Posted on 12/08/2016 3:30:50 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) on Thursday dismissed as "offensive" the criticism that President-elect Donald Trump is considering too many retired generals for Cabinet positions.
The Democratic lawmaker, who last month raised eyebrows by meeting with Trump in his New York tower, said that the veterans are more than capable of serving in high government positions and their military experience should not disqualify them from the job.
"I don't share [critics'] concerns. In fact, as a veteran ... I find it pretty offensive for people to outright discriminate against veterans," Gabbard said in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper.
"Here you have generals who have literally spent their whole lives serving our country, putting service before self, putting their lives on the line to defend democracy. And yet people are criticizing them and discriminating against them saying just because you served as a general previously you are disqualified from serving in a high position of leadership in our government," she continued.
Gabbard fired back at critics of Trump's staffing, stating that the generals are far more invested in serving the country then they are themselves.
"These people, arguably, have put far more on the line and are far more deeply personally committed to upholding our democracy than their critics," she said.
Trump has so far appointed three former generals to top Cabinet posts: John Kelly to head the Department of Homeland Security, James Mattis for Defense secretary and Michael Flynn for a national security adviser. Former general and CIA Director David Petraeus is also being considered as a potential choice for the next secretary of State.
How many retired military entered politics? And were successful?...
Answer: Lots
Presidents since WWII: Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Bush Senior
This lady should be head of the VA.
What I was saying. There were lots of military that went into politics and were successful. It seems that those snowflakes out there are hyper sensitive to any military being in government.
If they are retired, they are not on Active Duty. They are civilians!
“General” in this case is an honorific, rather like using “Mr. President” or “Mr. Speaker” when addressing those who formerly held those offices. Former Presidents are no longer “the President”.
...stating that the generals are far more invested in serving the country then they are themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.