Wait and see is one thing; fine. If that's the stance then he wouldn't be ascribing all these anti-deep state motives to the people being picked who are either amoral politcal opportunists or full on war-hawks/idealogues depending on who we are looking at. Same with Ritter and his ridiculous defence of Gaetz the other day.

Greenwald's point is clear as day; you don't pick someone who represents the exact opposite of everything you profess as the head the office most connected with that particular area of your policies. If you do that, then you are clearly lying and doing the opposite of what you (Trump) are saying. It's pretty much irrefutable.

As for being focussed on one person, look at the thread where I posted links to the work Michael Tracey has been doing on the prospective cabinet and the whole picture emerges. It's like a bunch of sheep looking at a pack of Wolves at the edge of the nearby woods and saying "Well, they look like Wolves but let's let them get closer and see what they do; they might be friendly" (not that we are sheep or can do anything about it anyway).

Of course we have to wait and see what they actually do but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look at what they have already done, over their entire career and based on that, painting them as representing the ideas given in all the campaign rhetoric (anti-war when they are war hawks, pro-peace when they are zionist lunatics, etc.) is just foolish.