I talk to lots of world leaders, traveled around. I can’t tell you, in all of my life doing this, it never once came up — the question whether or not the president of the United States was fit to serve and whether or not the president of the United States was actually mentally ill. And in the course of the past six months, it’s come up every couple of days from senior leaders around the world. Do you think the president of the United States is fit to serve as president?
.. PETER FEAVER: General Petraeus? [LAUGHTER]
PETRAEUS: Thank you. As I used to say in uniform, that sounds like a policy question. [LAUGHTER] And look, I think it’s immaterial. Again, what I’m focusing on is the team. [GROANS] No, I —
ROTHKOPF: Give him a chance to explain.
PETRAUES: Let me explain. You know, pronouncing yes or no, I don’t think that changes a darn thing. What I’m pointing out is that around him, he has a very good team. They’ve been slightly tested a few times — I think the use of chemical weapons was one of those — and I think they did better than was done the last time, when there was an explicit red line already in existence, stated on multiple occasions. Again, I think a lot of the policies that had been pursued so far — look, there’s all kinds of discordant stuff. Bibi Netanyahu’s sitting there, and the president says “one state, two state, eh, whatever they want.” We’re back to the two-state solution. Again, I talked about China. We’re back to the One China [policy], and we actually have strategic dialogue. By the way, I don’t think it is at all bad that a president of the United States talks to another leader — even if that leader has many conflicting objectives — at all. I believe Henry Kissinger said that you should have strategic dialogue with your adversaries.
This is a dance that many a Trump defender has been forced into — arguing that things aren’t as bad with Trump as some would have you believe, and then punting when being asked to vouch for Trump personally.
.. But it’s also important to emphasize just how low a bar this is. The fact that Petraeus can’t even say that Trump is a fit commander in chief speaks volumes.
.. Follow the money, and follow the troops; follow the decisions. Don’t necessarily always follow the tweets. You do need to listen to them, you need to read them, but, again, it’s about what is actually happening. This is a president who, when Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on his people, did not temporize. Within 36 hours, there were 50 or so cruise missiles that hit. It was measured. It was deliberate, pointed and so forth. And when it was threatened this time, I think Bashar al-Assad took note of that. It’s hard to say whether it absolutely deterred something that was in the works or not, but that’s how you build American credibility
.. Even in these comments, the argument from Petraeus seemed to be that Trump himself can only do so much damage and that the people around him would keep him in check — implying that Trump was, to his credit, allowing them to keep him in check.