Thread: McMaster Bashes Steve Bannon, Says He Had 'Narrow' Agenda Different from Trump

McMaster Bashes Steve Bannon, Says He Had ‘Narrow’ Agenda Different from Trump








Twitter/@RabbiShmuley

by KRISTINA WONG17 Sep 2017


National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster bashed President Trump’s presidential campaign chief executive and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon on Sunday, accusing him of advancing his own “narrow” agenda.

When asked by Fox News’ Chris Wallace if he was trying to say that Bannon was “trying to work around and advance his own agenda,” McMaster responded: “There were some who try to operate outside of that process for their own narrow agendas, and that didn’t serve the president well.”


Breitbart News Senior Editor at Large Joel B. Pollak responded: “Bannon’s only agenda was Trump’s campaign promises on his whiteboard.”


Bannon’s West Wing whiteboard became widely known as the only official White House log of Trump’s campaign promises, a daily prompt to make sure that the president stuck to the agenda on which he was elected.


That agenda included promises such as avoiding unnecessary wars, implementing a refugee ban, renegotiating trade deals, enacting tax reform for the middle class, and repealing Obamacare.
McMaster, arguably, has tried to steer the president away from that populist, nationalist agenda, and towards one he believes serves the country better.

For example, McMaster has reportedly urged the president to recertify the Iran deal, and has repeatedly argued against the use of the term “radical Islamic terrorism.” He also opposed Trump’s summit in Saudi Arabia — Iran’s arch enemy — earlier this year, calling it “too ambitious,” as Breitbart News has previously reported. He also was publicly noncommittal on Trump’s efforts to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

McMaster has tried to put other words in the president’s mouth — promising allies at a NATO summit in May that Trump would reaffirm Article Five of the convention. Trump chose not to do so explicitly, in line with his pressure tactic to urge NATO members to meet their defense spending commitments. (Since then, the president has reaffirmed Article Five several times, after members began paying more.)

But one of McMaster’s biggest successes is convincing the president to go against his earlier instincts and agree to a nearly 4,000-troop increase in Afghanistan, retrying the same strategy the military wanted to pursue in 2009, but this time without a exit date. He also reportedly presented the president with an option for an increase of 50,000 U.S. troops.

Bannon, on the other hand, wanted to draw down U.S. forces to a counterterrorism mission in line with Trump’s promises on the campaign trail to end the war.

McMaster has also been accused of pushing out those who were trying to implement the president’s agenda.

For example, retired Army Col. Derek Harvey, the former Middle East adviser at the National Security Council, had drafted a plan to withdraw from the Iran deal. McMaster had reportedly told Harvey to stop talking to Bannon, who McMaster knew was close to the president and had his ear, as Breitbart News has previously reported.

When Harvey was seen leaving Bannon’s office after that, one of McMaster’s top aides, who had served as a top official under the Obama administration, reportedly told him it was not a good idea to talk to Bannon, and McMaster fired Harvey later that week.

In the Fox News interview, McMaster downplayed reports of feuding with Bannon, saying “this really didn’t even happen.”

“I think this has been too hyped on one individual. I mean, these reports of feuding, this really didn’t even happen. I mean, we had our doors open to all perspectives within the National Security Council,” he said.
“It was up to those individuals whether they would walk through that door and permit — and participate in an open and transparent process,” he added.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...nt-from-trump/

Breitbart News Senior Editor at Large Joel B. Pollak responded: “Bannon’s only agenda was Trump’s campaign promises on his whiteboard.”

McMaster, arguably, has tried to steer the president away from that populist, nationalist agenda, and towards one he believes serves the country better.

For example, McMaster has reportedly urged the president to recertify the Iran deal, and has repeatedly argued against the use of the term “radical Islamic terrorism.” He also opposed Trump’s summit in Saudi Arabia — Iran’s arch enemy — earlier this year, calling it “too ambitious,” as Breitbart News has previously reported. He also was publicly noncommittal on Trump’s efforts to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

McMaster has tried to put other words in the president’s mouth — promising allies at a NATO summit in May that Trump would reaffirm Article Five of the convention. Trump chose not to do so explicitly, in line with his pressure tactic to urge NATO members to meet their defense spending commitments. (Since then, the president has reaffirmed Article Five several times, after members began paying more.)

But one of McMaster’s biggest successes is convincing the president to go against his earlier instincts and agree to a nearly 4,000-troop increase in Afghanistan, retrying the same strategy the military wanted to pursue in 2009, but this time without a exit date. He also reportedly presented the president with an option for an increase of 50,000 U.S. troops.

mcmasters has too much say- aka controlling the WH

mcmasters has too much say- aka controlling the WH

Trump's admiration and hiring of military generals has muted our interest in the White House.

I have no problem with hiring former military generals to serve in this administration. It's not their military service that's the problem.

Originally Posted by Judy

I have no problem with hiring former military generals to serve in this administration. It's not their military service that's the problem.

As someone who served in the military for over 20 years, I would disagree. By the time a military person has achieved the level of admiral or general, he (or she) has become an absolute control freak and that's exactly what we're seeing right now with John Kelly and McMasters. Now if you have experiences working directly for or under these type of folks in a military chain of command, I'm eager to hear your views on this topic. If not, well ........

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying these folks didn't do a great job serving their country in a military capacity. All I'm saying is their strengths may not always be conducive to public service in a political environment. It can be difficult to acclimate to civilian life after serving in a military capacity most of your adult life, especially when your mission goal is reversed completely.

I agree with both your points.

I think people have their own opinions and will force their views on others to serve their agenda, especially those that serve office, no matter what job they had in the public or private sector.

They need to leave their attitudes and personal agendas on the doorstep.

Their job is to do what is in the best interest of this country and it's citizens...not profit from, or serve themselves and their ideals. Their job is to protect our borders, protect our country and stop the waste, fraud and abuse of our money with their pet projects.

That is why I object to any religion in our government...and should be separated out. There is no balance or reason when people are obsessed with their religion and forcing those views on others.

Originally Posted by MW

As someone who served in the military for over 20 years, I would disagree. By the time a military person has achieved the level of admiral or general, he (or she) has become an absolute control freak and that's exactly what we're seeing right now with John Kelly and McMasters. Now if you have experiences working directly for or under these type of folks in a military chain of command, I'm eager to hear your views on this topic. If not, well ........

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying these folks didn't do a great job serving their country in a military capacity. All I'm saying is their strengths may not always be conducive to public service in a political environment. It can be difficult to acclimate to civilian life after serving in a military capacity most of your adult life, especially when your mission goal is reversed completely.

Hmmmm.

Well, I think you're not on the right side of history here, MW. We've had 12 generals who became President of the United States, starting with our very first President, 8 were Republicans. Several others were Colonels and Commanders. Americans have traditionally found military leadership to be an important and appropriate attribute in the political environment, second only to .... lawyers. I would say that the Presidents who were generals have done as good as any occupation for the US thus far, and serving in high level capacities in the government outside of the Presidency would seem to follow that pattern.

It's not their military service that's the problem. If there is a problem, it's because of their political views, not their military experience.

Just my opinion.

McMaster and Kelly seem to be at odds with those who want out of the wars and who want an end to illegal immigration and refugee resettlement that harms us. I find General Kelly's nodding and shaking of his head while President Trump speaks not acceptable. Saw it again today at the United Nations address. He looks like he is grading every word and sentence with approval or disapproval with his gestures.

He has done and said some bold and challenging things while at DHS and now at the White House. I do not care for him at all when it comes to the "America First" plan. He seems way too PC.

His service is respected but for me his political leanings of pro liberal and pro amnesty are not. Advocating for more refugees and illegal alien amnesty is not a winning strategy.

Originally Posted by Judy

Hmmmm.

Well, I think you're not on the right side of history here, MW. We've had 12 generals who became President of the United States, starting with our very first President, 8 were Republicans. Several others were Colonels and Commanders. Americans have traditionally found military leadership to be an important and appropriate attribute in the political environment, second only to .... lawyers. I would say that the Presidents who were generals have done as good as any occupation for the US thus far, and serving in high level capacities in the government outside of the Presidency would seem to follow that pattern.

It's not their military service that's the problem. If there is a problem, it's because of their political views, not their military experience.

Just my opinion.

You're talking about the Commander-in-Chief, big cheese, top enchilada, etc., I was talking about advisers and cabinet members. Whether you see it or not, there is a huge distinction.

Blaming it all on their political view doesn't say much for Trump because he was the one that hired them.

Originally Posted by MW

You're talking about the Commander-in-Chief, big cheese, top enchilada, etc., I was talking about advisers and cabinet members. Whether you see it or not, there is a huge distinction.

Blaming it all on their political view doesn't say much for Trump because he was the one that hired them.

Well, I'm certainly not going to blame it on their military careers, because military careers provide a great deal of management, logistics, discipline, rule and law abidance, and leadership experience, all good backgrounds for leading large departments and can be helpful in organizational policy. Is it helpful on national policy positions? No more or less so than any other profession.