'The State Department’s entire senior management team just resigned'
 

"Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s job running the State Department just got considerably more difficult. The entire senior level of management officials resigned Wednesday, part of an ongoing mass exodus of senior foreign service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.
Tillerson was actually inside the State Department’s headquarters in Foggy Bottom on Wednesday, taking meetings and getting the lay of the land. I reported Wednesday morning that the Trump team was narrowing its search for his No. 2, and that it was looking to replace the State Department’s long-serving undersecretary for management, Patrick Kennedy. Kennedy, who has been in that job for nine years, was actively involved in the transition and was angling to keep that job under Tillerson, three State Department officials told me.
Then suddenly on Wednesday afternoon, Kennedy and three of his top officials resigned unexpectedly, four State Department officials confirmed. Assistant Secretary of State for Administration Joyce Anne Barr, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Michele Bond and Ambassador Gentry O. Smith, director of the Office of Foreign Missions, followed him out the door. All are career foreign service officers who have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations." WP

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f2efc614557b

Rudderless and adrift. Great job, Trump. :rolleyes:

Wonder how they will spin this? Great news indeed.

Then there is this news from this morning.

Mexico’s President Cancels His Visit to the White House

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/u...istration.html

Saves the trouble of firing them before bringing in your own bunch.

Prob a good new thread topic, but as for Mexico not much publicity or press on the political/economic state of that country that propels so many to risk life and limb to get out.

Maybe we should send the army down there to straighten things out?

Perhaps because there's net negative immigration from Mexico into the US (more returning to Mexico than coming from Mexico).

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/1...ng-to-the-u-s/

I think we tried that years ago . . .

I doubt citizens would be queing up by the thousands to run from a poltically and economically stable situation - why Mexico is neither is IMO a discussion very much worth having at this point in history.

That's not what Sean Hannity and Fox & Friends told me...;)

Bunch of what? Ex oil company exec's to run the State Department?
Should be good if gas drops to $1 gallon nationwide.

Oh--then I guess that doesn't work.

You seem to think a nice game of 'aren't foreigners awful' would be productive. Why?

I'll do some reading this week and see what is what.

I don't know how you come to that. I am interested in the Mexican political and economic situation - don't know a lot about it.

Yes, I hate those foreigners. I married a Bulgarian, employ 3 Uzbeks, 1 Turk, and 2 Nigerians and best friends are Russian. I just like to keep my enemies closer . . .

You're going-in assumption seemed to be 'boy is their big shit wrong with them.' How one feels about individuals one knows doesn't ever relate strongly tto how one feels about big groups in the abstract.

Sometimes things are what people say they are - you reading I believe people are shit because I want to know the causes of recent immigration waves says more about you, my friend. Very simplistic and prejudiced assumptions.

There hasn't been recent immigration waves.

OK - I will not dispute that until I have read more. It is interesting to me - once I know more I'll start a thread - or not. :)

Not what I meant. Your going in-assumption was there must be something big wrong with Mexico. Not precisely the same as thinking Mexicans are shit. though not actually so far from it either....

The number 1 reason for immigration is simple--wages much higher in USA. Workers here can afford remittances home that are very significant in Mexican economy. So what's wrong with Mexico is low wages.

Of course, there are lots of immigrants, and reasons #2-100.

Mexico is a conduit, for mainly Central Americans...it is big business.

Spin, spin and more spin.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/26/politi...ion/index.html

Patrick Kennedy, who served for nine years as the undersecretary for management, Assistant Secretaries for Administration and Consular Affairs Joyce Anne Barr and Michele Bond, and Ambassador Gentry Smith, director of the Office for Foreign Missions, were sent letters by the White House that their service was no longer required, the sources told CNN.

All four, career officers serving in positions appointed by the President, submitted letters of resignation per tradition at the beginning of a new administration.

"Any implication that that these four people quit is wrong," one senior State Department official said. "These people are loyal to the secretary, the President and to the State Department. There is just not any attempt here to dis the President. People are not quitting and running away in disgust. This is the White House cleaning house."

So, yeah, if the While House's intent to clean house, then mission accomplished. So, what are you and WaPo getting all spun up about? :rolleyes:

Here's more about the "august" Mr Kennedy. If this is true, I'd want to give him the boot too if I were Tillerson.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...epartment.html

Republicans have criticized Kennedy for his conduct related to classified email status, Libya, Benghazi and internal State investigations. Trump administration officials have wanted to replace him.

In October, Fox News reported that Kennedy proposed a “quid pro quo” to convince the FBI to strip the classification on an email from Hillary Clinton’s server – and repeatedly tried to “influence” the bureau’s decision when his offer was denied, even taking his plea up the chain of command, according to FBI documents.

I read both accounts in the news today.

Which is real and which is fake news?

Considering the track record from the Trump camp when it come to lying It makes it difficult to tell.

Considering WaPo's track record of late, I'll go with WaPo being the fake news source.

That is good.

People now have a healthy skepticism of "News".

I have always had a healthy skepticism of news as I think most people do. I think what happens most of the time people choose news sources that reflect their bias.

The WaPo, winner of 47 Pulitzer Prizes, and the publication tracking Trump's Presidential lies should strive to match the journalistic ethics of Fox News, the employer of grown-up Hitler Youth member, Sean Hannity, who willingly gives Trump handjobs under the table during interviews?

Some of my best friends are (fill in the blank)...

You sound like someone's pet yorkie yapping in the backyard. This one's so easy Finn, even you should be able to figure it out.

The Wapo OPTION piece in the OP put a spin on this story that just ain't correct. To say that these folks resigned "unexpectedly" is BS. The OPINION writer's piece was designed to give the reader the impression - and you and Bob fell for it - that a mini protest was underway at the State Dept. Even your lefty friends at CommonDreams.org have figured this out:

Update:

Despite some initial speculation that their 'unexpected' and 'abrupt' departures were possibly an expression of protest by employees who did not want to work for the State Department under President Trump, later reporting on Wednesday indicates the mass exodus was triggered, according to department officials, by the new administration "cleaning house" and telling the top-level managers their services were no longer needed.

"Any implication that that these four people quit is wrong," one unnamed senior State Department official told CNN. "These people are loyal to the secretary, the President and to the State Department. There is just not any attempt here to dis the President. People are not quitting and running away in disgust. This is the White House cleaning house."

On the record, State Department spokesman Mark Toner told the Washington Post, "These positions are political appointments, and require the president to nominate and the Senate to confirm them in these roles. They are not career appointments, but of limited term,” Toner said.

Trump's election has you so tied up in knots that you're becoming a caricature. Please continue. It's hilarious.

Wapo then and Wapo now are two different organs.

Wapo's Trump anxiety bedevils it.

If you are told that your services are no longer needed as of February 10, for instance, but you submit a letter of resignation of January 25, then you resigned. If you submit a letter of notice that your final day is February 10, but you then are told to pack up and exit the premises that afternoon, then you are terminated, fired, released or whatever euphemistic term is bandied about this week to the press.

In most workplaces, one of the most important concepts that drives worker productivity is continuity. The main thrust I am gaining from looking at the Trump administration's transition is the most important goal is a gleeful putsch.

Putsch: A plotted revolt or attempt to over a government. :confused:

Use of the word is figurative, goes to illegitimacy, and rapid radical change.

Hey, dimwit, you yourself say that the OP link was an opinion piece which opines about the difficulty Trump will have without any institutional knowledge at upper management levels at State (he sure as hell stepped in shit with his silly Mexican 20% tariff threat, his statements on Taiwan, his statements about NATO, his threats to take Iraqi oil, statements about lifting Crimea sanctions ...).

Here are two WaPo news articles from the very same day as the OP on the subject. Both get it right.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...9ba_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...835_story.html

I remain bemused by your willingness to carry water for Trump/Bannon's Lügenpresse tactics as they try to smear legitimate press sources in favor of Fox, Breitbart, InfoWars and talk radio.

Whell,
I would agree that there are FAR too many spins put on stories. I often feel it is almost impossible to find any news that doesn't have a spin. As such, I believe virtually nothing I read or hear now - short of the minimal facts - such as the change in the state department. We know the change occured, but why is totally undefined.

As to Trump, I have to say it seems like Trump is a control freak. Did He and the Mexican President jointly decide to cancel their meeting? Me thinks not. It appears Trump is so worried about what people think that he puts a lot of effort into trying to sell propaganda to ease his own insecurities..


EDIT: A point I forgot to make, I have seen this level of insecurity many times in my life. Another trait that seems to go hand in hand with this fault is a lack of integrity. Just my $0.02 worth.

What an idiotic post. Those were NOT the articles referenced in the OP, nor the ones that you subsequently commented on in this thread.

Nice try. Yap, little yorkie! Yap, yap!

You are struggling.

I have no doubt at all the Mex gov't cancelled the meeting. None.

That said, it seems to me right now that Mexico is not holding the winning hand in this scenario, and they know it. Therefore, cancelling a meeting is one way to try to gain the upper hand in a negotiation process. It may not be the right way, but it is one way.

As far as Trump's leadership style - the guy's been in office for a week. Its way to early to try to discern how he'll lead. But I will say this - if you look at his cabinet picks, this does not appear to be collection of folks who would respond well to micromanagement. Based on some of Trump's comments thus far, it sounds like he's well aware of that, and even values that. So, time will tell if these independent minded folks will mesh with their new boss or not.

Heads always roll among the top positions in government whenever a new administration of a different party comes in. Thats the way it is. Do you think the Obama admistration kept all of Bush's top managers?:rolleyes:

You are so literal, don't get figurative.

I disagree on this. Trump will have the upper hand if US manufacturers decide to abandon Mexico and bring back the manufacturing jobs back to the US. What are the odds? Very low unless the Congress levies tariffs for which the odds are even lower.

So right now it's a political stalemate.

US firms manufacturing in Mexico is only part of what this is about. For the Mexican Prez, this is also about "building the wall", whether that's a threat or a promise remains to be seen. This is about enforcing immigration laws, particularly the part that might result in a reduction of the flow of cash from the Mexican immigrants (illegal or not) working in the US back to Mexico.

Under law, Trump can levee tarrifs on his own say-so in wartime, and it doesn't take much to say it's wartime.