Intro

It's time for a reality check ...

Maybe we’ve reached the point of diminishing astonishment.

But I suspect that much of what we’re hammered with every day really doesn’t make much of an impact on most of us anymore. We’ve heard the same stories too often. We’ve been exposed to the same issues for so long without any meaningful resolution. We recognize that reality is rapidly becoming malleable, primarily in the hands of whoever has the biggest microphone. How else can we explain a society where myth asserts itself as reality, based entirely how many hits it gets online?

We know that many of the “issues” as defined are pure crapola, hyped by politicians on both sides pandering to “the will of the people,” which is still more crapola. Inevitably, it’s not the will of all the people they reflect, but the will of relatively small groups of people with disproportionate political influence.

Nobody wants to face up to the realities of the issues. Nobody wants to say what’s right or wrong – even when it’s obvious and there are numbers to back it up. Most of us are afraid to bring up the realities for fear of being accused of being insensitive or downright mean.

So we say nothing. Until now.

It’s time for a reality check on the fundamentals – much of which is common knowledge to many of us, already. But it might be comforting to know you are not alone …

Tuesday, November 26, 2019

A pity party for pompous bureaucrats ...


As a parade of self-centered, self-important, pompous asses from the State Department trooped forward in the impeachment hearings, I was struck by one thing. 

It was all about their hurt feelings.

Not that Trump did anything illegal, but he ignored them.  One after another testified that they were upset – I believe the most often used word was “disturbed” – that he was circumventing them. They were the experts. They, not him, were in charge of policy on Ukraine. 

One arrogant, puffed up witness – Vindman – showed up in his military dress uniform to prove his gravitas, even though he had to concede under questioning he normally wore a suit to work. When one Republican addressed him as Mr. Vindman, he quickly demanded that he properly be addressed as Lt. Col. Vindman because he was in fact in uniform that day.

Vindman had earlier stated in written remarks that he was essentially THE most important person on Ukraine policy. Everything concerning Ukraine had to go through him, according to his testimony.  Naturally then he was deeply disturbed to be left out of Trump’s call with Zelensky. After reading the transcript he scurried off to report his feelings to a variety of people, including, it seems, the mysterious whistleblower who, like Vindman didn’t hear the call firsthand.

In short, Vindman was probably the original leaker to the whistleblower. Some of his peers and bosses long suspected he was the source of a variety of leaks to the media since Trump took office. Which may explain why he was also intentionally left out of other meetings between Trump’s people and Ukrainian officials.  

In one instance he was told he wasn’t on the approved list of attendees. To Vindman this was unacceptable because he was so important. Leaving him out of the loop was clearly a sign to him that Trump and Trump’s people were doing something they were trying to hide. Otherwise, they would have included him on everything. 

He wasn’t alone in feeling left out. Rudely tossed aside.  And bitter.          

Just about every witness said Trump’s actions threatened long-standing State Department protocols and processes.  What was he thinking? He should have followed their rules. Instead he set up “irregular” back channels with Ukraine officials, bypassing proper procedures. He ignored them all.  Career diplomats felt blindsided, embarrassed, and their authority undercut.   

How dare he make decisions without involving these career State Department employees.  How dare he ignore their carefully crafted talking points. How dare he have conversations with foreign leaders without letting them listen in.  How dare he keep them out of the loop. 

More importantly, how dare he remove one of their own – Voinovich – so cruelly and heartlessly; that was just mean-spirited and hurtful to her.  Democrats on the panel constantly picked at that scab when questioning her and the other State Department witnesses. How did it make her feel?  How did it make them feel?  How did others in the State Department feel?

The consensus: they all felt awful about it.  Especially her.  Surprised?   

Democrats were clearly hoping she would break down and cry for a Blasey-Ford made-for-TV moment; they kept pushing and pushing. They put up disparaging e-mails and statements made by Giuliani and others about her, including what Trump said in his call to Zelensky.  Adam Schiff even interrupted her questioning to read a new mean tweet about her from Trump and ask Voinovich how she felt about Trump criticizing her and trying to intimidate her with false claims.

Throughout this circus, time and again Voinovich and her State Department pals said Trump had no just cause to fire her. That recalling her was the result of a smear campaign of false charges by Giuliani and other Trump allies.  That taking away her ambassadorship so abruptly had a chilling effect on the entire State Department; if Trump could take her out for no reason, no one was safe.  Regardless of how many years they had served.  No matter what and how many awards they’d won.  No matter how well thought of and respected by their peers.     

You could just see what they were all thinking: Who the hell does Trump think he is? 

Well, he is the elected President of the United States. He has sole authority via the Constitution to set foreign policy. He can also remove and replace any ambassador at any time, for no reason at all – that, too, is in the Constitution. 

Ask Obama.  He forced the resignation of every Bush-era ambassador as soon as he took office so he could put in his own people. Did anyone then bitch and whine? Nope. 

So while a President has the Constitutional authority to do whatever he wants on foreign policy and with ambassadors – including asking foreign leaders to investigate potential corruption involving U.S. citizens, there’s no authority granted on any of this to the State Department.

In fact, there’s no mention of a State Department at all in the Constitution. 

What I saw in the last two weeks of impeachment hearings was the equivalent of 70s-era encounter group where everyone shared their feelings, usually with bad results. In this case it was a wall-to-wall bureaucrat bitch fest.   

Or, maybe it was like the Airing of Grievances per Festivus on Seinfeld.  At least everyone knew Festivus was clearly a joke; Democrats and the media never saw how much of a joke this was.

Even after not a single witness could come up with anything Trump had done that was illegal.  Not a single witness could say they heard Trump himself say he was withholding aid to Ukraine until they investigated the Bidens or the 2016 election.  Every witness conceded Trump had the absolute right to determine foreign policy. And to remove and replace ambassadors at will.    

All they had was hurt feelings.  Boo hoo.   

I did have one other takeaway from the hearings.

If anyone ever doubted there is an entrenched bureaucracy in DC that feels they, not elected officials, are really in charge, the two weeks of impeachment hearings we just endured should set that to rest once and for all.  Everyone saw that entrenched bureaucracy in action.

Trump got elected in large part because of his promise to drain the swamp and return power to the people from unelected bureaucrats. That’s why career bureaucrats hate Trump.  He threatens their very existence. Their hold on power.  Their belief they can get away with anything they like. 

And their blatant indifference to the will of the people who pay their salaries.   

If Trump gets re-elected, he needs to follow through on his original pledge. 

With a vengeance. The public will thank him.  I know I will. 

No comments:

Post a Comment