The Hegseth "incident."
-
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 02:32 last edited by
-
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 02:36 last edited by
Isn't adultery in the US military grounds for dismissal? Just curious.
-
Isn't adultery in the US military grounds for dismissal? Just curious.
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 02:53 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Isn't adultery in the US military grounds for dismissal? Just curious.
Don't know.
He wasn't a soldier when it happened, tho.
-
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 03:31 last edited by
Hegseth, a 44-year-old Army National Guard veteran and former Fox News Channel weekend host, has acknowledged having multiple extramarital affairs — which occurred while he was in the military, according to divorce records — and has said he told his troops to ignore commands about when to fire on potential enemies. Both violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice and can get troops court-martialed and dishonorably discharged.
-
Hegseth, a 44-year-old Army National Guard veteran and former Fox News Channel weekend host, has acknowledged having multiple extramarital affairs — which occurred while he was in the military, according to divorce records — and has said he told his troops to ignore commands about when to fire on potential enemies. Both violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice and can get troops court-martialed and dishonorably discharged.
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 12:43 last edited by@taiwan_girl thanks. I wasn't aware of the timing.
Descending into "But Mom, he did it too" territory, if the military sent every philandering soldier to a court martial, we'd have to reinstitute the draft.
-
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 12:49 last edited by
And the fact that he wasn’t reprimanded for countermanding the orders on when to open fire is very telling. It shows that some superior thought he was correct to do so.
-
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 13:10 last edited by
Gillibrand doesn’t find this to be an insult to women:
So she’s kind of lost credibility on what is and isn’t an insult to women.
-
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 13:13 last edited by
-
Gillibrand doesn’t find this to be an insult to women:
So she’s kind of lost credibility on what is and isn’t an insult to women.
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 13:57 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in The Hegseth "incident.":
I will never ever ever ever understand how groupthink on the left made this even remotely acceptable.
-
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 14:33 last edited by
Joni Ernst is on board. Collins and Murkowski are undecided, but with Ernst declaring support, it’s likely enough to push them over.
-
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 15:18 last edited by
-
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 15:39 last edited by
I'm a bit more concern that Hegseth didn't know what ASEAN is or what countries are included.
That should be SecDef 101 stuff.
I'm guessing he will be confirmed, but this confirmation hearing is playing out as expected... both sides cheerleading or criticizing him with some clear gaps in knowledge and decision making maturity.
Article:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/asean-stumped-hegseth-senate-hearing-080133857.html
Link to video -
I'm a bit more concern that Hegseth didn't know what ASEAN is or what countries are included.
That should be SecDef 101 stuff.
I'm guessing he will be confirmed, but this confirmation hearing is playing out as expected... both sides cheerleading or criticizing him with some clear gaps in knowledge and decision making maturity.
Article:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/asean-stumped-hegseth-senate-hearing-080133857.html
Link to videowrote on 15 Jan 2025, 15:43 last edited by George K@89th said in The Hegseth "incident.":
I'm a bit more concern that Hegseth didn't know what ASEAN is or what countries are included.
That should be SecDef 101 stuff.
Yeah. I thought of that as his "Aleppo" moment. Can you imagine Sen. Kennedy grilling someone on that?
-
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 16:19 last edited by
-
@89th said in The Hegseth "incident.":
I'm a bit more concern that Hegseth didn't know what ASEAN is or what countries are included.
That should be SecDef 101 stuff.
Yeah. I thought of that as his "Aleppo" moment. Can you imagine Sen. Kennedy grilling someone on that?
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 16:23 last edited by@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@89th said in The Hegseth "incident.":
I'm a bit more concern that Hegseth didn't know what ASEAN is or what countries are included.
That should be SecDef 101 stuff.
Yeah. I thought of that as his "Aleppo" moment. Can you imagine Sen. Kennedy grilling someone on that?
That's his Achilles heel.
I think he's going to be very good at rank and file issues...Recruiting problems, cost plus contracts, base housing, pay grades, etc. On the big organizational stuff, not so much.
-
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 16:53 last edited by
I somewhat agree. If someone in the military is going to be discharged for an adultery, there are usually other problems that that person has.
I dont think we know if he was reprimanded or not for disobeying an order to engage the enemy.
But, both of those are still against the Uniform Code of Conduct. The whole basis of the military in the US, even more than in other jobs in government or the private side, is that a soldier IS held to a higher standard and that it is necessary to follow the rules and orders without hesitation, weather or not you agree with them or not. As far as I know in the military, when a "superior officer" gives an order, it is not a negotiation.
That concerns me. Kind like the broken window policing. "Yeah, he had adultery a few times. Ah, lots of people do it. Yeah, he disobeyed some orders. Ah, he's not the only one. He still okay to lead the organization and have to judge people who get called out for the same 'infractions'. "
Why have rules then? It was said in this thread or another thread, but if he is willing to break rules like this, is there not the potential for other rules to be broken?
(but my biggest concern is still that he is not qualified. Leading a group of 100 soldiers is way way way different from leading an organization with 3MM people and USD$billions of dollars of budget)
-
I somewhat agree. If someone in the military is going to be discharged for an adultery, there are usually other problems that that person has.
I dont think we know if he was reprimanded or not for disobeying an order to engage the enemy.
But, both of those are still against the Uniform Code of Conduct. The whole basis of the military in the US, even more than in other jobs in government or the private side, is that a soldier IS held to a higher standard and that it is necessary to follow the rules and orders without hesitation, weather or not you agree with them or not. As far as I know in the military, when a "superior officer" gives an order, it is not a negotiation.
That concerns me. Kind like the broken window policing. "Yeah, he had adultery a few times. Ah, lots of people do it. Yeah, he disobeyed some orders. Ah, he's not the only one. He still okay to lead the organization and have to judge people who get called out for the same 'infractions'. "
Why have rules then? It was said in this thread or another thread, but if he is willing to break rules like this, is there not the potential for other rules to be broken?
(but my biggest concern is still that he is not qualified. Leading a group of 100 soldiers is way way way different from leading an organization with 3MM people and USD$billions of dollars of budget)
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 17:01 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in The Hegseth "incident.":
I somewhat agree. If someone in the military is going to be discharged for an adultery, there are usually other problems that that person has.
I dont think we know if he was reprimanded or not for disobeying an order to engage the enemy.
But, both of those are still against the Uniform Code of Conduct. The whole basis of the military in the US, even more than in other jobs in government or the private side, is that a soldier IS held to a higher standard and that it is necessary to follow the rules and orders without hesitation, weather or not you agree with them or not. As far as I know in the military, when a "superior officer" gives an order, it is not a negotiation.
That concerns me. Kind like the broken window policing. "Yeah, he had adultery a few times. Ah, lots of people do it. Yeah, he disobeyed some orders. Ah, he's not the only one. He still okay to lead the organization and have to judge people who get called out for the same 'infractions'. "
Why have rules then? It was said in this thread or another thread, but if he is willing to break rules like this, is there not the potential for other rules to be broken?
(but my biggest concern is still that he is not qualified. Leading a group of 100 soldiers is way way way different from leading an organization with 3MM people and USD$billions of dollars of budget)
Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk. Eisenhower cheated on his wife. Patton was a 24kt prick. MacArthur was a prima donna surrounded by Yes Men.
-
@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@89th said in The Hegseth "incident.":
I'm a bit more concern that Hegseth didn't know what ASEAN is or what countries are included.
That should be SecDef 101 stuff.
Yeah. I thought of that as his "Aleppo" moment. Can you imagine Sen. Kennedy grilling someone on that?
That's his Achilles heel.
I think he's going to be very good at rank and file issues...Recruiting problems, cost plus contracts, base housing, pay grades, etc. On the big organizational stuff, not so much.
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 18:05 last edited by@Jolly said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@89th said in The Hegseth "incident.":
I'm a bit more concern that Hegseth didn't know what ASEAN is or what countries are included.
That should be SecDef 101 stuff.
Yeah. I thought of that as his "Aleppo" moment. Can you imagine Sen. Kennedy grilling someone on that?
That's his Achilles heel.
I think he's going to be very good at rank and file issues...Recruiting problems, cost plus contracts, base housing, pay grades, etc. On the big organizational stuff, not so much.
You might be surprised, I'm actually rooting for this guy. At an extremely high level, we need to drastically increase the combat strength, improve recruiting, and never let up on the pedal of battle readiness including technical innovation. I mentioned in another thread, it's very easy to see a scenario where China attacks our country and makes far more progress than you might expect. Fast forward, you watch as your kids are taken into prison camps. Yes, extreme... but the only thing preventing that is a strong military (and I suppose if you can rely on them, strong allies).
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Hegseth "incident.":
I somewhat agree. If someone in the military is going to be discharged for an adultery, there are usually other problems that that person has.
I dont think we know if he was reprimanded or not for disobeying an order to engage the enemy.
But, both of those are still against the Uniform Code of Conduct. The whole basis of the military in the US, even more than in other jobs in government or the private side, is that a soldier IS held to a higher standard and that it is necessary to follow the rules and orders without hesitation, weather or not you agree with them or not. As far as I know in the military, when a "superior officer" gives an order, it is not a negotiation.
That concerns me. Kind like the broken window policing. "Yeah, he had adultery a few times. Ah, lots of people do it. Yeah, he disobeyed some orders. Ah, he's not the only one. He still okay to lead the organization and have to judge people who get called out for the same 'infractions'. "
Why have rules then? It was said in this thread or another thread, but if he is willing to break rules like this, is there not the potential for other rules to be broken?
(but my biggest concern is still that he is not qualified. Leading a group of 100 soldiers is way way way different from leading an organization with 3MM people and USD$billions of dollars of budget)
Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk. Eisenhower cheated on his wife. Patton was a 24kt prick. MacArthur was a prima donna surrounded by Yes Men.
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 18:11 last edited by@Jolly said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk.
If I remember Chernow's biography correctly, Grant was a drinker, but was never drunk during battles, etc. He drank during his "off time."
Eisenhower cheated on his wife.
That was with a secretary, iirc.
Patton was a 24kt prick.
That should be considered a bonus.
But to hear the Democrats complain about marital infidelity is laugh-worthy.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Hegseth "incident.":
I somewhat agree. If someone in the military is going to be discharged for an adultery, there are usually other problems that that person has.
I dont think we know if he was reprimanded or not for disobeying an order to engage the enemy.
But, both of those are still against the Uniform Code of Conduct. The whole basis of the military in the US, even more than in other jobs in government or the private side, is that a soldier IS held to a higher standard and that it is necessary to follow the rules and orders without hesitation, weather or not you agree with them or not. As far as I know in the military, when a "superior officer" gives an order, it is not a negotiation.
That concerns me. Kind like the broken window policing. "Yeah, he had adultery a few times. Ah, lots of people do it. Yeah, he disobeyed some orders. Ah, he's not the only one. He still okay to lead the organization and have to judge people who get called out for the same 'infractions'. "
Why have rules then? It was said in this thread or another thread, but if he is willing to break rules like this, is there not the potential for other rules to be broken?
(but my biggest concern is still that he is not qualified. Leading a group of 100 soldiers is way way way different from leading an organization with 3MM people and USD$billions of dollars of budget)
Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk. Eisenhower cheated on his wife. Patton was a 24kt prick. MacArthur was a prima donna surrounded by Yes Men.
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 18:24 last edited by@Jolly said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk. Eisenhower cheated on his wife. Patton was a 24kt prick. MacArthur was a prima donna surrounded by Yes Men.
Three of the above are not illegal in the US military. The fourth example is alleged. (From my very simple internet research).
Anyway, I am a bit surprised that you, of all people, would be okay with a soldier disobeying the Uniform Code of Conduct more than once and then being "promoted" to lead that same military.
