Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, September 16, 2021

Josh Marshall: It is important to remember [in the final weeks of the Trump administration] there was no Senate-confirmed Secretary of Defense. In substantive ways the legitimate chain of command had already been eroded or broken. At the time the President was already involved in a slow motion coup and them a kinetic attempt to overthrow the republic using an armed mob of his supporters.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The ability of a renegade President to reach down into command structure of the military and issue an illegitimate order was much higher than it normally would be.

[M]y understanding at least is that Milley was acting on intelligence which suggested China believed we might be about to launch a military attack. Just what did that intelligence say and how credible was it? We can't evaluate Milley's actions without knowing more about that.

The other point is that Milley appeared to be acting on the belief that Trump was dangerously unstable and capable of committing grave crimes either out of spite or in an effort to retain his hold on power. So we need to know just what information he was operating on. What had he seen? What had he been told? Again, we can't evaluate his actions without those details. There's a very good chance those details are much worse than we anticipate.

In short, we can't evaluate Milley's actions which are certainly highly irregular without a searching investigation of the events of the winter of 2020-21. It's almost comical to think we can do so without one.

Based on what we know I think Milley was operating within his oath. But let's find out the details. It's important not only for evaluating Milley's actions. But it also will force us to contend with the unfinished business of Trump's attempted coup which too many of us are trying to sweep under the rug.

I've yet to see a single post that's been critical of Milley even mention Trump's role in the series of events and non events.

One cannot be properly or effectively judged without an equal dissection of the other.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-15 10:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

context: from the book: "I Alone Can Fix It". www.cnn.com

#2 | Posted by ichiro at 2021-09-15 11:39 PM | Reply

He should be forcibly retired until such time as we can figure out whether or not his communicating with china like that constitutes treason.

He may have to be executed or he may have to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize I can't tell.

#3 | Posted by Tor at 2021-09-15 11:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Congressional Medal of Honor.

#4 | Posted by bored at 2021-09-16 12:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Oh, and give him a big military parade with jets that fly over Mad-a-Lardo

#5 | Posted by bored at 2021-09-16 12:04 AM | Reply | Funny: 3

#3

But the Pentagon - while refusing to comment on the veracity of the book's claims - defended Milley's actions Wednesday as "not uncommon at all."

"I see nothing in what I've read that would cause any concern," Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told reporters, adding that "it is not only common, it's expected" that Milley or any chairman of the Joint Chiefs would have conversations with his counterparts in adversary nations "to reduce the risk of miscalculation and conflict."

John Bolton, who served as national security adviser under Trump, also came to Milley's defense.

"His patriotism is unquestioned," Bolton said in a statement, noting that Milley would have been under enormous pressure after November's election as Trump refused to accept his loss. He said he would be "very surprised" if others in national security roles "were not fully aware of General Milley's actions" and "fully concurred in them."

www.washingtonpost.com

There were 15 people on both videoconference calls Milley held with his Chinese counterpart, one on October 30 and another on January 8 -- including a representative from the State Department, according to one defense official. The read-out and notes from the calls were shared with the intelligence community and the interagency, the official said.

www.cnn.com

There is no reason for Milley to step down for simply doing what his superiors ordered him to do, especially when what he did protected the United States from a potential attack from China.
Biden comes to Milley's defense after revelation top general, fearing Trump, conferred with China to avert war

www.washingtonpost.com

#6 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-16 12:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

When this shakes out a bit more, it will be surprising if Miley isn't found to have acted within the guardrails and well within his authority. I'm far more concerned about lickspittle yes-men ad yes-women enabling a mentally unbalanced president.

#7 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2021-09-16 06:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Milley-PRC Gen phone call was legal per 2017 Trump policy called "Joint Strategic Dialog Mechanism:"
www.defense.gov

#8 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2021-09-16 07:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Miley's call was perfect!

And since we are not at war with China, treason isn't an option either.
China has favored trading status, not really an enemy but an adversary at this point.

#9 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2021-09-16 08:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Medal of Freedom, obviously.

#10 | Posted by Zed at 2021-09-16 08:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

If China was worried because of their intel, that means someone in the administration was communicating with them, and that someone was also close to Trump. Otherwise, the Chinese would have had a hard time believing the intel. This points to a mole in the administration, perhaps in the White House. Trump's team was well-known to be made up of goofballs, mouth-breathers, kooks and other people who should not have been holding the levers of power. It would be no surprise if there were compromised people near Trump.

Where did Milley get his intel? That would be top secret, and unlikely to be disclosed anytime soon, unless and even if it disclosed a Chinese spy in the Trump Administration. Milley certainly would be loath to tell Congress--even in secret--who his source was, since that person would be outed by the Dem members hearing the info, as a way to get at Trump and possibly put someone in jail.

Taken one way, Milley knew about spies in the White House who blabbed to their Chinese handlers. Spies in the Trump White House. How many were there?

#11 | Posted by catdog at 2021-09-16 09:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Taken one way, Milley knew about spies in the White House who blabbed to their Chinese handlers. Spies in the Trump White House. How many were there?
#11 | POSTED BY CATDOG"

Maybe they were the chicom spies discovered working for madam fineswine.

#12 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2021-09-16 09:48 AM | Reply

Republicans in Congress should be very careful about demanding that we get to the bottom of what Milley was doing and why, because in order to answer those questions, rocks will have to be overturned and they may not like what crawls out from under them since some of that vermin might be sitting next to them in the House and Senate chambers.

OCU

#13 | Posted by OCUser at 2021-09-16 11:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#13 I think Moscow Mitch is smart enough to know better than to delve into this as it will expose just how ------- crazy Metamucil Mussolini really is. Qevin is not that bright and is far more beholden to him to know better. The question is, will trumptards care about the revelations? I say no. They don't care just so long as he punishes the gays, libruls, mexicans, etc. They are as evil, corrupt and immoral as he is. One needs to look no further than the guy who sent package bombs to CNN or the recent one who murdered a woman and shot her husband for voting for Biden. These people are truly sick ---- and there are more of them than anyone knows.

#14 | Posted by Nixon at 2021-09-16 11:56 AM | Reply

He took an oath to protect the constitution from all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC.

He did his job.

#15 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-09-16 12:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Let's pretend for one second that what Milley did was in any way "treason". (It of course is ridiculous to believe that but let's run with it for a moment.) Does anyone in their right frame of mind doubt for even one nanosecond that Milley's so-called treasonous act was the far, far, far lesser evil than Trump possibly unilaterally launching a surprise nuclear strike on China? Or even than the possibility that China might preemptively attack out of reasonable fear of what Trump might do? This is so clearly a situation where Milley took the correct action that it blows my mind right wingers are actually trying to turn this into an issue.

#16 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-09-16 02:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

it blows my mind right wingers are actually trying to turn this into an issue.

#16 | Posted by moder8

They are killing their own kids with covid because they're butthurt that their cult leader lost an election.

Nothing about them should blow your mind anymore.

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-09-16 03:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I am thinking at least The Fickle Finger of Fate Award for sure.

#18 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-09-16 05:10 PM | Reply

Re
#12

Maybe it was another one of them Perfect Phone Calls.

Probably only Stable Geniuses can recognize them.

#19 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-09-16 05:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

This is so clearly a situation where Milley took the correct action that it blows my mind right wingers are actually trying to turn this into an issue.
#16 | POSTED BY MODER8

When a political party has ZERO policy stances, save for 'anti-abortion,' they're forced to turn to hyperbole and bad-faith arguments. They've turned muckraking into a monetary boon.

#20 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 05:45 PM | Reply

What Milley did was treason, it is plain and simple. In fact, Pelosi's comments may also constitute treason as well. The only question is will the dems call for the punishments associated with treason that they have been screaming about for the last 4 years.

#21 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-16 06:25 PM | Reply

"Treason" for GQPers is anything that doesn't cut their way. They've debased langauge so much (hiya Frank Luntz), they can't even agree on simple terms anymore.

#22 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2021-09-16 06:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"What Milley did was treason,"

There is no doubt this is true. Trump may be ------ up as a soup sandwich, but a general countermanding the president's authority as commander in chief is undeniably treason. Usurping the authority of one's superior is also forbidden by the UCMJ and is a court marshallable offense. Like it or not, Trump was Milley's superior.

#23 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 06:34 PM | Reply

#23 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

In a vacuum, you'd have a point. Since this took place outside of a vacuum, your point falls flat on its face.

#24 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 06:39 PM | Reply

"#23 | POSTED BY JAKESTER"

Yes, it is a clear cut case of treason for Milley. The gray area was Pelosi. If you take her words as commands, she was attempting to enact a coup as well. It is a dangerous precedent so both should face the full force of the law.

Given our incompetent government, I suspect charges to be filed 5 years from now when Pelosi has already descended to her fiery afterlife just like Durham has just done years too late on a similar clear cut case.

#25 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-16 06:40 PM | Reply

How dare the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs take steps to prevent a madman President from starting a nuclear war!

Signed,
"Liberals" and "Independents"

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-16 06:44 PM | Reply

Yes, it is a clear cut case of treason for Milley.

Is the US in a state of war with any nation right now? Then it's not treason. Treason has a specific definition tied to an active state of war, not what you want it to be.

#27 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-16 06:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#24 - I'll ask again: Why aren't you addressing the people who can't stop talking about me? They are the ones hijacking the threads, obviously.

#28 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 06:50 PM | Reply

Why aren't you addressing the people who can't stop talking about me? They are the ones hijacking the threads, obviously.
#28 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

Why are you hijacking the thread? This is no longer about you. I've provided my advice for you to not feed into it and yet here you are AGAIN, talking about yourself.

Drop it.

#29 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 06:52 PM | Reply

"Why aren't you addressing the people who can't stop talking about me?"

He's addressing the person who can't stop talking about himself.

Any ideas why?

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-16 06:52 PM | Reply

The appropriateness of Milley's call to China's Li depends on what was said and who was in the loop.

According to the Washington Post, "Peril" quotes Milley easing Li's concerns.

"General Li, I want to assure you that the American government is stable and everything is going to be okay," Milley told him Jan. 8, according to the Post. "We are not going to attack or conduct any kinetic operations against you."

By itself, such calls fall within established practice, said historian Richard Kohn at the University of North Carolina.

"I know of no written rules for such contacts other than common sense, traditional practices," Kohn said.

And he listed them.

"Probity, cautiousness, carefulness and avoiding any compromise of American secrets, classified information, or any violations of American policy or orders from the president or secretary of defense."

Joyner, of the Marine Corps University, said the appropriateness of Milley's call hinges on what he said.

"If Milley simply reassured his counterpart, in a room full of other officials that was very much on the record, that the U.S. had no intention of starting a war with China, it's not only acceptable but sound," Joyner said.

But, Joyner added, if it turned out that Milley said he would refuse to obey an order from Trump to launch attacks, that would be "highly inappropriate."

www.politifact.com

#31 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 06:52 PM | Reply

"#27 | POSTED BY TONYROMA "

Milley gave aid and comfort to our enemies. Pelosi encouraged him, some say ordered him, to do it. Let them both do the neck stretching dance.

#32 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-16 06:53 PM | Reply

"Why are you hijacking the thread? "

Thanks for proving my point. You see me hijacking it, yet you are half of the conversation. Or as you say, "Why are you feeding into it?"

This ---- works both ways, man. Say what you want, but don't be a hypocrite.

#33 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 06:54 PM | Reply

The read-out and notes from the calls were shared with the intelligence community and the interagency, the official said.
www.cnn.com

People in charge know what Milley said and they're not pushing for treason charges.

Considering the context provided in #31, can anyone take a guess as to why that might be?

#34 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 06:54 PM | Reply

#33 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

You came running from another thread to continue your bull ---- here?

Take two large steps backwards, stalker.

#35 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 06:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Let them both do the neck stretching dance.
#32 | POSTED BY SKEPTICAL

Context is a bitch.

Why are you willfully ignoring it?

#36 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 06:56 PM | Reply

#21 | Posted by Skeptical
#23 | Posted by jakester

Two more that don't have a d**n clue.

Treason has a definition, both Constitutional and statutory. It involves waging war against the country or giving aid and comfort to an "enemy." Enemy in that context basically means one with whom we are involved in a shooting war.

Milley's actions may or may not violate some other law; however, there is no doubt his actions are not treason, it's that plain and simple.

Treason also requires action, words alone are not Treason. So, no Polosi's comments are not Treason. See also the First Amendment.

#37 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-16 06:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#35 - no, I posted on the wrong topic. I guess that's never happened before. Sorry about that. It had nothing to do with stalking

#38 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 06:58 PM | Reply

It had nothing to do with stalking
#38 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

Thank goodness.

#39 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 06:59 PM | Reply

#37 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Thank you for that context, ET_AL. Hopefully, some folks around here that don't need to be named will consider it.

NEWSWORTHY

#40 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 07:01 PM | Reply

EtAl: Just for the sake of argument, it is not the words which are the act of treason. It would be the act of physically picking up the phone and calling his Chinese counterpart in order to utter those words which would be the treason.

#41 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-09-16 07:07 PM | Reply

"Two more that don't have a d**n clue."

Condescension takes a lot away from your point.

Thank you for your definition of treason. Here is the real one:

"the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government."

It is not necessarily waging war as you said. Also, the president IS the country.

" giving aid and comfort to an "enemy."

I'm pretty sure if it was necessary to launch nukes and the president couldn't do it becasuseof a rogue general, the enemyu would be aided

Do you really want to live in a country where a general can willy nilly ctake control of othe country's wresonal? That's banana republic stuff.

#42 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 07:08 PM | Reply

Do you really want to live in a country where a general can willy nilly ctake [sic] control of othe [sic] country's wresonal [sic]? That's banana republic stuff.
#42 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

This simply did not happen.

We're not at war, hence there's no reason to consider China an enemy.

Trump was not, nor did he plan on, launching nuclear missiles at China. Hence, there was no usurping of presidential powers.

Milley witnessed an unhinged president that was just kicked out of office by the people and had well reasoned concerns that Trump would do something drastic, as he did on Jan. 6th. Milley ensured that the proper systems that have been in place pertaining to nuclear arsenal were still in place. He then assured China that said systems were still in place.

Please, with a bit more nuance than you normally provide, explain to all of us how this amounts to treason (considering the very specific definition of treason laid out in this thread).

#43 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 07:15 PM | Reply

Thank you for your definition of treason. Here is the real one:

Yes, one from some dictionary which is irrelevant when considering whether the crime of Treason has been committed.

The real ones:

18 U.S. Code 2381 - Treason www.law.cornell.edu

Article III Section 3 www.law.cornell.edu

Courts that have had occasion to opine on "enemy" conclude it requires a shooting war.

Condescension comes from fighting this battle with the perpetually ignorant for years.

#44 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-16 07:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

This real treason definition disagrees.
https:
//uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition=prelim

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Plus reminding staff to follow official procedure is not treason.

#45 | Posted by bored at 2021-09-16 07:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Condescension comes from fighting this battle with the perpetually ignorant for years.
#44 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Truly doing god's work.

#46 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 07:30 PM | Reply

Et_al was quicker on the slap down, dang.

#47 | Posted by bored at 2021-09-16 07:32 PM | Reply

There were 15 people on both videoconference calls Milley held with his Chinese counterpart, one on October 30 and another on January 8 -- including a representative from the State Department, according to one defense official. The read-out and notes from the calls were shared with the intelligence community and the interagency, the official said.

www.cnn.com

Jesus, Milley followed the orders he was given by the Sec Def Mike Espy when he called General Li. A call is not outside of protocol when 15 people are on the call together and its contents are shared through normal government channels.

These know-nothing right wing loons are trying to make an offense out of normal protocols because they have no fripping clue how the Pentagon works on a daily basis.

And most of all, Milley was defending this nation from another nation who may have attacked us because our then President wigged them the eff out by his erratic and irrational behavior, leading them to believe he may launch an attack against them in order to further his own political goals. Obviously, China watches US tv media and reads the books chronicling Trumps sociopathy.

Milley is a freaking hero even if Trump picked him personally for the job.

#48 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-16 07:37 PM | Reply

It is not necessarily waging war as you said. Also, the president IS the country.

The President committed crimes against the US Constitution and was impeached twice by members of both parties. Just because the GOP Senate refused to hold Trump accountable doesn't change the fact that he violated his oath to the Constitution multiple times and led an insurrection to overturn a fair election in order to keep power he had no legal right to. Over 1000 assault charges have been filed against insurrectionists for attacks on police officers on 1/6. This was Trump's criminal mob.

This is the reality Milley was dealing with, and he too swore an oath to defend this nation and its people from enemies both foreign and domestic, which Trump repeatedly showed himself to be. Today it's come out that Trump tried to order Milley to deploy the 82nd Airborne to Lafayette Square during one of the Floyd protests. Such an order is illegal. Milley defended this nation from its greatest threat because Republican Senators refused to hold Trump responsible for violating the Constitution.

Milley is a hero, Trump remains a zero and thank God doesn't haunt the corridors of the White House anymore.

#49 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-16 07:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

More context, love the context:

There was also nothing blocking Milley from calling a meeting of senior officers.

"There are no guidelines, rules or conventions around what the chairman can talk about with the various commanders," Cohn said. "He does not have military or operational authority over them, so anything he says to them would be in the way of advice, instruction, communication or coordination. Whether the discussion is inappropriate or not would, I think, depends entirely on what was said."

Finally, there is the question of whether conducting a nuclear attack would be legal. Nuclear policy expert John Pike at globalsecurity.org said the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires officers to disobey unlawful orders.

"It is certainly reasonable for officers to discuss what might constitute such an unlawful order," Pike said. "Starting a global thermonuclear war under current circumstances would violate UCMJ requirements that the use of force must be proportionate in the service of military necessity, and would probably constitute a crime against peace and a crime against humanity."

www.politifact.com

If what Milley did was treason, then Trump's cabinet having the basic discussion of when it would be appropriate and under what circumstances would justify invoking the 25th amendment, which we now know actually happened, would also constitute treason, based on the very informal definition of treason provided by some posters here.

#50 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 07:47 PM | Reply

This is the reality Milley was dealing with, and he too swore an oath to defend this nation and its people from enemies both foreign and domestic, which Trump repeatedly showed himself to be. Today it's come out that Trump tried to order Milley to deploy the 82nd Airborne to Lafayette Square during one of the Floyd protests. Such an order is illegal. Milley defended this nation from its greatest threat because Republican Senators refused to hold Trump responsible for violating the Constitution.
#49 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Even more context that is being willfully, and conveniently, ignored.

How many times does this need to be repeated: Milley's actions were not conducted within a vacuum. The incident outlined above was CLEARLY part of Milley's reasoning. Coupled with Trump's unhinged nature after he lost the election (that we all witnessed), Milley's actions were warranted, IMO.

#51 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 07:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The President committed crimes against the US Constitution and was impeached twice by members of both parties."

Yes? So? What does that have to do with Milley violating his oath as an officer? Or are you saying two wrongs make a right?

#52 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 08:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Condescension comes from fighting this battle with the perpetually ignorant for years."

The ignorant shouldn't take years to defeat. Maybe your adversaries aren't the ignorant ones in the battle.

#53 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 08:32 PM | Reply

"These know-nothing right wing loons are trying to make an offense out of normal protocols because they have no fripping clue how the Pentagon works on a daily basis."

Tony, you are the one who is not aware of protocol and how the military works. There is a chain of command in the military. The president is at the top of that chain of command. No one, no protocol, no phone call, regardless how many people or who the are can change that. It's very clear cut in the Constitution.

So it doesn't matter what the Secretary of Defense says. He does not have the power to change the Constitution.

6. Article II Section 2 Clause 1
ArtII.S2.C1.1.1 Commander in Chief Power: Historical Background
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of . .

#54 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 08:43 PM | Reply

Cafeteria Constitutionalists really can't be taken seriously.

You can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you demand be followed and which aren't. The Constitution is quite clear that the president is the commander in chief in charge of the US military, vacuum or not.

There are vehicles spelled out in the Constitution that allow the removal of the President/Commander in Chief and have his powers stripped. One of them is NOT "because a general thinks he's crazy"

#55 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 08:50 PM | Reply

There are vehicles spelled out in the Constitution that allow the removal of the President/Commander in Chief and have his powers stripped. One of them is NOT "because a general thinks he's crazy"

#55 | Posted by jakester

The founders never imagined a scenario where the president is a clear con man and criminal but his entire party is complicit in his crimes and protects him, and that party remains in power via anti democratic policies and rules despite having support from a smaller number of citizens than it's opposition.

#56 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-09-16 08:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In other words - they never imagined a party as evil as yours.

#57 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-09-16 08:53 PM | Reply

It's times like this I wish I wasn't an atheist. I'd rather enjoy thinking Stanley Kubrick was watching this unfold from the other side muttering, "I warned them in Dr. Strangelove, didn't I?"

#58 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 08:57 PM | Reply

Where did you invent the fantasy that Espy was violating an order from Trump when he ordered Milley to do what Milley had been doing all along? These calls are regular, not extraordinary. They happen all the time. That is why the entire relevant government bureaucracy is a part of them.

Unless you can provide any shred of evidence that Trump did not want these calls to happen, all you have is nothing, which is exactly what your opinions continue to be worth.

A former senior defense official told CNN that the Chinese were unusually concerned about the rhetoric coming out of Washington in the days before the election, and the public rhetoric on the Chinese side was escalating as a result.

[Sec Def] Esper tasked his top policy official with getting a backchannel message to Beijing to reassure the Chinese, which was done before Milley's call, the former official said. "It was a two-step process led by the SecDef and DoD civilians," the official said. "That's an important distinction. The purpose was to avoid any unnecessary confrontation that could lead to conflict."

Milley conducted the October 30 call in consultation with then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper.

The second call Milley made was placed was on January 8, and Woodward and Costa write that Milley knew Chinese leadership were "stunned and disoriented by the televised images of the unprecedented attack on the American legislature." Other countries, including Russia and Iran, were also on high alert.

"Things may look unsteady," Milley said on the call, according to the book. "But that's the nature of democracy, General Li. We are 100 percent steady. Everything is fine. But democracy can be sloppy sometimes."

After the call, Milley "was convinced the situation was grave," according to the book, as Li remained unusually rattled.

www.cnn.com

Did China attack the US preemptively because of their shock at Trump's behavior?
The purpose was to avoid any unnecessary confrontation that could lead to conflict."
No. Milley did his job, end of story.

#59 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-16 08:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"No. Milley did his job, end of story."

No, he didn't, and no, it's not. If Milley took any action in his capacity as a general without his boss's approval, he violated his oath as an officer. It's clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

Now it's the end of the story.

#60 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 09:05 PM | Reply

The President should not address a mob, who after he finishes goes to the US Capitol building with the express purpose of violating the US Constitution and criminally attacking police officers, and looking for elected representatives to attack or kill.

The President violated his oath to protect and defend the Constitution and faithfully follow the laws of this nation. Was his admonition to "Stop the Steal" following any law? Was trying to stop the accounting of electoral votes following the law, or acting in the constitutional interests of America?

Don't talk about the Constitution when Trump was and had violated it more times than we know. He cannot use it as a shield after he already shredded it towards serving his own lust for power.

I thought you had me plonked, please go back and do it again, or was that just another lie from your lying fingers?

#61 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-16 09:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If Milley took any action in his capacity as a general without his boss's approval

Espy IS Milley's boss. Do you think Milley only answers to Trump? Please, just stop. You're inane. Rail on Espy for giving Milley his orders, or was Milley supposed to ignore Espy and run every single thing by Trump himself, the king of caring less about details? Trump tells everyone that he delegates, he doesn't micromanage, remember? Then he blows up at underlings when things don't go right, blaming them even though they followed his instructions, and takes all the credit for himself when they do go right.

Oh forget it. I'll never answer to you again, so save bandwidth and stop addressing me or my posts. The blog will be a much better place if you do.

Remember I have nothing important to say anyway, so live your own words and leave me the ---- alone.

#62 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-16 09:14 PM | Reply

"If Milley took any action in his capacity as a general without his boss's approval, he violated his oath as an officer. It's clearly spelled out in the Constitution."

Then spell it out clearly.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-16 09:15 PM | Reply

"Trump would do something drastic, as he did on Jan. 6th.
#43 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 "

If I had a dollar for every time a whacked out liberal wet their panties over fear of something 'Trump would do', we could fully fund Social Security until 2080.

"The President committed crimes against the US Constitution and was impeached twice by members of both parties.
#49 | POSTED BY TONYROMA"

Impeached AND FOUND NOT GUILTY - thereby making your claim that he committed crimes FALSE. You had your chance to run your circus court and he was not convicted, thus, no crime was committed by Trump. If you need help understanding this concept, refer to the above about frightened liberals wetting their panties over things that did not occur.

#64 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-16 09:16 PM | Reply

"Don't talk about the Constitution when Trump was and had violated it more times than we know. "

I don't think the Constitution says anything about two wrongs making a right. If I am wrong, please cite the clause.

Also, why the ---- should I not be able to talk about Constitution just because a president violated it? Jesus, it's rare to hear anything that absurd.

#65 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 09:17 PM | Reply

"Impeached AND FOUND NOT GUILTY - thereby making your claim that he committed crimes FALSE."

I guess OJ didn't murder Ron and Nicole.

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-16 09:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Espy IS Milley's boss."

So is the president:

"General Mark A. Milley, USA
since October 1, 2019[1]
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Type Highest-ranking military officer
Abbreviation CJCS
Member of Joint Chiefs of Staff
National Security Council
Reports to President of the United States
Secretary of Defense"

And the president is the commander in chief of the US armed forces.

#67 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 09:25 PM | Reply

If I had a dollar for every time a whacked out liberal wet their panties over fear of something 'Trump would do', we could fully fund Social Security until 2080.
#64 | POSTED BY SKEPTICAL

Why are you referring to Milley as a whacked out liberal? Doesn't make any sense.

#68 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 09:26 PM | Reply

"#66 | POSTED BY SNOOFY"

Clearly you don't believe in the US philosophy of Innocent until proven Guilty.

Sad, it is a founding ideal of the country.

#69 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-16 09:27 PM | Reply

^
YEAH!

Lock Her Up!

#70 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2021-09-16 09:28 PM | Reply

"Clearly you don't believe in the US philosophy of Innocent until proven Guilty."

This has nothing to do with philosophy.
I'm talking about reality.
You really don't think OJ killed them?

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-16 09:28 PM | Reply

#69 | POSTED BY SKEPTICAL

Said founding ideal has been infected with corruption for a long time. Systemic racism being a byproduct of that corruption.

Are you contending the US justice system is a purely just institution? If so, I've got a bridge to sell yuh.

#72 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 09:29 PM | Reply

"Milley supposed to ignore Espy and run every single thing by Trump himself, the king of caring less about details? "

A general is smart enough to recognize an illegal order and know making secret calls to China behind his bosses back is not right. C'mon.

So yes, he is supposed to ignore Espy.

#73 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 09:32 PM | Reply

And the president is the commander in chief of the US armed forces.

Does the President give Milley every single order for doing all procedures and actions that comprise his job?

Milley's "orders" were to make sure that the Chinese NOT ATTACK THE US, because they wrongly thought that Trump might order an attack against them towards his own political end. And Milley succeeded, China did not attack us and no orders were given by Trump to attack them.

Are you actually implying that Trump wanted to attack China for his own political ends and that Milley usurped Trump's orders, or are you saying that Trump wanted the Chinese to attack the US, so Milley shouldn't have talked them off the ledge from contemplating attacking us?

If neither, then exactly what did Milley do to undermine Trump's authority? He kept China in check and no hostilities between our countries happened, and for that you want him to be court martialed?

To our knowledge, Trump issued no orders to Milley that he violated. Esper issued orders to Milley that he followed. Where is the scandal? Where did Milley usurp Trump's authority?

#74 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-16 09:35 PM | Reply

"Why are you referring to Milley as a whacked out liberal?
#68 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11"

You missed his study of white rage and focus on critical race theory? Support for transgenders and pregnant women fighters? He would fit right in at the faculty lounge at Vassar.

#75 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-16 09:35 PM | Reply

"Does the President give Milley every single order for doing all procedures and actions that comprise his job?"

Probably not.

Let me ask you this: would you be cool with Biden having a Joint Chief of Staff who made phone calls to US's (arguably) #1 enemy behind his back?

#76 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 09:40 PM | Reply

know making secret calls to China behind his bosses back is not right.

You're going to continue to ignore that Milley made the calls because he was ordered to by Esper as part of normal protocols the military follows all the time? And the calls were not secret. 15 other people were on both calls and every relevant portion of government were given transcripts or read outs of both conversations.

If Milley did something wrong, so did everyone else, and they were all members of Trump's bureaucracy, not anyone else's! So Trump's own people undermined Trump's non-existent orders, right?

Maybe Trump should have asked questions after 1/8 and fired them all. Why didn't he? Everyone else in government knew what happened on the calls, especially Trump's acting Sec Def. Why didn't HE tell Trump if he thought something was wrong?

#77 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-16 09:40 PM | Reply

"You missed his study of white rage and focus on critical race theory?"

Ah. I see now why he is such a thorn in your side. It has nothing to do with the chain of command, and everything to do with worshipping Trump.

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-16 09:41 PM | Reply

You missed his study of white rage and focus on critical race theory?
#75 | POSTED BY SKEPTICAL

Oh, please do expound upon this part. I'm very interested in what you have to say.

Also, does it take a liberal to agree that systemic racism still exists today?

#79 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 09:41 PM | Reply

If I was Biden, I'd be a bit concerned about my top military guy calling China without my permission.

#80 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 09:41 PM | Reply

Let me ask you this: would you be cool with Biden having a Joint Chief of Staff who made phone calls to US's (arguably) #1 enemy behind his back?
#76 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

You can make the proclamation that China is #1 US enemy all you like, that does not make it a matter of fact.

Why are you basing your argument on a faulty premise?

#81 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 09:43 PM | Reply

"You're going to continue to ignore that Milley made the calls because he was ordered to by Esper as part of normal protocols the military follows all the time?"

Protocol says it's OK to make calls of this nature without informing the president?

I don't think so. But if you think I'm wrong, I'm willing to look at a citation or precedent.

#82 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 09:43 PM | Reply

"You can make the proclamation that China is #1 US enemy all you like,"

I didn't make that proclamation. I guess you didn't see the word "arguably" qualifying that.

#83 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 09:45 PM | Reply

If I was Biden, I'd be a bit concerned about my top military guy calling China without my permission.
#80 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

15 people were on the call with Milley.

Why are none of them calling for Milley's resignation and to charge him with treason?

#84 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 09:45 PM | Reply

"Ah. I see now why he is such a thorn in your side.
#78 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

No. It has more to do with me thinking our current crop of military leaders with no actual combat experience and a solid record of failure do not deserve the reverence you provide them. Milley is little more than a cosplay-soldier and his ridiculous leadership got Americans killed. The US can no longer afford suffer through idiots. But, as I pointed out the other day, your religion of Big Government has you embracing all the waste and failure that you once fought against - military spending, CIA, FBI, NSA - I can pick a 3 letter agency and you will line up to lick their boots. Pathetic.

#85 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-16 09:46 PM | Reply

"The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs regularly communicates with Chiefs of Defense across the world, including with China and Russia," Butler said, explaining Milley's actions as reported in the book. "These conversations remain vital to improving mutual understanding of U.S. national security interests, reducing tensions, providing clarity and avoiding unintended consequences or conflict."

His calls with the Chinese and others in October and January, said Butler, "were in keeping with these duties and responsibilities conveying reassurance in order to maintain strategic stability. All calls from the Chairman to his counterparts, including those reported, are staffed, coordinated and communicated with the Department of Defense and the interagency."

These calls are behind no one's back.

Do you have one single supporting piece of evidence that proves the above - released by the Pentagon itself - is wrong? Can you provide a scintilla of evidence that calls between Milley and other nations - fully staffed and reported through normal channels - were unique and outside of usual protocols?

I've provided evidence, you're pulled crap out of your behind. Post some contradictory, annotated facts or simply admit you have no idea what the usual policy is in this area because until this situation became front page, you had no reason to know since the military doesn't publicly talk about its procedures unless they're forced to.

#86 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-16 09:46 PM | Reply

"Why are none of them calling for Milley's resignation and to charge him with treason?"

I don't speak for them, but if I had to guess, I reckon it would be a mutual hatred for Trump. He's an easy man to hate.

#87 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 09:47 PM | Reply

I don't think so. But if you think I'm wrong, I'm willing to look at a citation or precedent.
#82 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

The appropriateness of Milley's call to China's Li depends on what was said and who was in the loop.

According to the Washington Post, "Peril" quotes Milley easing Li's concerns.

"General Li, I want to assure you that the American government is stable and everything is going to be okay," Milley told him Jan. 8, according to the Post. "We are not going to attack or conduct any kinetic operations against you."

By itself, such calls fall within established practice, said historian Richard Kohn at the University of North Carolina.

"I know of no written rules for such contacts other than common sense, traditional practices," Kohn said.

And he listed them.

"Probity, cautiousness, carefulness and avoiding any compromise of American secrets, classified information, or any violations of American policy or orders from the president or secretary of defense."

Joyner, of the Marine Corps University, said the appropriateness of Milley's call hinges on what he said.

"If Milley simply reassured his counterpart, in a room full of other officials that was very much on the record, that the U.S. had no intention of starting a war with China, it's not only acceptable but sound," Joyner said.

But, Joyner added, if it turned out that Milley said he would refuse to obey an order from Trump to launch attacks, that would be "highly inappropriate."

www.politifact.com

#88 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 09:48 PM | Reply

Milley is little more than a cosplay-soldier and his ridiculous leadership got Americans killed.

And Trump handpicked him himself over a Pentagon full of candidates. But Trump only chooses the best people, right? So Trumps' choice of "ridiculous leadership got Americans killed."

Glad to see you admit it.

#89 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-16 09:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"These calls are behind no one's back."

So they told Trump, "We are going to tell the Chinese how crazy we think you are and that you might launch a nuclear attack"?

If not, it was not the standard "protocol" and was indeed behind Trump's back.

#90 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 09:50 PM | Reply

He's an easy man to hate.
#87 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

Fascinating that Trump would surround himself with so many people that hate him when he was in full control of who was and was not advising him. Maybe that's what he meant when he said "I only surround myself with the best and the brightest [even if they completely hate me and are willing to commit treason against this country just to ensure I don't get what I want]."

Actually, no. That doesn't make any sense either.

#91 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 09:51 PM | Reply

"By itself, such calls fall within established practice, "

But does denigrating your boss and going all drama queen and claiming he might launch nukes "fall within established practice". I'm pretty sure not.

#92 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 09:52 PM | Reply

Protocol says it's OK to make calls of this nature without informing the president?

Why don't you ask that question to Esper, Milley's direct supervisor. And can you provide any evidence that such calls are always read-out to the POTUS, especially this POTUS who won't even read a PDB?

What was Trump to be told? That the Chinese think he's a lunatic and that Milley had to assure them that our chain of command was more stable than he was? Who's gonna tell Trump THAT, and why would they?

#93 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-16 09:55 PM | Reply

#90 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

There was so much going on behind Trump's back simply because he chose and preferred ignorance. For all we know, the information was provided to him in the daily briefing that he consistently refused to read even before the calls were made.

#94 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 09:57 PM | Reply

"It has more to do with me thinking our current crop of military leaders with no actual combat experience and a solid record of failure do not deserve the reverence you provide them."

Oh so it's about me?

When have I ever revered our military leaders?

All I've done is say what Milley did wasn't an egregious affront to decency, or to the chain of command.

As George H W Bush said about invading Iraq the first time: If he erred, he erred on the side of democracy.

Bush was of course full of ----. By contrast, Mulley did what he did for reasons that exemplify American values.

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-16 10:00 PM | Reply

"We are going to tell the Chinese how crazy we think you are and that you might launch a nuclear attack"?

That isn't what happened. The Chinese already thought that Trump was crazy and unpredictable, that is why the calls happened.

You keep forgetting that to the sane world, Trump speaking before a mob - who then attacked police officers and laid siege to the US Capitol, causing Congressmen and Senators to flee for their lives all in order for Trump to remain in office - was a coup attempt and showed how vulnerable our government really was in that moment. They did not know whether Trump would try to use our military to attack them, and what they saw made them even more unsure of Trump's intentions.

Literally, the calls were made to talk them off the ledge from perhaps doing something preemptively against us in belief that Trump would order an attack against them.

#96 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-16 10:00 PM | Reply

I mean, this pretty much sums it up:

"If Milley simply reassured his counterpart, in a room full of other officials that was very much on the record, that the U.S. had no intention of starting a war with China, it's not only acceptable but sound," Joyner, of the Marine Corps University, said.

You see, JAKE, the above is why I believe the 15 other counterparts who were also on Milley's call with China are not demanding Milley's resignation and charges for treason.

It's pretty simple, isn't it? Why do you think there is so much more to this? Your ignorance of protocol shouldn't warrant calls for the death penalty.

#97 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 10:01 PM | Reply

#94 - please. Blame shift this? Sorry, I'm not going there.

But I'm not surprised you are. After all, you think I'm to blame for half the folks here hijacking threads to talk about me.

"For all we know..."

Speculation? Please. I mean, for all we no, it's not that. Let's call that one a wash.

#98 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 10:01 PM | Reply

Let's call that one a wash.
#98 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

Considering the amount of speculation you're throwing around here, the irony is rife.

#99 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 10:09 PM | Reply

^Glad you don't disagree that Trump chose and preferred ignorance.

#100 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 10:10 PM | Reply

"Milley is little more than a cosplay-soldier and his ridiculous leadership got Americans killed."

Trump's leadership.

The entire thrust of your complaint is that Milley is but Trump's coffee boy, he stepped out of line, and he needs to be punished for being uppity.

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-16 10:10 PM | Reply

"Why do you there is so much more to this? "

*sigh*

Again, a general denigrating his boss is inexcusable. I don't care if there were 15,000 people on that phone call.

Also, don't you know you don't disagree with your own in the presence of an adversary? That shows weakness. You don't air your dirty laundry in front of them? If not, surely you've seen that issue on a movie or something.

Would you want one of your top lieutenants trash talking you to others behind your back? It simply isn't right.

If you can't support your boss for whatever reason, (regardless who you are or for whom you work) you shouldn't take the job.

#102 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 10:10 PM | Reply

After all, you think I'm to blame for half the folks here hijacking threads to talk about me.
#98 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

Your naivete is uh-mazingly awesome.

#103 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 10:11 PM | Reply

"Again, a general denigrating his boss is inexcusable."

He didn't denigrate him, though.

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-16 10:12 PM | Reply

You don't air your dirty laundry in front of them? If not, surely you've seen that issue on a movie or something.
#102 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

Assuring leaders of another country that the systems related to the nuclear arsenal are still in place and that we have no interest in attacking is not 'airing dirty laundry.'

It's actually sound protocol:

"If Milley simply reassured his counterpart, in a room full of other officials that was very much on the record, that the U.S. had no intention of starting a war with China, it's not only acceptable but sound," Joyner, of the Marine Corps University, said.

You're making this entire thing into something that it is not. Why is that? Maybe this time you'll respond without harkening back to your issues with DR posters. Maybe not, we'll see.

#105 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 10:15 PM | Reply

#103 -- last post. I don't do condescension. I may disagree with people vehemently, but I won't stoop do condescension or name calling. I expect to be treated the same, regardless if people agree with me or not.

Later, rstybeach11.

#106 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-16 10:16 PM | Reply

#106 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

Hey, thanks for letting me have the last word!

You took me calling you naive as an insult? It's the kindest way of saying that you're missing facts, do not understand the full scope of the situation, which is not uncommon for most people.

Yikes. It wasn't meant as condescension. You were displaying your naivete, which we all suffer from. You're simply displaying yours here on this topic. If you were willfully ignoring context (which actually you are, by ignoring Johnson's comments I've repeatedly posted above that adds crucial context and addresses many of your concerns), I'd call you willfully ignorant. You'd take that as condescension? If so, you're not very self aware. (WHOOPS! Did I insult you by suggesting you're not very self aware? Sincerely asking, I'm not interested in hurting people's feelings.)

Nothing to get butt hurt about. However, this response explains a lot in terms of your perceptions of DR posters making everything about you. Sad to say it, JAKE, but the DR may not be the healthiest place for someone like you. Maybe try Facebook? I dunno, but looking forward to further addressing your concerns about Milley and his appropriate actions while Trump was still in office.

#107 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 10:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's times like this I wish I wasn't an atheist. I'd rather enjoy thinking Stanley Kubrick was watching this unfold from the other side muttering, "I warned them in Dr. Strangelove, didn't I?"

#58 | Posted by jakester

Are you proud to be part of the movement making it happen?

#108 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-09-16 10:27 PM | Reply

Impeached AND FOUND NOT GUILTY - thereby making your claim that he committed crimes FALSE.
#64 | Posted by Skeptical

Your username needs to be revoked. You need to change it to GULLIBLE.

#109 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-09-16 10:29 PM | Reply

"I won't stoop do condescension or name calling."

Except for all the people you call trolls.

#110 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-16 10:46 PM | Reply

MORE CONTEXT!

Then-CIA Director Gina Haspel said Trump's post-election behavior was 'insanity' and he was 'acting out like a 6-year-old with a tantrum,' book says
www.businessinsider.com

Clearly, others shared Milley's perception on the matter.

#111 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 11:14 PM | Reply

Clearly, others shared Milley's perception on the matter.
#111 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Including China, who was watching this all play out from across the Pacific.

#112 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-16 11:16 PM | Reply

Then-CIA Director Gina Haspel said Trump's post-election behavior was 'insanity' and he was 'acting out like a 6-year-old with a tantrum,'

^
This is true for the 2016 election as well.

The fact that people actually think Trump was a good leader does indicate a moral crisis in our country.

#113 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-16 11:29 PM | Reply

"According to a 2005 Washington Post article, the president is always accompanied by a military aide carrying a "football" with launch codes for nuclear weapons.

If the president (who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces) decides to order the use of nuclear weapons, they would be taken aside by the "carrier" and the briefcase would be opened. A command signal, or "watch" alert, would then be issued to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The president would then review the attack options with the secretary of defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and decide on a plan, which could range from a single cruise missile to multiple ICBM launches.

It is argued that the president has almost sole authority to initiate a nuclear attack because the Secretary of Defense is required to verify the order, but cannot veto it.[9][10][11] However, the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief is not unlimited and US law dictates that the attack must be lawful and that military officers are required to refuse to execute unlawful orders, such as those that violate the Laws of Armed Conflict."

-from a pretty good Wiki article with plenty of citations en.wikipedia.org

It's clear to me Milley was acting upon his knowledge and observations, and reaffirming their duties to his subordinates.

And I certainly hope similar safeguards and contingencies are in place around every president, including President Biden.

#114 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2021-09-16 11:50 PM | Reply

The desperate rehab of light treason continues. Right decision he made, but he should also suffer the consequences of it.

#115 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-09-17 09:03 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Liberal journalists have no ability to measure moral calculus of any kind.

www.msn.com

It comes down to party and that's it. There is no calculus, or logic of any kind, done when reporting today. If you are a Liberal, you will agree that anything that goes against the other side's values is the very definition of morality. No matter the heights of hypocrisy you have to climb to get there, you will never show any humility or degree of logical thinking of any kind. It comes down to your party's values and nothing else. AOC could come out and say Tax the Lower Class and you would applaud her efforts. There aren't enough Democrats left in the US to make a difference, they've all been replaced or overshadowed (read: loud-mouthed and child-like tantrums) by extreme Liberals.

#116 | Posted by humtake at 2021-09-17 09:04 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"If you are a Liberal, you will agree that anything that goes against the other side's values is the very definition of morality."

^
Now that's some first-rate projection right there.

"There aren't enough Democrats left in the US to make a difference, they've all been replaced or overshadowed (read: loud-mouthed and child-like tantrums) by extreme Liberals."

^
I spoke too soon. That is some even better projection.

#117 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-17 09:09 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"The desperate rehab of light treason continues."

I really don't see how, Sitzkrieg.

CHINA: Is your unhinged loser President going to try and nuke us, like Pompeo said he might?

How should Milley have responded?

#118 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-17 09:12 AM | Reply

#116 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

One trick-extreme-loser pony.

#119 | Posted by Zed at 2021-09-17 09:44 AM | Reply

I notice that the Right wishes to address the General's actions without opining upon whether Trump was an active threat to the country at that time.

#120 | Posted by Zed at 2021-09-17 09:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Right decision he made, but he should also suffer the consequences of it.

#115 | Posted by sitzkrieg

And what should be the consequences of defending the constitution and possibly saving the world from nuclear war?

A pile of virgins and a no limit credit card?

#121 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-09-17 12:43 PM | Reply

There is no calculus, or logic of any kind, done when reporting today. If you are a Liberal, you will agree that anything that goes against the other side's values is the very definition of morality.

#116 | Posted by humtake

Well when the other side is the cult of a sociopathic con man, who spread lies, hate, and racism nonstop, and are trying to end democracy because they can't win fairly anymore, yeah anything that goes against them is moral.

Just like anything that went against al quaeda was moral. Anything that went against the nazis. or the klan.

When you join a group that is undeniably EVIL, you give up your right to complain that people aren't being nice to you.

#122 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-09-17 12:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#116 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

I'm not a Democrat. I'm not liberal. I am relieved to know we had some adults in the room reaffirming the nuclear safeguards already in place, and keeping other countries reassured those safeguards remained in place. From what I read of Milley did, nothing was outside of the authority he already had.

#123 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2021-09-17 01:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I'm not a Democrat. I'm not liberal. I am relieved to know we had some adults in the room reaffirming the nuclear safeguards already in place, and keeping other countries reassured those safeguards remained in place. From what I read of Milley did, nothing was outside of the authority he already had.

#123 | Posted by El_Buscador

Its refreshing to have a sane conservative on this site.

But you must know that you are no longer welcome in your party, and they are attempting to oust everyone like you from power and replace you with obedient fascist cult members.

#124 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-09-17 02:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Liberal journalists have no ability to measure moral calculus of any kind.
www.msn.com
It comes down to party and that's it. There is no calculus, or logic of any kind, done when reporting today. If you are a Liberal, you will agree that anything that goes against the other side's values is the very definition of morality. No matter the heights of hypocrisy you have to climb to get there, you will never show any humility or degree of logical thinking of any kind. It comes down to your party's values and nothing else. AOC could come out and say Tax the Lower Class and you would applaud her efforts. There aren't enough Democrats left in the US to make a difference, they've all been replaced or overshadowed (read: loud-mouthed and child-like tantrums) by extreme Liberals.

#116 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

Your party would rather die than wear masks or take a vaccine.

Shut the hell up with your false equivalence crap.

#125 | Posted by Sycophant at 2021-09-17 02:48 PM | Reply

There are not other military officers here, so I likely know more than all of you. I likely know more than the person who wrote the article.

First, military officers have zero obligation to show loyalty to a president. Unlike the monarchies or grand socialist empires of the last century, US military officers take an oath to the constitution. Not a person or a party. In fact an officer would be obligated to crush a president who was a threat to the constitution, or violate their oath of office.

Second, the assertion that Milley did something he shouldn't have assumes that China has been declared a hostile force (like ISIS). They have not. So notifying Xi Jinping of an imminent nuclear attack launched by by an off-kilter, Greg Stillson-like president would be no different than notifying Macron, Johnson, or Merkel. Which few outside of the strict Trump circles would regard as even remotely treasonous.

Ultimately it will be up to Biden to decide whether he wants a guy who favors what he sees as doing the right thing over someone who favors loyalty uber alles.

If I were Biden, I'd tell Milley to put a bullet in my ------- brain if I ever acted even remotely Trumpian. It would be an order.

#126 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-17 03:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

107:
"Per my last email ...
Thanks,
Rsty"

#127 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2021-09-17 03:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

MB, we don't see eye to eye on many things, but on this one I can't give you enough newsworthy flags. It sickens me how so many continue to be willfully blind to the difference between serving the Constitution and serving a mentally-unwell President who's actively violating the Constitution.

The direct bluntness of your comments hopefully will correct any misgivings as to the duty of American military personnel and especially high ranking officials setting the example for the rest of their troops. Milley didn't act as a Democrat nor a Republican, he acted as his oath commanded and did his level best to protect this nation, its people, and our soldiers potentially in the line of fire, by following the dictates of his oath of allegiance and his superiors in the chain of command who were doing the exact same things.

#128 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-17 03:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

US military officers take an oath to the constitution. Not a person or a party. In fact an officer would be obligated to crush a president who was a threat to the constitution, or violate their oath of office.

#126 | Posted by madbomber

Careful MB, if you were a republican elected official they'd end your career for disagreeing with the cult's position.

#129 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-09-17 03:41 PM | Reply

Trump is not well regarded in the military...even by those who support him.

He's a socialite reality TV star. And that's the way he always operated.

It's a bit too arcane to get in to, but Trump is probably the first president to not act like a president.

The military is guided mostly by doctrine. Basically a set of standards that directs you how to operate. You can deviate from doctrine, but there has to be a baseline from which you deviate.

Trump didn't know doctrine. He didn't understand the National Security Strategy, or the National Defense Strategy, or any of the other key pieces of guidance that direct the whole of government on what they should be doing. And rather than learn he just made his own ---- up.

I have to imagine that dudes like Milley, Kelly, and Matthis just wanted to ---- punch that ------------. Or maybe I'm just an -------.

#130 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-17 03:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Careful MB, if you were a republican elected official they'd end your career for disagreeing with the cult's position."

Yeah.

That would break my heart.

#131 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-17 03:49 PM | Reply

In my humble opinion - he's a hero. Thank God he was there.

#132 | Posted by uncle_meat at 2021-09-17 04:07 PM | Reply

The man did what he had to do when
faced with an insane situation, from
a wouldbe dictator at the helm of the
most powerful arsenal in human creation.

He did the right thing, given the crazy
circumstances in the last days of
Trumpleforeskin's reign...

and fyi to those that think a 4-5 star
general should be a president's lapdog,
you are dead wrong. They are the last line
of defense to protect this nation's people
in times like those that occurred under Trump.
They are critical advisors, and stewards of the
nation's defense; not sycophants, loyalists,
or worthless cheerleaders wearing a bunch of
mere 'chest confetti'... Be glad they are there.
I am...

#133 | Posted by earthmuse at 2021-09-17 04:31 PM | Reply

It comes down to party and that's it.

No matter the heights of hypocrisy you have to climb to get there

#116 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

I'm sorry, was this a thread on Merrick Garland and Amy Coney Barrett?

#134 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2021-09-17 04:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What Milley did is commonplace. From the retired Commander of the US Army in Europe:

Milley's contacting foreign general officers, like General Li Zuicheng of China, is a big part of his job. In these communications, I'm confident that the Chairman followed the protocols for engagement with foreign officials.

Why do I believe that? Because as a senior general officer commanding in a foreign theater, I often had to conduct these types of phone calls and engagements, as do all generals or admirals in similar strategic circumstances.

Engaging with foreign military commanders -- whether they are allies, partners, friends or even foes -- is a major and extremely time-consuming requirement for senior military commanders. We do this to strengthen alliances, build trust, prepare for coalition exercises -- and to stay in contact via informal communication channels during tense times.

When I was Commander of the US Army in Europe, there were 51 countries in our area of responsibility, and my visits and contacts were conducted as part of an approved plan for "security cooperation" within that theater. Chairman Milley's job is much bigger and more difficult, because his covers the globe.

His responsibilities require an endless series of engagements with US Embassies, foreign governments, and the military leadership of more than 190 countries, even those, like China, whom many Americans consider the enemy.

Often the communication channels with foes compliment the diplomacy generated by the State Department, and this is where generals and ambassadors are critical teammates.

www.wlfi.com

#135 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2021-09-17 05:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Thanks for settling this, MADBOMBER.

#136 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-09-17 05:52 PM | Reply

I should also add that the oath of office I took to support the constitution is the same that's taken by all appointed office-holders (military officers are appointed by the president), and it would be just as incumbent upon them to step up and stop a president or other lawmaker who threatened the constitution.

It's OK for a president to unknowingly drift into something that may be unconstitutional-that's what the Supreme Court is for. It's an entirely different thing to knowingly commit an unconstitutional act.

The crazy thing is-I don't think the 1/6ers understood that there was zero constitutional path to Trump remaining as president after 1/20. Yet had you asked them, they would have told you they were trying to protect the constitution. To be perfectly honest, I don't think Trump knew there was no constitutional path to him remaining president.

#137 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-18 02:28 AM | Reply

The crazy thing is-I don't think the 1/6ers understood that there was zero constitutional path to Trump remaining as president after 1/20.

Yes there was a possible one if the SCOTUS went along with it. That is why Trump tried to stop the electoral votes from being certified and leaned so heavily on Pence to object to their counting. Here's the plan:

If the EC votes were never tallied by Congress on the date mentioned in the Constitution - being held up through GOP challenges and BS voter fraud accusations - the Constitution dictates that Congress then has the power to choose the President. That vote is a simple majority vote, but it's not done by individual representatives, it's done by state delegations, with each state having one vote. And Republicans held the majority of states, so Trump was relying on them to give him their votes, ergo re-electing him and keeping him in the White House.

Now because all of this was uncharted territory, it would have likely come down to a decision by the SCOTUS, but there indeed was a quasi-constitutional path Trump was trying to navigate. Of course, this also would have entailed elected Republicans - many of them elected by the same ballots/voters now claimed to be fraudulent - completely ignoring what they knew was the will of America's voters under the guise that there was non-proven voter fraud, but really, do you think that was going to stop them from trying since even after running for their lives during the insurrection, 2/3rds of them still voted for Trump's fraud lies anyway?

#138 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-18 03:00 AM | Reply

"That vote is a simple majority vote, but it's not done by individual representatives, it's done by state delegations, with each state having one vote. And Republicans held the majority of states, so Trump was relying on them to give him their votes, ergo re-electing him and keeping him in the White House."

We need an amendment to correct this. It would be wrong to ever allow our President to be chosen in such an undemocratic fashion even it required a special national election to let the people of the entire nation vote to choose their President. Opposition to such a special election amendment would be seen by most of us as an attempt to install a dictatorship. America should never have a President chosen by a minority of the population.

#139 | Posted by danni at 2021-09-18 05:30 AM | Reply

"there was zero constitutional path to Trump remaining as president after 1/20."

You keep repeating this lie.
Furthermore, even if your lie were true, it wouldn't matter.
There's no reason America can't have a coup.

It's like you're saying there's no legal way OJ could have killed Ron and Nicole.

#140 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-18 09:00 AM | Reply

"If the EC votes were never tallied by Congress on the date mentioned in the Constitution - being held up through GOP challenges and BS voter fraud accusations - the Constitution dictates that Congress then has the power to choose the President."

In theory it's possible, but your scenario is based on a series of events that I don't think would ever happen.

First, you're assuming that the supreme court would reject to hear any cases regarding voting irregularity.

Second, the opposition (in this case the democrats) would not themselves question the ability of congress to choose a president in the absence of a clear winner-especially when it would be very easy to conduct another election or in some other way determine a clear winner-all the time with Nancy Pelosi as president.

Finally, you assume that the Reps from each state would choose Trump. On November 3rd, Repubs dominated house delegations in 26 states. But it would have been the new delegation that would have made the decision to vote for Trump. And I can't say whether the Repubs made any gains in terms of house delegations after the 2020 elections or not. I don't think they did, but I could be wrong.

But the fact that it is a possibility is, IMO, something that needs to be addressed. If anything, Trump has illustrated that the powers of the presidency need to be gutted. If presidents didn't act like dictators before, it make have been because they were choosing not to. Not because they couldn't.

#141 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-18 03:04 PM | Reply

"You keep repeating this lie."

That's fair.

There is probably some constitutional path to most things we might think as being completely unconstitutional.

Nothing is 100% impossible.

#142 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-18 03:05 PM | Reply

Nothing is 100% impossible.

#142 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

And what makes the next attempt 100% likely to succeed is the lack of consequences on the current perpetrators.

#143 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-09-18 03:50 PM | Reply

"And what makes the next attempt 100% likely to succeed is the lack of consequences on the current perpetrators."

Should they be brought in front of a revolutionary tribunal and summarily executed for the reactionary bourgeoise that they are?

#144 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-18 04:25 PM | Reply

I would absolutely agree that the fringe right needs to be crushed...would you be in equal agreement that the fringe left should be crushed?

You may, but like those on the far right, those on the far left view themselves as the vanguard of an ideology that shall be protected by any means.

#145 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-18 04:27 PM | Reply

There are not other military officers here, so I likely know more than all of you. I likely know more than the person who wrote the article.

You should have a chat with Boaz.

Would be an interesting exchange to read.

#146 | Posted by jpw at 2021-09-18 04:38 PM | Reply

"You should have a chat with Boaz. Would be an interesting exchange to read."

Do you think his opinion would be any different?

We all took the same oath of office.

#147 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-18 04:49 PM | Reply

What he's said in the topic is very much different than what you said.

#148 | Posted by jpw at 2021-09-18 05:12 PM | Reply

Should they be brought in front of a revolutionary tribunal and summarily executed for the reactionary bourgeoise that they are?

#144 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

I'd be willing to settle for some of the leaders, you know, like -------, to receive some, ANY, form of punishment for, you know, trying to overthrow the government.

#149 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-09-18 05:39 PM | Reply

I would absolutely agree that the fringe right needs to be crushed...would you be in equal agreement that the fringe left should be crushed?
You may, but like those on the far right, those on the far left view themselves as the vanguard of an ideology that shall be protected by any means.

#145 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT

Did the "fringe left" try to overthrow the government?

Any crimes committed during the BLM protests are a matter of state and local authorities.

The crimes committed during the 1/6 insurrection are a matter of national security, and should be crushed.

#150 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-09-18 05:41 PM | Reply

"And what makes the next attempt 100% likely to succeed is the lack of consequences on the current perpetrators."

Because it would rely on one group using very arcane and unorthodox methods to achieve an undemocratic outcome without the opposition challenging them.

Even if Trump had somehow managed to call the election into question and delay Joe Biden from taking office, the result would have been Nancy Pelosi becoming president. Furthermore, the democrats have just as much right to challenge elections and outcomes as the Republicans do. Which means that in theory the Dems could have stalled indefinitely, to a point where the Supreme Court would have made a ruling. We know that SCOTUS did not find sufficient evidence of vote rigging, so I would assume it unlikely they would side with an argument claiming that there was rigging.

Constitutionally, what Tony mentioned in #138 is possible. State delegations can meet and each state gets one vote. But that situation is intended for when there is no clear electoral winner, such as if you had more than two parties running (the two party system ensures an electoral winner). That was not the case with this election, as Trump was simply grumbling with little to no evidence that there was any sort of voter fraud.

And if any losing candidate can claim they lost the election and have it overturned this way, which I do not think is actually possible, then maybe that would become the new normal. But Repubs and Dems both have the same options and limitations available to them. Anything the Repubs do, the Dems can do back.

#151 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-19 03:35 AM | Reply

"I'd be willing to settle for some of the leaders, you know, like -------, to receive some, ANY, form of punishment for, you know, trying to overthrow the government."

What leaders?

And exactly how did they try and overthrow the government?

That' BTW, would be treason. The punishment for that is death.

#152 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-19 03:36 AM | Reply

"Did the "fringe left" try to overthrow the government?"

Many times.

They just weren't good at it.

All of those black-hoodie clad rioters...they're not advocating for democracy.

You don't advocate for democracy while bearing a hammer and sickle.

#153 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-19 03:37 AM | Reply

"Any crimes committed during the BLM protests are a matter of state and local authorities."

Not if they attacked federal property it's not.

Throwing a molotov cocktail at the federal courthouse in Portland is no different than throwing a Molotov cocktail at the Supreme Court Building.

#154 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-19 03:40 AM | Reply

We know that SCOTUS did not find sufficient evidence of vote rigging ...

No, we do not know that. The SC found no such thing. Not even close. Not even rhetorically.

#155 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-19 04:18 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort