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'.