home

Hillary For SecDef?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:31:26 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Beltway catnip:

Speculation in the nation's capital on who will replace Robert Gates at the Pentagon has centered on an intriguing possibility: Hillary Rodham Clinton. Gates told Foreign Policy magazine that he wants to step down as secretary of Defense sometime in 2011. The appointment of Clinton to replace Gates would be historic. The former first lady and presidential candidate would be the first woman to serve as Defense secretary and only the second person – after George C. Marshall – to have served as both secretary of State and Defense. “That might appeal to her,” [Les] Gelb said.

That would not appeal to me. We need Hillary to run for President in 2016. She can't do the SecDef job through, say 2014, and then run for President. Not enough time. Wes Clark for SecDef!

Speaking for me only

< Progressive Agenda: How About Some Progressive Taxation? | Blagojevich Verdict Imminent? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary For SecDef? | 91 comments (91 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The haters should love this (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:37:06 PM EST
    Then Hillary would be responsible for all those covert ops that Obama doesn't want to sign off on now anymore and be personally responsible for.  We always knew Hillary is just that evil and despicable.

    My opinion, when compared to her competency as Sec of State....she would suck at this job.  But if she was really good at it, it would prove so many people correct about her :)

    More time at State (none / 0) (#4)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:39:43 PM EST
    through 2013 is better for her--and probably us.....

    She would have 4 or so years at State, then time to rest up, then time to run.....

    If she takes SecDef, then it would be hard to run in 2016.

    Parent

    The libs figured out how to wing (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:48:21 PM EST
    Petraeus.  Would Obama want to wing Hillary in favor of Sebelius?  But the Pentagon does not want Hillary in any other place other than the one she is in.  Who would they lobby for I wonder?  I can see Obama going to Clark easily.  Obama does not want the long term goals of David Petraeus, but he doesn't have anyone to argue a different path for him credibly, intelligently, thoughtfully, humanely.  Clark doesn't want anything longterm either in Afghanistan and has said so, he wants a plan out.  Clark and Petraeus would have a soldierly arm wrestling contest that would never ever put the mission in jeopardy as the Holbrooke and Eikenberry infighting over Afghanistan did.  I think BTD is onto something.

    Parent
    Clark would have to be helped (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 03:53:13 PM EST
    out from under the bus first.  Remember?

    Parent
    He's a soldier (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:36:35 PM EST
    They are stupidly forgiving when it comes to work :)  If asked to save his country again, I think he'd do it.

    Parent
    Oh, he would (none / 0) (#84)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:20:22 PM EST
    I'm saying they won't offer in a million years.

    Parent
    I'm not sure (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:36:14 PM EST
    When it comes to Obama dealing with Petraeus, I don't think he has a better choice out there than Clark.  Clark is probably the only existing military contemporary who could sit down at the table with Petraeus and hash out a plan for Afghanistan that would incorporate Obama's shorter term desires.

    As is, Petraeus is "saving" another President and in doing so he literally gets to write the rules on this.  Petraeus is part of the "new breed" of military.  I think it is safe to say that Clark is also a founding member of the "new breed" of military....a military that conducts itself with much concern toward humanitary actions at all times and collateral damages......and is equally intelligent about what can be accomplished and how best to do that.  Clark has also proven his own military brilliance during military actions. I would not be surprised to see Clark get tapped for this.  Encouraging infighting between State Department Holbrooke and Eikenberry with military leadership will not cut it anymore in reining in a nation building agenda because it has in the past placed the actual mission at risk by creating chaos and factions.  Clark would never encourage or allow such a thing while ironing certain details out.

    Parent

    I have often wondered where Clark went. (none / 0) (#86)
    by hairspray on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:37:44 PM EST
    It was like he dropped from the earth.  Frankly his sin didn't seem so terrible, so what was all the brouhaha about?  I wanted him for Secretary of Defense or if Hillary became  President, I thought he would make a great Sec of State. I heard he was not able to run for Defense because of a 10 year rule about leaving the military and running the dept of defense.  That is over now.

    Parent
    Seven years (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:49:30 PM EST
    I think he's beyond that now

    Parent
    10 Years (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 01:25:14 AM EST
    That is why he was ruled out when Obama became POTUS. The conventional thinking was that after 2 years in office, Clark would have been out of service for 10 years and he would become SOD.

    Parent
    It is seven years (none / 0) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 10:17:55 AM EST


    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#92)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 11:14:35 AM EST
    Argue that with BTD (above link).... And it was certainly not him alone, in 2008, that pointed out Clark's ineligiblity for SOD because he had to wait until 2010.

    Parent
    I don't argue with BTD (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 11:20:31 AM EST
    That's stupid :)

    Parent
    You May Want Her to Run in 2016 (none / 0) (#57)
    by msaroff on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:54:26 PM EST
    But she won't.  She has shot her bolt.

    She would be almost as old as Ronald Reagan was when he became president.

    As for me, I'm more ambitious.  I'm not working for anyone in 2016, I want Alan Grayson in 2012.

    Parent

    Grayson in 2012 (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 03:20:44 PM EST
    oh yeah
    thats a sure shot

    Parent
    Settling for Someone Conciliatory and Well Spoken (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by msaroff on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 03:57:10 PM EST
    Has worked out so well, hasn't it.

    Parent
    I actually think (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:23:14 PM EST
    he might be a good president.  but that doesnt mean I want him to run.  kdog would make a good president but I dont what him to be the nominee.
    no offense kdog.


    Parent
    P.S. if you have Wes Clark (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:39:22 PM EST
    as Sec of Def you could actually win something BTD.  You are just another warmonger looking for new ways to make war look good :)  I'm so disappointed in you

    IMO better chance for her if she became VP (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Saul on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:43:53 PM EST
    in 2012 provided Obama wins.  To me that is a more direct step to 2016 then waiting to run in 2016.  As a rule the VP is the heir apparent and has more clout in running than just another candidate deciding to run in 2016

    Biden should not run in 2012 and let Hilary be Obama's VP running mate.

    I think that role would not suit her at all (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by sj on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:15:29 PM EST
    She needs to be productive.

    Parent
    I don't love the idea (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:44:06 PM EST
    but she's clearly easily confirmable.

    I have mixed feelings (none / 0) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 03:56:35 PM EST
    A female secdef, particularly one who used to be first lady, would seriously turn some parts of the world on its head.  It's the ultimate macho job in the U.S. government, and a very major serious glass ceiling we really haven't even imagined being able to break.

    I would also just on personal terms like HRC to be truly historic, not just in an "Oh, yeah, she came real close in the primaries" way.

    Parent

    I'd say the ultimate macho job (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:35:10 PM EST
    in the US guvmint is still the presidency...for those with the spine to fight for their values.

    Parent
    I just hope the next SoD (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:51:56 PM EST
    is a Dem. Is that too much to ask?

    Why I care anymore about the reputation of Dems, I don't know, but I think the trend that the SoD be a Republican is dangerous.

    also (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    I would like to see a female SecDef.
    maybe Jane Harmon.

    ah
    maybe not.


    Parent

    I hope it is not someone with (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:24:38 PM EST
    only legislative experience. I really think that department takes a managerial type. I'm with BTD on the Wes Clark idea.

    Having said that, I just know it is going to be Joe Lieberman and I am going to gag.

    Parent

    His reward for taking the heat (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:07:11 PM EST
    for killing any type of "public option?"

    Parent
    oh man! (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:36:24 PM EST
    I just ate

    Parent
    Yeeeesh! (none / 0) (#36)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:01:18 PM EST
    Me, too (late lunch).  Where's the Pepto Bismol?

    Parent
    Please don't do that (none / 0) (#70)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 03:58:25 PM EST
    to my computer screen.

    Parent
    Jane Harmon (none / 0) (#94)
    by KD on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 01:12:54 PM EST
    She'd get a good review in Newsweek, I'll bet!

    Parent
    I just hope the next SoD (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:52:12 PM EST
    is a Dem. Is that too much to ask?

    Why I care anymore about the reputation of Dems, I don't know, but I think the trend that the SoD be a Republican is dangerous.

    so nice (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:04:39 PM EST
    I rated it twice

    Parent
    Ha! don't know how that happened! (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:14:48 PM EST
    I thought I only hit Post once. Computer was real slow though, so maybe it or I goofed up

    Parent
    Not a good idea, in my view. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:58:04 PM EST
    The only way Hillary Clinton would be acceptable to the military brass and their Republican friends would be for her to become even more hawkish.  As soon as she went from being a fierce advocate to an advocate for sustaining Pentagon budgets, she would be pilloried.  With 20ll being near to 2012, I would guess that President Obama would be looking for a very safe choice--say, plucking Colin Powell out of retirement, or, even, cranking up old Sam Nunn.

    They like Hillary just fine (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:03:31 PM EST
    In fact they love her.  I think if you sent out a Pentagon senseless survey she would show up as #1 of the most loved.  She takes up for their needs all of the time and we all know this.  She is more useful though to the Pentagon where she is.  Why fix what is working perfectly?

    Parent
    She had a lot of generals (none / 0) (#87)
    by hairspray on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:42:21 PM EST
    endorsing her during the primaries and they were generals that I liked.

    Parent
    To my mind, (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:10:03 PM EST
    we need Hillary to run for president in 2012.

    Don't hold your breath (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:05:22 PM EST
    I'm a big HRC fan myself, but I have to say that the HRC fans who think there's the slightest sliver of a possibility she would challenge Obama for the nomination in 2012 have no idea who she actually is.

    Parent
    Not a done deal (none / 0) (#72)
    by sonya on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:21:11 PM EST
    that he'll run for reelection.  A lot can happen between now and then.

    Parent
    Yes, but a first term prez (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:35:34 PM EST
    running for re-elect is about as certain a thing in politics that there is.  

    It'll be Obama running again in 2012.

    My question there, much more of an interesting and relevant one than what might happen several lifetimes from now in 2016, is whether, if re-elect prospects look shaky, O decides to replace Biden with Hillary.  I'd be on board for that one, given those circumstances.

    Parent

    There's only three things for sure: (none / 0) (#79)
    by sonya on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:49:59 PM EST
    Taxes,death and trouble.

    Hillary would have to be a fool to be his VP, and she's nobody's fool.

    Parent

    A lot can happen (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:56:20 PM EST
    in politics in just a year or so.  How many in June 2008 could have predicted that in 5 months she would end up being O's SoS?

    Imagine a lousy midterm election for Dems, and an economy in the next 18 months that is still badly in the doldrums with unemployment and foreclosures still ridiculously high.  The polling shows Obama's re-elect #s vs just about any GOP hopeful as being dangerously in the red.

    Clearly a shakeup is needed, something major that could change the dynamics of a campaign.

    Enter Hillary ...

    Parent

    Hil in 2012 (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Missblu on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 03:14:38 PM EST
    No time to waste for her.  She needs to announce after Christmas that she is headed home to spend more time with her aged mother.  After about 2 months she gears up with those who are just waiting to go. She has done more than enough to show her loyalty to a party that really were unbelievably unfair to her.

    I agree, I would love to see Hillary (none / 0) (#1)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:35:15 PM EST
    run for potus in 2016.

    how about (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:45:32 PM EST
    Bubba?

    "Bill Clinton's military!" (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:47:36 PM EST
    I love it, but I think he's out of the .gov job game for good.

    Parent
    but just (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:17:09 PM EST
    think of the landscape of exploded right wing heads!

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:56:17 PM EST
    Probably constitutionally murky, as he would be in line of succession, and he can't serve as POTUS again.

    Parent
    Wasn't it Albright (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:34:10 PM EST
    Who was not eligible to be president because she was born in another country?

    You can be in a position in line to the presidency without being eligible to be president.  They would just skip you over.

    Parent

    I dont believe that is correct (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:10:23 PM EST
    is it not that he cant run and be elected again?


    Parent
    That's why it's murky (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:29:05 PM EST
    The 22nd Amendment says:

    22nd Amendment: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.
    .

    But the 12th Amendment says that no person who is constitutionally ineligible to be VP (which would then also include those in the line of succession).

    There is no answer, as it hasn't been tested, but it would be a whole lotta drama!

    Parent

    This came up in 2008 (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:31:17 PM EST
    When pundits were speculating if Bill could become VP if Hillary became President.

    Parent
    The Sec. Def. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:24:44 PM EST
    is pretty low in the line of succession to the Presidency (#6).  At any rate, I don't think this would be a Constitutional issue.  Henry Kissinger was Secretary of State (#4 in the line of succession), and he would not have been eligible to run for President because he was not born here.  I am no expert, but I don't think the Constitution addresses the issue of the eligibility to run for the office of POTUS of all those in the line of succession to the office (which would include the V.P., Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and all the Cabinet Secretaries).

    Parent
    If there's one person who could wait until late (none / 0) (#8)
    by steviez314 on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:46:35 PM EST
    2014 to announce a presidential run, it would be her.  I think everyone's heard of her :)

    I think she'd be able to get her organization back together fairly quickly.  I doubt, given a sitting Dem president, that they'd be quick to sign up with a candidate.

    And if Mark Penn does commit elsewhere, oh well.

    Wait until 2014, and (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:48:46 PM EST
    probably then some.

    My thinking is, if she does have inclinations to run again for 2016, she still might not want to repeat the marathon, grueling 18 months or so of campaigning leading up to Iowa that she underwent for the 08 cycle.  All the more so given her age a few yrs from now.  

    She'll either get in very late, or use a sitting VP position to basically not have much primary competition.  

    SecDef is possible, but right now it's fraught with pitfalls as it's tied to the unpopular Afghan War situation plus a very bloated Pentagon budget.  And apparently, at the moment, HRC has been among those, like Gates and Petraeus, advocating for a longer US commitment to that region.  Not exactly an ideal basis from which to then launch another pres'l run, having to again face a very skeptical lib Dem base.

    Parent

    At her age I doubt that she would want (none / 0) (#89)
    by hairspray on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:59:23 PM EST
    to run another campaign and a VP slot from 2012 on would be a kind sop to her after what was done to her via the caucuses.  But, we don't know what is on the minds of the "boys" in the WH and who they might want to give the VP to a younger guy who can run from that office in 2016.  Remember it was Daschle, Kerry, Kennedy and others in that group that decided Bill would be an albatross around her neck and did not want him near the WH so they scuttled her.  How else did all of those delegates turn her out in the end?

    Parent
    Democrats need a lot more articles (none / 0) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:13:19 PM EST
    like this one speculating on Hillary for Sec of Defense. A few more juicy sex scandals, preferably with Republicans involved to make a major splash. More delving into Brock Landers life on the web might be in order. Anything to get attention away from jobs, the economy and the latest diversion, the proposed Cordoba Center.

    Back on topic, I am not a fan of Hillary becoming Sec of Defense.

    I love Clark... (none / 0) (#21)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:15:49 PM EST
    But Obama would never appoint someone as flamboyant as Clark.  Not.  Gonna.  Happen.

    If Hill has any presidential apirations, she will not take this job.

    I think you are right (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CST on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:17:40 PM EST
    "If Hill has any presidential apirations, she will not take this job"

    indeed through this we may see whether she does or not.  I think if she does want to be pres she doesn't take the job.  If she doesn't want to be pres she does take the job.

    Parent

    Kind of like (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:28:27 PM EST
    'if she floats she's a witch and we burn her, if she drowns she's not a witch'.

    People are always going to think she has presidential aspirations.

    Parent

    I hope she does! (none / 0) (#51)
    by rennies on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:36:59 PM EST
    i.e. "always have presidential aspirations."

    Parent
    well i wouldn't say (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:43:23 PM EST
    having presidential ambitions was akin to being a witch...

    The difference being I guess that I don't see ambition as a bad thing, where as being a witch clearly was.

    Obviously I'm just reading at tea leaves here, but I think Sec. of Def. could be some indication one way or another.

    Parent

    Someone deleted BTAL's comment (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:25:03 PM EST
    about Wes Clark being a fired General.  I'm bummed because I think that meme should be addressed and I still want to address it.

    What General that is a real General worth more than a pinch of salt hasn't been near fired or momentarily fired during a time of war?  During these two wars, if I want to find a worthless thumbsucking General sitting on his arse and eating off of a full silver service in Iraq, all I have to look for is the yes man slider who hasn't been fired or experienced the threat of firing because he/she will argue for what is best for the mission and the soldiers.  And that is no $hit.  Even David Petraeus was fired once by someone less than the President.

    The "event" that Wes Clark is in trouble for in BTAL's head....Wes Clark was right about.  He was proven 100% correct about that old "fight" when a whole Apache division on "Deep Attack" against the Republican Guard Medina Division got their arses handed to them.  Clark wanted Apaches used as intimidation in the Balkans, but a Cavalry General wanted his big bad Apaches used for "Deep Attacks" and the fight was on and included trying to get Clark fired.  Don't ask me how Clark knew a virtually unproven aircraft would work that well in the position he saw for it.....nobody knows but him.  But years of war later, how are Apaches used most effectively in our existing war zones?  Intimidation of insurgents

    If you have troops on the ground being attacked and you send a couple of Apaches in, attack is almost immediately over.  The bad guys go home.  Want 30 million dollar helicopters to fall out of the sky though?  Send them on something really stupid called a "Deep Attack" :)

    It was deleted (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:41:36 PM EST
    because it contained a bald faced lie about the airport incident.

    Parent
    Okay, thanks for explaining (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:49:26 PM EST


    Parent
    How so? (none / 0) (#34)
    by BTAL on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:58:30 PM EST
    There are many valid and reputable sources that document the events there.  As with almost any situation there normally are at least two sides.

    To categorically choose to only see one side is disingenuous.

    Parent

    There are indeed (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:11:56 PM EST
    And your version is a lie.

    Look, I spent years on this particular lie. I won't have it here.

    Go to Anti-War.com if you want to have this lying discussion. Not here.

    Not another comment about it.

    Parent

    I was wondering what happened to my post too (none / 0) (#32)
    by BTAL on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:55:59 PM EST
    Thanks MT for noticing.

    Yes, Generals like many others do get canned.  Clark was canned as SACEUR not for that incident but other behind the scenes acts, like jumping the chain of command.  Sheldon confirmed in so many words in 2004.

    As for the incident in at Pristina airport may be up for debate as to the legality of the order (depending on which side of the pond one sits) or even the strategy involved, but it went beyond just the use of Apaches.  The order was to put armed forces on the runways to block the advancing Russian forces.  Even taking a 50/50 set of odds, it was a very reckless decision.

    The other point in the disappeared post dealt with Clinton and her actions/words/treatment of military in the WH as First Lady.  Treating the military aides as mere baggage porters and insulting words caused significant bad feelings.

    Both Clark or Clinton would be poor choices (especially politically) and would cause a firestorm within the DoD.

     

    Parent

    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:51:59 PM EST
    Clark had to deal with the exact same factions that Petraeus has had to, it is old school entrenched military oligarchy butting up against new school.  Nothing new here and if anything the need for David Petraeus to save us did nothing other than clarify all that faction in fighting and who is on the correct side of the debate and who is a bunch of shameful bomb them back to the stone agers.  Old school is over with though.  A generation of lazy unintelligent self important self indulgent Generals met their match in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I've seen so many big fat heads roll and I'm not sorry, do your job and do it to an extreme degree of proficiency as humanely as possible or you should probably pack up your West Point satchel and go home because real people are dying for this stuff.

    Parent
    There you go again (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:10:27 PM EST
    "Sheldon confirmed in so many words in 2004" [sic] It was Hugh ShelTon and he confirmed nothing refusing to even give Clark and chance to know WTF he was talking about.

    Indeed, Shelton OFFICIAL position, on the record, was so that Ralston would not have to retire.

    Stop the BS.

    I won't have it in my threads.

    As for you opinion on what is reckless or not, well, Clark had to block flights into the airport in what was a very tense situation.

    If Jackson had followed his orders, which were clearly binding (under your theory Montgomery could have ignored Ike), he would have held the airport and the Russians would never have seized it and the very tense week after would not have occurred.

    There was more risk in the week than in the day.

    Jackson was as wrong as rain and it always amuses me when people (mostly GOPers) defend insubordination by a military officer.

    Parent

    It is obvious you've never worked for (none / 0) (#44)
    by BTAL on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:20:03 PM EST
    or around GOs, especially in combatant commands which carry significant political and geo-political responsibilities.  It is not the simple moving little flags around the map on the table.

    The Ralston "reason" was for political cover and it is a guaranteed that it was approved (both the firing and the reason) directly from the WH.  Even Bill Clinton and Albright could not cover for Clark's actions - some say insubordination in his political chain of command snubbing.  He was a loose cannon as SACEUR.

    In addition to the published accounts, my business partner was Chief Staff to CINC USAFE at the time and was on the ground.  His first hand accounts of what was happening at the command level confirm the side of the story that is note Clark-friendly.

    Parent

    It's obvious (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:26:15 PM EST
    that you are talking out of your a** due to your use of "it's obvious."

    It's obvious that Shelton did not like Clark - Clark was Shali's boy.

    It's also obvious that Cohen did not like him. Clark backed Albright.

    These are not secrets.

    When mediocrities like Cohen and Shelton are against you, that is hardly an indictment.

    As for who your business partner is, that gives you less credibility with me, not more. Part of the same group of dunderheads - the kind that produce the likes of Tommy Franks. Complete idiots.

    So stow your "obvious" "knowledge" from a group of nincompoops who have been wrong about everything.

    Hugh Shelton? Hah. Did he vouch for John Edwards' character? What a freaking joke.


    Parent

    As an attorny, your strong suit is the law (none / 0) (#52)
    by BTAL on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:41:54 PM EST
    An outside view of the military, even the political gyrations at the GO level is just that, an outsider opinion.

    The politics can be debated as to whose "team" and "boy" the players were and their motives however, what cannot be defended was Clark's military decision and his insubordinate actions.

    He deserved and got the same treatment as MacArthur and Patton, and some would say McChrystal.

    Parent

    What HORSESH*T (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:44:38 PM EST
    "The politics can be debated as to whose "team" and "boy" the players were and their motives however, what cannot be defended was Clark's military decision and his insubordinate actions."

    Of course it can be debated and is till this day.

    You are so full of it that  it is not even worth debating this with you and inn fact, my point was for you top NOT debate it in my threads.

    Go debate it among those who buy your brand of BS about "how the military operates."

    Parent

    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#62)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 03:31:19 PM EST
    has indicated that he regrets how the whole issue was handled....and that he let Cohen go forward with his and Shelton's plan.

    Chain of command issues.....Well, it was not a public disagreement, which is what have gotten generals canned in the past.

    Parent

    Jackson was a weenie (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 03:40:33 PM EST
    a jealous alarmist....

    Parent
    Dennis Kuchinich... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:34:44 PM EST
    for Secretary of Peace.

    pfft (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:46:06 PM EST
    that would definitely be an "unknown known"

    Parent
    I'd prefer (none / 0) (#77)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:40:29 PM EST
    Marianne Williamson for Sec'y of Peace.  Taller and better looking and she adheres to the same set of beliefs on this score as Dennis.  And fitting to have a woman be the first one to helm this office.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:00:37 PM EST
    If I could choose a SOD, it would not be Hillary, but the Dalai Lama.

    That would be a good start.

    well (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:11:41 PM EST
    Kucinich would be more confirmable and probably more dovish

    Parent
    More Dovish (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:31:42 PM EST
    Not likely, by a longshot.  

    Parent
    Guess it's a good thing ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 03:24:31 PM EST
    ... you don't get to choose.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 03:39:13 PM EST
    A good thing I have no say because if I did, the perpetual war that keeps America afloat, like fatty sh*t, would be flushed away with a flick of the wrist, Pronto.

    Parent
    No, because ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 03:49:07 PM EST
    ... the Dalai Lama is a religious leader who is wholely unqualified to be SecDef.

    Hey, ... heard Gibbs was talking about you the other day ....

    Parent

    Unqualified? (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 03:55:08 PM EST
    That is your opinion. I disagree.

    The point of war is to end war not perpetuate it, imo.

    What better person can be our Secretary of Defense than one whose main agenda is the elimination of world conflict through non-violent peaceful means.

    Parent

    You're right (none / 0) (#81)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 05:38:39 PM EST
    ... and Barney the Dinosaur should be the new Joint Chiefs Chair.

    I love you, you love me, we're a happy family, with a great big hug ...

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 05:43:49 PM EST
    If you were serious, then I guess you are one of those that Gibbs was mocking the other day.

    Parent
    How about Schwarzenegger? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:33:28 PM EST
    He's going to be free soon.

    ;-)

    that (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:45:31 PM EST
    is a little scary.  because its not impossible.

    Parent
    Hillary For SecDef? | 91 comments (91 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment