• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump names Richard Grenell, envoy to Germany, acting director of national intelligence

Fred C Dobbs II said:
Yes, and many make that same point. However Trump is a character, has been since he came into the public eye, and we should learn to accept him for who he is. He's an historical figure, a one off, and every politician following him will seem very dull.

We should look at his policies and their effectiveness.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he's just a loveable clown having some fun, right? The Cult hold on you is irreversible.
 
Cardinal said:
And I don't remember Bush firing intelligence directors because they tried to protect the United States...like Trump did.
Click to expand...

Well, they (Cheney) did blow a CIA operative's cover in retaliation for her husband having debunked the yellow cake lie. Does that count?
 
sjmay said:
You stated that the current acting DNI is a yes man......that's false unless you can prove it.....

Anything else?
Click to expand...

if you're referring to Maguire, you do remember he's the one who tried to stuff the WB complaint, right?
 
Jack Hays said:
Trump is an irrational jackass who has never understood the intelligence community.
Click to expand...
I think it is important to acknowledge points that are accurate, occasionally. Well said, sir.
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
Yes, and many make that same point. However Trump is a character, has been since he came into the public eye, and we should learn to accept him for who he is. He's an historical figure, a one off, and every politician following him will seem very dull.

We should look at his policies and their effectiveness.
Click to expand...

He's a jackass who lowers the standard of public behavior and discourse.
 
mrdeltoid said:
The first director of national intelligence was US ambassador to Iraq John Negroponte who was appointed on February 17, 2005, by President George W. Bush, subject to confirmation by the Senate. It was reported that President Bush's first choice for DNI was former director of central intelligence Robert M. Gates, who was serving as president of Texas A&M University, but who declined the offer.[5] Negroponte was confirmed by a Senate vote of 98 to 2 in favor of his appointment on April 21, 2005, and he was sworn in by President Bush on that day.
I don't remember a huge uprising then, do you?
Click to expand...
I'm trying to suss out your point here. From what I can tell it's a pretty weak one. Is it your contention that, because George Bush appointed an unqualified Director (a contention I would challenge) that it's okay for Trump to appoint one? That seems to be the assertion. Am I getting that right?

While I cannot vouch for Negroponte for other reasons, I would say his experience in intelligence exceeds Grennell's by several factors of degrees of magnitude. He was never, it is true, a member of the intelligence community, but he had served as Ambassador to several countries considered "hot spots" where intelligence operations and diplomatic efforts were closely aligned.
From 1981 to 1996, he had tours of duty as United States ambassador in Honduras, Mexico, and the Philippines. After leaving the Foreign Service, he subsequently served in the Bush Administration as U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations from 2001 to 2004, and was ambassador to Iraq from June 2004 to April 2005.
Click to expand...
(Wikipedia) Grenell has been a spokesperson, until appointed to a cushy Ambassadorship to our most stable ally, which he has, reportedly, largely ****ed up. There is no comparison when it comes to resumes.
 
Last edited:
sjmay said:
Well you stated that Negroponte was the Secretary of State BEFORE he was DNI.....that's false.

You stated that the current acting DNI is a yes man......that's false unless you can prove it.....

Anything else?
Click to expand...
OMFG, are you trying to pass that off as argument? Truly pathetic. "Deputy SoS," rather that "Secretary?" And "it's false unless your can prove it"? I know several grade schoolers more adept at debate than that.

Why did you bother to post that? There's no "there" within a country mile of there.
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
He may not even go through the process given what happened to Kavanaugh. Maybe after the election.
Click to expand...

Or he may not go through the process at all because djt undermines advice and consent role of Congress. Homeland Security Director? Acting for almost a year. And you support that? Why?
 
apdst said:
The president has the right to appoint people he can trust. We wouldn't be here were it not for all the people who have tried to cut Trump's throat so far; the ones who were planning to cut his throat from the git-go and were just waiting for the most oppurtune time.
Click to expand...

So is no one at all available with experience that matters that he can trust? Say's more about him then everyone else.
 
SCrider said:
So is no one at all available with experience that matters that he can trust? Say's more about him then everyone else.
Click to expand...

Maybe not. The deep state has saturated the government.
 
How does the Administration get around the terms of the FVRA?

Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 - Wikipedia


from the link: Once a vacancy occurs, the position is eligible to be filled by an acting officer for 210 days from the date of the vacancy, as well as any time when a nomination is pending before the Senate. If a first or second nomination is rejected by the Senate or withdrawn, it activates additional 210-day periods from the date of the rejection, but this does not apply to a third or later nomination.
 
mrjurrs said:
Or he may not go through the process at all because djt undermines advice and consent role of Congress. Homeland Security Director? Acting for almost a year. And you support that? Why?
Click to expand...
Because the Senate is irresponsibly, referring back to Kavanaugh, and Trump is acting within the law.

Given that Richard Grenell is Gay the Democrats would make the Kavanaugh circus look civilized by comparison. Like Kavanaugh they would set out to destroy his character and reputation rather than dealing with any serious policy issues.
 
Jack Hays said:
There is no deep state.
Click to expand...
What is your definition of a 'Deep State'? Seems most feel it's a coalition of unelected government officials working behind the scenes to undermine the elected government.
 
Cardinal said:
And I don't remember Bush firing intelligence directors because they tried to protect the United States...like Trump did.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion.:peace
 
NWRatCon said:
I'm trying to suss out your point here. From what I can tell it's a pretty weak one. Is it your contention that, because George Bush appointed an unqualified Director (a contention I would challenge) that it's okay for Trump to appoint one? That seems to be the assertion. Am I getting that right?

While I cannot vouch for Negroponte for other reasons, I would say his experience in intelligence exceeds Grennell's by several factors of degrees of magnitude. He was never, it is true, a member of the intelligence community, but he had served as Ambassador to several countries considered "hot spots" where intelligence operations and diplomatic efforts were closely aligned. (Wikipedia) Grenell has been a spokesperson, until appointed to a cushy Ambassadorship to our most stable ally, which he has, reportedly, largely ****ed up. There is no comparison when it comes to resumes.
Click to expand...

I responded to Cardinals post which said:" Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004: "Any individual nominated for appointment as Director of National Intelligence shall have extensive national security expertise."

But whatever, I guess."

So, I "sussed out" (an adult may say I "drew the inference"), that Cardinal was pointing out Trump did not adhere to IRTTPA 2004, as Grennel did not have " extensive national security expertise." So I pointed out that GWB did not adhere to IRTTPA2004 either. Since the post I responded to made no mention of varying degrees of expertise, your point (read deflection) is mute. So, no, you weren't getting that right. Nice rant though. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom