Reply With Quote
WH, asking how is not the same as applying his skills to them.
Did you just skim it too, WC?
WH, asking how is not the same as applying his skills to them.
What were the letters of reprimand for, then?
No, but I am re-reading it. I don't think what I posted is in error, but double checking. If you note, almost as soon as I posted it, I deleted my remarks, replaced with "ooops-- editing."
I think I will end up putting my original remarks back in without change.
Hold off...
I'm reading the story again.
Give me a few minutes, also snacking. hungry...
Did the Rolling Stone produce supporting do ents of the repremand?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-24-2011 at 04:35 PM.
Many unethical, immoral and very offensive things occur short of criminal wrongdoing. Also, demanding criminal levels of proof on a discussion board sets bar for credibility absurdly high.
Dunno. Did they?
So, it boils down to you'll believe and advance what you want to believe and I'll believe and advance what I want to believe.
Sound 'bout right?
And, for the record, I didn't see anything in the article that would lead me to believe anything unethical, immoral, or very offense took place, either.
What I find unethical, immoral, and very offensive is that a combat commander is left having to justify his mission to a congressional delegation. That's what the Joint Chiefs and President are for. The military, deployed in the field of battle, has a mission that shouldn't depend on how a field commander markets his mission to junket junkies.
How totally unsurprising.
Not sure I get you. Would it have been preferable for Caldwell to ignore the Congressional delegation then, and miss the chance to influence their decisions?
No.
They just said they obtained a 22 page report.
Caldwell could use what ever influence he had. His request for background checks of public formation was only beneath the colonels abilities, but not inappropriate.
Can you show me where the general, at any point, asked for the colonel to violate the law or integrity of the colonels job?
I find it ironic that the article concludes with Carl Levin as a target, who naturally would have voted "YES" for the appropriations anyway.
Did you not see the smiley afterwards?I couldn't resist.
'Hey, you specially trained manipulators of thought, how do I get these elected mucky muck representatives of the people from the civilian government to agree with me?'
It's not hard to see what the problem is, unless you are obtuse or wish to obfuscate the incident instead of recognizing it for what it is. Attempting to brainwash elected representatives of the people is attempted ing treason.
I'm sure if this directive originated out of anyone close to the POTUS that the same arguments would be made.
We could have a military coup and the same characters would argue it's not a problem.
P.S. - Perhaps this is why laws should be enforced instead of ignored provided they serve the policy goals of the executive branch.
You'd have a point if the quote were an accurate representation of what is being alleged...much less, what may actually be the truth.
yoni and WC are authoritarian lap dogs.
This is not news.
You never know when American proles might start believing that . Though likely the desire to avoid official domestic propagandizing was the overriding factor. More academic than significant, imo.The impact of the "firewall" created by Smith-Mundt between domestic and foreign audiences is profound and often ignored. Ask a citizen of any other democracy what they think about this firewall and you're likely to get a blank, confused stare: Why -- and how -- would such a thing exist? No other country, except perhaps North Korea and China, prevents its own people from knowing what is said and done in their name. ...
An interesting quirk, no doubt. The populace, sufficiently skeptical of all things foreign, could be trusted.Congress has no similar concerns when it comes to content produced by foreign governments and their official news agencies. Congress decided in 1994 that "political propaganda" by foreign governments was safe for Americans
A brazen lie, no doubt.
When you've no credibility left to stake, or the public is too addled and stupefied to comprehend what is being done to them, there is no penalty for lying.
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-25-2011 at 02:56 AM.
Or:
Attempting to brainwash elected representatives of the people is attempted ing treason.
To a legally provable certainty? No.Can you show me where the general, at any point, asked for the colonel to violate the law or integrity of the colonels job?
But I don't think the OP claims to either.
Or, they were counting on drowning us all in a tide-like surge of journalistic bilge. Mission nearly accomplished.
@ WC and Yoni:
This ain't no goddam courtroom, it's a goddam message board.
Please please study the difference. The Perry Mason schtick got old on Perry Mason, and there never was a worse premise than a lawyer who wins every time.
He actually lost a case, The Case of the Deadly Verdict...
thanks the gentleman for the correction.
Fluoride
That's my point. The article wants to attack the general, when the only quotes related to him were reasonable. It was officers in Caldwell's command who Holmes claimed did the pressuring.
Let's assume these are the facts. Under that assumption, I would say we still have two probable possibilities:
1) The general did in fact tell his people to do this.
2) The general's people took it upon themselves to gain brownie points.
Again, I try to keep an open mind and not jump to conclusions, especially conclusions laid out by leftists.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
