Trump attacks McChrystal after retired general called Trump immoral

[tulc]

Trump attacks McChrystal after retired general called Trump immoral - CNNPolitics

The commander in chief's name-calling comes after McChrystal said during an interview Sunday that Trump was dishonest and immoral.
"I don't think he tells the truth," McChrystal told ABC's Martha Raddatz on "This Week." When asked if he thought Trump was immoral, McChrystal responded, "I think he is."
"What I would ask every American to do is, again, stand in front of that mirror and say, what are we about?" McChrystal continued. "Am I really willing to throw away or ignore some of the things that people do that are pretty unacceptable normally just because they accomplish certain other things that we might like. If we want to be governed by someone we wouldn't do a business deal with because their background is so shady, if we're willing to do that then that's in conflict with who I think we are."
"And so I think it's necessary in those times to take a stand," he said.

tulc(thinks President Trump sounds really triggered)

 

[Ada Lovelace]

With his puerile attack, Donald Trump substantiated what General McChrystal stated about him.

 

[JosephZ]

Why does Trump seem to dislike those that have served in the military so much? He has publicly insulted or belittled the Khan family, McCain, McRaven, Kelly, Mattis, Allen, and now McChrystal. Who's it going to be next?

 

[redleghunter]

McChrystal has a history with US presidents.

Obama 'angry' after reading McChrystal's remarks - CNN.com

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Why does Trump seem to dislike those that have served in the military so much? He has publicly insulted or belittled the Khan family, McCain, McRaven, Kelly, Mattis, and now McChrystal. Who's it going to be next?

The oath of enlistment for the military is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That precept is engrained deeply and remains in many long after they are no longer enlisted. I think that at times the components of the oath can be incongruent with one another, with orders having to be followed even when they're justifiably viewed as being detrimental to the Constitution and country. Those such as the ones you've referenced understand that perfectly. While enlisted they were more encumbered with what they could express, but once retired are at liberty to speak freely. Those who've served in the military, who've willingly sacrificed themselves for their country, have earned the right to criticize those they construe as being detrimental to it.

Trump demands fealty but gives loyalty to none unless there is a direct benefit to him. He dislikes anyone who offends his ego and has a compulsion to lash out in petulant fury, whether that person be the father of someone who died in service or a decorated veteran.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

McChrystal has a history with US presidents.

Obama 'angry' after reading McChrystal's remarks - CNN.com

McChrystal clearly has more respect for the president who relieved him of command than he does for the current president.

To my knowledge, McChrystal was not quoted as being directly critical of President Obama or his policies; his derision was directed at civilian government officials including Vice President Biden. I very much doubt VP Biden or any of those who were mocked by McChrystal took to Twitter to sit behind a screen and juvenilely lash out and degrade him in juvenile vindictiveness. President Obama certainly didn't. McChrystal accepted responsibility for his conduct, as a mature person should, apologizing and resigning. President Obama's statement was that he had accepted McChrystal's resignation "with considerable regret" but certainty it was the correct action to take for the benefit of our country.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Why does Trump seem to dislike those that have served in the military so much? He has publicly insulted or belittled the Khan family, McCain, McRaven, Kelly, Mattis, Allen, and now McChrystal. Who's it going to be next?

Trump has a very long history of insulting and belittling people he doesn't like. And that list includes women, women he's had an affair with, political opponents, Mexican immigrants, immigrants from Haiti, El Savador and other African countries, and black NFL players who peacefully kneel during the national anthem. It's ironic that his third wife wanted to combat bullying when she's married to one.

Donald Trump’s Long Record of Degrading Women

Donald Trump sexism tracker: Every offensive comment in one place

A running list of all the worst things Donald Trump has said about women. It’s long.

Trump said 'Despicable' Racist Comments about Blacks, Jews in Taped Apprentice Meetings

The 551 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List

 

[Tigger45]

Bone spurs can make one ornery, causing said one to lash out at those who’ve actually fought for their country.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Bone spurs can make one ornery, causing said one to lash out at those who’ve actually fought for their country.

Apparently bone spurs also causes Trump not to like people who were captured.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Didn't you know, Trump knows more than the generals:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-i-think-i-know-more-about-nato-than-mattis-does

 

[miamited]

HI tulc,

You may as well add to this thread President Trump's response to Sen. elect Mitt Romney's complaints.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Yarddog]

Trump attacks McChrystal after retired general called Trump immoral - CNNPolitics

tulc(thinks President Trump sounds really triggered)

Not surprising for a man with a god complex.

 

[miamited]

McChrystal has a history with US presidents.

Obama 'angry' after reading McChrystal's remarks - CNN.com

Hi RLH,

Yes, apparently Gen. McChrystal has gotten himself in hot water before. Notice the difference, though. In your article Gen. McChrystal seems to pretty quickly understand that his actions were not responsible and issued an apology. President Obama didn't attack Gen. McChrystal nor belittle him in his remarks. He handled it as, I believe, most responsible, mature adults working with each other on the world stage should. None of that seems to be the case with either of their responses in this new matter.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[redleghunter]

Hi RLH,

Yes, apparently Gen. McChrystal has gotten himself in hot water before. Notice the difference, though. In your article Gen. McChrystal seems to pretty quickly understand that his actions were not responsible and issued an apology. President Obama didn't attack Gen. McChrystal nor belittle him in his remarks. He handled it as, I believe, most responsible, mature adults working with each other on the world stage should. None of that seems to be the case with either of their responses in this new matter.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Who fired the first salvo between Mac and the President? Asking have not followed from the beginning.

 

[miamited]

Hi RLG,

I think Gen. McChrystal did in both instances. However, that isn't the point. The point, for me, is the response of the President in each event. The current one just can't seem to act mature about any perceived or actual slight. He has to denigrate and belittle and make up names. Similar to how a 6 year old might respond to an attack. Donald Trump has never matured to the point that he can work with others, or treat others, with normal civility. Just look at the near constant turnover of all his staff appointments. If that's what the people who voted for him were looking for when they said that they wanted someone who wasn't a politician, then I'm sorry but our nation's gone to the dogs. Treating others with respect and civility should always be a practice of our commander in chief. It should be something that we, as the voting public, want our national leader to represent as what Americans are like to the rest of the world. I personally don't appreciate a national leader who thinks a fair fight with another leader or one of his own citizens is to make up derogatory names to address them. For me, that's just soooooo immature. And I'd like to think that other nations see our national leader as someone who is mature, responsible and dependable. I can't see a single one of those traits in Donald Trump. From all indications, none of our allied nations seem to see it in him either.

So, as I've said on these threads many times before, my argument against Donald Trump isn't so much about his policies, although there are some that I surely don't agree with, but rather it's about his inability to act like a person who respects others. His seemingly unstoppable nature of denigrating those with whom he doesn't agree. He is just a broken person as I see him. He may be rich and he may be powerful, but there's definitely something wrong with his ideas of how others should be treated.

Sure, it's ok and expected that the President of the United States in the capacity of his duties is going to meet and have to deal with people who don't agree with him. Now, that person can either act with civility and respect towards those people while disagreeing with them, or he can choose to act like a 6 year old who's going to take his ball and go home and sulk. Which do you want?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[redleghunter]

Hi RLG,

I think Gen. McChrystal did in both instances. However, that isn't the point. The point, for me, is the response of the President in each event. The current one just can't seem to act mature about any perceived or actual slight. He has to denigrate and belittle and make up names. Similar to how a 6 year old might respond to an attack. Donald Trump has never matured to the point that he can work with others, or treat others, with normal civility. Just look at the near constant turnover of all his staff appointments. If that's what the people who voted for him were looking for when they said that they wanted someone who wasn't a politician, then I'm sorry but our nation's gone to the dogs. Treating others with respect and civility should always be a practice of our commander in chief. It should be something that we, as the voting public, want our national leader to represent as what Americans are like to the rest of the world. I personally don't appreciate a national leader who thinks a fair fight with another leader or one of his own citizens is to make up derogatory names to address them. For me, that's just soooooo immature. And I'd like to think that other nations see our national leader as someone who is mature, responsible and dependable. I can't see a single one of those traits in Donald Trump. And from all indications, none of our allied nations seem to see it in him either.

So, as I've said on these threads many times before, my argument against Donald Trump isn't so much about his policies, although there are some that I surely don't agree with, but rather it's about his inability to act like a person who respects others. His seemingly unstoppable nature of denigrating those with whom he doesn't agree. He is just a broken person as I see him. He may be rich and he may be powerful, but there's definitely something wrong with his ideas of how others should be treated.

Sure, it's ok and expected that the President of the United States in the capacity of his duties is going to meet and have to deal with people who don't agree with him. Now, that person can either act with civility and respect towards those people while disagreeing with them, or he can choose to act like a 6 year old who's going to take his ball and go home and sulk. Which do you want?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Thanks Ted. I see your point. I do. Sometimes the best policy is to ignore the background noise. I agree the President should do more of that.

There is more “gain” and class in responding to criticism with being the bigger person.

My beef is as being a retired officer is even retired generals should follow the same rules. McCrystal was a very capable General in Afghanistan. He’s not in the seat of POTUS. I guess that’s my point. As an officer even retired we should remember criticism of the boss must be done constructively. Obama was justified in being angry with him and dealt with him as a POTUS should.

Trump went to Twitter which is not the way to handle it.

If it was me? I would thank him for his great service and as such his comments are unbecoming of the professional he was in service to our country.

 

[miamited]

Thanks Ted. I see your point. I do. Sometimes the best policy is to ignore the background noise. I agree the President should do more of that.

There is more “gain” and class in responding to criticism with being the bigger person.

My beef is as being a retired officer is even retired generals should follow the same rules. McCrystal was a very capable General in Afghanistan. He’s not in the seat of POTUS. I guess that’s my point. As an officer even retired we should remember criticism of the boss must be done constructively. Obama was justified in being angry with him and dealt with him as a POTUS should.

Trump went to Twitter which is not the way to handle it.

If it was me? I would thank him for his great service and as such his comments are unbecoming of the professional he was in service to our country.

My beef is as being a retired officer is even retired generals should follow the same rules.

I'm going to assume that what you really mean in that sentence is: My beef, as a retired officer, is that even retired generals should follow the same rules. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I can appreciate your beef, but I'm not sure that I see where Gen. McChrystal's criticism of one's boss, especially after leaving their employment, needs to be done in a 'constructive' manner. The man was just calling it as he sees it, just as he did with President Obama. According to the article, he was asked whether the President was immoral. Now, if you think that he is, but say that you don't think he is, wouldn't that be lying? What would your response have been to such a direct question IF you did believe that the President of the United States is an immoral person?

Do you feel the same way about Adm. McRaven who is mentioned in the article and also is said to have 'leveled sharp criticism of the President'?

Now look at President Trump's response: 'got fired like a dog', 'last assignment a total bust', 'known for big dumb mouth' and finally calling him the most denigrating name that a man like Donald Trump can come up with, 'Hilary lover'. You see that as being a perfectly acceptable way for someone to respond to the Generals answer to a direct question. Like I said, if that's what the people who voted for President Trump wanted, then our nation's already gone to the dogs.

I think that if you really read the entire article, one can't help but see that Gen. McChrystal is the bigger man in this gambit. I have a hard time understanding how you're seeing this as somehow an error in Gen. McChrystals actions. In this article and others that have gone before, we have repeated examples of high ranking military leaders decrying President Trump's leadership abilities. The article mentions Adm. McRaven and Gen. Mattis. Now, Gen. Mattis is still trying to be the bigger person in the issue by merely saying that President Trump needs someone who is more aligned with his ideas, but let's wait a year into his retirement. You may yet be reading how Gen. Mattis also begins to tell all about what working with President Trump is really like. At the time he wrote his 'kind words' regarding his not being in agreement with President Trump, he was still employed and President Trump was still his boss.

But... look at the things that President Trump has been saying about Gen. Mattis. Who's the mature person here? Here's a bit of copy from the NYT regarding Trump and his battle with retired military officers.

... has given way to anger at the retired officers who have questioned his character and condemned his performance in office now that they are civilians. But in the past few months, in ways big and small, some of the military’s most prominent figures, no longer inhibited by active duty, have spoken out against Mr. Trump in caustic terms, describing him as unfit for the presidency. And as in other situations where he has felt under attack, Mr. Trump has responded to criticism of his leadership by lashing out at his accusers.

After the president pulled the security clearance of John O. Brennan, a former director of the C.I.A., the retired Adm. William H. McRaven, a Navy SEAL who oversaw the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, wrote in The Washington Post that Mr. Trump has “embarrassed us in the eyes of our children.”

Gen. David H. Petraeus, a former director of the C.I.A., who was once seen as a potential administration official, recently said he would not work for Mr. Trump. And Gen. John F. Kelly, who stepped down this week as White House chief of staff, said in an exit interview that his tenure at the White House should be judged on what he prevented the president from doing.

Just imagine, as bad as it all is, what Gen. Kelly may have stopped the president from doing.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and understanding of these things, but suffice to say that I'm not much in agreement with your ideas about this issue.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

edit to correct that it was Gen. Kelly and not Gen. Petreus that said we should judge his job performance on what he 'prevented the president from doing'.

 

[redleghunter]

According to the article, he was asked whether the President was immoral. Now, if you think that he is, but say that you don't think he is, wouldn't that be lying? What would your response have been to such a direct question IF you did believe that the President of the United States is an immoral person?

You don’t answer questions like that as a military officer. Now if the question was posed to the Pope or a pastor, sure.

McChrystal was wrong to contribute to a journalists prepared narrative. He should know better. When Stanley criticized Obama it was over military policy. That’s his lane but he did so in a manner disrespectful to a sitting President. So he rightfully got crushed for it.

 

[miamited]

You don’t answer questions like that as a military officer. Now if the question was posed to the Pope or a pastor, sure.

McChrystal was wrong to contribute to a journalists prepared narrative. He should know better. When Stanley criticized Obama it was over military policy. That’s his lane but he did so in a manner disrespectful to a sitting President. So he rightfully got crushed for it.

Hi RLH,

Well, I'll bow to your understanding of how people should answer questions. Me, I've just always felt that honesty was the best policy. Barring of course, that it's not about national security that likely shouldn't be made known to the public. So, because an ex-military commander said something that you would deem inappropriate, the president has every right to refer to them as President Trump did. OK.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[redleghunter]

So, because an ex-military commander said something that you would deem inappropriate, the president has every right to refer to them as President Trump did. OK.

I did not say that, meaning the President was justified in doing so. I actually wrote a bit about that in a previous response to you. A consummate professional as Stanley exhibited himself as combat leader should know throwing gasoline on a fire is not the way to extinguish the flame.