Tag Archives: Commander-in-chief

The Networks Have Totally Lost Their Credibility

Posted on by

Newsbusters posted an article today about an interview to be aired on ABC during prime time on Sunday.

The article reports:

On June 15, former National Security Adviser John Bolton sat down for an interview with ABC’s Martha Raddatz to promote his new “tell all” book, expected to rip the bark off the Trump White House. ABC is airing it Sunday during prime time….just like they aired a prime time interview in 2018 with former FBI director James Comey to promote his anti-Trump “tell all” book.

In 2007, Bolton wrote a book about his experience in government. No major network came calling for a prime time special. He wasn’t useful to them back then.

Now try to remember ABC offering a prime time special to an Obama insider who wrote a rip-roaring “tell-all” book. You’ll have a tough time. Because most publishers are liberals, and aren’t going to roll out the red carpet for that kind of book….even if the author is a liberal. So there was no insider “tell-all” for ABC to promote.

The article notes that there were never any prime time interviews for authors of tell-all books about the Obama administration.

The article continues:

To be fair, there were former Obama officials who came out with memoirs that may have said something negative about Obama…and they were attacked for it.

In 2014, Robert Gates, Obama’s first Secretary of Defense, was selling a book. As he sat in NBC’s studio wearing a neck brace, Today co-host Matt Lauer accused him of endangering the troops for having the audacity to criticize the sitting commander-in-chief: “[A]t a time when some 40,000 U.S. troops are in harm’s way, do you think that by calling him into question at this stage it is either dangerous or dishonorable?”

Now look back and imagine being called “dishonorable” by Matt Lauer.  

In 2013, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, fired by President Obama over critical comments from his staff in a Rolling Stone article, issued his memoirs, and did a round of TV interviews. The first one, with CBS Pentagon correspondent David Martin, mostly skipped Obama, except for McChrystal to express pain over his apparent “disloyalty” with Rolling Stone. There wasn’t any attack on Obama. The general did promote his book on a special edition of Hannity in prime time, and the Fox host talked through what happened with Obama, but there was no trashing of the president.

This same pattern emerged last September with Gen. James Mattis. CBS promoted his book in two interviews, but completely ignored his strong criticisms of Obama. He even called some of his choices “catastrophic.”

Instead, CBS This Morning co-host Anthony Mason asked about Trump: “What do you think the President got wrong about Syria?” Guest host Maria Elena Salinas pushed about his resignation: “Was it your decision to leave, or were you fired, or were you pushed into resigning or pressured into resigning?”

The article concludes:

There’s no need to pre-judge what John Bolton will say to ABC. But we can judge a long history of “tell all” imbalance, from the publishing houses to the TV studios. Republicans are mercilessly dissected. Democrats are carefully protected.

ABC is not noted for presenting both sides of the story. How much of the Comey interview was proven to be lies after documents were declassified? Those who claim to want to bring the country together (and accuse President Trump of dividing it) would do well to begin by reporting both sides of every story and letting the American people discern the truth.

When Is A Coup A Coup?

Posted on by

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the coup attempt against President Trump. It is a long, involved article, so I suggest that you follow the link and read the entire article, but I will try to hit the high points here:

The article reports:

The “Coup” Against a Sitting U.S. President Became Official on October 29th, 2019…

The word “coup” shifted to a new level of formalized meaning last week when members of the political resistance showed up to remove President Trump wearing military uniforms.

Not only did U.S. military leadership remain silent to the optics and purpose, but in the testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman he admits to giving instructions to ignore the instructions from a sitting United States President.

In the absence of push-back from the Joint Chiefs, from this moment forth, the impression is tacit U.S. military support for the Vindman objective.

…Beyond the debate about the optics of the “coup“, within the testimony of Lt. Col Vindman, the witness readily admits to understanding the officially established policy of the President of The United States (an agreement between President Trump and President Zelenskyy), and stunningly admits that two weeks later he was giving countermanding instructions to his Ukrainian counterpart to ignore President Trump’s policies.

The coup against President Donald Trump went from soft, to hard.

What Lt. Col Vindman has done is against the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).

Article 88 of the UCMJ states (from quora.com):

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 Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

In the NCO courses I took, we were told that we were not to insult the POTUS or other officials while we were in an official capacity. So, if we had any negative opinion of the President or other officials, we weren’t to express it to our troops while serving in the capacity of their squad/platoon/company NCO.

All soldiers are allowed to attend political rallies, protests etc. as long as we are out of uniform and aren’t using our position to promote them. So, if I say, “My name is J. Pearson and I am for/against this”, it’s okay. If I appear in uniform and say, “I’m SSG Pearson of the US Army, and I’m for/against this”, then I could be punished under UCMJ.

The article at The Conservative Treehouse includes excerpts of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s testimony. It also includes a link to his full testimony.

Please read both to understand what the media and the Democrats are attempting to do here.

The Unseen Cost Of A Litigious Society

Posted on by

This story has been sitting on my toolbar since Thursday. I didn’t want to write it because I don’t fully understand it and it is very complex, but it needs to be written.

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted an article on Thursday entitled, “Power and Constraint — how the JAGs hijacked U.S. anti-terrorism policy.” The article deals with how our actions in fighting the war on terror have been hijacked by lawyers rather than being run by the military.

The article reports:

During the Bush years, we often heard from the left that the war on terror was changing America for the worse by undermining our values and our Constitution. These claims were mostly nonsense. But one portion of our system did take a hit — the concepts of civilian control of the military and the Commander-in-Chief as chief law interpreter for the executive branch. This was the handiwork of the JAGs.

We covered this development as best we could on Power Line, mostly by reporting on the work, and the preening, of Lindsey Graham, the JAGs men in Congress. However, until I read Jack Goldsmith’s book Power and Constraint, I didn’t know the half of it.

Mr. Mirengoff then excerpts a large portion of his review of the Book Power and Constraint to explain how the JAGs have influenced the way the war is being fought. I strongly recommend that you follow the above link to the Power Line article and read the entire article.

The article at Power Line concludes:

Goldsmith appears troubled by the military’s undermining of the President’s ability to interpret the law on behalf of the executive branch. He also recognizes that the injection of lawyers into battle harmed U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Ultimately, he is agnostic as to whether the harm is outweighed by the possible prevention of misguided polices and the blowback they would have caused.

Goldsmith’s agnosticism is understandable. Both sides of the cost-benefit equation are impossible to measure. But this much should be clear: our elected executive is responsible for making the cost-benefit decisions. His decisions may be subject to judicial review, but they should not be undermined or thwarted by military lawyers. It also seems clear that in war, including war on terrorism, the president should err in favor of defeating the enemy, rather than minimizing “blowback.”

As a relative of a soldier who served two tours in Afghanistan, I object to the current rules of engagement. I think it’s time we either fought wars or left situations alone. There really is no successful in-between path.

Enhanced by Zemanta