Jump to content

Vindman calls for Milley's resignation: 'He usurped civilian authority'


Recommended Posts

As much as you don't want to hear it, this is a problem

"Retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who testified against former President Trump during Trump's first impeachment trial, is calling for the resignation of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who, according to a forthcoming book, moved to limit Trump's ability to call for a military strike after the Capitol riot. 

"If this is true GEN Milley must resign. He usurped civilian authority, broke Chain of Command, and violated the sacrosanct principle of civilian control over the military," Vindman tweeted on Tuesday. "It’s an extremely dangerous precedent. You can’t simply walk away from that." 

The retired Army intelligence officer was responding to new reporting in an upcoming book about the end of Trump's presidency written by veteran journalist Bob Woodward and The Washington Post's Robert Costa. 

In the book, Woodward and Costa report Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley moved to limit Trump's ability to call for a military strike or launch nuclear weapons following the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol." 

Read more: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/572330-vindman-calls-for-milleys-resignation-he-usurped-civilian-authority 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Milley's defense, he did coordinate with the third in line for the throne, Mme Pelosi. She was the first one not involved in the projected right-wing coup.

He is probably willing to fall on his sword for this one, though.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to know more about the intel that China had that indicated that the US was going to initiate military action. An order to start WWIII had best be a lawful order. We are woefully lacking in context. Resignation might be the right course of action, but I’ll wait until after the hearing(s) to decide. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an old ethics debate, deontology vs utilitarianism, rules vs outcomes. There is no right answer but I'll admit that Vindman is right about usurping civilian authority and then proceed to ignore him on this.

Robocop is programmed with prime directives (rules):

  • Serve the public trust
  • Protect the innocent
  • Uphold the law
  • Any attempt to arrest a senior officer of OCP results in shutdown
Like any movie hero, Robocop can't just shoot the motherfucker already (outcomes). He must uphold his code, his prime directives. The trope is called a hero ball.
 

 

Well yeah, fuck that shit. Thank you General Miley. And thank you, Colonel Vindman. I just don't agree with you in this case.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

As much as you don't want to hear it, this is a problem

"Retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who testified against former President Trump during Trump's first impeachment trial, is calling for the resignation of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who, according to a forthcoming book, moved to limit Trump's ability to call for a military strike after the Capitol riot. 

"If this is true GEN Milley must resign. He usurped civilian authority, broke Chain of Command, and violated the sacrosanct principle of civilian control over the military," Vindman tweeted on Tuesday. "It’s an extremely dangerous precedent. You can’t simply walk away from that." 

The retired Army intelligence officer was responding to new reporting in an upcoming book about the end of Trump's presidency written by veteran journalist Bob Woodward and The Washington Post's Robert Costa. 

In the book, Woodward and Costa report Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley moved to limit Trump's ability to call for a military strike or launch nuclear weapons following the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol." 

Read more: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/572330-vindman-calls-for-milleys-resignation-he-usurped-civilian-authority 

I'm not sure yet, as if he said "Make sure you follow protocol, and that includes senior leaders, me, being in the loop" - that doesn't sound like usurption.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'don't give that sick cunt the football. guess it explains itself.'

it's a good thing the world is full of thinkin' fellers or else it'd be a sad place.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I'm not sure yet, as if he said "Make sure you follow protocol, and that includes senior leaders, me, being in the loop" - that doesn't sound like usurption.

I'm not sure yet either, but I would really like to her Milley's version. Just not the version the hearing will twist it into.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning Joe gives it the raspberries.

"Of course, Republicans acting shocked, just absolutely shocked that phone calls would be made from generals and other people inside of an administration where a president was trying to overturn the results of a democratic election," Scarborough said. "These people are children. It might help them to actually read history books and understand that this has happened before. It has happened at times when presidents were not in the best shape, as Donald Trump was not in good shape, I would say for his entire presidency, but especially after Jan. 6." 

"You can go back to October of 1973, during the Arab-Israeli war of 1973," he continued. "The war was in the fourth or fifth day, escalating towards possible nuclear war, and Henry Kissinger was fielding calls from 10 Downing Street. They wanted to speak with [Richard] Nixon, he was drunk, depressed, unable to speak, and Kissinger said no. For the next six, seven months, you had Kissinger, Alexander Haig and others from time to time calling our allies, calling our enemies and assuring them that everything was going to be okay, the United States wasn't going to act in a way that would start a world war." 

"That's what leaders have to do from time to time," Scarborough added, "and there's nothing shocking and new about it." 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

This is an old ethics debate, deontology vs utilitarianism, rules vs outcomes. There is no right answer but I'll admit that Vindman is right about usurping civilian authority and then proceed to ignore him on this.

 

 

 

Well yeah, fuck that shit. Thank you General Miley. And thank you, Colonel Vindman. I just don't agree with you in this case.

 

Gotta say, I'm there too.  And I doubt Milley is the first to ever do this.  There have traditionally been lines of communication between antagonists at the military level to prevent "misunderstandings".  IOW, a US General could call is counterpart in the Soviet Union and say "Hey Yuri, this may look like a prelude to invasion, but it's just war games that my idiot president is making us do to look good - don't you worry". 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Vindman needed Milley to be a bit out of line. (And Vindman got to speak up.)

Milley should get his hands slapped, as a "heads up," and for the record. "Only go thru me" is not a military thing when it comes to nukes and war. 

And Pelosi called Milley, by the way, not vice-versa. He seemed to be at the right place at the right time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jennifer Griffin is a National Security Analyst for Fox News this is from her Twitter account

Jennifer Griffin 
@JenGriffinFNC 
· 
10h 
I am told this is not true. There were 15 people on the video teleconference calls, including a representative of the State Dept and the read out and notes from Milley’s two calls with his Chinese counterpart were shared with the IC and the Interagency. 

Clint Watts 
@selectedwisdom 
· 
54m 
I'm with 
@JenGriffinFNC 
on this one. There's lots of evidence that can be evaluated to find out what really happened. 

Jennifer Griffin 
@JenGriffinFNC 
· 
16h 
Pentagon officials: Gen Milley did not try to insert himself in the chain of command regarding the launch of nuclear weapons, but he made sure everyone knew what their roles were and what they weren’t. They reviewed lawful launch procedures following Pelosi phone call. 

Jennifer Griffin 
@JenGriffinFNC 
· 
16h 
I am told that Gen Milley had 2 routine calls with his Chinese counterpart and more than a dozen calls with NATO allies after Jan 6 to reassure them the US government was stable and to reassure China that the US did not plan a surprise attack, an effort to avoid misunderstanding. 


Bradley P. Moss 
@BradMossEsq 
· 13m 
Now that we know Milley was following instructions from Trump’s own SecDef, the calls had multiple agencies in attendance, and read outs were shared within the IC, I am sure Mollie will retract these remarks.  

[Bradley Moss was responding to someone named Mollie] 


Mark Hertling 
@MarkHertling 
· 16h 
It’s amazing how many people suggesting Gen Milley resign before a) reading the details in the book b) not understanding nuke launch protocols c) not knowing how senior military leaders often talk to counterparts (friends & foes), and d) don’t understand the role of the CJCS. 


Mark Hertling 
@MarkHertling 
· 
21h 
I’d suggest all journalist be careful when using words like “limit,” as that would be a dangerous precedent. From what I can tell from the book excerpts, Milley told staff & commanders to ensure they followed correct “process & procedures.” That’s different. 
Quote Tweet 

Kyle Griffin 
@kylegriffin1 
· 22h 
Two days after Jan. 6, Trump's top military adviser took top-secret action to limit Trump from ordering a dangerous military strike or launching nuclear weapons, according to 'Peril.' 

Milley 'was certain that Trump had gone into a serious mental decline.' https://cnn.com/2021/09/14/politics/woodward-book-trump-nuclear/index.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If German WWII Field Marshall Paulus were still alive he would side with Milley. 

And Nurmberg and elsewhere he confessed to war crimes, and said it was a terrible mistake 

for the German officer corps to follow evil and insane civilian leadership. 

Good doco here   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Black and white, Vindman is correct.  Real world, ya gotta do what needs to be done to keep a madman from destroying the world.

Mile may eventually get a letter in his 201 file but, fuck 'em.  He was the right guy at the right time.  History will prove it out.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

This is an old ethics debate, deontology vs utilitarianism, rules vs outcomes. There is no right answer but I'll admit that Vindman is right about usurping civilian authority and then proceed to ignore him on this.

Robocop is programmed with prime directives (rules):

  • Serve the public trust
  • Protect the innocent
  • Uphold the law
  • Any attempt to arrest a senior officer of OCP results in shutdown
Like any movie hero, Robocop can't just shoot the motherfucker already (outcomes). He must uphold his code, his prime directives. The trope is called a hero ball.
 

 

Well yeah, fuck that shit. Thank you General Miley. And thank you, Colonel Vindman. I just don't agree with you in this case.

 

Ditto

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

As much as you don't want to hear it, this is a problem

"Retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who testified against former President Trump during Trump's first impeachment trial, is calling for the resignation of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who, according to a forthcoming book, moved to limit Trump's ability to call for a military strike after the Capitol riot. 

"If this is true GEN Milley must resign. He usurped civilian authority, broke Chain of Command, and violated the sacrosanct principle of civilian control over the military," Vindman tweeted on Tuesday. "It’s an extremely dangerous precedent. You can’t simply walk away from that." 

The retired Army intelligence officer was responding to new reporting in an upcoming book about the end of Trump's presidency written by veteran journalist Bob Woodward and The Washington Post's Robert Costa. 

In the book, Woodward and Costa report Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley moved to limit Trump's ability to call for a military strike or launch nuclear weapons following the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol." 

Read more: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/572330-vindman-calls-for-milleys-resignation-he-usurped-civilian-authority 

Milley just asked to be included in the loop. Vindman's wrong. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked Liddle Marco calling for Gen. Milley to be fired over his discussions with the Chinese Communist Party. Pretty safe to say that any sentence out of his mouth between now and Nov. 2024 will have a noun, verb and CCP. Chris Christie has Marco figured out; he memorizes a few buzz words and canned answers and bends them to fit any context. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this elsewhere by mistake - it should go here. 

At the military academies officers are taught to understand and recognize 

illegal orders (including from civilians), and to disobey them. 

That is all Milley was doing. 

But consider, as Jan 6th unfolded and it became clear that the object was the overthrow of the election process, 

why didn't Milley (or other officers) arrest Trump ???

(And the doctrine of giving the Prez almost sole power to launch nukes on his own authority ..   

really needs a revisit)  

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Milley just asked to be included in the loop. Vindman's wrong. 

That's the way I'm reading it.

Ensuring the following of lawful orders throughout the chain of command is good leadership.

Taking steps to reduce the likelihood of following illegal orders is not a very common step (thank goodness) but is completely legal and downright sensible under the circumstances.

 

2 minutes ago, Mike G said:

Methinks the calls for Milley's head might open investigations and lines of questioning that the R's will regret.

I hope so. It may well clarify a lot of what we've heard about Trump's deliberately fucking up the ability to respond to incidents of insurrection like Jan 6th

- DSK

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

Bingo!  This will go away quietly.

Maybe. Milley may call Nancy and ask for a hearing though. He might be interested in giving a detailed explanation to clear his name if the RW media starts to go nuts on him. That job has to be as apolitical as possible.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

This is an old ethics debate, deontology vs utilitarianism, rules vs outcomes. There is no right answer but I'll admit that Vindman is right about usurping civilian authority and then proceed to ignore him on this.

How many people, during the TFG presidency, were for taking the nuke codes away from the man-child? 

The rules and accepted standards regarding the presidency were never written for someone like the last guy.  No one thought America could possibly be so stupid as to elect such a person.

It would be appropriate, even necessary, to create minimum qualifications for certain elected offices but we all know America sees politics as an emotional exercise.  We couldn't allow anything that would make elections the serious matter they actually are.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jules said:

How many people, during the TFG presidency, were for taking the nuke codes away from the man-child? 

The rules and accepted standards regarding the presidency were never written for someone like the last guy.  No one thought America could possibly be so stupid as to elect such a person.

It would be appropriate, even necessary, to create minimum qualifications for certain elected offices but we all know America sees politics as an emotional exercise.  We couldn't allow anything that would make elections the serious matter they actually are.

For some voters, enough to win the election, he had the only qualification that mattered.  He didn’t have it for much of his life but when it counted he had the “R”. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Milley doesn't have the authority to arrest anyone unless they commit a military offense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

For some voters, enough to win the election, he had the only qualification that mattered.  He didn’t have it for much of his life but when it counted he had the “R”. 

There has to be more to it than that.  He somehow came out of a big group of candidates that actually included some sort of real "conservatives" with the magic "R", to win the primaries.  Trump appealed to a very nasty and surprisingly large proportion of USA voters.  Well, at least it surprised me.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

Milley doesn't have the authority to arrest anyone unless they commit a military offense.

So illegal orders are not a military offense ?? 

You don't seem to get it that illegal orders can come from civilians, not just higher ranks . . 

Field Marshall Paulus got into this in detail - see post above 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, bridhb said:

There has to be more to it than that.  He somehow came out of a big group of candidates that actually included some sort of real "conservatives" with the magic "R", to win the primaries.  Trump appealed to a very nasty and surprisingly large proportion of USA voters.  Well, at least it surprised me.

You are right but I don’t think the groups are mutually exclusive. Trump woke up an awful lot of white trash and got them out to vote and to be active in politics for the first time.  A purported billionaire from New York related to the redneckian hoards through their shared grievances…. He is the undisputed pied piper of redneck shit posters  

The rest of The Party’s candidates ran traditional GOP primary campaigns, and could not possibly match the stupidity, despite their best efforts. Once they lost, the Party faithful pretended to hold their nose and voted for the “R” in sufficient numbers to beat the Great Satan. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

So illegal orders are not a military offense ?? 

You don't seem to get it that illegal orders can come from civilians, not just higher ranks . . 

Field Marshall Paulus got into this in detail - see post above 

Can you cite the illegal order that was given?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So this whole "controversy" about Milley ensuring that our former deranged AF loser president couldn't start an unjustified war on a whim is pretty shocking.  

But lets say that TFG really did start running to his generals screaming about launching nukes and what not.  Couldn't then the cabinet just 25th amendment his ass and call it good. 

But then again, I am sure Stephen Miller's dick gets really big at the thought of nuking brown people, so maybe that wouldn't have actually happened.

In this case, a slap on the wrist for Milley while at the same time a "thank you for being a sane adult" are in order.

It does however bring to the forefront the idea that military officials can and apparently do make decisions outside the usual channels.  In this case it happened to work out, as those officials were trying to avoid WW3.  But imagine if we reached a point were those officials were more malevolent actors......

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, sail611 said:

So this whole "controversy" about Milley ensuring that our former deranged AF loser president couldn't start an unjustified war on a whim is pretty shocking.  

But lets say that TFG really did start running to his generals screaming about launching nukes and what not.  Couldn't then the cabinet just 25th amendment his ass and call it good. 

But then again, I am sure Stephen Miller's dick gets really big at the thought of nuking brown people, so maybe that wouldn't have actually happened.

In this case, a slap on the wrist for Milley while at the same time a "thank you for being a sane adult" are in order.

It does however bring to the forefront the idea that military officials can and apparently do make decisions outside the usual channels.  In this case it happened to work out, as those officials were trying to avoid WW3.  But imagine if we reached a point were those officials were more malevolent actors......

That justifies calling China and telling them he would warn in case of an attack?

If he was concerned, there were steps he could take other than omitting treason.  Probably the most effective would be to resign and tell the public his reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sail611 said:

It does however bring to the forefront the idea that military officials can and apparently do make decisions outside the usual channels.  In this case it happened to work out, as those officials were trying to avoid WW3.  But imagine if we reached a point were those officials were more malevolent actors......

You mean now-silent generals like Kelly, Flynn, McMaster, Dunford, and Mattis? And who can guess how many others biting their tongues? Their silence is keeping TFG alive in politics. This is not the same ol same ol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jzk said:

That justifies calling China and telling them he would warn in case of an attack?

If he was concerned, there were steps he could take other than omitting treason.  Probably the most effective would be to resign and tell the public his reasons.

What did he do that was treasonous? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

  Probably the most effective would be to resign and tell the public his reasons.

Nope. No war yet. Point Milley.

                                Jerkz -1506.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Perhaps you could explain how what you wrote about Milley’s actions constitutes treason. 

If he contacted China and told them that he would warn them of an attack, that is treason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Nope. No war yet. Point Milley.

                                Jerkz -1506.

How is the presence of a war relevant? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

If he contacted China and told them that he would warn them of an attack, that is treason.

Yeah, don't think so: 

§2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

But look at these 2

 

§2383. Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §4 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §4, 35 Stat. 1088).

Word "moreover" was deleted as surplusage and minor changes were made in phraseology.

 

Editorial Notes

Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $10,000".

§2384. Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, §1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

But look at these 2

 

§2383. Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §4 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §4, 35 Stat. 1088).

Word "moreover" was deleted as surplusage and minor changes were made in phraseology.

 

Editorial Notes

Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $10,000".

§2384. Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, §1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

So you would charge Nancy and Milley with Insurrection?  

Not bad.  Not bad at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Yeah, don't think so: 

§2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Could one make the case that he gave aid to the Chinese by promising to warn them of an attack?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jzk said:

Could one make the case that he gave aid to the Chinese by promising to warn them of an attack?

First you would have to demonstrate that China is an enemy as contemplated by that statute. Care to have a go at it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

1. By what definition of treason? Statutory?
2. How do you know that he told them that?

1.  Statutory is looking good.

2.  "If"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sol Rosenberg said:

First you would have to demonstrate that China is an enemy as contemplated by that statute. Care to have a go at it?

If we are attacking them, then it would seem they would be our enemy.

Further, we have clashed in the South China Sea, and we have this ambiguous agreement with Taiwan.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to state the obvious but arguing with people with these hard-held beliefs be they regressive L or R is like hitting against the backboard. The backboard isn't keeping score; doesn't have to to win... every time. 

JZK, Quod, Venial, Navy Seal ... Dog ... Jack ... They may or may not all be the same person but they are all of one mind and goal ... getting people pissed off. Not real obvious when it comes to complex issues but this craziness about germs and masks? Caveman shit.

Fuck all you assholes. You'd sell your mothers' army boots for a shiny new dime.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jzk said:

If we are attacking them, then it would seem they would be our enemy.

Further, we have clashed in the South China Sea, and we have this ambiguous agreement with Taiwan.  

Let’s see the declaration of war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

After the "bible" photo op I was down on Milley but he's back on my radar altho I am not a fan of how this came out. 

I was down on him as well, but he turned around and admitted his error. That one act set him apart from anyone and everyone in the Trump sphere of bullshit. We know next to nothing about these events, and won’t until he sits down for a hearing. Even then, the hearing will lose half of its utility to bullshitters trying to create a narrative about what happened instead of finding out what actually happened. We already see that phenomenon here and elsewhere. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

I hate to state the obvious but arguing with people with these hard-held beliefs be they regressive L or R is like hitting against the backboard. The backboard isn't keeping score; doesn't have to to win... every time. 

JZK, Quod, Venial, Navy Seal ... Dog ... Jack ... They may or may not all be the same person but they are all of one mind and goal ... getting people pissed off. Not real obvious when it comes to complex issues but this craziness about germs and masks? Caveman shit.

Fuck all you assholes. You'd sell your mothers' army boots for a shiny new dime.

Add Vindman to that list of unreasonable people.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sail611 said:

It does however bring to the forefront the idea that military officials can and apparently do make decisions outside the usual channels.  

See the Iran Contra Affair, mid 80s.

They took it to 11!

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

The moment after the Drumph called the mob to DC for a "wild" time ..  

Milley should have detained him on the spot. 

Holy Junta Batman. We don’t need a coup, on 1/6 or any other day. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jzk said:

If we are attacking them, then it would seem they would be our enemy.

Further, we have clashed in the South China Sea, and we have this ambiguous agreement with Taiwan.  

At the time, we were at peace. 

If Trump had decided to attack in that circumstance he would be a tyrant, singlehandedly deciding the course of America’s foreign policy.

America is not a dictatorship and your blithe assumption reveals your disdain for checks and balances. Your desire for a unitary executive is unAmerican and deserves public derision and censure.

Basically, I’m calling you out on your lack of patriotism and moral failings. Taking one nation to war against another for no other reason than personal motives is the act of a madman. 

Your support of Trump in this instance is reprehensible. Fuck you.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

The moment after the Drumph called the mob to DC for a "wild" time ..  

Milley should have detained him on the spot. 

Yeah, no

It's not the job of the military to enforce domestic law or policy. I can't imagine why Pence didn't 25th ol' Trumpy-boy right out of there on the morning of Jan7th but I guess if Pence had had the intelligence of a goldfish and the spine of a dishrag, they wouldn't have picked him to be Trump's Vice Patsy in the first place. But it absolutely is not the military's job.

Considering from all around, it turned out about as well as could be. I'm not happy leaving things to luck, but maybe there's more than luck involved in having men of strong character in these positions.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://january6th.house.gov/news/press-releases/thompson-cheney-statement-pentagon-officials-reported-actions-after-january-6th
 

Quote

“The facts surrounding steps taken at the Pentagon to protect our security both before and after January 6th are a crucial area of focus for the Select Committee. Indeed, the Select Committee has sought records specifically related to these matters and we expect the Department of Defense to cooperate fully with our probe. Looking ahead, we will carefully evaluate all the facts based on first-hand testimony, contemporaneous documents, and other relevant materials. The Select Committee is dedicated to telling the complete story of the unprecedented and extraordinary events of January 6th, including all steps that led to what happened that day, and the specific actions and activities that followed between January 6th and January 20th, 2021.” 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Milley makes a phone call with a team of witnesses to re-assure foreign governments of Americas current defense position.

While Trump kicks out all of his staffers to have meetings with Russian representatives, rips up long established defence and commerce treaties, bypasses his intelligence and state depts to invite the Taliban to camp David, allows his daughter to receive a shit ton of patents from the Chinese while he threatens them with tariffs, orders the execution of a bad dude whilst he is on good dudes soil, allows the Saudi's to dismember a US citizen inside the US borders.  

And Milley is the evil fucker. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Actually, that may have happened in Turkey.

Spot on with the rest.

Think he was a resident, not a citizen?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, phillysailor said:

At the time, we were at peace. 

If Trump had decided to attack in that circumstance he would be a tyrant, singlehandedly deciding the course of America’s foreign policy.

America is not a dictatorship and your blithe assumption reveals your disdain for checks and balances. Your desire for a unitary executive is unAmerican and deserves public derision and censure.

Basically, I’m calling you out on your lack of patriotism and moral failings. Taking one nation to war against another for no other reason than personal motives is the act of a madman. 

Your support of Trump in this instance is reprehensible. Fuck you.

Basically, you are being dishonest.  Fuck you back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phillysailor said:

Ah, the unsupported allegation. Just like electoral fraud, jkz has no compunction about conducting this sort of bullshit.

Double secret fuck u

Yeah, the unsupported allegation, just like your entire post.  What does Milley's actions have to do with whether or not we are a dictatorship?  Why are you alleging that such an assumption is being made?  You think questioning Milley's behavior shows a "disdain" for checks and balances?  Or a desire for a "unitarian" executive?  You think it supports taking a nation to war and shows a "support" of Trump?

All made up bullshit from your weak sauce post.  Talk about "unsupported allegations."

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jzk said:

Basically, you are being dishonest.  Fuck you back.

No, he isn't

11 minutes ago, jzk said:

...What does Milley's actions have to do with whether or not we are a dictatorship?...

An elected President does not have unilateral power to wage war. Supporting a President who wants to usurp that power is pushing for turning the USA into a dictatorship.

Fuck that

And fuck you, and your ilk. Don't be such pussies, come on out and fight!

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

No, he isn't

An elected President does not have unilateral power to wage war. Supporting a President who wants to usurp that power is pushing for turning the USA into a dictatorship.

Fuck that

And fuck you, and your ilk. Don't be such pussies, come on out and fight!

- DSK

Yes he is, and so are you.  You both just made up a bunch of shit that you would have no way of knowing.

Which President tried to wage war unilaterally?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jzk said:

Yes he is, and so are you.  You both just made up a bunch of shit that you would have no way of knowing.

Which President tried to wage war unilaterally?

 

The one that carried out an assassination in an allied nations' territory. The one that warned an adversary he was launching cruise missiles at their air base. The one that overcharged his own Secret Service bodyguard to stay at his hotel to guard him. The same one that appointed a man who was taking paychecks from Russia to the post of National Security Advisor. The same one that unilaterally reversed US foreign policy to strong-arm a friendly country into helping his political campaign.

The one whom the upper level of the military command sincerely believed was capable of ordering a nuclear strike on a whim.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

The one that carried out an assassination in an allied nations' territory. The one that warned and adversary he was launching cruise missiles at their air base. The one that overcharged his own Secret Service bodyguard to stay at his hotel to guard him. The same one that appointed a man who was taking paychecks from Russia to the post of National Security Advisor. The same one that unilaterally reversed US foreign policy to strong-arm a friendly country into helping his political campaign.

The one whom the upper level of the military command sincerely believed was capable of ordering a nuclear strike on a whim.

- DSK

Which war did he try to wage?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@jzkis trying to fight Woodward's reporting that 15 of America's highest security officials felt it necessary to reassure the Chinese that America was not going wage war due to the mental instability of our president. 

Go ahead and do your worst. Buy the book, read it, do your own sleuthing and come up with something substantive. Report back to us.

Until then, you're grasping at rhetorical straws and your professed outrage at a US General at the highest reaches of America's military taking such an extraordinary step is a clear sign that you've placed party over country. In fact, you've placed Donald Trump above your country. 

Enjoy that ignominy for the rest of your life. You've supported the immoral shitheel who tried to use the DOJ to subvert our election, exhorted his followers to storm the Capitol to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and who, apparently, lost his ability to act as CinC because he lost an election necessitating this embarrassing and disgusting measure to keep world peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phillysailor said:

@jzkis trying to fight Woodward's reporting that 15 of America's highest security officials felt it necessary to reassure the Chinese that America was not going wage war due to the mental instability of our president. 

Go ahead and do your worst. Buy the book, read it, do your own sleuthing and come up with something substantive. Report back to us.

Until then, you're grasping at rhetorical straws and your professed outrage at a US General at the highest reaches of America's military taking such an extraordinary step is a clear sign that you've placed party over country. In fact, you've placed Donald Trump above your country. 

Enjoy that ignominy for the rest of your life. You've supported the immoral shitheel who tried to use the DOJ to subvert our election, exhorted his followers to storm the Capitol to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and who, apparently, lost his ability to act as CinC because he lost an election necessitating this embarrassing and disgusting measure to keep world peace.

You are saying that Vindman placed party over country?  He placed Trump over country?

Link to post
Share on other sites