The NY Times' Op-Ed appears to lend credence to what we have read about Woodward's recent book, Fear: Trump in the White House. Does it not? I doubt that multi journalism awards-winning Bob Woodward of "All the President's Men" fame would have fabricated the contents of that book. In fact, it seems the NYT's Op-Ed, giving its timing, was intended to lend in-direct validity to Woodward's book.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Mobolaji Aluko <alukome@gmail.com> wrote:
My People:As a Sherlock Holmes / Agatha Christie afficionado, I like whodunnit mysteries. So who wrote this anonymous op-ed that has enraged Trump into labeling it as treasonous? Are there any key give-away phrases? But could it be a joint authorship rather than one person? Group Deep State (Throat) rather than One Mark Felt?Certainly, NYT knows, but could the author deny publicly and yet NYT keep quiet on it ("No Comment") as part of the deal - for ten years, say?Interesting days ahead - a denouement or par for the Trumpian course, a bump on the road?We shall see....Bolaji AlukoPS: Below, the suspects are:(1) Larry Kudlow2) Kevin Hassett(3) Dan Coats - denied(4) Mike Pompeo - denied(5). None of the above--------The Weekly StandardThe Four Men Most Likely to be Behind the New York Times Op-edMICHAEL WARREN@MICHAELRWARRENSeptember 5, 2018It's only been online for a few hours, but the anonymous New York Times op-ed penned by a "senior official in the Trump administration" has set off a frenzy of guessing about who is claiming to be one of the people "working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations."The White House was out with a response Wednesday afternoon. "We are disappointed, but not surprised, that the paper chose to publish this pathetic, reckless, and selfish op-ed," reads the statement from press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. "The individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive, rather than support, the duly elected President of the United States. He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign."There are some clues within the 965-word essay of who the "coward" (or courageous truth-teller, depending on your perspective) really is. There are indications the writer is a movement conservative, including a line that castigates Trump for not sharing conservatives' affinity for "free minds, free markets, and free people." There is a noticeable lack of discussion of any issues of constitutionalism, the law, or immigration. The writing is straightforward, unpretentious, and familiar with the conventions of op-eds.Here are four candidates for who "Anonymous" could be, in no particular order. THE WEEKLY STANDARD has sought comment from these people but we have yet to receive any responses.(1) Larry KudlowTrump's relatively new chairman of the National Economic Council, Kudlow took over for Gary Cohn, the former Goldman Sachs executive who couldn't abide the president's affinity for tariffs. Since coming to the White House, Kudlow has struggled to fit his free-market views on trade and a few other issues into the administration's more active approach to economics.As a way of establishing his credentials as a more traditionally Republican critic of Trump, the NYT author cites several positive developments of the administration, including "effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military, and more." Kudlow, who served in the Reagan administration and has been around movement conservatism for decades, would conceivably find these Reagan-era policy goals the most worthy of praise.Plus, there are some similarities between the piece's language and Kudlow's own writings. "The root of the problem is the president's amorality," writes the anonymous official. "Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making." Here's what Kudlow wrote in his 1998 book: "If we stick with what I call first principles, which is morality and ethics, some spiritual guideline which was present at the creation with the founders . . . then this country is unstoppable."(2) Kevin HassettThe chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Hassett, like Kudlow, comes from the conservative media-policy world. He worked at the American Enterprise Institute for two decades, where he focused on fiscal policy, before coming to the White House last year. Another likely person to focus on the more traditional areas of deregulation, tax reform, and a strong military, Hassett also has a record of being pro-immigration. It's notable that among the administration's "accomplishments" the op-ed does not mention is anything regarding immigration, a signature issue for the president.Hassett is also a prolific op-ed writer who once wrote regularly for National Review Online and has written for several other publications, including the Times. And this mysterious essay, as Carlos Lozada notes, has the markings of a seasoned op-ed writer.There's also the interesting ending of the op-ed, which puts the focus on the late senator John McCain and "his example— a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue." Hassett was once an adviser to both of McCain's presidential campaign, including the role of chief economic adviser on his 2000 bid for the Republican nomination.(3) Dan CoatsThe elder Hoosier statesman who serves as director of National Intelligence is at the end of a career in politics and government service. Coats would have little to lose professionally if he wrote the op-ed and was outed. And he might be motivated to speak out given the way President Trump spoke dismissively of him and the intelligence community after the summit with Vladimir Putin.Coats was a conservative Republican in Congress who also has diplomatic experience as the ambassador to Germany. The op-ed writer's focus on foreign policy suggests he may be someone with an interest in, and involvement with, the subject in the Trump White House. The more specific focus on the administration's Russia policy suggests Coats, a critic of Putin while in the Senate, could be frustrated enough with moments like what the op-ed describes as Trump's reluctance to expel Russian spies.There are enough folksy word choices ("Don't get me wrong," for one) to recall the writing style of politicians, and particularly politicians of Midwest stock, such as Coats.Updated September 6, 2018, 10:45 a.m.: Dan Coats has issued a statement denying he wrote the op-ed. "Speculation that The New York Times op-ed was written by me or my Principal Deputy is patently false," reads the statement. "We did not. From the beginning of our tenure, we have insisted that the entire IC remain focused on our mission to provide the President and policymakers with the best intelligence possible."(4) Mike PompeoCould the secretary of state, who is currently traveling in Pakistan, really write such a harsh assessment of the president he serves? Pompeo has been closer to Trump than most Cabinet officials, starting from his days as CIA director. And the former Kansas congressman is in the midst of guiding the president's most important diplomatic efforts in North Korea and elsewhere.As someone fond of, and thought fondly of, by CIA agents, Pompeo could be particularly irked by the suggestion by Trump and his supporters that a "deep state" is at work against the president. The correction of the internal resistance to Trump, the op-ed writer protests, is no "deep state. It's the work of the steady state."And in Congress, Pompeo compiled a straightforward conservative record on military spending, trade, and taxes—although there's little in his public profile to suggest he's particular to the op-ed's libertarianish "free minds, free markets" worldview.Updated September 5, 2018, 7:22 p.m.: A State Department spokesperson responded to the question of whether Mike Pompeo wrote the op-ed with: "No."MICHAEL WARRENis a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.
On Wednesday, September 5, 2018, Mobolaji Aluko <alukome@gmail.com> wrote:--New York TimesOpinionI Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump AdministrationI work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.Sept. 5, 2018The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.It's not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump's leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.I would know. I am one of them.To be clear, ours is not the popular "resistance" of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office.The root of the problem is the president's amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the "enemy of the people," President Trump's impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.Don't get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president's leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief's comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back."There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next," a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he'd made only a week earlier.The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren't for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what's right even when Donald Trump won't.The result is a two-track presidency.Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin's spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.This isn't the work of the so-called deep state. It's the work of the steady state.Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it's over.The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.------------------
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout .
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index. html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout .
Sincerely,
Victor O. Okafor, Ph.D.
Professor and Head
Department of Africology and African American Studies
Eastern Michigan University
Email: vokafor@emich.edu
Tel: 734.487.9594
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment