Military Component of Trump Coup Attempt

[pinzgauer]

Using this country's immense intelligence apparatus and the nation's "premier" Federal law enforcement agency to spy on a political opponent is unheard of. It should also be 110% unacceptable to EVERYONE on here, whether you like Obama/Clinton or not.

I fixed it for you. I agree, DJT exercised very poor judgement.

But came no where near what the dems/swamp did regarding DJT prior to the election.

So please excuse me if I dont get worked up over the selective outrage.

The difference is having the "deep state" + well know past leaders + the media + (now) the house adds up to an insurmountable force.

I'm starting to wonder if it can be stopped.

I'm looking past DJT, he may take himself out. There are active plans/attempts to also take Pence out of play and put (presumably) Nancy in the whitehouse.

Its happening in front of our eyes. Don't think "they" can't wag the dog enough to get senators to vote differently? Or the public?

BTW, The new talking point is "unhinged" I've seen it in a dozen headlines last few days.

[Averageman]

I have little concern or respect for anyone's Military Leadership above the Platoon Sergeant level.
You're really not leading unless you're right beside your Men and taking fire.

It's hard to get excited about a guy who doesn't remember where he came from and starts undermining the President in writing and for the entire world to see.
Sorry, he's a loser and he pinned that medal on his own chest.

[ramairthree]

An inside look at some of our senior GO/FOs and the level of statist, control freak natures would freak a lot of regular people out.

As for the admiral, like many politicians, they may be selective on what wrong doing they want to right.

If someone wants to fry a non SEAL for shooting a woman stabbing a MWD, but go to great lengths in support of covering up SEALs that get shitfaced and beat up a chaplain, get shitfaced and beat up their only med support 18D on a remote FOB, or frag their intended rescue,
But do a major public flip flop after the fact -

I can only surmise they are willing to overlook some pretty bad stuff regarding the politicians they like, and be over damning on those they don’t.

[Todd.K]

This is not about retired flag officers having strong public political opinions. It's about the President and his cult of personality...

Pure projection. Your emotional dislike of the current President allows you to ignore the breaking of any norm.

I made clear I believe it is a respect for the rank/position/office that is important AND NOT WHO CURRENTLY HOLDS IT.

[dwhitehorne]

I always thought retirees where still subject to the UCMJ. I can imagine the out cry if this type of article was written about the previous president. David.

[Dr. Bullseye]

If I were Trump, I would spend days firing people. The FBI, CIA, NSA, everyone in the State Dept. except Mike Pompeo, and all the military officers disloyal to him would be fired----in total. And then I would start on all the other branches of the Executive Dept. and fire their butts too. Disloyal people are worse than no people at all.

[Coal Dragger]

I cannot speak for McRavin, but Mattis is perfectly entitled to make the rather mild criticisms that he has.

This notion he is a warmonger is quite funny if you’ve ever watched an interview. For example he was very much against the idea of the Iraq war, but as he pointed out orders are orders.

I cannot think of many individuals at that echelon of power who are as well read, particularly on the history of the region as Jim Mattis. Chances are that whether you like him or not, he probably does have some well founded insight on the area and an understanding of what has worked and not worked in the past.

Lord Cheeto has more or less served his purpose, that being keeping Felonia Von Pantsuit from gaining power. He’s done well with rolling back executive branch agency regulations in many areas, which has helped the economy. He’s appointed some good judges. His foreign policy is largely a complete and total shit show, to include areas where US military forces are or have been actively operating. I’m not going to accuse someone of treason because they point out the obvious deficiencies of Lord Cheeto in this area, and many others.

[pinzgauer]

I cannot speak for McRavin, but Mattis is perfectly entitled to make the rather mild criticisms that he has.

This notion he is a warmonger is quite funny if you’ve ever watched an interview. For example he was very much against the idea of the Iraq war, but as he pointed out orders are orders.

I cannot think of many individuals at that echelon of power who are as well read, particularly on the history of the region as Jim Mattis. Chances are that whether you like him or not, he probably does have some well founded insight on the area and an understanding of what has worked and not worked in the past.

Lord Cheeto has more or less served his purpose, that being keeping Felonia Von Pantsuit from gaining power. He’s done well with rolling back executive branch agency regulations in many areas, which has helped the economy. He’s appointed some good judges. His foreign policy is largely a complete and total shit show, to include areas where US military forces are or have been actively operating. I’m not going to accuse someone of treason because they point out the obvious deficiencies of Lord Cheeto in this area, and many others.

There is a long history of generals disagreeing with presidents. And there are ways to do so if serving and ways not to do so.

Mattis says orders are orders even if he doesn't agree with them. Yet was more vocal with DJT.

The difference I think is they know the press completely has their back. Which is funny because they normally wouldn't.

I agree the Mattis comments are not near the issue as Mcraven's are. And also that Trump said some stupid things, and even then Mattis held back a bit.

Is it any surprise that generals who as a group tend towards more and longer engagements are in opposition to Trump who has clearly stated repeatedly that he thinks it's a waste of money and lives for a permanent presence that will not change things?

I think the president hurts himself the way he talks. But at the same time that's the way he's always talked, like a new york cabbie. And in many areas is getting stuff done that I believe is important.

[chuckman]

McRaven was a well-known liberal when he was in uniform, supported both clintons and Obama. A lot of people in the community did not like him.

[Coal Dragger]

There is a long history of generals disagreeing with presidents. And there are ways to do so if serving and ways not to do so.

Mattis says orders are orders even if he doesn't agree with them. Yet was more vocal with DJT.

The difference I think is they know the press completely has their back. Which is funny because they normally wouldn't.

I agree the Mattis comments are not near the issue as Mcraven's are. And also that Trump said some stupid things, and even then Mattis held back a bit.

Is it any surprise that generals who as a group tend towards more and longer engagements are in opposition to Trump who has clearly stated repeatedly that he thinks it's a waste of money and lives for a permanent presence that will not change things?

I think the president hurts himself the way he talks. But at the same time that's the way he's always talked, like a new york cabbie. And in many areas is getting stuff done that I believe is important.

Well point of fact, Mattis was no longer in uniform for Lord Cheeto, so being more vocal about his position vs POTUS is not inappropriate. He was selected to fill a cabinet position not be a yes man.