Less about qualifications perhaps?
Some folks .. even on the right had a concern with Mike Roger’s former National Security influence and connections.
To some degree I understand, but..on the other hand:
Sen.-elect Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., expressed concern Sunday that some of President-elect Donald Trump’s selections of national security Cabinet positions could be beholden to his political preferences rather than an objective interpreting of intelligence.
Isn’t it curious how Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA officer, is suddenly voicing concerns about politicization in national security appointments?
One might wonder if her apprehension isn’t so much about maintaining objectivity, but rather about what these new appointees might uncover regarding the CIA’s activities within the U.S. Could it be that she’s worried the incoming team will shine a light on some uncomfortable truths and potential abuses of power by current officials?
In the article linked, Slotkin stresses the importance of officials telling the president what he needs to hear, not what he wants to hear. Yet, isn’t that precisely what fresh perspectives like Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard are poised to offer? Perhaps her real issue is with leaders who might challenge the entrenched norms and scrutinize agencies that have long operated without sufficient oversight.
Her selective approval of Marco Rubio—a more “traditional pick”—seems to suggest she’s comfortable as long as the status quo remains unthreatened. It raises the question: Is Slotkin genuinely advocating for objectivity and truth, or is she aiming to protect the interests of an establishment that benefits from a lack of transparency?
Maybe it’s time we consider that the real fear isn’t about the qualifications of Trump’s nominees, but about the possibility that they might expose practices and decisions that some would prefer remain hidden. After all, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and a little transparency might be just what our national security apparatus needs.
Every pick that gets through the Senate gauntlet is a step in the right direction.
My 2 Cents anyhow.
(7)Nuh Uh.
(0)
You think Plotkin will vote for Rogers?
Interesting question. Unless she wants to appear hyper partisan, it will likely be ONE that she might vote affirmatively. If she votes for him, it gives her better cred against the ones that are going to be significant change brokers. One thing for sure ..it is good we have 53 to start with. The weak sisters will be bad enough,