Ya the "adults" have been back in the room since January and its been nothing but one giant f up after the other since.C. Jordan said:It's terrifying that Gen. Miley thought he needed to do this.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 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.
Mark Milley - Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
18,554 Views |
326 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Osodecentx
this..Booray said:Sam Lowry said: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.4th and Inches said:describe the loop of command in that warning.. bet the president aka commander in chief of the Military authorized itSam Lowry said:We warned Russia of airstrikes in Syria in 2017 to allow them to remove their personnel from the targets.57Bear said:Do you have some specific examples?Sam Lowry said: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.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.
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.
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
I lean the other direction.C. Jordan said:It's terrifying that Gen. Miley thought he needed to do this.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 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.
He was a cowboy doing his own thing or was influenced by people not in his chain of command.
It is terrifying that we had a top level official go rogue
As facts come out, it will continue to show that fear built by the left was a false flag against one of the most peaceful presidents in your lifetime
Honestly, i would say it was bull to sell books but one of the conversations was recorded by a third country intell community
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
"THE ADULT IN THE ROOM"Amal Shuq-Up said: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.C. Jordan said:It's terrifying that Gen. Miley thought he needed to do this.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 reassuring that he was an adult in the room.
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.
Don't sell yourself short. We know the backflips you'll do for government overreach and abuse of power from that projected delusion. This is just the latest.Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said:Good grief….You want to know what coups look like? Military leadership circumventing civilian authority under the guise of security of a country.Sam Lowry said: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.Booray said:Sam Lowry said:We warned Russia of airstrikes in Syria in 2017 to allow them to remove their personnel from the targets.57Bear said:Do you have some specific examples?Sam Lowry said: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.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 am certain Trump authorized that communication. The point isn't whether the communication occurs but who authorizes it.
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.
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.
Milley is a man of enormous courage and character, even if you disagree with his actions.
Milley knew that many would contend he overstepped his authority and had taken extraordinary power for himself, and he weighed that against his belief that he was acting as a good faith precaution, a check that there wasn't a historic rupture in international order, an accidental war or use of nuclear weapons. Welcome to being Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
When he says January 6th parallels the 1905 uprising in Russia and we might have seen "a precursor to something far worse down the road" - that prediction should be a caution for us all.
My perception is we'll be studying the situation as a case study for many years.
Milley knew that many would contend he overstepped his authority and had taken extraordinary power for himself, and he weighed that against his belief that he was acting as a good faith precaution, a check that there wasn't a historic rupture in international order, an accidental war or use of nuclear weapons. Welcome to being Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
When he says January 6th parallels the 1905 uprising in Russia and we might have seen "a precursor to something far worse down the road" - that prediction should be a caution for us all.
My perception is we'll be studying the situation as a case study for many years.
Curious why you doubt it?Booray said:As you know, I despise Trump. But if this happened as reported (I still doubt it), it is a serious failure on Miley's part.Sam Lowry said: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.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 understand that this is alleged, but with all of the modern revelations of abuses by our military, intelligence and bureaucracy, it should be expected, not far-fetched.
Whether it's Snowden, IRS targeting, WMD lies, spying etc, they clearly go rogue.
Do you feel the same way about Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller?Dnicknames said:
Milley is a man of enormous courage and character, even if you disagree with his actions.
Milley has proven to be (yet another) liberal partisan activist in high position of power. He sure seems more friendly to China than Trump which is what is really, really concerning about this thing.Dnicknames said:
Milley is a man of enormous courage and character, even if you disagree with his actions.
Milley knew that many would contend he overstepped his authority and had taken extraordinary power for himself, and he weighed that against his belief that he was acting as a good faith precaution, a check that there wasn't a historic rupture in international order, an accidental war or use of nuclear weapons. Welcome to being Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
When he says January 6th parallels the 1905 uprising in Russia and we might have seen "a precursor to something far worse down the road" - that prediction should be a caution for us all.
My perception is we'll be studying the situation as a case study for many years.
Jan 6 had a large number of fbi paid informants and instigators in the crowd. Some of the worst (most violent offenders) have been let go that were on the fbi payroll. They knew certainly what could happen and, it seems played a role in making it happen.
https://www.revolver.news/2021/06/federal-foreknowledge-jan-6-unindicted-co-conspirators-raise-disturbing-questions/
someone actually doing investigative journalism.
He clearly had conversations, but the exact content of those conversations is unclear from the excerpt I read.Doc Holliday said:Curious why you doubt it?Booray said:As you know, I despise Trump. But if this happened as reported (I still doubt it), it is a serious failure on Miley's part.Sam Lowry said: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.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 understand that this is alleged, but with all of the modern revelations of abuses by our military, intelligence and bureaucracy, it should be expected, not far-fetched.
Whether it's Snowden, IRS targeting, WMD lies, spying etc, they clearly go rogue.
And I don't see the abuses you do. I see situations were we do not have the whole story, I see difficult decisions, I see humans who are fallible having to make those decisions. The vast majority of our military and our intelligence community are dedicated to this country more than a bunch of internet posters could ever hope to be. And they are very good at their jobs.
That was a precursor to the eventually communist take over of Russia and the murder of the entire Romanvo royal family.Dnicknames said:
Milley knew that many would contend he overstepped his authority and had taken extraordinary power for himself....
When he says January 6th parallels the 1905 uprising in Russia and we might have seen "a precursor to something far worse down the road" - that prediction should be a caution for us all.
My perception is we'll be studying the situation as a case study for many years.
If he means that the BLM riots, arson, street fighting, $1 billon in damages, and over 40 murders of this past year and the surrounding of the White House by leftist mobs is a precursor to "something far worse down the road". Then I agree.
If he thinks Jan.6 incident is somehow anything like the 1905 Russian uprising then he is the kind of man armed with just enough history to make him delusional and dangerous.
No wonder this guy bought into CRT (Marxism that takes out the economics and swaps in race) ideology.
I'm not talking about the vast majority of the military or intelligence community. I'm talking about the upper echelon at the highest levels who have failed over and over again.Booray said:He clearly had conversations, but the exact content of those conversations is unclear from the excerpt I read.Doc Holliday said:Curious why you doubt it?Booray said:As you know, I despise Trump. But if this happened as reported (I still doubt it), it is a serious failure on Miley's part.Sam Lowry said: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.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 understand that this is alleged, but with all of the modern revelations of abuses by our military, intelligence and bureaucracy, it should be expected, not far-fetched.
Whether it's Snowden, IRS targeting, WMD lies, spying etc, they clearly go rogue.
And I don't see the abuses you do. I see situations were we do not have the whole story, I see difficult decisions, I see humans who are fallible having to make those decisions. The vast majority of our military and our intelligence community are dedicated to this country more than a bunch of internet posters could ever hope to be. And they are very good at their jobs.
We have a long list of Massive abuses with very little accountability. Trillion dollar "mistakes" that get innocent people killed. Political targeting. 4th amendment violations. Failure to prevent terrorism. Fabricating evidence.
I'm not in the business of romanticizing this idea that the top level feds run on honor and dedication to the country when it's a complete lie.
Look at this BS from just today:
"I and my entire senior leadership team are going to make... sure everybody at the FBI remembers what happened here in heartbreaking detail."
— ABC News (@ABC) September 15, 2021
FBI director Christopher Wray asserts change to come from alleged missteps by FBI in Larry Nassar investigation. https://t.co/tIYjzrXm52 pic.twitter.com/WQAA8ZFuW0
LOL. Isn't that the truth.ATL Bear said:Don't sell yourself short. We know the backflips you'll do for government overreach and abuse of power from that projected delusion. This is just the latest.Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said:Good grief….You want to know what coups look like? Military leadership circumventing civilian authority under the guise of security of a country.Sam Lowry said: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.Booray said:Sam Lowry said:We warned Russia of airstrikes in Syria in 2017 to allow them to remove their personnel from the targets.57Bear said:Do you have some specific examples?Sam Lowry said: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.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 am certain Trump authorized that communication. The point isn't whether the communication occurs but who authorizes it.
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.
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.
When Milley described white supremacy as one of the greatest threats to our country, we were on notice to to never take this man seriously again. Then when he essentially committed treason by going around the president to warn our greatest enemy of a potential impending attack, we learned this man may be mentally compromised and needs to be firedDnicknames said:
When he says January 6th parallels the 1905 uprising in Russia and we might have seen "a precursor to something far worse down the road" - that prediction should be a caution for us all.
Right, that's what a whataboutism is. For the prior 4 years anytime someone compared the Democrats reactions to Trump's actions to their reactions for other situations, people on here would call it a whataboutism. So here we are, me making a whataboutism for your whataboutism.HuMcK said:
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.
Oh yeah, I also need to add the obligatory "Trump is no longer President." Ok, I think we have all of our ducks in a row now.
Wow. Milley admits it all. https://t.co/k1syYtWH3M
— Voted Yes on Recall Cernovich (@Cernovich) September 15, 2021
BREAKING: Gen. Milley spokesman Col. Dave Butler confirms the China call
— Jewish Deplorable (@TrumpJew2) September 15, 2021
Sam, it's still apples and oranges... "Involved enough"... you may want to give your brain a rest from the mental gymnastics.Sam Lowry said:Russia was involved enough to make the warning meaningful. When this was repeated in 2018, also with a warning, they had defense aircraft in the air and subs chasing British subs (which were supported by our planes).Rawhide said: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:We warned Russia of airstrikes in Syria in 2017 to allow them to remove their personnel from the targets.57Bear said:Do you have some specific examples?Sam Lowry said: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.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.
Besides, how about that presidential authorization?
As Booray said, it's the real issue.Rawhide said:Sam, it's still apples and oranges... "Involved enough"... you may want to give your brain a rest from the mental gymnastics.Sam Lowry said:Russia was involved enough to make the warning meaningful. When this was repeated in 2018, also with a warning, they had defense aircraft in the air and subs chasing British subs (which were supported by our planes).Rawhide said: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:We warned Russia of airstrikes in Syria in 2017 to allow them to remove their personnel from the targets.57Bear said:Do you have some specific examples?Sam Lowry said: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.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.
Besides, how about that presidential authorization?
lol... russia russia russia!HuMcK said:
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.
You loon
Thanks for chiming in to demonstrate my point, couldn't have planned it better myself.
If this is true, there's is nothing reassuring about the Joint Chiefs of Staff calling a foreign power to promise to let them know about any action taken against that foreign, without presidential authority.C. Jordan said:It's terrifying that Gen. Miley thought he needed to do this.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 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.
You're really screwed up dude.
If what's been alleged is true....Dnicknames said:
Milley is a man of enormous courage and character, even if you disagree with his actions.
Milley knew that many would contend he overstepped his authority and had taken extraordinary power for himself, and he weighed that against his belief that he was acting as a good faith precaution, a check that there wasn't a historic rupture in international order, an accidental war or use of nuclear weapons. Welcome to being Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
When he says January 6th parallels the 1905 uprising in Russia and we might have seen "a precursor to something far worse down the road" - that prediction should be a caution for us all.
My perception is we'll be studying the situation as a case study for many years.
That's NOT courage and certainly not courage.
He may be a liberal, don't know... but I think he is most likely just greedy and changing with what direction the money blows. With the POS we have in office now, that green wind is blowing from China.BearFan33 said:Milley has proven to be (yet another) liberal partisan activist in high position of power. He sure seems more friendly to China than Trump which is what is really, really concerning about this thing.Dnicknames said:
Milley is a man of enormous courage and character, even if you disagree with his actions.
Milley knew that many would contend he overstepped his authority and had taken extraordinary power for himself, and he weighed that against his belief that he was acting as a good faith precaution, a check that there wasn't a historic rupture in international order, an accidental war or use of nuclear weapons. Welcome to being Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
When he says January 6th parallels the 1905 uprising in Russia and we might have seen "a precursor to something far worse down the road" - that prediction should be a caution for us all.
My perception is we'll be studying the situation as a case study for many years.
Jan 6 had a large number of fbi paid informants and instigators in the crowd. Some of the worst (most violent offenders) have been let go that were on the fbi payroll. They knew certainly what could happen and, it seems played a role in making it happen.
https://www.revolver.news/2021/06/federal-foreknowledge-jan-6-unindicted-co-conspirators-raise-disturbing-questions/
someone actually doing investigative journalism.
Don't let the "it was an insurrection" crowd talk about unity.
.@PressSec pushes back against calls from GOP lawmakers for Milley to resign:
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) September 15, 2021
"I don't think the president is looking for the guidance of members of Congress who stood by as the leader of their party fomented an insurrection." pic.twitter.com/BGWA5Am9K9
Really tiresome and irrelevant.Doc Holliday said:
Don't let the "it was an insurrection" crowd talk about unity..@PressSec pushes back against calls from GOP lawmakers for Milley to resign:
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) September 15, 2021
"I don't think the president is looking for the guidance of members of Congress who stood by as the leader of their party fomented an insurrection." pic.twitter.com/BGWA5Am9K9
This President follows the Constitution and the law. Well, except when he doesn't and he tries to maintain an illegal eviction moratorium or when he refuses to enforce the border laws.
pfft. His effort to parallel a mostly peaceful demonstration into anything other than a mostly peaceful demonstration only serves to show his partisan leanings. Fundamentally unserious.Dnicknames said:
Milley is a man of enormous courage and character, even if you disagree with his actions.
Milley knew that many would contend he overstepped his authority and had taken extraordinary power for himself, and he weighed that against his belief that he was acting as a good faith precaution, a check that there wasn't a historic rupture in international order, an accidental war or use of nuclear weapons. Welcome to being Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
When he says January 6th parallels the 1905 uprising in Russia and we might have seen "a precursor to something far worse down the road" - that prediction should be a caution for us all.
My perception is we'll be studying the situation as a case study for many years.
That said......
we and China each have rather robust networks of satellites covering the earth in real-time imagery, signint, and elint. The term "sneak attack" is obsolete. No such thing. So my vote is that the events described in the book did not happen. No way Milley could have possibly though such was necessary.
And if Milley really was trying to usurp chain of command to interdict what he perceived to be a deranged head of state, then it's Mulley who is suffering from (at worst) derangement or (at least) cooperating with Democrats acting on their own Trump derangement.
And while we're on the subject of derangement, how concerned is Milley over the manifestly mentally incompetent POTUS we have now?
You still haven't pointed it out. Where is this "hard" evidence?HuMcK said:
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.
Agree,whiterock said:pfft. His effort to parallel a mostly peaceful demonstration into anything other than a mostly peaceful demonstration only serves to show his partisan leanings. Fundamentally unserious.Dnicknames said:
Milley is a man of enormous courage and character, even if you disagree with his actions.
Milley knew that many would contend he overstepped his authority and had taken extraordinary power for himself, and he weighed that against his belief that he was acting as a good faith precaution, a check that there wasn't a historic rupture in international order, an accidental war or use of nuclear weapons. Welcome to being Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
When he says January 6th parallels the 1905 uprising in Russia and we might have seen "a precursor to something far worse down the road" - that prediction should be a caution for us all.
My perception is we'll be studying the situation as a case study for many years.
That said......
we and China each have rather robust networks of satellites covering the earth in real-time imagery, signint, and elint. The term "sneak attack" is obsolete. No such thing. So my vote is that the events described in the book did not happen. No way Milley could have possibly though such was necessary.
And if Milley really was trying to usurp chain of command to interdict what he perceived to be a deranged head of state, then it's Mulley who is suffering from (at worst) derangement or (at least) cooperating with Democrats acting on their own Trump derangement.
And while we're on the subject of derangement, how concerned is Milley over the manifestly mentally incompetent POTUS we have now?
My gut tells me Milley just made the whole thing up.
Its the kind of story he knows will play well among DC liberals, the Corporate-Media complex, and blue state "resistance" types.
He is a political operator who knows how to appease the power players in DC...that more than anything is the reason he is now talking about "white supremacy" and "white rage" and using other liberal academic buzz words.
If he really did call up the Chinese out of the blue then we have an insane person on our hands and its not Trump.
Wait, when have you ever made an actual point?HuMcK said:
Thanks for chiming in to demonstrate my point, couldn't have planned it better myself.
Adjust your tin foil and antenna.
GrowlTowel said:You still haven't pointed it out. Where is this "hard" evidence?HuMcK said:
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.
"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr Trump."
"If it's what you say, I love it"
That's irrefutable evidence of Trump's son being offered and accepting help in the 2016 election from the Russian government, in emails confirmed by Don Jr to be real. Other examples to cite include Paul Manafort dealing with Russian agent Konstantin Kilmnik to exchange sensitive campaign documents in 2016, and Rudy Giuliani dealing with Russian agent Adreii Derkach to manufacture a scandal involving Hunter Biden a couple months before Derkach was sanctioned by Trump's StateDept for being a Russian spy in 2020. By 2020 it was so blatant that Giuliani got asked to his face by a journalist why he was meeting with suspected Russian agents after being warned by our own intel agencies not to.
Those are examples involving Trump's family and agents dealing with Russian intelligence in both elections, backed up by documentary evidence and admissions by the parties involved, and it's far from a comprehensive list.
Evidence? All I see is argument.HuMcK said:GrowlTowel said:You still haven't pointed it out. Where is this "hard" evidence?HuMcK said:
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.
"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr Trump."
"If it's what you say, I love it"
That's irrefutable evidence of Trump's son being offered and accepting help in the 2016 election from the Russian government, in emails confirmed by Don Jr to be real. Other examples to cite include Paul Manafort dealing with Russian agent Konstantin Kilmnik to exchange sensitive campaign documents in 2016, and Rudy Giuliani dealing with Russian agent Adreii Derkach to manufacture a scandal involving Hunter Biden a couple months before Derkach was sanctioned by Trump's StateDept for being a Russian spy in 2020. By 2020 it was so blatant that Giuliani got asked to his face by a journalist why he was meeting with suspected Russian agents after being warned by our own intel agencies not to.
Those are examples involving Trump's family and agents dealing with Russian intelligence in both elections, backed up by documentary evidence and admissions by the parties involved, and it's far from a comprehensive list.
You promised "hard" evidence.
LOL. "Attempted coup."Sam Lowry said: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.Booray said:Sam Lowry said:We warned Russia of airstrikes in Syria in 2017 to allow them to remove their personnel from the targets.57Bear said:Do you have some specific examples?Sam Lowry said: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.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 am certain Trump authorized that communication. The point isn't whether the communication occurs but who authorizes it.
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.
What firepower were the "revolutionaries" expecting?
BTW, if we take the article at "face value," as you say, it rules out your possibility no. 1. When you are making "secret calls" to China because of fear Trump might spark war, any reasonable person would call that unauthorized and undermining Trump.
The only scenario where this is acceptable is one where Trump has lost the election, but in an attempt to stay in power wants to take us to war with another superpower. In that sole case, with an actual madman at the helm, I could understand if we wanted to warn China that it may look like Trump is trying to launch nukes, but we will take care of this and stop the madman.
Obviously the leadership of our armed forces discussed countless times how to check Trump's insane ignorance, and numerous times had to coordinate to talk him out of bad ideas like bombing Iran. That is always acceptable when someone so stupid is given the nuke codes.
Obviously the leadership of our armed forces discussed countless times how to check Trump's insane ignorance, and numerous times had to coordinate to talk him out of bad ideas like bombing Iran. That is always acceptable when someone so stupid is given the nuke codes.
Porteroso said:
The only scenario where this is acceptable is one where Trump has lost the election, but in an attempt to stay in power wants to take us to war with another superpower. In that sole case, with an actual madman at the helm, I could understand if we wanted to warn China that it may look like Trump is trying to launch nukes, but we will take care of this and stop the madman.
Obviously the leadership of our armed forces discussed countless times how to check Trump's insane ignorance, and numerous times had to coordinate to talk him out of bad ideas like bombing Iran. That is always acceptable when someone so stupid is given the nuke codes.
I award you zero points.
You should read up on who was pushing Trump to attack Iran.Porteroso said:
The only scenario where this is acceptable is one where Trump has lost the election, but in an attempt to stay in power wants to take us to war with another superpower. In that sole case, with an actual madman at the helm, I could understand if we wanted to warn China that it may look like Trump is trying to launch nukes, but we will take care of this and stop the madman.
Obviously the leadership of our armed forces discussed countless times how to check Trump's insane ignorance, and numerous times had to coordinate to talk him out of bad ideas like bombing Iran. That is always acceptable when someone so stupid is given the nuke codes.
Hint....it was the same people trying to push Obama to attack Iran.
Trump resisted those calls.
Again, painting Trump as unstable and aggressive on foreign policy is outlandish.
He is the first President in since the 1980s who didn't get us into a war or foreign "peace keeping" operation.
The establishment hated him for that.