The Washington Post published a story today (Saturday), written by a crew of reporters, that purportedly gives the behind-the-scenes account of why Michael Waltz was fired as the National Security Advisor. While the White House is using the lipstick-on-a-pig technique by painting Waltz’s move to the UN as a promotion, nothing could be further from the truth. As National Security advisor, Waltz had the task of coordinating the President’s policy goals with the Pentagon, the Department of State and the Intelligence Community, ostensibly to ensure everyone was singing from the same sheet of music.
If Waltz manages to survive the confirmation process — and I think he may not pass that challenge — then he will be working as a subordinate to Marco Rubio. That ain’t a promotion, boys and girls. The publication of this article — replete with quotes from unnamed sources in the Trump White House — is a sign that Waltz is going to face an uphill climb to secure Senate approval. The juicy tidbits in this article will provide the Democrats, and some Republicans, great grist to grind Waltz into dust. There will be embarrassing questions about Waltz pursuing an independent foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel, as well as a deep-dive on Signalgate. Waltz will be under oath and will be asked about any previous communications or contact with Jeffrey Goldberg, for example.
I would not be surprised to learn, in the coming weeks, that Waltz will withdraw from the process, provided he can secure a lucrative job with one of the Beltway bandits. This Washington Post story intent, in my judgment, is to damage Waltz even more. Let’s look at the details.
According to the Post, Waltz ran afoul of Trump over Israel. If true, that is welcome news:
President Donald Trump’s decision to oust his national security adviser, Michael Waltz, was the product of a slow accumulation of frustration with a former Green Beret officer who was seen as far more eager to use military force than his boss in the Oval Office.
Waltz’s fate was sealed by his inclusion of a journalist on a sensitive Signal group chat in March. But he had been clashing with other top officials since early in the administration, including over whether to pursue military action against Iran, senior officials and Trump advisers said Friday.
The key decider of Waltz’s fate was Trump’s Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles. According to the Post report:
Waltz’s troubles built up over time, and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles increasingly felt he was not a good fit for the president, according to a senior White House official, a Trump adviser and one additional person familiar with the matter on Friday.
The big stumbling block, according to the Post report, was the perception that Waltz was conspiring with Bibi Netanyahu to push Trump into attacking Iran:
But Waltz also upset Trump after an Oval Office visit in early February by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when the national security adviser appeared to share the Israeli leader’s conviction that the time was ripe to strike Iran, two of the people said. . . .
The view by some in the administration was that Waltz was trying to tip the scales in favor of military action and was operating hand in glove with the Israelis.
“If Jim Baker was doing a side deal with the Saudis to subvert George H.W. Bush, you’d be fired,” a Trump adviser said, referring to Bush’s secretary of state. “You can’t do that. You work for the president of your country, not a president of another country.”
Man, I hope that is true, i.e., that Trump is not going to allow Netanyahu to set US policy towards Iran. At this juncture in Trump’s Presidency, I suspect most of you, along with me, believe that Trump is firmly in the pocket of the Zionists. Maybe people like J.D. Vance and Tucker Carlson are having some success in warning Trump about the dangers of acceding to the wishes of Netanyahu with respect to attacking Iran.
The situation with respect to the battle raging in Washington, between the pro-Zionist crowd that want to attack Iran and those who believe such a move will be, at a minimum, very damaging to Donald Trump and US interests in the Persian Gulf, is precarious. Stay tuned.
I have to wonder if Mike Waltz is reading the tea leaves and orchestrating a delicate exit from what he believes to be a sinking ship. His "promotion" serves in the meantime to protect him from charges of disloyalty to the administration, but gets him en route to the exit door in time to be distant enough to claim plausible deniability regarding culpability for whatever failures are deemed responsible for the coming crisis, once that crisis properly hits. In other words, he's got his life jacket on and is now testing the lifeboats just in case.
Why Trump chose him (a Dick Cheney protege like Victoria Nuland) and various others remains a mystery. Possibly campaign donors insisted on certain appointments. Choosing Waltz and Rubio effectively neutralised two strong neocon voices in Congress. Who knows? Considering the talent that was and remains available, it's a real head-scratcher. However, some of that talent, if ever invited, is going to be a lot less eager to get on board now after these clowns have made such a mess.
Bannon was absolutely correct - January 20 should have marked a clean break. After 100 days, there can be no such thing.