ADVERTISEMENT

Why are so many retired senior military against Trump?

willdup

Diehard supporter
Gold Member
Jan 31, 2002
6,172
13,456
197
This is not exactly a list of weak-kneed libtards and socialists.

And before someone responds by saying they are all profiteers fighting for perpetual warfare (as Trump recently suggested), please consider how deeply unpatriotic a view that is of some of our most prominent former military leaders. That is a very cynical and unsupported accusation. These men have unimpeachable character or they would not have risen to their positions.

 
  • Like
Reactions: celticdawg
This is not exactly a list of weak-kneed libtards and socialists.

And before someone responds by saying they are all profiteers fighting for perpetual warfare (as Trump recently suggested), please consider how deeply unpatriotic a view that is of some of our most prominent former military leaders. That is a very cynical and unsupported accusation. These men have unimpeachable character or they would not have risen to their positions.

He’s brokered substantial peace deals lately. They must like war? ISIS has been neutered. Maybe they think He should have played footsie with them like Obama. I suspect that they are deep state to the core and were more interested in getting promoted than protecting the United States. Powell has been a supporter of leftist ideology since I can remember.
 
Last edited:
This is not exactly a list of weak-kneed libtards and socialists.

And before someone responds by saying they are all profiteers fighting for perpetual warfare (as Trump recently suggested), please consider how deeply unpatriotic a view that is of some of our most prominent former military leaders. That is a very cynical and unsupported accusation. These men have unimpeachable character or they would not have risen to their positions.

Why is China so against Trump?

Trump’s stance is clear and in clear opposition with several former military officials. When Trump says that going to the Middle East is one of the biggest mistakes our country has ever made....uh, well, the people that put us there and have spent nearly two decades over there aren’t going to like that, are they?
 
This is not exactly a list of weak-kneed libtards and socialists.

And before someone responds by saying they are all profiteers fighting for perpetual warfare (as Trump recently suggested), please consider how deeply unpatriotic a view that is of some of our most prominent former military leaders. That is a very cynical and unsupported accusation. These men have unimpeachable character or they would not have risen to their positions.

While most want to support all military personnel in time of war, there’s still and has been a military swamp club...both sides of the fence, don’t fool yourself.
 
This is not exactly a list of weak-kneed libtards and socialists.

And before someone responds by saying they are all profiteers fighting for perpetual warfare (as Trump recently suggested), please consider how deeply unpatriotic a view that is of some of our most prominent former military leaders. That is a very cynical and unsupported accusation. These men have unimpeachable character or they would not have risen to their positions.

Go sit down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ephesiandawg
Why is China so against Trump?

Trump’s stance is clear and in clear opposition with several former military officials. When Trump says that going to the Middle East is one of the biggest mistakes our country has ever made....uh, well, the people that put us there and have spent nearly two decades over there aren’t going to like that, are they?
Firemen like fires
 
  • Like
Reactions: aadco and stray
Obama purged all of the military leadership that disagreed with him. Obama was focused on social engineering in our military ranks and promoted progressives into key leadership positions. Here’s a list of those purged by the Obama administration:


My goodness, looks like a number of those "purged" by Obama are also on the list who are against Trump. How can that be???? Hmmmmm
 
Obama purged all of the military leadership that disagreed with him. Obama was focused on social engineering in our military ranks and promoted progressives into key leadership positions. Here’s a list of those purged by the Obama administration:


Interesting list. I like to investigate claims such as "Obama purged all of the military leadership that disagreed with him. Obama was focused on social engineering in our military ranks and promoted progressives into key leadership positions."

I mean, that sounds Stalin-esque, right? So I googled the very first name on that long list.

Four Star Marine General John R. Allen was made responsible for all US forces in Afghanistan in July of 2011 (over two years after Obama took office) and was given the difficult job of managing a 23k troop force reduction, a politically critical initiative for Obama. He held that position until February 2013. He retired from the military that same month due to a his wife having a life threatening illness.

He was purged so thoroughly by Obama for lack of adherence to progressive principles that after leaving the military he worked as a direct advisor to both Secretary of State Kerry and Secretary of Defense Hagel until Obama appointed him the Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition against ISIL, a position he would hold for 15 months and in which he coordinated international efforts against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

This is the very first person on your list and it appears to be total BS. Do you have any basis, any article from an even semi-reputable source to backup such an inflammatory claim? Or just a list from rense.com (seriously, go look at that homepage. It makes zero hedge look like the cover of the WSJ) with a vague accusation. Do you care that you are spreading propaganda or do you participate knowingly and willingly?
 
Firemen like fires
Right, that's why the most prominent name on the list warned Bush about going into Iraq and told him "you break it you own it". Because he was such a war monger.

That's right, that was actually Chaney and Rumsfeld who were pushing to invade. As a rule, senior military officials are often much more circumspect about use of force because they truly understand the potential repercussions.
 
This is not exactly a list of weak-kneed libtards and socialists.

And before someone responds by saying they are all profiteers fighting for perpetual warfare (as Trump recently suggested), please consider how deeply unpatriotic a view that is of some of our most prominent former military leaders. That is a very cynical and unsupported accusation. These men have unimpeachable character or they would not have risen to their positions.


Looks like a long list of war mongers that got us bogged down in Afghanistan, Iraq, over saw threats as 9-11 occurred, overthrew the Lybian government with no plan to restore order in that nation, oversaw the civil war in Syria & rise of ISIS, etc etc etc.

That's why they don't like him.
 
Interesting list. I like to investigate claims such as "Obama purged all of the military leadership that disagreed with him. Obama was focused on social engineering in our military ranks and promoted progressives into key leadership positions."

I mean, that sounds Stalin-esque, right? So I googled the very first name on that long list.

Four Star Marine General John R. Allen was made responsible for all US forces in Afghanistan in July of 2011 (over two years after Obama took office) and was given the difficult job of managing a 23k troop force reduction, a politically critical initiative for Obama. He held that position until February 2013. He retired from the military that same month due to a his wife having a life threatening illness.

He was purged so thoroughly by Obama for lack of adherence to progressive principles that after leaving the military he worked as a direct advisor to both Secretary of State Kerry and Secretary of Defense Hagel until Obama appointed him the Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition against ISIL, a position he would hold for 15 months and in which he coordinated international efforts against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

This is the very first person on your list and it appears to be total BS. Do you have any basis, any article from an even semi-reputable source to backup such an inflammatory claim? Or just a list from rense.com (seriously, go look at that homepage. It makes zero hedge look like the cover of the WSJ) with a vague accusation. Do you care that you are spreading propaganda or do you participate knowingly and willingly?
Spreading propaganda? Coming from you that’s rich.

What the president calls "my military" is being cleansed of any officer suspected of disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters of policy or force structure, leaving the compliant and fearful.


We recognize President Obama is the commander-in-chief and that throughout history presidents from Lincoln to Truman have seen fit to remove military commanders they view as inadequate or insubordinate. Turnover in the military ranks is normal, and in these times of sequestration and budget cuts the numbers are expected to tick up as force levels shrink and missions change.

Yet what has happened to our officer corps since President Obama took office is viewed in many quarters as unprecedented, baffling and even harmful to our national security posture. We have commented on some of the higher profile cases, such as Gen. Carter Ham. He was relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.

Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to "assist and provide intelligence for" military forces ordered into action by Gen. Ham.

Other removals include the sacking of two nuclear commanders in a single week — Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, head of the 20th Air Force, responsible for the three wings that maintain control of the 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, the No. 2 officer at U.S. Strategic Command.

From Breitbart.com's Facebook page comes a list of at least 197 officers that have been relieved of duty by President Obama for a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given. Stated grounds range from "leaving blast doors on nukes open" to "loss of confidence in command ability" to "mishandling of funds" to "inappropriate relationships" to "gambling with counterfeit chips" to "inappropriate behavior" to "low morale in troops commanded."


Nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the Obama administration this year, leading to speculation by active and retired members of the military that a purge of its commanders is under way.

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, notes how the White House fails to take action or investigate its own officials but finds it easy to fire military commanders "who have given their lives for their country." Vallely thinks he knows why this purge is happening.

"Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama's ideology," Vallely said. "The White House protects their own. That's why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and ObamaCare. He's intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged."

Another senior retired general told TheBlaze on the condition of anonymity, because he still provide services to the government and fears possible retribution, that "they're using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don't agree with them or do not toe the party line. Remember, as (former White House chief of staff) Rahm Emanuel said, never waste a crisis."

For President Obama, the military of a once-feared superpower is an anachronistic vestige of an America whose exceptionalism and world leadership require repeated apologies. It must be gutted and fundamentally transformed into a force wearing gender-neutral headgear only useful for holding the presidential umbrella when it rains. It is to be "his" military and used only for "his" purposes.

 
Spreading propaganda? Coming from you that’s rich.

What the president calls "my military" is being cleansed of any officer suspected of disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters of policy or force structure, leaving the compliant and fearful.


We recognize President Obama is the commander-in-chief and that throughout history presidents from Lincoln to Truman have seen fit to remove military commanders they view as inadequate or insubordinate. Turnover in the military ranks is normal, and in these times of sequestration and budget cuts the numbers are expected to tick up as force levels shrink and missions change.

Yet what has happened to our officer corps since President Obama took office is viewed in many quarters as unprecedented, baffling and even harmful to our national security posture. We have commented on some of the higher profile cases, such as Gen. Carter Ham. He was relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.

Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to "assist and provide intelligence for" military forces ordered into action by Gen. Ham.

Other removals include the sacking of two nuclear commanders in a single week — Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, head of the 20th Air Force, responsible for the three wings that maintain control of the 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, the No. 2 officer at U.S. Strategic Command.

From Breitbart.com's Facebook page comes a list of at least 197 officers that have been relieved of duty by President Obama for a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given. Stated grounds range from "leaving blast doors on nukes open" to "loss of confidence in command ability" to "mishandling of funds" to "inappropriate relationships" to "gambling with counterfeit chips" to "inappropriate behavior" to "low morale in troops commanded."


Nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the Obama administration this year, leading to speculation by active and retired members of the military that a purge of its commanders is under way.

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, notes how the White House fails to take action or investigate its own officials but finds it easy to fire military commanders "who have given their lives for their country." Vallely thinks he knows why this purge is happening.

"Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama's ideology," Vallely said. "The White House protects their own. That's why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and ObamaCare. He's intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged."

Another senior retired general told TheBlaze on the condition of anonymity, because he still provide services to the government and fears possible retribution, that "they're using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don't agree with them or do not toe the party line. Remember, as (former White House chief of staff) Rahm Emanuel said, never waste a crisis."

For President Obama, the military of a once-feared superpower is an anachronistic vestige of an America whose exceptionalism and world leadership require repeated apologies. It must be gutted and fundamentally transformed into a force wearing gender-neutral headgear only useful for holding the presidential umbrella when it rains. It is to be "his" military and used only for "his" purposes.

Slightly more credible, but still an opinion piece and not reporting. Also riddled with outright lies and unsubstantiated claims. This piece does nothing to further prove your claims of a ideological purge of senior military leadership of Obama.

Your opinion piece:
"We have commented on some of the higher profile cases, such as Gen. Carter Ham. He was relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi."

Dead wrong:
"Ham was in overall command of military forces when the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks were launched on the American consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya. According to his June 2013 Congressional testimony, Ham chose not to deploy close air support during the attack, based on a lack of situational awareness about the circumstances on the ground. He denied the allegation by some Republicans that President Barack Obama or others in Obama's administration had ordered him to "stand down" a planned rescue mission that was ready to deploy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Ham

Your opinion piece:
"Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to "assist and provide intelligence for" military forces ordered into action by Gen. Ham."

Reality:
The Navy confirms Gaouette, who led Carrier Strike Group Three, had been accused of using profanity in a public setting, making derisive comments about a leader in the Navy, and saying at least two racially insensitive comments. No support for the accusation of a tie to Benghazi (you guys sure like flogging benghazi).


Your opinion piece:
Other removals include the sacking of two nuclear commanders in a single week — Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, head of the 20th Air Force, responsible for the three wings that maintain control of the 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles

Why was he removed?
The Washington Post wrote that Carey drank excessively during his visit to Russia, and fraternized with foreign women.[5] The New York Times claimed that Carey's behavior during the official meetings was not appropriate, including "interrupting speakers and correcting a Russian translator", and that he was over drinking during the visit, and once attempted to play with a restaurant band.[6] Under the Freedom of Information Act, American journalists filed a request and received a redacted copy of the official Report of Investigations Concerning Major General Michael J. Carey. The report revealed that Carey's behavior was considered by his colleagues as rude toward the Russian hosts during the exercise and related briefings, especially, when he made comments about Syria and Snowden.[4]


You opinion piece:
Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, the No. 2 officer at U.S. Strategic Command.

Why was he removed:
In June 2013, Giardina was caught using three counterfeit gambling chips in a Council Bluffs casino.[5] Giardina was investigated by the Navy and suspended from duty in September 2013. Later investigation revealed that someone had altered several $1 chips into $500 chips with adhesive tape and paint. It was further alleged that Giardina would spend approximately 15 hours a week on occasion playing poker.[6] In May 2014, he was found guilty of two counts of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman." He reverted from vice admiral to rear admiral, was removed from his position as deputy commander at Strategic Command, and was given a staff officer position in Washington, D.C.[7]


Your opinion piece:
"From Breitbart.com's Facebook page comes a list of at least 197 officers that have been relieved of duty by President Obama for a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given. Stated grounds range from "leaving blast doors on nukes open" to "loss of confidence in command ability" to "mishandling of funds" to "inappropriate relationships" to "gambling with counterfeit chips" to "inappropriate behavior" to "low morale in troops commanded."

My response:
That is a list of issues that will impact the career of senior military leaders, not proof of an Obama agenda.

Your opinion piece:
"Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, notes how the White House fails to take action or investigate its own officials but finds it easy to fire military commanders "who have given their lives for their country." Vallely thinks he knows why this purge is happening.

"Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama's ideology," Vallely said. "The White House protects their own. That's why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and ObamaCare. He's intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged."

My response:
This is one retired general's opinion. Vallely retired in 1992 (seventeen years before Obama took office) and is a far-right Fox contributor. He also has some rather radical ideas regarding "stealth jihad" in the US and is an admitted follower of Glenn Beck. He is welcome to his opinion but I am not sure why it should be given any particular credence. His views do not fall within what most would classify as the mainstream.
 
Slightly more credible, but still an opinion piece and not reporting. Also riddled with outright lies and unsubstantiated claims. This piece does nothing to further prove your claims of a ideological purge of senior military leadership of Obama.

Your opinion piece:
"We have commented on some of the higher profile cases, such as Gen. Carter Ham. He was relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi."

Dead wrong:
"Ham was in overall command of military forces when the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks were launched on the American consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya. According to his June 2013 Congressional testimony, Ham chose not to deploy close air support during the attack, based on a lack of situational awareness about the circumstances on the ground. He denied the allegation by some Republicans that President Barack Obama or others in Obama's administration had ordered him to "stand down" a planned rescue mission that was ready to deploy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Ham

Your opinion piece:
"Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to "assist and provide intelligence for" military forces ordered into action by Gen. Ham."

Reality:
The Navy confirms Gaouette, who led Carrier Strike Group Three, had been accused of using profanity in a public setting, making derisive comments about a leader in the Navy, and saying at least two racially insensitive comments. No support for the accusation of a tie to Benghazi (you guys sure like flogging benghazi).


Your opinion piece:
Other removals include the sacking of two nuclear commanders in a single week — Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, head of the 20th Air Force, responsible for the three wings that maintain control of the 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles

Why was he removed?
The Washington Post wrote that Carey drank excessively during his visit to Russia, and fraternized with foreign women.[5] The New York Times claimed that Carey's behavior during the official meetings was not appropriate, including "interrupting speakers and correcting a Russian translator", and that he was over drinking during the visit, and once attempted to play with a restaurant band.[6] Under the Freedom of Information Act, American journalists filed a request and received a redacted copy of the official Report of Investigations Concerning Major General Michael J. Carey. The report revealed that Carey's behavior was considered by his colleagues as rude toward the Russian hosts during the exercise and related briefings, especially, when he made comments about Syria and Snowden.[4]


You opinion piece:
Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, the No. 2 officer at U.S. Strategic Command.

Why was he removed:
In June 2013, Giardina was caught using three counterfeit gambling chips in a Council Bluffs casino.[5] Giardina was investigated by the Navy and suspended from duty in September 2013. Later investigation revealed that someone had altered several $1 chips into $500 chips with adhesive tape and paint. It was further alleged that Giardina would spend approximately 15 hours a week on occasion playing poker.[6] In May 2014, he was found guilty of two counts of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman." He reverted from vice admiral to rear admiral, was removed from his position as deputy commander at Strategic Command, and was given a staff officer position in Washington, D.C.[7]


Your opinion piece:
"From Breitbart.com's Facebook page comes a list of at least 197 officers that have been relieved of duty by President Obama for a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given. Stated grounds range from "leaving blast doors on nukes open" to "loss of confidence in command ability" to "mishandling of funds" to "inappropriate relationships" to "gambling with counterfeit chips" to "inappropriate behavior" to "low morale in troops commanded."

My response:
That is a list of issues that will impact the career of senior military leaders, not proof of an Obama agenda.

Your opinion piece:
"Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, notes how the White House fails to take action or investigate its own officials but finds it easy to fire military commanders "who have given their lives for their country." Vallely thinks he knows why this purge is happening.

"Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama's ideology," Vallely said. "The White House protects their own. That's why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and ObamaCare. He's intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged."

My response:
This is one retired general's opinion. Vallely retired in 1992 (seventeen years before Obama took office) and is a far-right Fox contributor. He also has some rather radical ideas regarding "stealth jihad" in the US and is an admitted follower of Glenn Beck. He is welcome to his opinion but I am not sure why it should be given any particular credence. His views do not fall within what most would classify as the mainstream.
Maybe you should talk to military members who saw first hand the purge that happened in the military ranks and had to deal with the social engineering projects during the Obama administration.
 
Maybe you should talk to military members who saw first hand the purge that happened in the military ranks and had to deal with the social engineering projects during the Obama administration.

Like that wild eyed liberal General Mattis
 
  • Like
Reactions: willdup
Maybe you should talk to military members who saw first hand the purge that happened in the military ranks and had to deal with the social engineering projects during the Obama administration.
You may be correct, but when the provided articles don't hold up under even the most cursory review it doesn't exactly strengthen your assertions.

It should be noted that members of the military tend to skew heavily conservative, yet a meaningful number of recent senior leadership and specifically the two very well respected Generals who have worked directly for Trump have felt compelled to break long-standing precedence and publicize their issues with a sitting President. I can't imagine this is something they take lightly.
 
This is not exactly a list of weak-kneed libtards and socialists.

And before someone responds by saying they are all profiteers fighting for perpetual warfare (as Trump recently suggested), please consider how deeply unpatriotic a view that is of some of our most prominent former military leaders. That is a very cynical and unsupported accusation. These men have unimpeachable character or they would not have risen to their positions.

probably because they love their country more than their political party affiliations.
 
They're against him because he's endangering their consulting jobs, where the real money is made
It is really obscene when you insult some of the most patriotic people in the country and accuse them of being driven only by pandering for dollars, in defense of someone who has proudly spent his entire life in open pursuit of nothing more than pandering for dollars and feeding his own ego.
 
It’s called the military industrial complex. Most have moved on to work with defense co tractors and weapons companies. It isn’t rocket science I don’t see why you can’t figure it ou.
 
This is not exactly a list of weak-kneed libtards and socialists.

And before someone responds by saying they are all profiteers fighting for perpetual warfare (as Trump recently suggested), please consider how deeply unpatriotic a view that is of some of our most prominent former military leaders. That is a very cynical and unsupported accusation. These men have unimpeachable character or they would not have risen to their positions.

Really not hard to figure out, these are people that by and large live very disciplined lives, and have class and steadiness. These are none of the traits Trump possesses. He is an anathema to what they represent as human beings.

As for your point about them not bowing to pressure for their careers, I think that’s overstated. Of course they don’t view themselves in that way, but that’s how influence happens, it’s not always overt, and I have no doubt that the desire for personal and financial achievement colors their judgment on some of the substantive decisions, but in terms of discipline, class, and steadiness, they are right to chafe at Trump.
 
This is not exactly a list of weak-kneed libtards and socialists.

And before someone responds by saying they are all profiteers fighting for perpetual warfare (as Trump recently suggested), please consider how deeply unpatriotic a view that is of some of our most prominent former military leaders. That is a very cynical and unsupported accusation. These men have unimpeachable character or they would not have risen to their positions.

Is it possible they are all morons??
 
ADVERTISEMENT