A recent hit piece in Salon claims that General Dan ‘Razin’ Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is morally compromised simply because he is doing his job and served under Donald Trump. The problem? The argument leans on proximity, not proof.
There used to be a game called Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. The idea was simple. Any actor could be connected back to Bacon in six steps or fewer.
Politics has its own version now. Except this version isn’t fun, and you don’t need six degrees. One will do.
Work with Donald Trump or simply avoid condemning him on cue, and that’s all it takes. The connection alone becomes the case against you.
The president’s threats to destroy Iran depend on institutions and individuals’ willingness to go along https://t.co/wMAN39Un7A
— Salon (@Salon) April 11, 2026
That’s the frame driving a recent piece in Salon by Chauncey DeVega. His argument leans heavily on reporting from the New York Times and claims Caine’s failure to publicly confront the president makes him morally complicit.
Trump’s threats were born of frustration and rage. With 90 minutes left before his deadline expired, he announced a two-week ceasefire that appears to be hanging by a thread. Trump has dispatched Vice President JD Vance, along with Middle East envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, to join high-stakes peace negotiations with Iran in Islamabad, Pakistan.
The U.S., in partnership with Israel, has been winning the war tactically. But it is losing strategically. While history will render its verdict, Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war of choice against Iran may have already qualified as what experts have termed “superpower suicide,” which happens when a dominant nation makes poor decisions, inflicts self-inflicted injuries and ultimately loses its power and retreats to being a regional power.
But no president acts alone, not even Donald Trump. He needs military leaders, diplomats and senior officials to carry out his orders — orders that, in this case, were grossly immoral. Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is one such man.
Instead of opposing Trump’s threats to engage in potential crimes against humanity, Caine gave tacit consent for them, according to a report in the New York Times. It is an old story: Demagogues corrupt the people around them. – Salon
Ah, the old line “winning tactically but losing strategically” — a favorite when you want to sound insightful without actually saying anything concrete.
Strip this down, and it’s an opinion piece leaning heavily on the New York Times’ framing. Oh, The New York Times. Well okay then.
It feels like DeVega didn’t have a column idea that morning, saw a New York Times story, and decided to ride along. Same frame, same assumptions, just with his byline on it.
But let’s get past the framing, the actual argument isn’t as solid as Chauncey makes it sound.
There are no internal documents or whistleblowers backing this up. Just inference stacked on top of interpretation. Because Caine did not publicly rebuke Trump, the author concludes he must be enabling wrongdoing.
Scott Jennings wrestles with insane leftists who’d rather believe Iran over U.S. military officials:
“Do you trust General Caine? He says we’ve destroyed like 13,000 military targets. You think that’s a lie!?”pic.twitter.com/CxUB7Mhmtf
— MRC NewsBusters (@newsbusters) April 9, 2026
The argument boils down to this: Trump used aggressive rhetoric toward Iran, Caine did not publicly challenge him, therefore Caine is morally complicit. That’s a leap, not a demonstration.
Even while acknowledging the constraints of the chairman’s role, the piece still treats Caines’ lack of public rebellion as evidence of moral failure.
This is the pattern. Anyone who spends time in Trump’s orbit eventually faces the same framing. Staffers. Cabinet members. Military leaders. Advisors. And of course the voters. The dtails don’t matter as much as the association. Once someone is linked to Trump, the story tends to write itself. It’s the standard template for left-leaning opinion writers and journalists.
There’ a certain convenience to that approach. It removes the need for hard evidence.
Nothing in Salon’s piece points to illegal acts by Dan Caine. Instead, Chauncey DeVega argues that Caine’s unwillingness to publicly oppose Donald Trump is itself proof of moral failure.
None of these kinds of hit pieces from Salon are shocking anymore. If anything, they are blatantly lazy. Tie someone to Trump, crank up the outrage, and let the narrative run. It’s not new or clever. It’s the same tired formula, recycled again.
Feature Image: By U.S. Secretary of Defense, and Flickr/Public Domain, Link/edited in Canva Pro
Scott says: Chauncey as the name implies, is an America hating soil Boi POS, and should receive nothing but ridicule… along with the rest of the staff of that toilet paper rag Salon.
1 Comment