OK, some of you have accused Gen. Milley of 'treason'.

Well, from where I sit, that's not quite right. He was brought before congress, including the Secretary of Defense and Gen McKenzie, to provide information on the Afghanistan withdrawal. In fact, he wasn't questioned about 'advance warning of attack' at all, he volunteered to address the allegations being made against him. Watch the video. He starts of by asking if he could clear the air about recent accusations. That, right there, tells me he wasn't questioned about it ( at least up to that point), but it also tells me that wasn't the primary reason he was called to testify.

Listen to the video. he explained what he did do. Milley has no obligation to counter assertions about what he didn't do (deal with media hysterics, etc.) only to express what he did do, unless queried otherwise about it in that session, and apparently, that didn't occur. But, I haven't listened to the entire congressional session.

 

He explained what he actually said, that it was in the context of calming tensions, Gen Li's fears of the president's erratic behavior, not in the context of a president planning a military operation and his 'tipping Li off'.

That, most certainly is not treason. That is his job. The telephone calls are planned in advance, there are some 8 or so officials listening in, everything is done to protocols set by the Secy of Defense. His authority to do precisely that is a document signed by the Sec'y of Defense, which he indicated in the video. Moreover, in many interviews with Woodward, he confirmed this fact.

 

No one is talking about phone calls to foreign military leaders as part of his job, or the protocols and authority of those calls. All of that is such a red herring. I don't care that part of Milley's job was interacting with foreign military leaders; that's not the issue. The issue is that on one call, he allegedly made this statement: “General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.”

Now if you are so void of explanations that all you can say is that "everything is done to protocols" than you are either unable to compute Milley saying this, “General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise,” or you are simply being dishonest. Frankly I don't know which since the capacity for self deception is extremely strong in some.

So let's try this again. Explain to me how this comment, “General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise,” is a totally legitimate comment to make to an opponent foreign military leader? In what reasonable context is this not treason?

 

That he chose to address the topic, but avoided the elephant in the room, says something. That he hasn't taken action against Woodward for lying, also says something.

If he was quoted accurately in Woodwards book, then what he said was treasonous. If he actually ever forewarns China about an impending operation, then he will have committed treason. But he's not there yet. Just because you tell your buddy you're going to rob a bank doesn't make you a bank robber.

 

False, it IS the issue, it IS what Milley, Woodward, et al, were talking about.

It is the entire point.

Let's try this again, I repeat.

That is the issue, and CONTEXT, of his conversation with Li, which you are IGNORING.

 

No, because you are ignoring context, the context the video provides. No, he didn't do what you are suggesting, context proves he didn't. Context was in the framework of calming tensions, which is his job.

 

False. The only issue I'm concerned about is this content of Milley's call to Li: “General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.”

We've already established that you are pretending that I'm upset that Milley made a phone call to Li. I'm not. I'm sure talking to foreign military leaders from time to time are part of his job. My problem is treason, which this comment clearly is: “General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.”

Now you claim I'm ignoring the context of the call, I'm not. I just don't know what context justifies this treason. If you know what it is, please share because you seem to have kept that part pretty quiet. Go ahead, give the context that makes treason OK.

 

one point you are missing…. Why is Milley talking about classified military conversations with an adversary…. to a seedy WaPo reporter?

 

one point you are missing….. why is a normal everyday conversation with a military adversary even mentioned in the book to start with? If it was done every day…. no big deal …. Why was a no big deal everyday phone conversation even taking up space in the book…

 

Let’s try again… it is not the call that is problem…. It is the context…. And lil mike posted the treasonous context out for you… there is no DOD protocol you can show us that forewarning an enemy of attack, which is aiding and abetting your enemy, is normal operating procedure… it is treason.

 

Reread my comment until cognitive dissonance fades, and epiphany emerges.

Meditate on the sentence: 'omission of context distorts the truth'.

There is no treason. Point is moot.

 

Why are you asking a question with a bogus premise?

 

context reveals there is no treason.

Nothing to remove.

Read the book, listen to the video.

If you do not, then you are not serious and only want to forward a right wing agenda.

 

I thought you would try to dodge this one, and it seems I'm right. I asked what was the context that justifies this comment, “General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise,” and no surprise, you didn't even try to answer after bleating "context!" for several pages.

At this point, after demonstrating a total lack of ability to mount a defense for your position, I would think a reasonable person would stop and reconsider their priors. But since you're not going to do that, I'll ask again, what is the context that makes that statement OK?

 

Your failure to grasp my reply is the dodge

I stand by my comment.

 

Meaning...you don't have an answer. You can't even get one from your usual talking point sites. So again, what is the context that makes treason OK?

 

Comment stands.

reread comment until epiphany

 

So you can't answer the question and are bailing. Understandable.

I'm still left with the nagging question as to why you started this thread in the first place. You had to know that video clip wouldn't answer how this comment, “General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise,” would NOT be treason no matter what lame excuse Milley made up, and given your inability to provide that "context" I've been proven right.

You guys will swallow anything it seems.

 

It is exactly what he said

FF to 10:14 ......(actually interesting at 9:00)

 

....

Listen post #169. Actually Milley said he was told to do it.... and you will see an onslaught of liberals saying he was told to make the call and he did nothing wrong...... but like good liberals they will argue all day and never bring up the "treason statement" in what should have been a typical call... there is no DOD protocol to make a treasonous statement like Milley did... for aiding and abetting you enemies...

 

Whatever.

You insist in ignoring context, the context of which renders your premise false.

I can't help that, but there is nothing more to say. You can make assumptions, utter falsehoods, etc, not much I can do about it, except go back to the original point, you are ignoring context.

If you don't see it in the book, or the video, there is nothing I can say.

You know the old saying, you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

I did try, however.

 

So what, he's wrong. He, like you, and many others who have a right wing agenda, ignore context.

You ignore context because it serves your agenda.

What does it say about someone who ignores context,
someone who won't give a combat veteran of 42 years, the benefit of the doubt?

What does it say about that person?

It says, 'shame on you'.

 

"""someone who won't give a combat veteran of 42 years, the benefit of the doubt?"""
""It says, 'shame on you'.""........ It sounds like you have read and live by the Alinsky rules my liberal friend.
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

No sir..... Milley said what Milley said... it is amazing you think you can change his words. Milley committed treason right here in this clip.. right in front of your eyes.... it destroys your very argument.

"""I'll probably call you"""" was Milley's exact words

Fast Forward to 10:14 ....

 

That he's just saying it to calm things down.

 

It is aiding and abetting our enemy… treasonous.