"So this goes back to 2017 when President Trump was in Paris and watched France's Bastille Day military parade. There were tanks..."

"... there were troops, and they're marching down Champs d'Elysee. There were war planes, there were fighter jets. And he watched this with President Emmanuel Macron of France, and he loved it. So he came back and announced to the Pentagon that he wanted his own military parade. And the response he got from the Pentagon during his first term was: We don't do this, Sir. Jim Mattis, who was then his defense secretary, said he'd rather swallow acid. In a meeting in the Pentagon, Paul Selva, who was the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Mr. Trump that Mr. President, he said, dictatorships do that. Democracies do not..... [D]ictators need to frighten their population... with this show of ostentatious military might. And they want to frighten their adversaries too and make them think that they're very strong. I don't really get the France part because France is a democracy...."

I'm listening to the new episode of the NYT "Daily" podcast, an interview with Helene Cooper about tomorrow's military parade. Audio and transcript at Podscribe, here. (I do listen to the audio and tweak the transcript. Otherwise, instead of of "Champs d'Elysee," you'd be seeing "Sean.")

I loved the line "I don't really get the France part because France is a democracy."

And by the way, Cooper goes on to describe the many military parades we've had in the United States over the years.

Maybe reexamine the premise:

"After Ms. Holmes was convicted, Rupert Murdoch, who invested $125 million in Theranos..."

"... emailed The Wall Street Journal, a newspaper he owns, calling himself 'one of a bunch of old men taken in by a seemingly great young woman! Total embarrassment.' I am not a smarter or more astute observer of human behavior than Mr. Murdoch or George Shultz, the former secretary of state who helped end the Cold War, or James Mattis, the retired four-star Marine Corps general and former defense secretary, both of whom were Theranos board members and investors. So, how could I be sure that 'Liz' wasn’t another character that Ms. Holmes had created?"

Writes by Amy Chozick, in "Liz Holmes Wants You to Forget About Elizabeth/The black turtlenecks are gone. So is the voice. As the convicted Theranos founder awaits prison, she has adopted a new persona: devoted mother" (NYT).

"I was admittedly swept up in Liz as an authentic and sympathetic person. She’s gentle and charismatic, in a quiet way. My editor laughed at me when I shared these impressions, telling me (and I quote), 'Amy Chozick, you got rolled!' I vigorously disagreed! You don’t know her like I do! But... something... had been gnawing on me since I first met Ms. Holmes. How do you have an honest conversation with a person whose fraud trial has played out so publicly? I tried to ask Ms. Holmes this directly. How do I believe you when you’ve been convicted of (basically) lying? But how could I ask someone who was nursing her 11-day-old baby on a white sofa two feet away if she was actually conning me?"

Go to the link to read the long article and try to figure out how much of what Holmes wanted Holmes got from the NYT. 

"Lloyd Austin retired from military service more than four years ago. The law states that an officer must have left the service at least seven years..."

"... before becoming secretary of defense. But I hope that Congress will grant a waiver to Secretary-designate Austin, just as Congress did for Secretary Jim Mattis.... I respect and believe in the importance of civilian control of our military and in the importance of a strong civil-military working relationship at DoD—as does Austin. We need empowered civilians working with military leaders to shape DoD’s policies and ensure that our defense policies are accountable to the American people."

From "Why I Chose Lloyd Austin as Secretary of Defense/We need a leader who is tested, and matched to the challenges we face in this moment" by Joe Biden (in The Atlantic).

For those who opposed the waiver for Mattis, it is easy — almost mandatory — to oppose the waiver for Austin. Senator Elizabeth Warren said yesterday: "I have great respect for Gen. Austin. His career has been exemplary, and I look forward to meeting him and talking to him more, but I opposed a waiver for Gen. [James] Mattis, and I will oppose a waiver for Gen. Austin."

It's hard to see how Republicans who voted for the waiver for Mattis can deny a waiver for Austin. It will seem as though reciprocity is required and to deny it will open them up to accusations of racism. (Austin is African American.) Their only defense would entail disparaging Trump — he somehow needed special help and lacked options. 

Here's a Wall Street Journal article that I was able to read without a subscription, "Biden’s Pick for Defense Chief Rekindles a Civilian-Military Debate/Gen. Austin will need a congressional waiver, as did Gen. Mattis, posing a test for Democrats." Excerpt:

Some defense experts questioned why Gen. Austin should receive a waiver, given that his expertise is the Middle East and the incoming administration says that China is emerging as the main threat to U.S. interests. Mr. Biden didn’t mention China in his Atlantic article defending his decision to pick Gen. Austin.

That is, what is the special reason that Austin is needed? Is it race? If so, what about gender? I see: "Michèle Flournoy Again Finds Her Shot at the Top Pentagon Job Elusive/President-elect Joe Biden’s decision to instead nominate retired Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III enraged many of the women Ms. Flournoy elevated from the trenches of national security policy" (NYT):

"You meet a woman. In one second, you know whether or not it’s going to happen. It doesn’t take you 10 minutes and it doesn’t take you six weeks. It’s like, whoa. OK. You know? It takes somewhat less than a second."

Said Trump to Bob Woodward, using an analogy to explain how he felt about Kim Jong-Un, quoted in "Trump Attacked Generals as Weak and Too Focused on Allies, Woodward’s Book Says/The journalist Bob Woodward’s 'Rage,' which will be released next week, recounts tense conflicts between the president and his senior leaders" (NYT).

Any actual bombshells in Bob's new book? Well, we hear that according to his trade adviser, Peter Navarro, Trump said "My fucking generals are a bunch of pussies. They care more about their alliances than they do about trade deals." And he "called the United States military 'suckers' for paying extensive costs to protect South Korea."

And former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis said: "When I was basically directed to do something that I thought went beyond stupid to felony stupid, strategically jeopardizing our place in the world and everything else, that’s when I quit."

And Woodward talked to Trump and tried to get him to say something about race other than that a good economy is good for black people:

When Mr. Woodward pointed out that both he and Mr. Trump were “white, privileged,” and asked if Mr. Trump could see that they both have to “work our way out of it to understand the anger and the pain, particularly, Black people feel in this country,” Mr. Trump replied, “No,” and added, “You really drank the Kool-Aid, didn’t you? Just listen to you. Wow. No, I don’t feel that at all.”

The NYT characterizes that as a failure to be "reflective."

"'I wouldn’t go to war with you people,' Trump told the assembled brass.... You’re a bunch of dopes and babies.'"

"For a president known for verbiage he euphemistically called 'locker room talk,' this was the gravest insult he could have delivered to these people, in this sacred space. The flag officers in the room were shocked. Some staff began looking down at their papers, rearranging folders, almost wishing themselves out of the room. A few considered walking out. They tried not to reveal their revulsion on their faces, but questions raced through their minds. 'How does the commander in chief say that?' one thought. 'What would our worst adversaries think if they knew he said this?'... Tillerson in particular was stunned by Trump’s diatribe and began visibly seething. For too many minutes, others in the room noticed, he had been staring straight, dumbfounded, at Mattis, who was speechless, his head bowed down toward the table. Tillerson thought to himself, 'Gosh darn it, Jim, say something. Why aren’t you saying something?'... The meeting soon ended and Trump walked out.... Standing in the hall with a small cluster of people he trusted, Tillerson finally let down his guard. 'He’s a f---ing moron'...."

From "'You’re a bunch of dopes and babies’: Inside Trump’s stunning tirade against generals" (WaPo)(adapted from the new book "A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump’s Testing of America")(describing a meeting that took place July 20, 2017).

Ironically, it makes the people Trump called "dopes and babies" look like dopes and babies.

Why should their feelings be coddled?

The "sacred space" was "the Tank" at the Pentagon:

2E924 of the Pentagon, a windowless and secure vault where the Joint Chiefs of Staff meet regularly.... The Tank resembles a small corporate boardroom, with a gleaming golden oak table, leather swivel armchairs and other mid-century stylings. Inside its walls, flag officers observe a reverence and decorum for the wrenching decisions that have been made there.

Trump brought his own boardroom style. He got elected offering that. I see no reason why he should be expected to change to a style of "reverence and decorum" because that's what others in the room are used to and feel comfortable with. Why should those people be facilitated in their comfort and established old ways? During the Vietnam War era, we would have reacted with derision at expectations like that.

Here's an article (from January 2019) quoting Trump about The Tank:

"When I became President, I had a meeting at the Pentagon with lots of generals. They were like from a movie. Better looking than Tom Cruise and stronger. And I had more generals than I've ever seen, and we were at the bottom of this incredible room. I said 'this is greatest room I've ever seen.' I saw more computer boards than I think that they make today."

ADDED: Derision and contempt.

IN THE COMMENTS: Ken B wrote:

From Fodor, Top 10 American Sacred Spaces
1 Gettysburg
2 Arlington Cemetery
3 That cool windowless room with all the monitors
4 Bunker Hill
5 Nancy Pelosi's Closet
6 Ford's Theater
7 Nancy Pelosi's Other Closet
8 The Washington Monument
9 Faneuil Hall
10 Fort Sumter

"The press reports he watches television for hours, is inattentive to briefings, doesn't read, rants, rages, nurses petty resentments..."

"... doesn't listen to those with expertise, doesn't understand the constitutional limits on his office, is increasingly alone and paranoid. Are these things true? What else is true?... Why do those who have worked with Mr. Trump so rarely if ever speak in any depth, in public, of their experience?... Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said a great deal in his resignation letter... But one letter isn't enough. The Trump supporters I know are motivated by patriotism, not spleen, bigotry or bitterness. They are so loyal to their man in part because they see all the forces arrayed against him, especially in the media. They believe, legitimately, that he gets only grudging credit for his accomplishments. And they have told themselves a story about the brave if unlikely outsider who sacrificed his own comfort to upend a corrupt system and protect the interests of the common man.... They won't believe someone like Omarosa... They won't believe the words of 'Anonymous,' author of the September New York Times op-ed that became a sensation.... They will believe only the testimony of serious people who are obviously patriots.... We need some noble rats. May they come forward, speak softly, and make their motives clear."

Writes Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal. I added the boldface.

We need some noble rats.

And — since I'm thinking about illustrations this morning, having just perused "The Year in Illustration 2018" (NYT) — I'll add my illustration:

The Noble Rat ("Pop").

You don't treat Trump like that.

"Trump, Angry Over Mattis’s Rebuke, Removes Him 2 Months Early" (NYT).

When Mr. Trump first announced that Mr. Mattis was leaving, effective Feb. 28, he praised the defense secretary on Twitter, saying he was retiring “with distinction.” One aide said that although Mr. Trump had already seen the resignation letter when he praised Mr. Mattis, the president did not understand just how forceful a rejection of his strategy Mr. Mattis had issued. The president has grown increasingly angry as the days have passed....

I'm trying to read "Pre-Christmas Trump: Rebuked, rampaging"...

... which went up 3 hours ago at Axios.

The bottom line: Unlike most others, who pretended to leave on fine terms, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis bailed with a sharp, specific, stinging rebuke of Trump and his America-first worldview....

It was a historic letter and a historic moment capping a historic day, one you could easily see filling a full chapter of future books on the Trump presidency. The wheels felt like they were coming off the White House before Mattis quit.

• The spiral began Wednesday when Trump saw conservative media turn on him when he appeared to be caving on funding for the border wall in order to avoid a government shutdown.

• Trump then announced he was keeping a different campaign promise: withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria. And yesterday, word leaked that he had ordered a drawdown from Afghanistan.

• "[T]he president was super pissed and [conservatives] have him all whipped up ... [H]e is seething at the media reports of him retreating," a Republican lobbyist emailed.

• An outside adviser added: "What triggered Trump on Syria was giving up on the wall."

• By midday, the wall was back and Trump was telling congressional leaders he was prepared to allow a partial government shutdown.

In this telling, Trump really gave up on the wall, then saw himself criticized, so he made waves on Syria, got criticized for that, and then revived his interest in the wall. This conception of Trump has him doing one thing and not having any view forward to how it will be received or what other moves he will make later. That might be true, but how can you know Trump isn't seeing whole sets of moves — with reactions and subsequent actions already in mind?

Are they just assuming that Trump is an idiot? They portray him as running on pure emotion — "rebuked, rampaging." He's "super pissed" and "all whipped up" and "seething."

"The wheels felt like they were coming off" — a particularly silly phrase. Just grammatically, it's stupid, because it puts the wheels in the position of having feelings. And you can guess why the writers stumbled into that silly image: They didn't want to identify themselves as the ones experiencing the feelings. They want to look like neutral observers.

Trump was "triggered" — he's a gun. And he's also something with wheels. His mind is a landslide — a tsunami — of metaphors.

"Jim Mattis, the four-star Marine general turned defense secretary, resigned on Thursday..."

"... in protest of President Trump’s decision to withdraw 2,000 American troops from Syria, where they have been fighting the Islamic State," the NYT reports.

Officials said Mr. Mattis went to the White House on Thursday afternoon in a last attempt to convince Mr. Trump to keep American troops in Syria. He was rebuffed, and told the president that he was resigning as a result....

“One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships,” Mr. Mattis wrote. “Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position."...

The president’s tweets announcing the departure of his defense secretary shocked officials at the Pentagon, who as recently as Thursday afternoon were insisting that Mr. Mattis had no intention of resigning his post....

"Woodward describes 'an administrative coup d’etat' and a 'nervous breakdown' of the executive branch..."

"... with senior aides conspiring to pluck official papers from the president’s desk so he couldn’t see or sign them. Again and again, Woodward recounts at length how Trump’s national security team was shaken by his lack of curiosity and knowledge about world affairs and his contempt for the mainstream perspectives of military and intelligence leaders. At a National Security Council meeting on Jan. 19, Trump disregarded the significance of the massive U.S. military presence on the Korean Peninsula, including a special intelligence operation that allows the United States to detect a North Korean missile launch in seven seconds vs. 15 minutes from Alaska, according to Woodward. Trump questioned why the government was spending resources in the region at all. 'We’re doing this in order to prevent World War III,' Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told him.... 'Mattis was particularly exasperated and alarmed, telling close associates that the president acted like — and had the understanding of — "a fifth- or sixth-grader."'... White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly frequently lost his temper and told colleagues that he thought the president was 'unhinged,' Woodward writes. In one small group meeting, Kelly said of Trump: 'He’s an idiot. It’s pointless to try to convince him of anything. He’s gone off the rails. We’re in Crazytown. I don’t even know why any of us are here. This is the worst job I’ve ever had.'"

From "Bob Woodward’s new book reveals a ‘nervous breakdown’ of Trump’s presidency" (WaPo).

"The idea of putting women in there is not setting them up for success... "

"It would only be someone who never crossed the line of departure into close quarters fighting that would ever even promote such an idea.... Some of us aren’t so old that we’ve forgotten that at times it was like heaven on earth just to hold a certain girl’s hand...."

Said James Mattis (in 2014), quoted in The Hill in "Mattis's views on women in combat takes [sic] center stage."

"Mattis is also informally known as a 'warrior monk'..."

"... a nod to his intellect and expertise as well as his marital status: 66-year-old Mattis has never wed."

Why do you think that happened? 2 explanations spring to my mind. A third as well, but it seems much less likely. Or okay, there are 4 things, and now they all seem equally likely.

"Alex the Great would not be in the least bit perplexed by the enemy that we face right now in Iraq."

Wrote General James 'Mad Dog' Mattis, in a letter from a few years back (which is getting shared this week, now that Trump has named Mattis for Secretary of Defense). Mattis was reacting to people who say they're too busy to read.

Mattis is Trump's pick for Secretary of Defense.

Mattis is the one about whom Trump said:

"General Mattis is a strong, highly dignified man. I met with him at length and I asked him that question. I said, 'What do you think of waterboarding?' He said -- I was surprised -- he said, 'I've never found it to be useful.' He said, 'I've always found, give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I do better with that than I do with torture.' I'm not saying it changed my mind. Look, we have people that are chopping off heads and drowning people in steel cages and we're not allowed to waterboard. But I'll tell you what, I was impressed by that answer."