Tuesday Morning Open Thread

The 11 Show, starring me, today at 11. How to Listen Your options to listen LIVE:
  • Click on the embedded Flash player below
  • Go to netrootsradio.com and click on the embedded player or direct link there
  • Click on this direct link if you need a non-Flash player, say, for iPad or iPhone
  • iPad and iPhone users can download the SHOUTCast Radio app for your mobile device and search for "Netroots Radio"
  • For Android: Try either the "StreamFurious" or "TuneIn" apps
  • BlackBerry users, see this guide by idbecrazyif

Listen to Daily Kos Radio right here:The Daily Kos Radio Player


Yesterday's show accessible on the flip.

The 11 Show, November 12, in which I predicted (easy prediction) that the FBI agent AND Jill Kelley had a GOP agenda when they launched the ship that sunk Petraeus. There is a certain poetic justice in having Kelley implicated with General John Allen. What goes around comes around:

2012 11 12 - Daily Kos Radio - The 11 Show by Armando

Open Thread.

< FBI Search Paula Broadwell's Home | Gen. John Allen Under Investigation for E-mails with Jill Kelley >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yer a man???? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 10:24:02 AM EST
    Okay BTD....let us talk about cheating in uniform.  I thought about it initially as you do when I married into this lifestyle.  I didn't get it until soldiers went to war.

    My first brush with why soldiers don't cheat...end of discussion, is because of what it does to cohesion.  My husband and his unit go to Iraq, and a soldier who stayed home decides to move in on a lonely spouse.  Her husband ends up locked in the closest thing to a rubber room they could find because he was becoming suicidal.  His unit is in Iraq trying to stay alive several men short now because someone must babysit him.  And his friends are deeply worried about him and spending their free time not resting between missions but phoning home trying to understand what is going on and what they can do for their friend.

    Then there is the commander who was schmoozing on other people's wives stateside.  Do you know how nervous that made my husband, when certain people with weapons were alone with the dog in a high stress war zone?

    How about two commanders sleeping with each other and entertaining ways to circumvent an annoying chain of command?  How about one generals aide sleeping with another general dicussing ways and planning ways to destroy a general?

    When serving, you don't phuck around.  And for the record I could no longer be in a room with the cheating spouse who caused her husband to flip out in a war zone and thereby destroyed his career.  She placed everyone in even more danger too by her actions. I just could not look at her.  She wasn't unhappy in her marriage either, she was just lonely and bored.  They stayed married after he got kicked out.

    It is discrimination then (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 10:41:46 AM EST
    I have to marry a doctor to screw a General?  That's not fair.

    You are lawyer, gotta write the laws.

    I don't think this should have brought Petraeus down either, he isn't in uniform now.  Soldiers have that mentoring and code thing though, and most of them die trying to live by it because the young soldiers are watching you.

    Some of them take the forever thing very seriously

    Okay, and now General Allen can fool around and it is okay.  He sets the command environment so that is saying that everyone under him can fool around.  We are talking a hell of a lot of messes happening soon :)


    Sorry, head of CIA doesn't get to, either (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by unitron on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:19:31 PM EST
    The head of the CIA, just like anybody else there, doesn't get to do anything that might let someone else blackmail them or otherwise exert undue influence on them.

    Gotcha (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 10:48:14 AM EST
    Oh bollocks (none / 0) (#18)
    by sj on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 11:25:38 AM EST
    It isn't "more" wrong for a soldier to cheat.  You just feel that way because that's your environment.  The truth is that it's wrong for anyone to cheat.  It can set off unstable spouses anywhere.  You might have heard of this from time to time.  

    As for this:

    His unit is in Iraq trying to stay alive several men short now because someone must babysit him.
    I daresay the greater hazard to their safety is that they are in Irag at all.  That has nothing to do with fidelity or whether one even has a spouse.

    You don't need to attack me because (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 11:34:26 AM EST
    I explain why in the course of actual military studies, it has been deemed necessary to make it illegal to be a cheater.  It isn't illegal for you.

    Get away from me though and take your bollocks with you


    More hyperbole (none / 0) (#24)
    by sj on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 11:40:21 AM EST
    I'm not attacking you.  I'm attacking your premise.  If you think those are the same things then that's on you.

    " I'm attacking your premise." (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by unitron on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:25:05 PM EST
    But you don't seem to be understanding it.

    This isn't about whether "cheating" is or isn't moral.  It's about specific military reasons why the military cannot tolerate it.


    I got that with lil burro's comment below (none / 0) (#52)
    by sj on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:52:03 PM EST
    And acknowledged it there.  In case there is still a lack of clarity:  my misunderstanding.  I went off half cocked.  

    Is that enough abasement for you?


    Whoops (none / 0) (#55)
    by sj on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 01:07:01 PM EST
    that sounded whiny.  It wasn't meant to be.  Maybe add a smile?  :)

    It's called institutional incest (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:29:48 PM EST
    And the military gives instruction on it, and makes it illegal because it destroys soldier performance, morale, readiness, and cohesion.  I was only giving examples that I had experienced that brought me to a deeper understanding of why it is illegal and: remains illegal to cheat in the military

    I too thought the rules antiquated 15 years ago.


    Your Kidding, Right... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 01:17:13 PM EST
    ...I don't doubt any of the studies or reasoning behind any of it.

    But where is all falls apart, as this story clearly proves, is wanting, telling, and threatening people to stay faithful, is impossible.  Never mind that half the relationship isn't under any sort of military code.

    I won't go on about it, but I will say your view on this is beyond naive, it's pathological.  Do you really think this is just Petraeus or Allen or whoever else they uncover.  When I was in it was systemic.  Not cheating was the oddity.


    Not what I have seen (none / 0) (#69)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 06:36:55 PM EST
    Military people less likely to cheat from what I have seen.

    what? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 11:39:33 AM EST
    I didn't see MT saying it was more or less absolutely wrong to cheat as a soldier rather that the consequences can be greater, esp. when they cheat with each other.  Which seems correct to me.  Similar if not the same as dating/cheating in the workplace.  The nice thing in that situation though is at my job we don't have guns, and we're nowhere near a battlefield.  If I crack up, they hire a temp.  Not so easy in Iraq.

    I daresay the greater hazard to their safety is that they are in Irag at all.

    And if wishes and buts were clusters of nuts we'd all have a bowl of granola.  Are you serious???  I don't think they should have to be in Iraq right now but that doesn't change the fact that they are and that this situation is prone to arise due to the nature of military service.


    Okay (none / 0) (#25)
    by sj on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 11:41:13 AM EST
    fair enough.  What you are saying make a little more sense.

    Way back when -- (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 11:50:00 AM EST
    you know, 48 hours ago -- I thought this was a semi-important and semi-interesting story, based on the possibility that the CIA director had given his freaky girlfriend access to classified information.

    Now that its turning out to be an episode of Gossip Girl, I'm looking for a better show on another channel.

    I think the Petraeus/Broadwell thing is tame (none / 0) (#29)
    by Angel on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 11:56:04 AM EST
    compared to what might become of the 20,000-30,000 pages of emails, etc., between Allen and Kelley.  I'm really curious as to what might be in that correspondence.  He's an officer and she's a civilian picnic planner.  What were they discussing?

    How does the picnic planner (none / 0) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:01:58 PM EST
    get a government license plate that says  "Honorary Consul"

    Good question. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Angel on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:02:35 PM EST
    Half the answer (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:12:43 PM EST
    it was issued by the state of Florida:

    from the Florida Statutes - 288.816(2)e

    (2) The state protocol officer shall be responsible for all consular relations between the state and all foreign governments doing business in Florida. The state protocol officer shall monitor United States laws and directives to ensure that all federal treaties regarding foreign privileges and immunities are properly observed. The state protocol officer shall promulgate rules which shall:
    (e) Verify entitlement to issuance of special motor vehicle license plates by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to honorary consuls or such other officials representing foreign governments who are not entitled to issuance of special Consul Corps license plates by the United States Government.

    But why I don't know. The State Protocol Officer is the Secretary of State Ken Detzner. He may want to clean out his emails.


    Based on what we've heard so far (none / 0) (#34)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:06:46 PM EST
    they could just be offensive chain emails about Obama.

    Well, she's lawyered up so it makes me wonder. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Angel on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:12:30 PM EST
    KMGH-TV (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 11:56:15 AM EST
    in Denver pulls the blunder of the day yesterday. Not sure Jeralyn would be happy if I posted the written version so here's the news clip from last night complete with horribly gone wrong google image used as part of the broadcast

    "It was a mistake," said KMGH-TV News Director Jeff Harris.

    "It was a regrettable and an embarrassing error.  We are mortified this appeared during our 5 p.m. news broadcast.  The editor pulled the image of the book cover from the Internet without realizing it had been doctored.

    What a bunch of 12-year-olds (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:31:11 PM EST
    Too, too, funny. (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:18:10 PM EST
    Too funny (none / 0) (#42)
    by me only on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:22:22 PM EST
    Someone needs to get that editor a job writing for the porn industry.

    That might be the only job s/he can get now (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by sj on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 01:04:50 PM EST
    Pretty sure the fact that that image went on-air is a job killer.  

    One point that he made which is not getting much (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by DFLer on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 02:20:57 PM EST
    attention here, was that the real stink to be looked into in this whole affair, is not so much the soap/generals, but the behavior of the FBI

    Always good for a laugh (none / 0) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 08:18:11 AM EST
    Michael Steele floats running for RNC chairman again.

    Having been ousted by Rove and $$$$$ groups, (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by DFLer on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 08:31:57 AM EST
    he might have a chance.

    While this scandal has caused (none / 0) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 08:34:22 AM EST
    Petraeus to resign and great harm to several families, it has been a boon to sales of Broadwell's book.

    At 4:30 p.m. on Friday, "All In" by Paula Broadwell was nowhere near the upper reaches of Amazon's bestseller charts: It was ranked No. 126,995. That quickly changed as news spread that David Petraeus had resigned from his position as CIA director because of an extramarital affair with Broadwell, his biographer in the book.

    "All In" was published in January. It has risen to No. 111 overall on Amazon, and is currently No. 3 in the categories history/Middle East/Iraq and history/military/Iraq war. It's No. 6 in biographies & memoirs/leaders & notable people/military. link

    Just want to say (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 09:11:50 AM EST
    It isn't healthy to worship David Petraeus but can't help noticing that when he violated his own code of ethics, he knows to recover himself for himself first he must take the fall.

    Meanwhile General Allen can't help but scream immediately that he has done nothing wrong.  That's an awful lot of phucking messages to a married woman General Allen!

    Not all Generals were created equal thoug'.

    I won't be a bit surprised to discover that Allen had done plenty wrong.

    Other than in my own life, with my (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 10:01:38 AM EST
    own family and people that are close to me, I'm not much concerned with what people do and don't do with respect to their own lives, but...if I know about it, it's more information that affects what I think and how I feel about someone.  I might find John Doe to be a prince among men in the office, but if it turns out he's been beating up on his wife, well, I don't feel the same way about ol' Joe - nor should I, I don't think.

    Now, I don't have any real knowledge of the private lives of these people - private lives that seem to have, to some extent, poured over into their work life; I don't "know" them, I will never know them, so if their marriages fall apart, their relationships with their children disintegrate - well, that has nothing to do with me.

    That being said, the media - and the stupidity of the people involved - have opened the window, and what I've seen is pretty skeezy.  And getting skeezier by the hour.

    Now, you may have some respect for David Petraeus doing the honorable thing by resigning, but I'm not sure I'll ever be able to put "honorable" and David Petraeus in the same zip code, let alone the same sentence.  I'd have more respect for Petraeus if I thought he had done the honorable, ethical thing in his marriage, or the honorable, ethical thing with regard to the marriage of the woman he was in lust with.  But then, we probably wouldn't know about it, would we?  Because the honorable man might have decided he needed to resolve the conflict created by his own marriage and that of his intended bedmate.  The honorable man might have formally separated from his wife, or decided not to get involved with a woman who couldn't or wouldn't end her own marriage in order to be with him on equal and honorable footing.

    Look, I know this will all sound like too high a bar for someone who operates at Petraeus-level, where people cater to your every need and have led you to believe that you don't have feet of clay, but feet of gold that they are happy to keep polished and blindingly shiny so no one can see your flaws.

    And maybe it is, I don't know.  We all make mistakes, we all screw up, and we're all entitled to redeem ourselves if we can.  But for the moment, at least, I don't feel so good about appending "honorable" to much of anything I'm seeing.


    Anne (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by kmblue on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:25:03 PM EST
    What I love, as usual, some of the press is making Broadwell out to be a hot, conniving bitch.  It's always the woman's fault.  Don't believe me?  Google her name.

    I see a lot more whining about the end of Petraeus (oh dear, he lost his career, cry me a river) than judgement about his weakness and stupidity.

    I don't care either way who sleeps with whom.  I just hate the "blame the woman" meme.


    Blame (or congratulate) (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:34:52 PM EST
    Team Petraeus for this effect. They are out in full force to protect "the image".

    Ordinarily I would agree (none / 0) (#66)
    by indy in sc on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 02:38:40 PM EST
    with you, but in this case, Ms. Broadwell seems to be worthy of the blame she's getting.  Don't get me wrong--Petraeus deserves as much and more blame given his responsibilities.  As far as I can tell, she is responsible for herself and her family like the rest of us--he is responsible for us all.

    That said, when this escalated beyond "just" an affair and turned into her harassing another woman, she became more blameworthy in my estimation.  When there is an affair that becomes public, people often blame the woman and exonerate the man.  She isn't solely to blame for the affair, but she is to blame for harassing someone else who dared get close to a man who wan't hers to begin with.


    Walk a mile in his shoes (2.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 10:09:43 AM EST
    Be responsible for the things he's been responsible for for as many years as he has done so, then get back to me.

    I don't worship him. I respect him, and he earned every bit of it and continues to in how he conducts himself.  Nobody is perfect, not even you.  So how you conduct yourself in your lowest moments defines you as much as how you conduct yourself in highest moments.


    David Petraeus volunteered for the (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 10:37:27 AM EST
    miles he's walked, and while they have been tough and demanding and fraught with national security implications, and we all appreciate and acknowledge those burdens, they don't give him a pass on everything else.

    I never said you worshipped him, and I haven't claimed to be perfect; I think that was clear.  

    And I would venture to guess that whatever Petraeus' lowest moments are, they probably aren't as low as the moments his wife and children are experiencing.


    And until he knew it would become public (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 11:14:19 AM EST
    Petraeus planned to stay in place at the CIA.

    "It" being much more than the affair, as we are finding out more by the hour.


    Yes, because all other politicians (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 11:28:52 AM EST
    After having an affair get up in the morning, call a press conference, confess, and resign.  It happens all the time, and David Petraeus is demonstrating what a low human being he is.

    Bill Clinton didn't come clean until he was up against the wall.  Anthony Weiner.....ah the list goes on and on


    The timeline (none / 0) (#35)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:12:16 PM EST
    of what did he know and when did he know it, etc., is worth reading.  

    I see, he voluteered therefore (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 11:24:27 AM EST
    Deserves nothing. Typical

    I feel for his family as well but he deserves no greater vitriol I would think from you than any other cheater.  Do you hold all other cheaters to the same standard?  Is someone who cheats the devil?  Can they expect no redemption...ever?

    I don't care for cheaters, but as much as I don't care for it the fact that people cheat has remained a constant reality.


    You were the one who brought up (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 01:09:37 PM EST
    the burdensome responsibilities that Petraeus has been shouldering, which I was supposed to consider before expressing any opinions about the honor Petraeus has or has not brought to his personal life.

    You have your reasons for respecting Petraeus, and I'm aware of what they are; does respecting someone's work require respect for the person?  I'm not sure it does - but maybe there's an understandable need to defend someone who is responsible for making decisions that affect the life and health of a loved one.

    Do I think anyone who cheats is the devil?  Uh, no - I think I've stated several times that everyone makes mistakes and we all should have a chance to redeem ourselves.  So, why the florid hyperbole?  

    Do I hold all cheaters to the same standard?  I think it's wrong to cheat, even if someone can come up with a million reasons why they think they can justify it.  My husband and I have been married for over 30 yeaers - do you think there have not been times and situations and opportunities when either or both of us could have done so?  I don't think the fact that we didn't makes us more moral than anyone else - I do think it reflects the level of commitment we have to each other and to our family.

    You know, I give your comments about the military and the culture a lot of weight most of the time, because people who are living something have a lot to offer to those of us who aren't.  But that doesn't give you license to ridicule my opinions or my standards as if they have no application to someone like Petraeus.


    How do feel about people who process (2.67 / 3) (#58)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 01:12:13 PM EST
    Zero interest in the private lives of others but take the time to compose lengthy treatises on the subject?

    And ... cue hyperbole (none / 0) (#21)
    by sj on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 11:32:03 AM EST
    I see, he voluteered therefore (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 11:24:27 AM EST

    Deserves nothing. Typical

    Is someone who cheats the devil?
    When all else fails put words in some one else's mouth.  That's one way to defend a weak position.

    Good point (none / 0) (#16)
    by sj on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 11:18:45 AM EST
    Walk a mile in his shoes
    It's one that should be applied to everyone.  His shoes aren't any more intrinsically honorable than yours.  Those are some pretty big shoes.  But you have great kids to help make that walk worthwhile.  

    His shoes aren't any more instrinsically honorable than mine.  There are many times I would have gladly handed them over to someone else.  When the burden they carried seemed much too great for me to carry on my own.  But I have also been blessed in so many ways.  

    Walk a mile in his shoes?  He is walking the path he chose.  Sure it's been hard.  But he chose to be responsible for so many others and for so much. Well, that path also had its perks.  We are just now finding out about one of them.

    Surprise!  Those shoes are sheltering feet of clay.  Who knew that he was merely a human like other humans?


    He did choose to serve (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 11:26:56 AM EST
    But he has served

    He and his family did choose to make sacrifices, but they did sacrifice for something greater than themselves constantly.

    He has been a good leader for the most part, and he has also chosen to remove himself when he was demonstrating very poor leadership.  It is more than I can say for most cheaters.

    He has gone home now to face the music, and he goes home fallen.


    Have to disagree, which you know (none / 0) (#27)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 11:47:02 AM EST
    I have no respect for him and haven't for some time, didn't think he was a good general in Iraq (a good general in Iraq doesn't even SEND himself there, he resigns out of principal and disgust). This is a man who is such an amateur when it comes to understanding what makes people tick it is comical he ran the CIA. Comical and inexcusably inept.

    People married to people who do not turn them on or stimulate their libidos, or their minds or hearts, are almost assuredly going to find someone who does. Evolved people are capable of talking about relationships and humans, themselves included, in a manner that evidences they possess the acute insight necessary for a job like "intelligence" director. Petraeus would have to spend twenty years in an institution entirely antithetical in institutional psychology to even begin to possess the critical HUMAN skills necessary. The military -- as totalitarian, censorious, prohibitive, and contemptuous of individual imagination as it is -- engenders exactly the opposite in almost all its members.


    No, not true (2.00 / 2) (#63)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 02:16:14 PM EST
    You do articulate the anti-military views thast are often associated with the Left.

    Petraeus spent years away from home.  The hardship on the military and their families seems to not really register.

    My experience is different than yours.  When I was grwoing up, all the male members of my family had served.

    The best people I have known have been in the Service.  I also have heard these anti-military diatribes for a quite a few years now.  They come from a place of ignorance.

    Not perfect.  But generally reliable and honorable.


    Hits and misses (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 02:23:34 PM EST
    I've known good people who served in the military, and I've known some terrible people who served as well. PLease don't try to hero-ize everyone who serves, it is not true.

    A guy I knew in college came back to school in the late 70's, and very matter-of-factly told me how he and two tohers in his platoon had raped all the women in a Vietnamese family one night. And five minutes after relating this story, he tried to rape me. I was lucky to get out of there with my life.

    Its best not to generalize.


    Stop... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 03:55:02 PM EST
    ...the military is no more a place of honor than IBM or Costco.

    The proof is easy, the military has prisons all over the world filled with people who were once in the military.

    I am not dumping on them, but pretending they someone posses more honor is just plain dumb.  I believe one is on trial this week for killing unarmed civilians, some of whom were sleeping kids.  And this past summer was a real doozie as far as the military and really stupid S.

    Let me ask you this, how many Veterans did you call Sunday ?  Don't want an answer, just food for thought since you seem to know so many.

    As a Vet, I find that nearly everyone who speaks so grand of the military, never served and that they seem to disappear on the day they can actually put their money where their mouths are.  Beyond the media milking it for everything they can, no one really cares except the families who have actually sacrificed a member, myself included.


    People at IBM and Costco (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 06:26:31 PM EST
    don't risk their lives and don't spend years away from their families.

    I thought the Left was over this anti-military syndrome.

    And, since you needlessly challenge me, I had lunch with a Vietnam and Korean War Vet yesterday.   I have possession of a telegram regarding a relative of mine who was killed in the service of his country.

    I also spent a lot of research time tracking down my Uncle's service record for WWII.  I learned that everyone who served in a combat unit in Europe was automatically entitled to a Bronze Star.  It was a retroactively decided a few years after the war--by Ike, I think.  So my aging Uncle, a veteran of the Battle of the Bulge, received a couple of years ago his Bronze Star.

    These people matter to me in spite of your nasty assertions to the contrary.  

    You have loons and bad guys everywhere.  But not everyone risks his or her life for not very much money in places far, far away from their families.



    If You Need to Call Reality... (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 12:44:52 PM EST
    ...anti-military syndrome, go for it.  If you need to call a Veteran a anti-military, that is a freedom you enjoy because of people like me, not because of cheerleaders like you.  And quit trying to bring an entire political party into your idiotic notions of what constitutes anti-military.

    As a Veteran of a war, I find it mildly humorous, but more offensive to be called anti-military this or that by someone whose only service seems to be cheerleader extraordinaire.  A+ for that.

    In the grand scheme of things I am 100% positive the country and military is better served by the folks who actually do, rather than than cheerleaders who speak of things they know nothing of, who feel free to tell the people who do, just how wrong they are about the institution they know nothing about.

    But that's just me.


    Being a vet does not (2.00 / 1) (#73)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 02:03:44 PM EST
    immunize you from being anti-military.

    You are the one who equated service in the military to working at Costco or IBM.


    You needlessly created personal (2.00 / 1) (#74)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 02:22:06 PM EST
    antagonism here.

    I referred to my personal experience in a postive light.  You jump in with personal invective and playing "I served, you didn't, so you have no say" card.

    For me to say that in general people in the military are good people to draw such a personal attack, is pathetic.

    You now say I am a cheerleader, but originally, you wanted me to state whether I called anyone on Veteran's day.  You in effect asked me whether I was a "cheerleader," so it appears you now denigrate my doing exactly what you said I should do.

    I guess spending time with veterans is now "cheer leading."

    Not really good thinking.

    Have the last say.....  


    Hold Up... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 05:10:12 PM EST
    This is what you wrote:
    I also have heard these anti-military diatribes for a quite a few years now.  They come from a place of ignorance.

    That is positive, the isn't antagonistic ?

    I was trying to point the flaws of that statement.  First, criticism is not 'anti' no matter how bad you want it to be.  Secondly, I am so tired of weasels like you thinking you have some right to tell me about something you never experienced.  You tell me, who is speaking from a place of ignorance.

    And lastly, quit making up S to prove your point.  I never said "you have no say", what I said is you don't have the right to call me a anti-military from the GD sidelines.

    You started this and now you acting like the victim, it's a good thing you decided to stay on the sidelines, cheerleader suit you well.  


    This does need a response (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 09:15:56 PM EST
    Let's look at your comments.

    Weasel, victim, cheerleader, and implied coward.

    You say that I am a "weasel," a "cheerleader," a "victim" and someone who was not up to serving in the military and thus an implied coward.  That's name calling, right?  Prohibited by the rules of this site, true?  Beyond that, tossing off these epithets constitute ad hominem argument that is fundamentally weak and a classic fallacy.


    You argument basically is:  (1) You served, implying combat experience, and (2) I did not serve, and (3) thus I have no standing to legitimately comment on military issues and thus am a "weasel" for trying to do so.   Let's look at this.  First, you imply you have combat experience, true?  I will concede you have combat experience, although I will note you don't talk like many combat veterans.  Second, true, I have no combat experience, nor did I imply that I did.  Third, because I have no combat experience, you basically argue I have no valid basis of commenting on military issues outside of combat.  Well, that really makes sense, no?

    The issue that was being discussed was not how people react during combat, or whether we should go to war, or how to wage a war, or the strategy and tactics of war.  The issue was the character of military people in a civilian context.  I said that military veterans are generally reliable and honorable in my experience.  And, you then use your alleged combat experience to tell me that not only am I wrong that veterans are generally reliable and honorable,  but that I am also a "weasel" because I did not serve in combat but still had the temerity to say veterans are generally good guys.

    I submit that my experience with veterans in a civilian context is every bit as valid yours might be.

    Your response is a familiar one.  But you invoke it, however, in an atypical context.  You trot out the standard "chicken hawk" argument: That because one has not served, it is difficult for them to really know about combat or have true standing to say whether we should go to war.  But I was not advocating war, or any particular battlefield tactic or theater strategy.   I was saying vets on the whole are good guys, and you respond with the "chicken hawk" argument.....It doesn't work in this context.

    It appears that you really did not have much to say, but pulled on oldie but goodie argument off the shelf, and deployed it here, whether it applied or not.  Not a lot of thinking behind that argument.  Just kneejerk response.

    Dadler's thesis about military veterans.

    Where this argument began, before you would jump in with your "chicken hawk" argument, was Dadler's comment that military veterans are unimaginative, authoritarian, etc.  This is the second time he has said this here.  It is a typical view of the Left, at least in the past, towards the military.  I did react to his comment by saying veterans are generally good guys in my experience.  Dadler's original comment is a trite, hackneyed trope that is a lazy and unimaginative crutch.  But not that big a deal, as trotting out unthinking stereotyopes happens to everyone.  I did want to counter that image.

    And you jump in, vested in using your combat experience to say that my comments are wrong.  Stupid argument.  You miss the entire point.

    I do honor your service, though, and would suggest you take advantage of the GI bill....


    Why don't you stop being so defensive (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by shoephone on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 09:36:57 PM EST
    and just admit that your opinion on the issue is merely that -- your opinion? Everybody is entitled to their opinion, based on their own experience. Your experience is, apparently, that people who serve in the military are automatically heroes. Others disagree, based on their experience. I echo Dadler's and Scott's opinion, not as a vet, but based on my experiences closely knowing lots of vets, some of whom are in my own family.

    And you want to talk about name calling? Lay off the b.s. "typical-leftist-anti-military" screed of yours. You're not winning any converts.


    Did I say "heroes?" (1.00 / 2) (#78)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 10:19:49 PM EST
    Nope.  At least get right what I said.

    I remember Bill and Al Gore on this subject.  Bill's ROTC letter talking about "loathing of the military" and Al Gore saying similar things when he was young.  The Left has had its problems with veterans.  I had hoped we were past this Vietnam era mistake.  And it was a mistake that did occur among the Left.

    When later questioned on this, Al Gore said he had that opinion before he joined the Army and learned better.

    You, Dadler, and apparently in bizarre fashion Scott, slander an entire group of people.  I would put down your broad brush.


    Clinton and Gore are leftists? (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by shoephone on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 10:42:53 PM EST
    LOL!!!! That's news to me. And speaking for myself, I've known people who served in WWII, the Koren War, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Bosnia, and Iraq. Had relationships with two vets. My stepdad -- a great guy -- is probably the most decorated vet I've known. Honors from both the U.S. and French governments. Doesn't mean every other military person is so great and so honorable. Some are, some are nothing but schm*cks and criminals.

    In any case, I think you've gone over the deep end on this one, so I'm not going to waste any more time on you or this nonsense you've conjured up.


    Your comment makes no sense (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 12:38:28 AM EST
    You say your step dad was a decorated war veteran and all around good guy, and so this means....that vets are generally not reliable or honorable?  And you take offense for my saying that?  Huh?  This is just plain incoherent.

    And, this place is just plain tribal.  Challenge one, and then others come out in defense....regardless of the actual arguments.


    One can be opposed to the (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 06:37:21 AM EST
    policies and actions of the military without being anti-military; one can reject the decisions of those in charge without rejecting those who carry out the orders.

    I think Dadler's point was that he didn't care for Petraeus-the-general, nor did he care for the culture and what it ends up doing and creating.  Neither position is a condemnation of those whose job it is to implement the decisions of the higher-ups like Petraeus.

    My dad served, his dad served, my uncle served, my husband served: all good people.  They were good people before they served and good people after.  It has helped turn many lives around, but it isn't the place for everyone - doesn't solve everyone's problems, and in some cases, it probably reinforces and takes advantage of some pretty deep psychological flaws in those who volunteer.

    But again, being opposed to Petraeus is not the same as being anti-military; it could be part of an overall rejection of the military, but it doesn't have to be.


    Tom Ricks on local NPR affiliate (none / 0) (#48)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:37:42 PM EST
    in Seattle right now, totally fellating Petraeus, using the argument that Pertaeus is such a hero, such an exemplary human being, and he "slipped up" because of the stress of being a military general.

    Except that he wasn't in the military at the time...


    Post Traumatic Sex Disorder? (none / 0) (#59)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 01:14:55 PM EST
    Petraeus was smarter (none / 0) (#5)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 09:32:02 AM EST
    he shared an email account with Broadwell, and they wrote back and forth through drafts that were never sent minimizing the cyber trail.

    Question for you..Are the Kelleys Tampa's version of the Salahis?


    If they were really smart they would (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 09:44:34 AM EST
    have used a shared folder in the 'cloud' and left email out of it altogether.



    Better yet (none / 0) (#26)
    by vicndabx on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 11:46:11 AM EST
    cheat the old fashioned way - talk on the phone, no digital trail anywhere.

    Really. (none / 0) (#33)
    by sj on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:05:32 PM EST
    You're going with that?

    Old skool dial up?! :D (none / 0) (#36)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:12:24 PM EST
    LOL (none / 0) (#39)
    by sj on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:15:29 PM EST
    That just feels more secure because it's old school.  But illegal wiretapping and telephone data mining can happen on any conversation on any equipment.  And if they aren't in the same area code it may very well show up on a bill as well.

    So maybe... smoke signals?


    No, smoke signals can be seen (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:54:47 PM EST
    by others.  I'm thinking mental telepathy.    ;-)

    Not advocating cheating (none / 0) (#50)
    by vicndabx on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:44:01 PM EST
    Just sayin, unless you're talking about killing Americans and/or FISA hasn't tapped your line - plausible deniability.....

    Oh, I know (none / 0) (#51)
    by sj on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:49:37 PM EST
    Not advocating cheating
    You just have more faith in actual privacy than I do, that's all.

    First thought: Hahaha! (none / 0) (#6)
    by Angel on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 09:37:47 AM EST
    Second thought:  Ewwwww

    That is what it looks like to me (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 09:42:23 AM EST
    Four Star (none / 0) (#49)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:41:54 PM EST
    number three drops today. No woman involved this time.

    Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has demoted four-star General William E. Ward over allegations that he spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on a lavish lifestyle while head of U.S. Army Africa Command (AFRICOM)

    Oh, for (none / 0) (#57)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 01:09:48 PM EST
    crying in a bucket.  The hits just keep coming, don't they?

    Could barely remember the name of this song (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 01:17:30 PM EST
    amazing what you can find on Youtube.

    [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF9VpqLfOM8 CSNY, Nighttime for the Generals]...and the boys at the CIA.

    What did radio Armando have to (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 01:27:43 PM EST
    say re Petraeus' resignation?

    Site Violation (none / 0) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 08:40:30 PM EST