Military chiefs denounce Trump (barf alert)

DONALD TRUMP was yesterday facing questions about whether military chiefs fully back his handling of the anti-racism protests after an excoriating rebuke by his former defence secretary gained the support of a Republican senator.

The US president tried to wave away a searing critique by Jim Mattis, his Pentagon chief until December 2018, by claiming he fired Mr Mattis – who resigned over Syria policy disagreements – and calling him “the world’s most overrated general”.

Trump was the only American president in history who tries to divide rather than unite the country, was backed by one of the party’s prominent moderates.

Lisa Murkowski, the Republican senator from Alaska, said yesterday: “I thought General Mattis’s words were true and honest and necessary and overdue.” Asked if she still supported Mr Trump, she replied: “I am struggling with it. I have struggled with it for a long time.”

While some dismissed Ms Murkowski’s criticism – she voted against impeaching the president over the Ukraine scandal just four months ago – the rebukes from past military leaders have been mounting. Chief among them was that of Mr Mattis, a four-star general who Mr Trump picked as his defence secretary when he took office in January 2017. “I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled,” Mr Mattis, nicknamed “Mad Dog” during his military days, began in his statement to The Atlantic magazine.

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people – does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us,” Mr Mattis wrote. “We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership.”

Mr Mattis was not the only defence figure distancing themselves from the president. Mark Esper, the current defence secretary, hours earlier had said he opposed the use of active-duty troops to counter protesters – something Mr Trump had floated.

John Allen, a former commander of US forces in Afghanistan, said Mr Trump had “failed to show sympathy, empathy, compassion, or understanding”.

Mike Mullen, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Mr Trump’s actions in Lafayette Square had “laid bare his disdain for the rights of peaceful protest in this country”.

In the nation’s capital, Democratic senators stood silent for eight minutes and 46 seconds, marking the amount of time Mr Floyd gasped for breath. Some knelt down on one knee.

Past presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act 19 times, both with the request of the Governor of the affected state, and without their request. Note that every one of those 19 previous invocations of the act, were due to violence or disorder in a single city or single state/territory. President Trump invoking the act due to NATION WIDE violence, looting, arson and depravity of civil rights is certainly lawful and warranted.

List of invocations of Insurrection Act

Date of invocation	Invoking President	State requested?	Affected area	Occasion
April 19, 1808	Thomas Jefferson		Lake Champlain	Embargo Act violations^[7]
August 23, 1831	Andrew Jackson	Yes	Norfolk, Virginia	Nat Turner's slave rebellion^[10]
January 28, 1834	Andrew Jackson	Yes	Williamsport, Maryland	Labor dispute by workers on Chesapeake and Ohio Canal^[11]
October 17, 1871	Ulysses S. Grant	No	South Carolina	Suppression of Ku Klux Klan^[12]
September 15, 1872	Ulysses S. Grant	No	New Orleans, Louisiana	Unrest following 1872 Louisiana gubernatorial election^[13]
May 13, 1874	Ulysses S. Grant	Yes	Little Rock, Arkansas	Brooks–Baxter War ^[14]
October 7, 1878	Rutherford B. Hayes	Yes	Lincoln County, New Mexico Territory	Lincoln County War^[15]
July 7, 1894	Grover Cleveland	Yes	Chicago, Illinois	Pullman Strike^[16]^[17]
April 28, 1914	Woodrow Wilson	Yes^[18]	Colorado	Colorado Coalfield War^[19]
July 22, 1943	Franklin D. Roosevelt	Yes	Detroit, Michigan	1943 Detroit race riot^[20]
September 24, 1957	Dwight D. Eisenhower	No	Little Rock, Arkansas	To protect Little Rock Nine^[21]^:8
September 30, 1962	John F. Kennedy	No	Oxford, Mississippi	Ole Miss riot of 1962^[7]^:13
September 10, 1963	John F. Kennedy	No	Alabama	Enforce desegregation orders on Alabama public schools^[7]^:13
July 24, 1967	Lyndon B. Johnson	Yes	Detroit, Michigan	1967 Detroit riot^[22]
April 5, 1968	Lyndon B. Johnson	Yes	Washington, D.C.	1968 Washington, D.C., riots^[23]
April 7, 1968	Lyndon B. Johnson	Yes	Baltimore, Maryland	Baltimore riot of 1968^[24]
April 7, 1968	Lyndon B. Johnson	Yes	Chicago, Illinois	1968 Chicago riots^[25]
September 1989	George H. W. Bush	Yes	Saint Croix, United States Virgin Islands	Disorder following Hurricane Hugo^[26]
May 1, 1992	George H. W. Bush	Yes	Los Angeles County, California	1992 Los Angeles riots^[27]

Notice something about the incidents where the states did NOT ask for help, but the feds went in anyway? ALL having to do with race/race relations.

Let’s not forget that Mattis is a Democrat and for Democrats, it is party first over everything else. Let’s also remember that Mattis wanted the female that Hillary Clinton had designated as her SecDef in waiting after she won the election as his deputy. That says a tremendous amount about Mattis none of it good since that person would not have supported Trump or his policies - which Mattis did not either once he was in. As far as Murkowski, she is Romney in a skirt. Always has her hand out for help from Trump but always turns around and stabs him in the back. All three are useful idiots for the Demcrats and I have zero respect for them because of their hypocrisy and two facedness.

I’m getting more than a little bit sick of the declining level of civility on this site.

Save it for the RATs.

As for these Pentagon bureaucrats — Trump is a threat to their turf and, more than likely, a lot of the corrupt deals that do with that turf.

Why shouldn’t they hate him. I’d go so far as to call it a badge of honor.

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.