I assure you that multiple advisers had influence over his nuclear and weapons decisions. I assure you his advisers had advisers in their ears. Today they're called lobbyist. As indicated in the multiple articles provided to be observed. There isn't to many presidents who manage to micromanage our policies, domestic and especially foreign. When the few have attempted to do so, we see a sense of a chaotic nature as we find with Trump. Administrations are a conglomerate of cabinet picks developed from corporations on multiple levels including think tanks and NGOs, along with intelligence. In which agendas are the underling background to be accomplished. In which when you research the backgrounds of these cabinet picks, they lead to corporations, think tanks, and NGOs who dictate particular goals they want to reach. You simply have to follow the right sources who expose them and the results of their actions. Their interactions with our medias. How the medias allow them to interact with them. When you apply all of these characteristics, the facade is exposed.

@William_Mary I have been involved in politics/government all my life, you don't have to explain how it works. You are wrong about trump being a micromanager, he doesn't manage at all but gives general directions and expects staff to just make it happen, the laws and rules be damned. The charge of Carter being a micro manger when it came to the nuclear review came from the head of nuclear planning for SAC, who had direct contact with Carter during the review/planning process. This was his third review process, so he had been through the process before. There are very few people that have access to the TS/SCI/SIOP planning sessions, so your broad platitudes do not apply.

@glennlab that's odd. Your new comment as a whole actually mirrors mine, just in other words. Quite frankly, the article and my commentary of it also. You can change the context all you want, but it doesn't make my remarks any less resembling of yours. As that's exactly what you did in regards to both narratives. So the question now is why you see the results so differently. First you seemingly deny the narrative of the original post by placing micromanagement on Carter, then in this latest reply support the narrative of the original post along with my commentary within different context. But yet you find a reason to challenge me when we have now seemingly arrived at the same conclusions.

I never challenged Carter as being micromanaging. The article and my adage of information and conjecture clearly indicate the involvement of others in the decision making. To a point of a sense of manipulating Carter. Manipulation is part of the context within. That can be arguable to only a degree. Whether or not he was manipulated.

And your comments on Trump are simply the same as mine under a different context. You stated the means of his development of policies and the resulting attributes of Trump I have been stating for years.

Now I have to wonder if you even took the time to comprehensively read any of the material as a whole to even be attempting to hold a genuine discussion with you. Or whether you just have some egotistic demeanor going on, and or a personal beef with me for some reason. Being you've always been combative towards my post in this site.