The importance of non-political advice demonstrated by a VMI man. Right or wrong, non-political.
"I said bluntly that if the president were to follow Mr. Clifford's advice and if in the elections I were to vote, I would vote against the president."
George C. Marshall's statement indicating his opposition to Clark Clifford's advice to Harry S Truman for the US recognition of the state of Israel prior to UN decisions on the partitioning of Palestine, in official State Department records. (12 May 1948)
I think that answers our questions sufficiently. I am pleased that The Institute maintained her integrity (and it is abundantly clear, even from "internal" emails). Go easy on Noonan, fellas, he is doing his job (and he has the potential/likelihood of holding high office in the future…good for him!).
I don't see what the point of the story is? They pulled internal emails to reveal a cordial, thorough cooperation between the campaign team and VMI? What am I missing?
The point, for our purposes, is to confirm that the Institute was not trying to engage in partisan politics and even denied the campaign's requests to use the cadets as props. Based on the information they were given, this was viewed as an opportunity for cadets to hear where our foreign policy may be heading in the future. The admin, despite some close ties to the republican party, took care to remain neutral: which was the main point of argument a few entries back.
Is there a transcript of the event itself? I'd be interested in skimming it to see if foreign policy stances were actually addressed, and see what the pre-office stance is at this point.
The importance of non-political advice demonstrated by a VMI man. Right or wrong, non-political.
"I said bluntly that if the president were to follow Mr. Clifford's advice and if in the elections I were to vote, I would vote against the president."
George C. Marshall's statement indicating his opposition to Clark Clifford's advice to Harry S Truman for the US recognition of the state of Israel prior to UN decisions on the partitioning of Palestine, in official State Department records. (12 May 1948)
I think that answers our questions sufficiently. I am pleased that The Institute maintained her integrity (and it is abundantly clear, even from "internal" emails). Go easy on Noonan, fellas, he is doing his job (and he has the potential/likelihood of holding high office in the future…good for him!).
Noonan?? Hmmm, let's see… nope, never heard of him. ;-)
I don't see what the point of the story is? They pulled internal emails to reveal a cordial, thorough cooperation between the campaign team and VMI? What am I missing?
The point, for our purposes, is to confirm that the Institute was not trying to engage in partisan politics and even denied the campaign's requests to use the cadets as props. Based on the information they were given, this was viewed as an opportunity for cadets to hear where our foreign policy may be heading in the future. The admin, despite some close ties to the republican party, took care to remain neutral: which was the main point of argument a few entries back.
Is there a transcript of the event itself? I'd be interested in skimming it to see if foreign policy stances were actually addressed, and see what the pre-office stance is at this point.