Protestors rally outside Rep. Meuser's office
POTTSVILLE — Nearly 50 people on Thursday gathered outside the local office of U.S. Rep. Dan Meuser, R-9, to protest what they said is a lack of responsiveness to important questions and requests posed by his constituents.
The event, hosted by Schuylkill Indivisible and dubbed an 'Empty Chair' meeting, gave people a chance to voice their frustration with Meuser after he apparently ignored a request to hold an in-person town hall meeting with local constituents in March. Many protestors carried signs criticizing Meuser and President Donald Trump administration's policies. Using a megaphone, some members of the group asked questions they planned to submit to Meuser later, touching on topics such as the economy, Ukraine, mass deportations, federal spending cuts, the White House Press meetings and funding for infectious diseases.
'I have objections to Mr. Meuser because he never makes himself available to his constituents,' said Kris Norton, Pine Grove. 'He never has. He did meet with our Indivisible group years ago when he was first elected, but it took us months to get a seating with him.'
Norton has used Vote Smart to track Meuser's position on important policies. She said she found that Meuser consistently voted against measures during the Biden administration that would have boosted the local economy, employment and security in Schuylkill County.
'He can't say that he's for the constituents and the people of (the 9th District) when he doesn't do anything,' Norton said.
*
Michael Schroeder chants and holds up signs in front of the Pottsville office of U.S. Rep. Dan Meuser (R-9), Thursday, April 24, 2025. (MATTHEW PERSCHALL/MULTIMEDIA EDITOR)
*
Edward Zelonis speaks to the crowd in front of the Pottsville office of Rep. Dan Meuser (R-9), Thursday, April 24, 2025. (MATTHEW PERSCHALL/MULTIMEDIA EDITOR)
*
Claire Miller asks a question of U.S. Rep. Dan Meuser (R-9) outside his Pottsville office on Progress Avenue Thursday, April 24, 2025. (MATTHEW PERSCHALL/MULTIMEDIA EDITOR)
*
Protestors gather in front of the Pottsville office of U.S. Rep. Dan Meuser (R-9), Thursday, April 24, 2025. (MATTHEW PERSCHALL/MULTIMEDIA EDITOR)
*
Catherine Pasierb, Josephine Kwiatkowski and Rachel Keck sing 'Where Have all the Town Halls Gone?' in front of the Pottsville office of Congress member Dan Meuser (R-9), Thursday, April 24, 2025. (MATTHEW PERSCHALL/MULTIMEDIA EDITOR)
Show Caption
1 of 5
Michael Schroeder chants and holds up signs in front of the Pottsville office of U.S. Rep. Dan Meuser (R-9), Thursday, April 24, 2025. (MATTHEW PERSCHALL/MULTIMEDIA EDITOR)
Expand
The event also drew protestors from Berks and Lebanon counties, including members of Mondays with Meuser, a group that gathers weekly at the Lebanon County Courthouse demanding that Meuser meet with his constituents there in a town hall-like setting.
Laura Quick, a co-organizer of Mondays with Meuser, said she and other members of the group attended the event to show solidarity with their fellow constituents in the 9th District.
Claire Kempes, of Pottsville, said Meuser has not scheduled a meeting in response to Schuylkill Indivisible's request, but he did hold a telephonic town hall-style meeting. While he allowed callers to pose critical comments, he did not give them an opportunity to follow up on or dispute his talking points at that meeting, Kempes said.
Among her many questions for Meuser, Kempes asked about President Trump defying the recent Supreme Court order on the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
'Why aren't you advocating for the administration to take assertive steps in returning Kilmar Abrego Garcia?' she wrote. 'Why wasn't he and all of the others provided 'due process'?'
Sue Leiby, of Hamburg, said the event was one of several protests she's participated in. She carried a sign with an ominous message for Meuser, stating that some of his 'MAGA' followers will turn on him when 'Grandma loses her Social Security; their kids die from preventable illnesses; they lose their jobs and homes; no teachers are here to teach their kids; and food is unsafe because the inspectors were fired.'
Many motorists passing through the demonstration on Progress Avenue honked their horns or gave a thumbs up in approval.
No one from Meuser's office staff was present at the demonstration Thursday. Josephine Kwiatkowski, a member of Schuylkill Indivisible, posted a note outside the office window, asking 'When will you answer your emails?'
Kwiatkowski prepared a number of lengthy questions for the congressman. In one, she referenced Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President J.D. Vance's recent statement that the U.S. should 'walk away' from ceasefire negotiations if Ukraine and Russia do not sign a peace deal soon. Another question was about the Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Medicaid, proposing $880 billion in spending cuts. Kwiatkowski also noted the expensive aircraft and equipment used for mass deportations, asking Meuser if he would support an investigation into this 'fraud, waste and abuse.'
Throughout the demonstration, the group occasionally made call-and-response chants, such as 'Tell me what democracy looks like' / 'This is what democracy looks like.'
The event concluded with a recitation of 'Where Have All the Town Halls Gone?', an original song accusing the congressman of avoiding or silencing his constituents' voices.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
The Bluesky bubble hurts liberals and their causes
Ever since Elon Musk bought Twitter, changed the social media site's name to X and altered its moderation policies, progressives have been hunting for a substitute. To judge how their search is going, consider a recent item from Politico's Playbook, which notes that 'a number of prominent commentators, experts and groups' are pledging to post on other platforms before X. 'The 'X-last' strategy,' says Playbook, 'led by Indivisible and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, is an effort to shift discourse from Elon Musk's platform to Bluesky.' Note that they're not demanding that people stop posting to X. They're just asking them to post a bit less. It's certainly inventive, but a little wistful, as though they're aware how unlikely this is to work. A recent Pew Research Center analysis found that many news influencers have Bluesky accounts (I'm one of them) but that, like me, two-thirds post irregularly. By contrast, more than 80 percent still post to X on most days. Engagement on Bluesky appears to have peaked in mid-November. It's now down about 50 percent, and the decline shows no sign of leveling out. This is the tyranny of social media network effects. When a network grows, each new user makes it more valuable to every other user, enabling exponential growth. When the users start leaving, however, those network effects also hasten the decline. Nor is this process likely to be halted by organizing your pals and exhorting people to be better, or getting progressive writers to post to Bluesky before X. Yes, seeding platforms early with a small group of influential individuals can help it grow, as other users flock to be around them. But when that movement is organized by liberal groups, it's most likely to appeal to folks who are very interested in progressive politics — which is to say, the other people who have already moved to Bluesky. You can't blame them for trying, I suppose. But wait, actually, I can. Because even if this works, moving progressives off X into Bluesky's beautiful blue bubble isn't a great idea for the movement. This effort isn't just a doomed attempt to re-create the old Twitter. It's likely to sap already-waning progressive influence and make the movement itself less politically effective. Consider why progressive groups are so eager to hasten the demise of X and move their users to other platforms. One reason is simply that they are mad at Musk for supporting Donald Trump and allowing the alt-right to flourish on X. But another is that they are trying to duplicate what used to be an incredible platform for liberal influence. For roughly a decade, Twitter hosted what is lightheartedly called the 'national conversation' on issues of the day, particularly social justice and public health. Twitter never had that many users, compared with Instagram or Facebook. But it had a big group of influential users — politicians, policymakers, journalists and academics, all of whom were engaged in a 24/7 conversation about politics and current events. That was a boon to progressives, who wielded outsize influence on the platform because they were early adopters who outnumbered the conservatives. They were also better organized and better networked, and had the sympathy of Twitter's professional-class employees, who proved increasingly susceptible to liberals' demands for tighter moderation policies on things such as using male pronouns to refer to a transgender woman. Moderation suppressed conservative users and stories that hurt the left — most notoriously, the story about Hunter Biden's laptop, which Twitter throttled as 'disinformation' in the run-up to the 2020 election. Of course, progressive Twitter mobs also policed the discourse themselves, securing high-profile firings that made many people afraid to cross them. Thus, that national conversation ended up skewed toward liberal views, creating the illusion that their ideas were more popular than they actually were. That's a major reason that institutions went all-in on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and why the 2020 Democratic primary field moved so far to the left that Kamala Harris was still struggling to backtrack four years later. All that changed when Musk bought Twitter. It's not surprising that progressives want to return to the good old days. But it's not working, and I'm skeptical it ever will. The people who have migrated to Bluesky tend to be those who feel the most visceral disgust for Musk and Trump, plus a smattering of those who are merely curious and another smattering who are tired of the AI slop and unregenerate racism that increasingly pollutes their X feeds. Because the Musk and Trump haters are the largest and most passionate group, the result is something of an echo chamber where it's hard to get positive engagement unless you're saying things progressives want to hear — and where the negative engagement on things they don't want to hear can be intense. That's true even for content that isn't obviously political: Ethan Mollick, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School who studies AI, recently announced that he'll be limiting his Bluesky posting because AI discussions on the platform are too 'fraught.' All this is pretty off-putting for folks who aren't already rather progressive, and that creates a threefold problem for the ones who dream of getting the old band back together. Most obviously, it makes it hard for the platform to build a large enough userbase for the company to become financially self-sustaining, or for liberals to amass the influence they wielded on old Twitter. There, they accumulated power by shaping the contours of a conversation that included a lot of non-progressives. On Bluesky, they're mostly talking among themselves. One can say the same about Truth Social, of course, but that's not an example the left should be eager to emulate. Segregating yourself in a political silo amplifies any political movement's worst tendencies, giving free rein to your most toxic adherents and cutting you off from vital feedback about, say, your unpopular tariff policies. Something similar has happened on Bluesky. The nasty fringe has become even nastier: A Bluesky technical adviser recently felt the need to clarify that 'The 'let's tell anyone we don't like to kill themselves' crowd are not welcome here' because left-wing trolls kept urging people who disagreed with them to commit suicide. And without the leavening influence of their opponents, Bluesky discourse appears even more censorious and doctrinaire than what progressives were saying on old Twitter. When you never hear from the other side, it's pretty easy to talk yourself into a political dead end. That might be enough for the political dead-enders. But it's a terrible mistake for any political movement that actually hopes to rack up some durable victories.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Trump aims to slash Pell Grants, which may limit low-income students' college access
For many students and their families, federal student aid is key for college access. And yet, the Trump administration's budget proposal for fiscal year 2026 calls for significant cuts to higher education funding, including reducing the maximum federal Pell Grant award to $5,710 a year from $7,395, as well as scaling back the federal work-study program. The proposed cuts would help pay for the landmark tax and spending bill Republicans in the U.S. Congress hope to enact. Roughly 40% of undergraduate students rely on Pell Grants, a type of federal aid available to low-income families who demonstrate financial need on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Work study funds, which are earned through part-time jobs, often help cover additional education expenses. More from Personal Finance:Social Security gets break from student loan collectionsIs college still worth it? It is for most, but not allWhat to know before you tap your 529 plan President Donald Trump's "skinny" budget request said changes to the Pell Grant program were necessary due to a looming shortfall, but top-ranking Democrats and college advocates say cuts could have been made elsewhere and students will pay the price. "The money we invest in post-high school education isn't charity — it helps Americans get good jobs, start businesses, and contribute to our economy," Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., told CNBC. "No kid's education should be defunded to pay for giant tax giveaways for billionaires." Nearly 75% of all undergraduates receive some type of financial aid, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. "Historically the Pell Grant was viewed as the foundation for financial support for low-income students," said Lesley Turner, an associate professor at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy and a research fellow of the National Bureau of Economic Research. "It's the first dollar, regardless of other types of aid you have access to." Under Trump's proposal, the maximum Pell Grant for the 2026-2027 academic year would be at its lowest level in more than a decade. "The Pell reduction would impact the lowest-income families," said Betsy Mayotte, president of The Institute of Student Loan Advisors, a nonprofit. More than 92% of Pell Grant recipients in 2019-2020 came from families with household incomes below $60,000, according to higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz. If the president's cuts were enacted and then persisted for four years, the average student debt at graduation will be about $6,500 higher among those with a bachelor's degree who received Pell Grants, according to Kantrowitz's own calculations. "If adopted, [the proposed cuts] would require millions of enrolled students to drop out or take on more debt to complete their degrees — likely denying countless prospective low- and moderate-income students the opportunity to go to college altogether," Sameer Gadkaree, president and CEO of The Institute for College Access & Success, said in a statement. Already, those grants have not kept up with the rising cost of a four-year degree. Tuition and fees plus room and board for a four-year private college averaged $58,600 in the 2024-25 school year, up from $56,390 a year earlier. At four-year, in-state public colleges, the average was $24,920, up from $24,080, according to the College Board. The Pell program functions like other entitlement programs, such as Social Security or Medicare, where every eligible student is entitled to receive a Pell award. However, unlike those other programs, the Pell program does not rely solely on mandatory funding that is set in the federal budget. Rather, it is also dependent on some discretionary funding, which is appropriated by Congress. The Congressional Budget Office projected a shortfall this year in part because more students now qualify for a Pell Grant due to changes to the financial aid application, and, as a result, more students are enrolling in college. Although there have been other times when the Pell program operated with a deficit, slashing the award amount is an "extreme" measure, according to Kantrowitz. "Every past shortfall has been followed by Congress providing additional funding," he said. "Even the current House budget reconciliation bill proposes additional funding to eliminate the shortfall." However, the bill also reduces eligibility for the grants by raising the number of credits students need to take per semester to qualify for the aid. There's a concern those more stringent requirements will harm students who need to work while they're in school and those who are parents balancing classes and child care. "These are students that could use it the most," said the University of Chicago's Turner. "Single parents, for example, that have to work to cover the bills won't be able to take on additional credits," Mayotte said. "If their Pell is also reduced, they may have to withdraw from school rather than complete their degree," Mayotte said.
The Intercept
an hour ago
- The Intercept
Top U.S. General in Africa Paints Grim Picture of U.S. Military Failures in Africa
President George W. Bush created a new command to oversee all military operations in Africa 18 years ago. U.S. Africa Command was meant to help 'bring peace and security to the people of Africa.' The Trump administration now has AFRICOM on the chopping block as part of its sweeping reorganization of the military. According to the general leading the command, its mission is far from accomplished. Gen. Michael Langley, the head of AFRICOM, offered a grim assessment of security on the African continent during a recent press conference. The West African Sahel, he said last Friday, was now the 'epicenter of terrorism' and the gravest terrorist threats to the U.S. homeland were 'unfortunately right here on the African continent.' The embattled four-star general — who noted his days were numbered as AFRICOM's chief — was speaking from a conference of African defense chiefs in Kenya, where he had been imploring ministers and heads of state to help save his faltering command. 'I said: 'OK, if we're that important to [you], you need to communicate that,'' he explained, asking them to have their U.S. ambassadors make entreaties on behalf of AFRICOM. Current and former defense officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide candid assessments, were divided on whether Langley deserves a measure of blame for the dire straits the command finds itself in. One former defense official spoke highly of Langley, calling him 'an effective and transformational leader' who 'rapidly grew into the job and developed strong, fruitful relationships with members of Congress.' A current official, however, said almost the opposite, calling the four-star general a 'marble mouth' who did a poor job of making a case for his command, 'fumbled' relations with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and diminished AFRICOM's standing with legislators. Asked by messaging app if the latter assessment was accurate, a former Africa Command official sent a laughing emoji and replied 'no comment' followed by 'but yes.' (The official said he could be quoted as such.) Before 2008, when the command began operations, U.S. military activities in Africa were handled by other combatant commands. AFRICOM's creation reflected rising U.S. national security interests on the continent and a desire for a single command to oversee a proliferation of post-9/11 counterterrorism activities, predominantly in the West African Sahel and Somalia. Since U.S. Africa Command began operations, the number of U.S. military personnel on the African continent — as well as programs, operations, exercises, bases, low-profile Special Operations missions, deployments of commandos, drones strikes, and almost every other military activity — has jumped exponentially. AFRICOM 'disrupts and neutralizes transnational threats' in order to 'promote regional security, stability and prosperity,' according to its mission statement. That hasn't come to pass. Throughout all of Africa, the State Department counted 23 deaths from terrorist violence in 2002 and 2003, the first years of U.S. counterterrorism efforts in the Sahel and Somalia. By 2010, two years after AFRICOM began operations, fatalities from attacks by militant Islamists had already spiked to 2,674, according to the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, a Pentagon research institution. The situation only continued to deteriorate. There were an estimated 18,900 fatalities linked to militant Islamist violence in Africa last year, with 79 percent of those coming from the Sahel and Somalia, according to a recent analysis by the Africa Center. This constitutes a jump of more than 82,000 percent since the U.S. launched its post-9/11 counterterrorism efforts on the continent. 'The Sahel — that's where we consider the epicenter of terrorism — Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger are confronted with this each and every day; they're in crisis. The terrorist networks affiliated with ISIS and al-Qaeda are thriving, particularly in Burkina Faso,' said Langley. During his tenure, the U.S. was largely kicked out of the region, forced to abandon key nodes of its archipelago of West African bases and many secret wars across the Sahel that were largely unknown to members of Congress as they played out. Langley noted that, since the U.S. left Niger in September of last year, AFRICOM has observed a rise in violence across the Sahel. He neglected to mention that terrorism increased exponentially during the years of heaviest U.S. military involvement, leading to instability and disenchantment with the U.S. He also failed to note, despite having been previously grilled about it during congressional testimony, that the military juntas that booted the U.S. from West Africa were made up of U.S.-supported officers who overthrew the governments the U.S. trained them to protect. As violence spiraled in the region over the past decades, at least 15 officers who benefited from U.S. security assistance were key leaders in 12 coups in West Africa and the greater Sahel during the war on terror — including the three nations Langley emphasized: Burkina Faso (in 2014, 2015, and twice in 2022), Mali (in 2012, 2020, and 2021), and Niger (in 2023). At least five leaders of the 2023 coup d'état in the latter country, for example, received American assistance. U.S. war in Somalia which has ramped up since President Donald Trump retook office, also got top billing. The U.S. 'is actively pursuing and eliminating jihadists,' said the AFRICOM chief. 'And at the request of the Somali Government, this year alone AFRICOM has conducted over 25 airstrikes — double the number of strikes that we did last year.' The U.S. military is approaching its 23rd year of operations in Somalia. In the fall of 2002, the U.S. military established Combined Joint Task Force–Horn of Africa to conduct operations in support of the global war on terror in the region, and U.S. Special Operations forces were dispatched to Somalia. They were followed by conventional forces, helicopters, surveillance aircraft, outposts, and drones. By 2007, the Pentagon recognized that there were fundamental flaws with U.S. military operations in the Horn of Africa, and Somalia became another post-9/11 stalemate, which AFRICOM inherited the next year. U.S. airstrikes in Somalia have skyrocketed when Trump is in office. From 2007 to 2017, under the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the U.S. military carried out 43 declared airstrikes in Somalia. During Trump's first term, AFRICOM conducted more than 200 air attacks against members of al-Shabab and the Islamic State. By the end of his first term, Trump was ready to call it quits on the sputtering conflict in Somalia, ordering almost all U.S. troops out of the country in late 2020. But President Joe Biden reversed the withdrawal, allowing the conflict to grind on — and now escalate under Trump. The Biden administration conducted 39 declared strikes in Somalia over four years. The U.S. has already carried out 33 airstrikes in Somalia in 2025, according to AFRICOM public affairs. At this pace, AFRICOM is poised to equal or exceed the highest number of strikes there in the command's history, 63 in 2019. Despite almost a quarter-century of conflict and billions of taxpayer dollars, Somalia has joined the ranks of signature forever-war failures. While fatalities from Islamist attacks dropped in Somalia last year, they were still 72 percent higher than 2020, according to the Africa Center. AFRICOM told The Intercept that the country's main militant group, al-Shabab, is now 'the largest al Qaida network in the world.' (Langley called them 'entrenched, wealthy, and large.') The command called ISIS-Somalia 'a growing threat in East Africa' and said its numbers had tripled from 500 to an estimated 1,500 in the last 18 months. The U.S. recently conducted the 'largest airstrike in the history of the world' from an aircraft carrier on Somalia, according to Adm. James Kilby, the Navy's acting chief of naval operations. That strike, by 16 F/A-18 Super Hornets, unleashed around 125,000 pounds of munitions. Those 60 tons of bombs killed just 14 ISIS members, according to AFRICOM. At that rate, it would take roughly 13,000,000 pounds of bombs to wipe out ISIS-Somalia and about 107,000,000 pounds to eliminate al-Shabab, firepower roughly equivalent to four of the atomic bombs the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. Troubles loom elsewhere on the continent as well. 'One of the terrorists' new objectives is gaining access to West Africa coasts. If they secure access to the coastline, they can finance their operations through smuggling, human trafficking, and arms trading,' Langley warned, not mentioning that U.S. counterterrorism failures in the Sahel led directly to increased attacks on Gulf of Guinea nations. Togo — which sits due south of Burkina Faso — saw a 45 percent increase in terrorist fatalities in 2024, according to the Africa Center. Langley also referenced trouble in Africa's most populous nation. 'We're observing a rise in attacks by violent extremist organizations, not only in Niger but across the Sahel to include Nigeria,' Langley warned. He offered a somewhat garbled plan of action in response: 'The scale and brutality of some of these incidents are really troubling. So we're monitoring this closely and these events, and offering of sharing intel with the Nigerian and also regional partners in that area remains constant. We are committed to supporting one of the most capable militaries in the region, in Nigeria.' U.S. support to the Nigerian military has been immense, and Nigerian people have suffered for it — something else that Langley left unsaid. Between 2000 and 2022, alone, the U.S. provided, facilitated, or approved more than $2 billion in security aid to the country. In those same years, hundreds of Nigerian airstrikes killed thousands of Nigerians. A 2017 attack on a displaced persons camp in Rann, Nigeria, killed more than 160 civilians, many of them children. A subsequent Intercept investigation revealed that the attack was referred to as an instance of 'U.S.-Nigerian operations' in a formerly secret U.S. military document. A 2023 Reuters analysis of data compiled by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, a U.S.-based armed violence monitoring group, found that more than 2,600 people were killed in 248 airstrikes outside the most active war zones in Nigeria during the previous five years. That same year, an investigation by Nigeria's Premium Times called out the government for 'a systemic propaganda scheme to keep the atrocities of its troops under wraps.' In his conference call with reporters, held as part of the 2025 African Chiefs of Defense Conference, Langley took only written, vetted questions, allowing him to skirt uncomfortable subjects. AFRICOM failed to provide answers to follow-up questions from The Intercept. During the call, Langley offered a farewell and a pledge. 'This will likely be my last, final Chiefs of Defense Conference as the AFRICOM commander. A nomination for my successor is expected soon,' Langley told The Intercept and others. 'But no matter who holds this position, the AFRICOM mission remains constant. AFRICOM will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with African partners into the future.' Langley's pleas at the conference suggested less certainty. For years, AFRICOM — and Langley in particular — has been paying lip service to a preference for 'African solutions for African challenges' or as Langley put it last week: 'It's about empowering African nations to solve African problems, not just through handouts but through trusted cooperation.' But he has seemed less than enamored with African solutions that include severing ties with the United States. In April, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he accused Burkina Faso's leader, Captain Ibrahim Traoré, of misusing the country's gold reserves 'to protect the junta regime.' Langley partially walked back those comments last week and appeared to seek reconciliation. 'We all respect their sovereignty,' he said. 'So the U.S. seeks opportunities to collaborate with Burkina Faso on counterterrorism challenges.' For more than two decades, the U.S. was content to pour billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars into failed counterterrorism policies as deaths mounted across the continent. Today, the dangers of terrorism loom far larger, and the U.S. finds itself shunned by former partners. 'I've been charged by the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to mitigate threats to the U.S. homeland posed by terrorist organizations,' said Langley. 'It's about the mutual goal of keeping our homeland safe, and it's about long-term capacity, not dependence.' The current Pentagon official said that Langley had used up what good will he once had. 'I don't think many will be sad to see him go,' he told The Intercept. Langley's tenure may not have sown the seeds of AFRICOM's dissolution, he said, but if the command is ultimately folded into European Command — as some have proposed — he likely helped to hasten it. 'He's been part of this problem,' the official said. 'Maybe him leaving could be one solution.'
