Admiral William McRaven (Ret): He’s Talking Out of Both Sides of His Mouth

October 20, 2020

I just finished reading an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal written by Retired Admiral William McRaven. The purpose of his piece was to announce to the country that he had voted for Joe Biden. It seemed as though he was trying to portray himself as a conservative by taking conservative positions on several issues while still voting for Biden. If his intent was to convince conservatives to also vote for Biden, he failed miserably. His arguments came off as disingenuous at best. Admiral McRaven was talking the talk, but not walking the walk. 

Before I begin, I want to preface my comments by saying that as a Navy vet myself I have the utmost respect for the Admiral’s rank and the lifetime of service he gave to his country. Also, just as all other Americans, he has the right to say whatever he wants and to vote for whomever he chooses.

The Admiral states in his op-ed that he is pro-life. I find his stated position to be inconsistent with voting for Joe Biden. Most Democrats are pro-abortion, and many of them favor abortion up to the moment of birth. I therefore find it inconsistent to vote for Joe Biden and also be pro-life.

Admiral McRaven also states that he supports the second amendment. Here again, since most Democrats are in favor of restricting the second amendment (and those on the extreme left even advocate for its repeal), I find it impossible to be pro-second amendment and vote for Joe Biden.

In a Biden Administration, second amendment rights would be restricted or eliminated altogether. Of course, this would apply only to law-abiding citizens who register their weapons with their local governments. Since criminals do not register their firearms, this restriction would not affect them. This would create a situation where law-abiding citizens would be unable to defend themselves against armed criminals. It would therefore be obvious that voting for Joe Biden is inconsistent with being pro-second amendment.

Another reason why it is not possible to be pro-second amendment and vote for Joe Biden and the Democrats is the push by the radical left to defund the police. If the police are defunded and are unable to respond to a call for help, how are law-abiding tax paying citizens supposed to defend themselves if they are unarmed? The answer is that they will be left to fend for themselves. With these new attacks on law enforcement, it has become even more important that law-abiding citizens be able to arm themselves.

Admiral McRaven touched on the issue of education being ”the great equalizer.” I couldn’t agree more. If the Admiral were to look more deeply into this issue, he would find that the vast majority of sub-standard public schools are located in our nation’s major cities. He would also find that the cities with the most significant problems—and the worst results—are in those cities that are run by Democrat Administrations. Do you think that this could be just a coincidence? 

The problems in these schools are pervasive. Many of these inner-city schools do not have up to date textbooks or adequate school supplies. In many cases the teaching staff in these schools is shorthanded. It is not uncommon for teachers trained in one discipline to be teaching classes in a totally unrelated discipline. Another problem is that the buildings and facilities are run-down and deteriorating. 

The Admiral correctly states that education is the great equalizer, but he fails to identify the problem, which is mismanagement. He fails to point out that those in charge of the government administration of these cities and those in charge of running these schools are not being held accountable. The same people keep getting reelected year after year. Until there is accountability there will never be change.

Admiral McRaven states in his op-ed that he believes that black lives matter. I think that we can all agree on that. What I am unclear about is whether the Admiral agrees that all lives matter. The statement “black lives matter” implies that the lives of other races do not matter. That is racist and divisive. What Admiral McRaven should be saying is that all lives matter. It amazes me that the American public—and mainstream media especially—have given credibility to a group of Marxist agitators and the legions of useful idiots who do their bidding.

If by some miracle Admiral McRaven were to ever read this post and comment on it, I would love to ask him a question. That question would be this: When he was fighting for this country, was he fighting for all Americans, or just African-Americans?

Also brought up in the Admiral’s op-ed was his belief that the “first amendment was the cornerstone of our democracy.” He was evidently not aware of the bill proposed by Senator Durbin that would have restricted our precious right to free speech. Every Democrat senator voted yes on that bill and the thing that prevented its passage was the Republican majority. If the Admiral had known about this vote I wonder if he still would have voted for Joe Biden.

The other point I want to make regarding our right to free speech is that it is people on the left who are restricting the right of free speech of those who disagree with them. These are not isolated occurrences. Events of this nature have happened on college campuses all over the country. If the Admiral has a concern that our right to free speech is at risk, perhaps he should be more vocal about where the source of that risk is coming from.  

Another issue brought up by the Admiral was that he believes, as do many others, that climate change is real. Just exactly what that means to him is unclear. He also did not care to elaborate as to just what steps he would take to mitigate its effects. 

What is clear, however, is that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris both deny that they are in favor of banning fracking. They have both repeated this on more than one occasion, even though they have also stated that they would completely eliminate the use of fossil fuels. This is, by far, the greatest flip-flop in American election history. This is what the Admiral voted for.

It is my understanding that roughly 62% of all greenhouse gases are generated by just five countries. Those countries are China (30%), US (15%), India (8%), Russia (5%), and Japan (4%). During the course of several interviews with scientists and climatologists, it was stated that if the US were to reduce its output of greenhouse gases to zero unilaterally, it would have little or no effect on climate change worldwide.

Life without fossil fuels, at least at this point in time, would be devastating for American business and American citizens as well. Our country would be put at a huge disadvantage. It would cripple our economy and greatly reduce our ability to heat our homes and generate electricity. Being against climate change is one thing; having a plan in place and being able to replace our supply of energy is quite another. Also, this has to be done on a global scale. It would be foolish for the US to stop using fossil fuels unilaterally. 

Admiral McRaven is critical of President Trump for being cozy with “despots and dictators.” The Admiral is correct. The President is cozy with despots and dictators. He is so cozy, in fact, with Russian President Vladimir Putin, that he sold Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. I wonder how many Russian soldiers those missiles killed? He also piled numerous economic sanctions on Russia. Yep. Trump sure is cozy with Russia. 

President Trump has also been accused of being cozy with President Xi of China. Here again, he is so cozy with the Chinese Communist dictator that he has piled more sanctions on China than he did on Russia. These sanctions are still in place even though we have completed phase one of the trade deal with China.

Further proof that President Trump has become very cozy with the Chinese president are the two arms deals that the US has completed with the Taiwanese government. These two deals total over $3B. These weapons will assist in the defense of the island of Taiwan, which is claimed by the government of mainland China. The Chinese were not particularly happy that the US decided to sell these defensive weapons to the people of Taiwan. I guess this is what passes for “cozy” in your world, Admiral?

Perhaps the dictator that has received the most attention from President Trump is Kim Jung Un of North Korea. President Trump approached Chairman Kim in an effort to open a dialogue between our two countries. It was hoped by President Trump that by opening a dialogue with Chairman Kim that, just possibly, progress could be made in the area of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. After, three visits, I believe, it became apparent that a deal would not be reached. The sticking point, as I understand it, was that Kim wanted all economic sanctions lifted as a pre-condition for talks to continue. President Trump would not agree to those terms, so the talks ended, at least for now. It would appear that not caving to the demands of a dictator equates to cozying up to that dictator. 

Although President Trump failed to achieve his goal of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, we are left with at least some positive results. That is that there is still an open line of communication between our two countries. Whether or not this relationship will someday result in a nuclear arms agreement remains to be seen. But for now, we at least have this relationship, and no long-range missiles have been launched by Kim since their last meeting. This is a lot more than we had before the meetings. Which situation do you think is better? As is par for the course, the President received no credit for his efforts from our biased media.

Finally, Admiral McRaven disagreed with the President’s decision to tear up certain treaties that were negotiated during prior administrations. The two treaties that I believe the Admiral was referring to were the Paris Climate Accords and the Iran Nuclear Deal. It would seem that Admiral McRaven was surprised that President Trump took the US out of those treaties despite the fact that, during the campaign, candidate Trump was not shy about expressing his disdain for the treaties and the trade deals negotiated by his predecessors. He stated on more than one occasion that these agreements were among the worst deals ever negotiated in the history of mankind. I fully understand that the President is prone to hyperbole from time to time, but in these particular issues, I think he is right on the money.

One of the treaties that the President pulled us out of was the Iran Nuclear Deal. Just to highlight some of the most egregious parts of this deal, we gave Iran $140B, some of it in cash, upfront with no preconditions and no future benchmarks to be met. In return, Iran promised to restrict uranium enrichment for a period of 15 years. At that point, the deal would “sunset” and Iran would be free to pursue any and all of its nuclear ambitions. 

Another concession the Iranian government agreed to was to allow IAEA inspections of their nuclear enrichment facilities—as long as the Iranians were given two weeks’ notice. Really? What kind of negotiator would agree to terms such as these? Wouldn’t it have been more beneficial for the inspectors to have the right to conduct surprise inspections? 

During the negotiations, the issue of inspecting Iran’s military bases came up. Naturallly, the Iranians refused. The suspicions were that Iran could move some of their enrichment capability to their military bases. After some hemming and hawing, the IAEA, UN, EU, and US all caved. Did we have tough negotiators or what?

Further still, there were no restrictions placed on Iran’s ability to test ballistic missiles during the term of this treaty. There were also no restrictions on Iran’s ability to fund proxy wars in the Middle East and beyond. Remember the $140B? This is what it was used for. We lost hundreds of US military personnel because of these attacks. Thank you, President Obama. I wonder if the Admiral thinks that this one-sided deal with Iran was worth the lives of all those American servicemen? 

This deal does not appear to have been in the best interest of the US, or the UN. On the other hand, several countries in the EU who were part of this deal had trade deals pending with Iran, deals which were worth billions. As soon as the Iran Nuclear Deal was signed, those trade deals were signed, sealed, and delivered. I guess we know where their priorities lie.

Iran got just everything they wanted up front, and the other side got Iran’s word that they would honor their commitments. Who makes a deal like that? It was as if getting the deal was more important than what was in it.

The other treaty that was not to President Trump’s liking was the Paris Climate Accords. The goal of this agreement was to have the signatories of the agreement work towards limiting global temperature increases to less than 2 degrees Celsius. The terms of the deal aside, this would seem to have been an admirable goal. 

The part of the deal that I believe the President objected to was that developed countries, especially the US, would provide funding for underdeveloped countries to improve their power generation systems. Just to be clear, three out of the top five polluters in the world were classified as underdeveloped or developing countries. These are China, Russia, and India, and they account for roughly 43% of all the greenhouse gases generated on the planet. As I understand it, these countries would be free to continue doing business as usual until the year 2030. The US would not only have to begin to lower its greenhouse gas emissions much sooner, it would also be required to help fund the improved power generation systems for the underdeveloped countries around the world. The estimates that I have read put the US contribution at roughly $3T. This $3T would be funded by a carbon tax on every gallon of gasoline, diesel fuel, and heating oil. That tax would also be imposed on every kilowatt hour of electricity purchased in the US. 

This tax would affect our ability to heat our homes, as well as the prices we pay for just about everything we purchase such as food, clothing, and building supplies. What other penalties and/or constraints could be imposed on the US economy that could do more harm? What this looks like to me is just another ploy to transfer wealth from the US to the rest of the world. We’re only $27T in debt. We can afford it.

It seems quite logical that China, the second largest economy in the world, should have the resources to fund its own upgrades to its power grid—without the need for financial help from the US. 

I believe the US would also be expected to assist in funding two of the other major polluters in the world. These would include Russia, which is classified as a developing country, and India, which currently classified as a third-world developing country. I am open to the possibility of assisting India in its efforts to improve its power generation capability. India is at least an ally of the US, though they have been in a shooting dispute at their border with China for some time. The two countries are currently not on friendly terms.

The thought that US tax payers dollars would be spent to upgrade the power grids of political and military rivals, such as China and Russia, has left me wondering just exactly who our elected officials are representing. Is it the people of the US? or Russia? or China? Making a deal like this makes you wonder. 

Another part of the Climate Change Agreement that President Trump objected to was that China would be exempt from lowering its greenhouse emissions until 2030. In addition to putting the US at a competitive disadvantage economically, the imposition of this tax would also take hundreds of billions of dollars per year out of the hands of US consumers. To add insult to injury the US taxpayers would receive no benefit from these taxes as the money would be sent out of the country. Who needs political enemies like China when we have leaders like Barack Obama and John Kerry? 

It seems that whenever the world needs financing to pay for a project that is “in the best interest of the world community,” they know right where to go. You guessed it: The good ole USA. Here again, this is another example of where getting the deal is more important than what was in it.

I have one more thought about climate change. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the left-wing Democrats not only want to end fracking, they want to end the use of fossil fuels altogether. Well, it so happens that fracking generates a lot of clean-burning natural gas. It generates so much, in fact, that the US has now become a net exporter of natural gas. This abundant supply makes it possible for power companies in the US to replace oil-fired and coal-fired power plants with those that use clean-burning natural gas. This is one reason why carbon emissions in the US are going down while the carbon emissions of other countries are going up.

In addition to the benefit to the environment, the natural gas produced from fracking also benefits the US economy. The benefits include more good paying jobs here in America, reducing our trade deficit, and increasing our GNP. 

There are two areas where Admiral McRaven and President Trump agree. They both agree that everyone should stand for our national anthem. This should be a no-brainer for every American, regardless of your race or your political persuasion. Standing for the national anthem shows respect for this country and for those who have sacrificed their lives to keep it free. It is also a way to show respect for the constitution, which gives you the right to take a knee if that is what you choose to do. In some countries you would be beaten and jailed for disrespecting their flag. You might want to think about that.

The other issue that both men agree on is that the country needs to have a strong national defense. A strong national defense is necessary to protect our sovereignty and that of our allies. This is one of the major problems in voting for Joe Biden and other Democrats. Part of the left-wing agenda is to spend trillions on Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. In order to pay for even a portion of these programs’ taxes will have to be raised to astronomical levels and deep cuts will have to be made in the areas of Defense, National Security and other areas as well. This will be done despite the fact that our most powerful military rival, China, is increasing its spending on defense. Cutting spending on our defense while China is expanding its military capability is not only foolhardy, it is dangerous. In my opinion it is almost a foregone conclusion that spending on defense will be cut in a Biden-Harris Administration. I think this is another example of the Admiral talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Defense is another area where the Admiral argues one way and votes another. He says he is in favor of a strong national defense and yet he votes for Joe Biden. If you recall during the Obama-Biden Administration, massive spending cuts were in the area of defense. These cuts were so severe that when President Trump took office, he was told by one or more members of the joint chiefs that they were unable to defend the country. Can you imagine the shock on the face of President Trump, or any other newly elected president for that matter, after being told that the wealthiest country in the world did not have enough ammunition to defend itself? Given this information, why would anyone who favors a strong defense vote for Joe Biden?

As I said at the beginning of this post, I have the utmost respect for the Admiral and his service to our country. However, his effort to paint himself as a conservative by stating that he supports conservative values comes off as insincere. One cannot say that they are pro-life or pro-second amendment and vote for a Democrat agenda that is pro-abortion and anti-second amendment.

The admiral made several statements of opinion that to me, were rather obvious. Statements such as, “black lives matter,” “climate change is real,” and “education is the great equalizer” are all not in dispute. You would be hard-pressed to find many people who would disagree with any of those positions. So why even mention them? It is my belief that it was his intention to portray himself as a conservative, to make his decision to vote for Joe Biden more credible.

The Admiral also condemns the President for being “cozy” with dictators and tearing up treaties made with some of our allies. These decisions were made by President Trump in his capacity as our president. I’ve read both of these treaties and the President’s opinion that both of the treaties mentioned above “were the worst deals ever made” is pretty accurate. There were trade deals, such as NAFTA, and the TPP and others that were also not in the best interest of this country. Trump renegotiated those deals and made them better for America. Joe Biden even stated in an interview that the USMCA was a better deal for America than NAFTA. For this and for his many other accomplishments, President Trump has gotten little or no credit. 

The President was also able to open communication with some of our major rivals. The left refers to this as “being cozy” with dictators. Having a dialogue with your enemies does not equate to being cozy with your enemies. As a matter of fact, Trump has been tougher on Russia, China, and Iran than any President that I can think of. Here again, thanks to the biased media, he gets little or no credit. 

Anyone who would take the time and honestly consider the effect of the policies advocated by a Biden-Harris presidency would be hard-pressed to vote Democrat. The only scenario that could be worse would be a Senate that was also controlled by Democrats. That scenario would result in indefinite, or possibly permanent, one party rule. If this were to happen, the party in power could pass laws that would cement their political authority and allow them to remain in power permanently. This would be antithetical to the American system of government and would result in irreparable harm to this country. I say irreparable because I fear that there would be no way to ever return to the freedom and prosperity that we currently enjoy. 

When you consider the threats made by Chuck Schumer and other members of the Democrat Party to pack the Supreme Court and eliminate the electoral college and the Senate filibuster, the reality of one-party rule becomes a frightening possibility. The nightmare becomes worse when you think about Puerto Rico and Washington DC becoming states. This would result in four additional Democrat Senators. This would most likely be the final nail in America’s coffin. Our Republic would never recover from that. 

Our civil rights are under attack. Our right to free speech is at risk, as is our freedom of religion. Our second amendment and our right to due process are also at risk, and other constitutional rights as well. This is the threat we face. Make no mistake, it is real. If one-party rule were to become a reality, these and many of the other civil rights we enjoy would disappear.

The Nazis and the Imperial Japanese tried to destroy this country and failed. The former Soviet Union tried for seventy years to destroy this country and bankrupted itself in the process. If Joe Biden becomes the President of the United States and the Democrats win control of the Senate, the very strong possibility will exist that the country will be governed by one party with no rights for the minority. 

The op-ed written by Admiral McRaven was a pathetic attempt to walk on both sides of the street at the same time. He tried unsuccessfully to appear as a conservative thinker who had voted for Joe Biden. In reality he showed himself to be just another disgruntled RINO (Republican In Name Only) or a liberal Democrat in sheep’s clothing. I honestly don’t understand why the WSJ even printed his op-ed. He made the announcement that he was voting for Joe Biden and never really made the case as to why he was doing so. In addition to not making his case, he also failed to explain why anyone should even care why he voted as he did. He is entitled to his opinion and his vote, but who cares?

I am a die-hard deplorable and I believe in a supreme being. I also believe that now, more than ever, we as Americans have a right to self-defense and the right to be armed. I also believe in freedom of speech and the right to due process. These are my positions on these issues. I have no doubts. There is no waffling, and there is no flip-flopping. 

Admiral McRaven, on the other hand, has found it difficult to decide which side of the street he wants to walk on. I find it odd that a career decision-maker such as Admiral McRaven, whose job it was to make decisions every day, would be unable to make a convincing case to support why he voted the way he did. Perhaps the real reason for his vote was that he just doesn’t like Trump, and that’s fine. But please, don’t try to convince people that you have conservative positions on the issues discussed above. Your arguments are weak, and in some cases nonexistent. In other words, Admiral, You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.