Posted on Nov 22, 2019
Former top Navy SEAL who oversaw the Osama bin Laden raid says the US is 'under attack from the...
3.61K
51
35
8
8
0
Posted in these groups: 
ADM
ADM
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 5
7
7
0
Let's dispense with the below two key points of his vapid argument. It is not our job to be the protectors of the less fortunate. That would have us with troops in every country for the rest of time. McRaven and his ilk think this is our mission. It is not. This thinking is what has us at over 18 years in Afghanistan with no end in sight.
Empathy is an emotion. It may be weak, it may not be. Trump shows empathy where he likes and may not at other points. Empathy is like any skill that may be underused or overused. It appears McRaven is on the overused end of the spectrum, Trump perhaps on the underused side. So what.
McRaven spent most of his career arguing to keep us in places like Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely. His strategy of protracted, endless engagement is a failure. That doesn't mean he didn't serve honorably or have good intentions he is just wrong on policy.
If he thinks people liked serving under Obama he is simply misguided and living in an alternative universe that does not really exist.
__________________________________________________________________________________
- McRaven pointed out what he said were examples of the US neglecting its duty to be the "the protectors of the less fortunate" — including Trump's recent decision to withdraw troops from Syria as Turkish-backed militants wage war against the once US-backed Kurdish militia.
- McRaven added that Trump "is wrong" to think empathy is "unimportant" or shows "weakness."
Empathy is an emotion. It may be weak, it may not be. Trump shows empathy where he likes and may not at other points. Empathy is like any skill that may be underused or overused. It appears McRaven is on the overused end of the spectrum, Trump perhaps on the underused side. So what.
McRaven spent most of his career arguing to keep us in places like Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely. His strategy of protracted, endless engagement is a failure. That doesn't mean he didn't serve honorably or have good intentions he is just wrong on policy.
If he thinks people liked serving under Obama he is simply misguided and living in an alternative universe that does not really exist.
__________________________________________________________________________________
- McRaven pointed out what he said were examples of the US neglecting its duty to be the "the protectors of the less fortunate" — including Trump's recent decision to withdraw troops from Syria as Turkish-backed militants wage war against the once US-backed Kurdish militia.
- McRaven added that Trump "is wrong" to think empathy is "unimportant" or shows "weakness."
(7)
(0)
5
5
0
I try very hard to think before I speak (or write, in this case). Instead of trying to pick apart the Admiral's comments, I'll offer my own thoughts on what's "really" going on in the United States... if the not the world, today. Take from this what you will.
There are really only two kinds of people; those who desire "order", and those who desire "liberty".
Order is clean; it's neat... it fits everything into a box that can be easily categorized, evaluated, and most importantly-controlled. Order is the teacher in your third grade class putting unruly children into lines to go to recess, and instructing you when, where, and how to act. Order is a drill instructor ordering recruits to "hydrate by the numbers". Order is also the 25 mph speed limit, the sticker on the gas pump telling you not to use your cell phone, and the warning on your coffee cup that the liquid inside is hot.
Liberty is chance, risk, and individuality. It's deciding for yourself that a plastic can labeled "gasoline" can indeed hold kerosene... and knowing that if you forget which is which, there are dire consequences. It's deciding to leave your keys under the seat instead of carry them around in your pocket... and realizing its no one's fault but your own if your car gets stolen.
Both types of people either learn to adapt to realities; accepting a little "disorder", or surrendering some of their "liberties" in the interest of the greater good... or they do not. The conflict in our nation is borne out by people on both "sides" who have drifted steadily away from compromise, and closer to absolutes. Absolute order demands that law be consistent, centralized, and all-encompassing. Absolute liberty demands that law surrender to individual will. Absolutism demands that we either engage all enemies of freedom around the globe... or retreat into isolationism. It loathes inconsistency in belief, abhors "grey" ethics, and embraces extreme measures...even when inaction may be the wisest course of action.
I believe McRaven is a brave man, and a principled officer. His life has been dedicated to serving and leading in one of the most physically, mentally, and emotionally challenging professions on earth. I believe him to also be a devotee of order. Like many, he's looking at the world around him, the nation he serves, and the dynamics of both... and desires clarity. Trump is a student of chaos. Over a life-long career of deals, he's learned to bend it to his will. His world is one in which everything can (and often must) change. One, I've no doubt, would die for his principles... the other would probably say his principles have kept him "alive", socially, financially, and politically.
What we, the People need to understand, is that we need both types of leaders. We need warriors like McRaven who are willing to sacrifice everything for the foundations of our society...and yes, we need "wild cards" like Trump who understand that for the common citizen, it's often all about far less noble, but no less important concerns.
What I'd love to see is a return to a time when we worked together; when any crisis, no matter how large, never demanded that the ship of state make such coarse course corrections.
There are really only two kinds of people; those who desire "order", and those who desire "liberty".
Order is clean; it's neat... it fits everything into a box that can be easily categorized, evaluated, and most importantly-controlled. Order is the teacher in your third grade class putting unruly children into lines to go to recess, and instructing you when, where, and how to act. Order is a drill instructor ordering recruits to "hydrate by the numbers". Order is also the 25 mph speed limit, the sticker on the gas pump telling you not to use your cell phone, and the warning on your coffee cup that the liquid inside is hot.
Liberty is chance, risk, and individuality. It's deciding for yourself that a plastic can labeled "gasoline" can indeed hold kerosene... and knowing that if you forget which is which, there are dire consequences. It's deciding to leave your keys under the seat instead of carry them around in your pocket... and realizing its no one's fault but your own if your car gets stolen.
Both types of people either learn to adapt to realities; accepting a little "disorder", or surrendering some of their "liberties" in the interest of the greater good... or they do not. The conflict in our nation is borne out by people on both "sides" who have drifted steadily away from compromise, and closer to absolutes. Absolute order demands that law be consistent, centralized, and all-encompassing. Absolute liberty demands that law surrender to individual will. Absolutism demands that we either engage all enemies of freedom around the globe... or retreat into isolationism. It loathes inconsistency in belief, abhors "grey" ethics, and embraces extreme measures...even when inaction may be the wisest course of action.
I believe McRaven is a brave man, and a principled officer. His life has been dedicated to serving and leading in one of the most physically, mentally, and emotionally challenging professions on earth. I believe him to also be a devotee of order. Like many, he's looking at the world around him, the nation he serves, and the dynamics of both... and desires clarity. Trump is a student of chaos. Over a life-long career of deals, he's learned to bend it to his will. His world is one in which everything can (and often must) change. One, I've no doubt, would die for his principles... the other would probably say his principles have kept him "alive", socially, financially, and politically.
What we, the People need to understand, is that we need both types of leaders. We need warriors like McRaven who are willing to sacrifice everything for the foundations of our society...and yes, we need "wild cards" like Trump who understand that for the common citizen, it's often all about far less noble, but no less important concerns.
What I'd love to see is a return to a time when we worked together; when any crisis, no matter how large, never demanded that the ship of state make such coarse course corrections.
(5)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
SPC Kevin Ford - I was unable to locate any statute (again, only SCOTUS rulings on implied Congressional rights under Separation of Powers), but would be grateful if you could reference it.
It would seem we both agree that regardless of any legitimacy to the charges, the Democrats have an ulterior motive for pressing in now. That alone, supports my argument that if the Legislative Branch has powers, so too does the Executive Branch, and for exactly that reason. If that ulterior motive is (to quote you) not, "for the national good", then I'm unsure how the EB or JB would interdict it without some refusal to comply under EP. Once again; I'd handle this one differently... lay all the cards on the table, and let the Democrats' case unravel on the basis of lack of any evidence supporting impeachment.
In conclusion, and to recap all my previous points: 1) I don't personally see where anything involving the President's actions regarding Biden and/or Ukraine constitute impeachable offenses. 2) While I think it's less expedient than compliance, the Executive Branch clearly has rights concerning private conversations with staff. 3) If this whole proceeding is even partly motivated by political aims... then it would perhaps be simpler for the Democrats to admit that the entire purpose, reason, and goal of this exercise is to remove Trump from office any "legal" way possible before the elections.
It would seem we both agree that regardless of any legitimacy to the charges, the Democrats have an ulterior motive for pressing in now. That alone, supports my argument that if the Legislative Branch has powers, so too does the Executive Branch, and for exactly that reason. If that ulterior motive is (to quote you) not, "for the national good", then I'm unsure how the EB or JB would interdict it without some refusal to comply under EP. Once again; I'd handle this one differently... lay all the cards on the table, and let the Democrats' case unravel on the basis of lack of any evidence supporting impeachment.
In conclusion, and to recap all my previous points: 1) I don't personally see where anything involving the President's actions regarding Biden and/or Ukraine constitute impeachable offenses. 2) While I think it's less expedient than compliance, the Executive Branch clearly has rights concerning private conversations with staff. 3) If this whole proceeding is even partly motivated by political aims... then it would perhaps be simpler for the Democrats to admit that the entire purpose, reason, and goal of this exercise is to remove Trump from office any "legal" way possible before the elections.
(2)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
LCDR Joshua Gillespie - As I stated, "case law", you can find it in rulings on this issues in lower courts up the the SCOTUS. These represent the law of the land under a common law legal system as we have in the US and are just as binding as any statutory law, and in the instance of case law based on Constitutional readings are in many cases even more binding than statutory law (or at least take precedence over it). I don't want to assume what you do and do not know about the underpinnings of our legal system so please don't take offense if this is already very clear to you.
Here is a pretty good summary of the current state of case law around EP.
https://constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Chapter-5.pdf
I'd argue that there is ample evidence that the POTUS did what the Democrats allege. However, impeachment is a political process and if any action is seen as impeachable is ultimately a political evaluation. So it is perfectly valid for you to believe it is not impeachable and other people to think it is.
I also agree that the POTUS clearly has rights to confidence in conversations with his staff. I'd also point out that there is ample case law that delineates when this privilege does, and just as importantly does not, exist. (see above)
I do believe the Democrats have ample reason to bring up the POTUS in an impeachment investigation. I suspect four years ago if there were some hypothetical conversation about this situation without parties or specific people, most people would have seen what was done as a major problem. The problem I have with how the Ds are proceeding is while I believe they have a reasonable case to make against him, they are letting political concerns get in the way of how they are prosecuting it.
Here is a pretty good summary of the current state of case law around EP.
https://constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Chapter-5.pdf
I'd argue that there is ample evidence that the POTUS did what the Democrats allege. However, impeachment is a political process and if any action is seen as impeachable is ultimately a political evaluation. So it is perfectly valid for you to believe it is not impeachable and other people to think it is.
I also agree that the POTUS clearly has rights to confidence in conversations with his staff. I'd also point out that there is ample case law that delineates when this privilege does, and just as importantly does not, exist. (see above)
I do believe the Democrats have ample reason to bring up the POTUS in an impeachment investigation. I suspect four years ago if there were some hypothetical conversation about this situation without parties or specific people, most people would have seen what was done as a major problem. The problem I have with how the Ds are proceeding is while I believe they have a reasonable case to make against him, they are letting political concerns get in the way of how they are prosecuting it.
TnÐÒef.ÓWéò}7LlióILÍmVÆH0¡;MJ;K=Ø8|Ïp4pgð;`áf/ð.ááHfs[VI·«L1yná¶LFßmÙIݶKF0*2ÄQ1%0ÎYΫ;'Õ((&0¡ßÜïIbQÂLaú0ÚRøC3È!O1mäÍå@gÓb?àÇÂVÖ~,ooj;Í.ºîÞ¿û%TPÙYêRÙ{ôJBÏÕY¡å_,àþð Ã߶,Þ=f6Ïì8zLíRjÎÛµüvȺIó32Øw@§ÕéÕÞåùûGõo·LptªIñPâJë)þí)õõË9UM§OåvJGI#XË(Q:Ö3h\O«æT"9ÁCûiÊÚ@)Ð9%rpý§Çk?þPuO2cJlcÍ5h&ÂÙâÇXç]F`~Ç"ÂP1.EF1þ5S86ÀbÖrE5f*j 2D@joI_AlWàhò%dgp7ú%égM9ÞîGD[Ç#J·6ÿÅzÓÕÔm1ÍãYõ:MþÏøó*l)RR)"Ô7O"m Qmvoë)ªÛqºJÈÅ:\î__.Þ/ÇØýà+úâ Dø2sfV^raYÌ&'%Ú@,xY(LôL6ø¶tzVuWPó dæô...
(0)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
SPC Kevin Ford - Thank you.
If you are referring to President Obama, then the best counter example would be his alleged remarks with then Russian President Medvedev about more "flexibility" (supposedly in regards to missile shield defense) he would have if the Federation down-played it's aggression with former USSR republics. While I'll admit there was much said on that note (much of it equally circumstantial or presumptive, let alone politically motivated)... it's important to note that there was no substantial effort made to impeach President Obama either. Republicans (myself included) by and large grumbled in the public forum, said their peace... and waited for election day to take action. If Democrats want to burn Trump in effigy, make "memes" about his hair, or make whatever statements that wish to make... that's one thing. Taking the nation down the impeachment road, with many possible outcomes, predominantly for "political" reasons, would, to my mind, appear excessive.
If you are referring to President Obama, then the best counter example would be his alleged remarks with then Russian President Medvedev about more "flexibility" (supposedly in regards to missile shield defense) he would have if the Federation down-played it's aggression with former USSR republics. While I'll admit there was much said on that note (much of it equally circumstantial or presumptive, let alone politically motivated)... it's important to note that there was no substantial effort made to impeach President Obama either. Republicans (myself included) by and large grumbled in the public forum, said their peace... and waited for election day to take action. If Democrats want to burn Trump in effigy, make "memes" about his hair, or make whatever statements that wish to make... that's one thing. Taking the nation down the impeachment road, with many possible outcomes, predominantly for "political" reasons, would, to my mind, appear excessive.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
LCDR Joshua Gillespie - I actaully wasn't really talking about Obama, more if this current situation were described four years ago as a hypothetical before it happened, sans any knowledge of who or what parties were involved, I suspect a lot more people would have a problem with it.
I don't believe Obama ever self dealt in getting re-elected using the power of this office, particularly pressuring foreign powers to look into political rivals. Even with the 2016 election Obama was very careful to keep the DOJ at arms length so as not to give the appearance that he was in any way putting his thumb on the scales (which may actually have let Russia be more effective than they otherwise may have been). Keeping the DoJ at arms length is one of the norms that the current POTUS escued and getting rid of those norms is part of the reason why he is in hot water and part of the reason his predecessor was able to stay out of it. Many of those norms are there to ensure there isn't the appearance of an abuse of power. Once those norms are broken, the appearance of ethical issues start sneaking in quickly.
I don't believe Obama ever self dealt in getting re-elected using the power of this office, particularly pressuring foreign powers to look into political rivals. Even with the 2016 election Obama was very careful to keep the DOJ at arms length so as not to give the appearance that he was in any way putting his thumb on the scales (which may actually have let Russia be more effective than they otherwise may have been). Keeping the DoJ at arms length is one of the norms that the current POTUS escued and getting rid of those norms is part of the reason why he is in hot water and part of the reason his predecessor was able to stay out of it. Many of those norms are there to ensure there isn't the appearance of an abuse of power. Once those norms are broken, the appearance of ethical issues start sneaking in quickly.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
And one of the other ones on this same raid says that the country is under attack from the Democrats. Neither one heard the phone call so stop already.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google