Meet the General Responsible for the Ouster of Lt. General Mike Flynn

by John Galt
February 14, 2017 19:10 ET

A long time ago, on a continent far, far, away (well, by 19th century standards), a General who lost a battle of all battles did the political act losers always do:

He blamed his subordinates.

In the French Army military journal, Le Spectateur Militaire, the Napoleonic Memory was highlighted in the post-Napoleon Empire period in its writings:

Authors in these first few years clearly identified Napoleon as a military genius, even during the 1812 and 1813 campaigns. There were several articles that either analyzed new books on the art of war, or produced an overview of the history of the military art, and at all of these instances Napoleon was named among the great captains of history. These served to reinforce the image of Napoleon as a genius of war. Other articles of a more professional nature pointed out the changes to military sciences that Napoleon used on the battlefield. These included his use of the corps system, his operational marching tempo, and his tactical organization among others. Then there were those authors who continued to conclude that Napoleon made good decisions throughout, right up to the end of the Empire. There were articles that praised Napoleon’s system, his operations, and his impact on Europe. In the most extreme example, General Jean Jacques Pelet in his multi-part series on the 1813 campaign went as far as to defend Napoleon by accusing the Allies of warmongering and not being serious about Napoleon’s peace overtures. He cited the Trachtenberg plan negotiated during the armistice as the best example of the Allies taking advantage of the armistice in the summer of 1813 to prepare for war, whilst this is a narrative usually associated with Napoleon.

There is an opposition flavour in these first years, particularly when the articles strongly defend Napoleon by blaming other subordinate commanders; of these, the most often blamed are Ney and Grouchy. Frequently however the culprits are indicated more generally, such as for example when the French people in 1814 were held responsible for the defeat. These articles blaming subordinate commanders and other factors for Napoleon’s defeat led into wider debates between different factions in the current French political and social debates of the 1820s. Issue two of the first volume of the Spectateur carried on a multi-part series defending General Gourgaud’s attack on General Ségur’s critical history of the 1812 campaign. This was not surprising as Gourgaud was one of the companions of St Helena and one of the founding generals of the journal, and as such his pro-Napoleon perspective came through in this examination of the two points of view. The issue of Grouchy and Waterloo came to the fore with a number of articles blaming the former for Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo and for failing to pursue at Ligny. Grouchy even posted several letters to the editor as part of the debate. References, veneration, and personal experience were the principle ways in which the contributors of Le Spectateur Militaire invoked the ghost of Napoleon.

Fascinating. The Trumptards will sound much like the pro-Napoleon defenders of the post Empire period, despite their protestations otherwise. But that opens up the question, which General’s ego and desire to prove his military and defense program worthiness is capable of such a treacherous act to throw an honorable man like General Flynn under the bus?

Take a step back from the mainstream/#FakeNews media and think:

The individual responsible for all this chaos wants to be the deal maker, the intermediary between the Executive Branch of the government, the Pentagon, and a future legacy or profit center which ensures he does not have to take responsibility for General Flynn’s fall as the honorable general fell on his own sword. Someone who has no honor, is for sale to the highest bidder, and willing to work with either party to achieve his personal profit and goals. Yet that individual was not the guilty party; it was the man he convinced who violated his own personal code to oust Flynn.

There are many pontificates who will want to blame Reince Preibus, Steve Bannon, or even Vice-President Pence, whose ambitions seem to be growing with each day of Trumplosions due to inept political moves.

The Truth?

Meet The Ego, the reason General Kelly was fired and this mess is splattering all over the media, be it the #FakeStream or online new alternative media:

President Trump has violated his own first rule of loyalty to his cause by trashing a man 24 days into his administration. Instead of firing the man responsible for making sure these type of incompetent maneuvers continue to happen, he blames his subordinates and probably asks Melania to throw a lamp across the room, Hillary style.

If Trump is not reigned in and brought under control by the non-RINO original friends and loyalists to his campaign, odds are he will screw up enough to be impeached and resign in shame.

Just like the globalists within the Federal Reserve, Congress, CIA, and other nations desperately desire.

1 Comment on "Meet the General Responsible for the Ouster of Lt. General Mike Flynn"

  1. nopainenogain | 14/02/2017 at 20:02 |

    This is an intriguing development for an administration in its formative stage. Its possible given the narrow margin of error with anything Russian the new administration faces, with all the msm, and iconic members of the senate, mccain, graham, pelosi screaming the russians are coming! the russians are coming! The President has a real point of concern that his cabinet is a cohesive “all for one one for all” outfit. If General Flynn in fact did not disclose the full scope of his russian conversations, then the President does have a legitimate issue and the need to make an example of where the standards of conduct, loyalty and trust are. This could also be further aggravated by the game of “chicken” Obozo, HrotC, pentagon/cia and nato had been playing with Vlad. Its not our borders that have been caught up in the ME conflagration that we have invested trillions of fiat (debt) in, and for what? And what about the pipeline that HrotC promised the Saudis who went all in on the clinton sequel. I think all these mechanizations in the ME are entangled in our rotten, stinking fiat, the “metro-dollar”, and appear to a desperate attempt to quash Russian influence as a major oil disrupter/supplier.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: