Two-star fired for 'treason' rant against A-10 supporters - what do you guys think?

I was in the room when he said it, so please let me provide some context for those who have not grown up in the fighter pilot community. (Full disclosure: I am a retired Tanker pilot and NOT a "patch wearer" graduate of the USAF Weapons School)
Aircrew members in the Air Force have a culture and an ethos. Much of it is based on the mistakes we make in the air, and the public humiliation we use as a method to train those mistakes out. This is called "mission debrief". It is an open forum where rank means nothing and combat effectiveness means everything, and a 2Lt is EXPECTED to call out a mission mistake made by an O-6. So, we grow up doing this amongst ourselves, and when the debrief is over, it's over. Ranks are back on and we don't mention the mission mistakes in public. The system works.
At WEPTAC in January, the room was full of "patchwearers" (maybe 90% of the audience). These guys have been through hundreds if not thousands of mission debriefs. The doors were closed. Maj Gen Post said what he said. I was taking notes, and still have them.
In that room, on that day, I believe the general was talking to his fighter pilots, and asking them to present a common Air Force perspective on the A-10. I took the treason comment as a joke. He was smiling and being flippant, so I thought nothing of it until I saw it in the paper. I believe nearly everyone in that room had the same reaction as me, but THAT's where the problem is. If only ONE person took it as a threat, that was too many.
I don't know General Post personally. I only got the sense he spoke openly and didn't have a tight brain-to-mouth filter. So I liked that in him. Patton was definitely worse, and he would not survive a minute in today's media-driven world.
He made a mistake too big for a General to make, or to survive. In this case, I think it's a shame, but I don't disagree with the result.

There seems to be a perception amongst those of us who are/were enlisted that officers, especially those at O-6 or higher, are frequently given less harsh punishment simply because of rank. This is wrong.

If he didn't want his personnel to publicly speak out against the F-35 program, he could have just ordered it and that's all. He took it to another level when he showed his lack of professionalism by demeaning those who disagreed with him. Anyone in a position like his should know better.

Here is what I see. I don't know the context of what happened. Col Joseph Lenertz gave us a nice overall view but still, this is a "had to have been there thing."

Problem is, and it has been pointed out by other members, his words were taken as a Threat, but also as a confirmation of taking sides in a political debate. (why keep the A-10). I have worked around some officers and the O-6's and up, and even O-5's, all start to have to work on their political side of there job. Especially Wing Commanders, as they are the figure head of the Air base to the community at large. These men and women are constantly in the public light and are mentored and taught how to be professional and dance that political dance the military does.

This General failed at the dance. Whether he meant to step on his partners toes or not, it doesn't matter. His military career is done. As for his Civilian Career, I doubt he would even take a mark. In fact there are probably companies right now trying to recruit him because they know he is done in the military.

I always wondered about punishment to higher ups. I see it as a double edged sword. They do get off easier on bigger things. Being forced to retire or paperwork for something a E-3 would get thrown out of the service for. But also, if they make one mistake and it can be very minor, their AF career is done right then and there. No jury needed. You know after he made that comment and congress found out, He was done. didn't take a LOR from his superior, he was done the moment that story made it to a paper.