If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   General Petraeus is a phony hero for a phony war, we need generals that are psychotic in their drive to kill enemy soldiers and subjugate enemy nations   (nytimes.com) divider line 170
    More: Obvious, Petraeus, director of the cia, The Establishment, Airborne Division, Korean War, MacArthur, soldiers, Afghanistan Conflict  
•       •       •

7947 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Nov 2012 at 1:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



170 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-19 03:01:55 PM
Hogwash.

Petraeus did the best job he could have done in Afghanistan, given what he had to work with.

If he rememvbers military history, he knows no one has ever taken that nation.

No one.

Not the Soviets, not the British, not even Alexander the Great.
 
2012-11-19 03:02:05 PM

dramboxf: sigdiamond2000: By LUCIAN K. TRUSCOTT IV

His grandfather was Kind of A Big Deal during WWII, and I believe he himself graduated West Point.


Yah but this guy starts off his opinion piece talking about how the optics of Generals takes away thier abilities to wage war, yet praises Patton who didn't wear a traditional uniform or side arm and was one of tyhe biggest blowhards out there.

Also, while MacAurther had his faults, the strategy in the Pacific and the stalemate in Korea wasn't part of it.
 
2012-11-19 03:02:07 PM

UseLessHuman: I love that people pretend its the "vulnerable to blackmail" thing that's so important here. It's a soap opera in real life and everyone wants to watch. If the social standards in American society didn't treat screwing like a crime in the first place then there wouldn't really be anything for them to use as blackmail so you seem to be putting the cart before the horse. The idea that a person who would make a bad decision to tag some hot new strange would show the same lack of good judgement in their job is preposterous. I'm sure there are people that treat both parts of their lives with equal contempt but to simply assume that is the case would be folly. We are all human. Humans are all animals. It's time we learned to take that into consideration when judging others.


I assure you that I'm not pretending, I really feel that the "suceptability to blackmail thing" is a big issue here (in regards to Petraeus). Granted, even then, I'm not sure it was a large enough issue for the media to pay it proper attention without getting distracted by the sideshow sex/socialite/"Days of our LIves" BS thats not important. So I do agree with your sentiment.
 
2012-11-19 03:02:39 PM

relcec: DeathCipris: relcec: I_C_Weener: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA.  But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part.  I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians.  The story is fascinating if nothing more.

so Clinton should have been impeached for merely getting a blowjob, forget about lying about it to a federal grand jury. let me be the first to say you today, you are a f*cking idiot.

His mistress is also in the service...and she was writing a damn biography on him. I am sure she was cleared.

his argument is people who can't avoid temptation and have affairs can't be trusted with secret government information.
it's the one of the most ludicrous arguments ever shiatted upon these pages.


Sooo... you're suggesting it's a good thing that the Director of the CIA was possibly subject to blackmail for the last year or so? Or just that it doesn't matter?
 
2012-11-19 03:06:20 PM
So if my Great General ends up sidelined by a sex scandal, do I get a discount on the xp needed to spawn a new Great General?
 
2012-11-19 03:09:16 PM
Petraeus looks like a CPA or someone who does your taxes on the side. He's a wussbag.
Dinner party General

Now this guy, he'll shoot you with a tank round, then run your body over. Then stop and get out and stab your flat corpse. Then radio the Airforce to napalm the area once he is clear.

farm9.staticflickr.com 


/Tal Russo
//doesn't do dinner parties
///you farked with our consulate?
////update your status from 'hide' to 'run'
 
2012-11-19 03:09:20 PM

Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone
Gdalescrboz:
Contractors and civilians have clearances. The thing that everyone has in common thoguh is the NDA. Clinton should have lost his clearance, just like anyone else would have, and if you don't hold a clearance you can't be president

As per the Constitution!

/ It's just a goddamn piece of paper

I didn't know the administrative of security clearances could negate the democratic process.

That said, couldn't the President retain his security access by means of Executive Order anyway, even if that access were challenged by some official?

 
2012-11-19 03:10:21 PM
"General Petraeus is very, very clever, which is quite different from stating that he is the brilliant tactician he has been described as. He figured if he hadn't actually been given the mission to "win" the "war" he found himself in, he could at least look good in the meantime. And the truth is he did a lot of good things, like conceiving of the idea of basically buying the loyalties of various factions in Iraq. But they weren't the kinds of things that win wars. In fact, they were the kinds of things that prolong wars, which for the general had the useful side effect of putting him on ever grander stages so he could be seen doing ever grander things, culminating in his appointment last year as the director of the C.I.A."

Wait, how does buying the loyalty of tribes and turning them against our main enemy in Iraq, al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, prolong the war? As I recall, right up to the point were Petraeus and Co. came into the picture, the Bush admin refused to negotiate with any of the Anbar tribes, and our number of wounded and dead was rising fast. After we brought the Anbar tribes in from the cold, and turned them against al Qaeda, our casualties went down, and within a few years, were able to leave Iraq. Was it perfect, no, but it served our purpose to get out and let the Iraqis figure out a way to leave with each other absent Saddam Hussein.
 
2012-11-19 03:12:50 PM

All2morrowsparTs: dramboxf: sigdiamond2000: By LUCIAN K. TRUSCOTT IV

His grandfather was Kind of A Big Deal during WWII, and I believe he himself graduated West Point.

Yah but this guy starts off his opinion piece talking about how the optics of Generals takes away thier abilities to wage war, yet praises Patton who didn't wear a traditional uniform or side arm and was one of tyhe biggest blowhards out there.

Also, while MacAurther had his faults, the strategy in the Pacific and the stalemate in Korea wasn't part of it.


What stalemate? McArthur was fired before Korea stalemated, because he pursued a reckless strategy that allowed the Chinese to nearly destroy half his forces and chase him out of the country. The Chinese success was almost ALL McArthur's fault. Inchon was well done, but after that, he screwed up Korea as badly as he screwed up the defense of the Philippines in 1941-42.
 
2012-11-19 03:17:29 PM
The_Gallant_Gallstone Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone
Gdalescrboz:
Contractors and civilians have clearances. The thing that everyone has in common thoguh is the NDA. Clinton should have lost his clearance, just like anyone else would have, and if you don't hold a clearance you can't be president

As per the Constitution!

/ It's just a goddamn piece of paper

I didn't know the administrative of security clearances could negate the democratic process.

That said, couldn't the President retain his security access by means of Executive Order anyway, even if that access were challenged by some official?


Hence, the impeachment part you brought up earlier.
 
2012-11-19 03:27:17 PM

netcentric: Petraeus looks like a CPA or someone who does your taxes on the side. He's a wussbag.
Dinner party General

Now this guy, he'll shoot you with a tank round, then run your body over. Then stop and get out and stab your flat corpse. Then radio the Airforce to napalm the area once he is clear.

[farm9.staticflickr.com image 500x333] 


/Tal Russo
//doesn't do dinner parties
///you farked with our consulate?
////update your status from 'hide' to 'run'


Dayum... maybe the IDF should drop leaflets on Gaza with this photo?

/war over
/will star in Rambo XIV?


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-19 03:28:44 PM

dramboxf: sigdiamond2000: By LUCIAN K. TRUSCOTT IV

His grandfather was Kind of A Big Deal during WWII, and I believe he himself graduated West Point.


By the time you get to "IV" the chances that you are a self-absorbed douchebag are pretty high. Then this guy goes on to prove it by touting his own grandfather by proudly offering the opinion that he performed at the level of psychotic murderer during WWII. Then at the very end we have a link to his blog where he has to share the glory of his body with us (NSFWish):

A novelist and journalist who is writing his new book on the blog Dying of a Broken Heart. 

What a man!
 
2012-11-19 03:30:07 PM

Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone
Gdalescrboz:
Contractors and civilians have clearances. The thing that everyone has in common thoguh is the NDA. Clinton should have lost his clearance, just like anyone else would have, and if you don't hold a clearance you can't be president

As per the Constitution!

/ It's just a goddamn piece of paper

I didn't know the administrative of security clearances could negate the democratic process.

That said, couldn't the President retain his security access by means of Executive Order anyway, even if that access were challenged by some official?

Hence, the impeachment part you brought up earlier.


How can you claim impeachment is a security clearance nullifierevoker? It is an accusation, it is not a conviction. Impeachment has zero implication beyond making charges that have to be prosecuted. Clinton was acquited by the senate. His only conviction was for a civil charge of contempt. Please, explain what you're trying to prove by being so dramatically incorrect?
 
2012-11-19 03:30:28 PM
"What's wrong with a general looking good?" you may wonder. I would propose that every moment a general spends on his uniform jacket is a moment he's not doing his job

He's a god damned four star general. Does this douchebag think that he does his own uniform? He's got a gaggle of privates doing that shiat for him.
 
2012-11-19 03:30:45 PM

hdhale: RexTalionis: [i1212.photobucket.com image 500x693]

I'll see your Sherman and raise you a Grant:

[faculty.css.edu image 247x253]

No bullshiat--grab the enemy, kill them. Detested pomp and strutting about. The perfect foil for Robert E. Lee, Grant would have been a brilliant commander in any era.


My grandfather was there when Lee surrendered to Grant. Here is his words directly from his diary...
"Uncle Billy was too busy down south burning his way toward us to take the sword from Lee so Dear Father rode in on his horse,looking tired, Unshaven,boots tinged with mud and blood he took Lee's sword then returned it. He told us men not to brag in our glory but to share in the pain of our fellow Americans ,who we were once again brothers too. We later ate the best popcorn and coffee we had ever had. It was then that I found the most incredible mushrooms. Johnny Reb taught me how to smoke it. It is to this that I owe my longevity. It was then too that I first raped my Captains ripe ass,all the way back to New York City. Good Times"
 
2012-11-19 03:33:03 PM

DeathCipris: SnyderCat: DeathCipris: jshine: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.

Its a bad idea for people with access to lots of classified information to have serious financial problems (makes them susceptible to bribery) or sexual/personal secrets -- e.g., affairs, or being deeply in-the-closet, etc. (makes them susceptible to blackmail). Ideally, people in those roles should have boring, drama-free lives.

That is correct. If you hold a clearance, especially higher level clearances, and your credit starts to go in the shiatter as an example; the feds will contact you. However, if you report what happened beforehand, they are pretty understanding. Petraeus is a man. He made a bad call and slept with someone other than his wife (who might I add was also cleared and in the service). Again, he wasn't trading sexual favors for secrets.
I am responding to the fact that this author in TFA is a self-righteous dickweed that thinks because his granpappy was a general, that he is somehow qualified to discuss "what makes a general great."

Military connections will not protect you from your own stupidity.

I speak from experience, hence 5 years of a hellish "marriage" that was more like a tour of duty.

Thank the Lord for Key.

I hear ya there! I learned my lesson from watching others, haha. I believe I will pass on getting married.
I love military strategy. Always have, even when I was a child (didn't have many friends if that wasn't apparent already). It is asshats like this damn author that really get me. He is dismissing all of his accomplishments because of a private relationship that was forced into the public eye. He calls for a resurgence in the old style of generalship. When in reality, Petraeus is MUCH closer to the brilliance present in the military greats that rose up during WWII. The author very clearly knows nothing and never bothered to research the issue.


Ya know, every guy finds the perfect woman who he will suffer for the rest of his life.
But seriously, marriage isn't for everyone. I love being married, but I know some guys just really prefer being single. In the military life, it takes a certain kindof woman to deal with that kind of danger.

I'm an assassin.

So it works out okay for us.
 
2012-11-19 03:38:55 PM
I still say the people in Florida were involved in some Flag Officer Wife Swapping, esp. that Kelley babe. When Broadwell thought her favorite General my be banging that Mediterranean WHOOORRE, she snapped. I mean, think about it. This babe's given a wave-on to the base where a whole host of our spooky stuff goes on, has direct, personal access to the top-level commanders and her only qualifications are a posh house, great parties, and fabulous tits.

Fabulous, luscious tits with bountiful, dark wine-colored nipples. You can just bet. She's what, Lebanese? Oh baby, those babes, along with the Israeli and Jordanian babes have that SWEET bubble butt going on. Yes, please, sir, dip me in hummus and run your tongue around the rim. And a deep bowl of seaming, fragrant babaganoush on the side, if you will. Oh, my, General, so many ribbons! What's this one for? And this one? And this? My, you must be so strong to be able to carry those big packs. And your gun, can I touch it? It's so big, my it must be difficult to control. Maybe I could help...
 
2012-11-19 03:40:54 PM
Bender The Offender
Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone
Gdalescrboz:
Contractors and civilians have clearances. The thing that everyone has in common thoguh is the NDA. Clinton should have lost his clearance, just like anyone else would have, and if you don't hold a clearance you can't be president

As per the Constitution!

/ It's just a goddamn piece of paper

I didn't know the administrative of security clearances could negate the democratic process.

That said, couldn't the President retain his security access by means of Executive Order anyway, even if that access were challenged by some official?

Hence, the impeachment part you brought up earlier.

How can you claim impeachment is a security clearance nullifierevoker? It is an accusation, it is not a conviction. Impeachment has zero implication beyond making charges that have to be prosecuted. Clinton was acquited by the senate. His only conviction was for a civil charge of contempt. Please, explain what you're trying to prove by being so dramatically incorrect?


We were talking hypotheticals. I dont know where you got the idea that i said Clinton was impeached, that wasn't even close to what I said. I said he SHOULD have been impeached based on the fact that I believe the POTUS should be held to the same standards that the POTUS holds every other clearance holder with. I hold a clearance, if I commited adultery and lied about, I would have lost my job. So, when the president commits and adultery and lies about it, impeachemnt is how you remove him/her from the office. My point was that our civilian leadership should be held to the same standards that they hold us to. Nothing more, nothing less. I guess others feel different
 
2012-11-19 03:44:26 PM
srtpointman Smartest
Funniest
2012-11-19 03:30:28 PM


"What's wrong with a general looking good?" you may wonder. I would propose that every moment a general spends on his uniform jacket is a moment he's not doing his job

He's a god damned four star general. Does this douchebag think that he does his own uniform? He's got a gaggle of privates doing that shiat for him.


When you are a 4-star, you have a gaggle of 1-stars and Colonels bringing you coffee and doing your laundry
 
2012-11-19 03:48:37 PM

netcentric: Petraeus looks like a CPA or someone who does your taxes on the side. He's a wussbag.


Here's the thing about that. FIGHTING a war is about bustin' caps and stabbing fools. MANAGING a war, the job of generals, is about logistics and management. He should look like an MBA because knowing how to manage an army and understanding the needs and roles of the various stakeholders is his gig. He doesn't need to napalm a guy or stab him in the face: he has air force Captains and Army SP4s for that kind of thing.
 
2012-11-19 03:50:26 PM

Gdalescrboz: Bender The Offender
Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone
Gdalescrboz:
Contractors and civilians have clearances. The thing that everyone has in common thoguh is the NDA. Clinton should have lost his clearance, just like anyone else would have, and if you don't hold a clearance you can't be president

As per the Constitution!

/ It's just a goddamn piece of paper

I didn't know the administrative of security clearances could negate the democratic process.

That said, couldn't the President retain his security access by means of Executive Order anyway, even if that access were challenged by some official?

Hence, the impeachment part you brought up earlier.

How can you claim impeachment is a security clearance nullifierevoker? It is an accusation, it is not a conviction. Impeachment has zero implication beyond making charges that have to be prosecuted. Clinton was acquited by the senate. His only conviction was for a civil charge of contempt. Please, explain what you're trying to prove by being so dramatically incorrect?

We were talking hypotheticals. I dont know where you got the idea that i said Clinton was impeached, that wasn't even close to what I said. I said he SHOULD have been impeached based on the fact that I believe the POTUS should be held to the same standards that the POTUS holds every other clearance holder with. I hold a clearance, if I commited adultery and lied about, I would have lost my job. So, when the president commits and adultery and lies about it, impeachemnt is how you remove him/her from the office. My point was that our civilian leadership should be held to the same standards that they hold us to. Nothing more, nothing less. I guess others feel different


He was specifically found "not guilty" of lying about the adultery (at least as far as lying to a grand jury was the charge). Impeachment does not remove a president from office. It does nothing but formally lay out criminal accusations. Conviction does not even remove the president from office (Nixon was convicted but resigned). I don't think you have a very solid grasp of what impeachment actually means. Don't be offended, read a bit and get a better understanding.
 
2012-11-19 03:58:18 PM
wh40k.lexicanum.com


Amateurs.
 
2012-11-19 03:58:54 PM

Gdalescrboz: srtpointman Smartest
Funniest
2012-11-19 03:30:28 PM


"What's wrong with a general looking good?" you may wonder. I would propose that every moment a general spends on his uniform jacket is a moment he's not doing his job

He's a god damned four star general. Does this douchebag think that he does his own uniform? He's got a gaggle of privates doing that shiat for him.

When you are a 4-star, you have a gaggle of 1-stars and Colonels bringing you coffee and doing your laundry


FTFY
 
2012-11-19 04:00:25 PM

fireclown: netcentric: Petraeus looks like a CPA or someone who does your taxes on the side. He's a wussbag.

Here's the thing about that. FIGHTING a war is about bustin' caps and stabbing fools. MANAGING a war, the job of generals, is about logistics and management. He should look like an MBA because knowing how to manage an army and understanding the needs and roles of the various stakeholders is his gig. He doesn't need to napalm a guy or stab him in the face: he has air force Captains and Army SP4s for that kind of thing.



Ohhhhhh....so he is supposed to be a pasty, Perrier sipping twatwaffler on purpose?
See I was thinking guys like that were Quartermasters and in the Logistics core.
Well, then I stand corrected.
The US needs to recruit more skirt chasing Perrier sipping, CPA's.
Who drift through dinner parties, exclusive resorts, have butlers and such. They sit at conference tables and ask what wine is served with lunch.

And then you have Generals, who are also theater commanders, like Tal Russo.


I'll tell you which one I would like to serve with....
 
2012-11-19 04:02:42 PM
Bender The Offender Gdalescrboz: Bender The Offender
Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone
Gdalescrboz:
Contractors and civilians have clearances. The thing that everyone has in common thoguh is the NDA. Clinton should have lost his clearance, just like anyone else would have, and if you don't hold a clearance you can't be president

As per the Constitution!

/ It's just a goddamn piece of paper

I didn't know the administrative of security clearances could negate the democratic process.

That said, couldn't the President retain his security access by means of Executive Order anyway, even if that access were challenged by some official?

Hence, the impeachment part you brought up earlier.

How can you claim impeachment is a security clearance nullifierevoker? It is an accusation, it is not a conviction. Impeachment has zero implication beyond making charges that have to be prosecuted. Clinton was acquited by the senate. His only conviction was for a civil charge of contempt. Please, explain what you're trying to prove by being so dramatically incorrect?

We were talking hypotheticals. I dont know where you got the idea that i said Clinton was impeached, that wasn't even close to what I said. I said he SHOULD have been impeached based on the fact that I believe the POTUS should be held to the same standards that the POTUS holds every other clearance holder with. I hold a clearance, if I commited adultery and lied about, I would have lost my job. So, when the president commits and adultery and lies about it, impeachemnt is how you remove him/her from the office. My point was that our civilian leadership should be held to the same standards that they hold us to. Nothing more, nothing less. I guess others feel different

He was specifically found "not guilty" of lying about the adultery (at least as far as lying to a grand jury was the charge). Impeachment does not remove a president from office. It does nothing but formally lay out criminal accusations. Conviction does not even remove the president from office (Nixon was convicted but resigned). I don't think you have a very solid grasp of what impeachment actually means. Don't be offended, read a bit and get a better understanding.


Here's the problem. You are telling me what happened, while I'm saying what should have happened. I know he was found "not-guilty." But let's be real, the dude was lying. However, for arguments sake, let's say he wasn't lying. He still committed adultery. On that fact alone, if you are holding him to the same standard that everyone else with a clearance is held to, he should have been impeached. Again, in no way am I saying that he was impeached, I even said in my previous post "I dont know where you got the idea that i said Clinton was impeached, that wasn't even close to what I said." My argument is that he should have been. Additionally, I don't even know why I'm talking about Clinton. Gallant derailed me. Anyways, everything you are saying is correct, we are just debating two different angles
 
2012-11-19 04:05:29 PM

Red Shirt Blues: No, it was well planned. And he pretty much leveled Japan. He took over a program that was not getting results using the most expensive weapon system of WWII (yes, more expensive than the A-bomb) the B-29, switched tactics and got the desired results.


Indiscriminate probably is the wrong word. I just mean he wasn't concerned with what he was burning down, just that things were being blown up/burned down as efficiently as possible.

His later actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis cemented his status in the psychotic-bloodlust category being referenced by the headline. If LeMay hadn't been overruled by Kennedy, life as we know it would be very, very different.
 
2012-11-19 04:11:16 PM

Slaxl: we need Generals that are psychotic in their drive to kill enemy soldiers and subjugate enemy nations

...and hear the lamentation of their women?


Came for this.
 
2012-11-19 04:27:39 PM

olddinosaur: Hogwash.

Petraeus did the best job he could have done in Afghanistan, given what he had to work with.

If he rememvbers military history, he knows no one has ever taken that nation.

No one.

Not the Soviets, not the British, not even Alexander the Great.


Mullah Omar managed to "[take] the nation."

And Patraeus is no McChrystal. I know. I served under McChrystal. Although Stan wasn't all that either, getting relieved for an article in Rolling Stone. Perhaps that was his plan to get out of a no-win situation, but if he couldn't win it then how great was he in the first place?

Ultimately though, I have no idea what generals do. However, I do know that they take forever to do simple paperwork requiring their signatures or approvals, to do things as simple as approve awards or buy building materials. Don't get me started on requests for air support...
 
2012-11-19 04:39:14 PM

fireclown: netcentric: Petraeus looks like a CPA or someone who does your taxes on the side. He's a wussbag.

Here's the thing about that. FIGHTING a war is about bustin' caps and stabbing fools. MANAGING a war, the job of generals, is about logistics and management. He should look like an MBA because knowing how to manage an army and understanding the needs and roles of the various stakeholders is his gig. He doesn't need to napalm a guy or stab him in the face: he has air force Captains and Army SP4s for that kind of thing.


It doesn't take a commander to manage things. That's what staff officers are for. Commanders need to have vision and make decisions. They need to be leaders, not managers. In civilian terms, the owner, not the foreman.
/I can get doctrinal if you really want me to.
//AR 600-100 is a good place to start reading.
 
2012-11-19 04:42:49 PM

netcentric: fireclown: netcentric: Petraeus looks like a CPA or someone who does your taxes on the side. He's a wussbag.

Here's the thing about that. FIGHTING a war is about bustin' caps and stabbing fools. MANAGING a war, the job of generals, is about logistics and management. He should look like an MBA because knowing how to manage an army and understanding the needs and roles of the various stakeholders is his gig. He doesn't need to napalm a guy or stab him in the face: he has air force Captains and Army SP4s for that kind of thing.


Ohhhhhh....so he is supposed to be a pasty, Perrier sipping twatwaffler on purpose?
See I was thinking guys like that were Quartermasters and in the Logistics core.
Well, then I stand corrected.
The US needs to recruit more skirt chasing Perrier sipping, CPA's.
Who drift through dinner parties, exclusive resorts, have butlers and such. They sit at conference tables and ask what wine is served with lunch.

And then you have Generals, who are also theater commanders, like Tal Russo.


I'll tell you which one I would like to serve with....


Tal Russo's got an MBA.
 
2012-11-19 05:02:24 PM
Smedley Butler was our greatest general next to Washington.
 
2012-11-19 05:13:30 PM
Grant would win our modern wars while downing at least a bottle of whiskey every single day.
 
2012-11-19 05:15:49 PM

Gdalescrboz: Bender The Offender Gdalescrboz: Bender The Offender
Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone
Gdalescrboz:
Contractors and civilians have clearances. The thing that everyone has in common thoguh is the NDA. Clinton should have lost his clearance, just like anyone else would have, and if you don't hold a clearance you can't be president

As per the Constitution!

/ It's just a goddamn piece of paper

I didn't know the administrative of security clearances could negate the democratic process.

That said, couldn't the President retain his security access by means of Executive Order anyway, even if that access were challenged by some official?

Hence, the impeachment part you brought up earlier.

How can you claim impeachment is a security clearance nullifierevoker? It is an accusation, it is not a conviction. Impeachment has zero implication beyond making charges that have to be prosecuted. Clinton was acquited by the senate. His only conviction was for a civil charge of contempt. Please, explain what you're trying to prove by being so dramatically incorrect?

We were talking hypotheticals. I dont know where you got the idea that i said Clinton was impeached, that wasn't even close to what I said. I said he SHOULD have been impeached based on the fact that I believe the POTUS should be held to the same standards that the POTUS holds every other clearance holder with. I hold a clearance, if I commited adultery and lied about, I would have lost my job. So, when the president commits and adultery and lies about it, impeachemnt is how you remove him/her from the office. My point was that our civilian leadership should be held to the same standards that they hold us to. Nothing more, nothing less. I guess others feel different

He was specifically found "not guilty" of lying about the adultery (at least as far as lying to a grand jury was the charge). Impeachment does not remove a president from office. It does nothing but formally lay out criminal accusations. Conviction does not even remove the president from office (Nixon was convicted but resigned). I don't think you have a very solid grasp of what impeachment actually means. Don't be offended, read a bit and get a better understanding.

Here's the problem. You are telling me what happened, while I'm saying what should have happened. I know he was found "not-guilty." But let's be real, the dude was lying. However, for arguments sake, let's say he wasn't lying. He still committed adultery. On that fact alone, if you are holding him to the same standard that everyone else with a clearance is held to, he should have been impeached. Again, in no way am I saying that he was impeached, I even said in my previous post "I dont know where you got the idea that i said Clinton was impeached, that wasn't even close to what I said." My argument is that he should have been. Additionally, I don't even know why I'm talking about Clinton. Gallant derailed me. Anyways, everything you are saying is correct, we are just debating two different angles


Fair enough, I see where I got hung up on the impeachment thing. Sorry bout that.
 
2012-11-19 05:22:05 PM
I thought the author was kind of cool when I read that one of his novels is "Dress Gay."


Then I realized it was "Dress Gray" and is standard military jerk-off material. If only there were some grizzled leader with a strong jaw to show those bureaucrats what things are all about. Like tanks. And Weapons systems. And guns that shoot around corners. I'll be in my bunk.
 
2012-11-19 05:29:59 PM
I'll see your Tal Russo, and raise you one Col. Lewis Millet

i94.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-19 05:35:12 PM

DeathCipris: SnyderCat: DeathCipris: jshine: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.

Its a bad idea for people with access to lots of classified information to have serious financial problems (makes them susceptible to bribery) or sexual/personal secrets -- e.g., affairs, or being deeply in-the-closet, etc. (makes them susceptible to blackmail). Ideally, people in those roles should have boring, drama-free lives.

That is correct. If you hold a clearance, especially higher level clearances, and your credit starts to go in the shiatter as an example; the feds will contact you. However, if you report what happened beforehand, they are pretty understanding. Petraeus is a man. He made a bad call and slept with someone other than his wife (who might I add was also cleared and in the service). Again, he wasn't trading sexual favors for secrets.
I am responding to the fact that this author in TFA is a self-righteous dickweed that thinks because his granpappy was a general, that he is somehow qualified to discuss "what makes a general great."

Military connections will not protect you from your own stupidity.

I speak from experience, hence 5 years of a hellish "marriage" that was more like a tour of duty.

Thank the Lord for Key.

I hear ya there! I learned my lesson from watching others, haha. I believe I will pass on getting married.
I love military strategy. Always have, even when I was a child (didn't have many friends if that wasn't apparent already). It is asshats like this damn author that really get me. He is dismissing all of his accomplishments because of a private relationship that was forced into the public eye. He calls for a resurgence in the old style of generalship. When in reality, Petraeus is MUCH closer to the brilliance present in the military greats that rose up during WWII. The author very clearly knows nothing and never bothered to research the issue.


And a lot of credit for those WWII generals becoming Generals belongs to George C. Marshall, who hand-picked 90% of them to make general-officer grade before the war started in earnest in Europe (in 1937 Eisenhower was a Major, and, barring the war, probably would have ended up retiring a Colonel by 1945, if he was lucky, and the same goes for Patton, Bradley, Mark Clark, and a bunch of others, not to mention MacArthur would have stayed in retirement as a General in the US Army while serving as Chief of Staff of the Philippine Army with the permission of the US Army and US Congress).
 
2012-11-19 05:38:29 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: I still say the people in Florida were involved in some Flag Officer Wife Swapping, esp. that Kelley babe. When Broadwell thought her favorite General my be banging that Mediterranean WHOOORRE, she snapped. I mean, think about it. This babe's given a wave-on to the base where a whole host of our spooky stuff goes on, has direct, personal access to the top-level commanders and her only qualifications are a posh house, great parties, and fabulous tits.

Fabulous, luscious tits with bountiful, dark wine-colored nipples. You can just bet. She's what, Lebanese? Oh baby, those babes, along with the Israeli and Jordanian babes have that SWEET bubble butt going on. Yes, please, sir, dip me in hummus and run your tongue around the rim. And a deep bowl of seaming, fragrant babaganoush on the side, if you will. Oh, my, General, so many ribbons! What's this one for? And this one? And this? My, you must be so strong to be able to carry those big packs. And your gun, can I touch it? It's so big, my it must be difficult to control. Maybe I could help...


I may need a couple helpful pictures of what said women may look like.
 
2012-11-19 05:39:42 PM

flynn80: Smedley Butler was our greatest general next to Washington.


Worth a download: Google "Smedley Butler War Is A Racket," and hear what a man has to say when he has been there and done that, better than you can imagine.

Just humor an old fart, it is worth two minutes of your time.
 
2012-11-19 06:00:56 PM

unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


If his wife can't trust him, why should we?
 
2012-11-19 06:02:37 PM
Most of the interesting figures that pop up throughout history were philandering generals. Caesar slept with half the Senators' wives and conquered Gaul. Genghis Khan conquered most of Asia and is the ancestor of 0.5% of humanity. Petraeus salvaged Iraq to a point where we had a semblance of victory, so, really, this should be a freebie for him. Hundreds of years from now, students will complain about having to learn about our time period because we have become so boring and straight-laced.
 
2012-11-19 06:24:15 PM

probesport: I wanna, I wanna kill.

Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth


Came here for this.
 
2012-11-19 06:38:32 PM

relcec: DeathCipris: relcec: I_C_Weener: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA.  But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part.  I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians.  The story is fascinating if nothing more.

so Clinton should have been impeached for merely getting a blowjob, forget about lying about it to a federal grand jury. let me be the first to say you today, you are a f*cking idiot.

His mistress is also in the service...and she was writing a damn biography on him. I am sure she was cleared.

his argument is people who can't avoid temptation and have affairs can't be trusted with secret government information.
it's the one of the most ludicrous arguments ever shiatted upon these pages.


If a man can't be trusted to keep his marriage vows, how can we expect him to keep his secrecy oaths?
 
2012-11-19 06:52:51 PM

tshauk: Col. Lewis Millet


A CMH is good, as a Capt. or later a Colonel....he just doesn't have to command a whole theater of operations. Like an Omar Bradley, George Meade or Grant etc...

You have to compare leaders to leaders.

Like "hey we picked Petraeus because he knows a good California Chardonney and is good with Excel Spread Sheets"

And then maybe bounce that against Gen. Tom Jackson. You know, "The time for war has not yet come, but it will come, and that soon; and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard."

See, a balance of restraint, intelligent and wise....but ready to go all out when called upon.
 
2012-11-19 06:54:58 PM
Employees of CIA must report "close continuing contacts" to CIA. Failure to do that is cause for termination.

That's it, end of story. Everything else is just window dressing.
 
2012-11-19 06:55:05 PM
I was done reading as soon as I realized the author thinks generals take care of their own uniforms.
 
2012-11-19 07:02:59 PM
not a phony hero, not a phony war.
 
2012-11-19 07:06:45 PM
 
2012-11-19 07:22:31 PM

swangoatman: hdhale: RexTalionis: [i1212.photobucket.com image 500x693]

I'll see your Sherman and raise you a Grant:

[faculty.css.edu image 247x253]

No bullshiat--grab the enemy, kill them. Detested pomp and strutting about. The perfect foil for Robert E. Lee, Grant would have been a brilliant commander in any era.

My grandfather was there when Lee surrendered to Grant. Here is his words directly from his diary...
"Uncle Billy was too busy down south burning his way toward us to take the sword from Lee so Dear Father rode in on his horse,looking tired, Unshaven,boots tinged with mud and blood he took Lee's sword then returned it. He told us men not to brag in our glory but to share in the pain of our fellow Americans ,who we were once again brothers too. We later ate the best popcorn and coffee we had ever had. It was then that I found the most incredible mushrooms. Johnny Reb taught me how to smoke it. It is to this that I owe my longevity. It was then too that I first raped my Captains ripe ass,all the way back to New York City. Good Times"


Hello, newly favorited poster.
 
2012-11-19 07:35:41 PM

tshauk: Col. Lewis Millet


Thank you for that, a true hero
 
2012-11-19 07:35:42 PM
This whiny fark is Lucian Truscott's grandson? Jeezus tapdancing Christ...
 
Displayed 50 of 170 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report