Trumps Questionable Love of the Military

[Mycroft]

You didn't disprove any of my post and you didn't even provide the evidence I was looking for. Sounds like you can't handle the truth. Otherwise there would be baskets full of evidence of Trump supporting the military

I kicked one of your contentions to the curb. You can't even defend yourself.

You are dismissed.

 

[NeverTrump]

I kicked one of your contentions to the curb. You can't even defend yourself.

You are dismissed.

No you didn't, but I still see lack of evidence from you regarding Trumps love of military.

 

[Tangmo]

So much nonsense in your post...so much work to kick that nonsense to the curb where it belongs. I really don't have the inclination nor the time to do that. Instead, I'll just slap you upside the head with one of your stupid remarks:

"He constantly attacks other 4-star generals after they criticize him even if they didn't work for him"

If a "4-star general" doesn't work for the President, he no longer represents the military. He's now nothing more than a private citizen with an opinion. If he attacks the President with his opinion, he is fair game to receive attacks from the President (or anyone else who doesn't agree with the opinion). By responding to these attacks by a past general, Trump is not saying anything against, nor is he acting against, the military. He is saying something against a private citizen.

Speaking out against a private citizen who attacks him is not a military action by Trump.
​

Enjoy your beatdown, NeverTrumpGOP, I'm moving on...

Any and every retired military receiving an annuity pension are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Any one of 'em can be activated at any time to stand before a court martial or a lesser though severe UCMJ proceeding.

A general retired is, well, a general in retirement. The guy's still a general. The oath of office continues to apply. The UCMJ and military discipline continue to apply. Trump could thus order up Gen. McChrystal to active duty at his rank to stand accused under the UCMJ. That would be for allegedly making defamatory remarks against Potus/CinC. While in the USA courts truth is a valid defense for which one can be found not guilty, a truth about your superior officer does not always fare so well at a court martial. It's the old saying that, military justice is to justice as military music is to music. Indeed.

Trump won't do it, i.e., put Gen. McChrystal up under the UCMJ. If Trump did put McChrystal up for military discipline then he'd face severe criticism by the generals and admirals who have been coming down on his incompetence, to include saying Trump is a "danger to the national security" of the USA. The "danger" includes to the national sovereignty and to stability both globally and domestically. Trump can't risk the direct consequence of pursing McChrystal legally given he is totally disrespected already by Pentagon chiefs across the board and by US theater commanders of all the services across the world.

Which makes more obvious why no one over there can reply to the invitation of the OP. There's just no love lost here.

 

[Mycroft]

Any and every retired military receiving an annuity pension are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Any one of 'em can be activated at any time to stand before a court martial or a lesser though severe UCMJ proceeding.

A general retired is, well, a general in retirement. The guy's still a general. The oath of office continues to apply. The UCMJ and military discipline continue to apply. Trump could thus order up Gen. McChrystal to active duty at his rank to stand accused under the UCMJ. That would be for allegedly making defamatory remarks against Potus/CinC. While in the USA courts truth is a valid defense for which one can be found not guilty, a truth about your superior officer does not always fare so well at a court martial. It's the old saying that, military justice is to justice as military music is to music. Indeed.

Trump won't do it, i.e., put Gen. McChrystal up under the UCMJ. If Trump did put McChrystal up for military discipline then he'd face severe criticism by the generals and admirals who have been coming down on his incompetence, to include saying Trump is a "danger to the national security" of the USA. The "danger" includes to the national sovereignty and to stability both globally and domestically. Trump can't risk the direct consequence of pursing McChrystal legally given he is totally disrespected already by Pentagon chiefs across the board and by US theater commanders of all the services across the world.

Which makes more obvious why no one over there can reply to the invitation of the OP. There's just no love lost here.

So that makes it even worse. Those Generals are blatantly and purposely breaking the law.

Yeah...I'd say they DEFINITELY don't represent the military.

 

[Fledermaus]

You didn't disprove any of my post and you didn't even provide the evidence I was looking for. Sounds like you can't handle the truth. Otherwise there would be baskets full of evidence of Trump supporting the military

Actually he and others did.

 

[Fledermaus]

Trump nor the GOP give a damn about the military.

Ignorant broad brushing noted.

 

[Tigerace117]

Nope, I am agreeing with your statement that prejudice is his problem, and was going into detail as to what that prejudice actually was.

And prejudice also commonly follows lack of understanding, comprehension, or facts. Which is what I was outlining in detail. he claimed the President fired generals. That was prejudice on his part, since the President really does not have that power in the first place.

None of which changes the fact that Trump went after both POWs and the family of a war hero, and that his cultists on this website went so far as to even attack people who have given their life for this country on the basis of religion .

 

[Oozlefinch]

Putting it in quotation marks doesn’t change the fact that McCrystal was fired/relieved/retired because President Obama or a senior official made it happen.

No, he made a decision finally to resign. He did something very-very stupid, and that is to criticize the sitting President in a public forum. That is where the "cause" comes into effect.

No matter who the President is, no member of the military (especially a high ranking General) should ever do that. Period. They are servants of the American people, and should never directly involve themselves in political matters. He did that, and it cost him his career.

He was pretty much told "Resign, or we are relieving you". And that is what should have happened for being so stupid.

Now suppose that he had not gotten political, and he was ordered to do so simply because the President did not like him. Well, then he likely would have refused to resign, and the President would have had to forcefully relieve him.

And yea, good luck with that. Relieving a high ranking General without cause would be a nightmare for any President. And as I said, one that likely could even have that decision overthrown in Congress. There are checks and balances in Government after all, the President is not a monarch. Almost any step he can take can be overruled by Congress, so long as there is support for it and question as to what was done in the first place.

I am missing nothing, and I was very clear. Your flaw is that you are missing that he was "fired" with cause. And it was justified, he put his foot in his mouth and was an embarrassment to the military by that point.

"Rock Star General" indeed.

 

[Oozlefinch]

None of which changes the fact that Trump went after both POWs and the family of a war hero

And President Obama did the same thing when he was running for office. He constantly attacked Senator McCain. So what? That is politics.

And BTW, I am not a "Trump Fan", so do not try to paint me as one. I have long said I did not like him, nor did I trust him. But he is the President, and he has not done anything different than what almost every other candidate for President did on the campaign trail.

 

[Hari Seldon]

That's as maybe. But why should Trump or anyone else love the mlitary?

No idea. But some do love it. Certainly not 5 deferment cadet fake bone spurs.

 

[Tangmo]

So that makes it even worse. Those Generals are blatantly and purposely breaking the law.

Yeah...I'd say they DEFINITELY don't represent the military.

It's 99% of the generals and admirals speaking out who aren't breaking any law either. They are speaking out for 99% of the generals and admirals active duty and retired who aren't speaking out. Although lot of generals and admirals know and welcome that they have other four-star officers speaking out for 'em, many of the silent generals and admirals prefer action over words. So they're keeping their powder dry for coming future engagements against their common enemy.

There's also the matter of truth. The flag officers (generals and admirals) speaking out are speaking the truth. Trump doesn't dare risk taking 'em to military court or pursue a lesser but severe disciplinary action cause Trump knows they're speaking the truth, even if you don't know it. The common ground here is simply that both of you deny it.

LTG Flynn on the other hand is a clearcut case. In his retirement Flynn flat out broke laws all over the place. This was after Flynn got busted for going bonzo in his last command assignment. Flynn accepted money from a foreign government without disclosing it. Flynn lied to FBI agents about accepting the money and about his meetings with Russians and Flynn lied about the nature of the meetings. Flynn pleaded guilty in civil court -- to a felony crime. Given Flynn pleaded guilty to a felony crime -- while retired -- Potus should have activated him already to put him before a courts martial to lose his rank completely and his pension completely. The pension is figured by those who know at around $100,000 annually. Trump won't do that either although Trump was delighted to fire the FBI director for investigating all the lies and subterfuge in the Trump campaign of 2015-2016 and worse besides.

Truth shall set you free or don't you know it.

 

[Mycroft]

It's 99% of the generals and admirals speaking out who aren't breaking any law either. They are speaking out for 99% of the generals and admirals active duty and retired who aren't speaking out. Although lot of generals and admirals know and welcome that they have other four-star officers speaking out for 'em, many of the silent generals and admirals prefer action over words. So they're keeping their powder dry for coming future engagements against their common enemy.

There's also the matter of truth. The flag officers (generals and admirals) speaking out are speaking the truth. Trump doesn't dare risk taking 'em to military court or pursue a lesser but severe disciplinary action cause Trump knows they're speaking the truth, even if you don't know it. The common ground here is simply that both of you deny it.

LTG Flynn on the other hand is a clearcut case. In his retirement Flynn flat out broke laws all over the place. This was after Flynn got busted for going bonzo in his last command assignment. Flynn accepted money from a foreign government without disclosing it. Flynn lied to FBI agents about accepting the money and about his meetings with Russians and Flynn lied about the nature of the meetings. Flynn pleaded guilty in civil court -- to a felony crime. Given Flynn pleaded guilty to a felony crime -- while retired -- Potus should have activated him already to put him before a courts martial to lose his rank completely and his pension completely. The pension is figured by those who know at around $100,000 annually. Trump won't do that either although Trump was delighted to fire the FBI director for investigating all the lies and subterfuge in the Trump campaign of 2015-2016 and worse besides.

Truth shall set you free or don't you know it.

I'll ignore your red herring deflection about Flynn.

Are you sure about that "99%" number? You got a link on that?

Doesn't matter whether you think those retired Generals are speaking truth or not. That's just your opinion. They are violating the UCMJ. Any military person who would deliberately and blatantly violate the law should be given no consideration.

 

[Tangmo]

And President Obama did the same thing when he was running for office. He constantly attacked Senator McCain. So what? That is politics.

And BTW, I am not a "Trump Fan", so do not try to paint me as one. I have long said I did not like him, nor did I trust him. But he is the President, and he has not done anything different than what almost every other candidate for President did on the campaign trail.

We're not comparing Trump to Putin so that both can get away with it all, regardless of what it is.

We're comparing Trump to Potus 1 through 44 and other leaders to include our allies who are democracies. We know some Potus in among 1 through 44 were pretty dismal but none of 'em were owned by a foreign hostile power or force.

 

[Tangmo]

I'll ignore your red herring deflection about Flynn.

Are you sure about that "99%" number? You got a link on that?

Doesn't matter whether you think those retired Generals are speaking truth or not. That's just your opinion. They are violating the UCMJ. Any military person who would deliberately and blatantly violate the law should be given no consideration.

That's your opinion thx anyway.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I'll ignore your red herring deflection about Flynn.

Are you sure about that "99%" number? You got a link on that?

Most retired military know it is not their place to speak out on political matters. Therefore they keep their mouths shut.

Heck, for the vast majority of them I doubt any really even know what their political affiliation is. They are professionals, and 9 times out of 10 keep their own opinions on such matters to themselves.

And those that do jump around and scream their opinions? Well, generally they are not taken all that seriously after that.

And yea, I do not bother with that individuals posts for what should be obvious reasons. General Flynn was never charged with accepting money, and he can not be called back to duty and Court Martialed for something that happened after he became a civilian, and which has nothing to do with the military.

Making a statement like that makes about as much sense as recalling President Carter in 1981 and having him face a Court Martial for giving away the Panama Canal. That is simply not how it works.

 

[Tangmo]

No, he made a decision finally to resign. He did something very-very stupid, and that is to criticize the sitting President in a public forum. That is where the "cause" comes into effect.

No matter who the President is, no member of the military (especially a high ranking General) should ever do that. Period. They are servants of the American people, and should never directly involve themselves in political matters. He did that, and it cost him his career.

It is the definitive matter of the oath the armed forces take to the Constitution.

The Constitution has the preamble, "We the People." The oath and the Constitution established long ago the bond between the armed forces and the people. The armed forces oath is not to the flag though the flag is respected. Nor is the armed forces oath to the anthem which is rendered its due respect. The oath is to the Constitution, i.e., the People who created it and who live by it over the generations.

The oath is to the three branches of the government, the coequal powers, checks and balances and so on. The oath is not to any official of the government, i.e., it is not to any single person of the government. The oath is to preserve, protect, defend, the Constitution, i.e., the People. Against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Now that Mattis is driven out by Trump and the more generals and admirals speak out and more often, we are beginning to see who among the People side with Trump versus those who side with the Constitution. The choice is clear.

 

[Tangmo]

LTG Flynn is a clearcut case. Flynn as a retired member of the armed forces who is receiving a pension is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. His oath applies. Any of the retired can be recalled to active duty on order. For any reason under the law and the UCMJ.

In his retirement Flynn flat out broke laws all over the place. This was after Flynn got busted for going bonzo in his last active duty command assignment -- the one that turned out to be his last assignment.

In his retirment Flynn accepted money from a foreign government without disclosing it. In his retirement Flynn lied to FBI agents about accepting the money. In his retirement Flynn lied about his meetings with Russians. In his retirement Flynn lied about the nature of the meetings. In his retirement Flynn pleaded guilty in civil court -- to a felony crime. Given Flynn pleaded guilty to a felony crime -- while retired -- Potus should have activated him already to put him before a courts martial to lose his rank completely and his pension completely. The pension is figured by those who know at around $100,000 annually. Trump won't do that either although Trump was delighted to fire the FBI incumbent director for investigating all the lies and subterfuge in the Trump campaign of 2015-2016 and worse besides.

The armed forces have their oath to the Constitution, to include the three branches of the government and all that goes with it, to include the First Amendment which includes the freedom of the press.

 

[Mycroft]

That's your opinion thx anyway.

Not my opinion. It's law.

 

[Tangmo]

Not my opinion. It's law.

The armed forces oath is to the Constitution. And to the rule of law.

We're talking about the "We the People" document which is as Washington wanted it and as it was done. The military oath to the Constitution is the first law enacted by the first congress on its first legislative act.

Preserve, protect, defend, the Constitution i.e., "We the People." Against all enemies foreign and domestic. Today's four star officers are doing exactly that. There's more to come.

 

[Mycroft]

The armed forces oath is to the Constitution. And to the rule of law.

We're talking about the "We the People" document which is as Washington wanted it and as it was done. The military oath to the Constitution is the first law enacted by the first congress on its first legislative act.

Preserve, protect, defend, the Constitution i.e., "We the People." Against all enemies foreign and domestic. Today's four star officers are doing exactly that. There's more to come.

Oh, I'm sure there's more to come from law-breaking Generals. They think they are above the law because nobody is going to hold them to it and they'll eagerly break the law because they don't like Trump.

btw, Trump isn't an enemy of the US...he's the President of the US. You and those Generals should keep that fact in mind.

 

[Tigerace117]

And President Obama did the same thing when he was running for office. He constantly attacked Senator McCain. So what? That is politics.

And BTW, I am not a "Trump Fan", so do not try to paint me as one. I have long said I did not like him, nor did I trust him. But he is the President, and he has not done anything different than what almost every other candidate for President did on the campaign trail.

That's not an excuse, and even so, Trump specifically said people.

Not "McCain".

"People".

So trying to pass it off as "just political hackery" doesn't fly.

 

[Puigb]

Hey that's not fair. They use the military to prop up their false support of the USA, to prop up sham companies and terrible products, and to prop up the non-existent wall!!

Can't argue that.

 

[Puigb]

Ignorant broad brushing noted.

Truth is the truth.

 

[Fledermaus]

Truth is the truth.

What you stated is not true.

 

[Tangmo]

Oh, I'm sure there's more to come from law-breaking Generals. They think they are above the law because nobody is going to hold them to it and they'll eagerly break the law because they don't like Trump.

btw, Trump isn't an enemy of the US...he's the President of the US. You and those Generals should keep that fact in mind.

Trump could allege the generals and admirals retired are in violation of UCMJ. There's a whole lot of 'em and their number is only increasing, i.e., those who are speaking out in defense of the Constitution as demanded by their oath. Trump does not take action because Trump knows the risk is too high and too great he'd lose any case of the sort. We can be confident Trump does not want to try to face down the armed forces chiefs at Pentagon and the combatant theater commanders across the globe.

The armed forces oath to the Constitution is a powerful oath that bonds directly the armed forces and the people in a united cause and purpose to preserve it, protect it, defend it and its values. That's against all enemies foreign and domestic. The oath is not to any one official or person of the government. So with Mattis out and Trump hollering now against Mattis too, we see unmistakably who out there sides with Trump and his wrecking crew against the Constitution versus who sides with the Constitution and its rule of law. We see who protects the national security, sovereignty, stability, and who does not.

The 88 retired officers who had one to four stars and who endorsed Trump during the campaign have gone silent long since. We can safely say their silence is their consent to their fellow flag officers. We can say this with high confidence. There is no divide here among the flag officers active duty or retired concerning the Trump presidency. The wild and reckless Trump and his fanboy wrecking crew have made a shambles of the Constitutional system. And you intend to finish the job. Hence the blowback which has only begun.