I saw an article saying that this was the approach used under Bush 43 as well.
Looking back to that memo, yes, that is the case. It was not the case for Obama, despite Sean Spicer’s comments just moments ago.
For ease of debate, here are the relevant sections from the last several presidents:
The PC shall have as its regular attendees the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, the Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist, the National Security Advisor, and the Homeland Security Advisor. The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed . The Counsel to the President, the Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget may attend all PC meetings.
The NSC Principals Committee (NSC/PC) will continue to be theits regular members will be the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, the Chief of Staff to the President, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The NSC Principals Committee (NSC/PC) will continue to be the senior interagency forum for consideration of policy issues affecting national security, as it has since 1989. The NSC/PC shall have as its regular attendees the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Chief of Staff to the President, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (who shall serve as chair). The Director of Central Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed .
The NSC/PC shall have as its members the Secretary of State (if unavailable, the Deputy Secretary of State or the designee of the Secretary of State); the Secretary of Defense (if unavailable, the Deputy Secretary of Defense or the designee of the Secretary of Defense); the U.S. Representative to the United Nations; the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (Chair);** the Director of Central Intelligence; the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff**; and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, as appropriate. The Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General or other heads of departments or agencies shall be invited as needed.
Did Trump follow Bush 43’s lead? Maybe so. Does anyone remember if anything bad, national security wise, happened on Bush’s watch?
XT
January 30, 2017, 8:23pm
23
Ravenman:
Looking back to that memo, yes, that is the case. It was not the case for Obama, despite Sean Spicer’s comments just moments ago.
For ease of debate, here are the relevant sections from the last several presidents:
Did Trump follow Bush 43’s lead? Maybe so. Does anyone remember if anything bad, national security wise, happened on Bush’s watch?
I seem to recall some sort of dust up in Persia, though I can’t think of the modern name for the country…right on the tip of my tongue though…
And of course, also on Bush 43’s watch, there was the precipitating event for the dust-up in Persia, back in September 2001.
So all that shows that having the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Director of National Intelligence participate in the NSC ‘by invitation only’ works out great!
BeepKillBeep:
To me, actions like this are the way we can see what’s happening inside the administration. Trump strikes me as the sort who likes to hear that he’s right, i.e. he prefers yes-men. If he’s pushing somebody away or demoting their importance that strikes me as an indication that they are not fully agreeing with him.
This sounds right, and when combined with the president deciding that the daily intelligence briefing isn’t worth his time, leads me to believe that our entire foreign policy is going to be based purely on alternative facts.
How do you guys speculate that members of the military and vets would react to this?
Kobal2
January 31, 2017, 1:32am
28
Ah, all right, my mistake. I’ll retract the “Jesus fucking Christ” and downgrade it to a /palmface.
Surely you meant Babylon and not Persia, unless I really have forgotten my recent American history. Which incident with Iran were you referring to?