Once it became politicized, same as everything else, it became something for people to treat as sports, my team vs your team. It’s hardly new, except in that it’s happening in the US, at least I’m not aware of previous existence in the up until now pragmatic USA. Look up Lysenkoism or Deutsche Physik.

Because some people have abandoned reality and should ideally be removed from it post-haste for the sake of the rest of us.

For starters, the tweeters posted a couple posts after yours. . .

The Gary R’Nel account is just sad. So many unliked and unloved tweets in a row.

WTActualF

The swift decline in McMaster’s reputation, from a widely admired figure to Trump’s lackey apologist, shows how foolish it was to put so much faith in military appointments. The truth is that to keep Trump’s confidence, McMaster and the other generals have to meet Trump more than halfway. They have to constantly cover for his erratic behavior and justify his policy chaos. As Ricks notes, “Mature national security specialists seasoned in the ways of Washington simply lend an air of occasional competence to an otherwise shambolic White House. By appearing before the cameras, looking serious and speaking rationally, they add a veneer of normality to this administration. In the process, they tarnish their own good names.” And in the case of McMaster, as the Beast report suggests, he’s tarnishing the military, too.

These analyses rest on the assumption that the generals were unassailable before joining the administration. But if they could be so easily tarred by Trump—indeed, if they could be so easily convinced to serve an ignorant, incompetent commander-in-chief—perhaps their initial reputation wasn’t really merited. The core assumption Trump has exploited is that military officers are unbiased, apolitical patriotic professionals. But a moment’s reflection should tell us that military leaders have the same worldly ambitions as other mortals. The Beast suggested that McMaster took the national security adviser position as a way of giving new life to his military career and earning a fourth star.

The generals may also have specific policy objectives. There’s every reason to believe, for instance, that McMaster and Mattis are ultra-hawkish on Iran. If that is their overriding foreign policy objective, it’s possible that their compromise with Trump has an ulterior ideological motive. They are willing to give Trump cover on many issues— including, in McMaster’s case, possible Russian collusion—in exchange for achieving a harder line, and possibly war, against Iran.

Yingling added that he was unwilling to either critique McMaster or disclose any conversations he may have had with his former commander. But, echoing a plea he published on the Foreign Policy website, he insisted that active duty officers must maintain a strict code of conduct that civilians do not.

“An officer cannot tolerate a lie. It’s not enough to tell the truth,” Yingling told The Daily Beast. “You have to be not just truthful but completely honest. You can’t remain silent while others lie. That is the dilemma of any officer serving in the strategic and political world…You have an obligation to tell the full truth, including correcting the record when others misrepresent it.”

Without openly faulting McMaster, Yingling hinted that obligation is at odds with McMaster’s new duties as a face of the Trump administration. Team Trump “obviously has not been forthcoming about its contacts with Russia, either as a campaign, a transition team, or an administration,” Yingling said.

On January 21, most of the 230 protesters and bystanders arrested the day before were charged with felony rioting, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years and a $25,000 fine.

But on April 27, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia returned a superseding indictment which added additional charges for some 212 defendants, three of whom had not previously been charged.

With new felony charges including urging to riot, conspiracy to riot and destruction of property, many of the defendants are facing up to 80 years in prison. Many other defendants, among them journalists, are facing more than 70 years.

People have had weird ideas about military generals since forever. The idea that career officers wouldn’t have political ambition is ridiculous. Once someone makes Colonel in the Army or Captain in the Navy, they become, by necessity, political animals. They must jockey for funding, recognition, and missions to survive. The orders they receive are typically less about direct military action and more about policy and theater strategy.

My spies made me read a book from the chief of Germany submarines before the war. Many of his decisions in peace time had great influence in times of war. It cemented in me that idea, thay generals are somewhat politicians because take political decisions, do they want or not, they decide on policies that have large effects.


Take note that this decisions at the time force a type of combat that is illegal, attacking civil ships, the decisions of germany to attack not other countries armies, but other countries economy at war.

I think it’s possible to achieve general or admiral rank without being all that much of a politician, but I agree the job once those ranks are achieved is largely political, depending to some extent on the role. A brigadier running an air force transport wing in Utah is different from a brigadier running a fighter wing in Iraq, or for that matter a brigadier administering logistics paperwork in the Pentagon.

Yes, but in my experience, that’s the difference between being the mayor or city councilman of Kick Falls, IA or Chicago, IL. You’re still a politician, but the budgets and missions are smaller. Your political survival still depends on gathering the right allies, pushing the correct program, and getting the most funding.

I don’t understand exactly what people want, short of going back in time to prevent the election result. Trump has someone who’s sensible on the job, that person is little more than an enabler. Person’s a total ignoramus, is a ignoramus.

I mean, I understand that there are no good answers here, but between having a competent person who by necessity becomes the fig leaf over the administration’s crazy or just a complete incompetent who’s unable to hide the crazy, pick one.

This is how it begins. If these people are imprisoned I expect escalation.

Not to mention that McMaster wasn’t actually able to refuse the job. Of course, if he didn’t want it, he could make his reservations clear to Trump and plead for an out, but technically, if the President ordered him to take the position, he was stuck.

Right? I mean, if you’re going to be thrown in the slammer for 75 years for protesting, you might as well make sure that you did something worth notice before you go down. What a sad state of affairs this is.

It is okay, some Congressman yesterday said God would take care of it

Well, if you believe in a deity who decides on a whim to cover the planet in water thereby initiating a massive extinction event, you logically might conclude that humanity’s survival is much more dependent on whether we please Him than on what we do about carbon emissions.

No. That would suggest that people with religion cannot believe in science or attempts to save the planet. Those two are not mutually exclusive. You’ll find individuals with religion on the let’s save the planet and protect our environment right alongside atheists.

You’ll also find Yankees fans in Boston.

Religious people caring about the environment is not rare.

I didn’t say all religious people think that way. But Mr. Gianforte says we shouldn’t have Social Security because Noah lived to be 600 and worked all the time, and not only was he not laughed out of the state for that scandalously stupid comment, as in a sane world he immediately would be, but he won the election. So that school of thought is definitely out there. However, my comment was also tinged with a dose of bitter irony. Actually, just assume that everything I say that has anything to do with politics since last November has been tinged with a dose of bitter irony.