The CIA spy in White House identified

From Facebook.

“Meet Eric Ciaramella — H.R. McMaster Appoints Susan Rice Ally to be his Personal Aide. West Wing officials confirmed to Cernovich Media that Eric Ciaramella, who worked closely with Susan Rice while at NSC, was recently promoted to be H.R. McMaster’s personal aide.”

McMasterbator appointed him.
He literally appointed a Susan Rice ally to the NSC…

Things starting to make sense yet?

General McMaster was the signature figure in the Battle of 73 Easting.

He wiped out a superior force, lead by an Iraqi officer trained by our military, who was using our tactics.

When he commanded the 3rd ACR during Operation Restoring Rights, he instantly recognized that an insurgency was brewing in Iraq, even as Rumsfeld flatly axed anyone who would say so. He formulated counter-insurgency tactics on his own, and executed them so well, that the city of Tal Afar was the first area we cleansed the insurgency from. His tactics became the model for how General Petraeus tried to run the rest of the war.

He’s a soldier soldier. He knows how to fight, and has delivered stunning defeats upon our enemies. The disrespect just sounds like ignorance to me of who he is, and what he’s done.

All his military prowess suggests is that if he’s a traitor, he’ll probably be good at it.

1 Like
  1. The accusation does not make sense here.

You’re talking about the latest in a string of political squabbles, not national security sold out to the enemy.

  1. You throw out the term way too easily. Like, damn.

McMaster is a soldier first who looked to surround himself with people who knew what he wanted.

McMaster was chiefly concerned with the Ukraine, because the Russians were deploying next-gen tech there that rivaled ours. That together with the proliferation of drone tech on both sides, he saw it as the next generation of warfare taking shape there. Since Eric Ciaramella was the NSC resident expert on the Ukraine. it made complete sense for him to be brought on.

This was his element.

I know some people here on this forum can think in no other terms besides political, so the following will come as something of a shock: if you’ re someone who comes out of a lifelong career in the Army, politics will not be your chief concern. Competence is.

NO ONE becomes a general in today’s military services without being ALSO hyper-political. As someone who spent 8 YEARS in Military Intelligence, I can easily assure you that’s a hard FACT, AS. You can obfuscate that as much as you please, but it won’t change anything.

1 Like

Saying that means you’ve never looked into McMaster’s career.

He was repeatedly overlooked for promotion. It was cleanly obvious he was being targeted by the upper brass ever since he was a Colonel.

Why? Because he was an outspoken proponent of COIN, yet COIN tactics fell out of favor when Afghanistan went sour. He never changed his tune, and was stalwart in suggesting the Army needed to re-cast itself as a force that would go around fighting low-intensity conflicts.

The fact of the matter is, he became National Security Adviser because he knew that he’d never get a 4-star position where he could promote COIN the way he wanted to.

He had to find some other way.

NSC Purge: McMaster ‘Deeply Hostile to Israel and to Trump’

A lot of solid conservative journalists backing up this story.
Way too much smoke not to be some fire here,

McMaster BACKS Susan Rice – Believes She ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in Unmasking Scandal!

A letter from H.R. McMaster said Susan Rice will keep her top-secret security clearance

Yeah, one problem with that; he was getting rid of all political appointees on the NSC.
And people loyal to Michael Flynn.

Context is everything silliessis.

He wanted subject matter experts, not political seat warmers or people caught up in scandal.
A soldier should not have to suffer idiots.

Oh of course, know-nothings, who couldn’t digest an intel brief, much less anything the military does?

Why do I care? All I see here is a lobby whining they weren’t placated the way they expected to be. Because their chosen representatives, were entitled idiots, who didn’t know what McMaster needed to do his job.

That’s on them.

Way too much intrigue digging for me to think this isn’t hastily cobbled punditry. I think I’m just going break your shovel here.

Admit it silliessis; you knew nothing about him. Divining his actions are therefore impossible. You don’t understand his mindset, or the world he comes from.

And since you don’t understand him, you’re just trying to frame his actions as either pro- or anti-Trump, because that’s all you know how to do.

It’s just pundits being pundits.

You have a hammer, everything’s a nail.

Same to the media outlets you quote, whose raison d’etre is to sell outrage and intrigue, because that’s what gets them clicks. Doesn’t matter if they have to hide or slant details. All that matters is that the story sells.

Because all of your Party’s deep state plants are being uprooted and exposed; not hard to figure out really.

2 Likes

Try calling General McMaster a Democrat.

I dare you RET.

He was the poster child for making the Iraq war doable; someone George Bush and Cheney threw their weight behind.

Without him, there was no fighting that war. Everyone else’s ideas failed outright.

Who mentioned Democrat?
Is Romney also a Democrat because he is a deep state plant?
Was McCain?
How about Powell?

Being in the military does not make you immune to anti semitism or political beliefs that desire total control over the masses; as usual you want him judged by non related parts of his resume instead of what he’s actually DONE in his current position.

1 Like

No, but the Israelis themselves saying “he’s on on our side, your accusations are ridiculous, kindly knock it off” pretty much means I get to laugh at anyone suggesting it.

Especially when the ones making the accusations are lobbyists and their sycophants who only know talking points, and not a damn thing about how foreign policy works.

Right now he’s at Stanford; he left the NSC a year ago. All these stories about the “Anti-Israel” nonsense are from 2017.

Well the good news is that I now know that all Israel speaks with one voice on this matter, and also that while completely irrelevant your anectodal observation nullifies what he actually did!

Great argument as always

I dare you to give me one Israeli who was critical of him. Stand & deliver RET.

The only time I can’t find praise, is when he defended Trump handing Israeli Intel to the Russians.

He sacrificed his reputation doing that, which pretty much means your “deep state plant” idea is dead on arrival.

Why would I care what anyone in Israel thinks about any deep state character in the United States government?

Let me guess, you’re going to quote Napolitano next on your tour of arguments that have nothing to do with the fact that your guy helped try to set up a sitting President by planting a corrupt operative from the previous administration with no moral compass into a position to abuse their access to classified information.

And like all of your guys efforts to do this, you will fail to prove anything except that you are the only ones who act in a criminal manner.

2 Likes

Hey bucko; that was the topic. That McMaster was “anti-Israel” is precisely the point you jumped in at.

You not only commented on it, you tried to argue it. When I asked for evidence, only then do you pull this out? Pathetic RET.

Nice try at moving the goal posts, but you fail.

And you’ve proven my assumption about your argument right. Off-the-wall comments like this make it obvious.

You came into this with no strategy, and no real opinion. You’re just being reflexively argumentative, because it’s me arguing on McMaster’s behalf. There’s nothing else here.

Nice theory, but “my guy” fell on his sword for the sitting President, while he was on the job. That is > then someone else making comments a year after both left.

Oh hey look; McMaster is doing it again, off the job:

In all of the conversations, all of the meetings I was privy to, there was never any incident, I’ll just tell you, never any incident of the president soliciting any kind of assistance for anything domestic, political,

It would cost him nothing to criticize the President now. So why is he still defending him on anything?

Do tell me why RET.

I said he cleaned house of those who supported Israel and he did, I never said I cared what anyone in any other country thought about his deep state agenda.

Since when is answering a question honestly “defending the president”?

Trump fired him because he did not approve of his performance and agenda in the areas that have been publicly reported; you have tried to somehow nullify what he did by talking up his resume (which nobody including Trump has ever criticized that I know of).

He is a deep state sympathizer who tried to undermine the president by placing an incompetent, lying partisan close enough to the president to find or invent dirt.

That is what happened, if he wanted to preserve his well earned former resume then he should have left his “oust the president” agenda at home and perform the job that he was supposed to do; or refuse the position in the first place if he disagreed so vehemently with the president.

1 Like

And yet, you can’t give evidence of any deep state agenda. Just like you couldn’t give evidence of any Israelis thinking negatively of him.

Whenever I ask for evidence, you just make excuses.

You can call it whatever you want; doesn’t change the fact he didn’t have to do it.

Criticism would have cost him nothing, so why didn’t he RET? Why do you have to go to someone else’s words, and not his own?

Where are his words that show he’s a “deep state” actor?

Trump fired him because McMaster is a wonk who likes numbers, and makes presentations accordingly.

Trump hates detailed analysis. He got bored, and called McMaster “boring”.

Bolton, McMaster, Tillerson, etc. it’s a long list of competent people Trump has fired. Because they like facts, but Trumps likes being catered to more.

He would have had to LIE to criticize the President in the context that he was speaking, I said he embraced the deep state agenda; I never said he was a member of your “the ends justify the means” political party.

1 Like

Yet plenty of whistleblowers have “lied” about Trump. We know the CIA informant at least exaggerated.

Again, it would have cost him nothing. He’s not in a position where he would need Trump’s goodwill.

And again, it’s funny to me that you point to someone else’s words, and can’t point to his own.

Citation needed.

Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’connor, did that make him one too?