America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 weeks ago by CelticBomber. 80 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Top general was so fearful Trump might spark war that he made secret calls to his Chinese counterpar
rfenst Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 35,007
‘Peril,’ by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, reveals that Gen. Mark A. Milley called his Chinese counterpart before the election and after Jan. 6 in a bid to avert armed conflict.

WAPO Book Review
Top general was so fearful Trump might spark war that he made secret calls to his Chinese counterpart, new book says
‘Peril,’ by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, reveals that Gen. Mark A. Milley called his Chinese counterpart before the election and after Jan. 6 in a bid to avert armed conflict.

Twice in the final months of the Trump administration, the country’s top military officer was so fearful that the president’s actions might spark a war with China that he moved urgently to avert armed conflict.

In a pair of secret phone calls, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assured his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army, that the United States would not strike, according to a new book by Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward and national political reporter Robert Costa.

One call took place on Oct. 30, 2020, four days before the election that unseated President Trump, and the other on Jan. 8, 2021, two days after the Capitol siege carried out by his supporters in a quest to cancel the vote.

The first call was prompted by Milley’s review of intelligence suggesting the Chinese believed the United States was preparing to attack. That belief, the authors write, was based on tensions over military exercises in the South China Sea, and deepened by Trump’s belligerent rhetoric toward China.

“General Li, I want to assure you that the American government is stable and everything is going to be okay,” Milley told him. “We are not going to attack or conduct any kinetic operations against you.”

In the book’s account, Milley went so far as to pledge he would alert his counterpart in the event of a U.S. attack, stressing the rapport they’d established through a backchannel. “General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.”

Li took the chairman at his word, the authors write in the book, “Peril,” which is set to be released next week.

In the second call, placed to address Chinese fears about the events of Jan. 6, Li wasn’t as easily assuaged, even after Milley promised him, “We are 100 percent steady. Everything’s fine. But democracy can be sloppy sometimes.”

Li remained rattled, and Milley, who did not relay the conversation to Trump, according to the book, understood why. The chairman, 62 at the time and chosen by Trump in 2018, believed the president had suffered a mental decline after the election, the authors write, a view he communicated to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a phone call on Jan. 8. He agreed with her evaluation that Trump was unstable, according to a call transcript obtained by the authors.

Believing that China could lash out if it felt at risk from an unpredictable and vengeful American president, Milley took action. The same day, he called the admiral overseeing the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, the military unit responsible for Asia and the Pacific region, and recommended postponing the military exercises, according to the book. The admiral complied.

Milley also summoned senior officers to review the procedures for launching nuclear weapons, saying the president alone could give the order — but, crucially, that he, Milley, also had to be involved. Looking each in the eye, Milley asked the officers to affirm that they had understood, the authors write, in what he considered an “oath.”

The chairman knew that he was “pulling a Schlesinger,” the authors write, resorting to measures resembling the ones taken in August 1974 by James R. Schlesinger, the secretary of defense at the time. Schlesinger told military officials to check with him and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs before carrying out orders from President Richard M. Nixon, who was facing impeachment at the time.

Though Milley went furthest in seeking to stave off a national security crisis, his alarm was shared throughout the highest ranks of the administration, the authors reveal. CIA Director Gina Haspel, for instance, reportedly told Milley, “We are on the way to a right-wing coup.”

The book also provides new reporting on President Biden’s campaign — waged to unseat a man he told a top adviser “isn’t really an American president” — and his early struggle to govern. During a March 5 phone call to discuss Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus plan, his first major legislative undertaking, the president reportedly told Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va), “if you don’t come along, you’re really f---ing me.” The measure ultimately cleared the Senate through an elaborate sequencing of amendments designed to satisfy the centrist Democrat.

The president’s frustration with Manchin is matched only by his debt to House Majority Whip Rep. James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, whose endorsement before that state’s primary propelled Biden to the nomination and gave rise to promises about how he would govern.

When Clyburn offered his endorsement in February 2020, it came with conditions, according to the book. One was that Biden would commit to naming a Black woman to the Supreme Court, if given the opportunity. During a debate two days later, Clyburn went backstage during a break to urge Biden to reveal his intentions for the Supreme Court that night. Biden issued the pledge in his final answer, and the congressman endorsed him the next day.

“Peril,” the authors say, is based on interviews with more than 200 people, conducted on the condition they not be named as sources. Exact quotations or conclusions are drawn from the participant in the described event, a colleague with direct knowledge or relevant documents, according to an author’s note. Trump and Biden declined to be interviewed.

The Post's White House team discusses what was really going on inside the White House as President Biden attempted to end America's 20-year war in Afghanistan. (Zach Purser Brown/The Washington Post)
On Afghanistan, the book examines how Biden’s experience as vice president shaped his approach to the withdrawal. Convinced that President Barack Obama had been manipulated by his own commanders, Biden vowed privately in 2009, “The military doesn’t f--- around with me.”

“Peril” also documents how Biden’s top advisers spent the spring weighing, but ultimately rejecting, alternatives to a full withdrawal. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin returned from a NATO meeting in March envisioning ways to extend the mission, including through a “gated” withdrawal seeking diplomatic leverage. But they came to see that meaningful leverage would require a more expansive commitment, and instead came back around to a full exit.

Milley, for his part, took what the authors describe as a deferential approach to Biden on Afghanistan, in contrast to his earlier efforts to constrain Trump. The book reveals recent remarks the chairman delivered to the Joint Chiefs in which he said, “Here’s a couple of rules of the road here that we’re going to follow. One is you never, ever ever box in a president of the United States. You always give him decision space.” Referring to Biden, he said, “You’re dealing with a seasoned politician here who has been in Washington, D.C., 50 years, whatever it is.”

His decision just months earlier to place himself between Trump and potential war was triggered by several important events — a phone call, a photo op and a refusal to rule out war with another adversary, Iran.

The immediate motivation, according to the book, was the Jan. 8 call from Pelosi, who demanded to know, “What precautions are available to prevent an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or from accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike?” Milley assured her that there were “a lot of checks in the system.”

The call transcript obtained by the authors shows Pelosi telling Milley, referring to Trump, “He’s crazy. You know he’s crazy. … He’s crazy and what he did yesterday is further evidence of his craziness.” Milley replied, “I agree with you on everything.”

Milley’s resolve was deepened by the events of June 1, 2020, when he felt Trump had used him as part of a photo op in his walk across Lafayette Square during protests that began after the killing of George Floyd. The chairman came to see his role as ensuring that, “We’re not going to turn our guns on the American people and we’re not going to have a ‘Wag the Dog’ scenario overseas,” the authors quote him saying privately.

Trump’s posture, not just to China but also to Iran, tested that promise. In discussions about Iran’s nuclear program, Trump declined to rule out striking the country, at times even displaying curiosity about the prospect, according to the book. Haspel was so alarmed after a meeting in November that she called Milley to say, “This is a highly dangerous situation. We are going to lash out for his ego?”

Trump’s fragile ego drove many decisions by the nation’s leaders, from lawmakers to the vice president, according to the book. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was so worried that a call from President-elect Biden would send Trump into a fury that the then-Majority Leader used a backchannel to fend off Biden. He asked Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, formerly the No. 2 Senate Republican, to ask Sen. Christopher A. Coons, the Democrat of Delaware and close Biden ally, to tell Biden not to call him.

So intent was Pence on being Trump’s loyal second-in-command — and potential successor — that he asked confidants if there were ways he could accede to Trump’s demands and avoid certifying the results of the election on Jan. 6. In late December, the authors reveal, Pence called Dan Quayle, a former vice president and fellow Indiana Republican, for advice.

Quayle was adamant, according to the authors. “Mike, you have no flexibility on this. None. Zero. Forget it. Put it away,” he said.

But Pence pressed him, the authors write, asking if there were any grounds to pause the certification because of ongoing legal challenges. Quayle was unmoved, and Pence ultimately agreed, according to the book.

When Pence said he planned to certify the results, the president lashed out. In the Oval Office on Jan. 5, the authors write, Pence told Trump he could not thwart the process, that his role was simply to “open the envelopes.”

“I don’t want to be your friend anymore if you don’t do this,” Trump replied, according to the book, later telling his vice president, “You’ve betrayed us. I made you. You were nothing.”

Within days, Trump was out of office, his governing power reduced to nothing. But if stability had returned to Washington, Milley feared it would be short-lived, the authors write.

The general saw parallels between Jan. 6 and the 1905 Russian Revolution, which set off unrest throughout the Russian Empire and, though it failed, helped create the conditions for the October Revolution of 1917, in which the Bolsheviks executed a successful coup that set up the world’s first communist state. Vladimir Lenin, who led the revolution, called 1905 a “dress rehearsal.”

A similar logic could apply with Jan. 6, Milley thought as he wrestled with the meaning of that day, telling senior staff: “What you might have seen was a precursor to something far worse down the road.”

General Miley needs to be replaced for undermining Trump, even if one just assumes argue endo, that what he did was 100% right at the time. Can't have rogue Generals even if they have great back channels with our adversaries.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 50,917
And THAT'S why you have a civilian in charge of the military! It puts the check into a general thinking he has a private army which would lead into a coup...but I digress...History and all.

This is awfully close to Treason and he should be relieved of command and court-martialed!
rfenst Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 35,007
DrMaddVibe wrote:
And THAT'S why you have a civilian in charge of the military! It puts the check into a general thinking he has a private army which would lead into a coup...but I digress...History and all.

This is awfully close to Treason and he should be relieved of command and court-martialed!

I don't think it is quite that bad, but he should be told to resign or be fired- unless one wants someone in the job who might do this on Biden's watch.
Dg west deptford Online
#4 Posted:
Joined: 05-25-2019
Posts: 1,927
So embarrassing, serious people are laughing at us.
fiddler898 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-15-2009
Posts: 3,761
DrMaddVibe wrote:
And THAT'S why you have a civilian in charge of the military! It puts the check into a general thinking he has a private army which would lead into a coup...but I digress...History and all.

This is awfully close to Treason and he should be relieved of command and court-martialed!


No, THAT'S why you have grown-ups in the room.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 50,917
fiddler898 wrote:
No, THAT'S why you have grown-ups in the room.



You want a woke general on the Joint Chief of Staff directing military policy while back-channelling enemies of state to include even tipping them off in the event of an attack?

This is the same POS that green lit the drone strike to divert attention from Pedo Joe.

This administration isn't grown up...it's over the hill and needs to be put down for the destruction they're doing to this nation!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 50,917
Dg west deptford wrote:
So embarrassing, serious people are laughing at us.


Can you imagine what Xi and Putin were thinking when they talked to this clown?

RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS!
HockeyDad Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 41,618
Basically while people were distracted by a Viking in the Capitol and Nancy Pelosi and General Milley put a real coup in place as a contingency plan. That’s some Deep State treason stuff and we’re not even hiding it.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 50,917
Buffalo hat man scary!

Cross dressing lipstick general war hero!

That's the Democrat way!
rfenst Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 35,007
HockeyDad wrote:
Basically while people were distracted by a Viking in the Capitol Nancy Pelosi and General Milley put a real coup in place as a contingency plan. That’s some Deep State treason stuff and we’re not even hiding it.

They should have followed procedure, which is to bring the matter up to the Cabinet. Not that they would have done/did anything.
MACS Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 72,698
HockeyDad wrote:
Basically while people were distracted by a Viking in the Capitol and Nancy Pelosi and General Milley put a real coup in place as a contingency plan. That’s some Deep State treason stuff and we’re not even hiding it.


*sigh*

Damn shame...
ZRX1200 Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 55,765
I remember when Democrats pretended to care about America.
Whistlebritches Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 20,752
I think a tall tree and a short rope just might leave the rest of our military leadership truly WOKE
frankj1 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 39,461
just a general comment/question...

what if it was more Night of Camp David than Seven days in May?
Wouldn't we hope someone would step up? Theoretically, that is.

all of us are outside the inner circle yet we all are certain we know the scoop.

bgz Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 10,988
Wow... you guys really can't see how bad that idiot was can you?

He really was that sh*tty of a president.

Quite possibly the sh*ttiest of all time... you know how he does it, go big or go home.
bgz Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 10,988
Trump was probably telling "jokes" about starting world war 3 you know... insinuating that if someone would bomb them, nobody would miss them anyway...

Or some sh*t like that, but he was only joking... you know how he does.
rfenst Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 35,007
I have no doubt Trump was missing in action. The Cabinet faield us and I do think the General probably "did the right thing", but that's not what his job requires of him. He is supposed to give advice when asked, to report up the chain of command and to follow standard operating procedure. But, it does make me wonder whether in the real world things really work the way the General was acting. Maybe I have just seen to many movies where characters use "back-channel" diplomacy.Think
DrMaddVibe Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 50,917
Frying pan Frying pan Frying pan

Lefties that have never served in the military talking all Dr. Strangelove...how cute
rfenst Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 35,007
LOVE!!! that movie.
ZRX1200 Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 55,765
Yeah the whole, forewarning our largest global advisory (not enemy) of an attack, no biggie.

Trump baaaaadddddddd……

And if soldiers got killed due to the claimed promise of treason?
bgz Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 10,988
rfenst wrote:
I have no doubt Trump was missing in action. The Cabinet faield us and I do think the General probably "did the right thing", but that's not what his job requires of him. He is supposed to give advice when asked, to report up the chain of command and to follow standard operating procedure. But, it does make me wonder whether in the real world things really work the way the General was acting. Maybe I have just seen to many movies where characters use "back-channel" diplomacy.Think


I've long sudspected the president is more or less a mouth piece and cannot do a whole lot of damage. Trump shot that sh*t down in my brain. We need some one that is at least half way competent in there... someone half way reasonable. He showed how much damage a high functioning narcissist can do in that position.

Usually it's our enemies our generals are afraid of... clearly they were afraid of Trump. It shouldn't be that way.
bgz Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 10,988
ZRX1200 wrote:
Yeah the whole, forewarning our largest global advisory (not enemy) of an attack, no biggie.

Trump baaaaadddddddd……

And if soldiers got killed due to the claimed promise of treason?


Yes... Trump bad.

If soldiers got killed, it would be Trump's fault... and the braindead among our population would still cheer for his narcissistic azz.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 50,917
ZRX1200 wrote:
Yeah the whole, forewarning our largest global advisory (not enemy) of an attack, no biggie.

Trump baaaaadddddddd……

And if soldiers got killed due to the claimed promise of treason?



BUT...when Biden alerts the Taliban and closes military airbases it's still Trump's fault? Frying pan

Because Col Custe, er Biden's circle the wagons retreat 13 US servicemen were allowed to die and 9 loyal Afghans took a Predator drone up the ass it's still Trump's fault? Frying pan

I don't think Biden has ever played Stratego much less Risk but Biden's airlift from Afghanistan a success and defends decision to end ‘forever war’ is an accomplishment??? Frying pan

I spent an hour last night going over both of Trump's impeachment trials. Yet, Biden is getting a pass?
frankj1 Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 39,461
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Frying pan Frying pan Frying pan

Lefties that have never served in the military talking all Dr. Strangelove...how cute

either shin splints or bone spurs...
CelticBomber Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,412
rfenst wrote:
I have no doubt Trump was missing in action. The Cabinet faield us and I do think the General probably "did the right thing", but that's not what his job requires of him. He is supposed to give advice when asked, to report up the chain of command and to follow standard operating procedure. But, it does make me wonder whether in the real world things really work the way the General was acting. Maybe I have just seen to many movies where characters use "back-channel" diplomacy.Think


According to whom? Building back channels to build relationships with counterparts is absolutely part of the job.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 50,917
CelticBomber wrote:
According to whom? Building back channels to build relationships with counterparts is absolutely part of the job.



Eat another shovel!

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Stogie1020 Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 12-19-2019
Posts: 2,056
CelticBomber wrote:
According to whom? Building back channels to build relationships with counterparts is absolutely part of the job.

Not when it contravenes the chain of command. Miley does not get to decide what U.S. Foreign Policy is. Did you vote for him?
CelticBomber Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,412
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Eat another shovel!

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


What does this have to do with my statement that building back channels is part of the job? You've lost your mind. You've gone so far down the rabbit hole that ANY attempt at conversation sends you off the deep end. I didn't defend or condemn the guy. I commented on something Robert said. That's it. What is wrong with you?
CelticBomber Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,412
Stogie1020 wrote:
Not when it contravenes the chain of command. Miley does not get to decide what U.S. Foreign Policy is. Did you vote for him?


Did you vote for any General or Flag staff? Any State Dept. appointee? Are you saying that all diplomacy goes through the President? Do you know how many appointees there are in the diplomatic corps or how many people those appointees just hire off the street without ever appearing on a ballot? Again you're arguing with yourself. Building back channels does not contravene the chain of command. It's part of the job. That's the only comment I made.
Stogie1020 Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 12-19-2019
Posts: 2,056
CelticBomber wrote:
Did you vote for any General or Flag staff? Any State Dept. appointee? Are you saying that all diplomacy goes through the President? Do you know how many appointees there are in the diplomatic corps or how many people those appointees just hire off the street without ever appearing on a ballot? Again you're arguing with yourself. Building back channels does not contravene the chain of command. It's part of the job. That's the only comment I made.


And EVERY one of them should be working to enact POTUS' plan for diplomacy, not their own. If POTUS wants to bolster NATO forces but the SOS is secretly calling other NATO leaders/generals telling them that we hate NATO and will be pulling out shortly, you would be OK with that? Because that's what you seem to be saying. Diplomats can operate based on their own agenda even when it contravenes the POTUS? Hell no.
CelticBomber Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,412
Stogie1020 wrote:
And EVERY one of them should be working to enact POTUS' plan for diplomacy, not their own. If PORUS wants to bolster NATO forces but the SOS is secretly calling other NATO leaders/generals telling them that we hate NATO and will be pulling out shortly, you would be OK with that? Because that's what you seem to be saying. Diplomats can operate based on their own agenda even when it contravenes the POTUS? Hell no.



Why do you hate America so much?

What I seem to be saying and what I said are the same. Building back channels is part of the job. There are lots of people we don't elect involved in diplomacy. All the rest is in your own head. I haven't mentioned this general or what he did once.
Stogie1020 Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 12-19-2019
Posts: 2,056
CelticBomber wrote:
Why do you hate America so much?

What I seem to be saying and what I said are the same. Building back channels is part of the job. There are lots of people we don't elect involved in diplomacy. All the rest is in your own head. I haven't mentioned this general or what he did once.

And yet CB (and you are running to his defense here) seemingly dismiss the absurdity of a general "building back channels" to the DIRECT CONTRAVENTION of POTUS' foreign policy.

If the General was so appalled by POTUS' foreign policy, he has the option to resign and go on a book tour slamming the POTUS all he wants. He does not have the authority to undermine the foreign policy, through back channels or not, of the person elected to the highest office in the U.S.

The back channel is not the issue, it's the acing in opposition to the POTUS, however that occurs.

And, FTR, America stole my lunch money in the third grade, so that's why I hate it. I hold grudges.
CelticBomber Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,412
Stogie1020 wrote:
And yet CB (and you are running to his defense here) seemingly dismiss the absurdity of a general "building back channels" to the DIRECT CONTRAVENTION of POTUS' foreign policy.

If the General was so appalled by POTUS' foreign policy, he has the option to resign and go on a book tour slamming the POTUS all he wants. He does not have the authority to undermine the foreign policy, through back channels or not, of the person elected to the highest office in the U.S.

The back channel is not the issue, it's the acing in opposition to the POTUS, however that occurs.

And, FTR, America stole my lunch money in the third grade, so that's why I hate it. I hold grudges.


That was the ONLY issue I commented on. Robert said back channels break the chain of command and I said no, they are part of the job. That's it.

From that you and crazy chick assumed I supported what this guy did and support diplomats setting their own agenda's. You're arguing with me about something I never said. You both took one minor comment I made and are turning it into a reason to virtue signal.

You guys sure you aren't secret snowflakes? When you hold a grudge don't hold it by it's tail. They're delicate.
Stogie1020 Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 12-19-2019
Posts: 2,056
CelticBomber wrote:
That was the ONLY issue I commented on. Robert said back channels break the chain of command and I said no, they are part of the job. That's it.

From that you and crazy chick assumed I supported what this guy did and support diplomats setting their own agenda's. You're arguing with me about something I never said. You both took one minor comment I made and are turning it into a reason to virtue signal.

You guys sure you aren't secret snowflakes? When you hold a grudge don't hold it by it's tail. They're delicate.

Well, you sent me a damn FORM LETTER when I had a customer service problem... DID YOU EXPECT ME TO BE HAPPY???
CelticBomber Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,412
Stogie1020 wrote:
Well, you sent me a damn FORM LETTER when I had a customer service problem... DID YOU EXPECT ME TO BE HAPPY???



All the others meant nothing to me. You know you're the only one for me. whip
HockeyDad Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 41,618
CelticBomber is OK with treason.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 50,917
CelticBomber wrote:
What does this have to do with my statement that building back channels is part of the job? You've lost your mind. You've gone so far down the rabbit hole that ANY attempt at conversation sends you off the deep end. I didn't defend or condemn the guy. I commented on something Robert said. That's it. What is wrong with you?



You and your opinions are wrong but you already know that.

The general is not the Sec of Def.. Any order would be communicated from the President to the Sec. to the general. He's also not the Sec. of State. He doesn't need a back channel to kill opposing forces and blow stuff up.
CelticBomber Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,412
HockeyDad wrote:
CelticBomber is OK with treason.


I don't know what you mean... comrade. Anxious



CelticBomber Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,412
DrMaddVibe wrote:
You and your opinions are wrong but you already know that.

The general is not the Sec of Def.. Any order would be communicated from the President to the Sec. to the general. He's also not the Sec. of State. He doesn't need a back channel to kill opposing forces and blow stuff up.


"Tampax believes you should decide what life on your period looks like. As a crazy woman bikes through town or tries to have a coherent thought, Tampax says its Pearl tampons offer protection for your heavy days and smooth removal for your light days."

I think I can get you a coupon.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 50,917
CelticBomber wrote:
"Tampax believes you should decide what life on your period looks like. As a crazy woman bikes through town or tries to have a coherent thought, Tampax says its Pearl tampons offer protection for your heavy days and smooth removal for your light days."

I think I can get you a coupon.


and another shovel to the back of your head...


https://www.zerohedge.com/political/should-general-milley-be-relieved-duty
ZRX1200 Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 55,765
“Military intelligence”


Mellow
bgz Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 10,988
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Eat another shovel!

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


Pretty sure defending the constitution is more important than being the president's b*tch.
bgz Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 10,988
You would rather have a general go to war because his narcissistic boss is throwing a temper tantrum than defend Americans and defend the constitution.

Everyone of you that holds that opinion should be ashamed of yourself.

Since when do we shame integrity? You would be applauding a general that did something similar with Biden... tell me I'm wrong (I'm not wrong).

Fools.
HockeyDad Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 41,618
bgz wrote:
Pretty sure defending the constitution is more important than being the president's b*tch.


If he did what is alleged he was not defending the constitution.
HockeyDad Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 41,618
bgz wrote:
You would rather have a general go to war because his narcissistic boss is throwing a temper tantrum than defend Americans and defend the constitution.

Everyone of you that holds that opinion should be ashamed of yourself.

Since when do we shame integrity? You would be applauding a general that did something similar with Biden... tell me I'm wrong (I'm not wrong).

Fools.


You are wrong.
CelticBomber Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,412
DrMaddVibe wrote:
and another shovel to the back of your head...


"We're gonna need a bigger shovel."

Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies. Farewell and adieu to you ladies of Spain. For we’ve received orders for to sail back to Boston. And so never more shall we see you again. Whistle
rfenst Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 35,007
Would like some back-ground info on whether generals ordinarily have back channel relationships and if so, what they are like...



Addendum: Back Chanel relationships are known as "Track Two Diplomacy". Lots of academic/theoretical stuff can be found as well as some historical examples of it...
Dg west deptford Online
#48 Posted:
Joined: 05-25-2019
Posts: 1,927
Imagine if the generals didn't abandon Bagram or Kabul or 80 BILLION in my tax dollars when Houseplant ordered it.

It would've been understandable & appreciated by those that'd still be alive to say the least but...

I'd condemn it just like Milley.
There's something really off with this woke looser.

Serious people are laughing at us seeing we'll soon destroy US from within
delta1 Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 26,289
so...ummmm....this event being triggered by a prevailing sense among many rational people close to the POTUS that he was unhinged and capable of some sort of calamitous actions to remain in power after losing the election is not the least bit unsettling...

as if unleashing the POTUS's minions at the nation's Capitol on Jan. 6 to prevent the certification of said election is normal...

the same guy who floated the rational idea of mobilizing the military to quell domestic protests...



just a "woke looser"...
DrMaddVibe Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 50,917
HockeyDad wrote:
If he did what is alleged he was not defending the constitution.



Have you heard him deny it? Not a peep. Lawsuits a flying? Nope.

He's just like that rat **** Vindman and even he said he has to go!

Rats eating rats being defended by bleeting sheep with Joy Behar advertising for Tampax and Spain thrown in for comedic relief!
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>