Defense Secretary Remains Hospitalized, Spent Four Days in Intensive Care Following Complications, White House Never Informed

January 6, 2024 | Sundance |

The story of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin recovering in the hospital broke Friday afternoon when the Pentagon first released a statement {SEE HERE}. It was a bizarre first notification considering that Secretary Austin had been hospitalized since January 1st, and no official notification came until yesterday. However, the story has grown even more bizarre.

Secretary Austin was in intensive care for four days following complications that stemmed from an elective procedure.

Today, it is discovered that the Pentagon never informed the White House that the Defense Secretary was not in command. The National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and the National Security Council were unaware of Austin’s incapacity until January 4th. This is very strange. Politico has the update:

WASHINGTON DC – The Pentagon did not tell President Joe Biden and other top officials about Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s hospitalization for three days, three U.S. officials said.

National security adviser Jake Sullivan and other senior White House aides didn’t know of Austin’s Jan. 1 hospitalization until the Defense Department sent over word Jan. 4, two other U.S. officials said. Sullivan informed Biden shortly after DOD’s Thursday notification.

The officials said it was highly unlikely that Austin conveyed word to Biden privately before Sullivan’s briefing. “If Jake didn’t know, no way the president knew,” one of them said. “Who would have told him of Austin’s condition if not Jake? And if someone did tell the president, Jake would’ve been his first call.”

All officials and other people who spoke for this story were granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue.

The news of Austin’s situation came as a shock to all White House staff as they were unaware the Pentagon boss was dealing with complications following an elective medical procedure, the officials said. National Security Council staffers were surprised it took the Pentagon so long to let them know of Austin’s status. The Pentagon didn’t make the information public until Friday evening, notifying Congress about 15 minutes before releasing a public statement.

“This should not have happened this way,” said one of the U.S. officials. The NSC and Pentagon declined comment. (read more)

Considering the U.S military is actively engaged in two regions of conflict, Red Sea (Israel-Hamas war) and Ukraine (Russia-Ukraine conflict) it seems stunning the Defense Secretary was out of commission and the White House was never aware.

Then again, considering the oft spoken arguments about the Joe Biden administration essentially operating without any command-and-control authority,meaning each institution is operating on their own priority system and Joe Biden is not a participant in government, perhaps this is just another affirmational data point.

Lastly, perhaps this level of detachment reconciles THIS STORY.

So Austin was never really in charge. Did he get his stomach stapled

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/01/06/defense-secretary-remains-hospitalized-spent-four-days-in-intensive-care-following-complications-white-house-never-informed/

After Promising the Opposite, NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby Says He Has “No Details” on What Iran Is Doing With $6 Billion We Gave Them

January 4, 2024 | Sundance |

White House National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications, John Kirby, previously pledged that Iran would be limited on how they could use the $6 billion in funds we gave them through the Qatari bank.

Iran has made withdrawals of the funds, and today John Kirby was asked about what Iran is doing with that money. Here is his response: WATCH:

Check out the video in the Tweet Below 👇 to see just how opposite the story is from THEN to NOW.

MAZE

@mazemoore

Kirby on the $6 billion that Biden gave to Iran.

If it were a sitcom, it would be funny. Unfortunately these people are running our country, so it's tragic.

(https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/01/04/after-promising-the-opposite-nsc-coordinator-for-strategic-communications-john-kirby-says-he-has-no-details-on-what-iran-is-doing-with-6-billion-we-gave-them/

>>20198994 Speaker Johnson Says No Shutdown Over the Border, and It's Time to Talk About the Elephant in the Room PN

Coward JohnsonTraitor newbie__

Speaker Johnson Says No Shutdown Over the Border, and It's Time to Talk About the Elephant in the Room

Bonchie9:35 PM on January 06, 2024

If Republicans were hoping for Speaker Mike Johnson to play hardball over the border crisis, that doesn't appear to be in the cards.While speaking on "Face the Nation," Johnson tells host Margaret Brennan that he will not wield the leverage of a government shutdown to try to force a deal that pushes for stricter enforcement.

That comes as illegal immigration continues to set new records, with over 302,000 encounters happening in the month of December alone. Estimates vary, but somewhere between six and eight million people have illegally crossed the Southern border since Joe Biden took office.

Reactions to this will likely vary. On the one hand, how effective would a government shutdown over the border even be? It is clear that Democrats do not fear any political backlash associated with the issue. Instead, they would likely just use it as messaging fodder in an election year, and perhaps with some success.

On the other hand, some would question what the point of electing Republicans to office is if they aren't going to use all the leverage they've got. Part of politics is being willing to stand up for what's right even if there is a risk it might not work. Would a shutdown do more harm than good to Republicans? I honestly don't know, and I don't think anybody truly does. Is that an excuse to not make a stand, though?

I suppose it's debatable, and while it may seem like I'm making a definitive judgment, I'm not. I can see both sides of the argument. Much in life boils down to risk and reward. Can Democrats even be swayed in this environment by applying pressure? Or is it better to have a strategy solely focused on winning more power in 2024 to neutralize Democrat input? Again, it's a fair question that fair people can come to different conclusions on.

Still, this latest move from Johnson does bring us back to the elephant in the room, which is what exactly was gained by the fight to oust Kevin McCarthy as Speaker? Has there been a distinct shift in governance? I would say, not really. We still ended up with a continuing resolution, and now we are getting the same strategy regarding avoiding a shutdown at all costs. Those were the two major issues that got McCarthy booted.

To reiterate, this article is not a criticism of Johnson. I like him as a person (far more than McCarthy), and I think he's doing what he can with what he's got to work with, which is an extremely slim majority. I don't know if I agree with all his decisions, but I'm not suggesting it was a mistake to make him Speaker.

What I'm suggesting is that Republicans might have to readjust their expectations. In the days after Johnson's elevation, there was a lot of hope that he would govern far more conservatively and aggressively, but perhaps that's just not the in cards no matter who is in charge.

This is the problem with consistently underperforming in elections, which the GOP has done in the last four cycles. Perhaps we should all be more focused on fixing that issue at the ballot box rather than expecting Johnson to extract blood from a turnip. That may not be what some want to hear, but it may be the most realistic option.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2024/01/06/speaker-johnson-says-no-shutdown-over-the-border-and-its-time-to-talk-about-the-elephant-in-the-room-n2168392