Sally Yates had to know that when she refused to enforce President Trump's travel ban on Monday, she was effectively resigning her post as acting attorney general. After all, she was already a short-timer, a holdover from the Obama administration in place solely to bridge the time until Trump's attorney general nominee — Jeff Sessions — is confirmed later this week.

All the hubbub then about Trump's decision to dismiss Yates on Monday night kind of misses the point. It's not that Yates was dismissed that's important and telling. It's how she was dismissed that matters.

First of all, Yates was informed of her dismissal two minutes before the statement announcing it was sent to reporters. That's not exactly a long lead time, although, as I note above, she had to expect the firing since the second she ordered Justice Department lawyers not to enforce the travel ban.

The real key here is the White House's statement. And what a statement it was.

Here it is:

Where to start?

How about “betrayed” as the word choice for Yates's refusal to enforce the travel ban? There's no question that Trump was well within his rights to jettison Yates. But, to describe what she did as a “betrayal,” considering that she spent nearly three decades serving in the Justice Department, feels like unnecessarily incendiary language.

But the Trump White House was just getting started. The statement goes on to note that Yates is “weak on borders” and “very weak on illegal immigration.” There's no evidence cited for that slam on Yates. But presumably the White House is referring to the role she played in the executive order that then-President Barack Obama signed that exempted the undocumented parents of children born in the United States (DAPA) and children brought into the United States illegally before their 16th birthday (DACA) from deportation. On the Senate floor, Sessions voiced those concerns before Yates's confirmation vote as deputy attorney general in 2015.

“Sooner or later, we're going to have to confront the stark question of how long can we remain effectively silent in the face of presidential overreach,” Sessions said at the time. “We're going to regret the day if we remain silent on this issue." (Yates was confirmed 84 to 12.)

There's no problem with Trump White House officials disagreeing with the past administration's stance on immigration. That is, of course, their right. But, again, the scorched-earth condemnation of Yates strikes me as rhetorically overboard and, dare I say it, not terribly presidential.

One final thing: After blasting Yates repeatedly, the statement makes the somewhat baffling assertion that “calling for tougher vetting for individuals traveling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.” That seems to run directly counter to Trump's repeated stance that he would institute a policy of “extreme vetting” for a certain bloc of predominantly Muslim countries. The person who injected the word “extreme” into the conversation about travel bans is Trump. So it's more than a little odd that his White House is now going out of its way to say that the vetting proposed in the travel ban isn't extreme.

What Trump's statement, viewed broadly, teaches us — or, maybe, reteaches us — is that this president sees only two kinds of people in the world: loyal friends and disloyal, terrible enemies. Principled — or occasional — opposition is not part of that equation. You are either all the way for him or all the way against him. Black and white. No room for gray.

For those whom he perceives as being against him, Trump is entirely unafraid to go after them personally. The moment you cross from supportive of his interests to, well, not, is the moment you die to him. He will not just burn bridges with those he believes have betrayed him. He will napalm those bridges.

The Yates firing is yet another example of how Trump is fundamentally different from the many people who have preceded him as president. Niceties mean nothing. The world is a tough place. If you don't hit, you are going to be the one getting hit. And Trump will always make sure he throws some punches.

How people reacted to Trump’s immigration ban

View Photos

Thousands protested the president’s executive order outside the White House, at Trump International Hotel and at Dulles International Airport.

(The Washington Post)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - About 900 U.S. State Department officials signed an internal dissent memo protesting a travel ban by U.S. President Donald Trump on refugees and travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries, a source familiar with the document said on Tuesday, in a rebellion against the new president's policies.

A senior State Department official confirmed the memorandum had been submitted to acting Secretary of State Tom Shannon through the department's "dissent channel," a process in which officials can express unhappiness over policy (http://bit.ly/2jOYW0y).

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said on Monday he was aware of the memo but warned career diplomats that they should either "get with the program or they can go."

A draft of the dissent memo seen by Reuters argued that the executive order would sour relations with affected countries, inflame anti-American sentiment and hurt those who sought to visit the United Spates for humanitarian reasons.

It said the policy "runs counter to core American values of non-discrimination, fair play and extending a warm welcome to foreign visitors and immigrants.

Trump on Friday signed an executive order that temporarily bans refugees and people from seven Muslim-majority countries, sparking tumult at U.S. airports and protests in major American cities.

The ban affects Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Even before the executive order on immigration was issued, concern among State Department officials had been growing over news reports that Trump was about to ease sanctions against Russia, said one State Department official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The resignation of at least four top State Department officials, including Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy, who formally left the department on Tuesday, also caused some unease among diplomats who worried about a power vacuum.

(This story corrects immigrants to travelers in first paragraph)

(Reporting by Lesley Wroughton; editing by Diane Craft and Cynthia Osterman)

(Photo: Carolyn Kaster, AP)

"As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice,” Michael Flynn said in a statement sharply critical of the Obama administration's policy toward Iran and promising a tougher stance by the Trump administration.

He did not elaborate on what that notice was, or what options the Trump administration would take. Also conspicuously absent from his remarks was any mention the Iran nuclear deal that Trump had threatened to "rip up" during the presidential campaign last year.

Flynn was responding to an Iranian missile launch Sunday, a key first test of Trump's reaction to foreign provocation. He also condemned a separate attack by Iranian-backed Houthi militants against a Saudi naval vessel Tuesday.

"The Obama administration failed to respond adequately to Tehran’s malign actions, including weapons transfers, support for terrorism, and other violations of international norms," Flynn said. "The Trump administration condemns such actions by Iran that undermine security, prosperity, and stability throughout and beyond the Middle East and place American lives at risk."

The Obama administration enforced economic sanctions against Iran for its support of terrorism, but decoupled that issue from Iran's nuclear program in obtaining a seven-nation agreement for Iran to give up its nuclear program.

In his first appearance in the White House briefing room, Flynn called that agreement "weak and ineffective."

"Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling emboldened," he said.

Retired Gen. David Petraeus warned lawmakers on Wednesday that the world order created in part by the United States in the 20th century is under “unprecedented threat from multiple directions,” pointing to Russia, China, Islamist extremists and cyber threats.

Those threats are compounded by an America whose “resolve about its defense has become somewhat ambivalent,” he added.

“Americans should not take the current international order for granted,” Petraeus said at a House Armed Services Committee hearing. “It did not will itself into existence. We created it. Likewise, it is not naturally self-sustaining. We have sustained it. If we stop doing so, it will fray and, eventually, collapse."

Petraeus, former director of the CIA, spoke at a hearing about the “state of the world.”

Watch: Netanyahu says Iran's aggression must not go unanswered

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu responded on his Facebook page to the report that Iran had test-fired a ballistic missile in violation of a UN Security Council resolution.

The Prime Minister wrote: "Iran has launched a ballistic missile again. This is a flagrant violation of a UN Security Council resolution. At my upcoming meeting with President Trump in Washington, I intend to raise the renewal of sanctions against Iran in this context and in other contexts. Iranian aggression must not go unanswered."