Obama 'gutting military' by purging generals

[Darth Wagtaros]

Why is Obama trying to destroy America? What is the motive?  These rabid articles don't seem to have much more motivation than "HE HATES AMERICA!" for everything he does.

[dps]

So, Obama = worse than Harry S Truman.

Well, d'ph.  Who didn't already know that.

[Neil]

I don't think shedding some generals is going to diminish the US warfighting capacity one iota.

[Tonitrus]

So basically the article says a bunch of generals were fired for misconduct...but OMG POGROMS!!!!1111

[Grinning_Colossus]

Worldnetdaily is the voice of unbiased journalistic integrity. I fully support the purge of this gang of 9 counterrevolutionary bourgeois generals.

[DontSayBanana]

I stopped reading when I read "Obama's strategy to reduce America's standing."  Either their editor's so bad that they completely left out the word "force" at the end, or else it's getting into tinfoil hat territory.

Either way, short of actually framing these officers, this shit should get them fired.  Also, whine all you want about purges, but if that high a percentage of the officers at the top have gotten it into their heads that this kind of behavior's acceptable, maybe a purge is exactly what is needed.

[Admiral Yi]

Either way, short of actually framing these officers, this shit should get them fired.  Also, whine all you want about purges, but if that high a percentage of the officers at the top have gotten it into their heads that this kind of behavior's acceptable, maybe a purge is exactly what is needed.

What do you mean by this shit and this behavior?

Seems to me that if we take the reporting as true, the sackings were groundless for the most part.

[DontSayBanana]

PRE-EMPTIVE TL;DR: 8 of these 9 "political firings" are either well-documented and fully justified on their own merits or highly misreported.  Also, their editors fail at English vocabulary.

What do you mean by this shit and this behavior?

Seems to me that if we take the reporting as true, the sackings were groundless for the most part.

I have a hard time taking the reporting as true when it's not even coherent.  I also don't see how you could call these "groundless."  Nobody would bat an eyelash at discharging a grunt for insubordination, as in the first case.

On the second, here's some reporting on it from back in March:

The investigation ultimately found that the admiral had used profanity while being the subject of a shipboard roast, called a "Foc'sle Follies," and had made racially insensitive remarks on two previous occasions, officials said.

He received a "nonpunitive letter of caution" and the full inspector-general's report was ordered to be attached to the admiral's service record, where it will block his chances at promotion or future command, officials said.

The officials noted that the results of the nonjudicial punishment hearing, or Admiral's Mast, which was held on Monday in Washington, will now be reviewed up the chain of command, and more serious administrative measures against Admiral Gaouette could still be ordered.

One Navy official familiar with the case also noted that "being cleared of charges doesn't mean he's exonerated. And it certainly doesn't mean his conduct was found to be in keeping with that expected of a strike group commander."

Basically, the letter of caution from the Inspector General's office had him blocked from commanding again, so I suspect the overall firing had more to do with that fact, that they had a useless admiral who couldn't actually command anything, rather than upping the ante on his discipline- speculation, yes, but an informed guess.

Third case: Baker.  Per WND's own story:

He was relieved of his command by Ham for allegedly groping a civilian. However, there has been no assault or sexual misconduct charge filed against him with the military Judge Advocates General's Office.

Not only did they take it seriously enough to remove him from command, but it was by one of the other guys they're claiming were scapegoated!

Army Brig. Gen. Bryan Roberts, who took command of Fort Jackson in 2011, was relieved of duty and fired for alleged adultery. While the charge remains in the United States Code of Military Justice, it has rarely been used since the days of President Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Sure, but the name Petraeus ring a bell?  Just because the charge isn't used that often doesn't mean it isn't a career-ender.  Sometimes, the officer just sees the writing on the wall and resigns before the charge is officially brought.

Sturdevant had complained about getting supplies to his command. Yet, he was one of two commanding officers fired from the military for alleged failure to use proper force protection at the camp after 15 Taliban fighters attacked the camp on Sep. 14, 2012, resulting in the deaths of two Marines.

A lapse in base security ultimately falls on the base commander?  Color me shocked.

Marine Corps Major Gen. Charles M. M. Gurganus was regional commander in the Southwest and I Marine Expeditionary Force in Afghanistan. Gurganus had received the Defense Superior Service Medal, two Legion of Merit with Valor and three Meritorious Service Commendations.

His indiscretion? Gurganus questioned having to use Afghan security patrols alongside American patrols after two of his officers were executed at their desk and a platoon was led into an ambush.

Hey, this sounds purely political!  Oh wait, he was actually the second one fired along with Sturdevant.  Still, lax security?  Sounds trumped-up.  Nobody loses every battle.

The result: eight Harrier attack jets worth $200 million were destroyed, the worst loss of U.S. airpower in a single incident since Vietnam. And two marines were killed from the shrapnel of rocket propelled grenades.

Oh.  15 Taliban fighters took out 8 Harriers before a camp of Army and Marine personnel were able to put them down?  Do the math.

Army Lt. Gen. David Holmes Huntoon Jr. served as the 58th superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. While serving in Senior Planning and Education Services, he was "censored" for an investigation into an "improper relationship," the Defense Department said. Yet, there was no mention on the nature of the improper relationship or whether an actual investigation ever took place.

Tinfoil.  At this point, not only are you accusing Obama of pressing an agenda, you're accusing most of the DoD brass of libel!

Among the commendations, Giardina earned six Legions of Merit, two Meritorious Service Medals and two Joint Service Commendation Medals. However, he was removed after coming under criminal investigation for the alleged use of counterfeit gambling chips while playing poker at a western Iowa casino.

This one I remember without sourcing, but I did it anyway, and he was actually not fired, but reassigned (read: demoted) after damning evidence in a criminal investigation was brought up about him.  In this case, calling it political hardball is just flat-out whacky.  If anything, they're showing going soft by not whacking him harder.

Carey's dismissal is a mystery, true, but so far, that's the exception, not the rule.  That brings us to Petraeus, Allen, and McChrystal, which got so much coverage that I don't really feel I need to cough up source after source.  Petraeus and Allen done fucked up, and there's nothing "alleged" about that, they both flat-out admitted they done fucked up. 

In fact, Allen was offered NATO command, and turned it down, so it's not like The Illuminati conspired to completely remove this outspoken critic from any post of real authority.

Last, but not least, McChrystal:

Gen. Stanley McCrystal[sic] was fired by Obama for alleged comments he made in a Rolling Stone magazine article.

Holy fucking tinfoil, Batman.  First, they're so outraged that they didn't even get McChrystal's name right, but also, these comments aren't alleged; they were published!  Grab a dictionary before you put out more accidentally (I hope) disingenuous statements, guys!

[The Brain]

Rolling Stone magazine never misquotes anyone ever.

[Eddie Teach]

In the Rolling Stone article, Brain calls the volleyball scene from Top Gun the greatest moment in cinema.

[DontSayBanana]

Rolling Stone magazine never misquotes anyone ever.

Common sense to the rescue, again!  If it was a misquote, why not say so and disavow the interview?

Also, after sourcing it again, there was another element I forgot: Obama did not "order" McChrystal to step down.  The article went to press, and it was actually readers getting pissed off and saying he should resign.  Which he did, and Obama accepted.

But clearly, all those asking for him to step down were really socks of Obama staffers, because, you know, EAGLE PATRIOT AMERICA GO ARMY!*

*okay, now I'm making shit up, but just because it's ridiculous that anybody's taken this article seriously, and because I thought it was funny.  It's 5:30 AM and I can't sleep, so I may be approaching Lettow levels of comprehensibility soon.

[The Brain]

In the Rolling Stone article, Brain calls the volleyball scene from Top Gun the greatest moment in cinema.

Close enough I say.

[The Brain]

Rolling Stone magazine never misquotes anyone ever.

Common sense to the rescue, again!  If it was a misquote, why not say so and disavow the interview?

Because he's terminally stupid?

[DontSayBanana]

Because he's terminally stupid?

Then no great loss.

[The Brain]

Because he's terminally stupid?

Then no great loss.

Alleged loss.