Fallout From The Woodward Book

Hair Füror (H/T Scissorhead Skinny-D)

Disgraced, twice-impeached LOSER ex-prxnint Stupid, the uncontested leader of the Cult, went so bananas after losing the election that General Miley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, had to call his Chinese counterpart twice (once before the Stupid Coup and once after) to assure him that the U.S. had no intent to nuke China and that the government here was stable.

AND THEY BELIEVED HIM?! Excuse me, I interrupted.

Hair Füror responds:

…which to me confirms the story.

And then some time passes, Hair Füror stews in his juices for a while, and then reacts to the gossip from the Woodward book as only he can:

“According to two people familiar with the matter, the twice-impeached former president was sounding testy and had a simple request: He wanted his prominent supporters to go on television and in public this week to declare that Gen. Mark Milley should be ‘arrested’ for ‘treason.’”

You know, have him dragged out back and shot, bury him in an unmarked grave, etc.

OK, time for my usual complaint on these Woodward books: why would a real journalist hold back a story like this just for the sake of book sales. Jeebus, that madman had to be contained from nuking China and Woodward didn’t report it? The WaPo editors agreed?

This entry was posted in 4th Reich, Lord Damp Nut, The Russian Usurper, Nukes, Things that will kill us all. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Fallout From The Woodward Book

  1. buckobear says:

    Seems like Gen Milley should be awarded the Medal of Honor.


    • Then kicked in the nuts, repeatedly, for not informing the incoming CinC.

      Yet another thing we have to fix is New Administrations are automatically brought on board for an orderly transition after the election. None of this bullshit.

      It wasn’t until last year that I (and I’d wager a metric fuckton of other citizens) understood that huge parts of our Democracy are just, ‘unwritten agreements’ that no one ever thought we’d have to codify into law.

      Liked by 4 people

      • R White says:

        A majority of our smaller democratic institutions only function day-to-day by long held ‘gentlemen’s’ agreements’ along with a good bit of common sense. It wasn’t until a POS grifting wanna-be populist like fat nixon proved to anyone paying attention that there are things that need to be codified into law if we want to keep our fragile democratic republic.

        The only problem remaining is that congress is the only body that can rectify those matters, but good luck getting anything done as long as morally bankrupt republicans have a say within the antiquated senate.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Stony Pillow says:

    Vindman spoke truth – acts of civil disobedience have a price. Milley unquestionably did the right thing at an unquestionably bad time for our country. And he should have offered his letter of resignation to Biden on 1/20 for doing it.

    I’m kinda hoping he did, and Biden told him to stick around to see through the Afghanistan withdrawal. Milley must go.


  3. lofgren says:

    I’m seeing some weird Lefty arguments about Milley. My point of view is that what he did was clearly illegal, or at least should be illegal, but that preventing nuclear war is pretty good mitigating circumstance for taking an otherwise illegal action.

    However, I am seeing Lefties who don’t appear to be crackpots arguing that actually Millie’s actions were legal because he is not obligated to take unlawful orders, and if Trump ordered a military attack after 1/6 it would by definition be an unlawful order.

    I can see the threads of the argument, but I don’t like that this casts our military in the role of being the “proper grownups” in the room. The assumption seems to be that it is part of their job to listen to the President and then decide for themselves what the proper course of action is.

    To my mind, if there are unhinged or illegal presidents in power then we need more efficient ways of removing them through the work of other elected officials. I don’t like this idea that part of the military brass’ job is to preempt the president and make their own war plans, which seems to be the way that some of this rhetoric is headed, especially from Lefties who’ve spent time in the military. It’s dangerously close to an attitude that the military is inherently more fit to lead and they graciously allow the president to participate as long as he isn’t a nuisance.

    Liked by 2 people

    • To my mind, if there are unhinged or illegal presidents in power then we need more efficient ways of removing them through the work of other elected officials.

      We DO. It’s just that the criminal’s jury was packed with his fellow conspirators.

      There is no real orderly way for a Democracy to work when 30-40% of the populace thinks that Democracy is a corrupt, unfair process that should be replaced by strongman rule.

      That Miley felt he had to do this is fucking terrifying because history is replete with Generals who took it upon themselves to ‘save‘ Democracy.

      Liked by 2 people

      • lofgren says:

        The question of how terrifying it is is exactly what I’ve been getting into these online debates about.

        To me, Milley having to do this (and it being so blatantly the moral, ethical, and sane choice in his situation) is a clear sign that our system broke down in very nearly the worst possible way.

        To some, this is a sign that the system works properly and that our brave military will not allow harm to come to democracy.

        It’s that latter group who concern me. The Republicans have embraced authoritarianism so fully that I feel like there is a risk of being outflanked by “liberals” who seem to be on our side right up until they say, “You know, maybe we should give the military a chance to run things.”

        I think this is a minority of our side, but it’s a popular enough view that I’m seeing a lot of comments echoing that sentiment, even if they don’t come right out and say it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • lofgren says:

        Also to be clear, this is one of those sci-fi dystopia fears. If the situation between Trumpist Republicans and the rest of the country got so bad that there was regular violence in the streets, I could see a lot of liberals leaning on the military to save us. We also saw some of this rhetoric during Malneur and the Bundy Ranch standoffs. My previous comments sound a little hysterical as a reaction to a few scattered comments around the internet.

        But I don’t think this is a concern that should hold us back from accepting whatever allies we can in defeating Trumpism. We (those who agree with me that Milley should never have been put in this position, rather than it is a lawful and appropriate part of his job) don’t need to make enemies of each other. I think very few people Left or Right are on the verge of rooting for a military dictatorship right now. But hypothetically…

        Liked by 1 person

      • Honestly I feel your fears. It DOES feel like we’re on the greased skids of the “This is how democracies turn into fascist dictatorships” ride.

        Upon further reflection, a few things do comfort me though:

        The Horseshoe Theory of radicalism: where right-wing and left-wing radicalism bend around to meet on the far side of the middle. I suspect some of those lefty’s you talk about are of that bent.

        The US’s long history of a Civilian-controlled military coupled with the Military’s complete comfort in that position. I see Miley’s action being in aim of supporting that tradition. Truman firing MacArthur was a watershed moment in that tradition; there might have been some private grumbling in the officer corps, but even MacArthur bowed out gracefully, if not willingly. The Presidents who were once generals have, in the main, behaved ostentatiously as civilians, from Washington on. (I have my doubts about Jackson, but it may well have simply been his assholish authoritarianism that was separate from his military rank)

        And yes, Miley should never have been put into that position, but that’s because the guardrails of our government simply do not take into account the possibility of a completely corrupt regime gaining power. The rank cowardice of the Cabinet members who resigned after Jan 6 instead of invoking the 25th Amendment are the ones who should be drug out and shot.

        This, unfortunately has been repeated over and over and over again throughout the TFG’s regime. People in a position to do something did nothing, resigned, then told us what they knew. Every one of the people who talked to Bob Woodward for all of his books, for example, or John Bolton (although we already knew he was a faithless, gutless weasel.)

        Stephanie Grisham who (by her own account) resigned pretty much on the spot when Melania declined to even vaguely condemn the Jan 6 attack, and said nothing until her book came out. The guy at the NSC who was ‘Anonymous’, yet did nothing about the many abuses that continued to happen.

        Venal scum, every one who never deserved the trust of Americans.

        Many people DID come forward and predictably suffered because of it: Col Vindman, Ambassador Yovanovitch .

        Liked by 2 people

      • lofgren says:

        I agree that Milley’s actions are not themselves a threat to Democracy, especially since he was apparently in contact with Esper and Pelosi who were urging him to do something. His contact with the Chinese army in this context does not seem like he was intending to subvert the civilian leadership. He correctly perceived that no law is intended as a suicide pact and that preventing war with China was a critical goal. While I doubt a war would have ensued if he hadn’t spoken up, it’s a counterfactual that is difficult to evaluate, and every step to limit Trump’s power was worth taking.

        (Some analysts are downplaying Milley’s statements now. While more context has made it more clear that he never literally interposed himself where it was not legally appropriate for him to be, I think it’s fair to see his actions as deliberate attempts to limit Trump’s power. If he couldn’t eliminate Trump’s authority completely, he basically went about being damn sure Trump had to follow the law and respect agreements with other countries. To a criminal like Trump, forcing him to follow carefully delineated procedures and adhere to complex legal restrictions IS limiting his power.)

        To broaden the scope quite a bit, your points about the cabinet members and others in the administration who failed to stand up to the president are accurate. This is how I perceive our government now: We don’t have a tripartite government. We have a bicameral system. There are the Democrats and there are the Republicans. The actual structures of government, the Supreme Court, the Congress, the White House, are just the tools they use. We need to formally fold partyship into the way that government is run. There need to be standards of behavior, of primary systems, of budgeting and accounting for any party that wants to participate. There need to be ways of holding people accountable to the law if they betray the people’s trust for the benefit of their party, because their jobs explicitly say that their government responsibilities come before party responsibilities and they WILL be prosecuted for placing one loyalty above the other.

        I have no idea how any of this could be done. Smarter people than me will have to work it out. It feels like something that would require a whole new constitution, which obviously isn’t happening anytime soon. It just seems like we can’t keep pretending that our government is one thing when it’s really another thing.


    • lofgren says:

      To clarify, Millie did the right thing but he should never have been put in that position in the first place.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. RayLay says:

    “I never even thought of attacking China…” Russia, maybe, but that’s only because they hold all my IOU chits. Nothing personal, Vlad, it’s only business.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. ali redford says:

    The story is horrifying.

    I’m not sure authors of non-fiction should profit from a book that includes legal-inquiry-worthy if not outright illegal acts presented as fact; these authors didn’t get their facts, then write and publish that book overnight. To me, they ought to owe the US big dollars for not blowing the whistle as soon as they knew. I’d buy a book that came along after an author or authors did that, but never a book about Trump. Or GW.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. revzafod says:

    “…have him dragged out back and shot…”
    On the lighter side, you mean like Major Danby in “Catch-22”? [Dreedle’s nurse also played Quilla June Holmes in “A Boy and his Dog”]


  7. Some calming words regarding this topic by Adam Silverman at Balloon Juice; a person I trust in this realm:


    I feel a rather lot better about this whole mishegas now.

    And am reminded, again, of blind men describing the elephant in the room. All of these allegations are from anonymous sources; because Woodward does not ever, EVER reveal his sources unless explicitly allowed to, by them.

    Recall it took over 30 years before they confirmed who Deep Throat was, and that was only after Mark Felt had outed himself, publically,

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.