Also seems to be making the case that some of the agency heads dictated negotiations and policy towards Russia, not Clinton/Bush, when it came to Russia joining NATO, working together along with Europe on a missile defense shield, etc.
But the beauty is that the buck stops at the President. No matter who was behind the real decisions, tough questions should be asked to Clinton and then the questions must be expanded to include the shadow figures who were controlling him.
But the beauty is that the buck stops at the President
Does it, or are you just saying it as it should be?
Just like how Pres. Trump ordered pulling out of Syria and was ignored, the problem clearly exists with unelected bureaucracy regardless of whether or not the President signs off on it.
Also seems to be making the case that some of the agency heads dictated negotiations and policy towards Russia, not Clinton/Bush, when it came to Russia joining NATO, working together along with Europe on a missile defense shield, etc.
He asserts that Clinton personally told him their bid to join NATO will be rejected.
Yes, after going and talking to his people. Which would definitely include a CIA director.
But the beauty is that the buck stops at the President. No matter who was behind the real decisions, tough questions should be asked to Clinton and then the questions must be expanded to include the shadow figures who were controlling him.
Does it, or are you just saying it as it should be?
Just like how Pres. Trump ordered pulling out of Syria and was ignored, the problem clearly exists with unelected bureaucracy regardless of whether or not the President signs off on it.