I heard a Democrat claim we “machine gunned” survivors in the water. Is that what you are hearing from your pentagon friends? I would have a big problem with that. Or is the Democrats lying?
So machine guns are bad but missiles are okay?
It is encouraging that so many Republicans in Congress are very concerned about the strikes and intend to do a thorough investigation. Once that gets going we’ll see MAGA attacking everyone involved as Democraps, RINOs and Never-Trumpers. They’ll add them to their ever growing enemies list rather than cheering for finding the truth - whatever it ultimately turns out to be.
There is an ambiguity if not a void in the law. I’d welcome a thorough debate about whether deadly force is justified when organized, and in some cases state sponsored, cartels poison Americans for profit. I’m not so sure a hearing is the best way to do this. Those are 100% TV shows with no real effort to produce a useful policy.
We didn’t have a hearing about Soleimani, bombing Iranian nukes, or bombing Huthi leadership. The difference here seems to be that bombing drug boats is an ongoing policy. The threats are all very significant in their own way.
Seriously? He’s explicitly saying he didn’t issue that order and didn’t even know about the second attack because he left the situation room due to “a meeting” so he’s all about distancing himself from that. Then he offers up some praise about whatever the Admiral did in the second attack was lawful, without saying what it was because he didn’t see it - meeting and all. It’s shameful behavior from any leader. A leader takes the blame for what goes wrong and defers all praise for what goes right to his subordinates. If the boat was destroyed or obviously disabled, an attack to kill the survivors (missile is the reporting, but how the killing was done is not relevant) is murder per the UCMJ and a war crime IAW the laws of war. It’s as simple as that. How much we’ll learn about it and what the consequences will be are the major questions. I sincerely hope there is some mitigating circumstances that haven’t been reported because if there are none, this is very bad.Hegseth says he didn’t give what amounts to a “no quarter” order because that is also unlawful and he’s backing away from responsibility and throwing the Admiral under the bus.
If Hegseth didn’t issue the order, what is he backing away from? I heard Hegseth defend the Admiral and he backs him. That doesn’t sound like throwing him under the bus.
I heard a Democrat claim we “machine gunned” survivors in the water. Is that what you are hearing from your pentagon friends? I would have a big problem with that. Or is the Democrats lying?
Given your OP and other comments, I thoiught you'd like this. Did you only want someone charged with a crime if it was a political appointee? If you thought Hegseth violated the law, but it turns out it was the admiral, shouldn't you want him thrown under the bus?He’s shamefully throwing the Admiral under the bus.🔥 🔥 🔥
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1995908525088797088?t=w8B-8j6E7S0nLFdWTuqTFg&s=19
You want Hegseth to take the blame for what you are calling murder when he didn't give the order? Do I have that right?Seriously? He’s explicitly saying he didn’t issue that order and didn’t even know about the second attack because he left the situation room due to “a meeting” so he’s all about distancing himself from that. Then he offers up some praise about whatever the Admiral did in the second attack was lawful, without saying what it was because he didn’t see it - meeting and all. It’s shameful behavior from any leader. A leader takes the blame for what goes wrong and defers all praise for what goes right to his subordinates. If the boat was destroyed or obviously disabled, an attack to kill the survivors (missile is the reporting, but how the killing was done is not relevant) is murder per the UCMJ and a war crime IAW the laws of war. It’s as simple as that. How much we’ll learn about it and what the consequences will be are the major questions. I sincerely hope there is some mitigating circumstances that haven’t been reported because if there are none, this is very bad.Hegseth says he didn’t give what amounts to a “no quarter” order because that is also unlawful and he’s backing away from responsibility and throwing the Admiral under the bus.
If Hegseth didn’t issue the order, what is he backing away from? I heard Hegseth defend the Admiral and he backs him. That doesn’t sound like throwing him under the bus.
I heard a Democrat claim we “machine gunned” survivors in the water. Is that what you are hearing from your pentagon friends? I would have a big problem with that. Or is the Democrats lying?
I don’t WANT anything. If the SecDef ordered “no quarter” he committed a crime, as did the Admiral if he carried it out and as did whoever pushed the button to fire the missile. However it’s quite possible the low level guys just thought they were firing a missile at the initial target. On a ship, it’s unlikely the junior personnel would know there had been any survivors and they were being targeted. This would be miles away. Hegseth’s and the Admiral were apparently watching live video from overhead. I really hope that it was a second missile fired at a still functioning and not disabled boat and not at survivors floating in the water. If everyone cooperates, we can know exactly what happened in a couple of weeks to a month.Given your OP and other comments, I thoiught you'd like this. Did you only want someone charged with a crime if it was a political appointee? If you thought Hegseth violated the law, but it turns out it was the admiral, shouldn't you want him thrown under the bus?He’s shamefully throwing the Admiral under the bus.🔥 🔥 🔥
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1995908525088797088?t=w8B-8j6E7S0nLFdWTuqTFg&s=19
He’s explicitly saying he didn’t issue that order and didn’t even know about the second attack because he left the situation room due to “a meeting” so he’s all about distancing himself from that. Then he offers up some praise about whatever the Admiral did in the second attack was lawful, without saying what it was because he didn’t see it - meeting and all. It’s shameful behavior from any leader. A leader takes the blame for what goes wrong and defers all praise for what goes right to his subordinates.
Gotta strongly disagree here. Leaders have trusted and competent subordinates who make decisions without checking in with the boss. I hafta think the commanders in the field are in better position to make a decision without being micro-managed from above.
Gotta strongly disagree here. Leaders have trusted and competent subordinates who make decisions without checking in with the boss. I hafta think the commanders in the field are in better position to make a decision without being micro-managed from above.
What you two are saying is not mutually exclusive. He said, "A leader takes the blame for what goes wrong and defers all praise for what goes right to his subordinates." That doesn't impact what you said about empowering subordinates.
Look at Ike's announcement if D-Day was a failure. No complaints that he wasn't ashore and didn't know what went wrong. Even if Monty screwed it up, below was going out:
The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.
I know you agree that Ike was a great leader. Like Washington, not necessarily a great strategic general, but a great leader.
Hegseth's statement isn't Ike's in great leadership.
Hegseth did publicly support the admiral. That means to me that Hegseth will also absorb any incoming.
Agree Hegseth is no Ike.
Agree Hegseth is no Ike.
To be fair, very few are. We don't like leaders that take responsibility these days.
"I wasn't there" isn't really taking responsibility. He should have gotten everyone together, learned what happened, then issued a statement along the lines of, "I am in charge, this is what we did." That is very different from, "I wasn't there, but this is what THEY did" even if one shows support for "they." Don't create the distance.
Given a couple of different stories have come out, you linked the, "there were no survivors" story yourself, it appears they were slow to get everyone debriefed and one account developed. Someone in the room felt uncomfortable, and rightly so if accurately reported, and either was ignored or did not feel comfortable reporting it up the chain. That is a problem. If a person believed they saw 2 people on debris being targeted, they should have been free to report it and it should have been thoroughly investigated. Then the DoD could have issued the 1st statement, long ago. This happened September. 2. They could have had a statement out by the end of September, "it was reported to us that we may have struck survivors on debris but after careful examination of the footage we conclude that the second strike was on a still serviceable boat." What part of my scenario would not have been the dream scenario? Yet it doesn't come out until late November and the DoD still didn't have a consistent denial.
Obviously I do not believe Trump is going to replace Hegseth. But Hegseth should move toward my scenario. My theory is he will move away from it, restrict even further who sees these strikes so we are more likely to get away with whatever we want, and search for whomever reported it to scare future witnesses
Well of course, but that changes nothing that I said.He’s explicitly saying he didn’t issue that order and didn’t even know about the second attack because he left the situation room due to “a meeting” so he’s all about distancing himself from that. Then he offers up some praise about whatever the Admiral did in the second attack was lawful, without saying what it was because he didn’t see it - meeting and all. It’s shameful behavior from any leader. A leader takes the blame for what goes wrong and defers all praise for what goes right to his subordinates.
Gotta strongly disagree here. Leaders have trusted and competent subordinates who make decisions without checking in with the boss. I hafta think the commanders in the field are in better position to make a decision without being micro-managed from above.
i said zip about micromanagement.
Hundreds of millions of American lives have been saved. Why are we arguing about a Constitutional technicality?
https://twitter.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1995922724439396734?t=642gWEtvkaLflxxIRAioIA&s=19
100s of millions? You’re truly a dopey dupe! LOL!Hundreds of millions of American lives have been saved. Why are we arguing about a Constitutional technicality?
https://twitter.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1995922724439396734?t=642gWEtvkaLflxxIRAioIA&s=19
100s of millions? You’re truly a dopey dupe! LOL!Hundreds of millions of American lives have been saved. Why are we arguing about a Constitutional technicality?
https://twitter.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1995922724439396734?t=642gWEtvkaLflxxIRAioIA&s=19
You're clearly too stupid to understand satire.
You're clearly too stupid to understand satire.
Noem is far too stupid to even attempt satire.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
Latest Post: Portal Kombat (Basketball Edition) Our newest member: Mike Tolz Recent Posts Unread Posts
