Behind every left wing plot sits William Jefferson Clinton, plotting and planning… to what devious ends?
Related
Bill Clinton To Speak At Convention, Water Still Wet
The 26-Percenters
Why Democrats Hate The DLC
41 Responses to “President Clinton, In The Observatory, With The Wrench”
Comments are currently closed.
What is the over/under of the amount of days that these warbloggers have served in the military? I put it at “1″ and I’ll take the “under”.
yea funny how about 70% of the military is republican…and more republican than democrat voters served in the military….but don’t let ugly facts get in the way of a good rant whale.
And if you consider institutionalized racism in the form of affirmative action a “slight”…well, lets just say you have a gift for understatement….
What is “qualifiable” patriotism? Or did you just pull that out of your rectum and hope that no one would call you on it?
Is that like night in the form of day?
I am pretty sure if any military man publicly denounces a Republican Administration, right-wingers would call for thier heads and call them traitors. Count it as a gift Pedro. Republican don’t really like the military but pay it lip service and the generals are saving this Administration more embarrassment than if they were not retired. Much like Deomocrats slight the black community(just not as much as Republicans), Republicans undercut and debase everything about our military. Republicans, go grip tight to the flag now and pray to Jesus, because even the most qualifiably patriotic people think you guys are full of shit.
how do you do describe a program that is based solely on the color of ones skin Quaker?
here is a definition of “racist”
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
So by saying that a group with a certain skin color requires “extra help”, are you not describing a racist policy..?
Yea, thats what I said.
Ok there we have it….it is GOOD racism…
Back to the effing point: White Whale is dead on. If a general in uniform had “the stones” to speak out against Bush’s folly, you right-wing cowards would be frothing at the mouth to hang him as a traitor. You’d be quoting all sorts of sh-t from the military code of justice (or whatever).
Anyway, we have a military that is controlled by civilian authority. That is as it should be. Ideally, the congress approves the wars, the executive gives the orders, and the military follows those orders. If generals in uniform start organizing against civilian authority (no matter how corrupt that authority), then we are a half step from a military coup.
The problem here is the executive branch, and the craven and cowardly congress that is letting them get away with mass murder. We are in a sorry state of affairs when retired generals are the ones organizing to speak up against an illegal, misbegotten military adventure.
The only “craven and cowardly” ones are the generals who, apparently, always knew better, but only spoke out when they thought it was politically (and financially) expedient.
No better than that fuckhead McNamara…”Oh, I knew we could never win in Vietnam…”
For once (dont pass out) I agree with pedro regarding the generals who are critisizing Rummy. If they knew better the assholes should have said something then. While I dont like Rummy, there is only one person responsible for getting us into Iraq and the mess we are in right now, the Commander in Chief. It was his decision and his alone to make.
The same goes for McNamara and Lyndon Johnson.
Flag officers get paid to give advice. That advice doesn’t need to be taken, but it is nothing but cowardice pure and simple to NOT dissent if that is what they believe.
I have known a lot of flag officers and they are not easily intimidated, by anyone.
so you have a choice, either ALL our flag officers are cowards driven by fear, or 4 of them are self-serving and avaricious. Which is it?
Wow, an honest democrat……will wonders never cease! : )
How do you know they didn’t dissent Doper? They didn’t publicly dissent until they retired or resigned.
Because we all know how well dissent is dealt with in the Bush admininstration/military.
When you create a culture of fear, you get a culture of…fear. People don’t speak up. Important people don’t speak up.
Riddle me this: How well were pre-war dissenters treated?
It just seems disingenuous to suggest that people should have spoken up earler when people who are “speaking up” now are dealt with as traitors and as undermining the war effort.
And still, my question about pre-war dissent still holds. Let’s say an individual were to have predicted exactly what is currently taking place in Iraq. How was that person dealt with before the war? How is that person being treated now? If he/she was in the administration, does he/she still have a job? The same power and clout? Does the perception of dissent fit the reality of dissent?
(This is a hypothetical person. I have set no trap. This is an honest question.)
So peedro,
Since you think the dissenting generals are all wrong and just out to make a buck, you must think that Rumsfeld is doing a fine job and should be kept on a while longer.
Am I right?
pidge you’re an idiot…
Zinni retired in 2000…he started flapping his gums 4 years later when he had a book coming out and the public was tiring of the war.
Oh yea, I was in the military too, that gave me a lot of inside information
Bozo…..
Not only that, Quaker, he must really respect Wilson for speaking.
drpedro says “pidge you re an idiot&
Zinni retired in 2000& he started flapping his gums 4 years later when he had a book coming out and the public was tiring of the war.
”
So, is that your argument, you claim that no-one dissented in person to Rumsfeld because Zinni is writing a book??????
Please tell me where the 75% of the armed forces is republican statistic came from. I hear it a lot, but have always wondered…
Hey, DrDoper, we didn’t invade Iraq in 2000 when Zinni retired from the armed forces. As a matter of fact, Zinni was opposed to the war before we invaded and termed it “The Bay of Goats”. His opposition became well publicized with his book in 2004. How about retracting the idiot label from me and putting it back on your own chest.
I thought that, according to the USMC, you weren’t allowed to publicly dissent with the official government policy line while a member of the military.
I thought that the rule was basically, you can criticize the policy within closed sessions - hammer out the details that are disagreed upon, so as to create a coherent policy that everyone would get a chance to critique and polish up before it is put into action - but it’s a no-no to publicly express dissent while in uniform.
If that is the case, it is no wonder that anyone who is currently active in the service would decline to express dissent until they were retired. Is this correct? I would appreciate it if you would provide some independent proof of your assertions, should you choose to answer this question.
Also, if this is the case, it appears that the generals’ opinions have been more or less summarily dismissed by the civilian executives directing military policy. I would repsectfully suggest that this is the issue that should be examined more closely here - did the generals sound warning bells that were ignored by those in charge?
To some extent you are correct Tom, however the UCMJ is very specific about the acts required, and simple disagreement is not punishable. More importantly, senior officers are expected to speak their minds, that is their job….here are the most applicable UCMJ articles:
888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
889. ART. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER
Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
809. ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.
Any person subject to this chapter who–
(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his officer; or
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer;
Finally, not every general agrees with Zinni. There was a recent editiorial by tommy franks I think in Wa Po or NYT in strong support of him…..
My question: Who brought up Clinton on this blog, this time, Oliver? It was you, and you found a couplr of bloggers who mentioned his name without blaming him for anything…
Hey Ollie,
Could you change the title of this thread though?
I keep reading it as “Clinton, in the Observatory with a WENCH
1) Criticizing your leadership in the military is A Bad Thing. You can argue, but when the decision is made, you shut up and follow orders.
2) Art 88 can and would be used if someone came out and denounced Rumsfeld as incompetant.
3) When you are in the service, you SERVE. After you RETIRE or SEPARATE, you are a PRIVATE CITIZEN and can (and should!) speak your conscious publically.
4) Many of these gentlement would have tried hard to change the system from the inside first. Thats what they do. They are loyal to the system and to the country. As opposed to you bastards, who would happily pledge allegiance to George W. Bush, the man.
And yes, I am currently active as an officer in the USAF, and I constantly get told to settle down and shut up because I’m toeing the line. I’m probably not the world’s best officer because I’m not good at sitting down and shutting up. These guys suceeded because when it was necessary, they knew how to shut up and color. But they don’t have to after they retire.
Oh yeah, one more thing for the neocons. If the military is so damn republican, how come a huge majority of veterans running for congress are running democrat?
Hmmm? Answer me that, please.
That said, the DNC is doing their damndest to minimize the good these guys can do.
Honestly, someone needs to bitch slap the DNC. Minus Dean. He’s fairly cool.
That said, the DNC is doing their damndest to minimize the good these guys can do.
Honestly, someone needs to bitch slap the DNC.
Absolutely! Why can’t they get behind these vets, the “Band of Brothers” I heard them called, and support the crap out of them? What could lend more credibility to the Dem party than that?
Still there is no evidence in support of Pedro’s claim that about 70% of the military votes republican.
It so happens that the campaign by Democrats to hunt down veterans to run for office on the Democrat line is flopping.
The other answer to your question is because Republican veterans are looking for hinest work.
And, the third, and greatest, answer to the question is: If there are so many Democrat veterans, why are the Democrats looking for Democrat veterans to run for office?
q - wolf, you so crazy!
Strange argument FrankD, how many Republican veterans are running for office?
bryan I quoted a poll by the army times about 3-4 months ago here. I am too lazy to look up for you again….you have google though…knock yourself out…
I have no idea, pidge… Do you understand the argument, or was that just a throwaway comment, because you have nothing to say?
I wasn’t aware the Democratic party put ads in Stars & Stripes looking for candidates, FrankD. It seems a lot of veterans are coming back from Iraq dissatisfied with the way Bush is running things.
well as you know piddgy, as we used to say in the Navy, “if a sailor aint’ complaining, then he just isn’t happy….”
Perhaps you wouldn’t know that, you weren’t actually IN the military were you?
I checked out the “Roster of Fightin’ Dems” at Daily KOS, and out of 40 candidates there were about 6 combat veterans, who were actually (or probably) in combat. That many were military lawyers. The others were in the Navy and Air Force.
Draw your own conclusions.
My conclusion is you can’t tell me how many fightin Repubs there are. Do you have a problem with Iraq veterans running for office? Do you feel they are unqualified in some way? If they decide to run for office are their motives automatically dishonest as you suggest? Are you saying that the doctors and lawyers and mechanics that are veterans are less worthy of the title ‘veteran’ than the ones that faced combat? Or are you saying they aren’t participating in the fight against terrorism or the Iraq occupation because they aren’t getting shot at?
1) I don’t know — Do I have to?
2) No
3) They’re not “qualified” just because they’re veterans
4) No — and where did you get that idea? (paranoia strikes deep — into your heart it will creep)
5) No, I don’t, but you lefties seem to do it all the time
6) No
It was fun playing, what do I get?
Well, Frank, I’m just trying to figure out why you seem so bitter that so many Vets are running for office as Dems. You make an unsubstantiated claim that the Democrats are actively seeking and recruiting vets to run for office. Then you say Republican vets look for “hinest(honest) work”. That suggests two things: you think all US legislators are dishonest, and that you have a low opinion of those who want to be legislators.
Then you try to belittle the term “fightin Dems” by trying to point out that out of 40 veterans, most were lawyers or in the Navy or Air Force and therefore they weren’t “fightin”.
I m just trying to figure out why you seem so bitter that so many Vets are running for office as Dems.
It would be easier for you to figure out if you realized that I’m not bitter.
Second, I’m not concerned with whether or not these guys were in combat; I said (and am now repeating it, since you apparently missed it) that that seems to be a preoccupation of the Left.
Most of all, I am more concerned with the fact that they were lawyers, than that they were veterans. The last thing Congress needs is more lawyers.
I believe that the Democrats deliberately recruited as many veterans as they could find, so they could say, “Look! We’ve got veterans on our side!”
And, I believe that that was about as cynical a move as the Republicans’ hunting for black candidates during Reconstruction, knowing they would win, and annoy and humiliate the recently defeated Confederates.
Now, you can disagree with me, if you want, but stop with the stupid, unnecessary, and erroneous psychoanalysis, and stop asking me to explain to you why I said things I never said.
I never said politicians aren’t cynical, and I never said all politicians aren’t lyin’ thieves.
You have posted no evidence that Dems actively sought out veterans, that other candidates have been asked to back off for veterans,etc… you stated that as fact. From qckslvr_wolf’s article:
“They also know it’s a long shot: Many are running against incumbents in safe Republican districts. Many also face competitive primaries against Democratic opponents with more political experience and access to money.”
Read your comment where you said there were 6 veterans who might have seen combat. Tell me how anyone could get ‘I’m concerned there are lawyers running’ and not ‘these guys didn’t see combat’ out of that paragraph.
Psychoanalysis? I am reading what you write, and you directly say:
“The other answer to your question is because Republican veterans are looking for hinest work.” {instead of running for public office} what am I supposed to get out of that if not: seeking public office is not honest work.
vxfk ncfgua swpzbjch yjce aidb grksio tzkblsjn
gkwhnsrlz hvbkzlic opalruzkd uhazdm mrzjisybe ypzf xrkwe http://www.rkxv.hdoapqw.com