Unhinged Retired Admiral and Clinton Loyalist Calls for Coup of President Trump: Remove Trump from Office ‘The Sooner the Better’

 

Retired Admiral William McRaven is back in the news today.

McRaven, a Hillary Clinton loyalist, called for a military coup of the president of the United States.
Shouldn’t the FBI be paying this guy a visit at his home?

McRaven is not a fan of President Trump since the president attacked him in 2017 as a Hillary Clinton fan.
Obviously, Trump was right.

Via Breitbart.com:

Retired Admiral William McRaven has published an op-ed in Friday’s New York Times titled, “Our Republic Is Under Attack From the President,” urging that Trump be removed from office — “the sooner, the better.”

McRaven’s op-ed gives a military imprimatur to what President Donald Trump has already likened to a “coup,” as Democrats attempt to impeach him with barely a year to go before the next presidential election.

The admiral, well-respected for his role in overseeing the operation to kill Al Qaeda terrorist Osama bin Laden in 2011, argues that senior military leaders have lost confidence in the president and feel he is a threat to the nation.

“As I stood on the parade field at Fort Bragg,” McRaven recalled, “one retired four-star general, grabbed my arm, shook me and shouted, ‘I don’t like the Democrats, but Trump is destroying the Republic!’”

McRaven does not argue that President Trump has done anything wrong in particular, but that he has no respect for America’s values. These values, McRaven declares, involve a commitment to “help the weak and stand up against oppression and injustice” around the world.

McRaven got Bill Kristol’s seal of approval.

CAP

 

Pelosi Explains What Was Going On In That Photo Of Her Standing Up To Trump

CAP

|
October 17, 2019 12:15 pm

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Thursday described her meeting with President Trump as a “meltdown” and said she was likely “excusing” herself from the room or telling Trump that “all roads lead to Putin” when an iconic photo of the gathering was snapped.

During the White House meeting Wednesday on the rapidly deteriorating situation in Syria, Pelosi said she told Trump that he needed to have a plan on how to fight ISIS after abandoning the Kurdish forces on the border.

Trump apparently told the room he pulled the U.S. troops out of Syria to fulfill his campaign promise to bring the troops home. Pelosi claims she retorted by questioning why U.S. troops remained in Saudi Arabia and Trump admitted it was because the country was paying the U.S. for them.

According to Pelosi, Trump was quickly hot under the collar over her questioning.

“I think I was excusing myself from the room,” she said of the photo. I conveyed to the President in the meeting about the 354-60 vote in the House disapproving of his Syria actions, A. B, my concerns about all roads leading to Putin. … At that moment I was probably was saying ‘all roads lead to Putin.’”

Pelosi has reveled in the release of a photo that shows her literally standing up to Trump. The President posted the image on Twitter Wednesday evening, and Pelosi promptly made it her Twitter banner image.

CAP

Democratic leadership left the meeting at the White House visibly irate with President Trump’s “nasty” demeanor and disrespectful tone. Pelosi said after the meeting that she thinks Trump was too bothered by House Republicans opposition to his Syria-pullout to be productive in the meeting.

Romney: Trump Syria Policy “A Bloodstain In the Annals Of American History”

Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date October 18, 2019

Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) delivers remarks on the Senate floor on Syria. “What we have done to the Kurds will stand as a bloodstain in the annals of American history.”

Let me briefly recount what’s happened in the past seven days since the U.S. announced our withdrawal. The Kurds, suffering loss of life and property, have allied with Assad. Russia has assumed control of our previous military positions, and the U.S. has been forced in many cases to bomb some of our own facilities to prevent their appropriation by Russia and Turkey…

 

The ceasefire does not change the fact that America has abandoned an ally. Adding insult to dishonor, the Administration speaks cavalierly, even flippantly, even as our ally has suffered death and casualty, their homes have been burned, and their families have been torn apart…

What we have done to the Kurds will stand as a blood stain in the annals of American history.

There are broad strategic implications of our decision as well. Iranian and Russian interests in the Middle East have been advanced by our decision. At a time when we are applying maximum pressure on Iran, by giving them a stronger hand in Syria, we have actually weakened that pressure. Russia’s objective to play a greater role in the Middle East has also been greatly enhanced. The Kurds out of desperation have now aligned with Assad. So America is diminished. Russia, Iran, and Assad are strengthened.

And so I ask how and why that decision was made?…

I ask whether it is the position of the Administration that the United States Senate, a body of 100 people representing both political parties, is to be entirely absent from decisions of the magnitude just taken in Syria?

Now some argue that we should not have been in Syria in the first place because there was not a vote taken by the Senate to engage in war there. I disagree. Congress has given the President legal authority and funding to fight against terrorists in Syria…

Others argue that we should just get out of a messy situation like this. The Middle East, they say, has had wars going on forever, just let them have at it. There’s of course a certain logic to this position as well, but again it applies only to the original decision as to whether or not we should have gone into Syria. Once we have engaged, and made the commitments we made, honor as well as self-interest demand that we not abandon our allies.

It has been suggested that Turkey may have called America’s bluff, telling the president that they were coming no matter what we did. If this is so, we should know it, for it would tell us a great deal about how we should deal with Turkey now and in the future.

Some have argued that Syria is a mess, with warring groups and sub groups, friends and allies shifting from one side to another, and thus we had to exit because there was no reasonable path for us to go forward. Are we incapable of understanding and shaping complex situations? Russia seems to have figured it out. Are we less adept than they? And are our principles to be jettisoned when we find things get messy?

The Administration claims that none of these reasons are accurate. Instead, the President has said that we left to fulfill a commitment to stop endless wars, to bring troops home, to get them out of harm’s way, perhaps to save money. I find these reasons hard to square. Why? Well, we withdrew 1,500 troops in Syria but we are adding 2,000 troops in Saudi Arabia. And all totaled, we have 60,000 troops in the Middle East.

Assuming for the sake of understanding that getting out of endless wars was the logic for the decision, why would we take action so precipitously? Why would we not warn our ally, the Kurds of what we were about to do? Why would we not give them time to also withdraw or perhaps to dig in to defend themselves? Clearly, the Turks had a heads up because they were able to start bombing within in mere hours.

I simply do not understand why the Administration did not explain in advance to Erdogan that it was unacceptable for Turkey to attack an American ally. Could we not insist that together we develop a transition plan that protects the Kurds, secures the ISIS prisoners, and meets the legitimate concerns of Turkey as well? Was there no chance for diplomacy? Are we so weak, and so inept diplomatically that Turkey forced the hand of the United States of America? Turkey?

We once abandoned a red line. Now, we have abandoned an ally.

#KamalaHarrisDestroyed trends on Twitter after annihilation by Tulsi Gabbard, ‘Russian bots’ blamed

Screen Shot 2019-08-01 at 11.03.37 AM

Twitter deemed presidential hopeful Kamala Harris utterly “destroyed,” after fellow candidate Tulsi Gabbard landed dizzying verbal haymakers on the former California prosecutor. Naturally, ‘Russian bots’ were swiftly blamed.

Wednesday night’s Democratic debate was not an enjoyable one for Harris, who went into the faceoff as a darling of the media and among the frontrunners for her party’s nomination. On the stage in Detroit, Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard grilled Harris on her record as California’s attorney general.

In under a minute, Gabbard shredded Harris to pieces for jailing more than 1,500 nonviolent marijuana offenders while admitting in a radio interview that she had smoked marijuana in college, and for her “tough-on-crime” stances. “She blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row… she kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor… and she fought to keep the cash bail system in place,” Gabbard continued, leaving Harris unable to counter.

By Thursday morning, “#KamalaHarrisDestroyed” was trending on Twitter in the US.

Screen Shot 2019-08-01 at 11.07.52 AM

Of course, any attack on an establishment Democrat is met with an equal and opposite reaction. Establishment pundits and their supporters responded with a familiar cry: “Russia!” Gabbard, they said, is propped up by Vladimir Putin, and #KamalaHarrisDestroyed is the work of “Putin’s bots and paid for shills.”

Screen Shot 2019-08-01 at 11.09.21 AM

Even Harris’ press secretary, Ian Sams, labeled Gabbard’s supporters part of “the Russian propaganda machine.”

It’s worth noting that nobody shouting “Russian bots” did any data analysis to support their claims. Few noted too that, during the debate, ‘Tulsi Gabbard’ was the most searched for politician in every single US state, according to Google Trends.

But if the nefarious hashtag wasn’t the work of the Kremlin, then it must have been the work of the MAGA-hatted deplorables, some #resistance commenters argued.

Screen Shot 2019-08-01 at 11.10.41 AM

That opponents would default to Russia to attack Gabbard is unsurprising. Running on an anti-interventionist, foreign-policy-focused platform, Gabbard has been accused of cosying up to Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad for her opposition to military action in Syria and for meeting with Assad in Damascus. That stance alone led to accusations that she was more closely aligned with the position of the Kremlin than that of the White House.

At present, Gabbard is a long-shot candidate, and is polling at around one percent.

‘When did the Democratic party become neocons?’– Tucker Carlson

screen shot 2019-01-16 at 3.54.39 pm

After the mainstream media and establishment Democrats piled on President Trump for even considering pulling the US out of NATO, Fox News host Tucker Carlson asked when the doves became cheerleaders for war.

That Republicans love war is an easy assumption to make. President Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton has been howling for regime change in Iran since day one. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is equally hawkish and confrontational towards the Islamic Republic. Further back, George W. Bush’s cabinet was stuffed with war enthusiasts like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, and the late Republican Senator John McCain never met a war he didn’t like.

But opposition to President Trump has seen Democrats – once considered the more peace-loving and diplomatic of the two parties – embrace war like never before.

The New York Times, citing its usual anonymous sources, revealed on Monday that current and former Trump administration officials concluded the president must be a Russian agent, because he discussed pulling the US out of NATO.

“This is a huge story,” said Carlson. “Or it would have been huge in 1983 when the Soviet Union still existed, and it was still clear what the point of NATO was. NATO, you’ll remember, was created to keep the Soviets from invading Western Europe…and did a very good job at that.”

Trump’s opposition to NATO is well documented, and the president has excoriated allies like Germany for failing to meet their spending obligations under the organization’s charter. In 2018, the US spent almost $700 billion on defense, over double the expenditure of all 28 other NATO states combined. Moreover, the idea of bankrolling western Europe’s defense needs also clashes with the president’s more transactional view of foreign relations than his predecessor.

“Vladimir Putin runs Russia now,” Carlson continued. “He does not plan to invade Western Europe. He can’t. So why do we still have NATO? Nobody really knows. In Washington you’re definitely not allowed to ask.”

After the New York Times’ article was published, Democrats took their turns thrashing Trump. Former federal prosecutor Preet Bharara stated that Trump should be “promptly impeached, convicted, and removed from office” for daring to question the alliance’s value to America.

screen shot 2019-01-16 at 3.58.24 pm

Former US Ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns called the mere idea of pulling out of the alliance “madness” that would lead to “one of the greatest strategic catastrophes in American history.”

screen shot 2019-01-16 at 4.01.06 pm

“He can’t do that to this country,” Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier added in a news interview. “It would be a ground for some profound effort by our part, whether it’s impeachment or the 25th Amendment.”

“Did you catch that?” Carlson said. “The 25th Amendment. In other words, according to a sitting member of Congress…rethinking membership in NATO isn’t just treasonous and criminal. It’s prima facie evidence of insanity.” The 25th Amendment allows for a president to be removed from office for being “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office;” in other words, unfitness.

But is the left’s NATO cheerleading a partisan reaction to Trump’s ‘America First’ brand of 21st Century isolationism? After all, the left fact-checks his McDonalds orders and would declare breathing an impeachable offense if Trump came out in favor of air.

Not so. Among the handful of Democratic challengers who have announced presidential bids in recent weeks, Hawaiian Representative Tulsi Gabbard distinguished herself by focusing her campaign on America’s foreign policy. An Iraq war combat veteran, Gabbard has consistently questioned Washington’s bipartisan consensus on foreign wars and intervention, opposing Barack Obama’s air campaign in Syria, calling for an end to the war in Afghanistan “as soon as possible,” and sponsoring legislation to end arms sales to Saudi Arabia and defund the National Security Agency.

screen shot 2019-01-16 at 4.02.15 pm

Gabbard was quickly labeled an “Assad sympathizer” for meeting with the Syrian leader in 2017. While Gabbard called Assad a “brutal dictator,” her opposition to military action rubbed the hawks in both parties the wrong way. The left and right piled on, christening Gabbard a “right-wing puppet of the Kremlin,” digging up past homophobic remarks she had made, and calling her a darling of the alt-right, the KKK, and even RT.

“She went, in 2017, Gloria — this is going to be another issue — to visit with Bashar al Assad in Syria,” said CNN’s Brianna Keilar. “This trip has already come back to bite her.”

“I think it makes her a less effective candidate,” contributor Gloria Borger responded. “She can’t position herself against Trump about meeting with dictators when, in fact, she’s done it herself.”

With the Democratic party circling the wagons against Gabbard, Trump, and anyone breaking from the endless war consensus, Carlson asked “whatever happened to the Democratic Party?”

“When did the anti-war people become florid neocons? When did it become the party of Bill Kristol and Max Boot and every other discredited hack still trying to replicate the Iraq disaster in nations around the world? Who knows when that happened? But that’s exactly what the Democratic Party is today.”

Neocons and Media Unite to Attack Trump’s Syria Decision

By Mark Alan

President Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops from Syria has been met with some push back among neoconservatives and the media. Although the move seems consistent with the presidents previous statements about the conflict, that didn’t stop some from expressing shock over the decision. Undoubtedly, the two loudest voices among Republicans were Senators Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio.

Graham called the move an “Obama-like” mistake. Rubio, apparently trying to establish himself as the leading figure of the neoconservative movement, went as far as calling the president’s decision a “retreat.” Graham and Rubio have both expressed past support for using the US military to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The response from many in the media hasn’t been too different from that of the neocons. CNN’s Erin Burnett strongly condemned President Trump’s decision. She said the president was giving Vladimir Putin an early Christmas present by withdrawing US soldiers from Syria. However, she failed to articulate why she believes the lives of US soldiers are less valuable than the alleged disruption between the US and Russia.

Burnett wasn’t the only CNN personality to attack the president for his decision. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria also bashed the withdraw of US troops from Syria. He claimed President Trump was making an even bigger mistake than former president George W Bush’s “mission accomplished” fiasco during the Iraq War. It’s worth noting that Zakaria is one of many prominent members of the media who supported the decision to invade Iraq.

Anchors from other networks also condemned the president’s choice to withdraw troops from Syria. Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade called Trump’s decision “stunning and irresponsible.” He also suggested the president was “cutting and running.” MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough expressed similar sentiments on his show this morning.

The reaction of the neoconservatives and like minded members of the media shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. The two groups have united numerous times in the past, salivating at the idea of a ground war to overthrow Assad in Syria. Thankfully, peace has prevailed.

United States military forces have been in Syria for over four years. The first known instance of American troops fighting on the ground in Syria occurred in July of 2014, as part of a hostage rescue operation. The Global War on Terror has already cost US tax payers nearly 6 trillion dollars. To provide that number some context, the combined value of the entire US housing market is worth about 30 trillion dollars.

Elsewhere, President Trump’s decision has been met with praise. Senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul both applauded the president’s withdraw of troops from Syria. Senator Paul saidthe president’s decision is another example of Trump keeping his campaign promises. Paul further defended the move, saying the president’s decision in Syria illustrates why he won the 2016 election.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑