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.
That’s far more consequential than evanescent calls for the high-minded politics of which he’s incapable.
Trump claims ISIS is defeated; they said it’s 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; they’re following its conditions, say our intelligence agencies. There’s 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 they’re “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, they’re 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, it’s 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 can’t 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 didn’t 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
= new reply since forum marked as read
