Kelly to the rescue!

quadraginta said:
It might be possible to argue the idea that “the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War.”, so long as it is recognized that it was the southern states whose inability was at fault.

It perhaps bears noting that the modern core of support which sustains the GOP are the direct, lineal descendants of that group, both culturally and politically.
Click to expand...

The counter to that, however, is that, ok, the south would not compromise, but then General Lee was a noble man who fought for an uncompromising cost that caused the Civil War?

That's where he runs into trouble in this line of thinking. I can absolutely agree, blame the South for being uncompromising. But then don't praise Lee for fighting for that cause.
 
The Don said:
Are people still clinging to the idea that General Kelly is a noble warrior who is working against his better judgement for the good of the country as Chief of Staff to President Trump or are they coming around to the view that I had from the moment he agreed to serve President Trump in any capacity - that at best he is a political opportunist willing to work with Trump to further his own objectives or that (more likely IMO) he is an active participant and enabler in the President's behaviour and agenda ? :mad:
Click to expand...

It was wishful thinking on my part. I continue to believe that there are actual Heros out there who will put honor above the personal.
Kelly ain't one of them, and if that's what he learned at whatver Ossifer training he got, there are none in the Military.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Could an honorable person actually work for Trump?
Click to expand...

I think that most hope one will step up as the go-between so that Toupee Fiasco (thanks to Mumbles) doesn't do something so stoopid that we can't take it back. Many thought Kelly was that guy. Boy were they wrong :mad:
 
chrispy said:
I think that most hope one will step up as the go-between so that Toupee Fiasco (thanks to Mumbles) doesn't do something so stoopid that we can't take it back. Many thought Kelly was that guy. Boy were they wrong :mad:
Click to expand...

When working for Trump demands acting dishonorable, there can't ever be right.
 
Kelly came across today as such a classic Southern white racist. No wonder he's in Trump's camp. He's probably not faking it.
 
Last edited:
I don't think Kelly wants to control the chaos. I think Kelly is a True Believer.

Kelly may have been a smart bastard when he was younger. But he's not young or smart any more. That bastard runs off at the mouth as bad as Trump.
 
rwguinn said:
It was wishful thinking on my part. I continue to believe that there are actual Heros out there who will put honor above the personal.
Kelly ain't one of them, and if that's what he learned at whatver Ossifer training he got, there are none in the Military.
Click to expand...

McCain is one, stood up to a voter who called Obama a Muslim and is standing up to Trump unlike those lily-livered GOP colleagues of his.
 
rwguinn said:
It was wishful thinking on my part. I continue to believe that there are actual Heros out there who will put honor above the personal.
Kelly ain't one of them, and if that's what he learned at whatver Ossifer training he got, there are none in the Military.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was learned at officer training. I think the issue is the assumption that members of the armed forces, and especially officers, are "better" (whatever that means) than the public at large. IMO they are not, but they're probably no worse and like as not you get the same spectrum of good guys (and gals), psychos, a-holes and so on that you get in the public at large.

General Kelly seems to be right at the heart of one of the current GOP's key demographics. A (late) middle aged, (upper) middle class white man who is a little bit racist (he wouldn't want to lynch an n-word but he sure as heck doesn't want his daughter marrying one), wants lower taxes, welfare cut and a return to the social mores of the 1950s.
 
The Don said:
I don't think it was learned at officer training. I think the issue is the assumption that members of the armed forces, and especially officers, are "better" (whatever that means) than the public at large. IMO they are not, but they're probably no worse and like as not you get the same spectrum of good guys (and gals), psychos, a-holes and so on that you get in the public at large.

General Kelly seems to be right at the heart of one of the current GOP's key demographics. A (late) middle aged, (upper) middle class white man who is a little bit racist (he wouldn't want to lynch an n-word but he sure as heck doesn't want his daughter marrying one), wants lower taxes, welfare cut and a return to the social mores of the 1950s.
Click to expand...
Largely this. As a retired officer I am repeatedly amazed at the glorification of the military profession by much of the civilian populace. More worryingly, I am constantly amazed at the number of military members who feel such glorification is warranted.

There are honorable people in the military; McMaster is one, though he sometimes falters at walking the line between honorable service and I-must-support-my-duly-elected-CinC; I attribute that to the fact that he isn't really a political animal and misaligns his aiming point when speaking. Mattis is better; I actually like him better as a politician than a military man, and I like him as a military man.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Kind of.. he's still voting with their awful policies 99% of the time.
Click to expand...
Indeed, he is after all a conservative, and likely agrees with most of those policies, or at least goes along with them. Nonetheless, I think he has a degree of integrity that many others lack.

While it might be nice to contemplate a world in which everyone agrees with us on things, I think what the world needs more is for people who don't agree to be honest. One can question whether McCain is consistent, or right, but at least he's trying.
 
Garrette said:
Largely this. As a retired officer I am repeatedly amazed at the glorification of the military profession by much of the civilian populace. More worryingly, I am constantly amazed at the number of military members who feel such glorification is warranted.

There are honorable people in the military; McMaster is one, though he sometimes falters at walking the line between honorable service and I-must-support-my-duly-elected-CinC; I attribute that to the fact that he isn't really a political animal and misaligns his aiming point when speaking. Mattis is better; I actually like him better as a politician than a military man, and I like him as a military man.
Click to expand...

I thought this an interesting article on that.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/23/an-old-colonel-looks-at-general-kelly/

Trump does seem to have a knack for finding former generals disaffected with democracy.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I thought this an interesting article on that.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/23/an-old-colonel-looks-at-general-kelly/

Trump does seem to have a knack for finding former generals disaffected with democracy.
Click to expand...
Thank you; I hadn't seen that, and I agree with it.

I will, however, reiterate my position (differently worded and expanded here) that McMaster is not among that group, or at least not mostly (every soldier, including me, gets frustrated occasionally with non-military messes).
 
And to continue my position, I have had to backtrack elsewhere in my support of General Kelly. I had said nothing about him until his speech talking about how casualties are processed and treated and then about how the Congresswoman was awful. I spoke in defense of his casualty comments -- and I stand by that defense -- but I did not mention the rest which I did find problematic at best, especially the "Gold Star Only" journalists being allowed to ask questions. When it turned out later that Kelly had misrepresented the Congresswoman's remarks I stood ready to forgive him for a faulty memory. When he refused to apologize for those remarks and then made his "failure to compromise" comment, I was left as flabbergasted as ever I have been.
 
Garrette said:
Thank you; I hadn't seen that, and I agree with it.

I will, however, reiterate my position (differently worded and expanded here) that McMaster is not among that group, or at least not mostly (every soldier, including me, gets frustrated occasionally with non-military messes).
Click to expand...

Maybe I just absorbed the hate toward him from a friend of mine over how he left army special forces hanging under fire by not sending his helicopters to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom