If President Trump has a different view, whose opinion should matter? Clearly, the president's opinion is the one that counts because the president, not State Department officials, sets U.S. foreign policy.
In Democrats' telling, which has been dutifully parroted by the media, the impeachment inquiry is all about whether Trump made U.S. security aid to Ukraine dependent on an investigation of Burisma and the Bidens-a quid pro quo, an investigation of Trump's political rival in exchange for hundreds of millions in U.S. aid.
Trump Versus the 'Deep State' One thing that emerged quite clearly from Wednesday's hearing is that Taylor and Kent, and likely many other State Department officials, disagree with Trump's view of Ukraine and have a quite separate policy agenda than the White House on Ukraine.
During his opening statements, Taylor talked about a separate, "Irregular" diplomatic channel to Ukraine that included Rudy Giuliani, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, former U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, and others.
If Trump thought he needed a separate policy channel to pursue what he viewed as legitimate U.S. interests in rooting out corruption in Ukraine and getting to the bottom of what happened in 2016, that's his prerogative as president-especially if he felt that the career bureaucrats at the State Department were not going to pursue these matters or take them seriously.
There are perfectly good reasons to think Ukraine, or any other country that receives U.S. aid, might owe the United States something more than "Appreciation." Maybe such countries also owe America some level of cooperation in advancing U.S. national interests-as defined by the president of the United States, not Ambassador Taylor or any other unelected bureaucrat.
Alexander Vindman, who said that in the spring of 2019 he became aware of "Outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency." As Mark Hemingway has pointed out, in this context the "Interagency consensus" appeared to be in opposition to the actual foreign policy of the United States, which is determined by the president, just as the "Interagency consensus" opposed the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria despite Trump having campaigned on a promise to do just that.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/14/this-impeachment-inquiry-is-really-about-who-sets-u-s-foreign-policy/
In Democrats' telling, which has been dutifully parroted by the media, the impeachment inquiry is all about whether Trump made U.S. security aid to Ukraine dependent on an investigation of Burisma and the Bidens-a quid pro quo, an investigation of Trump's political rival in exchange for hundreds of millions in U.S. aid.
Trump Versus the 'Deep State' One thing that emerged quite clearly from Wednesday's hearing is that Taylor and Kent, and likely many other State Department officials, disagree with Trump's view of Ukraine and have a quite separate policy agenda than the White House on Ukraine.
During his opening statements, Taylor talked about a separate, "Irregular" diplomatic channel to Ukraine that included Rudy Giuliani, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, former U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, and others.
If Trump thought he needed a separate policy channel to pursue what he viewed as legitimate U.S. interests in rooting out corruption in Ukraine and getting to the bottom of what happened in 2016, that's his prerogative as president-especially if he felt that the career bureaucrats at the State Department were not going to pursue these matters or take them seriously.
There are perfectly good reasons to think Ukraine, or any other country that receives U.S. aid, might owe the United States something more than "Appreciation." Maybe such countries also owe America some level of cooperation in advancing U.S. national interests-as defined by the president of the United States, not Ambassador Taylor or any other unelected bureaucrat.
Alexander Vindman, who said that in the spring of 2019 he became aware of "Outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency." As Mark Hemingway has pointed out, in this context the "Interagency consensus" appeared to be in opposition to the actual foreign policy of the United States, which is determined by the president, just as the "Interagency consensus" opposed the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria despite Trump having campaigned on a promise to do just that.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/14/this-impeachment-inquiry-is-really-about-who-sets-u-s-foreign-policy/
No comments:
Post a Comment