The Hill: Trump taps Ambassador to Norway Kenneth Braithwaite to replace ousted Navy chief
President Trump announced Sunday that Kenneth Braithwaite, the current ambassador to Norway, would replace Richard Spencer as the secretary of the Navy shortly after Spencer's ouster earlier in the day.
Trump's announcement came hours after Spencer was fired by Defense Secretary Mark Esper, with Esper claiming that Spencer had met behind his back with White House officials and offered to allow a SEAL convicted of a war crime to retire at his current rank.
"I was not pleased with the way that Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher’s trial was handled by the Navy. He was treated very badly but, despite this, was completely exonerated on all major charges. I then restored Eddie’s rank," Trump tweeted Sunday evening, referring to Gallagher's trial and acquittal on murder charges.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Many in the media are rushing to condemn President Trump's firing of the Navy Secretary .... ‘Recklessly crossed a line’: Washington Post columnist blasts ‘irascible, vengeful’ Trump for firing Navy chief (Washington Examiner). More here .... Navy Secretary forced out after Trump's war crimes intervention causes division and chaos in military (CNN). I disagree. Civilian control of the military is paramount, and the Commander in chief is the US President. In this case President Trump was very blunt on what he wanted, but the US Navy Secretary and a number of Admirals had a different point of view, and were public and vocal about it. When that happens people have to be fired. The precedent of the military defying the civilian leadership is a road that you do not want to follow.
3 comments:
This event should/might might make you wonder what scope the people in the military, and Congress for that matter, have as regards "protect and defend the Constitution" when it comes to fulfilling that Oath. If a President violated his Oath of Office that contains the same commitment, would members of the military, Congress maybe even the Supreme Court have any relatively "immediate" avenue to stop such action?
As regards the Supreme Court if a bill that violates the Constitution is passed, maybe even signed by the President should the court proactively take action or wait until someone appeals the bill.
Type some more Bob and see if that will stick.
You do have a way of showing the world that you cannot answer a question.
As for that matter you have a strange way of ingratiating yourself with me.
Post a Comment