Thursday, June 16, 2016

Why Was The Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff Standing Beside President Obama When He Made His Political Remarks On Donald Trump?

U.S. President Barack Obama delivers a statement accompanied by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, right, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford after a meeting with Obama's national security team at the Treasury Department in Washington, U.S., June 14, 2016. Reuters

Mark Thompson, Time: What Does the Military Think of Donald Trump?

What was surprising about President Obama’s denunciation of Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant terrorism policy Tuesday wasn’t the fact that Obama never mentioned Trump by name. He didn’t have to. “We now have proposals from the presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States to bar all Muslims from emigrating to America,” an angry Obama declared as the nation’s emotions remained raw from Sunday’s slaughter of 49 people in Orlando, by a killer who professed support for radical Islam. “We hear language that singles out immigrants and suggests that entire religious communities are complicit in violence. Where does this stop?”

What was surprising was that the nation’s top military officer stood by the President’s side as the commander-in-chief issued an extraordinary public rebuke of the man seeking to be that general’s next boss. Washington corridors were abuzz Wednesday after the ramrod-straight and uniformed presence of Marine General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provided, wittingly or not, a beribboned endorsement of Obama’s condemnation of Trump.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: This is not the first time that a U.S. Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff has been dragged into a political fight (or being used as a prop) .... nor will it be the last.


Jay Farquharson said...

WNU Editor,

Tip for you:

B.Poster said...


Thank you for sharing this link. While I have some profound disagreements with the author such as the stance on Israel and the author appears to overestimate American abilities, the general premise that these agreements need to be reworked is 100% correct.

Some countries made unrealistic assumptions regarding America's ability and willingness to make certain committments to their defense. America's actions here have not always been helpful either.

If renegotiated properly, hopefully those nations who are real allies can be afforded the time and resources neccessary to step forward as America repostions. The goal should be a "soft landing" as opposed to a "soft landing."

While POTUS candidate understands the need to renegotiate these agreements, I have doubts as to whether or not he has the temperament to get this done. Unfortunately POTUS candidate appears to have neither the understanding nor the temperament necessary to get this done.

I've recognized the unsustainability of these arfangements for the last 20 years. I'm pleased to see a few people in positions of power are starting to catch on. Again, thank you for sharing this link.

B.Poster said...

I meant a "soft landing" as opposed to a "hard landing."

B.Poster said...

Also, I meant POTUS candidate Trump appears to understand the need to renegotiate the arrangements but may lack the temperament necessary to do so. POTUS candidate Clinton seems to have neither the understanding nor the temperament. I apologize for the failure to properly type.