The President has decided to once again get into a public kerfuffle concerning Admiral (ret) William McRaven. This has, of course, led to a lot of retired senior officers, as well as former senior civilian appointees, to come to Admiral McRaven’s defense and to call out the President regarding his remarks. I think it is important that we step back a bit and try to understand what we are actually observing with this ongoing series of rebukes of the President by retired senior officers and civilian appointees. This is not some bizarre new era of partisanship or political polarization. Rather, what is happening, why these retired senior officials – uniformed and civilian – keep speaking up has to specifically do with this President, how he communicates, what he communicates, his behavior, and the official actions he’s taking.
Almost all of these officials either spent their careers with no partisan affiliation because they were serving in the US military or were senior civilian officials appointed by Republican presidents because they were considered to be part of the Republican/conservative national security and foreign policy establishment. We’ve even reached the point when a group of prominent conservative lawyers, many of whom have held senior appointments in previous Republican administration, have decided to make a very public break with this administration and its Federalist Society allies, which is separate from the pushback regarding Admiral McRaven. While what we’re seeing is unprecedented in modern American political history, it is not surprising. Each of these retired senior officials that are speaking up are doing so because in their professional estimation the President is something completely outside of the norms of American politics. And, as a result, they are forced to themselves do something outside of the norms by publicly speaking out. That failing to do so would mean they were failing in their professional responsibilities even in retirement.
Earlier today COL (ret) Jack Jacobs, who is both a Medal of Honor awardee and a self described political conservative, was interviewed by Nicole Wallace about the President’s most recent dustup about Admiral McRaven. The clip is below and it is well worth the four or five minutes of your time.
"[Adm. McRaven] …somebody who’s a patriot and not only is a patriot, but spent his entire career raising another generation of patriots…castigating somebody like that demonstrates a lack of knowledge about how the world actually works"- @ColJackJacobs w/ @NicolleDWallace pic.twitter.com/1EdfdDDbgK
— Deadline White House (@DeadlineWH) November 19, 2018
I can honestly state that I was not expecting a reference to Rabbi Hillel in his response to Wallace’s question!
Open thread!
different-church-lady
Trump managed to make his base hate football. He’ll probably have them hating the military before it’s over.
Cheryl Rofer
It’s important that former military officers keep saying how wrong Trump’s attempts to politicize the military are.
Adam L Silverman
@different-church-lady: Yep.
Adam L Silverman
@Cheryl Rofer: Also yep!
debbie
Thank you, Adam. I hope critics of the Trump staff members who are military hear that last minute or so.
JGabriel
different-church-lady:
I’m imaging Putin as Heath Ledger playing the Joker, saying, “It’s all part of the plan.”
trollhattan
@different-church-lady:
Except the Cowboys. Jerry Jones is so dreamy.
Adam L Silverman
@debbie: He didn’t quite get the quote from Hillel right, but we don’t promote people to colonel because of their in depth knowledge of ancient rabbinical thought. I texted this to a colleague, who is himself a retired colonel, shortly after I saw the Jacobs’ interview on MSNBC:
eemom
I really wish the media bots would STFU with the “this time he’s gone TOO FAR”, “this time he’s REALLY come unglued”, “THIS is the WORST crisis yet”, “No really, we’re talking serious MELTDOWN here” headlines.
Not saying the public isn’t stupid as shit, but they’re not Groundhog Day.
Yarrow
Norms are being destroyed all over the place by the horrors in the White House and their Republican enablers. We will need to put laws in place after this mess is over because norms clearly aren’t good enough.
That being said, there is a lot of danger in running a government by norms. Trump and his cronies are just taking advantage of weak spots in our government and democracy. A norm is weak because it only works if everyone agrees to follow it. Someone doesn’t follow it and what recourse is there? There’s no law against what they’re doing. We’ve just expected that people will behave in a certain way. That’s a dangerous way to run things.
Mary G
That almost makes me rethink my policy of never watching cable news. A very nice exchange, with no shouting or spinning.
Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (formerly Mumphrey, et al.)
What I can’t understand is why people stick with this guy when he’s made it as clear as he can that he can’t even control himself when it’s in his own fucking interest to. Do Republicans really think that bad mouthing the guy who oversaw killing bin Laden is a good plan? This asshole picks fights with really sympathetic people. War heroes, people whose children have been killed… I can’t even remember all of the people he’s taken on. Who will it be next? Snuggly puppies? Adorable babies?
This is a guy who can’t do the right thing when it isn’t only easy, it would fucking help him politically. What is it going to take to get Republicans to pull the plug on this guy? I mean, I can understand people like Looey Göehmert or somebody like that who has primaries to worry about; but why are people from iffy states and districts sticking with this clown? How does this help Susan Collins?
johnnybuck
It’s just that white people have lost they damn minds. GOP won’t check this guy cause white people can’t process what they have done. double down all the way down.
danielx
@different-church-lady:
He’s a salesman, and hate is what he sells.
Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (formerly Mumphrey, et al.)
Shit. I mean, when you get to choose between coming down on the side of a family that lost somebody fighting in a war for the U.S. or on the side of nazis, who the fuck is going to throw in with the nazis? I can’t even believe we have to ask this about the president of the United States, but, well, we don’t any longer, ’cause he’s already shown us whose side he’s on. And they stick with him anyway.
johnnybuck
@Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (formerly Mumphrey, et al.): better than Hillary..
jl
@different-church-lady: Ahh, hell, the people of this country are tired of being pushed around by the liberal Democrat military. It’s just gone on for way too long.
This Jacobs guy has the nerve to talk about McRaven and his entire career. Trump taking everything personally has served him very well for his entire career of sleazy real estate deals and a wide range of dishonest swindles and scams from ruthless to dingbat. And now Trump is putting that unique life experience over his whole life to the service of this country.
Lemme tell ya. /s
Mary G
This made it even worse:
The whole party has fallen in line, and even though I knew how authoritarian-loving Republicans are, it still shocks me how few Never-Trumpers there are. David Frum went out early over healthcare. Tom Nichols and Rick Wilson and Max Boot and who else? Not many.
Manyakitty
@Mary G: I find that often on Nicolle Wallace’s show. She and Steve Schmidt even acknowledged their roles in the current situation. She’s disgusted by the lies, and generally tolerates less crap from her guests than almost every other MSNBC host.
SFAW
@Yarrow:
Not really disagreeing with your point, but the “practical application” is, shall we say, problematic. Meaning: it is more-or-less impossible to pass a set of laws to deal with the trashing of democracy, government, and “political norms” that we’ve seen Shitgibbon do. Even with a Congress where both parties are trying to preserve the so-called “American ideal,” rather than having one party trying to destroy it, it would be difficult (in a practical sense). Because there’s no behavior too insane for Lying Littledick to restrain himself from doing; every major transgression you try to control, he’ll always find another way to fuck over this country, so how do you get “ahead of the curve”?
Ruckus
@Yarrow:
Exactly.
When you have people who are trying to destroy something, expecting them to behave to norms is a fools game.
And laws? Their leader has ignored laws that he’s been able to buy his way out of for most of his life. And now thinks that he creates the laws, and so can do whatever the hell he wants. I’d bet that if you really asked all these military and retired military officers that is more what they are complaining about. The military has some pretty strict rules in the UCMJ and they take all of it very seriously. Along with that there are norms and traditions that can only be changed with obvious and overwhelming evidence that it needs to happen. That is their lives, careers, this very structured concepts of what is and what isn’t. drumpf just runs those concepts over because he doesn’t give a shit. And not giving a shit is a massive hit to these officers. They don’t understand someone in a position of authority who doesn’t give a shit like he does. There’s no formula for them that computes this. What the Col talked about. that teaching those behind them the respect, the duty, the way things work, drumpf has just dropped his shorts and shit all over that. Their entire careers everything they believe of the military and of duty made a complete mockery of.
Adam L Silverman
@Mary G: Especially as there is no indication he was even ever asked about this by the Clinton campaign and he was on the original Trump transition short list to be the National Security Advisor until LTG Flynn told Ivanka he wanted it when she asked him what position he wanted after they interrupted a meeting on the transition that Christie was running.
SFAW
@Mary G:
Do we know if that’s even close to true? That McRaven was on Hillary’s “short list.” I don’t remember hearing that, but my ability to recall that stuff is questionable at best.
I’m assuming this is another case of “George Soros helped the Nazis” bullshit.
ETA: So I did a quick google, and it appears that he actually was under consideration. It also appears that the Rethugs have hated him, and called him a Hillary lover, since 2015.
Adam L Silverman
@Manyakitty: I get the impression she puts people who misbehave in time out. It’s why Heilman behaves himself on her show…
Manyakitty
@Adam L Silverman: And he LIKES it.
Ruckus
@SFAW:
We have to better define the office, the limits, and that no president is above the law, during or after their time in office. We need to define the rules of the senate and the house as well but that’s not as germane to the topic under discussion. We have to find a way to limit the just inactive manner shit for brains runs the WH and the presidency. We have to have a far more uniform and fair election system (paper ballots -hard records) early voting and run by non partisan offices. For a start.
Adam L Silverman
@SFAW: I actually think it was Gen (ret) Allen, who is the retired Marine 4 star that led all the veterans out during the convention. He had previously served, post retirement, as the Special Envoy for Middle East Peace (Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process) and then the Special Envoy for the International Coalition Against ISIS. I fully expected that if Secretary Clinton had been elected that he would have been named to be Secretary of State.
Full disclosure; Gen (ret) Allen, when he was the Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, was technically my boss, or, more accurately, my co-boss. I directly reported to the Commanding General of US Army Europe, but the orders that laid out my authorizations, duties, and responsibilities, as well as the funding for the assignment, were issued by the Special Envoy’s office.
jl
@SFAW: Politicians put a lot of people on long, or medium, or short lists for this and that for a campaign. How thoroughly was the short list given serious vetting? Did McRaven express any interest, if so, what was the degree? How long was the goddamned ‘short list’? Was McRaven on the list as a serious candidate or as a signal to some interest group or other possible VPs?
That info would be of some historical interest.
But the whole thing is BS, as I think the GOP BS tweet demonstrates. I think most people outside the Trumpster hard core bubble will the bad faith in their argument, right there in plain English. Putting someone’s name on a list, without any other information, doesn’t make them a particularly ‘political’ figure.
If the GOP keeps up this crap, I think it will make big wins in 2020 much easier.
Wapiti
@Yarrow:
If the President doesn’t follow the law and his tame DoJ radically reinterprets the law… There *was* an antinepotism law in place, and presidents from Nixon to Obama were held to it. If the DoJ chooses to not enforce a law, yeah, there isn’t much recourse. But that’s because an entire political party had decided to corrupt the system, not just one guy named Donald.
Sister Golden Bear
@Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (formerly Mumphrey, et al.):
27 percent of the U.S. population…
JGabriel
@Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (formerly Mumphrey, et al.):
They’ve been doing that since President Obama announced that bin Laden was dead. It’s only a short skip and a hop to add anyone else in the chain of command that led to bin Laden’s death, like Admiral McRaven, to the list of people who should be bad-mouthed because they weren’t sufficiently disloyal to Trump’s predecessors.
trollhattan
I think our CO alarm committed suicide. It was yelling, but why? We’re going to die? You’re dusty? You need a new battery? You want to go outside? No matter what I tried after a nice reset and rest it would yell again and the tiny display would read “END.” Sure enough, the 2 pt type instructions instruct if it reads END, “replace unit.”
Reminded me of period French film that ended with ‘Fin.” Why did you do it, CO alarm? You were so young (not even five years). {sadface]
Did you know Tommy Chong has a Twitter account? Me neither.
Wag
@Yarrow:
Norms being broken is nothing new with the GOP. Mitch McConnell has led the way in the Senate with his treatment of Obama.
jl
@JGabriel: You attack the other side’s strengths. In the past, considerable discernment was considered advisable in determining which strengths to attack. But now, well heck, just plaster the whole wall with poop and see what happens, I guess.
It is a problem when you think your base is larger than it really is, and when you think it will much easier to suppress the turnout of the opposition than it will actually be. If the GOP had any alternative to this approach, they should start taking it right now. But they have no alternative.
JGabriel
@SFAW:
I have no idea, I don’t remember either. But the important thing is:
It doesn’t matter even if it is true.
The GOP is clearly bringing it up because McRaven was on Trump’s/Christie’s short list for a national security position. In other words, it’s just more Republican deflection via What-About-ism.
Adam L Silverman
@Manyakitty: Everybody has their own kink…
fedupwithhypocrisy
@different-church-lady: and lovin’ the Russians
Adam L Silverman
@jl: Admiral McRaven had, by that time, been diagnosed with an adult form of leukemia. It is why he retired as Chancellor of the University of Texas System earlier than had been expected. He retired into a faculty position where he teaches while he is undergoing treatment. While his illness was covered a bit at the time of his retirement as chancellor, it has not gotten a lot of national coverage and is generally not discussed much. My guess is that even if he had otherwise been interested, he would likely have declined because of the cancer.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@trollhattan: Condolences.
Adam L Silverman
@trollhattan: My sincerest condolences?//
jl
@Adam L Silverman: Thanks for information. I forgot McRaven had leukemia.
There are many reasons why a politician running for office might put some names on a list. Fanatical devotion, or even particular interest of each and every person on the list in what the politician wants often doesn’t have much to do with it.
Adam L Silverman
@jl: My guess is she and her advisors were batting around retired officers who had demonstrated both competence as Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, or Marines and also demonstrated excellent administrative skills and abilities. Admiral McRaven had been widely praised as the SOCOM commanding admiral, which, given just how hosed up SOCOM is as a command, is something to take note of. And he was also widely praised for his work running the University of Texas system. So it would make sense to have him on that list. Even if it went no further than that. And my understanding is it went no further than that. If I’m recalling correctly Admiral (ret) Stavridis, who is both the former EUCOM commanding admiral and Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and the dean of the Fletcher School of Tufts was on the potential VP list.
Aleta
@JGabriel: I bet Trump also hates him because he wrote a public letter addressed to Trump after he revoked Brennan’s security clearance, dramatically undercutting Trump’s act and insulting him to boot.
jl
@Adam L Silverman: ” Stavridis, who is both the former EUCOM commanding admiral and Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and the dean of the Fletcher School of Tufts was on the potential VP list.”
Well that just shows the the military is lousy with Deep State liberal Democrats. How much of the military is run off of Soros money? Don’t hear that discussed much. Every wonder why?
/s
jl
And yes, since everyone asked, I am practicing my carefully thought out positions and opinions for future Trump rallies. Best way I can snag a network interview, get on a TV machine focus group, or get a profile in the NYT. I’ll be famous for 15 minutes one way or the other.
I’m thinking some kind of Trump-themed body paint might be a good gimmick to get attention. What should the color scheme be?
JGabriel
@jl:
Tar and feathers.
Aleta
jl
@JGabriel: I don’t think you understand my plan. But thanks.
JGabriel
@jl: You said Trump-themed. That’s the theme, the color-scheme, I want to see on Trump.
(Edited to add: Also, c’mon, seriously, what did you expect when gave us a such a perfect setup line?)
?BillinGlendaleCA
@jl: Body paint? Weak. You need to go for an orange “T” tat.
Chetan Murthy
@?BillinGlendaleCA: *giggle* clearly, orange spray-tan.
smike
@jl:
Duh, bloated orange, of course.
sm*t cl*de
@smike:
With a yellow belly.
Mary G
WaPo “breaking news” – Twitler has lost in court again over asylum for immigrants:
Whitaker is probably camped out at the Supreme Court so he can get it overruled immediately.
Mnemosyne
@Aleta:
“It’s not time for finger-pointing,” Zinke said, “which is why I’m waving my ass instead.”
There. Fixed.
hitchhiker
Since we’re open-threading, have any of you caught up with Maddow’s little history podcast about Spiro Agnew?
It’s good.
Agnew, it turns out, was corrupt AF … had been taking bribes for years in his various jobs in MD. He kept right on doing it inside the White House, and was caught by a few eager prosecutors working a different case. Agnew was an early version of Trump, eager to trash the press for daring to criticize him & wildly popular with the Republican base.
The prosecutors brought their airtight case to the AG in 1973, just as it was becoming clear that Nixon would probably not last much longer. They were then forced to watch as Agnew was allowed to resign and plead no contest to a minor tax evasion charge. No indictment. No trial. No jail. Because Agnew’s strategy was to deny and throw mud at everyone and everything, and he had a lot of popular support, there was a good chance he’d survive an impeachment process.
Which would have meant he’d be president. Unthinkable. So they made him/let him quit.
Seriously, it’s a very high quality listen. Bag Man.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@hitchhiker: Agnew was pretty much known as Nixon’s insurance policy. Nobody wanted a President Agnew. Once he was gone, Nixon’s impeachment was more possible.
wasabi gasp
kerfuffle?
Shit-flinging psychopathic ape busting through zoo gates and attacking keepers has become a bit of a to-do.
Honus
@JGabriel: in 2004 they ridiculed a guy who was awarded three purple hearts for the benefit of guy who spent the same war pretty much AWOL in Alabama and Texas. And won.
Vhh
@?BillinGlendaleCA: and that is why Pence’s actuvities are of interest. He was picked by Manafort, oversaw the transition, and picked Flynn.
Platonailedit
An important question are the military and security establishments, which have always favored republicans over dems without any sound or valid reasoning, still willing to continue to skew towards rethugs, considering how corrupt and collusive they have become with the totus thug even after he has gone.
opiejeanne
@hitchhiker: Who could forget “nattering nabobs of negativity”? It just tripped off the tongue and we laughed.
I was a Republican (I was young, I have learned) and I hated Agnew.
Robert Sneddon
@Platonailedit: Another important question is why any US Democratic administration has to have any ex-military officers at all in high positions? It’s kind of scary being from a civilian-run country like Britain to note the number of people-in-charge in the US whose first names are “General” and “Admiral”.
If you want to wean yourself off the military being in charge you could start by, say, appointing ex-sergeants and Other Ranks to those positions rather than officers but it’s your decision.
Cermet
In the amerikan military hierarchy, there is no greater level of power nor influence then Admirals. The orange fart cloud is crossing a line that will bite him like none other in the military establishment – this was just stupid.
NobodySpecial
Yeah, well, for all this great talk now that one of their own is under fire, these guys helped bring us to this point. From the Dominionist fucks in the Air Force who wanted a holy war, to the genteel neo-Confederates who have overrun the upper ranks of the other branches, this is what they wanted. I don’t want to hear them squawk now. I want sackcloth and ashes for a season, and then they can all go away.
They’ll turn back to insanity the moment they think they’re in the clear.
oclday
@Honus:
Yes, indeed. The Republicans tested this ratfucking out when they swiftboated Kerry. John McCain as I remember was the only Republican to make any type of statement against it. This isn’t new for Republicans its just more out in the open and wide spread.
EveryDayIHaveTheBlues
Adam, I love the posts that you do here. There is one thing that you can hopefully shed some light on, and that is this: how do we make a persuasive case for not disbelieving/disregarding people if they’re democrats or liberals. The problem I have with a lot of the support for Adm. McRaven (and let me be perfectly clear, this is not his fault in the least), is that people begin their defense of him by saying, “In reality, he is not a democrat, and he wasn’t really offered a job by Sec. Clinton”. This may or may not be true, but it implicitly makes the argument that McRaven’s criticisms would be illegitimate if he WERE a democrat, or if he WERE offered a job by Sec. Clinton.
This is a serious problem, for a couple of reasons.
First, as mentioned above, it tends to marginalize an entire set of people who are right in their denunciation of Trump, but are not Republicans. I freely admit that it isn’t clear (to me at least) how to construct a more effective argument for these kinds of folks, which includes almost everyone on this blog, and all the rest of the not-27%.
Second, this argument also moves the range of accepted and “correct” opinions far to the right – the well-known Overton Window effect.
Third, there will come a time when the democrats regain the presidency. One hopes that that happy event occurs in the next election, and that it coincides not only with control of the house of representatives, but also the senate. This is of critical importance because the incalculable damage done by Trump and the entire GOP needs to be remedied as soon as possible: it is not advisable to wait until the cancer is well established to begin treatment. This recent election was the first operation in limiting (if not excising) this malignancy. However, the problem with framing of the argument as so many have done is that it decreases the chances of not only electing more democrats, but also restricts the parameters under which they operate. And so you end up with this clusterfuck of idiots opposing Pelosi without a clear idea of how to proceed without her, and also (as Josh Marshall at TPM has pointed out), forcing the hand of many many representatives who are in vulnerable districts.
Lastly, I have a deep and visceral dislike of Nicole Wallace. I well remember her work for George W. Bush, who is saved from being at the bottom of the presidential heap only by the natural evolution of Republican politics and policies into the ugliness of Trump. I also remember the disgusting attacks that Bush45 and his team leveled against a man who fought bravely in Vietnam, when he didn’t really have to go. It is my personal mandate to have an abiding mistrust for everything Ms. Wallace says and does, because I do not sense that this is coming from a place of either honor or patriotism. I can stomach, and sometimes even admire Steve Schmidt (I don’t think he worked for W), but not Ms. Wallace.
This argument of course is not new. Many others have pointed this out, including JGabriel above. It is important I think that we discuss how to effectively communicate the message that McRaven (and others like him) are right when they criticize the president, not because they’re not democrats, but because their argument is legitimate and accurate for its merits.
Uncle Cosmo
@hitchhiker: IIRC the idea of allowing Agnew to plead nolo in exchange for resigning as VPOTUS was that of George Beall, the USA for MD (& scion of one of the few authentic GOP political families of the state), whose office developed the case. But I could be wrong; it’s been a long while since I last looked at my copy of A Heartbeat Away, Beall’s book on the subject. I shall check his recollection once I dig it out of the chaos that is my domicile.
artem1s
@Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (formerly Mumphrey, et al.):
Yea, but it perfectly fits the profile of a malignant narcissist. Or if you prefer one of the basic laws of the stupid.
It is what they are.
Uncle Cosmo
@Uncle Cosmo: Aaand I recollected incorrectly (& just lost this entire post because of my FUCKING PC!!).
The idea of Agnew pleading nolo in exchange for resigning the office of VPOTUS (& a recommendation from DoJ that he serve no jail time) was floated by one of his lawyers, Judah H. Best, to Attorney General Elliot Richardson in a meeting early on 13 Sep 1973. Of the four prosecutors from the US Attorney’s office in Baltimore who were involved,
Meeting with them that afternoon, RIchardson noted that
Quotes from Cohen, Richard M., and Jules Witcover, A Heartbeat Away: The investigation and Resignation of Vice President Spiro T. Agnew (New York: Viking, 1974), page 224 … which I had also misremembered as authored by Beall (or more likely his designated ghostwriter).
All you young’uns out there should keep in mind that Elliot Richardson was one of the good guys in the GOP at that time – he refused Nixon’s order to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox & was the first of 3 firings that constituted the “Saturday Night Massacre” (William Ruckleshaus, deputy USAG, likewise refused & was sacked; Robert Bork, who took over at DoJ, then canned Cox.) A subsequently popular bumpersnicker of the time:
They didn’t mean Bork, kids. :^D