675

Milley says the military doesn’t swear oath to a ‘wannabe dictator’ in apparent swipe at Trump (www.cnn.com)

submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

85 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In an impassioned and at times furious speech, departing Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley defiantly proclaimed that the US military does not swear an oath to a “wannabe dictator.”

It was a bitter and pointed swipe that appeared unmistakably targeted at former President Donald Trump, who has in recent days accused Milley of “treason” and suggested that he should be put to death for his conduct surrounding Trump’s bid in 2021 to remain in office despite losing the presidential election.

“We are unique among the world’s militaries,” Milley said. “We don’t take an oath to a country, we don’t take an oath to a tribe, we don’t take an oath to a religion. We don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or a tyrant or a dictator.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] BaroqueInMind@kbin.social 129 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 64 points 1 year ago

Milley has been very clear about his regrets for having been there, and understands that what he did was wrong. It's a lot easier with hindsight to think "Well, as soon as he realized what was going on, he should have left," or "He should have made these kinds of strong statements against his being dragged into that photo op much earlier."

That all happened on June 1, 2020, long before the election in November of the same year, and long before the events which Trump and other have now been indicted for in Georgia and the DC Circuit.

There must be a way for people to be redeemed for their past actions, and I believe that Milley's statements go a very long way in that direction.

[-] CapgrasDelusion@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I couldn't agree more. I'll just add:

"Well, as soon as he realized what was going on, he should have left"

He did.

Milley realized too late that Trump, who continued across the street to pose for a now-infamous photo while standing in front of a vandalized church, was manipulating him into a visual endorsement of his martial approach to the demonstrations. Though Milley left the entourage before it reached the church, the damage was significant. “We’re getting the fuck out of here,” Milley said to his security chief. “I’m fucking done with this shit.” Esper would later say that he and Milley had been duped.

"He should have made these kinds of strong statements against his being dragged into that photo op much earlier."

He said this within a week, if that counts:

The week afterward, in a commencement address to the National Defense University, he apologized to the armed forces and the country. “I should not have been there,” he said.

As far as I'm aware, any comment he has ever made regarding the incident he has said it was a mistake.

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/11/general-mark-milley-trump-coup/675375/

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

Excellent. There is nothing wrong with Milley in the context of that event; in fact, there is everything right about his actions. Thank you for fact checking me.

[-] CapgrasDelusion@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

In no way intended to be a check, just more context. You nailed it.

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Well, I wasn't aware of the facts you brought, and my earlier comment was written on the false assumption that Milley had stayed on through the whole photo op, and that he hadn't really said anything about it until what I have heard very recently.

Whether you intended to check or not, I am checked, and I like it that way. You have made me better now than I was seven hours ago.

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

This is incredible. How do you have all this knowledge at the ready?

[-] fubo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

"reading"

[-] CapgrasDelusion@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I read the Atlantic article when it first came out. Was a really good read and stuck with me.

[-] blazeknave@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Mf was the only reason I had any hope the military would stand against fascism. I didn't know we were debating his merits.

this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023

675 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19097 readers

3747 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News