"On the Cover of the Rolling Stone...." - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Txjake · #16 06-22-2010, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cscmc1

There's really not much that the general said firsthand (in the reporter's presence) that's objectionable... it's the aides who reveal past statements that get him in hot water. That's the irony. But yes, it's an ugly situation that should have been avoided. Not (politically) smart comments by his staff at all.

This is a key reason why military men detest most reporters

cscmc1 · #17 06-22-2010, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

This is a key reason why military men detest most reporters

You're preaching to the choir, sir.

cscmc1 · #18 06-22-2010, 05:11 PM

I see Gibbs can't help himself:

"The purpose of calling him here is to see what in the world he was thinking," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said at today's briefing, referring to the Rolling Stone story featuring the general and his aides bashing President Obama, Vice President Biden and others.

MTUpower · #19 06-22-2010, 05:14 PM

The guy said what is true- and he may get canned. So what? There's always another general in the background that'll try to get the job done. The office of the president is not a military office, and when the person in there is stupid, or they make stupid decisions, well, the generals tend to say so. Bush was stupid, and Obama even more so. Clinton didn't do so bad in this regard IMHO, Bush #1 was a bit better and Reagan even better. Carter had no eff'n clue, and so on. Getting canned for speaking the truth about a stupid guy in office is not a death sentence, quite the opposite.

JollyRoger · #20 06-22-2010, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

unfortunately, this is what happens when warriors are lead by soft, effette political thugs from Chicago...why wouldn't they hold them in contempt? It is not like General Mac released a statement about the administration. All I read was regular banter....too bad the reporter decided to quote him..

The US government has survived for over two centuries because the military sees it as a point of honor to be subservient to the elected government, no matter who they are, in fact, they take an oath to do so. The thing I hold in contempt is thinking like yours.

JollyRoger · #21 06-22-2010, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

The guy said what is true- and he may get canned. So what? There's always another general in the background that'll try to get the job done. The office of the president is not a military office, and when the person in there is stupid, or they make stupid decisions, well, the generals tend to say so. Bush was stupid, and Obama even more so. Clinton didn't do so bad in this regard IMHO, Bush #1 was a bit better and Reagan even better. Carter had no eff'n clue, and so on.

The President is the Commander in Chief, I don't know where you get "not a military office" from that. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable with a Junta or other form of military dictatorship? There are good reasons for the tradition that general officers hold their tongues, and it makes no difference to me who is president. This guy is a treasonous slug who deserves to be shot.

Txjake · #22 06-22-2010, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

The US government has survived for over two centuries because the military sees it as a point of honor to be subservient to the elected government, no matter who they are, in fact, they take an oath to do so. The thing I hold in contempt is thinking like yours.

contempt away..

General Stan & his merry band is subservient to the elected government, just frustrated by it...blowing off steam while serving in a capacity that has stress you could never imagine....bad jokes? maybe so, but treasonous (your previous post)? laughable...

MTUpower · #23 06-22-2010, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

The US government has survived for over two centuries because the military sees it as a point of honor to be subservient to the elected government, no matter who they are, in fact, they take an oath to do so. The thing I hold in contempt is thinking like yours.

The military makes it a point of honor to be subservient to elected gov? Care to share your experience why you say this? They may take an oath to follow orders- but not one and no thing says they can't say the decisions behind orders are stupid. It's much more of an honor to say your order is stupid but I'll follow it. Politicians mince words until you can't tell what the f$%^ they are saying, but most generals are straight shooters that tell it like it is, with plain talk.

JollyRoger · #24 06-22-2010, 05:25 PM

Yes, the words of the oath need to be changed to suit you, I'm sure. Do you even know what they are? Here's a clue:

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Txjake · #25 06-22-2010, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Yes, the words of the oath need to be changed to suit you, I'm sure. Do you even know what they are? Here's a clue:

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

So, show me where Gen Stan or his men violated that oath...please show me...

MTUpower · #26 06-22-2010, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

The President is the Commander in Chief, I don't know where you get "not a military office" from that. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable with a Junta or other form of military dictatorship? There are good reasons for the tradition that general officers hold their tongues, and it makes no difference to me who is president. This guy is a treasonous slug who deserves to be shot.

It's a political office first and foremost, and military experience is not needed in any shape or form to hold it. I'm not comfortable with you telling me what I might like, but go ahead if it makes you feel good. I'm just saying what most everyone knows to be true- the military takes orders from the President, but the President in not in the military.

MTUpower · #27 06-22-2010, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Yes, the words of the oath need to be changed to suit you, I'm sure. Do you even know what they are? Here's a clue:

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

I can't see the part you're seeing about swearing to never say anything the President does is stupid. Care to highlight that part?

Txjake · #28 06-22-2010, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

I can't see the part you're seeing about swearing to never say anything the President does is stupid. Care to highlight that part?

cscmc1 · #29 06-22-2010, 05:56 PM

I see that the general's being recalled to Washington to talk about what his critics are calling a "distraction" from the mission. The irony abounds.

strelnik · #30 06-22-2010, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retmil46

Oopps, looks like O's hand picked general succumbed to a common ailment to those that do business in high levels in DC - foot in mouth disease.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100622/pl_nm/us_afghanistan

He broke one of the primary rules of military etiquette - you don't badmouth your boss, civilian or military, in public. Won't be surprised if he does get canned.

Yes. Poindexter, the nickname people give McC behind his back, is a strange duck. He has a strange health regimen, encouraging people to eat only one small-medium meal a day at noon and drink lots of tea like the Afghans do.

He is also remembered as the three-star who rushed to sign the Silver Star for Pat Tillman, but also sent a P-4 memo to selected General officers, indicating through back channels that Tillman may have been killed by friendly fire. He then did nothing to prevent the cover-up, and later sacrificed a couple colonels to pay for it.

This may sound cold, but in my personal opinion, Poindexter is the kind of guy who would help the guard closing the oven door on the crematorium, then say " It wasn't me! So-and-so was doing all the work closing the door, I just happened to be there."

On the other hand, I have nothing but the greatest respect for GEN Petraeus, whom I think, is just trying to figure a way out of this $h!tpile we're in, and go home with minimal losses.

Dump Poindexter and get someone truly focused on the job.

I have to admit though, Richard Holbrooke is an egotistical dork. I saw him in Skopje, Macedonia in 1997-98, I was a peon over there and he was " the President's special envoy" and told that to everyone who would listen. He was Hilary's boy then, too.