So, I don't want to respond to every single point brought up in this thread, because that would take too much time and I've already given my opinion. But I do want to respond to a few things, because I feel it's important.
Firstly, you say he should bear full responsibility for the dispute with The Rejected Realms. You are putting that whole brouhaha — the entire kitchen sink, kitchen, and two-car garage on Kazaman's back. This is grossly unfair, and absurd. There were countless more policymakers involved in that instances then Kazaman. Even if Kazaman was the individual who passed the discovered intelligence onto President Rand (and I am not 100% he was) you would hold him fully responsible for every twist and turn that happened afterwards? In one hand, you credit him for bringing the matter to a satisfactory end — a matter that was demonstrably not solely of his own creation — but in the other hand you say that calls for removal from office.
I was not trying to lay the entire dispute at Kaz's feet, but my point is that the
main thing that we had to apologize to our ally for was "mishandling of sensitive information." As the top advisor on the handling of sensitive information, I do think that falls at the DEIA's feet.
You say that actions have consequences. Yes, it's true. And since you've taken an increasingly aggressive, go-it-alone approach to Europeian politics you have been subject to a recall petition, avoided recall by a hair, defeated in your re-election efforts, and absolutely shellacked in a Presidential bid. Actions have consequences, indeed.
Just because I'm standing alone doesn't inherently mean I'm wrong. Yes, you're right, the last few months have not been good for me. But I have continued to "double down" because I don't think I'm wrong, and I think there's an important point to be made here about not being completely deferential to the foreign policy establishment. I have striven to make this point without regard to how it would affect my personal political prospects, because the truth is
I'm old and I don't care anymore.
The "old McEntire" used to back down to avoid the heat or be strategic or win elections or whatever. But here's the thing I've learned about losing elections: you wind up surviving! And I genuinely think that our region is too deferential to our Executive and foreign affairs establishment. I'm going to fight for outcomes that are not that way. And I don't care how many people tell me I'm being "irresponsible" or some such nonsense, I disagree. And I don't have to agree, I still get to be a citizen and publish as many poorly-received op-eds as I want. I don't need off-ramps or words of support, you can keep those to yourself, I'm a big girl.
I started this paper so that I could give a more unvarnished version of my own opinions and advance my own views of where I want to see Europeia go. And that's what you're getting, and that's what you're going to keep getting.
And furthermore, I do think there's a massive double standard at play here. While I repeat that I do not have personal animus for Kazaman, I can accept that maybe this issue is personal in terms of me feeling offended by the double standard. If I had been found to have broken the law in my capacity as a Senator, I do not think that people would have said it was a problem with the law, I think that I would've been turfed the f*ck out.
People are willing to give Kaz so much of the benefit of the doubt because he was "protecting classified information," when it's an equally valid read of the situation to say that while he was engaged in an interregional conflict to protect Europeian interests, he was also in a domestic conflict with a Senator to protect the prerogative of the EIA and the Executive. He fought aggressively to protect those prerogatives, just as aggressively as I did to protect the Senate's. And in fighting so aggressively, he broke the law and violated my constitutional right to free speech, something that he has still not acknowledged or apologized for.
But I'm the one who's been castigated for being aggressive, who's faced political consequences, who's been called a liar and an opportunist and everything short of a traitor. You can ask anyone who's ever gotten slightly crosswise with the DEIA or foreign policy establishment,
it is not fun. So yes, I'm advocating for consequences for the DEIA's actions, in part because I've had to face consequences for my own aggressive advocacy, and no one gave me any brownie points for having "good-faith."
Speaking candidly, I think that the only groups that are remotely qualified to have a valuable opinion on the DEIA are former presidents and NES.
Thank you, upc, for providing what I see as a balanced view, even though you think I'm wrong in this instance. I do want to push back on this one quoted section above, though. I think the view you've espoused here is pervasive, and I also think it's incredibly limiting. The EIA should still be accountable to democratic governance, and anyone is entitled to their opinion on how it operates.
