Trumps Questionable Love of the Military

[Puigb]

What you stated is not true.

It is. The GOP and Trump also don't give a damn about law enforcement either. The whole "law and order", and "back the blue" drivel they pushed was based on lies, as an attack on Obama and the Dems, because they DARED to speak out on racial disparities with the criminal justice system, as well as questionable attacks and deaths that involved minorities and law enforcement.

 

[Fledermaus]

It is. The GOP and Trump also don't give a damn about law enforcement either. The whole "law and order", and "back the blue" drivel they pushed was based on lies, as an attack on Obama and the Dems, because they DARED to speak out on racial disparities with the criminal justice system, as well as questionable attacks and deaths that involved minorities and law enforcement.

Your OPINION is noted.

And it is laughed at because of the whole ignorant broad brush thing which you have doubled down on.

 

[Puigb]

Your OPINION is noted.

And it is laughed at because of the whole ignorant broad brush thing which you have doubled down on.

fine, you disagree then.

 

[Fledermaus]

fine, you disagree then.

Reality disagrees with you.

 

[Puigb]

Reality disagrees with you.

no, it doesn't.

 

[Fledermaus]

no, it doesn't.

Reality tends to disagree with broad brush BS...

 

[Oozlefinch]

Your OPINION is noted.

And it is laughed at because of the whole ignorant broad brush thing which you have doubled down on.

Myself, I just wish some moderator would take all of these blatant political posts that really have nothing to do with the military and kick them back over to the political section where they belong.

I linger in this area because I love talking about things military. And I have no more interest in having somebody come down here and go "Trump Bashing" than I did 2 years ago when some came down here and went "Obama Bashing".

Many of you all hate the President, we get that. Just as many hated the last President (and the one before that, and the one before that, and the one before that ad infinitum). Now can we knock off with all this pointless nonsense, and go back to talking about battles where people got blown up, and the weapons they used to blow them up with?

All of this political crap is about as valuable to me as my hemorrhoids.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Sorry. That's not evidence he likes or supports the military.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have nothing but speculation to offer on the subject because you have no idea at all what he thinks of the military.

But you come off with your usual self anyways.

 

[Tangmo]

This is a professional letter to Potus Trump by a professional sailor who is by his nature a combative man in his long career in defense of the Constitution and the Nation.


Admiral who helped take out Bin Laden dares Trump to revoke his clearance

Aug 17, 2018

Admiral McRaven attends the 2011 Medal of Honor ceremony for Sgt. Leroy Arthur Petry, USArmy, at the White House.

Retired Navy Admiral William H. McRaven, who oversaw the Navy SEAL raid that killed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, wrote a letter to President Trump in the Washington Post Thursday daring him to revoke his security clearance like he did to former CIA director John Brennan Wednesday.

“He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him. Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.”
— Ret. Adm. McRaven


“Like most Americans, I had hoped that when you became president, you would rise to the occasion and become the leader this great nation needs…Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation."

"If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be.”

https://www.axios.com/john-brennan-...ral-514f820e-2431-4c33-8eb7-525db393c858.html


McRaven is a grad of the University of Texas, Austin on a track scholarship and joined Navy ROTC while his father was a career officer in the Air Force. McRaven earned his master's degree at the Naval Postgraduate School, in 1993. McRaven's thesis was titled "The Theory of Special Operations" (republished in 1995 as Spec Ops: Case Studies in Special Operations Warfare: Theory and Practice).

Trump started pulling security clearances after he returned from Putin's secret meeting with Trump in Helsinki, July 16, which was pulled off only one month before the letter from McRaven. During this brief 30 day time period Trump also said he was considering turning over to Polonium Putin certain US officials Putin has it out for to include former ambassador to Russia Michael McFall. We recall General retired McCaffrey saying Trump is "under the sway of Putin" and that this made Trump "a serious threat to US national security."

The departure of Mattis has now changed radically the US civil-military relationship. This is due to Trump, his statements, his actions, his conduct, his behaviors in relation to the Constitution and national security, national sovereignty, national and global stability.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

Typical progressive attitude: "Nobody is going to charge those Generals with violating the UCMJ, so it's okay for them to do it."

 

[Perotista]

Can some trump supporter here give me any actual evidence that Trump loves the military, besides the fact that he says so? Trumpsters always say don't listen to Trumps words, follow his actions. Well here are his military actions as of late:

• He has fired all of his top generals who said they were going to do a great job.
• He also fired them and pulled security clearances of others because he can't take constructive criticism.
• He constantly attacks other 4-star generals after they criticize him even if they didn't work for him
• He has not given the money to veteran charities and only gave some of it when the media exposed it
• He put someone as corrupt or maybe more corrupt than him in charge of the VA and vets are literally dying now b/c of its budgetary concerns and the fact that it is understaffed and practically gutted.
• He constantly praises dictators
• He wants to waste taxpayer $$$ on a useless military parade to praise himself for doing nothing
• He couldn't be bothered to visit troops in Paris or in the field until the media exposed him for it
• He constantly attacks gold star families and prisoners of war
• He uses the troops for political gain (signing hats) and useless caravan defenses
• He lies to them about their raises.
• And also lied about the fact that they are all going home.

So how does making fun of the military = loving it???

All politicians state they love the military. Most of it is PR. Politics always enter the fray. Most candidates regardless of party uses the military as a campaign tool or issue. I don't know if Trump really loves the military or not. I do know those in the military likes Trump a heck of a lot more than America as a whole does on average. But that is no surprise, those in the military, military veterans as a whole has viewed the Republican Party much more positive than the Democratic Party.

That isn't about to change.

 

[Tangmo]

Typical progressive attitude: "Nobody is going to charge those Generals with violating the UCMJ, so it's okay for them to do it."

There is no violation of law or the UCMJ occurring in the four-stars Constitutional criticisms of Trump.

The Angry Right have nothing but hot air in your desperate allegations from Fortress Trump where you're firing blanks at this point.

Trump doesn't raise a UCMJ issue because it doesn't exist. There aren't any allegations or charges being made, no warnings issued, no directives of restraint have come forth, no disciplinary actions taken or contemplated. Nor are there any disciplinary actions underway. There is in short no nothing of anything to it over there.

What we do have instead is this which doesn't give Trump or His Fanboyz a leg to stand on....


Retired admiral, commander of bin Laden raid, slams Trump's sentiments on media


William McRaven, a retired four-star admiral and former Navy SEAL, defended journalists this week, calling President Donald Trump's denunciation of the media as "the enemy of the American people" the "greatest threat to democracy" he's seen in his lifetime.

McRaven left the military in 2014 after nearly four decades and later became chancellor of the University of Texas System. The UT-Austin alumnus, who has a bachelor's degree in journalism, addressed a crowd at the university's college of communication on Tuesday. "We must challenge this statement and this sentiment that the news media is the enemy of the American people," McRaven said. "This sentiment may be the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime."

McRaven's remarks come amid Twitter attacks on the media by the president, who's hollered "FAKE NEWS" at several negative stories about his administration. In a widely shared tweet Friday, Trump called the media, naming The New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN, "the enemy of the American People!"

In another tweet the same day, Trump quoted conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, who praised the president's news conference the day before during which he confronted the media. "One of the most effective press conferences I've ever seen!" says Rush Limbaugh. Many agree. Yet FAKE MEDIA calls it differently! Dishonest," Trump tweeted.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/ret...id-slams-trump-s-sentiments-on-media-1.455473


Americans btw need to meet their current crop of armed forces chiefs in the Pentagon and their military commanders across the globe. That's each active duty and retired. They are somewhat fascinating people after 20+ years abroad in addition to their additional assignments in the states. Here for instance is McRaven who got a bachelor's degree in journalism and wrote the thesis on insurgent warfare to command the operation that killed bin Laden to also being the guy fulfilling his oath by defending the free press guarantee of the First Amendment to the Constitution he swore to preserve, protect, defend.

 

[Mycroft]

There is no violation of law or the UCMJ occurring in the four-stars Constitutional criticisms of Trump.

~snipped the irrelevant nonsense~

But it is a violation of the UCMJ for these retired officers to make these statements.

You know, until recently I thought these guys were considered "private citizens". I've found out that isn't true. If they are still collecting their retirement pay, they are still subject to the UCMJ. I've also found out this isn't a new issue. This was discussed back in the Bush II days.

One of the assumptions surrounding the recent criticism of Rumsfeld is that the retired generals, unlike active-duty officers, are free to criticize the defense secretary without fear of reprisal. Surprisingly, this assumption is untrue. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, one of the many activities deemed punishable by court-martial is “contempt toward officials.” This code of laws applies not just to active-duty officers but to retired ones, too. It’s right there in Article 2, Section (a) (5): Persons subject to the UCMJ include “retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.”

The key phrase is “entitled to pay.” If you resign from the military, and thus give up all retirement pay and benefits, you’re free from the clutches of military law. But if you retire and thus keep getting paid 50 percent to 75 percent of your peak active-duty salary (plus cost-of-living adjustments pegged to the consumer price index), you’re still in the cage. (Many retirees learned this the hard way, when they were called back into service in Iraq.)

If Rumsfeld wanted to stick it to the retired generals who are daring to question his wisdom—Anthony Zinni, Greg Newbold, Paul Eaton, Charles Swannack, John Batiste, and John Riggs—he could invoke Article 88 of the military justice code, which reads:

Any commissioned officer [and, under Article 2, this includes any retired officer] who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation [!], or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. [Italics and exclamation mark added.]

The military’s Manual for Courts-Martial, the implementing document for the UCMJ, could be read as strengthening Rumsfeld’s case against his critics, in two ways. First, in its elaboration of Article 88, the manual states:

It is immaterial whether the [contemptuous] words are used against the official in an official or private capacity.

In short, it’s no defense for a retired general to say, “I’m just speaking as a private citizen.”
Second, the manual notes:

Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article … aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2006/04/could-rumsfeld-court-martial-the-retired-generals.html

So, what it comes down to is this: These officers know that they won't be charged, so they think it's okay to break the law. Is this REALLY the kind of person you want to get your opinion from? People who have no respect for the regulations that they held their subordinates to for so many years?

 

[Tangmo]

But it is a violation of the UCMJ for these retired officers to make these statements.

You know, until recently I thought these guys were considered "private citizens". I've found out that isn't true. If they are still collecting their retirement pay, they are still subject to the UCMJ. I've also found out this isn't a new issue. This was discussed back in the Bush II days.



So, what it comes down to is this: These officers know that they won't be charged, so they think it's okay to break the law. Is this REALLY the kind of person you want to get your opinion from? People who have no respect for the regulations that they held their subordinates to for so many years?

It's been the case for a long time that retired career military personnel (of any rank) who receive a pension are subject to the UCMJ. You're a johnny come lately to the issue so we understand your awareness of it is new and in need of development. So I am here to help you become learned and wise. Admittedly that's a tall order but it needs to be pursued even if it's only to the benefit of others.

The well known and recorded "General's Revolt" against Rumsfeld was a rare event. The only thing like it before was the "Admiral's Revolt" in the decade after WW II when Truman wanted to scuttle aircraft carriers and put their air component with the spanking new Air Force. Truman btw also wanted to put USMC into the Army rather than have it as a separate Corps under the Department of the Navy (naval infantry). Truman was headed off on all counts and the "Admiral's Revolt" of and by active duty serving admirals was central to it. It took its toll however as SecDef Forrestal threw himself out his Pentagon window after a few admirals had quit in disgust.

Rumsfeld got hammered by the "General's Revolt" against his disastrous approach to Iraq which moreover affected negatively the armed forces capacity and capability in Afghanistan. Rumsfeld got put out by GW after the 2006 election that swept Democrats back into power in congress. The most notable general officer casualty of the revolt was the active duty chief of staff of Army, Gen. Eric Shinseki who correctly advised congress in testimony the occupation of Iraq would require 500,000 boots on the ground. Rumsfeld had proclaimed erroneously the occupation would be successful with 100K or 125K troops. Rumsfeld could not sack Gen. Shinseki so he named a new CSA well ahead of the schedule for such things and sent the general to the Pentagon dog house. (Rumsfeld's first choice to be named incoming CSA declined.)

Nobody got charged with anything in either of the well known and significant revolts by the four-stars, i.e., the "Admiral's Revolt" post WW 2 and the "General's Revolt" post 9/11. This revolt is of both four-star generals and admirals who are speaking for the active duty four-star generals and admirals. This war is definitely unprecedented in this respect but so are Trump and His Fanboyz as Putin eggs 'em on. Which is why it is called a war.

 

[Mycroft]

It's been the case for a long time that retired career military personnel (of any rank) who receive a pension are subject to the UCMJ. You're a johnny come lately to the issue so we understand your awareness of it is new and in need of development. So I am here to help you become learned and wise. Admittedly that's a tall order but it needs to be pursued even if it's only to the benefit of others.

The well known and recorded "General's Revolt" against Rumsfeld was a rare event. The only thing like it before was the "Admiral's Revolt" in the decade after WW II when Truman wanted to scuttle aircraft carriers and put their air component with the spanking new Air Force. Truman btw also wanted to put USMC into the Army rather than have it as a separate Corps under the Department of the Navy (naval infantry). Truman was headed off on all counts and the "Admiral's Revolt" of and by active duty serving admirals was central to it. It took its toll however as SecDef Forrestal threw himself out his Pentagon window after a few admirals had quit in disgust.

Rumsfeld got hammered by the "General's Revolt" against his disastrous approach to Iraq which moreover affected negatively the armed forces capacity and capability in Afghanistan. Rumsfeld got put out by GW after the 2006 election that swept Democrats back into power in congress. The most notable general officer casualty of the revolt was the active duty chief of staff of Army, Gen. Eric Shinseki who correctly advised congress in testimony the occupation of Iraq would require 500,000 boots on the ground. Rumsfeld had proclaimed erroneously the occupation would be successful with 100K or 125K troops. Rumsfeld could not sack Gen. Shinseki so he named a new CSA well ahead of the schedule for such things and sent the general to the Pentagon dog house. (Rumsfeld's first choice to be named incoming CSA declined.)

Nobody got charged with anything in either of the well known and significant revolts by the four-stars, i.e., the "Admiral's Revolt" post WW 2 and the "General's Revolt" post 9/11. This revolt is of both four-star generals and admirals who are speaking for the active duty four-star generals and admirals. This war is definitely unprecedented in this respect but so are Trump and His Fanboyz as Putin eggs 'em on. Which is why it is called a war.

You are getting lost in the weeds. It's not about Rumsfeld. It's about the law.

In the meantime, you keep bouncing back and forth between they are breaking the law and they are not breaking the law. Tell you what...choose one and stick with it, eh?

 

[Tangmo]

You are getting lost in the weeds. It's not about Rumsfeld. It's about the law.

In the meantime, you keep bouncing back and forth between they are breaking the law and they are not breaking the law. Tell you what...choose one and stick with it, eh?

You've been uninformed on this and confused by it from the beginning. You posted about Rumsfeld and the "General's Revolt" yet now you deny it was or meant anything. You didn't know what it was called. You had no clue about the "Admiral's Revolt" post WW II which was fierce but Navy got to keep its aircraft carriers that Truman had wanted to scrap for good. It was one hell of a fight though by each side.

My first post about retired military personnel on retirement pensions being subject to UCMJ and speaking out against Potus/CinC said Trump has not brought any allegations never mind charges against 'em. Trump hasn't said anything about the four-star officers, their critiques and criticisms of him, the UCMJ. That is, the three factors have not been joined in an allegation much less by the filing of any charge. This was true also in the previous two 'revolts' I have cited from the well known and recorded history of 'em.

UCMJ is untested in this respect. That's because UCMJ hasn't ever been or rarely been applied. It's sort of like the Logan Act which says what's normal is illegal -- what's normally normal anyway. We do not know whether any statement(s) critical of Trump violate any provision of UCMJ. If history is any guide we won't know from the present arguments either. Trump could sound off or file charges but he doesn't do either or anything. No potus has done anything in these respects concerning retired four-star officers. Chattering about it goes nowhere too.

 

[American]

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.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ste...tablishment-beat-trump-was-right-to-fire-them

Good opinion article.

 

[American]

It is. The GOP and Trump also don't give a damn about law enforcement either. The whole "law and order", and "back the blue" drivel they pushed was based on lies, as an attack on Obama and the Dems, because they DARED to speak out on racial disparities with the criminal justice system, as well as questionable attacks and deaths that involved minorities and law enforcement.

Sure sure, you do know the whole "Hands up, don't shoot" was based on a complete lie don't you? It never happened, and was proven in court. Yet BLM came to life over that phrase; complete BS. Most of what you believe about the police is BS, and typically proven so. Your hate for Trump is the same; just like the OP is most lies. In fact he doesn't cite anything credible to proven his claims.