http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/obama-gutting-military-by-purging-generals/ (http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/obama-gutting-military-by-purging-generals/)
WASHINGTON – President Obama this year alone has fired some nine generals and flag officers, on top of at least four similar dismissals during his first term, suggesting that a purge may be the real reason behind the removals, which are being described as cases of personal misbehavior.
Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, claims it is part of Obama's strategy to reduce U.S. standing worldwide.
"Obama is intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged," he charged.
Duty personnel seem to back up this concern, suggesting that the firings are meant to send a message to "young officers down through the ranks" not to criticize the president or White House politics.
"They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut," one source said.
The military is looked upon as one of the last bastions of conservative ideas, even though under the Obama administration, it, too, has become a testing ground for social experimentation. The efforts include openly homosexual behavior and women in combat.
Three of the nine firings just this year were linked to the controversy surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. special mission in Benghazi, Libya.
In one case, U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham, who commanded U.S. African Command when the consulate was attacked and four Americans were killed, was highly critical of the decision by the State Department not to send in reinforcements.
Obama has insisted there were no reinforcements in the area that night.
But Ham contends reinforcements could have been sent in time, and he said he never was given a stand-down order. However, others contend that he was given the order but defied it. He was immediately relieved of his command and retired.
Another flag officer involved in the Benghazi matter – which remains under congressional investigation – was Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette. He commanded the Carrier Strike Group.
He contends that aircraft could have been sent to Libya in time to help the Americans under fire. He later was removed from his post for alleged profanity and making "racially insensitive comments."
Army Major Gen. Ralph Baker was the commander of the Joint Task Force-Horn at Camp Lamar in Djibouti, Africa. Baker contended that attack helicopters could have reached the consulate in time on the night of the attack.
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.
Six others were removed for a variety of alleged misconduct.
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.
Roberts served in Iraq as commanding officer of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team. He was the deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, Ky.
Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Gregg A. Sturdevant was director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command. He also was commander of the aviation wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan.
Sturdevant was a highly decorated Marine with two Naval and Marine Commendations, two Naval and Marine Good Conduct medals and the Air Medal with a gold star.
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.
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.
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.
Navy Vice Adm. Tim Giardina was deputy commander of U.S. Strategic Command. He had served as commander of Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and 10 where every one of the 18 nuclear submarines with nuclear trident missiles of those three groups came under his command.
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.
Air Force Maj. Gen. Michael Carey was commander of the 20th Air Force in which he oversaw almost 10,000 people and 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles at three operational wings. He also served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
He was fired earlier this month for "personal misbehavior," although no one is saying what that misbehavior was. His dismissal, however, came within 48 hours after Giardina was dismissed.
During Obama's first term, he also oversaw the firing of at least four other generals.
Army Gen. David Petraeus, who retired to become the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was pressured to leave that position after only a few months following allegations of adultery.
Gen. John Allen was relieved of duty for "inappropriate communications" with a woman allegedly involved with Petraeus. However, he was promoted to head NATO, but decided to retire.
Gen. Stanley McCrystal was fired by Obama for alleged comments he made in a Rolling Stone magazine article.
Gen. David McKiernan was removed from his post while commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan in 2009. He didn't go along with a counterinsurgency strategy.
He was replaced by McCrystal who did comply. However, Petraeus, who replaced McCrystal, reversed his restrictions on air power. Petraeus then was replaced by Allen, who abandoned counterinsurgency and refocused on training Afghans toward an orderly pullout by U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/obama-gutting-military-by-purging-generals/#9g1tLHH9ZrOfujm7.99 (http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/obama-gutting-military-by-purging-generals/#9g1tLHH9ZrOfujm7.99)
Losing these generals is a tragedy, but it would be an even bigger tragedy if the Army lost its diversity :(
That's some grade-A hyperventilating right there.
Aren't there something like several hundred generals (or admirals)? How is 9 firings possibly qualify as "gutting"?
They did not have the courage to be loyal.
Obama is worse than Stalin. :(
Quote from: Barrister on October 31, 2013, 01:07:11 PM
Aren't there something like several hundred generals (or admirals)? How is 9 firings possibly qualify as "gutting"?
13 4-stars in the Army.
Can't find how many 1-star and up
"There are currently
39 active duty four-star officers in the uniformed services of the United States: 13 in the Army, 4 in the Marine Corps, 9 in the Navy, 12 in the Air Force, 1 in the Coast Guard, and none in the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. Of the seven federal uniformed services, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps is the only service that does not have an established four-star position. Modern day four-star officers' ranks are usually referred to as full general or full admiral, the officers themselves being referred to and addressed as 'General' or 'Admiral'. Four-star officers are ranked in seniority by their time-in-grade and/or by statute via the position of office they hold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_duty_United_States_four-star_officers
Obama has to fire a general from time to time to encourage the others.
Thank hod the military is shedding these incompetents, but if Paul Vallely really thinks that President Obama is the guy who decides which officers get court-martialed and which do not (and these were all cases that likely would have led to a CM) is is even dumber than one would expect of a guy who was an Army general (given that you have to be a moron to join the army, and then given that rank times IQ is a constant).
Also, whoever wrote that article doesn't seem to know much about naval commands. There is no command called Carrier Strike Group nor is US Africa Command called US African Command. There is no "Joint Task Force - Horn," it is called the "Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa" Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and 10 are three different commands, with two different commanders (one of the numbered SubGru commanders being dual-hatted as the paper "Commander, Submarine Group Trident"). I am sure that there are more, but I noticed the navy ones.
Quote from: Barrister on October 31, 2013, 01:07:11 PM
Aren't there something like several hundred generals (or admirals)? How is 9 firings possibly qualify as "gutting"?
To the emo types, nine out of hundreds is a "gutting." I expect Siege has already cut himself upon hearing the news.
That website is... special. Wow. It makes Fox News look rather left wing from what I saw of the headlines and guest articles. :lol:
Firing Generals? This man is worse than Truman.
Siege is getting worse then was Hans with this bullshit.
Quote from: Siege on October 31, 2013, 12:52:22 PM
http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/obama-gutting-military-by-purging-generals/ (http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/obama-gutting-military-by-purging-generals/)
WASHINGTON – President Obama this year alone has fired some nine generals and flag officers, on top of at least four similar dismissals during his first term, suggesting that a purge may be the real reason behind the removals, which are being described as cases of personal misbehavior.
What you're saying, is that there's no way to make any economies to balance the budget on 50% of its component, army&intelligence?
Everything is of the right size, no workforce surplus there, yet, everywhere else in the government, they can find enough slack to balance the budget and bring the tax level down?
If they were removed as a result of downsizing it wouldn't have been described as the result of personal misconduct.
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.
So, Obama = worse than Harry S Truman.
Well, d'ph. Who didn't already know that.
I don't think shedding some generals is going to diminish the US warfighting capacity one iota.
So basically the article says a bunch of generals were fired for misconduct...but OMG POGROMS!!!!1111
Worldnetdaily is the voice of unbiased journalistic integrity. I fully support the purge of this gang of 9 counterrevolutionary bourgeois generals.
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 01, 2013, 02:51:37 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2013, 03:14:03 AM
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:
QuoteThe 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:
QuoteHe 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!
QuoteArmy 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.
QuoteSturdevant 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.
QuoteMarine 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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteArmy 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!
QuoteAmong 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:
QuoteGen. 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!
Rolling Stone magazine never misquotes anyone ever.
In the Rolling Stone article, Brain calls the volleyball scene from Top Gun the greatest moment in cinema.
Quote from: The Brain on November 01, 2013, 04:23:30 AM
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 01, 2013, 04:33:29 AM
In the Rolling Stone article, Brain calls the volleyball scene from Top Gun the greatest moment in cinema.
Close enough I say.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 01, 2013, 04:35:03 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 01, 2013, 04:23:30 AM
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?
:lol:
No.
I thought only subordinates could get senior officers fired in the US. I will have to consider the extent to which Hans has been feeding us misinformation all these years. :hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2013, 09:52:19 AM
I thought only subordinates could get senior officers fired in the US. I will have to consider the extent to which Hans has been feeding us misinformation all these years. :hmm:
That captain who won the MOH bitched enough about the lack of fire support that two generals got reprimanded.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2013, 09:59:50 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2013, 09:52:19 AM
I thought only subordinates could get senior officers fired in the US. I will have to consider the extent to which Hans has been feeding us misinformation all these years. :hmm:
That captain who won the MOH bitched enough about the lack of fire support that two generals got reprimanded.
Only a reprimand? Obviously lightweights who didn't take Hans' course on how to cack a superior.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 01, 2013, 02:51:37 AM
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.
It's world net daily, it is tin hat territory.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 01, 2013, 04:14:16 AM
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.
So in short, Siege gets hoodwinked again.
Why am I wasting my time with DontKnowBanana?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 01, 2013, 04:14:16 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2013, 03:14:03 AM
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.
These days is easier to discharge grunts, but still, it is a long drawn process.
You have to understand that at any point in his carreer a Soldier have committed at least 2 or 3 acts of " insubordination" per month.
The US military does not train Soldiers to be robots following orders, but to be problem solvers using critical thinking.
When Bengazi went down, there was a lot that could have been done, in time, but the Whitehouse made a criminal decision.
If in combat I make a decision for my Soldiers to stand down and not aid a diferent platoon that is being engaged, my Soldiers WILL question my decision and rightly so. Criminal charges should be brought.
But hey, keep towing the party line.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 01, 2013, 04:14:16 AM
On the second, here's some reporting on it from back in March:
QuoteThe 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.
What profanity and what racially insensitive remarks?
Are you so retarded that you don't know that in the military we use profanity and all kinds of racial jokes all the fucking time?
If there is a case here of clear scapegoating is this case. No doubt.
But I want to know the exact words he used.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 01, 2013, 04:14:16 AM
Third case: Baker. Per WND's own story: QuoteHe 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!
Yes, can you believe the pressure from the Top to force a this shit to happen?
By the way, IF there was groping, that would be sexual assault, not harassment, and it would be grounds for dismissal. However, the fishy part is that no charges were filed. In the military we have the restricted report and unrestricted report of sexual harassment/assault, but only unrestricted report can be used to punish the assaulter, and it ALWAYS goes through JAG. This is fishy as fuck.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 01, 2013, 04:14:16 AM
QuoteArmy 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.
OK man. You win this one. Now do we know the details, how did THEY found about the adultery? Was it the wife filling or, maybe, just like in Petraeus case, did the Whitehouse read the General's e-mails?????
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 01, 2013, 04:14:16 AM
QuoteSturdevant 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.
Dude, I don't even know where to start with this one. Deep breathe.
Ok man, this is how it works. It doesn't matter how much you secure your post, you will still get hit. You cannot put every swinging dick on the walls and towers, because you still have missions to do, patrols and shit, so you have to rotate the personel on forcepro (Force protection). In the end, the enemy will find your weakness, and will achieve surprise on your ass. You try everything you can to prevent this, and in my opinion, a well rehearsed reaction plan is your best bet. Bases are fixed positions, and in the current asymmetrical conflicts you will never have the manpower you need to maintain the ForcePro density you are required by the Book.
Bottomline, scapegoat.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 01, 2013, 04:14:16 AM
QuoteMarine 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.
So, are you telling me that after you lose two of your officers and one platoon is led into an ambush you would not consider pulling the plug on joint patrols?
You must be very brave. Or not care about the safety of your Soldiers.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 01, 2013, 04:14:16 AM
QuoteThe 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.
Yes, I am doing the math.
15 Talibs infiltrate base, reach airfield, destroy planes, but managed to kill ONLY two marines despite having the element of surprise, and then only with RPGs.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 01, 2013, 04:14:16 AM
QuoteArmy 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!
The DoD is led by civilians appointed by Obama. They are part of the Admin.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 01, 2013, 04:14:16 AM
QuoteAmong 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.
If he really use counterfeit gambling chips, knowingly, he is done. Clear violation of the Army Values and UCMJ.
But by now I'm doubting everything. Its what happens when you work on a politically charged environment.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 01, 2013, 04:14:16 AM
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.
Ok, and how was Petraeus caught? Because the Whitehouse got into his personal e-mails.
Same with Allen.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 01, 2013, 04:14:16 AM
Last, but not least, McChrystal: QuoteGen. 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!
Never liked McCrystal. Grunts hated his guts because all the stupid risks he forced the troops on the ground to take. Like missions with no air or artillery support. But yeah, McChrystal was a dissident. Too bad he said it to the press.
Siege, please provide a summary of what you think Barack Obama's goals are regarding the US military.
Well he hates Freedom, America, the Military, the West, Christianity, Judaism, and capitalism. So really Obama won't be satisfied until all are destroyed.
Clearly setting us up for a UN takeover.
Yes, after all, the UN is a major power in its own right. They have an army, a huge budget, and absolute unquestioning support from most nations.
Their strongly worded letters make leaders shake.
I like how Benghazi was criminal but failure to secure a base, or some taliban wander into a base and blow up some jets, well that's just "shit happens".
Oh and the "whitehouse" didn't rifle through Petraeus's emails, the FBI did after they got complaints that someone was sending threeating emails, and they tracked it to his address.
False Raz.
Anytime anything happens that people don't like, Obama did it.
Thanks Obama. :mad:
Obama took the last Coke. :mad:
Obama is Cobra Commander in disguise.
Obama does coke?
Let them do coke.
The whole Whitehouse is doing coke?
Quote from: Ancient Demon on November 02, 2013, 04:09:22 PM
Siege, please provide a summary of what you think Barack Obama's goals are regarding the US military.
Doesn't matter. Low information voters will keep people in power that will gut the Constitution, the US Army, and our economy.
Quote from: Siege on November 02, 2013, 08:53:29 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on November 02, 2013, 04:09:22 PM
Siege, please provide a summary of what you think Barack Obama's goals are regarding the US military.
Doesn't matter. Low information voters will keep people in power that will gut the Constitution, the US Army, and our economy.
I'd rather have low information voters than fake information voters like you and your dumb-assed kind.
Quote from: Siege on November 02, 2013, 08:53:29 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on November 02, 2013, 04:09:22 PM
Siege, please provide a summary of what you think Barack Obama's goals are regarding the US military.
Doesn't matter. Low information voters will keep people in power that will gut the Constitution, the US Army, and our economy.
Well if the high information voters are playing coy with the information, they only have themselves to blame. ^_^
Quote from: Siege on November 02, 2013, 08:53:29 PMDoesn't matter. Low information voters will keep people in power that will gut the Constitution, the US Army, and our economy.
:lol:
Siegy, low information voters are better than outlandish conspiracy theory voters by a significant margin.
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2013, 10:20:26 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 02, 2013, 08:53:29 PMDoesn't matter. Low information voters will keep people in power that will gut the Constitution, the US Army, and our economy.
:lol:
Siegy, low information voters are better than outlandish conspiracy theory voters by a significant margin.
Which is the most vocal and obnoxious group known as the right wing republican party/teabaggers that siege subscribes to.
If we gut the constitution I want the roe.
Quote from: Alcibiades on November 02, 2013, 11:06:58 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2013, 10:20:26 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 02, 2013, 08:53:29 PMDoesn't matter. Low information voters will keep people in power that will gut the Constitution, the US Army, and our economy.
:lol:
Siegy, low information voters are better than outlandish conspiracy theory voters by a significant margin.
Which is the most vocal and obnoxious group known as the right wing republican party/teabaggers that siege subscribes to.
Siegey's the worst of both, though: he's into low information conspiracy theories.
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2013, 10:20:26 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 02, 2013, 08:53:29 PMDoesn't matter. Low information voters will keep people in power that will gut the Constitution, the US Army, and our economy.
:lol:
Siegy, low information voters are better than outlandish conspiracy theory voters by a significant margin.
I remember some polling down a while back that showed Talk Radio listeners believing themselves to be the best informed but actually being the least informed on basic facts, coming way behind fake news show like the Daily Show.
The Daily Show isn't fake news, its just news with a comedy edge. :huh:
The emphasis is on the comedy, at least for the non-interview segments.
Quote from: PDH on November 02, 2013, 11:08:03 PM
If we gut the constitution I want the roe.
Nobody ever wants the Wade :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2013, 07:20:50 PM
Quote from: PDH on November 02, 2013, 11:08:03 PM
If we gut the constitution I want the roe.
Nobody ever wants the Wade :(
In the row v wade debate, the people who favor wade are all wet. Boat handlers FTW!
Well, one of the "purged" generals made the news.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/20/us/michael-carey-investigative-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
You have to be a really sloppy drunk to embarrass the Russians.
Check out former Defense Secretary Robert Gates new memoir. :wacko:
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2013, 12:41:29 AM
Well, one of the "purged" generals made the news.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/20/us/michael-carey-investigative-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
You have to be a really sloppy drunk to embarrass the Russians.
CNN? No thanks.
Quote from: Siege on January 08, 2014, 08:52:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2013, 12:41:29 AM
Well, one of the "purged" generals made the news.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/20/us/michael-carey-investigative-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 (http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/20/us/michael-carey-investigative-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)
You have to be a really sloppy drunk to embarrass the Russians.
CNN? No thanks.
Man they trained you well.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 07, 2014, 07:30:52 PM
Check out former Defense Secretary Robert Gates new memoir. :wacko:
Probably do not have time. What did he say?
The soundbite on CNN was that "Obama didn't believe in his own military strategy."
Which, if I'm correct in assuming refers to Afghanistan, is not a real shocker. But still not good for Barry to have it said out loud.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2014, 01:14:17 PM
The soundbite on CNN was that "Obama didn't believe in his own military strategy."
Which, if I'm correct in assuming refers to Afghanistan, is not a real shocker. But still not good for Barry to have it said out loud.
Yeah that is the sort of thing you want your biographer to discover a few years after your death.
A surge with time limit cannot work.
The Taliban is just waiting.
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2014, 01:04:37 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 07, 2014, 07:30:52 PM
Check out former Defense Secretary Robert Gates new memoir. :wacko:
Probably do not have time. What did he say?
Robert Gates served both President Bush and President Obama as Secretary of Defense, overseeing the drawdown in Iraq and the escalation in Afghanistan. I admired his calmness and neutral team-playing. 3 years after retiring, he releases his obligatory book:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/01/07/top-10-revelations-from-robert-gatess-memoir/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/01/07/top-10-revelations-from-robert-gatess-memoir/)
Some takeaways:
1. Contempt for CongressMr. Gates expresses open disdain for Congress and the way lawmakers treated him when he testified at hearings. "I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned and prone to put self (and re-election) before country." Mr. Gates said he fantasized about storming out of hearings and quitting. "There is no son of a bitch in the world who can talk to me like that," he writes of his fantasy.
2. Contempt for Vice President BidenMr. Gates expresses particular dissatisfaction with Vice President Joe Biden. He describes Mr. Biden as a "man of integrity" who "has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades." Specifically, Mr. Gates said he opposed Mr. Biden's proposed limited strategy in Afghanistan to focus on counter-terrorism: "Whac-A-Mole hits on Taliban leaders weren't a long term strategy," he writes.
3. Suspicion of White House ControlMr. Gates described the White House and its national security team as too controlling and says that he found himself at odds with Mr. Obama's inner circle. At one meeting in the Oval Office in 2011, Mr. Gates said he considered resigning because of the White House micromanagement and strategy. "I never confronted Obama directly over what I (as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-CIA Director Leon Panetta and others) saw as his determination that the White House tightly control every aspect of national security policy and even operations," Mr. Gates writes. "His White House was by far the most centralized and controlling in national security of any I had seen since Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger ruled the roost" in the 1970s.
"The controlling nature of the Obama White House, and its determination to take credit for every good thing that happened while giving none to the career folks in the trenches who had actually done the work, offended Secretary Clinton as much as it did me."
...
"Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. . . . The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FBN-AZ978_gates_G_20140107164535.jpg&hash=1ff35020ad2bb9f77f5f0393f787cc440bca4a1d)
Quote from: Phillip V on January 08, 2014, 10:03:03 PM
Some takeaways:
1. Contempt for Congress
Mr. Gates expresses open disdain for Congress and the way lawmakers treated him when he testified at hearings. "I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned and prone to put self (and re-election) before country." Mr. Gates said he fantasized about storming out of hearings and quitting. "There is no son of a bitch in the world who can talk to me like that," he writes of his fantasy.
2. Contempt for Vice President Biden
Mr. Gates expresses particular dissatisfaction with Vice President Joe Biden. He describes Mr. Biden as a "man of integrity" who "has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades." Specifically, Mr. Gates said he opposed Mr. Biden's proposed limited strategy in Afghanistan to focus on counter-terrorism: "Whac-A-Mole hits on Taliban leaders weren't a long term strategy," he writes.
3. Suspicion of White House Control
Mr. Gates described the White House and its national security team as too controlling and says that he found himself at odds with Mr. Obama's inner circle. At one meeting in the Oval Office in 2011, Mr. Gates said he considered resigning because of the White House micromanagement and strategy. "I never confronted Obama directly over what I (as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-CIA Director Leon Panetta and others) saw as his determination that the White House tightly control every aspect of national security policy and even operations," Mr. Gates writes. "His White House was by far the most centralized and controlling in national security of any I had seen since Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger ruled the roost" in the 1970s.
"The controlling nature of the Obama White House, and its determination to take credit for every good thing that happened while giving none to the career folks in the trenches who had actually done the work, offended Secretary Clinton as much as it did me."
...
"Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. . . . The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FBN-AZ978_gates_G_20140107164535.jpg&hash=1ff35020ad2bb9f77f5f0393f787cc440bca4a1d)
1 and 2 sound more like Gates is really a pompous ass who's too full of himself to listen to other viewpoints. The only thing shocking about 3 is that Gates' grasp on who's in charge is more tenuous than a college freshman taking a 100-level PoliSci course in American Federal Government- intelligence is a hybrid of law enforcement and military. Both are executive prerogatives, so of course, the White House is going to try to take control of it. He might be onto something with the micromanagement, but he gets so wrapped up in how important he feels he should have been that it's difficult to take them seriously, coming from Gates himself.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 09, 2014, 01:14:24 AM
1 and 2 sound more like Gates is really a pompous ass who's too full of himself to listen to other viewpoints. The only thing shocking about 3 is that Gates' grasp on who's in charge is more tenuous than a college freshman taking a 100-level PoliSci course in American Federal Government- intelligence is a hybrid of law enforcement and military. Both are executive prerogatives, so of course, the White House is going to try to take control of it. He might be onto something with the micromanagement, but he gets so wrapped up in how important he feels he should have been that it's difficult to take them seriously, coming from Gates himself.
Disagree. I think that any sane person would reach the conclusions that gates did, even if that sane person were not an egotist. It's not like his is the first evidence that Congressmen are incompetent assholes, or that Biden's position on policies would seem to a republican like they were consistently wrong.
What's shocking about your response to Gates in bullet number three is that you don't depend at all on what he actually says, but instead launch some weird
ad hom on him that seems designed to merely allow one to ignore any truths that Gates may speak. Gates may not understand "who's in charge" as well as you, because he lacks your experience at the highest levels of government, but there is nothing in what is quoted here that makes him sound like the college freshman you accuse him of sounding like.
Grumbler, you are awesome.
Quote from: Siege on January 08, 2014, 09:39:55 PM
A surge with time limit cannot work.
The Taliban is just waiting.
WIthout the time limit, it's not really a surge. It's just regular escalation.
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2014, 07:52:02 AM
Disagree. I think that any sane person would reach the conclusions that gates did, even if that sane person were not an egotist. It's not like his is the first evidence that Congressmen are incompetent assholes, or that Biden's position on policies would seem to a republican like they were consistently wrong.
What's shocking about your response to Gates in bullet number three is that you don't depend at all on what he actually says, but instead launch some weird ad hom on him that seems designed to merely allow one to ignore any truths that Gates may speak. Gates may not understand "who's in charge" as well as you, because he lacks your experience at the highest levels of government, but there is nothing in what is quoted here that makes him sound like the college freshman you accuse him of sounding like.
Dude, you've got some major blinders on when it comes to military ego. "There is no son of a bitch in the world who can talk to me like that" is bordering on narcissism at best. You don't like the legislature exercising checks and balances on the executive? Go find another government to bitch about. Or did you miss that as a kid because "Schoolhouse Rock"was too newfangled for you?
And I'll grant it borders on ad hom, but what I mean to say is, unlike you and Siege, to me, his egotistical diatribes damage his credibility to the point where I'm not going to blindly accept any "truths" based solely on his word. Politicians have lied for convenience's sake. So have memoir authors.
The Constitution does not demand that congressmen act like dickheads during hearings.
Some pretty intense comments by Gates, much of which I can understand. Some troubling things there. Congress too gets reamed, and rightly so. Too many in Congress do what's best for them politically rather than best for the important national issues. What I don't really understand is how Gates, as Sec Defense and confidant of/to the administration, comes out with a book like this revealing all the unsavory sides while he was serving and had the confidence of officials in the admin.
Quote from: KRonn on January 09, 2014, 10:08:48 AM
Some pretty intense comments by Gates, much of which I can understand. Some troubling things there. Congress too gets reamed, and rightly so. Too many in Congress do what's best for them politically rather than best for the important national issues. What I don't really understand is how Gates, as Sec Defense and confidant of/to the administration, comes out with a book like this revealing all the unsavory sides while he was serving and had the confidence of officials in the admin.
Seems a little opportunistic, right?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fchaosandoldnight.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F11%2Fpot_meet_kettle.jpg&hash=a1cd915380407d2baf5c1822c51851789d96e154)
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 09, 2014, 09:41:50 AM
Dude, you've got some major blinders on when it comes to military ego.
So this time the ad hom is directed at me, not Gates? :lol:
Quote
"There is no son of a bitch in the world who can talk to me like that" is bordering on narcissism at best. You don't like the legislature exercising checks and balances on the executive? Go find another government to bitch about. Or did you miss that as a kid because "Schoolhouse Rock"was too newfangled for you?
Dunno WTF you are talking about here. Gates is describing a fantasy he had. He never
actually said "there is no son of a bitch in the world who can talk to me like that!" :lol: If you think that fantasizing about telling off people you are pissed off at is "bordering on narcissism" you don't know what the word narcissism means. What does "Schoolhouse Rock" have to do with anything?
QuoteAnd I'll grant it borders on ad hom, but what I mean to say is, unlike you and Siege, to me, his egotistical diatribes damage his credibility to the point where I'm not going to blindly accept any "truths" based solely on his word. Politicians have lied for convenience's sake. So have memoir authors.
Unlike you and Siege, I don't take
any author at his word. I am skeptical about the truth of statements that I agree with, not just the ones I don't.
Quote from: KRonn on January 09, 2014, 10:08:48 AM
What I don't really understand is how Gates, as Sec Defense and confidant of/to the administration, comes out with a book like this revealing all the unsavory sides while he was serving and had the confidence of officials in the admin.
Agree, to some degree. What I find troubling is not that he revealed what he saw as an insider, but that he did so while the administration was still in office. Once it is out of office, it is fair game, but to tell tales out of school where enemies of the administration or the country can use them against a sitting president? Not kosher.
Wait, how the hell did I get into this discussion?
I do not take authors at face value.
I critically read their papers and I disagree when they are being retarded, unfair, unbalanced, biased, and unscientific.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.static-economist.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Ffull-width%2F20140111_WWD000_0.jpg&hash=19ef7881d457d454d571fe4006b703d8eac676c9)
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21593499-barack-obamas-former-defence-secretary-chides-his-old-boss-everything-was-political
Great cartoon! :D
Obama can't write.
Quote from: Siege on January 09, 2014, 10:18:25 PM
Wait, how the hell did I get into this discussion?
I do not take authors at face value.
I critically read their papers and I disagree when they are being retarded, unfair, unbalanced, biased, and unscientific.
I'm not convinced you know up from down..... :wacko:
Quote from: KRonn on January 10, 2014, 07:41:21 AM
Great cartoon! :D
:yawn: Though sadly not unexpected from you.
Quote from: Alcibiades on January 10, 2014, 11:20:57 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 09, 2014, 10:18:25 PM
Wait, how the hell did I get into this discussion?
I do not take authors at face value.
I critically read their papers and I disagree when they are being retarded, unfair, unbalanced, biased, and unscientific.
I'm not convinced you know up from down..... :wacko:
What are you talking about?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.militaryphotos.net%2Fforums%2Fattachment.php%3Fattachmentid%3D7249%26amp%3Bd%3D1148412965&hash=00ad1ad981a3ffab2f5c2b9af22225c6dfa0daf6)
The one on top is up and down (elevation), the one on the bottom is left and right (traverse).
M192 tripod beats M122!
Best quote from Gates' kiss-and-tell-book about the still sitting administration:
Quote from: GatesI was put off by the way the president closed the meeting. To his very closest advisers, he said, "For the record, and for those of you writing your memoirs, I am not making any decisions about Israel or Iran. Joe, you be my witness." I was offended by his suspicion that any of us would ever write about such sensitive matters.
:lmfao:
'I was offended by his implication that we might squeal. And now I'm squealing about it.'
Did he in fact write about such sensitive matters?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2014, 12:57:37 PM
Did he in fact write about such sensitive matters?
No, but for the board troll, the truth doesn't matter.
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2014, 02:13:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2014, 12:57:37 PM
Did he in fact write about such sensitive matters?
No, but for the board troll, the truth doesn't matter.
But, you're the board troll...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2014, 12:57:37 PM
Did he in fact write about such sensitive matters?
Perhaps not, but it's still rich to complain about people implying you may go telling tales in your book telling tales; even if the implication is about a different tale. You're still being indiscreet.
It's like someone complaining that the store keeper accused them of wanting to steal porn mags while they were shoplifting bubble gum. Sure, they're not a pervy thief, just a thief, but a thief nonetheless.
The difference is that the secrets Obama was talking about are ones that can harm the country.
It doesn't particularly imperil US security if everyone knows that Gates disagrees with Biden about policy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2014, 12:06:11 PM
The difference is that the secrets Obama was talking about are ones that can harm the country.
It doesn't particularly imperil US security if everyone knows that Gates disagrees with Biden about policy.
Seems to me that in Gates' quote, Obama isn't speaking to national security either. He is - jokingly it seems - making sure that the meeting won't be spun in a counter factual direction down the road in someone's memoirs, presumably for political purposes... and here Gates is, spinning the meeting in a different direction for political purposes in his memoirs, while acting offended at the implication that he might spin the meeting for political purposes in his memoirs.
Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2014, 12:18:50 PM
Seems to me that in Gates' quote, Obama isn't speaking to national security either. He is - jokingly it seems - making sure that the meeting won't be spun in a counter factual direction down the road in someone's memoirs, presumably for political purposes... and here Gates is, spinning the meeting in a different direction for political purposes in his memoirs, while acting offended at the implication that he might spin the meeting for political purposes in his memoirs.
:huh: When Obama declares something "for the record," I don't see how Gates is "spinning things" by mentioning it in his record.
As for the meeting (on Middle East policy) itself, in what way do you think Gates is spinning it, given that he only mentions that it happened, plus its "for the record" conclusion?
Quote from: grumbler on January 13, 2014, 12:37:08 PM:huh: When Obama declares something "for the record," I don't see how Gates is "spinning things" by mentioning it in his record.
We disagree, then :)
Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2014, 01:28:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 13, 2014, 12:37:08 PM:huh: When Obama declares something "for the record," I don't see how Gates is "spinning things" by mentioning it in his record.
We disagree, then :)
Well, I guess it is entirely possible that "for the record" means something to you other than what it means to Americans, but I don't think you can blame the American, Gates, for not knowing your non-American definition of the phrase. For the record, Obama is an American as well, and I am sure that he used the phrase in the American sense.
Quote from: grumbler on January 13, 2014, 12:37:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2014, 12:18:50 PM
Seems to me that in Gates' quote, Obama isn't speaking to national security either. He is - jokingly it seems - making sure that the meeting won't be spun in a counter factual direction down the road in someone's memoirs, presumably for political purposes... and here Gates is, spinning the meeting in a different direction for political purposes in his memoirs, while acting offended at the implication that he might spin the meeting for political purposes in his memoirs.
:huh: When Obama declares something "for the record," I don't see how Gates is "spinning things" by mentioning it in his record.
The irony lies in the fact that Gates is publishing this while the President he served is still in office giving credence to the President's belief that he needed to be careful and undermining Gates' self report that he felt slighted.
Quote from: grumbler on January 13, 2014, 01:50:47 PMWell, I guess it is entirely possible that "for the record" means something to you other than what it means to Americans, but I don't think you can blame the American, Gates, for not knowing your non-American definition of the phrase. For the record, Obama is an American as well, and I am sure that he used the phrase in the American sense.
No, that's not it.
Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2014, 02:08:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 13, 2014, 01:50:47 PMWell, I guess it is entirely possible that "for the record" means something to you other than what it means to Americans, but I don't think you can blame the American, Gates, for not knowing your non-American definition of the phrase. For the record, Obama is an American as well, and I am sure that he used the phrase in the American sense.
No, that's not it.
I disagree. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2014, 02:04:37 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 13, 2014, 12:37:08 PM
:huh: When Obama declares something "for the record," I don't see how Gates is "spinning things" by mentioning it in his record.
The irony lies in the fact that Gates is publishing this while the President he served is still in office giving credence to the President's belief that he needed to be careful and undermining Gates' self report that he felt slighted.
You may see irony in that, but irony is more than just the opposite of wrinkly. The only element of the meeting that Gates reports on is the part where the president tries to forestall everyone's memoirs by making statements that people will be sure to include in their memoirs.
The issue of Gates publishing while the president he served is still in office is a separate one. I think that he was wrong to do so, but I don't see anything in this latest Jacob report that bears on that issue at all.
Quote from: grumbler on January 13, 2014, 02:34:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2014, 02:04:37 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 13, 2014, 12:37:08 PM
:huh: When Obama declares something "for the record," I don't see how Gates is "spinning things" by mentioning it in his record.
The irony lies in the fact that Gates is publishing this while the President he served is still in office giving credence to the President's belief that he needed to be careful and undermining Gates' self report that he felt slighted.
You may see irony in that, but irony is more than just the opposite of wrinkly.
If you look beyond the meeting itself you might see a wide world full of meaning and possibilities greater than your laundry.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2014, 02:37:19 PMIf you look beyond the meeting itself you might see a wide world full of meaning and possibilities greater than your laundry.
How likely is that to happen?
Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2014, 02:38:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2014, 02:37:19 PMIf you look beyond the meeting itself you might see a wide world full of meaning and possibilities greater than your laundry.
How likely is that to happen?
If he paid somone to do his laundry then perhaps he would fixate on it less?
Grumbler is the only one who makes the "Irony - Wrinkly" connection. He probably commanded a laundry ship and it warped his mind.
Irony isn't just a river in Egypt.
Big wheel keep on turnin'
Proud grumbler keep on burnin'
Trollin', trollin', trollin' on the river.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2014, 02:37:19 PM
If you look beyond the meeting itself you might see a wide world full of meaning and possibilities greater than your laundry.
If you really understood irony, you'd not think it limited to laundry. Once we get beyond the meeting, there is no "there" there - which has been my point all along.
@mihali How long have you had that in your hip pocket, waiting to use it?
Quote from: sbr on January 13, 2014, 06:30:04 PM
@mihali How long have you had that in your hip pocket, waiting to use it?
:D
Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2014, 02:38:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2014, 02:37:19 PMIf you look beyond the meeting itself you might see a wide world full of meaning and possibilities greater than your laundry.
How likely is that to happen?
Given that what you are complaining about is a single sentence cherry-picked from gate's memoirs (and which you call, without any substantiation, the "best quote from Gates' kiss-and-tell-book"), it isn't likely that anyone can look beyond that single sentence. The book hasn't even been published yet. Yet you can still pick out its best sentence?
Quote from: grumbler on January 13, 2014, 06:43:22 PM
Given that what you are complaining about is a single sentence cherry-picked from gate's memoirs (and which you call, without any substantiation, the "best quote from Gates' kiss-and-tell-book"), it isn't likely that anyone can look beyond that single sentence. The book hasn't even been published yet. Yet you can still pick out its best sentence?
I concede that there may be better sentences to come. For your peace of mind, please redact my post to read "best sentence so far" where it says "best sentence" :)
Not complaining, by the way, laughing. Like this :lmfao:
Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2014, 12:18:50 PM
Seems to me that in Gates' quote, Obama isn't speaking to national security either. He is - jokingly it seems - making sure that the meeting won't be spun in a counter factual direction down the road in someone's memoirs, presumably for political purposes... and here Gates is, spinning the meeting in a different direction for political purposes in his memoirs, while acting offended at the implication that he might spin the meeting for political purposes in his memoirs.
In Gates' quote he's talking about deliberations regarding Iran and Israel. Iran obviously is intimately connected to national security concerns.
Why do Americans drink coffee instead of tea?
I mean, culturally.
Was coffee cheaper than tea back in the day?
Or more readily available? (which is the same thing, for you Eurocommies that know nothing of economy and think "basic income" can work)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-Lyery_g-a10%2FUZLJZNxgstI%2FAAAAAAAAsXs%2Fn8mMYvlQlXM%2Fs1600%2Fboston-tea-party-luis-arcas-brauner.jpg&hash=9d6acd00ae5626c0c8d46bc2252294de73d7f226)
Are they throwing out their old crt monitors?
Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2014, 07:58:30 PM
Are they throwing out their old crt monitors?
They just got Apple displays.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2014, 07:14:41 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2014, 12:18:50 PM
Seems to me that in Gates' quote, Obama isn't speaking to national security either. He is - jokingly it seems - making sure that the meeting won't be spun in a counter factual direction down the road in someone's memoirs, presumably for political purposes... and here Gates is, spinning the meeting in a different direction for political purposes in his memoirs, while acting offended at the implication that he might spin the meeting for political purposes in his memoirs.
In Gates' quote he's talking about deliberations regarding Iran and Israel. Iran obviously is intimately connected to national security concerns.
But Gates is obviously spinning the meeting that he isn't talking about, and it is obviously for unknown "political purposes." That's why Jake is laughing at Gates, and why I am laughing at Jake and his amusing characterization of things. Like this: :lmfao:
And why the rest of us are laughing at Grumbler.
I'm too headachy to laugh at anyone. <_<
That's so oddly specific that it was probably a joke. Just another case of Gates (and Grumbler) being tone-deaf, IMO.
Quote from: KRonn on January 09, 2014, 10:08:48 AM
Some pretty intense comments by Gates, much of which I can understand. Some troubling things there. Congress too gets reamed, and rightly so. Too many in Congress do what's best for them politically rather than best for the important national issues. What I don't really understand is how Gates, as Sec Defense and confidant of/to the administration, comes out with a book like this revealing all the unsavory sides while he was serving and had the confidence of officials in the admin.
From what I've read the majority of the book is positive about Bush and Obama - but those bits are generally not going to be the juicy interesting ones that get quoted. Also to be honest I think we're way past the stage where we can be precious about this. Practically speaking there's a relatively limited window for a politician's memoir and they're going to take advantage of it. He wants to make money that means his book needs to be at least mildly interesting and release before everyone stops caring.
Any potential unpleasantness is heavily mitigated by the fact that most books like this are turgid and self-serving. They're primarily enjoyed by masochists. Gates's actually sounds relatively interesting.
QuoteThe difference is that the secrets Obama was talking about are ones that can harm the country.
I don't see how that changes the line being funny and perhaps showing a little lack of self-awareness.
QuoteIt doesn't particularly imperil US security if everyone knows that Gates disagrees with Biden about policy.
No. But I wonder if there is a serious issue here. Everyone in government eventually writes a memoir or publishes their diary. I do wonder if that can inhibit conversation at the top. I think Alastair Campbell (who kept a diary and it was well-known that he kept a diary) thought it had an effect for him.
As an aside do these books get vetted in the US?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 14, 2014, 03:55:01 AM
I'm too headachy to laugh at anyone. <_<
That's the Miller Lite.
I don't touch the stuff.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2014, 08:46:00 AM
I don't see how that changes the line being funny and perhaps showing a little lack of self-awareness.
It changes the line being funny because it removes the hypocrisy.
Okay my sense of humour's clearly insufficiently Jesuitical :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2014, 09:03:12 AM
Okay my sense of humour's clearly insufficiently Jesuitical :P
No, you have too much vested interest in assassinating the source of the criticism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2014, 09:05:41 AM
No, you have too much vested interest in assassinating the source of the criticism.
What? :blink:
You are an Obamazombie, he says.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2014, 09:05:41 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2014, 09:03:12 AM
Okay my sense of humour's clearly insufficiently Jesuitical :P
No, you have too much vested interest in assassinating the source of the criticism.
If your argument requires that statement to be true, you may wish to reconsider making the argument.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2014, 08:53:22 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2014, 08:46:00 AM
I don't see how that changes the line being funny and perhaps showing a little lack of self-awareness.
It changes the line being funny because it removes the hypocrisy.
Exactly. The line is still funny, but it comes from Gates being tone deaf, not from him "spinning the meeting in a different direction for political purposes" (whatever that means). I am not surprised that some tribal members can't see this because they are desperate to accuse Gates of political motivations (for their own partisan reasons), but I should have thought that you, Sheilbh, would see the difference between being tone-deaf and "spinning... for political purposes."
Quote from: grumbler on January 14, 2014, 02:03:28 PM
Exactly. The line is still funny, but it comes from Gates being tone deaf, not from him "spinning the meeting in a different direction for political purposes" (whatever that means). I am not surprised that some tribal members can't see this because they are desperate to accuse Gates of political motivations (for their own partisan reasons), but I should have thought that you, Sheilbh, would see the difference between being tone-deaf and "spinning... for political purposes."
I don't think he's spinning for political purposes, I've not said that. I think it's a bit lacking in self-awareness which is why it's funny. It's Captain Reynaud :lol:
Also I think Obama's line is more about people spinning it into a more momentous meeting than it was for the purpose of selling memoirs, not political spin.
Quote from: grumbler on January 14, 2014, 02:03:28 PM
some tribal members can't see this because they are desperate to accuse Gates of political motivations (for their own partisan reasons
If your argument requires that statement to be true, you may wish to reconsider making the argument.
But it is true. A lot of folks here immediately circle the wagons around Obama the minute something unfavorable is said about him.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2014, 02:14:14 PM
I don't think he's spinning for political purposes, I've not said that. I think it's a bit lacking in self-awareness which is why it's funny. It's Captain Reynaud :lol:
Also I think Obama's line is more about people spinning it into a more momentous meeting than it was for the purpose of selling memoirs, not political spin.
Exactly.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2014, 02:14:34 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 14, 2014, 02:03:28 PM
some tribal members can't see this because they are desperate to accuse Gates of political motivations (for their own partisan reasons
If your argument requires that statement to be true, you may wish to reconsider making the argument.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
Quote from: grumbler on January 14, 2014, 02:18:46 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2014, 02:14:14 PM
I don't think he's spinning for political purposes, I've not said that. I think it's a bit lacking in self-awareness which is why it's funny. It's Captain Reynaud :lol:
Also I think Obama's line is more about people spinning it into a more momentous meeting than it was for the purpose of selling memoirs, not political spin.
Exactly.
:lmfao:
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2014, 02:16:56 PM
But it is true. A lot of folks here immediately circle the wagons around Obama the minute something unfavorable is said about him.
Like Sheilbh? :huh:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2014, 02:14:14 PMI don't think he's spinning for political purposes, I've not said that. I think it's a bit lacking in self-awareness which is why it's funny. It's Captain Reynaud :lol:
Also I think Obama's line is more about people spinning it into a more momentous meeting than it was for the purpose of selling memoirs, not political spin.
Pretty much, yeah.
And thinking that is basically the same as character assassinating Gates. Anyone objective can tell you that.
Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2014, 03:08:46 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2014, 02:14:14 PMI don't think he's spinning for political purposes, I've not said that. I think it's a bit lacking in self-awareness which is why it's funny. It's Captain Reynaud :lol:
Also I think Obama's line is more about people spinning it into a more momentous meeting than it was for the purpose of selling memoirs, not political spin.
Pretty much, yeah.
And thinking that is basically the same as character assassinating Gates. Anyone objective can tell you that.
Anyone objective could tell you that "the purpose of selling memoirs, not political spin" is pretty much the opposite of "spinning the meeting in a different direction for political purposes."
Now that you have abandoned both contentions to which I had taken exception, I am going to predict you will pretend that you didn't make either contention to begin with. :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2014, 03:06:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2014, 02:16:56 PM
But it is true. A lot of folks here immediately circle the wagons around Obama the minute something unfavorable is said about him.
Like Sheilbh? :huh:
Why not?
Quote from: grumbler on January 14, 2014, 03:18:41 PM
Now that you have abandoned both contentions to which I had taken exception, I am going to predict you will pretend that you didn't make either contention to begin with. :lol:
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2014, 03:19:44 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2014, 03:06:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2014, 02:16:56 PM
But it is true. A lot of folks here immediately circle the wagons around Obama the minute something unfavorable is said about him.
Like Sheilbh? :huh:
Why not?
Why not indeed. Sheilbh is a notorious Obama partisan in these parts.
Agree with grumbler. Bad form.
I agree with Grumbler too - Leonidas was a cockbite. Grumbler deserved that promotion.
Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2014, 04:39:00 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 14, 2014, 03:18:41 PM
Now that you have abandoned both contentions to which I had taken exception, I am going to predict you will pretend that you didn't make either contention to begin with. :lol:
:lol:
:mad:
Quote from: PDH on January 14, 2014, 07:55:10 PM
I agree with Grumbler too - Leonidas was a cockbite. Grumbler deserved that promotion.
Leonidas got a promotion to Hades. Grumbler certainly didn't deserve that.
I never liked Spartans.