Skip to content
 
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)   U.S. Navy may do what's right and reinstate hero Capt. Crozier to the command of carrier Roosevelt   (nytimes.com) divider line
    More: Followup, United States Navy, Captain Crozier, Capt. Brett E. Crozier, Michael M. Gilday, Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer, final decisions, findings of a preliminary investigation, Captain Crozier's removal  
•       •       •

1208 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Apr 2020 at 4:50 PM (11 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-04-16 8:59:24 AM  
Just wait until Commander-in-Chief Tittybaby hears about this.
 
2020-04-16 9:25:19 AM  

Farking Clown Shoes: Just wait until Commander-in-Chief Tittybaby hears about this.


Gonna be some extra diaper loading.
 
2020-04-16 9:34:47 AM  
He should take it, work 1 day and then retire.
 
2020-04-16 10:47:32 AM  
Yeah, I don't know if that's such a good idea (drtfa so just going off the headline).  I'm firmly in the 'he shouldn't have been relieved in the first place' camp, however he was so here we are.  To reinstate him is an acknowledgement that the brass above him both didn't have confidence in him earlier & that they made a mistake by doing so.

Even if the crew wanted him back (& from what I've heard, that's not an unreasonable opinion), moving forward there would be a potential big morale/trust problem.  Anytime that the carrier had to do the unpopular 'x' because of 'y' (say staying at sea for a few extra months because the virus took down 'z' carrier, or they couldn't get shore leave at 'f' city but instead had to go to the much less popular 'g' (or none at all for fear of contamination)), the question of "They (the nebulous 'they') are only doing this to stick it to the Captain" will be there even if the decision for doing so has perfectly valid military reasons.

And incredibly, with a petulant toddler as the Commander in Chief, actual retaliation down the line isn't completely outside the realm of possibility.  So it sucks for him personally, but it's probably best that he 'not' be given command back.

/try to find enough Senators that aren't drunk to have a quorum, promote him to O-7 & let him pick his next duty station
 
2020-04-16 11:12:16 AM  
I hope he does. Let Trump countermand him and own the whole fiasco.
 
2020-04-16 12:35:36 PM  

Recoil Therapy: Yeah, I don't know if that's such a good idea (drtfa so just going off the headline).  I'm firmly in the 'he shouldn't have been relieved in the first place' camp, however he was so here we are.  To reinstate him is an acknowledgement that the brass above him both didn't have confidence in him earlier & that they made a mistake by doing so.

Even if the crew wanted him back (& from what I've heard, that's not an unreasonable opinion), moving forward there would be a potential big morale/trust problem.  Anytime that the carrier had to do the unpopular 'x' because of 'y' (say staying at sea for a few extra months because the virus took down 'z' carrier, or they couldn't get shore leave at 'f' city but instead had to go to the much less popular 'g' (or none at all for fear of contamination)), the question of "They (the nebulous 'they') are only doing this to stick it to the Captain" will be there even if the decision for doing so has perfectly valid military reasons.

And incredibly, with a petulant toddler as the Commander in Chief, actual retaliation down the line isn't completely outside the realm of possibility.  So it sucks for him personally, but it's probably best that he 'not' be given command back.

/try to find enough Senators that aren't drunk to have a quorum, promote him to O-7 & let him pick his next duty station


Difficulty: The GOP controls the Senate. They'd either not hold the vote at all, or vote to deny Crozier his star, and in either case would do it solely to appease President Titty Baby.
 
2020-04-16 4:41:03 PM  

Farking Clown Shoes: Just wait until Commander-in-Chief Tittybaby hears about this.


A week and a half ago Trump suddenly started softening on the whole thing, saying he "may look into" the situation, and saying he heard good things about the guy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.c​o​m/2020/04/07/trump-may-look-into-case-​of-ousted-navy-captain-brett-crozier/a​mp/
 
2020-04-16 4:53:04 PM  

Farking Clown Shoes: Just wait until Commander-in-Chief Tittybaby hears about this.


Yeah, I think the Unlikely tag is taking a nap.
 
2020-04-16 4:57:33 PM  

Recoil Therapy: Yeah, I don't know if that's such a good idea (drtfa so just going off the headline).  I'm firmly in the 'he shouldn't have been relieved in the first place' camp, however he was so here we are.  To reinstate him is an acknowledgement that the brass above him both didn't have confidence in him earlier & that they made a mistake by doing so.

Even if the crew wanted him back (& from what I've heard, that's not an unreasonable opinion), moving forward there would be a potential big morale/trust problem.  Anytime that the carrier had to do the unpopular 'x' because of 'y' (say staying at sea for a few extra months because the virus took down 'z' carrier, or they couldn't get shore leave at 'f' city but instead had to go to the much less popular 'g' (or none at all for fear of contamination)), the question of "They (the nebulous 'they') are only doing this to stick it to the Captain" will be there even if the decision for doing so has perfectly valid military reasons.

And incredibly, with a petulant toddler as the Commander in Chief, actual retaliation down the line isn't completely outside the realm of possibility.  So it sucks for him personally, but it's probably best that he 'not' be given command back.

/try to find enough Senators that aren't drunk to have a quorum, promote him to O-7 & let him pick his next duty station


Wouldn't promoting him have the same issues as reinstating him? You've got some valid points and a promotion might even get him some resentment among the brass who did remove him. I think the best solution might be either full retirement (with some extra time or something) or a quiet sinecure at some naval base with weather he enjoys. Though since he's used to commanding a carrier, he's probably not the kind of guy who wants to sit around.
 
2020-04-16 4:58:29 PM  

Recoil Therapy: Yeah, I don't know if that's such a good idea (drtfa so just going off the headline).  I'm firmly in the 'he shouldn't have been relieved in the first place' camp, however he was so here we are.  To reinstate him is an acknowledgement that the brass above him both didn't have confidence in him earlier & that they made a mistake by doing so.

Even if the crew wanted him back (& from what I've heard, that's not an unreasonable opinion), moving forward there would be a potential big morale/trust problem.  Anytime that the carrier had to do the unpopular 'x' because of 'y' (say staying at sea for a few extra months because the virus took down 'z' carrier, or they couldn't get shore leave at 'f' city but instead had to go to the much less popular 'g' (or none at all for fear of contamination)), the question of "They (the nebulous 'they') are only doing this to stick it to the Captain" will be there even if the decision for doing so has perfectly valid military reasons.

And incredibly, with a petulant toddler as the Commander in Chief, actual retaliation down the line isn't completely outside the realm of possibility.  So it sucks for him personally, but it's probably best that he 'not' be given command back.

/try to find enough Senators that aren't drunk to have a quorum, promote him to O-7 & let him pick his next duty station


The one case that can be made is that "the Brass always believed in him, it was intervention of a single member of civilian leadership that was inappropriate and with his departure both military and civilian leadership want to show faith in him"

Ideally I would look for an equivalent or step above command to move him to, but I don't k ow how feasible that is.
 
2020-04-16 4:58:46 PM  
What happened, did the administration find out he killed unarmed civilians?
 
2020-04-16 4:59:08 PM  
Anyone who has to write 4 pages to convince one man to do the right thing already knows the answer he'll get, and that's the tragedy of it.
 
2020-04-16 4:59:32 PM  
If he's smart he'll just retire, he made a lot of enemies when he did the right thing.
 
2020-04-16 4:59:43 PM  

lindalouwho: Farking Clown Shoes: Just wait until Commander-in-Chief Tittybaby hears about this.

A week and a half ago Trump suddenly started softening on the whole thing, saying he "may look into" the situation, and saying he heard good things about the guy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.co​m/2020/04/07/trump-may-look-into-case-​of-ousted-navy-captain-brett-crozier/a​mp/


Trump is going to demand he be reinstated then take credit for being a bigly Commander in chief who stocks up for soldiers.

His base will completely ignore the fact that it was one of Trump's own dipshiats who fired him in the first place.

The rest of us will watch with irritated confusion as Trump once again claims to be the hero in a situation which only existed because of his own incompetence.
 
2020-04-16 4:59:43 PM  

Recoil Therapy: Yeah, I don't know if that's such a good idea (drtfa so just going off the headline).  I'm firmly in the 'he shouldn't have been relieved in the first place' camp, however he was so here we are.  To reinstate him is an acknowledgement that the brass above him both didn't have confidence in him earlier & that they made a mistake by doing so.

Even if the crew wanted him back (& from what I've heard, that's not an unreasonable opinion), moving forward there would be a potential big morale/trust problem.  Anytime that the carrier had to do the unpopular 'x' because of 'y' (say staying at sea for a few extra months because the virus took down 'z' carrier, or they couldn't get shore leave at 'f' city but instead had to go to the much less popular 'g' (or none at all for fear of contamination)), the question of "They (the nebulous 'they') are only doing this to stick it to the Captain" will be there even if the decision for doing so has perfectly valid military reasons.

And incredibly, with a petulant toddler as the Commander in Chief, actual retaliation down the line isn't completely outside the realm of possibility.  So it sucks for him personally, but it's probably best that he 'not' be given command back.

/try to find enough Senators that aren't drunk to have a quorum, promote him to O-7 & let him pick his next duty station


I also do not like the idea of appeal to the media and the masses becoming the way of doing things in the government especially in the military. I mean a letter was leaked (by whoever leaked it) to the media in order to make a spectacle of the whole thing. then he was fired because he should have known the letter would leak. then asshole secretary ranted which got leaked to the media. seriously I do not want decisions being made based on "optics."
 
2020-04-16 5:00:53 PM  
What a well oiled machine they have going on.
I'm afraid of what would happen if we were attacked by someone. We've shown that we can't even get the basics right.
 
2020-04-16 5:01:35 PM  

lindalouwho: Farking Clown Shoes: Just wait until Commander-in-Chief Tittybaby hears about this.

A week and a half ago Trump suddenly started softening on the whole thing, saying he "may look into" the situation, and saying he heard good things about the guy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.co​m/2020/04/07/trump-may-look-into-case-​of-ousted-navy-captain-brett-crozier/a​mp/


shiat, Crozier must have done something terrible.
 
2020-04-16 5:01:56 PM  
Not to threadjack or anything but isn't Mango Mussolini having his daily campaign rally today?
 
2020-04-16 5:03:29 PM  

lindalouwho: Farking Clown Shoes: Just wait until Commander-in-Chief Tittybaby hears about this.

A week and a half ago Trump suddenly started softening on the whole thing, saying he "may look into" the situation, and saying he heard good things about the guy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.co​m/2020/04/07/trump-may-look-into-case-​of-ousted-navy-captain-brett-crozier/a​mp/


Because he saw his poll numbers drop, particularly among the military, and he's nothing if not begging for "real men" to treat him as one of their own.

This "wartime president" envies Purple Heart recipients, FFS, because all he sees is the attention and the medal, and couldn't begin to understand what it cost.

So, yeah, when enlisted sailors started openly jeering him, of course he's going to pull his usual bullshiat and try to blame someone else for it if it means he gets to paint himself as the "benevolent leader."

He's a fat farking fake-as-fark farkwit.
 
2020-04-16 5:03:37 PM  
That would be such a bad look for the administration.

So, it's probably gonna happen. Book it, done.
 
2020-04-16 5:04:55 PM  

mathamagical: His base will completely ignore the fact that it was one of Trump's own dipshiats who fired him in the first place.


I hope that a nice portion of the voting military does not ignore this fact
 
2020-04-16 5:07:16 PM  
There just ain't no way the orange idiot would let that slide. The best that could reasonably be hoped would be a quiet honorable discharge.
 
2020-04-16 5:07:42 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: What happened, did the administration find out he killed unarmed civilians?


More likely, the administration got slapped down and military leadership is taking control of the situation.

And the new Secretary of the Navy, I am sure there are significant issues with him (he is a Trump appointee, after all), but he is a career Navy officer (in JAG, but  still career navy) who spent 35 years in the military and retired a rear admiral. So he isn't likely to be as idiotic in how to treat sailors as Moldy is.
 
2020-04-16 5:10:20 PM  
He should commit a few war crimes; it would improve his chances.
 
2020-04-16 5:11:42 PM  

mathamagical: lindalouwho: Farking Clown Shoes: Just wait until Commander-in-Chief Tittybaby hears about this.

A week and a half ago Trump suddenly started softening on the whole thing, saying he "may look into" the situation, and saying he heard good things about the guy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.co​m/2020/04/07/trump-may-look-into-case-​of-ousted-navy-captain-brett-crozier/a​mp/

Trump is going to demand he be reinstated then take credit for being a bigly Commander in chief who stocks up for soldiers.

His base will completely ignore the fact that it was one of Trump's own dipshiats who fired him in the first place.

The rest of us will watch with irritated confusion as Trump once again claims to be the hero in a situation which only existed because of his own incompetence.


Pretty much what I thought when I read that article.
 
2020-04-16 5:12:02 PM  

Alebak: If he's smart he'll just retire, he made a lot of enemies when he did the right thing.


Retiring at 50 after he had command of a carrier for a few months?

F*ck that.
 
2020-04-16 5:12:59 PM  

dywed88: Peter von Nostrand: What happened, did the administration find out he killed unarmed civilians?

More likely, the administration got slapped down and military leadership is taking control of the situation.

And the new Secretary of the Navy, I am sure there are significant issues with him (he is a Trump appointee, after all), but he is a career Navy officer (in JAG, but  still career navy) who spent 35 years in the military and retired a rear admiral. So he isn't likely to be as idiotic in how to treat sailors as Moldy is.


Actually it turns out, as reported in the WAPO, he only sent the e-mail to three Admirals and the Sec. Nav.  Obviously it was Sec. Nav who then spread the word about it.  Sec. Nav needs to be sent to Leavenworth.  He flat out lied when he said it was sent to 20 or 30 people.
 
2020-04-16 5:13:14 PM  

Farking Clown Shoes: Just wait until Commander-in-Chief Tittybaby hears about this.


He will immediately take credit, claiming he initiated it.
 
2020-04-16 5:14:33 PM  
olorin604:

I also do not like the idea of appeal to the media and the masses becoming the way of doing things in the government especially in the military. I mean a letter was leaked (by whoever leaked it) to the media in order to make a spectacle of the whole thing. then he was fired because he should have known the letter would leak. then asshole secretary ranted which got leaked to the media. seriously I do not want decisions being made based on "optics."

Considering that his Government was committing his crew to full-on exposure to COVID, with all the resulting fun that involves, Crozier did exactly the right thing and saved lives. 

His Government and upper chain of command ignored him. Repeatedly. More lives could have been saved had they reacted properly. But they chose not to. Including the acting SecNav who during his tirade speech as Crozier disembarked, called COVID a "Hoax". 

So, no. Fark the Trump Government. Expecting bad-faith players to play fair will get you killed.
 
2020-04-16 5:16:28 PM  
Modly who was responsible for sacking Crozier, has been sacked.
 
2020-04-16 5:16:32 PM  
Damn, Skippy
 
2020-04-16 5:18:50 PM  
If Capt. Crozier gets a full 100% exoneration from the investigation, then sure, give him his command back. Anything less, then he has to stay gone. Even if the acting SecNav was an idiot, and he was, his decision to remove the CO was within his authority and he certainly didn't owe the crew an explanation as to why he did it. If he gets reinstated with less than a full exoneration, it undermines the authority of the office of the secretary of the navy for all future holders of the position.
 
2020-04-16 5:19:07 PM  

blondambition: Not to threadjack or anything but isn't Mango Mussolini having his daily campaign rally today?


https://www.fark.com/comments/1078226​8​?from_page=TFgreenlit

Not scheduled til 6, not that it ever started at 5 anyway.
 
2020-04-16 5:22:01 PM  

Recoil Therapy: Yeah, I don't know if that's such a good idea (drtfa so just going off the headline).  I'm firmly in the 'he shouldn't have been relieved in the first place' camp, however he was so here we are.  To reinstate him is an acknowledgement that the brass above him both didn't have confidence in him earlier & that they made a mistake by doing so.

Even if the crew wanted him back (& from what I've heard, that's not an unreasonable opinion), moving forward there would be a potential big morale/trust problem.  Anytime that the carrier had to do the unpopular 'x' because of 'y' (say staying at sea for a few extra months because the virus took down 'z' carrier, or they couldn't get shore leave at 'f' city but instead had to go to the much less popular 'g' (or none at all for fear of contamination)), the question of "They (the nebulous 'they') are only doing this to stick it to the Captain" will be there even if the decision for doing so has perfectly valid military reasons.

And incredibly, with a petulant toddler as the Commander in Chief, actual retaliation down the line isn't completely outside the realm of possibility.  So it sucks for him personally, but it's probably best that he 'not' be given command back.

/try to find enough Senators that aren't drunk to have a quorum, promote him to O-7 & let him pick his next duty station


Concur. Move him into the Pentagon, but realistically...wait for it....that ship has sailed.
 
2020-04-16 5:24:39 PM  

Porkbelly: dywed88: Peter von Nostrand: What happened, did the administration find out he killed unarmed civilians?

More likely, the administration got slapped down and military leadership is taking control of the situation.

And the new Secretary of the Navy, I am sure there are significant issues with him (he is a Trump appointee, after all), but he is a career Navy officer (in JAG, but  still career navy) who spent 35 years in the military and retired a rear admiral. So he isn't likely to be as idiotic in how to treat sailors as Moldy is.

Actually it turns out, as reported in the WAPO, he only sent the e-mail to three Admirals and the Sec. Nav.  Obviously it was Sec. Nav who then spread the word about it.  Sec. Nav needs to be sent to Leavenworth.  He flat out lied when he said it was sent to 20 or 30 people.


I seriously doubt Moldy leaked it. The guy was a Trump today through and through and leaking it was clearly bad for Trump. Maybe he accidentally put someone decent on his staff that leaked it, but he didn't. Whoever leaked it cared about the sailors on that ship, Moldy clearly did not.
 
2020-04-16 5:26:11 PM  

dywed88: Porkbelly: dywed88: Peter von Nostrand: What happened, did the administration find out he killed unarmed civilians?

More likely, the administration got slapped down and military leadership is taking control of the situation.

And the new Secretary of the Navy, I am sure there are significant issues with him (he is a Trump appointee, after all), but he is a career Navy officer (in JAG, but  still career navy) who spent 35 years in the military and retired a rear admiral. So he isn't likely to be as idiotic in how to treat sailors as Moldy is.

Actually it turns out, as reported in the WAPO, he only sent the e-mail to three Admirals and the Sec. Nav.  Obviously it was Sec. Nav who then spread the word about it.  Sec. Nav needs to be sent to Leavenworth.  He flat out lied when he said it was sent to 20 or 30 people.

I seriously doubt Moldy leaked it. The guy was a Trump today through and through and leaking it was clearly bad for Trump. Maybe he accidentally put someone decent on his staff that leaked it, but he didn't. Whoever leaked it cared about the sailors on that ship, Moldy clearly did not.


Whoops, sorry I misread your post. You meant to say the SecNav spread it around the Navy from which it leaked, that is possible but it could be the admirals or staff members. I am sure every email sent to a senior admiral or SecNav is seen by at least one staff member.
 
2020-04-16 5:29:02 PM  

lindalouwho: blondambition: Not to threadjack or anything but isn't Mango Mussolini having his daily campaign rally today?

https://www.fark.com/comments/10782268​?from_page=TFgreenlit

Not scheduled til 6, not that it ever started at 5 anyway.


Thanks!
 
2020-04-16 5:30:08 PM  
 
2020-04-16 5:31:49 PM  

dywed88: dywed88: Porkbelly: dywed88: Peter von Nostrand: What happened, did the administration find out he killed unarmed civilians?

More likely, the administration got slapped down and military leadership is taking control of the situation.

And the new Secretary of the Navy, I am sure there are significant issues with him (he is a Trump appointee, after all), but he is a career Navy officer (in JAG, but  still career navy) who spent 35 years in the military and retired a rear admiral. So he isn't likely to be as idiotic in how to treat sailors as Moldy is.

Actually it turns out, as reported in the WAPO, he only sent the e-mail to three Admirals and the Sec. Nav.  Obviously it was Sec. Nav who then spread the word about it.  Sec. Nav needs to be sent to Leavenworth.  He flat out lied when he said it was sent to 20 or 30 people.

I seriously doubt Moldy leaked it. The guy was a Trump today through and through and leaking it was clearly bad for Trump. Maybe he accidentally put someone decent on his staff that leaked it, but he didn't. Whoever leaked it cared about the sailors on that ship, Moldy clearly did not.

Whoops, sorry I misread your post. You meant to say the SecNav spread it around the Navy from which it leaked, that is possible but it could be the admirals or staff members. I am sure every email sent to a senior admiral or SecNav is seen by at least one staff member.


I'll give you a pass; clearly the Sec. Nav. leaked it by passing it around, who let it out to the general public is another egg and chicken discussion.
 
2020-04-16 6:12:14 PM  
Seems like a big indicator that someone outside of the Navy leaked that letter.

Possibly someone inside the administration?
 
2020-04-16 6:13:35 PM  
i'd get onboard shut down coms , kidnap all woman in guam then head to the Pitcairn island. trump would respect that move.
 
2020-04-16 6:16:00 PM  

Phins: This says a lot: "Other senior officers wanted to co-sign Crozier's letter, but he declined saying the burden was his alone to bear."


Saddle your own horses, shoot your own snakes.
 
2020-04-16 6:18:21 PM  

Recoil Therapy: Yeah, I don't know if that's such a good idea (drtfa so just going off the headline).  I'm firmly in the 'he shouldn't have been relieved in the first place' camp, however he was so here we are.  To reinstate him is an acknowledgement that the brass above him both didn't have confidence in him earlier & that they made a mistake by doing so.

Even if the crew wanted him back (& from what I've heard, that's not an unreasonable opinion), moving forward there would be a potential big morale/trust problem.  Anytime that the carrier had to do the unpopular 'x' because of 'y' (say staying at sea for a few extra months because the virus took down 'z' carrier, or they couldn't get shore leave at 'f' city but instead had to go to the much less popular 'g' (or none at all for fear of contamination)), the question of "They (the nebulous 'they') are only doing this to stick it to the Captain" will be there even if the decision for doing so has perfectly valid military reasons.

And incredibly, with a petulant toddler as the Commander in Chief, actual retaliation down the line isn't completely outside the realm of possibility.  So it sucks for him personally, but it's probably best that he 'not' be given command back.

/try to find enough Senators that aren't drunk to have a quorum, promote him to O-7 & let him pick his next duty station


While I agree with you that he should not have been removed in the first place, my incomplete understanding of matters like this tell me that reinstating him to his previous command may be a mistake in protocol. Perhaps putting him to the top of the assignment list for the next ship that is in need of hey Captain would be best.

These are such unique times with such a marked deficit of leadership from our government officials I don't know if there is a single right resolution.
 
2020-04-16 6:24:47 PM  

The5thElement: If Capt. Crozier gets a full 100% exoneration from the investigation, then sure, give him his command back. Anything less, then he has to stay gone. Even if the acting SecNav was an idiot, and he was, his decision to remove the CO was within his authority and he certainly didn't owe the crew an explanation as to why he did it. If he gets reinstated with less than a full exoneration, it undermines the authority of the office of the secretary of the navy for all future holders of the position.


The office was undermined when the chickenshiat Trump appointee unjustly relieved Capt. Crozier.

It can get overmined again as soon as the orange Cheeto stains are washed out of the Oval Office.
 
2020-04-16 6:31:44 PM  
What? Reinstate someone who is competent and has the admiration of his crew? That doesn't seem like something this administration would do.
 
2020-04-16 6:31:56 PM  
Captain Crozier should demand that a full investigation take place before he goes to his next duty station.  The investigation would be to track down how the email was leaked and who specifically did it.  He can argue that until that leak is found and dealt with by the navy then there is the potential for more material to be leaked in a similar manner, that the Navy has no control over.

Captain Crozier has name recognition now and has a lot of goodwill for putting the care of his crew first.  Imagine the reaction if he made an announcement that the US Navy has decided to completely drop the investigation into how the email was leaked.  How much trust would be lost in the Navy chain of command
 
2020-04-16 6:33:23 PM  

Phins: This says a lot: "Other senior officers wanted to co-sign Crozier's letter, but he declined saying the burden was his alone to bear."


Sounds like the kind of captain people want to serve under
 
2020-04-16 6:34:14 PM  

The5thElement: If Capt. Crozier gets a full 100% exoneration from the investigation, then sure, give him his command back. Anything less, then he has to stay gone. Even if the acting SecNav was an idiot, and he was, his decision to remove the CO was within his authority and he certainly didn't owe the crew an explanation as to why he did it. If he gets reinstated with less than a full exoneration, it undermines the authority of the office of the secretary of the navy for all future holders of the position.


No, our mafia boss POTUS is the person who has undermined that and other positions of authority across our nation's government by appointing poorly qualified or patently unqualified, partisan loyalists with poor impulse control to important positions - like the Secretary of the Navy. That and Modly undermined the authority of the office with his poor judgement, unprofessional behavior, wasteful largess, and naked partisan politicizing of his position.

Reinstating him wouldn't undermine that authority, simply make it clear that the remaining leadership at the Pentagon will at least try to do the right thing, even if our current civilian leadership is a farking mobbed-up dumpster fire.
 
2020-04-16 8:02:38 PM  

lindalouwho: Farking Clown Shoes: Just wait until Commander-in-Chief Tittybaby hears about this.

A week and a half ago Trump suddenly started softening on the whole thing, saying he "may look into" the situation, and saying he heard good things about the guy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.co​m/2020/04/07/trump-may-look-into-case-​of-ousted-navy-captain-brett-crozier/a​mp/


"I heard about him on Epstein island!"
 
2020-04-16 9:57:52 PM  

oldernell: He should take it, work 1 day and then retire.


Why retire? Dude is still in the ranks.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.