Sharyl Attkisson
Many will debate the substance of the public impeachment testimony against President Trump.
To me, each of the Democrats’ witnesses of the past two weeks appeared
to be well-intentioned and hard-working, and seemed genuinely to believe
they know what’s best.
But a picture also emerged of U.S.
diplomats who appear to believe they, rather than the U.S. president,
have the ultimate authority to determine our foreign policy. And if the
president doesn’t go along? He clearly must be wrong — in their view.
Or, even worse, he’s a traitor. He’s to be obstructed. Taken down.
In an odd turnabout, they actually make the case for President Trump’s mantra that we need to “drain the swamp.”
One
can first look at the language witnesses used as they vented about
Trump’s tutelage in ways that veered far from relevance to the
impeachment allegations. They conveyed hurt feelings, bruised egos and
strong differences of opinion. At times, the testimony sounded a bit
like a human resources conference or psychotherapy session.
The diplomats testified that they were “shocked and devastated”
to learn that Trump and Ukraine’s new president did not have faith in
them. They complained that, under Trump, “foreign service professionals
are being denigrated and undermined” and the State Department isn’t
getting the “attention and respect” it deserves. They expressed “disappointment”
that Trump had the nerve to defy the federal agencies by not discussing
“any of our interagency agreed-upon talking points” in Trump’s first
call with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. They were “embarrassed” in front of Ukrainians when they didn’t have answers about U.S. policy.
Former Ambassador William Taylor called the team that Trump relied on the “irregular channel.”
Taylor was among those who described feeling excluded or left out, at
times, along with former National Security Council official Fiona Hill,
diplomat George Kent, and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the U.S. national security adviser who oddly confirmed under oath that he’d been repeatedly approached and offered the job of defense minister in Ukraine earlier this year.
It was hard not to notice that virtually the entire U.S. diplomatic staff never spoke about executing U.S. foreign policy as determined by the president
of the United States — the man in charge, according to the
Constitution. Instead, they spoke as if their primary mission was to
advocate for Ukraine and its new, unproven president whom President
Trump was sizing up. They spoke of protecting “longstanding” or
“official” policy — against Trump’s wishes. When Trump differed with
their assessments and relied on his chosen adviser, his personal
attorney Rudy Giuliani, they collectively lost their minds.
Strangely, these diplomats seemed determined to prevent, at all costs,
President Zelensky from making a real commitment to investigate
corruption, even when it allegedly involved U.S. money, U.S. elections
and/or U.S. political figures. Strange, because that seems at odds with
admissions by the same diplomats that corruption is a major problem in
Ukraine, that a corruption probe into the Ukrainian company Burisma was stopped midstream in 2014 — just before the company hired then-Vice President Joe Biden’s
son, a hire that raised broad concerns about the appearance of a
possible conflict of interest — and that Ukraine should resume its
investigation into Burisma.
Issues of concern to people who live in the west: property rights, water rights, endangered species, livestock grazing, energy production, wilderness and western agriculture. Plus a few items on western history, western literature and the sport of rodeo... Frank DuBois served as the NM Secretary of Agriculture from 1988 to 2003. DuBois is a former legislative assistant to a U.S. Senator, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Interior, and is the founder of the DuBois Rodeo Scholarship.
Monday, November 25, 2019
Impeachment inquiry: It's a question of who should run the show
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment