We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Retired Gen. H.R. McMaster is out with a new book detailing his time as former President Donald Trump’s national security advisor, and while the book is not by any means an ode to Trump, it is also not the typical anti-Trump book that MSNBC’s Morning Joe has become accustomed to. On Tuesday’s show, the assembled cast admitted after their interview with McMaster that this “surprised” them.

Early on in the interview, McMaster lamented that the Trump campaign has trashed the book because “there’s a lot positive about President Trump in here, especially about his disruptive nature and my observation is, having been on the receiving end of a lot of policies and strategies developed in Washington, it made no sense to me overseas when I was serving in Kabul and in Baghdad and, you know, Trump disrupted a lot of what needed to be disrupted.”

From McMaster’s perspective, “the story in the book is also about how he is so disruptive that he disrupts himself, and he becomes the antagonist in his own story. So, this is not, you know—this is not a warning about President Trump. This is informing readers about, you know, the president’s character and personality, how that interacts with, you know, the real challenges that we faced, all of which are live issues today.”

Later on in their interview, co-host Jonathan Lemire asked, “You have said you wouldn’t serve in a Trump term. Are you going to vote for him?”

McMaster replied, “I’m not going to answer that question… You know, I think it is really important to have a bold line between the military, even retired military, and partisan politics.”

There were also less flattering recollections of Trump and after the interview, co-host Katy Kay asked Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson about the conflict she was in McMaster’s answers, “And what is the role of somebody in H.R. McMaster’s position? And he called on his, kind of, military background and said, well, it’s not the role of a military officer to say who you should vote for. But I thought that he’s trying to, kind of, thread a needle there, I thought.”

Robinson agreed, “Yeah. I think I’ll go further. I think there’s just a stark contradiction in the position that he’s taking… he details these episodes and incidents that are really frightening and at the very least, unsettling and question the man’s fitness to hold any office, much less be commander-in-chief. And so I don’t think there’s a tight rope there. I think if that’s what you’re going to tell us, then you should own up to the fact that that’s what you’re telling us.”

Lemire then turned to Mike Barnicle, “This is someone obviously, of  decorated military service, and we thank him for that. But should he have gone further and made this book more of a warning about what a second Trump term could be?”

Barnicle, like the rest of the crew, had a hard time believing that someone he respects so much and who is a scholar-soldier that wrote the book on the Vietnam War could hold a nuanced opinion on the guy they think is simply the worst, “I was stunned, stunned at one excerpt verbally that he indicated just during the interview with you with regard to Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.”

He continued, “Where Donald Trump thought he could win his way with Putin by offering him a free room at Mar-a-Lago, whatever, that his personality would dominate Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin is one of the most dangerous people in the world. And the president of the United States thinking that he can win him over with a smile and a meal or whatever Donald Trump thought was shocking to me, hearing that from General McMaster. We’ve had other generals. General Barry McCaffrey, General John Kelly, other generals speak out adamantly about the dangers, the dangers of a second Trump administration and I thought General McMaster sort of toed the line on that, and I was surprised by it.”

Barnicle must not have been paying attention too closely. It is true McMaster criticized Trump’s belief that he could be the one to get Putin to change, but he added that just meant “there is a lot of continuity between George W. Bush and his initial approach to Putin and Barack Obama and his initial approach to Putin” and Trump.

One could add Morning Joe regular host Joe Scarborough and current President Joe Biden to that list as well. As it was, McMaster would go on to hype how Trump supplied Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine.

Here is a transcript for the August 27 show:

MSNBC Morning Joe

8/27/2024

6:40 AM ET

JONAHTAN LEMIRE: Talk to us about what we can find in this book. Your day-to-day experiences in his White House

H.R. MCMASTER: Sure. Well, hey, I think it is a missed opportunity for the Trump campaign because, you know, there’s a lot positive about President Trump in here, especially about his disruptive nature and my observation is, having been on the receiving end of a lot of policies and strategies developed in Washington, it made no sense to me overseas when I was serving in Kabul and in Baghdad and, you know, Trump disrupted a lot of what needed to be disrupted. 

But the story in the book is also about how he is so disruptive that he disrupts himself, and he becomes the antagonist in his own story. So, this is not, you know — this is not a warning about President Trump. This is informing readers about, you know, the president’s character and personality, how that interacts with, you know, the real challenges that we faced, all of which are live issues today. 

You know, from the competition with China and Russia, Iran’s aggression and use of, you know, this axis of aggressors in the Middle East, and the threat from North Korea. You can go on, Venezuela, all the issues that we’re confronting today, we confronted in that first year of the Trump administration and this is mainly a story about how I was trying to help a disruptive president disrupt what needs to be disrupted.

LEMIRE: So, one of the themes in the books is how Trump’s inexperience and hubris and susceptibility to flattery, in your estimation, really weakened the U.S. national security or our position on the world stage, no more so with Vladimir Putin, president of Russia. As you saw it up close, what do you think that was? Can you explain the nature of that relationship.

MCMASTER: Yeah, this is something I tried hard to explain in the book, I say, at one point I came home, and say “Oy vey, I can’t figure this out.” But here is how I see it. I see in some ways there is a lot of continuity between George W. Bush and his initial approach to Putin and Barack Obama and his initial approach to Putin. Both of them were hopeful that, hey, “I’m the one. I’m the one who can establish a better relationship. I can convince him that, hey his future is with the west, it’s with Europe.” And maybe ameliorate his behavior, so forth. Trump was under that same delusion. You know, because his great confidence in his own ability to, you know, make a big deal with somebody and what I told the story in the book about is, I would tell — this is the best liar in the world. Right? He has aspirations, he has objectives in mind to go far behind anything in relation to us and so we can’t try to placate Putin. The only thing that Putin respects is strength, you know?

…

LEMIRE: You have said you wouldn’t serve in a Trump term. Are you going to vote for him?

MCMASTER: Well, you know, I’m not going to answer that question, Jon, and I tell the story in the book, right, I took the oath of service at age 17 on the plane at West Point and I followed George Marshall’s example, who has been one of my heroes. I read child, you know, youth biographies of him and everything. You know, I think it is really important to have a bold line between the military, even retired military, and partisan politics. Not politics in terms of political competitions and diplomacy and national security affairs. But, you know, I don’t think any American needs, you know, an old general to tell them how to vote, you know, so, I’m somebody—my editor actually, who’s a great guy, said “this book needs to be a warning.” I’m like, no, I want this book to inform, not to warn. That’s the purpose of the book.

…

KATY KAY: Gene, the other thing I thought was interesting about that conversation is how far he is willing to go and how far he is not willing to go in criticizing Donald Trump.

EUGENE ROBINSON: Yeah.

KAY: And what is the role of somebody in H.R. McMaster’s position? And he called on his, kind of, military background and said, well, it’s not the role of a military officer to say who you should vote for. But I thought that he’s trying to, kind of, thread a needle there, I thought.

ROBINSON: Yeah. I think I’ll go further. I think there’s just a stark contradiction in the position that he’s taking. I do understand the reluctance and reticence of retired generals, and certainly serving generals, to speak out on politics, what he calls partisan politics. The military, you know, serves whichever party is in office and whichever president is in office, and civilian control is certainly a hallmark of the way this country has always operated and should always operate. 

But that said, there’s a difference between, you know, partisan politics and the future of the nation and national security and things that a retired general, I think, should and does care about and so on one hand, he says get over it. On the other hand, he details these episodes and incidents that are really frightening and at the very least, unsettling and question the man’s fitness to hold any office, much less be commander-in-chief. And so I don’t think there’s a tight rope there. I think if that’s what you’re going to tell us, then you should own up to the fact that that’s what you’re telling us.

LEMIRE: Yeah. Mike Barnicle, I know you were listening to that conversation. Eager to get your thoughts and this is someone obviously, of  decorated military service, and we thank him for that. But should he have gone further and made this book more of a warning about what a second Trump term could be?

MIKE BARNICLE: Well, Jonathan, first of all, I have not read the book. I have enormous respect for General McMaster. He’s a brilliant guy. His book on Vietnam, Dereliction of Duty, is something I think every military officer has read. He’s a graduate of West Point. He’s got a PhD from North Carolina-Chapel Hill and I was stunned, stunned at one excerpt verbally that he indicated just during the interview with you with regard to Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

Where Donald Trump thought he could win his way with Putin by offering him a free room at Mar-a-Lago, whatever, that his personality would dominate Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin is one of the most dangerous people in the world. And the president of the United States thinking that he can win him over with a smile and a meal or whatever Donald Trump thought was shocking to me, hearing that from General McMaster. We’ve had other generals. General Barry McCaffrey, General John Kelly, other generals speak out adamantly about the dangers, the dangers of a second Trump administration and I thought General McMaster sort of toed the line on that, and I was surprised by it.