Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

That is not the way this is supposed to work. Flip the script-what is different in concept about the military launching an attack POTUS did not order v. sabotaging one he did order?

I have to agree with my conservative friends-utter BS if true.

---

I'm no fan of Milley, but it's not unheard of to warn an opponent about a limited retaliatory strike in order to avoid surprising them and escalating the situation beyond what's intended. And Milley didn't even do that. All he did was promise that we would do it, which ordinarily would mean the president approved. The point was to assure the Chinese that Trump hadn't gone crazy and planned a sneak attack. I'm not sure there was anything wrong with that.

---

you military?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

That is not the way this is supposed to work. Flip the script-what is different in concept about the military launching an attack POTUS did not order v. sabotaging one he did order?

I have to agree with my conservative friends-utter BS if true.

---

I'm no fan of Milley, but it's not unheard of to warn an opponent about a limited retaliatory strike in order to avoid surprising them and escalating the situation beyond what's intended. And Milley didn't even do that. All he did was promise that we would do it, which ordinarily would mean the president approved. The point was to assure the Chinese that Trump hadn't gone crazy and planned a sneak attack. I'm not sure there was anything wrong with that.

---

Lol. No. Just. No.

This is a HUGE problem for him and it destroys his ability to lead. There's a 0% chance he survives this. The military forums are lit up like Christmas trees. I know some flag officers who really didn't like Trump who want Milleys balls rung up a flagpole right now.

This is a very big deal in the circles in which it matters and I assure the media isn't one.

Sam Lowry said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

That is not the way this is supposed to work. Flip the script-what is different in concept about the military launching an attack POTUS did not order v. sabotaging one he did order?

I have to agree with my conservative friends-utter BS if true.

---

I'm no fan of Milley, but it's not unheard of to warn an opponent about a limited retaliatory strike in order to avoid surprising them and escalating the situation beyond what's intended. And Milley didn't even do that. All he did was promise that we would do it, which ordinarily would mean the president approved. The point was to assure the Chinese that Trump hadn't gone crazy and planned a sneak attack. I'm not sure there was anything wrong with that.

---

Do you have some specific examples?

---

We warned Russia of airstrikes in Syria in 2017 to allow them to remove their personnel from the targets.

---

I am certain Trump authorized that communication. The point isn't whether the communication occurs but who authorizes it.

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

That is not the way this is supposed to work. Flip the script-what is different in concept about the military launching an attack POTUS did not order v. sabotaging one he did order?

I have to agree with my conservative friends-utter BS if true.

---

I'm no fan of Milley, but it's not unheard of to warn an opponent about a limited retaliatory strike in order to avoid surprising them and escalating the situation beyond what's intended. And Milley didn't even do that. All he did was promise that we would do it, which ordinarily would mean the president approved. The point was to assure the Chinese that Trump hadn't gone crazy and planned a sneak attack. I'm not sure there was anything wrong with that.

---

Do you have some specific examples?

---

We warned Russia of airstrikes in Syria in 2017 to allow them to remove their personnel from the targets.

---

I am certain Trump authorized that communication. The point isn't whether the communication occurs but who authorizes it.

---

Right, and if you take their statements at face value, Milley's not necessarily undermining Trump or saying he wouldn't authorize it. Trump says he wasn't thinking of attacking China. Milley told China the same thing. If anything changed, they could expect to hear through deconflicting channels.

At least that's one interpretation. Another is that Trump intended to send hostile or mixed signals for strategic reasons, and Milley overrode that policy. That's what many are assuming. It may be true.

A third possibility is that Trump was legitimately unstable, as many insiders apparently believed, and was considering actions the consequences of which he failed to rationally understand. In that case the 25th Amendment should apply. However, it couldn't be invoked without the vice president's cooperation, which we now know was off the table. Technically the only option left is to resign. But then add to the mix an attempted coup with at least the tacit encouragement of the president. The self-described revolutionaries are counting on the military to provide firepower, and for all you know Trump might find someone to replace you who'd go along with it. Not an easy decision.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

That is not the way this is supposed to work. Flip the script-what is different in concept about the military launching an attack POTUS did not order v. sabotaging one he did order?

I have to agree with my conservative friends-utter BS if true.

---

I'm no fan of Milley, but it's not unheard of to warn an opponent about a limited retaliatory strike in order to avoid surprising them and escalating the situation beyond what's intended. And Milley didn't even do that. All he did was promise that we would do it, which ordinarily would mean the president approved. The point was to assure the Chinese that Trump hadn't gone crazy and planned a sneak attack. I'm not sure there was anything wrong with that.

---

Fascist.

Sam Lowry said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

That is not the way this is supposed to work. Flip the script-what is different in concept about the military launching an attack POTUS did not order v. sabotaging one he did order?

I have to agree with my conservative friends-utter BS if true.

---

I'm no fan of Milley, but it's not unheard of to warn an opponent about a limited retaliatory strike in order to avoid surprising them and escalating the situation beyond what's intended. And Milley didn't even do that. All he did was promise that we would do it, which ordinarily would mean the president approved. The point was to assure the Chinese that Trump hadn't gone crazy and planned a sneak attack. I'm not sure there was anything wrong with that.

---

Do you have some specific examples?

---

We warned Russia of airstrikes in Syria in 2017 to allow them to remove their personnel from the targets.

---

Authorized by the civilian authority.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

That is not the way this is supposed to work. Flip the script-what is different in concept about the military launching an attack POTUS did not order v. sabotaging one he did order?

I have to agree with my conservative friends-utter BS if true.

---

I'm no fan of Milley, but it's not unheard of to warn an opponent about a limited retaliatory strike in order to avoid surprising them and escalating the situation beyond what's intended. And Milley didn't even do that. All he did was promise that we would do it, which ordinarily would mean the president approved. The point was to assure the Chinese that Trump hadn't gone crazy and planned a sneak attack. I'm not sure there was anything wrong with that.

---

Do you have some specific examples?

---

We warned Russia of airstrikes in Syria in 2017 to allow them to remove their personnel from the targets.

---

I am certain Trump authorized that communication. The point isn't whether the communication occurs but who authorizes it.

---

Right, and if you take their statements at face value, Milley's not necessarily undermining Trump or saying he wouldn't authorize it. Trump says he wasn't thinking of attacking China. Milley told China the same thing. If anything changed, they could expect to hear through deconflicting channels.

At least that's one interpretation. Another is that Trump intended to send hostile or mixed signals for strategic reasons, and Milley overrode that policy. That's what many are assuming. It may be true.

A third possibility is that Trump was legitimately unstable, as many insiders apparently believed, and was considering actions the consequences of which he failed to rationally understand. In that case the 25th Amendment should apply. However, it couldn't be invoked without the vice president's cooperation, which we now know was off the table. Technically the only option left is to resign. But then add to the mix an attempted coup with at least the tacit encouragement of the president. The self-described revolutionaries are counting on the military to provide firepower, and for all you know Trump might find someone to replace you who'd go along with it. Not an easy decision.

---

Good grief….You want to know what coups look like? Military leadership circumventing civilian authority under the guise of security of a country.

It's turning out Trump wasn't the danger. The irrationality of the resistance to him has borne out the frightening lengths some will justify going in that endeavor. The mental gymnastics you just went through above is a classic example.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

That is not the way this is supposed to work. Flip the script-what is different in concept about the military launching an attack POTUS did not order v. sabotaging one he did order?

I have to agree with my conservative friends-utter BS if true.

---

I'm no fan of Milley, but it's not unheard of to warn an opponent about a limited retaliatory strike in order to avoid surprising them and escalating the situation beyond what's intended. And Milley didn't even do that. All he did was promise that we would do it, which ordinarily would mean the president approved. The point was to assure the Chinese that Trump hadn't gone crazy and planned a sneak attack. I'm not sure there was anything wrong with that.

---

Do you have some specific examples?

---

We warned Russia of airstrikes in Syria in 2017 to allow them to remove their personnel from the targets.

---

I am certain Trump authorized that communication. The point isn't whether the communication occurs but who authorizes it.

---

Right, and if you take their statements at face value, Milley's not necessarily undermining Trump or saying he wouldn't authorize it. Trump says he wasn't thinking of attacking China. Milley told China the same thing. If anything changed, they could expect to hear through deconflicting channels.

At least that's one interpretation. Another is that Trump intended to send hostile or mixed signals for strategic reasons, and Milley overrode that policy. That's what many are assuming. It may be true.

A third possibility is that Trump was legitimately unstable, as many insiders apparently believed, and was considering actions the consequences of which he failed to rationally understand. In that case the 25th Amendment should apply. However, it couldn't be invoked without the vice president's cooperation, which we now know was off the table. Technically the only option left is to resign. But then add to the mix an attempted coup with at least the tacit encouragement of the president. The self-described revolutionaries are counting on the military to provide firepower, and for all you know Trump might find someone to replace you who'd go along with it. Not an easy decision.

---

You're really on the wrong side of this one Sam. If this is true, Milley should be fired and tried for treason. No amount of mental gymnastics will put you on the correct side of this.

J.B.Katz said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Dnicknames said:

---

Trying to think if there's any equivalent to the Milley call to his China counterparts in US history. Thoughts?

For America's top general to reach out to an adversary around the POTUS…it is back door 25th Amendment stuff.

---

In 1974, Sec of Def Schlesinger told the generals to ask the Sec Def before carrying out any orders Richard Nixon gave.
It isn't calling an opposing state, but it is a work around of POTUS

---

That's far different from contacting one's enemy to advise of an attack.

Milley should be fired, if not tried for treason.

---

You just spent the Trump years assuring us (or really yourself) that it can't be treason without a formal declaration of war, and dealing with our enemies for personal gain is just routine business. At least, that was your position when it was Trump's kids and agents dealing with Russian intelligence while they conducted espionage against the US in his favor.

---

Don't you get it? Trump can't commit treason, but everyone who opposes him commits it by opposing him.

That's how it works in the Trump universe. There is no loyalty to the country independent of loyalty to Trump for his supporters.

---

You wouldn't know treason if bit you in the ass. You so friggin' triggered, you'd sell your first born if it meant getting rid of someone you don't like.

You over-emotional, irrational drama queen.

If Cruz called Putin to warn him that Biden was about to take military action against Russia, you'd **** the bed, you'd be so crazed with furor.

Sam Lowry said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

That is not the way this is supposed to work. Flip the script-what is different in concept about the military launching an attack POTUS did not order v. sabotaging one he did order?

I have to agree with my conservative friends-utter BS if true.

---

I'm no fan of Milley, but it's not unheard of to warn an opponent about a limited retaliatory strike in order to avoid surprising them and escalating the situation beyond what's intended. And Milley didn't even do that. All he did was promise that we would do it, which ordinarily would mean the president approved. The point was to assure the Chinese that Trump hadn't gone crazy and planned a sneak attack. I'm not sure there was anything wrong with that.

---

Do you have some specific examples?

---

We warned Russia of airstrikes in Syria in 2017 to allow them to remove their personnel from the targets.

---

Reaching there. Apples and oranges. Warning a foreign power about impending military action on another foreign power that's authorized by the president is one thing. Secretly calling a foreign power about impending military action against them, that wasn't authorized by the president, is entirely another.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

That is not the way this is supposed to work. Flip the script-what is different in concept about the military launching an attack POTUS did not order v. sabotaging one he did order?

I have to agree with my conservative friends-utter BS if true.

---

I'm no fan of Milley, but it's not unheard of to warn an opponent about a limited retaliatory strike in order to avoid surprising them and escalating the situation beyond what's intended. And Milley didn't even do that. All he did was promise that we would do it, which ordinarily would mean the president approved. The point was to assure the Chinese that Trump hadn't gone crazy and planned a sneak attack. I'm not sure there was anything wrong with that.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

That is not the way this is supposed to work. Flip the script-what is different in concept about the military launching an attack POTUS did not order v. sabotaging one he did order?

I have to agree with my conservative friends-utter BS if true.

---

I'm no fan of Milley, but it's not unheard of to warn an opponent about a limited retaliatory strike in order to avoid surprising them and escalating the situation beyond what's intended. And Milley didn't even do that. All he did was promise that we would do it, which ordinarily would mean the president approved. The point was to assure the Chinese that Trump hadn't gone crazy and planned a sneak attack. I'm not sure there was anything wrong with that.

---

Do you have some specific examples?

---

We warned Russia of airstrikes in Syria in 2017 to allow them to remove their personnel from the targets.

---

describe the loop of command in that warning.. bet the president aka commander in chief of the Military authorized it

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

That is not the way this is supposed to work. Flip the script-what is different in concept about the military launching an attack POTUS did not order v. sabotaging one he did order?

I have to agree with my conservative friends-utter BS if true.

---

I'm no fan of Milley, but it's not unheard of to warn an opponent about a limited retaliatory strike in order to avoid surprising them and escalating the situation beyond what's intended. And Milley didn't even do that. All he did was promise that we would do it, which ordinarily would mean the president approved. The point was to assure the Chinese that Trump hadn't gone crazy and planned a sneak attack. I'm not sure there was anything wrong with that.

---

Do you have some specific examples?

---

We warned Russia of airstrikes in Syria in 2017 to allow them to remove their personnel from the targets.

---

I am certain Trump authorized that communication. The point isn't whether the communication occurs but who authorizes it.

---

Right, and if you take their statements at face value, Milley's not necessarily undermining Trump or saying he wouldn't authorize it. Trump says he wasn't thinking of attacking China. Milley told China the same thing. If anything changed, they could expect to hear through deconflicting channels.

At least that's one interpretation. Another is that Trump intended to send hostile or mixed signals for strategic reasons, and Milley overrode that policy. That's what many are assuming. It may be true.

A third possibility is that Trump was legitimately unstable, as many insiders apparently believed, and was considering actions the consequences of which he failed to rationally understand. In that case the 25th Amendment should apply. However, it couldn't be invoked without the vice president's cooperation, which we now know was off the table. Technically the only option left is to resign. But then add to the mix an attempted coup with at least the tacit encouragement of the president. The self-described revolutionaries are counting on the military to provide firepower, and for all you know Trump might find someone to replace you who'd go along with it. Not an easy decision.

---

Good grief….You want to know what coups look like? Military leadership circumventing civilian authority under the guise of security of a country.

It's turning out Trump wasn't the danger. The irrationality of the resistance to him has borne out the frightening lengths some will justify going in that endeavor. The mental gymnastics you just went through above is a classic example.

---

I will never compete with the gymnastics of denying what happened on 1/6. That's Olympic champion level athleticism compared to my little league efforts.

HuMcK said:

---

Not only did it happen, I can cite examples of it happening in both of Trump's campaigns. Even under the most charitable interpretations of the hard evidence, they absolutely had knowing connections to Russian state actors, and used those contacts for help in the elections.

---

Typical whataboutism

It's not "whataboutism", it's pointing out inconsistencies in the responses to the 2 events. The same people who hand-waved their way through far worse accusations (with actual, hard evidence) are now throwing around terms like "treason" for Milley and saying he should he imprisoned.

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

That is not the way this is supposed to work. Flip the script-what is different in concept about the military launching an attack POTUS did not order v. sabotaging one he did order?

I have to agree with my conservative friends-utter BS if true.

---

I'm no fan of Milley, but it's not unheard of to warn an opponent about a limited retaliatory strike in order to avoid surprising them and escalating the situation beyond what's intended. And Milley didn't even do that. All he did was promise that we would do it, which ordinarily would mean the president approved. The point was to assure the Chinese that Trump hadn't gone crazy and planned a sneak attack. I'm not sure there was anything wrong with that.

---

Do you have some specific examples?

---

We warned Russia of airstrikes in Syria in 2017 to allow them to remove their personnel from the targets.

---

describe the loop of command in that warning.. bet the president aka commander in chief of the Military authorized it

---

I'm assuming he did. Did Milley give any unauthorized warnings? No. Did he intend to? Maybe, but it's not clear from the context.

---

Its not treason because technically China is not an enemy to which he gave aid or comfort. And it is hard to tell from the excerpt what he actually said. One reading was just an assurance that despite the January 6 turmoil, we were functioning as normal and nothing awful was going to happen. And context is important-our senior military should not have to worry about a lame duck President doing something monumentally stupid just because his ego is bruised.

All that said, the military does not make policy decisions-it implements them. That is a written in stone commandment drilled into every officer's head. Should senior commanders forcefully argue their point of view behind close doors? Yes. But when the doors open, you either follow the lawful orders of the elected leaders or you resign. Period. Full stop.

Dnicknames said:

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/top-general-was-so-fearful-trump-might-spark-war-that-he-made-secret-calls-to-his-chinese-counterpart-new-book-says/ar-AAOr86X?ocid=uxbndlbing

Trying to think if there's any equivalent to the Milley call to his China counterparts in US history. Thoughts?

For America's top general to reach out to an adversary around the POTUS…it is back door 25th Amendment stuff.

Perhaps some view this as proof of the deep state, while others are just grateful an adult was in the room.

---

It's terrifying that Gen. Miley thought he needed to do this.

It's reassuring that he was an adult in the room.

As more facts come out, we're going to see we were much closer to losing democracy than we thought.

I think we should be worried about Miley's (and Pelosi's) stability, not Trumps.

Leftist activists can just claim they believe the duly elected president is "crazy" as a justification for all sorts of insubordination and treasonous behavior. Someone is not "crazy" because they hurt your feelings and are mean.

In the end, this could all be embellishment to sell books. But this pattern of behavior was rampant while Trump was president. Meanwhile no one, is questioning the behavior and capacity of the currently obviously impaired occupant in the White House.

C. Jordan said:

---

Dnicknames said:

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/top-general-was-so-fearful-trump-might-spark-war-that-he-made-secret-calls-to-his-chinese-counterpart-new-book-says/ar-AAOr86X?ocid=uxbndlbing

Trying to think if there's any equivalent to the Milley call to his China counterparts in US history. Thoughts?

For America's top general to reach out to an adversary around the POTUS…it is back door 25th Amendment stuff.

Perhaps some view this as proof of the deep state, while others are just grateful an adult was in the room.

---

It's terrifying that Gen. Miley thought he needed to do this.

It's reassuring that he was an adult in the room.

---

What is concerning is that anyone who actually did what is being described would talk to Bob Woodward about it. Spilling the beans on yourself about something like this would make me doubt any claims that you were the adult in the room. That all assumes that what is being reported is actually a fair account of what went down.

None of this is good in any way. None of this is good if the report is true. None of this is good if the report is false.