Admiral Calls Trump’s Iran Story Suspect

by Jack

Retired Admiral William McRaven has once again grabbed liberal press headlines by calling into question Trump’s account of averting an air strike against Iran.   But, why?  Well, first let’s take a look at who McRaven is.  McRaven was Obama’s go to guy in the Pentagon.  He often gushed praises of Obama while he was President.  McRaven surfaced shortly after Trump took office, when Trump started pulling security clearances of those insiders  involved in the “resistance” movement to derail Trump.   Those folks were acting out of pure partisanship and they were vehemently opposed to anything Trump.

McRaven said, “I would consider it an honor if Trump revoked my security clearance” and of course this made headlines too.

So, now he (McRaven) calls into question the Iran story, but why?   It will do us absolutely no good to know whether or not it happened exactly as Trump said.  Besides, presidents are allowed to posture or say things from time to time in order to gain leverage when dealing with rogue nations.  They’ve all done it to a certain extent.

For example, was Obama lying or bluffing when he warned Syria of a strong military response if they employed poison gas in the battlefield?  Technically he lied, but we know why he said what he did and unfortunately it didn’t work out.   Syria had Obama all figured out ahead of his threat, so they called his bluff.   However, Iran’s doesn’t know what Trump will do and neither does anyone else, that’s a good thing.   Trump was in effect playing poker when he said he cancelled the airstrike to avert Iranian deaths.   Now, we don’t need to know if there was or wasn’t an airstrike about to happen!   That part is not relevant, unless McRaven is trying to flip Trump’s cards over after he won the hand and that’s a real serious offense in poker.

However, apparently Admiral McDumbell doesn’t play poker nor does the Lamestream media that ran with this partisan story.   McRaven does knows a lot about progressives dirty tricks and I strongly suspect this was just pure partisan politics.   What a loser.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Admiral Calls Trump’s Iran Story Suspect

  1. Peggy says:

    Here we go again. In 2016 it was Russia, Russia, Russia. Now for 2020 it’s going to be China, China, China and Russia.

    I heard the author of this article on Mark Levin’s radio show tonight. You might want to read the whole piece.

    China Covertly Subverting Trump Reelection:
    “Dissident billionaire outlines Beijing’s four-pronged influence strategy”

    • J Soden says:

      After the past weekend, the new buzzword will be “white supremacist” that’ll be thrown around like “racist” has been used by the Lunatic Lefties for those who do not agree with their ideas.

      • Chris says:

        As soon as white supremacists stop killing people because of things the president and Fox News says, J, we’ll stop calling people who hang on their every word white supremacists.

  2. J Soden says:

    And after Tulsi slammed Kamala Harris with her AG performance record at the “debate,” suddenly Taxifornia removes said records:
    Gee, I wonder why!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

  3. Chris says:

    This post is based on a false equivalence. Drawing a red line and not holding to it is obviously bad leadership and a mistake. Obama deserves criticism for that. But there was nothing wrong or reckless about the initial promise to strike at Syria for violating our terms; the problem is that he broke it.

    The story Trump tells is very different and much more troubling. If he literally didn’t know about the civilian casualties until ten minutes before the attack was scheduled to occur, as he claims, that shows terrible leadership and a lack of communication in his administration. If he did know about the civilian casualties and then lied about it, then he is actually making his administration look incompetent. So this is nothing like the Obama red line comparison you’re drawing, because in that case, Obama could have simply fixed the situation by keeping his promise and enforcing the red line. Here, we have a statement by Trump that makes no sense and shows bad leadership whether it is true or false. There is literally no way to read it as competent or as a positive reflection of Trump as a leader. You may be on to something that it might be a “bluff” to Iran to make them afraid of Trump’s unpredictability, but it does that while showing that either his administration has poor communication, or that he is willing to lie about his administration having poor communication. Certainly there are ways for presidents to “bluff” to foreign governments without throwing their own people under the bus as often as Trump does.

    And he’d be the worst poker player ever—he has more tells than he’s had members of his cabinet. If pretty much everyone knows the president must be lying, how is that a valid bluff? Why is that a lie worth defending and pretending that it’s part of some brilliant strategy?

    • Chris says:

      This post really got sidetracked. I haven’t seen anyone explain why Jack’s analysis of the issue at hand in this article is correct, despite the flaws I pointed out–again, whether Trump is lying about only asking about civilian casualties ten minutes before the strike or telling the truth, it’s bad, and there is nothing wrong with a retired admiral or any other concerned citizen pointing out that it’s bad.

  4. Libby says:

    You deride the man with partisan cant and schoolyard taunts. You got, like, maybe a fact to support your derision? He’s not the only retired senior military official to call out The Donald, you know.

    And give some thought to the process. Active duty folk are Constitutionally prevented from speaking out … so they find some retirees to give expression to their terror and disgust. That’s a lot of effort to put out. They must be really terrified and REALLY disgusted.

  5. Chris says:

    The El Paso shooting yesterday was the second white nationalist mass shooting in one week.

    Where would someone get the idea that it’s OK to shoot Hispanic immigrants to stop an “invasion” of the border? Well, here’s the president laughing about that very idea and telling a crowd of supporters that they could “get away with” it:

    Trump to a rally crowd in Florida in May: “How do you stop these people” from crossing the border?

    Rally attendee: “Shoot them!”

    Crowd laughs. Trump smirks.

    Trump: “That’s only in the panhandle you can get away with that stuff. Only in the panhandle.”

    • Libby says:

      “The banality of evil” is on fill display. The man is an obscene joke, but he’s got the power to ruin and/or destroy lives the length and breadth of the land.


  6. Libby says:

    “Granted the GOP is not the icon of frugality when it comes to spending, but they are a damn site better than progressives.”

    Bull, Jack.

    Repubs spend borrowed money, Chinese money … and woe betide the nation on the day (which seems to have come), when the Chinese refuse to lend us any more.

    Dems tax and spend. If you can’t see the difference, I give up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *