Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Maybe he's pre-elderly and kindly with only the best intentions and sees himself in a different light?  That matters, don't it Frank? 

Let's ask former Special Counsel Robert Hur.

Oh wait, he now works for Harvard.

Posted
23 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

It's come to a point where Hegseth's defense is incomprehensible.

He got the info on a secured classified/closed network.

He then summarized it and passed it along through his iphone.

Everyone - EVERYONE - who gets a security clearance is taught that you can't do this.

Hillary?

Posted
4 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

you should put a trademark on this.  How bout you just give a thumbs up or down, caesar style, to Hegseth?

 

Perhaps you should stop telling people what to do.

 

I don't know enough about the changes at DOD to do that, and I really doubt anyone here does either.

I do know that the previous DOD and senior Pentagon people were not well thought of by the people in positions I am familiar with, and they had a bit of the Vietnam control from Washington going on, where there was significant disagreement between the guys with the triggers and the suits in DC, and that is never good.

 

Hegseth was a strange and risky choice, but he expressed solidarity with Trump in getting the war fighting aspect back instead of this insane social experimentation that was going on in both training and appointees.

 

It's too early for me to have an opinion on him, except to be displeased at these stupid mistakes that thankfully had no consequences.

  • Disagree 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Perhaps you should stop telling people what to do.

 

I don't know enough about the changes at DOD to do that, and I really doubt anyone here does either.

I do know that the previous DOD and senior Pentagon people were not well thought of by the people in positions I am familiar with, and they had a bit of the Vietnam control from Washington going on, where there was significant disagreement between the guys with the triggers and the suits in DC, and that is never good.

 

Hegseth was a strange and risky choice, but he expressed solidarity with Trump in getting the war fighting aspect back instead of this insane social experimentation that was going on in both training and appointees.

 

It's too early for me to have an opinion on him, except to be displeased at these stupid mistakes that thankfully had no consequences.

Fire or not.  is sharing pentagon war plans with your wife fireable?  He hasn't denied doing it.  You said it can't happ[en".  what else do you need to know?

Posted
6 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

Fire or not.  is sharing pentagon war plans with your wife fireable?  He hasn't denied doing it.  You said it can't happ[en".  what else do you need to know?

 

It's been happening since war was invented.

That is not to say it is OK, or should be tolerated, but if you fired everyone who shared info with a spouse you wouldn't have anybody left.

 

Again, condemnable, but if it ends now, I'm over it as I think we have have far more serious things to worry about.

The press loves the story because it's easy and requires no knowledge of actual import, but, if it was related to a strike where any level of capable integrated air defense was in opposition, I would be very disturbed.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

It's been happening since war was invented.

That is not to say it is OK, or should be tolerated, but if you fired everyone who shared info with a spouse you wouldn't have anybody left.

 

Again, condemnable, but if it ends now, I'm over it as I think we have have far more serious things to worry about.

The press loves the story because it's easy and requires no knowledge of actual import, but, if it was related to a strike where any level of capable integrated air defense was in opposition, I would be very disturbed.

 

 

maybd because he's the head of DoD and his example is very important?

Posted
13 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

maybd because he's the head of DoD and his example is very important?

 

People in senior positions don't need to have an "example."

Doing this, if he did it intentionally, and I think there is some question, is a stupid, irresponsible action, but these folks in senior positions don't need to be led by example. They kind of know what they're doing after 30 years.

 

What they do need is sensible, rational policy, and choosing leaders based on record of performance instead of gender and ID politics.

Posted
1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

It's come to a point where Hegseth's defense is incomprehensible.

He got the info on a secured classified/closed network.

He then summarized it and passed it along through his iphone.

Everyone - EVERYONE - who gets a security clearance is taught that you can't do this.

 

And everyone's told you can't take classified material/home with you when you leave office.  Yet...

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

People in senior positions don't need to have an "example."

Doing this, if he did it intentionally, and I think there is some question, is a stupid, irresponsible action, but these folks in senior positions don't need to be led by example. They kind of know what they're doing after 30 years.

 

What they do need is sensible, rational policy, and choosing leaders based on record of performance instead of gender and ID politics.

He needs to BE an example.  to the grunts and everyone else.  He clearly didn't kinda know what he was doing.

 

And your point about no one being able to keep secrets from their wives?  How do you think Mossad spies ( perhaps Epstein) would fare if they told their wives their secrets.  Cold war spies on our side or the Russian side?  Heck, there was a real spy family that "The Americans" was based on.  The kids had no idea the parent s were Russian spies living in American suburbia.  How long would they have been assets if the couldn't keep secrets?  yet, Hegseth gets a pass from you...

Edited by Joe Ferguson forever
Posted
5 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

He needs to BE an example.  to the grunts and everyone else.  He clearly didn't kinda know what he was doing.

 

And your point about no one being able to keep secrets from their wives?  How do you think Mossad spies ( perhaps Epstein) would fare if they told their wives their secrets.  Cold war spies on our side or the Russian side?  Heck, there was a real spy family that "The Americans" was based on.  The kids had no idea the parent s were Russian spies living in American suburbia.  How long would they have been assets if the couldn't keep secrets?  yet, Hegseth gets a pass from you...

No. Wrong again.

Hegseth gets no pass from me.

 

The "grunts" as you call them don't need a SecDef as an example.

They need to be trained, prepared, equipped and deployed capably and honestly.

Most couldn't name the SecDef, and that is fine.

 

I think you are amazingly naive about this.

There are secrets and there are secrets.

Your comparison of this to Mossad is ridiculous, and I guarantee you the SecDef is in possession of far more things that would climb the ladder to your analogy which he wouldn't disclose. Didn't happen.

 

Again, I have no interest in defending the guy, and couldn't care less about him personally, but firing him?

 

I say that with the caveat that I really don't know what the second circumstance was, and if he has a defense, I'm willing to listen rather than send him out to the firing squad because, be assured, there are entrenched individuals who will do whatever they can to avoid upsetting the status quo.

 

Just like illegal immigration, DOD is an independent industry that seeks to maintain their current circumstance. 

 

 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, sherpa said:

No. Wrong again.

Hegseth gets no pass from me.

 

The "grunts" as you call them don't need a SecDef as an example.

They need to be trained, prepared, equipped and deployed capably and honestly.

Most couldn't name the SecDef, and that is fine.

 

I think you are amazingly naive about this.

There are secrets and there are secrets.

Your comparison of this to Mossad is ridiculous, and I guarantee you the SecDef is in possession of far more things that would climb the ladder to your analogy which he wouldn't disclose. Didn't happen.

 

Again, I have no interest in defending the guy, and couldn't care less about him personally, but firing him?

 

I say that with the caveat that I really don't know what the second circumstance was, and if he has a defense, I'm willing to listen rather than send him out to the firing squad because, be assured, there are entrenched individuals who will do whatever they can to avoid upsetting the status quo.

 

Just like illegal immigration, DOD is an independent industry that seeks to maintain their current circumstance. 

 

 

Seems to me battle plans are pretty important to keep secret, immediate consequences or not. But at least you made a choice - thumbs up for the tv host!  My dad was a WW2  veteran. He used to say “ loose lips sink ships”. Is that not a thing anymore?

Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

Seems to me battle plans are pretty important to keep secret, immediate consequences or not. But at least you made a choice - thumbs up for the tv host!  My dad was a WW2  veteran. He used to say “ loose lips sink ships”. Is that not a thing anymore?

 

This is so typical of your stuff and the stuff that gets put out here all the time.

This, or these, were strikes against a country which has no air defense.

There is no evidence, anywhere, that such information effected anything.

 

You have two carriers in the Red Sea. That's a pretty small body of water with a lot of ships and a few belligerents who could have clearly seen the arming and positioning for the strike.

 

I'm not excusing the idiocy of putting this on unsecured social media. What I am saying is that it had no influence on anything.

 

Comparing this to any serious strike against a target that had significant anti air defenses is silly.

 

The guy screwed up. It amounted to nothing.

I don't excuse him for that, but I think comparing it to anything of a serious nature is wacky politics at play, as always.

 

If the second charge is true, and not accidental, get rid of him.

If not, get over it and be glad that we are finally doing something that makes sense, saves airplanes, shipping and lives, which we absolutely weren't under the previous group of who knows who making decisions. 

 

And by the way, with all the crap thrown around here, I have never seen anybody, ever dispute what I have stated about the strategy involved, which is far more important than Hegseth's stuff.

That is what matters. That is what I have posted on, repeatedly.

Never seems to be an issue with folks here.

 

It's all about getting political pound of flesh, and not what matters.

Edited by sherpa
typo
  • Disagree 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, sherpa said:

 

This is so typical of your stuff and the stuff that gets put out here all the time.

This, or these, were strikes against a country which has no air defense.

There is no evidence, anywhere, that such information effected anything.

 

You have two carriers in the Red Sea. That's a pretty small body of water with a lot of ships and a few belligerents who could have clearly seen the arming and positioning for the strike.

 

I'm not excusing the idiocy of putting this on unsecured social media. What I am saying is that it had no influence on anything.

 

Comparing this to any serious strike against a target that had significant anti air defenses is silly.

 

The guy screwed up. It amounted to nothing.

I don't excuse him for that, but I think comparing it to anything of a serious nature is wacky politics at play, as always.

 

If the second charge is true, and not accidental, get rid of him.

If not, get over it and be glad that we are finally doing something that makes sense, saves airplanes, shipping and lives, which we absolutely weren't under the previous group of who knows who making decisions. 

 

And by the way, with all the crap thrown around here, I have never seen anybody, ever dispute what I have stated about the strategy involved, which is far more important than Hegseth's stuff.

That is what matters. That is what I have posted on, repeatedly.

Never seems to be an issue with folks here.

 

It's all about getting political pound of flesh, and not what matters.

Do you see a denial of the meeting with his wife and brother here?  Have you seen one anywhere.  I strongly suspect the NYT have the transcripts.  Just like the Atlantic.

A spokesperson for the Pentagon, Sean Parnell, said in a tweet Sunday night that “there was no classified information in any Signal chat.”

Following the release of the report, the Pentagon’s top official took to X on Sunday evening to rail against Democrats, replying to a tweet from the Democratic National Committee calling for Hegseth’s ousting. In the first public response since the news broke, Hegseth replied via his personal X account: “Your agenda is illegals, trans & DEI — all of which are no longer allowed” at the Defense Department.

On Monday morning, Hegseth attacked leakers and slammed the media.

 

So is that phrase in regular use in the service.  It's good advice in general.

https://english-grammar-lessons.com/loose-lips-sink-ships-meaning/

 

Edited by Joe Ferguson forever
Posted
1 hour ago, Big Blitz said:

Lol this thread hahaha 

Fergie’s use of the term “grunts” has been my favorite part thus far.  It gives him some legitimate street cred with the podiatrists in his pickleball protest circle, but comes off a bit tinny here.  

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Fergie’s use of the term “grunts” has been my favorite part thus far.  It gives him some legitimate street cred with the podiatrists in his pickleball protest circle, but comes off a bit tinny here.  

This is platinum!  well done.

 

have you tried pickleball?  I mean, it's a revelation.  you know, it's not just older women bouncing around...I know two podiatrists.  husband and wife partners.  nasty divorce which I hate.  nice people.

Posted

I'm not sure one way or another about Hegseth and his conduct because for one, I don't trust the sources pointing out indiscretions. To say they hate the Trump administration is an understatement. They lack objectivity. Saying that I'm not arguing proponents of the administration do.

But it clear to me that given the time bound nature of this "secret" plan the value of the information to any nefarious actor went to useless once the attack was executed. 

About as useful as an offense's play call would be to a football defense telling them the play is a screen pass after the play was over.

Posted
19 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I'm not sure one way or another about Hegseth and his conduct because for one, I don't trust the sources pointing out indiscretions. To say they hate the Trump administration is an understatement. They lack objectivity. Saying that I'm not arguing proponents of the administration do.

But it clear to me that given the time bound nature of this "secret" plan the value of the information to any nefarious actor went to useless once the attack was executed. 

About as useful as an offense's play call would be to a football defense telling them the play is a screen pass after the play was over.

more like belichick saying "watch these dummies twitter accounts".  then stealing signs to co9nrirm their posts.

×
×
  • Create New...