Discussion: READ: Kelly's Full Remarks Defending Trump's Call To Military Widow

TPM Article Topics
#82

Josh has some choice words about the General

Just what Kelly was saying wasn’t clear on first blush because he’s not a phony and a clown like President Trump – an unchurched libertine and draft dodger who wraps himself in traditionalism and military glory. If you’re eyes are open Trump is a joke against himself. Kelly is a bonafide general officer and combat veteran. When he speaks about military sacrifice we listen. We should. He speaks with some authority, from experience, unlike the President.

But his script turned out to be pure MAGA, pure Trumpism, in some ways more potent because it was wrapped in a lifetime of service but still no less odious.

3 Likes
#83

I think we now see why trump keeps calling them “my generals” He owns them body and soul.

The big question is…why did they sell themselves for such counterfeit currency, the fool’s gold that is trumping.

ETA: meant to type trumpism there at the end. By now I kinda like trumping :slight_smile:

4 Likes
#84

Yeah…let’s just stick a photo of Timothy McVeigh in his face and give Kelly the finger. (I’m sure there are other examples too.)

2 Likes
#85

To further detail this…The faux commercial was for “Shimmer” and Chevy Chase was the pitchman…while Ackroyd was the husband who felt Shimmer is a dessert topping. The wonderful Gilda Radner was the wife who thought Shimmer was a floor wax.

@tena

1 Like
#86

I honestly wonder if the Army is the only service that takes subordination to civil authority seriously anymore.

1 Like
#87

Not even the Army. Remember it was an Army general, Stanely McKrystal, who publicly attacked Obama and Biden during his Rolling Stone interview, shortly before he was relieved of command and forced to retire. And there were several Army generals who did similar things under Clinton.

But I certainly agree with you about the over arching problem with our officer corps. Sadly, its an inevitable development in a country that fetishizes the worship if the military to the point we do in this country. And its a development that would have scared the crap out of the founding fathers. Its why they didn’t want a standing, professional army in the first place.

4 Likes
#88

If you read Kelly’s statement, you’d see it wasn’t the comments per se but the context in which they were made that he thought inappropriate.

#89

You’re being a bit weird. The only purpose of that article is to show that Wilson was indeed there. The fact that there is any credit going to her indicates that it was made a point of on the day. The question that needs answering is was her speech all about her?. Without knowing what she said,it’s impossible to say

#90

I’m 99% sure. I have been to dozens of these kind of events in my professional life. On occasion, I gave remarks on behalf of my state government which contributed funds to the project at hand. It would have been 100% expected and appropriate for Congress members to tout whatever role they had. The difference here is the remembrance of the fallen officers. That said, no news accounts mentioned any inappropriate remarks, methinks Kelly ginned up the old faux outrage machine to appease the Toddler-in-Chief. Kelly also expressed his total contempt of Congress, quite frankly I was stunned by that. I take it as a sign that the pressure in the WH is at new highs.

3 Likes
#91

It’s almost as if he’s working in an administration that has made ‘drain the swamp’ a slogan…

Also ‘expected’ and ‘appropriate’ are two very different things. Kelly’s point is that Wilson (and no doubt others) didn’t realise how inappropriate the comments were - in his view.

#92

Agreed! Kelly is an easily stunned snowflake. I understand why the Congress members are surprised at his comments, no one could expect a battle-hardened 4-star to be so easily triggered.

1 Like
#93

At least they still drill it into them at West Point. There have always been West Pointers who didn’t get the message–McClellen and McArthur being the archtypical examples. But if they teach it in the Air Force Academy they way they do at West Point, I have not heard of it. And I honestly don’t know what they do about it at Annapolis. But navies are typically not the prime threat to the government, the Potemkin’s crew and the odd Latin America juanta notwithstanding.

We need to remember that this fetishization of the military is a very recent innovation. One compounded in equal part of the backlash to the demonization of Vietnam vets in the 70’s (and yeah, that was a real thing that happened), the PR campaign necessary to keep a military going after the end of conscription and, of course, Reagan doing Reagan things.

And it just got worse and worse and worse, the more wars we fought.

On of the biggest problems we have here is that the end of conscription has resulted in a military that is increasingly alienated from the civilian world, one where it is actually unnecessary for the officer corps to stay related and connected to the civilian world and one that is deeply invested in believing its own bullshit of purity and eliteness and sacrifice.

I am not, of course, suggesting we reinstitute conscription to fix this problem. At this point, it would only make it worse.

I have, in particular, noted the constant use of the word “warrior” when what they (and we) actually mean is “solider” or “Marine.” The idea being that “warriors” stand apart from the women and children and the weaklings, gaining social status and Honor (in the totemic sense) from single combat and forming a separate social elite.

And the thing that makes that both ridiculous and pernicious is that–going back to ancient times and reinforced time and again during the modern age of imperialism–is that warriors are trained to fight as individuals for personal honor, whereas soldiers are trained to fight together because soldiers fighting as a team will generally slaughter warriors in job lots.

6 Likes
#94

I don’t know that this is true. But I would not be surprised to learn that whatever it is is being made worse by some stuff going on in his head related to the loss of his son. Stuff that he should have gotten therapy for but, being part of a culture that still PTSD and grief are things a soldier should just be able to deal with himself and that therapy is a sign of weakness, hasn’t.

2 Likes
#95

Not to draw attention away from Kelly’s half truths and scurrilous lies, but does anyone who read that letter at the beginning of the news briefing really believe it was written by a 7 year old? “I’ve always heard food brings people together?” Seriously, we’re supposed to believe that was written by a second grader? The whole tone of the letter, the language and the syntax and style, suggests that at best it was written by the kid’s mom based on things the kid said.

1 Like
#96

Kelly is a great apple-polishing artist.

#97

I have no doubt that there were incidents, but that in itself is just another example of misleading exaggeration become ‘truth,’ mythologized into a useful political cudgel. Read “Spitting Image” a book published a couple of years ago that tries, unsuccessfully, to find contemporaneous reporting of the urban myth of returning Vietnam vets being spat upon. Having been involved in the Draft Resistance movement at the time, I can tell you that there was a very concerted effort on the part of organizers to “support the soldier - oppose the war.”

btw, documentation was found showing willful and knowing use of the ‘spat upon’ myth as propaganda by Nixon and the military.

1 Like
#98

Too bad he’s working on road apples.

3 Likes
#99

Dude, did you actually watch any TV in the 70’s? Because I was glued to it. And in every cop show it was “crazed Vietnam vet” this and “crazed Vietnam that.” It saturated pop culture. And back in the days of only three channels, that mattered a lot more even than it does now.

#100

Nope, didn’t watch too much TV then, especially cop shows. But I did spend a lot of time counseling along with returning Vietnam Vets Against the War. (I hope you did see that I gave a “like” to your glorifying the military comment, and wholeheartedly agree with your assessment.)

1 Like
#101

Now that we’ve all seen the footage of Rep. Wilson’s speech, we can (almost all of us) see that Kelly is a liar who inappropriately attacked a congresswoman. Are you going to apologize now? Or what?

Comments are now Members-Only
Join the discussion Free options available