PSAKI BOMB: GOP Hysteria Over Obama-Jade Helm vs. Cheerleading Trump Putting Troops In Our Streets
politizoom.com -- Friday, August 15, 2025, 12:27:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Media Coverage & Press Relations, Democratic Party Responses, Republican Party Politics
Many of us remember fondly the Daily Press Briefings during Biden's first two years. Press Secretary Jenn Psaki was always meticulously prepared, with an uncanny ability to anticipate dumbassery from the White House Press Corps. Some of her wry takedowns were so devastating they became known as 'Psaki Bombs' due to their ability to blow up b.s., especially coming from Fox's Peter Doocy. Now in Rachel Maddow's old time slot it seems she's still got the touch. Psaki ridiculed the difference between the fainting couch reaction of the GOP to a small (in personnel) military exercise under Obama to cheeleading what Trump is up to deploying troops 'support' LE in our streets now.
The GOP really did at times go into conspiracy theory meltdown mode over the Jade Helm training exercise ten years ago. Terms like hysteria and meltdown aren't an exaggeration. In Psaki's show last night she included what Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (yes, the same one you currently know and detest) actually did. As in wasting taxpayer dollars to deploy his National Guard to monitor the exercise's activities in Texas. Raw Story has a short write-up of Psaki's take-down and I'll include a clip of her at the end.
Raw Story's headline says Psaki "torched" the GOP and I suppose she did, but watching it I saw it more (as I said) like her calmly and with a wry wit dropping one of those Psaki Bombs she was famous for when at the podium working for Biden. It was the old 'Are you guys really that gullible/stupid?' and/or 'How stupid/gullible do you think we are?' type of thing she delivered.
The linked Raw Story article starts off noting how she started the segment - flipping the GOP talk of Obama 'taking over Texas' back in their faces. They note she used the term "fanning the flames" referring to RWNJ conspiracy theories. But there was much more:
Psaki opened her show, "The Briefing," recounting a "wild and crazy" conspiracy theory from 2015 that then-President Barack Obama and Democrats were plotting to declare martial law. The theory came from the U.S. military's eight-week training exercise called "Jade Helm," which took place in Texas, New Mexico, California, and other southwestern states.
"But because Barack Obama was president, conspiracy theorists seized on the fact that the military was going to be in Texas doing these exercises as proof that a hostile takeover was planned," noted Psaki.
She went on to talk about how instead of tamping down the crazy-talk prominent GOP leaders including Sen. Ted Cruz and the aforementioned Gov. Abbott poured gas on the CT fire:
She noted that Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) even ordered the State Guard to monitor the exercise, using tax dollars to send troops to watch.
"That is how 'hair on fire' Republicans were just a decade ago about the unfounded, very remote, not-even-real possibility that the president of the United States might be calling the military into American cities," Psaki railed.
Raw Story then says to fast forward to now and what's going on in DC. I say let's make damned sure not to forget what Trump did when he federalized (over California Gov. Newsom's objection) the California National Guard and deployed them in tiny section of Los Angeles. AND in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act active duty Marines to that spot as well. It was widely believed that was just the beginning and Trump taking over control of the DC National Guard to 'support" DC police, and now seizing control of the city's police force proves those concerns were justified.
Worse, not just Trump but other GOPers are anticipating him (cough cough) 'needing' to deploy National Guard (and even active duty troops?) to other American cities. Maya Angelou's quote about believing people comes to mind. Still, Psaki has highlighted something important. Jade Helm wasn't some big secret. The Obama administration was open about it taking place and why. (So American troops, in particular Special Ops troops) could rehearse blending in/moving through civilian populations. Roughly 1,200 troops were involved in the eight week training which took place in numerous states across the southwest. Mostly it was conducted in small towns or on the outer edges of more populated areas.
Most importantly as I said the Obama administration was open with information about Jade Helm. It's also worth noting that mostly the troops involved were dressed as civilians, not geared up in tactical gear and 'loaded for bear.' Nor were they granted any LE powers or worked in concert with state/local LE on crime suppression. In case you didn't know, Special Operations personnel are often fluent in other languages and picked for missions for their ability to infiltrate and blend in to civilian populations in other countries to gather intel. Jade Helm was simply an exercise to give them some practice on home soil.
Yet fainting couch sales to conservatives went through the roof. Now? They sound like we used to say in the grunts (I was once upon a time a Marine infantryman) when watching the enemy get put in the hurt locker by our side "Get Some!" They are all FOR their turd-god Emperor Trump doing exactly what they sooooooo feared, and worse loudly claimed Obama 'intended to do.' It's good to see someone willing to so pointedly call out their hypocrisy. Let's hope Jenn Psaki is hitting her stride an this type of "Psalki Bomb" becomes as regular on her show as it was from the podium in the White House press briefing room:
Keep it up Ms. Psaki.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent exchange involving former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki and the GOP's contrasting reactions to military exercises under President Obama and President Trump serves as a poignant illustration of the double standards that pervade contemporary American political discourse. Psaki's analysis highlights a critical gap in the Republican Party's approach to governance and its relationship with the military. During the Obama era, the GOP's frenzied responses to initiatives like the Jade Helm military exercise exposed an underlying current of militarized conspiracy theories, often aimed at delegitimizing an African American president. Yet, the party's embrace of Trump’s tactics—where troops are deployed to support law enforcement on domestic soil—reveals a troubling shift towards normalizing a militarized response to civil unrest in ways that reflect a broader trend of authoritarianism.
Historically, the deployment of military resources for domestic policing has been a contentious issue. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was enacted precisely to limit the federal government's ability to use the military for domestic law enforcement, a reaction to the tumultuous Reconstruction era. This law reflects a foundational principle in American democracy: the separation of military and civilian functions. Psaki's commentary invites us to critically examine how, under the Trump administration, we witnessed a significant erosion of these protections. The deployment of troops to quell protests against police brutality in 2020 illustrates a shift towards conflating military power with civil governance, raising alarms about the implications for civil liberties and social justice.
Moreover, the GOP's historical reaction to Obama’s presidency serves as a case study in racial politics and the manifestation of white supremacy within American political narratives. Psaki's reference to the intense scrutiny and conspiratorial accusations leveled against Obama is not merely an anecdote; it is emblematic of a broader pattern of resistance against progressive leaders who disrupt the status quo. The hyperbolic claims of a "hostile takeover" in Texas resonate deeply with the fears and anxieties rooted in a racially charged political landscape. Such a history is critical for understanding the underlying motivations behind contemporary GOP rhetoric, which often seeks to paint Democratic governance as a threat to American values, while simultaneously embracing tactics that undermine democratic principles.
The contrast drawn by Psaki not only critiques the GOP’s inconsistent stance but also raises questions about the implications of normalizing military involvement in civilian governance. By recalling the GOP's hysteria over an exercise as innocuous as Jade Helm, Psaki underscores the absurdity of their current enthusiasm for deploying troops in our streets. This stark inconsistency is not just a political talking point; it is a symptom of a deeper ideological battle being waged in America today. The acceptance of military force in civilian spheres can lead to a chilling effect on dissent and protest, particularly as communities of color have historically borne the brunt of such militarization. The ongoing struggle for racial justice demands a vigilant opposition to these trends, which often manifest in violent crackdowns on marginalized communities.
In light of these dynamics, it is essential for advocates of social justice to leverage this discourse not merely as a critique of GOP hypocrisy but as a clarion call for a reevaluation of our nation’s approach to military engagement and civil rights. The utilization of military resources in policing contexts must be continually challenged as an affront to the democratic ideals that underpin our society. Psaki’s insights serve as a valuable tool for engaging in these conversations, encouraging us to confront the implications of militarization on our civil liberties and to advocate for a future where social justice is prioritized over the normalization of military force in civilian life. By fostering informed dialogue around these issues, we can strengthen the collective movement for a more equitable and democratic society.
In recent discussions surrounding military presence and civil authority, the contrast in reactions from the Republican party over time is stark and revealing. A recent episode featuring former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki encapsulates this dichotomy well. In her show, she revisited the fervent hysteria that characterized Republican responses to the military training exercise known as Jade Helm, which took place during Barack Obama’s presidency. Psaki’s commentary highlighted how GOP leaders, including Texas Governor Greg Abbott, not only embraced but amplified conspiracy theories surrounding this exercise, fearing it was a prelude to a federal takeover of Texas. In juxtaposition, the same party has largely remained silent or even supportive of Donald Trump deploying troops to assist law enforcement in civilian contexts. This shift in narrative raises crucial questions about accountability, governance, and the politicization of the military.
Historically, the military’s role in domestic affairs has been fraught with tension, particularly in the context of civil liberties. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was enacted to limit the ability of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement purposes on American soil. This law reflects a deep-rooted skepticism about the military's involvement in civilian matters, particularly when such involvement may infringe upon citizens’ rights. The reactions from the GOP during the Obama administration reveal a significant inconsistency in their approach to this principle, which they readily embraced when it aligned with their political narrative. The fervor with which they reacted to Jade Helm illustrates how easily fear can be weaponized in the political arena, particularly when it serves to galvanize a base or distract from pressing issues.
As Americans, it is essential to recognize these shifts in rhetoric and action. Engaging in informed discussions about the implications of military presence in civilian life is critical. When talking to individuals who may support the GOP's current stance, it is beneficial to emphasize the potential dangers of normalizing military involvement in domestic law enforcement. The historical context of the Posse Comitatus Act can serve as a grounding point for these conversations. Encouraging dialogue about the importance of maintaining a clear boundary between military and civilian roles can help illuminate the risks posed by acquiescing to such practices. It is imperative to foster an understanding that the military should be a tool for defense, not a mechanism of control over civilian populations.
Moreover, we can advocate for accountability and transparency regarding military actions domestically. This can involve pushing for legislation that reinforces the limitations placed on military personnel in civilian contexts, ensuring that any deployment is made with the utmost scrutiny and only in extraordinary circumstances. Engaging in grassroots campaigns to educate the public about the implications of military presence in local affairs can also aid in fostering a more critical perspective toward the current administration's practices. Encouraging constituents to question the motives and justifications behind such deployments can shift the narrative from one of complacency to one of scrutiny.
Finally, it is crucial to highlight the role of media and information dissemination in shaping public perceptions of military involvement in civilian spaces. As Psaki's commentary illustrates, the ability to challenge misinformation is vital. Encouraging critical thinking and media literacy can empower citizens to discern fact from fiction, particularly in a landscape rife with conspiracy theories that can sway public opinion. By promoting a culture of skepticism toward unfounded claims and encouraging the pursuit of fact-based reporting, we can foster a more informed electorate capable of holding leaders accountable for their actions, regardless of political affiliation. This approach not only empowers individuals to engage responsibly in political discourse but also helps build a foundation for a more equitable and just society.
In light of the article discussing the contrasting reactions of the GOP towards military exercises under Obama compared to the current deployment of troops under Trump, there are several proactive steps we can take as individuals to address these issues and promote accountability and transparency in our government. Below is a detailed list of ideas, actions, and resources for making an impact.
### Personal Actions We Can Take
1. **Educate Ourselves and Others:** - Stay informed about current military operations and their implications. Share articles, podcasts, and videos that highlight the differences in political narratives surrounding military exercises. - Host discussions or local meet-ups to talk about the implications of military presence in civilian spaces.
2. **Engage in Local Politics:** - Attend town hall meetings, city council sessions, or school board meetings to voice concerns about the militarization of law enforcement and the implications of military training exercises in civilian areas.
3. **Support Media Literacy Initiatives:** - Advocate for programs that enhance media literacy in schools and communities to help individuals critically assess political rhetoric and news coverage.
### Exact Actions to Take
1. **Petition for Transparency:** - **Create or sign a petition** addressing the need for transparency in military engagements and the use of troops in domestic settings. Websites like Change.org and MoveOn.org are platforms where you can find or initiate such petitions. Example Petition: - "Demand Transparency on Military Exercises in Civilian Areas" – Create a petition on platforms like Change.org.
2. **Contact Elected Officials:** - Write to local, state, and federal representatives expressing your concerns regarding the deployment of troops in civilian contexts and the historical inconsistencies in political rhetoric.
**Who to Contact:** - **Your U.S. Representative**: Find your representative's contact information [here](https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative). - **Your U.S. Senator**: Use the Senate’s website to find contact info [here](https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact). - **State Governor**: Visit your state’s official government website to get the contact details for your Governor.
**Sample Email Template:** ```plaintext Subject: Concerns Regarding Military Presence in Civilian Areas
Dear [Representative's Name],
I am writing to express my concerns about the recent military deployments in civilian contexts and the implications this has for our democratic values and civil liberties. The contrasting reactions to military exercises between past administrations and the current one raise serious questions about accountability and consistency in our leadership.
I urge you to advocate for transparency in military operations within our borders and to consider the potential consequences of such actions on community trust and safety.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email] ```
3. **Engage with Local Advocacy Groups:** - Join or support organizations that focus on civil rights, military accountability, and government transparency, such as the ACLU or local peace organizations.
**Example Organizations:** - **American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)** - Website: [aclu.org](https://www.aclu.org) - Email: info@aclu.org - **Veterans for Peace** - Website: [veteransforpeace.org](https://www.veteransforpeace.org) - Email: info@veteransforpeace.org
4. **Use Social Media for Advocacy:** - Share your thoughts and insights on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram using relevant hashtags. Engage in conversations around military presence and political accountability.
5. **Write Letters to the Editor:** - Reach out to local newspapers or online publications to submit opinion pieces or letters to the editor addressing the discrepancies in military rhetoric and the potential dangers of normalizing military presence in civilian spaces.
**Where to Submit:** - Check the website of your local newspaper for submission guidelines, usually found in the "Contact Us" section.
By taking these concrete actions, we can collectively work towards fostering a culture of accountability and transparency in governance, ensuring that military operations align with democratic values and the public interest.