HIGH TREASON BY NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL CHAIRMAN

Day 2,064, 11:24 • Published in USA USA • by Oblige

Goooooood Afternoon e-America!

Thank you for taking the time to break from your normally scheduled entertainment and read my article. I've written many things over the years, but few articles have been as meaningful to me as this one, so I'm again, very appreciative of you taking the time.

Before we get started though, you should strap yourself in and get ready for the ride: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fDuNuFNG38

Now, this isn't the first hatchet job that's been written about me, nor do I doubt it will be the last; however, this one has made me legitimately upset- not only because of the direct content of the article, but also because of the additional rumors that are being spread on IRC and other channels. So, secure the aforementioned straps and prepare yourself for some orange sherbet grade truth and rage.

Disclaimer: the Speaker has declassified the thread in question and I waited until I had her permission before publishing this article.
ADDITIONAL DISCLAIMER: the PoTeUS has reviewed the article and is now satisfied with the level of classified content.




To begin, we should talk briefly about the Select Committee on Intelligence (SCI), what it is, and how it works. (If you already know, skip this section.)

As you may know the eUS has what's called a Constitution and Code. An oversimplification of this document is that it basically says that the Executive asks for money and Congress decides to spend it. Again, for simplification purposes what generally happens is that each month Congress votes on the budget (in private), and then, once passed, the budget becomes public.

Outside of this process though exists SCI. Its purpose is to provide Congressional oversight of Executive funding requests that are either time sensitive or secret. The reasoning for this is that it takes Congress, at absolute minimum (discussion waived, proposal done in theoretically zero minutes), 24 hour to approve a funding request, which could be a critical period during a war, etc.. SCI requests can be approved in minutes if done properly. Additionally, it's invariable that things posted in private Congress leak, whereas, until yesterday in the three year plus period that SCI has existed, nothing has ever leaked. Not for political reasons or non political ones, and especially not for one sided hatchet jobs.

Now, take out your popcorn, and let's go through this line by line.


Our original request. For those of you looking to this for a learning experience, SCI requests need to be made by their President or their proxy - traditionally the Secretary of Defense. Here the CP is asking for money (a considerable sum - enough for 10,000+ tanks) to fund a RW.

Also, let's also take a moment to read that Code I mentioned before. Specifically section 2.3 "Select Committee on Intelligence." It says, and I quote:

The Select Committee on Intelligence shall be staffed by The President. The Committee must include no less than 5 current Congressmen and the CBO Director(s), as well as the Speaker of the House, or Deputy Speaker of the House, or their acceptable representative, if either can not pass security check. The President or the Secretary of Defense must attain 5 approvals from SCI members before spending any reserves except in an emergency, which only requires 3 approvals. Information provided to the Select Committee on Intelligence should be as detailed as possible. Insufficient information may be grounds for disapproval of the funding request.

So what that means is that if this request had been flagged as an emergency, which some were saying (after the fact) that it was, it would've only needed three approvals to pass. Additionally, no member of SCI can in fact do anything to obstruct the process. There is no majority or quorum required, just three or five yes votes. Moving on...


Ah, the crux of the matter. Evil Oblige politicking at its finest! As you can see I've stated that I disagree with the executive's funding priorities, and that I think the money would have been better spent funding the USAF. We'll get into more detail later.


My favorite slide from the whole deck.

Here Dennis states that his request is more important than the USAF as a whole. I'll give you a moment to let that sink in. He's saying that victory in a single battle is more important than the entire community of the eAmerican Armed Forces.


There are a few of these. Including them for the purpose of transparency. I love you too Paul.




Yadayadayada procedural stuff.


ZOMG! Another contestant enters the fray. FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE EVRY LEADS THE CHARGE FOR PRUDENT BUDGETING.





Edited for swearing. Also, just because an expense is "legitimate" does not mean you automatically get approval. There are many, many, denied SCI requests, it is not a "rubber stamp."


Stands alone, although I do agree with that last bit.


Unlike, say... writing an article breaking the only secure space the forum has ever had...


Everything is political, and for the record the executive has not participated in the budget- at all. Neither the President nor the Secretary of Defense/War has (apparently) had enough time to comment on the thread.


Pot, meet kettle. This is the crux of my argument. This is the whole thing:
1.) We have scarce resources - this means we do not have unlimited money
2.) I believe the money is better spent funding the USAF than funding distributions
Regardless of what anyone might state. This is a 100% legitimate stance to take. And also the reason for my original vote.


Evry flip flops.


Edit: war plans removed by request of the President.

Now here we see DMV start to lose his cool. It's been seven hours since he opened his requests, so far he has only two "no" votes. He blames this on me making it "political."

Ever single one of the assumptions in his post is false.
1.) He lacks the required number of votes (even if I voted yes!)
2.) The window for his request has passed (this would be an executive failure for not flagging the thread as Emergency)
3.) Not enough SCI members showed up, or if they did, they decided not to support the measure and abstained from commenting. Typically it is the responsibility of the Executive to whip SCI requests by PMing the members of SCI, but this was not done. (I did it every time I made one, starting when I was Secretary of State, and it's very effective.)

Additional side notes: he's referencing a second RW which was started in Russia - which was not mentioned in the OP or anywhere else in the thread.


9 hours in. Yes vote #1.


So self righteous.


Evry flip flops and now (after DMV has sort of closed the request and 10 hours in) we are at yes #2.






And that about wraps the thread up. There is one more post where Paul locks it EDIT! before [strike]after[/strike] Dennis writes his article, but that wasn't part of the official discussion.











Now you're probably wondering why I went through the effort of writing this tell all.

There are a number of reasons. The first is to shed some honest, and truthful light on the situation. If you have taken the time to read this article you have seen that every single accusation he makes is false because:

- A single Senator cannot delay a funding request
- DMV did not make his request properly
- He did not have the required support to have the request pass (regardless of my vote)

The second is to call for DMV's head on a platter resignation as NSC Director. So far he has lost his SCI access, but that is a slap on the wrist compared to the seriousness of offense, which is a hatchet job wrapped in the false blanket of whistle-blowing. How can we trust this boy with organizing our Nation's military defense if he cannot even react maturely to his own failures?


Pic of the accused.

Join me, eAmerica, in calling this spade a spade and demanding the resignation of Dennis McVicker!






Shout it:
HIGH TREASON BY NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL CHAIRMAN
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/2291364/1/20
On the hypocrisy of Dennis McVicker