Joe Biden: U.S. President

You have to have standards that apply equally. Just recently there was a lieutenant removed from his post because he demanded someone be held accountable for the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, which he said he totally gets and resigned.

Yet a General can denounce his own actions and by extension those of his commander and chief and that’s ok because it hurt his feelings.

How are we applying this standard, it’s not OK when Biden is commander and chief, but is OK when Trump was because people have hurt feelings?

Good thing PLA General Li warned Milley about COVID outbreak so the US wouldn’t be surprised …oh wait

2 Likes

I think I do normally. I guess I’m still not sure of your beef. Laughingstock Generals tend to be mouthy.

1 - of course you don’t have to apply the standards equally. Sheesh, what are we, 12? At minimum, different situations call for different responses. Realistically, it’s pretty fucking arbitrary.
2 - like most parts of life, fair or not, it’s ok when the boss says it’s ok. This wouldn’t have been ok with the boss when the boss was trump. It’s not apparent what the fallout, if any, with the new boss will be. This isn’t new, and all admins deal with this to some extent.

Mouthy Generals that embarrass the President are usually dispatched pretty quickly, like the one that said Obama looked uncomfortable around military types. Brought back to Washington and fired immediately.

Military leaders are not meant to undermine the President, these miliary leaders were not only doing that, they were ignoring orders (will need to look for references on that if that’s the first time you heard that claim), they allowed lieutenant colonel Vindman to go outside his chain of command, relate details of a classified call in an attempt to remove his commander in chief and not only had no disciplinary action, they didn’t even remove him from his position in the White House in the NSC when they knew the President couldn’t trust him and they had a duty to remove him. They did not, because they were actively trying to undermine the administration.

Are you really asking why someone might take issue with the military trying to assume dominance in a civilian led leadership type of Democracy?

Vindman elevated his concerns through one of the appropriate channels available to him (not everything always flows through your chain of command there, armchair general), to those with clearances. What specific issues do you have with how he was allowed to report his concerns?

No, they didn’t.

No he went to Eric Ciaramella, outside of his chain of command, the very dipshit who was up to his eyes in trying to get Ukrainians to pass off an investigation into Burisma to the FBI, who in turn went running to Adam Schiff and his cohorts, Mary McCord who was at the heart of FISA abuse and another attempt to destroy Trump who in turn pointed him to Michael Atkinson, who previously worked for Mary McCord and was also neck deep in trying to overthrow Trump who changed his rules to allow 3rd hand knowledge to be submitted.

Bunch of treasonous fucks, the lot of them. Sorry the MSM built them up to be such hero’s, history will not be kind to them.

I understand that people may have issues with many things, so no.

Ah, so you’re not concerned about the reporting, which went up through the nsc counsel. You’re concerned he talked to… a cia officer who’s a Ukraine specialist and nsc staffer? Why would that possibly be inappropriate? Who do you think it would be appropriate for a nsc Ukraine specialist to talk to?

No point rehashing the whole thing, we won’t agree.

Anyway, in some ways it’s a good thing for American that Biden “won”, Democrats had planned mass riots if Trump won, I have no doubt they would have carried that out as they had been rioting for 6 months prior.

I just think Democrats have lost sight of what Democracy is, you don’t encourage people to riot, or tell the MSM you are surprised there isn’t more people rioting, bail them out, fail to prosecute, try to destroy the political opposition by any means while at the same time calling them Nazi’s.

That path is going to create a very big issue for a society. Republicans have their issues too, I have no doubt about that, the current one is being such limp dicked losers.

We will see how Biden handles things going forward, I only got drawn into this as people are running to defend the loser General, going back to Obama they were putting in place woke leaders in the military. Everything is about politics for the political elite and controlling everything and having their guys in place, all the time, everywhere.

Please, let’s do and not deflect - why shouldn’t a military nsc Ukraine specialist talk to (not report through) a cia officer Ukraine specialist nsc staffer about a call?

The guy in question was obviously conflicted because he was involved in trying to get the Ukrainians to drop the Burisma case and hand it off to the FBI, he was doing that at the behest of the Biden/Obama administration which was the substance of the call Trump was asking about.

He had no authority to disclose details of that call to anyone outside his chain of command, he could have filed a whistle blower report himself, but didn’t, he gave a heads up to the very person who was going to be implicated who in turn ran to Schiff and Mary McCord who turned to Lawfare in an effort to set Trump up.
\
Not the first time Lawfare had tried to do that by the way, in all likely hood they were the beach friends of Christine Ford who they used to try and derail Kavanaughs appointment to the SC.

Which you can hate the guy all you want, but what they did to him was disgraceful, the fact Democrats are justifying even the most deplorable actions no matter how extreme again lends to the belief they have completely lost it when it comes to what are the acceptable boundaries in a democracy.

So you think Vindman could only talk to his sr director and above at the nsc, and not any colleagues, because why, exactly?

The person he told, was the very person holding meetings with Ukrainians to ask them to pass the Burisma case to the FBI.

Who in turn ran to the same people who were already trying to take down Trump by weaponizing the intelligence agencies against him and misusing FISA.

The point here, is when you lose an election, the agencies like the FBI/CIA/DOJ and military work for the new administration, even they don’t allign politically.

If they all become political and see the new administration as the enemy which apparently some agencies like the FBI did, you don’t have a functioning democracy, when the intelligence agencies team up with big tech and the multi nationals and the MSM all aligned to destroy a political enemy the people chose, that’s not a functioning democracy.

So it appears what you’re trying to avoid saying in plain English is you have no basis for asserting that Vindman had no authority to talk about the call outside of his chain of command, other than you don’t think he should have been talking to this person?

All sounds dodgy as hell. I think as Trump fades away into the background and the absolute derangement of his critics diminishes people will look back at some of the decisions made at the time and ask “what the hell were these people thinking” and with the derangement diminished, “but Trump” isn’t going to cut it, like I doubt it will for General Miley.

So yes, you have no basis for your claim. This is a big part of the problem with you Mick - you fling poo on the wall to see what sticks, avoid admitting you’re wrong when called on it, then start flinging a bunch of other random poo to deflect and see what else might stick. Good talk.

I have opinions, some twat in the NSC running to someone neck deep in trying to get an investigation moved to the FBI which was being discussed by his commander in chief, running to his political opponents who use it political against the President, is an issue.

It’s insiders trying to bring down the President by using his political opponents and in some cases intelligence personal who are supposed to be apolitical. But are not, are known to be not and act in a way to bring down their own President always.

That’s also my problem with you, I bring up the big picture with about 20 points, you focus on one thing and think if you can diminish that you somehow get an internet win.

You not only fail to grasp the larger picture you fail to understand the bigger issues being brought up, you fail to acknowledge valid concerns are being made.

You having a problem with me, doesn’t even register as something that remotely challenges me at all. :grinning:

But to go back to the beginning of all this, even after causing this entire shit storm the military don’t even remove him from his White House post. Bunch of assholes, obviously Trump administration can’t trust him.

Yes, sometimes I focus on 1 thing at a time - because it takes a gaggle of posts to drill down to the fact that your assertions on it are based on crap. Imagine trying to do that with the 20 at a time (sometimes I do address more than 1 of your multitudes at a time - in those cases, you often ignore most of the replies to reply to a few (or 1), then add more poo flinging to it).

Nope, look at my responses to you on Miley. I agreed that his approach was problematic and he should resign. I have no issues when you’re discussing opinion - I have problems with your bullshit assertions of fact based on nothing.

Well, where is your evidence Eric Ciaramella was allowed to be “in the know”? Doesn’t inter agency sharing of information need clearance.

Or you think everyone in Washington is allowed to blab about everything they hear with everybody else in Washington?

Vindman is low on the totem pole, who is he to run off to some other agency and give them a heads up because they are about to be implicated.