will never admit it publicly.

Couldn't agree more...

[Bigun]

One of the rare times that we see differently on a matter such as this; perhaps why we are both still kicking!

 
 

I'm fine with principaled disagreement from anyone anywhere @EdJames.  Just wish you knew what I know about the ME and particularly Persia.

[TomSea]

Bolton Likely Axed Over Taliban Deal, Leaks
Trump was increasingly frustrated with Bolton publicly contradicting him and scuttling his negotiations.
By Barbara Boland • September 10, 2019

...

But Bolton’s version of events doesn’t make much sense: about an hour before Trump’s tweet, the White House had informed the press that Bolton would be briefing reporters, along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, and  Bolton even led a meeting this morning.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/bolton-likely-axed-over-taliban-deal-leaks/

It would be hard to just make up that reddened above. So, I think there's a whole lot here than meets the eye. If the above is true, Bolton appears to have been comfortable in his job as of this morning. The rest of the article lays out details. The above reddened is not "speculation" but it would seem there would be records of this.  Bolton even led a meeting this morning.

[TomSea]

I like Bolton as an individual but it doesn't take much recollection, that there seemed to be problems in the summit with North Korea and as said, in the American Conservative article, some in Afghanistan.

This incident is still in the last 12 hours, I'm going to try to find out the objective facts.

[Right_in_Virginia]

As you are already aware, I am on the Bolton side of this argument and strongly believe the president will soon come to regret what happened today but will never admit it publicly.

Understood.  We've agreed to disagree .... and remain friends.   

[EdJames]

I'm fine with principaled disagreement from anyone anywhere @EdJames.  Just wish you knew what I know about the ME and particularly Persia.

I’m seeing it beyond Persia.  PM sent.