What the hades??

UglyBear

UglyBear

Well-Known Member
I believe they all serve at the pleasure of the President, so maybe he should stop being pleased with them? (Can their sorry cowardly behinds)
 
D

DaSDGuy

Well-Known Member
Maybe the good general will enjoy his next assignment. Alaska is great this time of year. Or maybe Afganistan?
 
Yooper

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
I guess I'll take the opposing view. I think Milley's post-event take - that it created the wrong impression - was correct. I wasn't entirely thrilled to see SecDef Esper joining the walk either.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Yooper

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
GURPS said:
Fair Enough but tough sht .... the CiC says lets take a walk, you talk the walk
Click to expand...
Respectfully, absolutely disagree.

Maybe Esper (& Milley) "caved" to Trump. Maybe he (they) didn't realize the significance of joining Trump. Either way, didn't help anyone.

It certainly may turn out I'm wrong and there were legit 3-D moves in play. If so, I'll be glad to admit my error. However, at this point it looked to me like a giant crank-step.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Yooper

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
GURPS said:
OK
Click to expand...
Here's a take that I think supports your view:
spectator.org

General Milley’s Open Defiance - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

Somewhere President Harry Truman is rolling his eyes.
spectator.org spectator.org

So, in fairness, I agree with both of you, re: CiC, but I still think the decision for both of them to accompany Trump was mistaken. And to be clear, I should have added that I wasn't entirely thrilled that Milley made a video statement stating his "error"; the statement could have been made by a DoD spokesperson at a presser.

I guess what I'm really getting at is, "General, when you find yourself in a fox hole not of your choosing, put down the shovel."

--- End of line (MCP)
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Yooper said:
I guess what I'm really getting at is, "General, when you find yourself in a fox hole not of your choosing, put down the shovel."
Click to expand...

🤣

Yeah ..... I understand your point, but as no surprise I agree with the article

At the end of the day, the Military ANSWERS to the Civilian Leadership ..... In this case Trump.

We are not talking questionable orders, but a Photo Op ....
If Trump wants to stand Milley on the front porch of the White House as a Cigar Store Indian, the General is obligated to follow orders or tender his resignation

Keeping his OPINIONS to himself ...

Clearly, Gen. Milley’s statement comes perilously close to doing exactly what Truman charged of MacArthur: issuing “a challenge to the authority of the President under the Constitution.”

This is flatly unacceptable, not to mention seriously wrong.

To be clear, Gen. Milley is perfectly within his rights to disagree with the president — behind closed doors. But the moment he takes his disagreement and goes public on his own authority, as Truman said of MacArthur, this is “open defiance” of a president’s orders.

What is notable, in sum, is that on two separate occasions Gen. Milley has openly challenged the Constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP
Yooper

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
GURPS said:
We are not talking questionable orders, but a Photo Op ....
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply, but especially this comment I snipped. Because there was something about the "photo op" that bugged me but I couldn't put my finger on. It finally came to me this morning.

My last tour was in DC next to the White House (won't say more). Anyway, in the White House complex area (WH, Main Treasury/Treasury Annex. NSC) there was a prohibition against wearing field uniforms/camo/battle dress (whatever you want to call it). Either one wore a suit (which I did most of the time) or one worn service dress (Class A or B; which I did some of the time).

The reason was because field uniforms conveyed an optic of militarization/combat/etc; the very opposite of what the White House is supposed to stand for and signal (i.e., democracy, reasoned argument, anything and everything other than kinetics).

So while I still think Milley's presence was counter-productive I'm wondering if my primary objection was prompted by what he was wearing. It would be interesting to see if we could re-run the whole affair with Milley wearing service dress, to see if my reaction to his presence would be the same.

P.S. I guess the field uniform prohibition is no longer in effect in the WH complex area. If true, it went into effect long after I retired. And if so, sorry to see it no longer in effect.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Yooper said:
..... there was a prohibition against wearing field uniforms/camo/battle dress ...
Click to expand...

Ya know I remember hearing in the 80's only Dress Uniforms were allowed in the Mil District Of Washington

I wondered about this when I saw the photo .... 🤔


Yooper said:
So while I still think Milley's presence was counter-productive I'm wondering if my primary objection was prompted by what he was wearing. It would be interesting to see if we could re-run the whole affair with Milley wearing service dress, to see if my reaction to his presence would be the same.
Click to expand...


I thought I read somewhere [ someone ] I thought Milley changed in to the BDU's before the Photo OP
 
Yooper

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
GURPS said:
Ya know I remember hearing in the 80's only Dress Uniforms were allowed in the Mil District Of Washington
Click to expand...
No problem, re: BDUs/ACUs (or equivalent), off-post/base in the MDW since shortly after 9/11. But the prohibition remained in effect in/around the WH complex.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Yooper said:
No problem, re: BDUs/ACUs (or equivalent), off-post/base in the MDW since shortly after 9/11. But the prohibition remained in effect in/around the WH complex.

--- End of line (MCP)
Click to expand...


:yay:

Well I did get out in 88
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Experts Say Retired Military Officers Who Denounced Trump Could Be Prosecuted

In recent weeks, President Trump has been publicly criticized by high-ranking retired military officers such as General James Mattis, Admiral William McRaven, General Colin Powell, Lt. General John Allen, and others. These public criticisms, however, are in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and law experts say these officials could be recalled to active duty and prosecuted.

“Retired officers can’t make contemptuous remarks of the commander-in-chief,” John Dowd, a former Marine Corps Judge Advocate and former Trump legal advisor, told Just The News. “They’re all subject to recall. They’re subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice until they die.”

The law governing this conduct is 10 U.S. Code § 888:

10 U.S. Code § 888 – Art. 88. Contempt toward officials
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Click to expand...
“As part of the UCMJ, governing military law, you cannot use contemptuous words against certain officials, including the president,” one active-duty Army Judge Advocate General Corps officer said. “That is a court-martial offense, and yes, you can be recalled to active duty to be court-martialed.”

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...t-denounced-trump-could-be-prosecuted-n525982
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP
Yooper

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top