Jump to content

FAFO: Marine LTC Who Criticized Senior Leaders Over Afghanistan in the Brig

atomheartbevo

By atomheartbevo
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

DonkeyCigars

DonkeyCigars 143

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Post an example and then we can point at laugh at those posters' hypocrisy together.

Huck. It's been a long day at multiple airports and bad food. Forgive me for the delay.

First I want to address the extremely narrow interpretation of my statement that people like JimmyJohns have taken. My implication was NOT that a military leader has broken rank or chain of command or what have you when Trump was in office and not been disciplined to the letter of the law or whatever that I'm sure is very prescriptive within the military policies and rules of engagement. I was not attempting to make a specific, analog allegation. I thought that was clear when I used the idiom "if the shoe were on the other foot" to express a hypothetical.

My point was that the people-- pundits, twitterverse, us here-- we are so unabashedly political in our thinking in 2021 that we will (whether consciously or subconsciously) get online and interrogate, examine and prosecute (and then make extreme judgments in anonymity on this site, as it were) behavior that is personally (which is also to say, in 2021, politically) anathema to us.

OR, if the behavior and resultant actions and impacts happen to fall on our side of the personal belief/values (and political) wall, we will allow it. Allowing it whether that be explicitly celebrating it because we consider any political pain inflicted upon our opposition to be good, or tacit allowance with a blind eye or plausible deniability because, "hey, the ends justifies the means" and because the status quo to which I'm opposed is inherently wrong and flawed and an injustice by virtue of it simply being what I oppose as we beg the question.

The above was the long form version of the point I was trying to make by observing the oft-reactionary and extreme posters on here effortlessly default to technicality and process (of which I actually agree!) because I maintain that the same oft-reactionary and extreme posters would take great pain to justify dissent and a challenge to authority if the political aims were aligned.

I then go further and call out someone specifically for what I would think he would do in a hypothetical based off of my reoccurring interactions with him and from reading a lot of his body of work on this site. 

That above is my position and I stand by that being a sufficient defense of my claim. However, I know everyone is itching for an example. The closest I could find in the small amount of time I looked into this was the General Milley situation. There was speculation and belief (which has since I think has gotten murkier, but for the example this still works because of what we believed to be more or less true garnered the responses) that General Milley broke chain of command from Donald Trump in talking about nukes to a foreign enemy and generally stepping out of line. Lots of posters celebrated this because they believe(d) politically that Donald Trump was a loon not to be trusted and by going above or around him, breaking the chain of command was justified.

One such poster is Underdog.

He says about Milley and I'll quote "LOL @ Trumpanzee, aka Republicans, worried about Milley breaking the law when the Orange Fuckstick disregarded any and all laws when in Office." doing an obvious "but trump..." whine while dismissing Milley's alleged behavior.

That is one such example, but again, that was not at all my point. Though it has become compulsory to whine "prove it!" about things that ought be self-evident. But there I go, illustrating my own bias and assumptions and demanding my worldview be met, as well. 

 

Edited by DonkeyCigars
  • Fuck You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Grandioso said:

DC, you are either military or military adjacent, explain it to me in 20 acronyms or less. 

Nah...he's pre-law. 😁  Being verbose tilts the argument in your favor...

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 33,519

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
9 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Huck. It's been a long day at multiple airports and bad food. Forgive me for the delay.

First I want to address the extremely narrow interpretation of my statement that people like JimmyJohns have taken. My implication was NOT that a military leader has broken rank or chain of command or what have you when Trump was in office and not been disciplined to the letter of the law or whatever that I'm sure is very prescriptive within the military policies and rules of engagement. I was not attempting to make a specific, analog allegation. I thought that was clear when I used the idiom "if the shoe were on the other foot" to express a hypothetical.

My point was that the people-- pundits, twitterverse, us here-- we are so unabashedly political in our thinking in 2021 that we will (whether consciously or subconsciously) get online and interrogate, examine and prosecute (and then make extreme judgments in anonymity on this site, as it were) behavior that is personally (which is also to say, in 2021, politically) anathema to us.

OR, if the behavior and resultant actions and impacts happen to fall on our side of the personal belief/values (and political) wall, we will allow it. Allowing it whether that be explicitly celebrating it because we consider any political pain inflicted upon our opposition to be good, or tacit allowance with a blind eye or plausible deniability because, "hey, the ends justifies the means" and because the status quo to which I'm opposed is inherently wrong and flawed and an injustice by virtue of it simply being what I oppose as we beg the question.

The above was the long form version of the point I was trying to make by observing the oft-reactionary and extreme posters on here effortlessly default to technicality and process (of which I actually agree!) because I maintain that the same oft-reactionary and extreme posters would take great pain to justify dissent and a challenge to authority if the political aims were aligned.

I then go further and call out someone specifically for what I would think he would do in a hypothetical based off of my reoccurring interactions with him and from reading a lot of his body of work on this site. 

That above is my position and I stand by that being a sufficient defense of my claim. However, I know everyone is itching for an example. The closest I could find in the small amount of time I looked into this was the General Milley situation. There was speculation and belief (which has since I think has gotten murkier, but for the example this still works because of what we believed to be more or less true garnered the responses) that General Milley broke chain of command from Donald Trump in talking about nukes to a foreign enemy and generally stepping out of line. Lots of posters celebrated this because they believe(d) politically that Donald Trump was a loon not to be trusted and by going above or around him, breaking the chain of command was justified.

One such poster is Underdog.

He says about Milley and I'll quote "LOL @ Trumpanzee, aka Republicans, worried about Milley breaking the law when the Orange Fuckstick disregarded any and all laws when in Office." doing an obvious "but trump..." whine while dismissing Milley's alleged behavior.

That is one such example, but again, that was not at all my point. Though it has become compulsory to whine "prove it!" about things that ought be self-evident. But there I go, illustrating my own bias and assumptions and demanding my worldview be met, as well. 

 

That's a lot of words. Here's the shorter and more accurate version, feel free to paste it in the future:

"I'm sorry, I was full of shit."

That's all you had to say. You made a claim that you have no evidence to support, and you are continuing to declare victory because you, in your own words, maintain that other people would do what you think they would do. It's 100% projection and fantasy. And the fact that you think being asked to support your claims is some sort of whining effort to deflect shows exactly how full of shit you are.

And a little advice, if you find that your defense takes 600 words to say absolutely nothing then that's a huge red flag that you're full of shit.

  • Hook 'Em 21
  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DonkeyCigars

DonkeyCigars 143

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

That's a lot of words. Here's the shorter and more accurate version, feel free to paste it in the future:

"I'm sorry, I was full of shit."

That's all you had to say. You made a claim that you have no evidence to support, and you are continuing to declare victory because you, in your own words, maintain that other people would do what you think they would do. It's 100% projection and fantasy. And the fact that you think being asked to support your claims is some sort of whining effort to deflect shows exactly how full of shit you are.

And a little advice, if you find that your defense takes 600 words to say absolutely nothing then that's a huge red flag that you're full of shit.

Huckleberry, I'm happy to say it because I absolutely think the moment I made the claim, the conversation bifurcated. I was pretty surprised at how most of you immediately went into this mode thinking I was making a literal comparison and had some concrete example in mind, versus my intention which was to lay claim based off of poster history and personality, what would happen (again posters reaction and NOT the real world outcomes), if something similar happened but the characters were reversed. Anyways, based off of our mutual inability to communicate:

I'm sorry, I was full of shit.

And to your rightly made point about being too verbose, I had a very busy day and wanted to respond before EOD. I'll quote Mark Twain here: “I apologize for such a long letter - I didn't have time to write a short one.”

  • Fuck You 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90,041

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Is there room for a LTC LCPL?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/30/politics/fact-check-trump-rally-marine-baby-kabul-airport/index.html

Quote

During a rally in Georgia over the weekend, former President Donald Trump invited Lance Cpl. Hunter Clark to the stage, implying he was the Marine in a viral video who lifted a child over a wall at the airport in Kabul, Afghanistan.

"We're also honored to be joined by one of the Marines who bravely served in Kabul during the withdrawal," Trump said, "and helped evacuate children over ... the airport wall. You saw him. He did a great job." 

Quote

Clark told the audience Saturday: "I am the guy that pulled the baby over the wall and it's definitely probably one of the greatest things I've ever done in my entire life." Clark then thanked the audience for their support before leaving the stage. 

Problem is, the Marine Corps says it wasn't Clark in the video.

Quote

 In a statement Wednesday, a US Marine Corps spokesperson said Clark was not the individual who lifted the child over a wall in the viral image and that Clark is now being investigated for his appearance at the rally. 

"Regarding the viral photo that began circulating around August 20, 2021, the Marine identified in that particular image was not LCpl Clark," Kelton Cochran, a spokesman for the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit said in a statement.

Quote

Cochran added, "The 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) has initiated a command investigation regarding LCpl Hunter Clark's attendance at the event last weekend to determine if any DoD policies were violated." 

The Defense Department generally prohibits active duty members from speaking at partisan political gatherings.

Quote

Asked by phone Thursday evening if her son stood by his comments at Saturday's rally, Clark's mother Peggy Clark told CNN, "He's not going to comment on that."  "He's asked that I not give out any information right now," she said. "He can't do any interviews or speak with anybody right now. I'm sorry."

"He's got to go through some things and when he gets the chance and can do that then I'm sure he'll make a statement."

What the fuck is it with people throwing away military careers for a fucking draft dodger who shit on Gold Star families?

 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 34,909

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Is there room for a LTC LCPL?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/30/politics/fact-check-trump-rally-marine-baby-kabul-airport/index.html

What the fuck is it with people throwing away military careers for a fucking draft dodger who shit on Gold Star families?

 

You know, a campaign and team that really respected the military and service members would have told a gotdamn Lance Corporal, who probably really doesn’t know much better— “thanks for your service and enthusiasm. We will be glad to have you back to speak once you’re a civilian, but we don’t want to cause any heartburn within your chain of command. You’re welcome to attend.” 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46,470

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 9/29/2021 at 5:23 PM, Sawbonz said:

I honestly don’t think anyone on this board would be trying to defend an active duty officer committing acts of gross insubordination on social media platforms. That fucker knew exactly what he signed up for and has been in long enough to make it to light colonel, which means he’s not too dumb and fairly good at kissing ass. Those guys will obey their commanding officers, or they will be drummed out of the service and / or sent to Leavenworth

I don't even understand why this is in dispute, other than . . . sideism.

I mean, one can have never served, and not even agree with our country's emphasis on defense or even how the military manages discipline, but it's a pretty big leap to "not fair" or whatever.  You're supposed to follow the rules and do what you're told.  Stepping outside those boundaries is the perfect "fuck around and find out".

Edited by jimmyjazz
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90,041

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't even understand why this is in dispute, other than . . . sideism.

I mean, one can have never served, and not even agree with our country's emphasis on defense or even how the military manages discipline, but it's a pretty big leap to "not fair" or whatever.  You're supposed to follow the rules and do what you're told.  Stepping outside those boundaries is the perfect "fuck around and find out".

And honestly it applies to corporate America as well.  We've seen plenty of executives/team leads/VPs/etc. at various companies large and small, in various industries fuck around and find out by going outside of their chain-of-command and saying stupid shit that embarrassed their bosses/companies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,569

Posted
Posted
I don't even understand why this is in dispute, other than . . . sideism.
I mean, one can have never served, and not even agree with our country's emphasis on defense or even how the military manages discipline, but it's a pretty big leap to "not fair" or whatever.  You're supposed to follow the rules and do what you're told.  Stepping outside those boundaries is the perfect "fuck around and find out".

Agreed. And I makes perfect sense. It’s an objective rule and sense of order that almost all Americans of any political stripe agreed with.

But not anymore. And it’s not because “those durned libruls!” changed. It’s because a foundational belief of the American GQP right is that laws and rules don’t apply to them. Because they are SO right, and SO righteous, they are exempt from the rule of law (see the now-complete GQP whitewashing of Jan 6th). This case isn’t a problem on its own; it’s a symptom of the disease that is modern American “conservatism” (which isn’t an ideology at all - it’s just organized self-indulgent power-seeking nihilism).

Donkey posits that libruls would excuse this behavior and call it no big deal if he’d said things that are leftish because…..THAT’S WHAT CONSERVATIVES DO. Every accusation a confession and all that.
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DonkeyCigars

DonkeyCigars 143

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


Donkey posits that libruls would excuse this behavior and call it no big deal if he’d said things that are leftish because…..THAT’S WHAT CONSERVATIVES DO. Every accusation a confession and all that.

Yes.

Thats because that is what politics of 2021 dictates from both parties. If the Dems didn’t do this (which I don’t think they would not do) it’s because they are addicted to not being effective and not winning— a consistent gripe from both registered Dems and dem sympathizers alike on here since this place has existed.

Its like the shift controversy in baseball. It’s obviously the smarter thing to do in 2021 if you want to win. To be a purist and say shifting is cheating, though it’s not, is to willingly disadvantage your team because of some moral conviction to unwritten codes in the rules of the game. It’s why the other team shifts too.

The answer is to outlaw the shift.

I’m not sure what you outlaw in politics to have pundits and diehard political identifiers and fans not engage in political gymnastics to justify their side (from hypotheticals to other sideism and “but Trump/Biden/Hilary”, etc.)

  • Fuck You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,569

Posted
Posted
Yes.
Thats because that is what politics of 2021 dictates from both parties. If the Dems didn’t do this (which I don’t think they would not do) it’s because they are addicted to not being effective and not winning— a consistent gripe from both registered Dems and dem sympathizers alike on here since this place has existed.
Its like the shift controversy in baseball. It’s obviously the smarter thing to do in 2021 if you want to win. To be a purist and say shifting is cheating, though it’s not, is to willingly disadvantage your team because of some moral conviction to unwritten codes in the rules of the game. It’s why the other team shifts too.
The answer is to outlaw the shift.
I’m not sure what you outlaw in politics to have pundits and diehard political identifiers and fans not engage in political gymnastics to justify their side (from hypotheticals to other sideism and “but Trump/Biden/Hilary”, etc.)

When one side completely opts out of the rule of law, that’s a rubicon that should never have been crossed.

And your Ream celebrates it. That never, ever ends well for the affected society. The answer shouldn’t be “well, everyone else should eschew the rule of law too!” Read a goddamned book. This is the road to hell. And you smile as you jam on the pedal.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DonkeyCigars

DonkeyCigars 143

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


When one side completely opts out of the rule of law, that’s a rubicon that should never have been crossed.

And your Ream celebrates it. That never, ever ends well for the affected society. The answer shouldn’t be “well, everyone else should eschew the rule of law too!” Read a goddamned book. This is the road to hell. And you smile as you jam on the pedal.

What you just said doesn’t negate or even speak to the point which is that we live in a political world in 2021 where almost everyone (pundits and citizens, everyday people like you and I) identify with a party or team. That identity leads people to justify (or soft shoe) every political incident.

You might be different. There are an outlier group of people like you who don’t fall under that category. You have the the progressives who are pure and above the moral compromises that centrists make and you have those who are so narcissistic and think they are so smart and uniquely tragic that they don’t like either side intrinsically. They are for whichever side that represents freedom and rule of law and X, Y, Z of whatever makes up their ideals. They are just crying out for the world to change back for them. They recognize America was never great for URM but they want to make America [something] again, because it’s being destroyed by change.

  • Fuck You 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,569

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
3 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

What you just said doesn’t negate or even speak to the point which is that we live in a political world in 2021 where almost everyone (pundits and citizens, everyday people like you and I) identify with a party or team. That identity leads people to justify (or soft shoe) every political incident.

You might be different. There are an outlier group of people like you who don’t fall under that category. You have the the progressives who are pure and above the moral compromises that centrists make and you have those who are so narcissistic and think they are so smart and uniquely tragic that they don’t like either side intrinsically. They are for whichever side that represents freedom and rule of law and X, Y, Z of whatever makes up their ideals. They are just crying out for the world to change back for them. They recognize America was never great for URM but they want to make America [something] again, because it’s being destroyed by change.

Yeah....you still don't get it.  You're a lying/moron/troll who is continuing to play a dishonest "both sides" game when, sorry, both sides do NOT advocate for the violent overthrow of the government with zero consequences or the rule of law applying anymore, shit like that.

The rule of law is a bedrock principle.  Without it, there IS no nation of the United States of America.   We'd be just another authoritarian shithole run by the will of the people in power, with no protections for anyone else.  WHICH IS WHAT YOUR TEAM WANTS.  This is not a difference between left and right.  That ship sailed long ago.  It's a difference between people who want to keep the Republic, albeit with certain different policies than your team, and people who want to ditch the Republic because they realize that the only way they can get their way is to eliminated impediments to imposing it on everyone else -- shit like "rules, and laws."

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DonkeyCigars

DonkeyCigars 143

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah....you still don't get it.  You're a lying/moron/troll who is continuing to play a dishonest "both sides" game when, sorry, both sides do NOT advocate for the violent overthrow of the government with zero consequences or the rule of law applying anymore, shit like that.

The rule of law is a bedrock principle.  Without it, there IS no nation of the United States of America.   We'd be just another authoritarian shithole run by the will of the people in power, with no protections for anyone else.  WHICH IS WHAT YOUR TEAM WANTS.  This is not a difference between left and right.  That ship sailed long ago.  It's a difference between people who want to keep the Republic, albeit with certain different policies than your team, and people who want to ditch the Republic because they realize that the only way they can get their way is to eliminated impediments to imposing it on everyone else -- shit like "rules, and laws."

Nevermind. I think we are talking at and over each other so I’ll just drop it.

  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bookman

Bookman 4,722

Posted
Posted
On 9/30/2021 at 11:20 PM, atomheartbevo said:

Is there room for a LTC LCPL?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/30/politics/fact-check-trump-rally-marine-baby-kabul-airport/index.html

What the fuck is it with people throwing away military careers for a fucking draft dodger who shit on Gold Star families?

 

Probably all that sweet MAGA poontang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah....you still don't get it.  You're a lying/moron/troll who is continuing to play a dishonest "both sides" game when, sorry, both sides do NOT advocate for the violent overthrow of the government with zero consequences or the rule of law applying anymore, shit like that.

The rule of law is a bedrock principle.  Without it, there IS no nation of the United States of America.   We'd be just another authoritarian shithole run by the will of the people in power, with no protections for anyone else.  WHICH IS WHAT YOUR TEAM WANTS.  This is not a difference between left and right.  That ship sailed long ago.  It's a difference between people who want to keep the Republic, albeit with certain different policies than your team, and people who want to ditch the Republic because they realize that the only way they can get their way is to eliminated impediments to imposing it on everyone else -- shit like "rules, and laws."

LOLz. address open border policies that patently ignore the "rule of law.".

You're one of the worst "My team" guys on here.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28,942

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, elfenix said:

"Scheller, however, has publically renounced any help from Trump or his followers, saying he would "rather sit in jail."

He also said that Trump was responsible for "dividing our country.""


https://www.businessinsider.com/maga-supporters-raise-2m-for-jailed-marine-he-says-trump-is-bad-for-us-2021-10

Quote

"I don't need or want your help. You do not have the ability to pull US together. You may even win the next election. But your generation's time is running out. Tell your son to stop tweeting about me. Your whole family knows nothing about US or our sacrifices. I could never work with you."

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jhawkmvp

Jhawkmvp 1,507

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Kinda surprised the shit out of me.  His initial rant seemed fairly legit, if very unwise.  Some of the subsequent rants seemed real Trumpy.

Me too. I was pretty certain he was an all in MAGA. He turned down MAGA millions and called out Trump for his divisiveness as president. He is obviously a true believer and has enough character to not let himself be used by the GQP, at least for now. I can respect this guy. He had to know he was most likely throwing his career away to speak out and he is turning his back on the group that would make him a millionaire, if he would become a MAGA puppet, post military career. He obviously sincerely believes what he is speaking out about.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90,041

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 10/4/2021 at 10:56 PM, Jhawkmvp said:

Me too. I was pretty certain he was an all in MAGA. He turned down MAGA millions and called out Trump for his divisiveness as president. He is obviously a true believer and has enough character to not let himself be used by the GQP, at least for now. I can respect this guy. He had to know he was most likely throwing his career away to speak out and he is turning his back on the group that would make him a millionaire, if he would become a MAGA puppet, post military career. He obviously sincerely believes what he is speaking out about.

Wow, he was calling out Trump for the "bone spurs" in the FB comments, among other things.  He completely went off on Trump and his family, and the only recent President he seems to like is George Sr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13,050

Posted
Posted (edited)

Pipehitter. That’s Mike Pompeo’s fundraising arm isn’t it?

 

Edit—wrong; got confused because Pompeo used the term but his is CAV PAC. This is Eddie Galagher’s (sp) charity. I didn’t realize that Matt Gaetz’ attorney is on the board. How bout that. 

Edited by Mrs Whiggins
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9,944

Posted
Posted (edited)

Did I read this guy had 19 years when he did this?  If so, what a dumbass.  I get doing what you think is right, but pissing away your pension over an org as inefficient and bureaucratic as the US military is…..not great, Bob. 

Edited by Bateshorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,677

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Pipehitter. That’s Mike Pompeo’s fundraising arm isn’t it?

 

Edit—wrong; got confused because Pompeo used the term but his is CAV PAC. This is Eddie Galagher’s (sp) charity. I didn’t realize that Matt Gaetz’ attorney is on the board. How bout that. 

The supreme irony of all of that is that I believe Marcellus Wallace referred to crackheads, not people that hit other people with pipes.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Did I read this guy had 19 years when he did this?  If so, what a dumbass.  I get doing what you think is right, but pissing away your pension over an org as inefficient and bureaucratic as the US military is…..not great, Bob. 

To your point, the timing was less than optimal. Regarding bureaucracy and inefficiency; meh, it's not that much different than any other huge organization, that is, until politics becomes involved.  Dude's a Lite Colonel.  He knows the fucking score.  He had to play the game pretty damned well to get where he was.  

I still say it was way more deliberate and calculated than just a "I've had it up to here with your shit" moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9,944

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, slorch said:

To your point, the timing was less than optimal. Regarding bureaucracy and inefficiency; meh, it's not that much different than any other huge organization, that is, until politics becomes involved.  Dude's a Lite Colonel.  He knows the fucking score.  He had to play the game pretty damned well to get where he was.  

I still say it was way more deliberate and calculated than just a "I've had it up to here with your shit" moment.

My ex-wife had an uncle who put in his 20+ in the Navy and Retired a Lt. Commander in Engineering and then went off to print money with Raytheon.  His line to me when I asked him why he didn’t stay in the Navy longer: “I didn’t want to have to suck dick on a second rotation at the Pentagon to get a frigate. The first time was bad enough.”

Dude was a trip.  A sailor’s sailor, He had no problem telling conmand exactly what he thought.  He got into a yelling match with Rickover in nuke school about an engineering point and eventually Rickover admitted he was right . It’s a miracle he made it to Lt. Commander. 

Edited by Bateshorn
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...