In a blistering NYT op-ed today, the patriot hero President Obama charged with bringing 9/11 terrorist attacker Osama bin Laden to justice warned that America is now under attack by our own president.
Accusing Trump of undermining domestic institutions and destroying America’s international standing in allowing for the slaughter of our Kurdish allies by the Turkish invasion of northeastern Syria, the architect of the 5/2/11 Navy Seal raid Operation Neptune Spear — retired four star Admiral William McRaven — argues that because Trump does not share our values or demonstrate responsible leadership, the sooner he is replaced the better for peace within our country and throughout the world.
It is time to impeach Trump for high crimes and remove him from office now.
fredrichlariccia says
‘Moscow Mitch’ calls Trump’s Syria debacle “a strategic nightmare.”
fredrichlariccia says
“Worth emphasizing the scale of the disaster Trump has wrought in the week since his call with Erdogan : 1. Revived ISIS 2. Cemented Assad’s grip on Syria 3. Handed Russia yet another geopolitical windfall 4. Betrayed the Kurds 5. Immeasurably harmed US power.” Edward Luce
jconway says
I’ve been clear about this from the beginning, say what you will about a President Pence, he wouldn’t have done this and he can be trusted with our military for the next year and a half. Trump cannot be. It’s highly unlikely Pence could pick up the pieces and run for re-election anyway.
Removing Trump from office now opens up a GOP primary where more competent statesmen and women could emerge to lead the right away from the alt-right. No, I don’t want any of them to win. I think we can all agree with Charley that the GOP deserves to lose up and down the ballot for enabling so many bad things for so long.
That said, a functioning two party system is vital to restoring our democratic institutions and American credibility abroad. Impeaching Trump is the first step to that, and if there are any patriots left on the right they will follow the Democrats lead.
fredrichlariccia says
Speaker Pelosi is in Jordan with a bipartisan Congressional delegation trying to clean up the mess Trump has made in the Middle East.
Good luck, Madam Speaker.
SomervilleTom says
I think we face a genuine constitutional crisis, of which the impeachment and removal of Donald Trump is just the start.
We all see compelling evidence that Mike Pence and much of the cabinet (specifically, at least William Barr, Mike Pompeo, and Rick Perry) are part of the on-going criminal conspiracy to force foreign involvement in a US election. That is just one that’s been revealed. The decision to betray the Kurds is a second example. There are surely others.
As Ms. Pelosi has famously observed, all roads lead to Vladimir Putin.
I think there is very likely evidence that at least some of these are Russian assets. The connections to Russian oligarch Dmytro Firtash are pervasive within the GOP, and he is in turn closely tied to Vladimir Putin. We already know that Mr. Firtash spent more than five years and hundreds of millions of dollars in efforts to “lobby” GOP legislators and officials. To me, it strains credulity to assert that none of those efforts succeeded.
I think that at least Mr. McConnell and Mr. Graham behave in ways that are indistinguishable from how they would behave if they were compromised. I think that at least some of this is what the counterintelligence investigation being run out of the SDNY office is about.
I think this is likely to be a sort of insurance policy for all involved. I think that when the full spectrum of evidence of the Russian attack on America is revealed, it well be clear that pretty much the entire leadership of the GOP must be prosecuted along with Mr. Trump. I think the backroom conversations among the GOP is something along the lines of “if we vote to remove Donald Trump, we must also vote to remove Mike Pence. We will be voting to make Nancy Pelosi President.”
I’m not sure we have a constitutional framework for such an investigation and prosecution. Who investigates? Who prosecutes? Who judges? Who enforces the verdicts if the parties are guilty? Do justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh remain on the Supreme Court after it is shown that they were railroaded through the Senate by Russian assets under the direction of Mr. Putin? Do those two justices participate in the many trials that will be necessary in these scenarios? Does Mr. McConnell play his constitutional role in an impeachment trial given that he is a member of the accused conspiracy? If not Mr. McConnell, then who? Mr. Schumer? Will America and the rest of the GOP accept the results of all this?
I understand that any member of the House or Senate can be removed with a 2/3 majority vote of the relevant body. Is that sufficient? Will that even work in today’s toxic political climate?
I think removing Donald Trump might just be the first step of a VERY long and harrowing constitutional journey. I am not confident that we have the endurance and courage to complete it.
Christopher says
Pence and the Cabinet officers are all impeachable, so someone should at least file articles to show they are serious. Senators can theoretically be investigated by DOJ, but yes, I know that is compromised. The Justices were duly nominated and confirmed so I say they get to stay unless themselves implicated.
bob-gardner says
Are you sure, Tom, that you’ve found all the conspirators? Have you checked under your bed?
SomervilleTom says
@Have all the conspirators been found?:
The SDNY is still looking. I won’t be surprised if there are more than I’ve enumerated.
Have you been paying attention to the escapades of Rudy Giuliani and his henchmen, and their connections to Vladimir Putin?
I don’t think Pete Sessions is hiding under my bed.
Do you still think that the decision to withdraw troops from Syria didn’t help Vladimir Putin?
All roads lead to Vladimir Putin.
bob-gardner says
Generals and Admirals should stay out of this conversation.
SomervilleTom says
Why? It sounds as though you’re making an ad hominem argument to the tune of “Generals and admirals should stay out of this conversation because they can’t be trusted” or something to that effect.
I welcome all voices to the conversation. I feel confident of our collective ability to separate the invalid and dishonest assertions from facts and truth.
bob-gardner says
Generals and Admirals should not influence a process that may result in the overturning of election results. Civilians should be in charge in a democracy. That to me is so obvious that I’m astounded that any American would think differently. (Except maybe Fred, who I’m convinced would be perfectly happy to have America run by a bunch of Colonels.)
fredrichlariccia says
I deeply resent you accusing me of supporting a military overthrow of our democracy. That is a damnable lie and I demand your apology and retraction now.
bob-gardner says
Then, Fred, you should think (for once) about what you post. It’s a slippery slope once you start citing generals and admirals about who is fit to run the country, or who is or is not a patriot. Under the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to remove a president. There should be a bright line between the military and civilian rule. I include retired officers because they still keep some of their military privileges and so are not completely separated from the military.
SomervilleTom says
It sounds like you’re arguing that retired military personnel — including generals and admirals — should be prohibited from appearing as political analysts on network television. Is that REALLY what you mean?
I think you would strip a significant number of people — every veteran, in fact — of their First Amendment right of free speech. You would suppress words of experience and wisdom that I think Americans desperately need to hear now more than ever.
There are far too many American chicken-hearts — like Donald Trump — who have never come close to combat and who loudly beat the war drum so that somebody else’s children will be maimed and killed. I think that’s despicable, and I think your proposed restrictions would ensure that ONLY those voices are heard.
I think that Mr. McRaven is able to speak to the reality of war and combat precisely because of his own first-hand experience. I am appalled that you would silence him.
bob-gardner says
@”It sounds like you’re arguing that retired military personnel — including generals and admirals — should be prohibited from appearing as political analysts on network television. Is that REALLY what you mean?”
Tom, that’s NOT what I mean. Generals and Admirals are as free as anyone else to give their opinions about most things. But removing the President, or declaring the President unfit for office crosses a line–the same line MacArthur crossed in the Korean War. That’s closer to a military coup than I am comfortable with. This is where I would draw the line.
Where would you draw the line? Would you draw it where Truman did? Or would you wait for something more overt?
Suppose the impeachment process does not result in the President’s removal, and there are generals and admirals publicly declaring the President unfit. Are you okay with that?
SomervilleTom says
@Where would you draw the line?:
When it comes to writing op-ed pieces, I don’t think there’s any line to be drawn. I think retired military personnel can say what they like about whatever subject they like, including impeachment.
@[What if] there are generals and admirals publicly declaring the President unfit?
Same thing. I think retired generals and admirals can say whatever they like. I think active-duty generals and admirals can say whatever they like so long as they aren’t in uniform (though I doubt any would do so).
jconway says
MacArthur was active duty. So was McChrystal. It was also worse since they were battlefield commanders questioning war time Presidents.
Both Presidents they criticized were right to fire them for subordination.
If McRaven were still in uniform, I agree it would be incredibly inappropriate for him to share this assessment. I would even support Trump firing him, even if I agree with McRaven. He has not been on active or reserve duty in over 8 years, he can say whatever he wants. I think we should listen to his valuable perspective.
It’s doubtful he agreed on Obama on everything, most military commanders I’ve encountered lean center-right, but he recognized Obama was a fit commander in chief and he recognizes Trump is not. I think more high ranking national security and foreign policy advisers should resign and come clean about this President. I also think they have an obligation to be honest about his fitness and activities undermining our security when pressed by Congressional oversight.
fredrichlariccia says
Privileged Chicken Hawk cowards like your Bone Spur Draft Dodger made it necessary for poor working class boys like my brother to have to fight and die in Vietnam in his place.
And now you have the gall to muzzle our brave hero patriots — RETIRED MILITARY VETERANS — for speaking truth to that evil Monster’s corrupt power.
Shame on you!
Christopher says
So a general speaking out is just one step shy of a coup in your mind? They haven’t lost their first amendment rights!
bob-gardner says
“If there is one basic element in our Constitution, it is civilian control of the military.” –Harry Truman
Christopher says
Nobody is arguing otherwise, least of all the generals.
SomervilleTom says
Those two sentences are a non sequitur. Generals and Admirals — more specifically in this case, retired generals and admirals — are citizens like every other citizen and rightfully enjoy the same First Amendment rights as everybody else.
VFW and DAV members and commanders have been active in politics for as long as I can remember. Do you really assert that such activity is an attempt to challenge civilian control?
Do you think that Colin Powell was similarly out of line in his many public appearances since retiring?
My understanding is that active service members are prohibited from making public political acts WHILE IN UNIFORM. The purpose of that perfectly reasonable constraint is to draw the bright line you mention so that no one mistakes any utterance as an endorsement by the US military of any given political view.
Every veteran, including retired generals and admirals, has offered their very life and limb in service to the nation. You would strip them of their constitutional rights specifically because of that service. I think that’s an absurd and offensive premise.
You are the only one suggesting that this somehow means that civilians are not in charge. Of course civilians should be in charge. Civilians are in charge.
I don’t know about other Americans, but I enthusiastically agree with you that civilians should be in charge of government. Always have, always will.
I also believe that a retired Admiral has every right to publish an opinion in a major newspaper. Dwight Eisenhower was the “Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force” in 1943 — arguably the most powerful military position in the world’s history until that time. He was then elected to two terms as President.
I believe that Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency reaffirmed, rather than challenged, civilian control of our democracy.
I think you’re very mistaken about this.
SomervilleTom says
@It’s a slippery slope:
I see only one participant in this exchange sliding down a slippery slope with arms, hands, and legs flailing loudly. I think that when you start enumerating reasons why the constitutional rights every American is entitled to should be denied to an individual or group of individuals, you’re way way down that slope, and there’s more ice all around you.
There IS a bright line between military and civilian rule. Nothing Fred or Mr. McRaven has said or done comes even remotely close to challenging that bright line.
terrymcginty says
Yes. Generals and admirals should not “influence” the political process. People who have dedicated their lives to the service of this country and have now retired should shut up.
Meanwhile, I wonder if you are as excited about preventing President Doral-Banana from inviting Russia and China from “influencing” the process.
Clearly, Fred gives more thought to his posts than you have ever bothered to give to the near-treason occurring every day today by your banana Republicans <— my newly coined term.
Fred, a Gold -Star family member, has more thoughtfulness and patriotism in his pinky than you and your President Banana-supporting brown-shirts have in your combined propaganda-spewing pie-holes.
SomervilleTom says
@propaganda-spewing pie-holes:
I down-rated this comment because of its last paragraph.
A few weeks, you posted the following (emphasis mine):
I invite you to reread your final paragraph and ask yourself if you are living up to the standard you yourself offered. As much as we might occasionally disagree with him, bob-gardner is a fellow commenter. He most certainly is not a defender of Mr. Trump. Nor is he a “brownshirt”.
I find the language of your last paragraph over the top, especially in comparison to the comparatively gentle question from me that prompted your spirited defense of Fred (who, by the way, still needs no defense in my opinion).
I really do think BMG will be improved if we avoid insults and personal attacks directed at each other.
terrymcginty says
“I really do think BMG will be improved if we avoid insults and personal attacks directed at each other.”
I agree. So please reread Bob Gardner’s reference to Fred (to which I was RESPONDING).
terrymcginty says
May I summarize your critique?
“Please be nice to our resident fascist troll even when he personally attacks a fellow progressive. We enjoy using him as a foil.”
SomervilleTom says
@resident fascist troll:
I daresay I’ve been a part of this community a great deal longer than you, and I’ve been butting heads with bob-gardner literally from my first comment here well over a decade ago.
As hostile as Bob’s commentary is from time to time, nobody who’s read his posts can claim that he is a fascist. Nor does he behave like any of the hundreds of trolls I’ve encountered in the blogosphere, either professionally or personally.
I see nothing more than a spirited give-and-take between Bob and Fred in this exchange. Each feels passionately that the other is dead wrong about this, and each expresses that passionate feeling in equally passionate commentary. Neither of them insults the other with anywhere near the intemperate language you directed at Bob.
Bob is not a “fascist troll”, resident or otherwise. Fred is not someone who is “perfectly happy to have America run by a bunch of Colonels”. In some of my debate-society sessions, we used the following humorous phrase from time to time when our exchanges got out of hand:
“Yah, and your mama wears combat boots.”
I think the following can play the same role here:
Thank you for posting.
fredrichlariccia says
You are wrong, again.
RETIRED four star Admiral McRaven most definitely should NOT stay out of this conversation.
jconway says
If anything more active duty generals should be resigning en masse and refusing to follow orders from this corrupt, morally bankrupt, strategically incompetent commander in Chief.
I think Mattis should not be wasting his time making jokes in front of Manhattan elite, but should have the courage of conviction to say what we know he honestly thinks about this presidents fitness. So should Tillerson.
I had no problem with generals resigning or critiquing President Bush in retirement during the lead up to the Iraq War. I only wish more of them had, rather than blindly follow stupid orders.
Your argument about civilian control seems to rest on the notion that Trumps foreign and national security policies are:
a) coherent
b) not influenced by major power rivals
c) backed by a clear mandate of a majority of Americans.
None of those conditions are met. Even the Iraq War had (manufactured) majority support at the start and was solely America’s mistake to make. These moves enabling Turkey seem tailor made for increasing Russian dominance over what’s left of Syria, moving Erdogan into Russian orbit, and destroying NATO-a long term Putin project.
Green lighting the Turkish slaughter of the Syrian Kurds is overwhelmingly opposed by a majority of Americans a bipartisan majority in Congress. Maybe not the politicians on Putin’s payroll like Trump, Gabbard, and McCarthy, but everyone else is opposed. If we want to really talk about civilian control, Congress ultimately has final control over national security, not this runaway executive making secret promises to foreign leaders over the phone.
terrymcginty says
I definitely accept your vouching for someone and can and do respect that, Somerville Tom. So I retract my characterization regarding “brown shirts”, as applied to any specific person.
Nonetheless, I never thought that I would see, in my lifetime, a ‘president’ for whom the term “fascist” would actually apply, and not have it be simply hyperbole to use that term.
But we now have one.
The vast majority of his voters are obviously not actual fascists. But when people on politically oriented sites do almost nothing but find ways to obfuscate and cloud that literal fascism, and do everything possible in terms of argument to promote that literal fascism, I think it is more than fair to apply the term, as a general matter. Indeed, I think it is important to do so, to prevent the horrors of the twentieth century from repeating themselves.
SomervilleTom says
I share your abhorrence of Donald Trump and Trumpism, I’m pretty sure each participant in this thread does as well.
I appreciate you walking back the “brown-shirts” comment.
jconway says
Also just as a point of information McRaven is a retired Admiral. Over five years retired. I think that’s a key distinction from active duty military critiquing the President. I agree with Bob the latter is indeed inappropriate while I agree with Tom the former is just veterans exercising their First Amendment rights. I have friends who met CJCOS Gen. Joseph Dunford, a Boston boy done good, who assure me is as progressive a general as they come. Particularly on racial and gender equality in the services.
I would take an educated guess that a the reason he refused to be reappointed, or Trump refused to reappoint him, is that they privately disagree on a lot of these issues. I am glad Dunford respects the civilian led chain of command and has not criticized the President in public, but I also hope he will share any concerns he has with the public as soon as he retires. Which will be in a few months, very interested to see and hear his take.
jconway says
Here’s a good link on Dunford and his relationship with Trump, Mattis, Kelly, and Allen.
fredrichlariccia says
“Trump compared the impeachment process to a “lynching” — to which I have two responses:
One, don’t even try and imply that rich white men were ever lynched by angry mobs in this country. Vile.
Two, it’s not a lynching if Nancy Pelosi just gives you enough rope to hang yourself.” George Takei
SomervilleTom says
@lynching:
I agree that it’s outrageous.
I think he’s trolling us and especially the media, hoping to distract attention from his collapsing presidency. I think he knows that as the spotlight stays on him and his corrupt henchmen, more whistleblowers come forward and the full extent of his many betrayals comes into ever-sharper focus.
All roads lead to Vladimir Putin. I think we must not let ourselves be distracted by his media shenanigans.
fredrichlariccia says
I agree, Tom. We must stay focused on removing him as unfit for office. So, let’s see what we got to date:
1. Bribery. I like johntmays charge instead of quid pro quo. If holding up Congressional appropriated arms to shake down an ally at war for their very survival in exchange for manufactured / falsified ‘dirt’ on your chief opponent is not impeachable we should all just pack up and go home.
2. Abuse of power. Too numerous to mention but Doralgate is just the latest.
3. Contempt of Congress.
4. Obstruction of Justice.
Just for starters but I understand the Dems want to narrow it down to KISS.
fredrichlariccia says
“Never Trump Republicans are ‘Human Scum.’ signed The Pot calling the Kettle black. Tuck Frump
fredrichlariccia says
Trump’s trade advisor just said it’s “confidential” whether Trump is pushing China to investigate Biden for manufactured, falsified ‘dirt’ as extortion for a trade deal.