Top 50 Most Decorated Republican National Security Officials:" Trump “would be the most reckless President in American history”

[Sistine Chapel]

wowzers


Dozens of the Republican Party’s most experienced national security officials will not vote for GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, they wrote in an open letter released Monday.

“We are convinced that [Trump] would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being,”

said the former officials, many of whom held top positions in the George W. Bush administration.

“Most fundamentally, Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President,” they added. “He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.”

Signers include some of the best known intelligence, defense and security experts of the past two decades: Michael V. Hayden, the former director of both the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency; Michael Chertoff and Tom Ridge, both of whom served as secretaries of Homeland Security during the Bush administration; Dov Zakheim, a former under secretary of defense; John D. Negroponte, a deputy secretary of state and a former director of national intelligence; Eric Edelman, a top national security adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney; and Robert Zoellick, a former deputy secretary of state, United States trade rep and president of the World Bank.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0aae2a5a0ba36

[Old-T]

There are a couple names on there that I think would be outstanding candidates themselves. But no indication that they are interested in the cesspool that campaigning has become.

[TheDaliLama]

Ka-Ching

[Mr MojoRisin]

"They are convinced that Trump would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country's national security and well being"
Everyone on that list has contributed to this to one extent or another, especially Bush and Cheney. So Donald Trump is not of any higher risk than what they were. I think what worries these idiots the most is Trump revealing information that they never intended for any of us to know.

Jim

[R.M.]

XoXoXoXoXoXoXoXo...

[Sistine Chapel]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

"They are convinced that Trump would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country's national security and well being"
Everyone on that list has contributed to this to one extent or another, especially Bush and Cheney. So Donald Trump is not of any higher risk than what they were. I think what worries these idiots the most is Trump revealing information that they never intended for any of us to know.

Jim

Listen to yourself...you sound like a sad broken record. You are a classic example of what I was mentioning earlier about how people will purposely double down on stupidity in the face of indisputable and overwhelming evidence. Neither you nor Trump are even remotely as qualified as these gentlemen to speak on what's best for this country. It's not what you want to hear but these men represent everything you've ever believed in and it's just beyond STUPID for you to double down on your ignorance. Listen to these generals, commanders, and experts they know what their talking about. :-)

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Neither you nor Trump are even remotely as qualified as these gentlemen to speak on what's best for this country.... Listen to these generals, commanders, and experts they know what their (sic) talking about.

[Old-T]

Not exactly the same thing.

In fact, in many ways the exact opposite.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

"They are convinced that Trump would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country's national security and well being"
Everyone on that list has contributed to this to one extent or another, especially Bush and Cheney. So Donald Trump is not of any higher risk than what they were. I think what worries these idiots the most is Trump revealing information that they never intended for any of us to know.

Jim

I agree. Many on that list are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

In short, they are all part of the "establishment" that the American people are tired of.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Listen to yourself...you sound like a sad broken record. You are a classic example of what I was mentioning earlier about how people will purposely double down on stupidity in the face of indisputable and overwhelming evidence. Neither you nor Trump are even remotely as qualified as these gentlemen to speak on what's best for this country. It's not what you want to hear but these men represent everything you've ever believed in and it's just beyond STUPID for you to double down on your ignorance. Listen to these generals, commanders, and experts they know what their talking about. :-)

They aren't qualified to tell me a dam thing. If they were so fucking righteous as you think they are this country wouldn't be in the throws that it's in now. Incidents like 9-11, Boston Bombing and the array of mass shootings would never have taken place. So their track record doesn't convince me of anything. So if they aren't voting for Donald Trump, I would rather do the opposite.

Jim

[Sistine Chapel]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

I agree. Many on that list are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

In short, they are all part of the "establishment" that the American people are tired of.

This silliest most parroted rationale for doubling down on stupidity that I've ever heard. You guys opposed all things Obama and the obstructionist behavior of the Republicans bordered on Treason. So what in the fuck are you folks talking about with this "part of the establishment" bullshit. It simply makes no sense. You lost the election to Barry twice and then you resorted to destructive politics so the Republicans in Congress did exactly what their voters wanted. So again what in the fuck are you people talking about. Haha not part of the establishment

[Sistine Chapel]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

They aren't qualified to tell me a dam thing. If they were so fucking righteous as you think they are this country wouldn't be in the throws that it's in now. Incidents like 9-11, Boston Bombing and the array of mass shootings would never have taken place. So their track record doesn't convince me of anything. So if they aren't voting for Donald Trump, I would rather do the opposite.

Jim

My goodness you're more delusional than I thought. 911 no one saw coming. It was a different era I don't even blame Bush for that miscalculation. It was totally a unprecedented and original act of evil. As for your views on the other bombings and mass shootings it shows you're totally disconnected from reality. Why? Because we live in a free society and no one will ever be able to stop individual acts of terror as long as we live under the US Constitution. For as old as you portray it's disappointing to see someone like you dispaying this level of ignorance. However, I know why you're doing it as I said before the hardest thing in the world is for people to admit they're wrong in their beliefs. In you Trump supporters case you folks have no shame in abandoning your principals for this guy. LOL

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Not exactly the same thing.

In fact, in many ways the exact opposite.

Meaning?

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

They aren't qualified to tell me a dam thing. If they were so fucking righteous as you think they are this country wouldn't be in the throws that it's in now. Incidents like 9-11, Boston Bombing and the array of mass shootings would never have taken place. So their track record doesn't convince me of anything. So if they aren't voting for Donald Trump, I would rather do the opposite.

Jim

And that post sums up the TrumpNuts. Instead of focusing on the true issues we as a country have ignored for years and decades (for example--not the only issue: How many terror attacks are we willing to absorb for privacy?)

But to the simple minded, 9-11, Boston, etc., were "preventable". If it is so obvious, please enlighten us how that would have been accomplished? In a way that doesn't trash the Constitution while you are at it of course. How many do we declare guilty until proven innocent? How many searches without probably cause? How many "lets eavesdrop on everyone and see what we find"? How many mandatory identification cards and yellow crescents on the clothes in place of the yellow Star of David?

People want simple answers to difficult problems. And when they can't find simple answers (at least ones that don't turn us into a fascist state) they turn next to the idiot who yells and rants and proposes ridiculously simplistic non-answers.

[Sistine Chapel]

Originally Posted by Old-T

And that post sums up the TrumpNuts. Instead of focusing on the true issues we as a country have ignored for years and decades (for example--not the only issue: How many terror attacks are we willing to absorb for privacy?)

But to the simple minded, 9-11, Boston, etc., were "preventable". If it is so obvious, please enlighten us how that would have been accomplished? In a way that doesn't trash the Constitution while you are at it of course. How many do we declare guilty until proven innocent? How many searches without probably cause? How many "lets eavesdrop on everyone and see what we find"? How many mandatory identification cards and yellow crescents on the clothes in place of the yellow Star of David?

People want simple answers to difficult problems. And when they can't find simple answers (at least ones that don't turn us into a fascist state) they turn next to the idiot who yells and rants and proposes ridiculously simplistic non-answers.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Especially your last paragraph