The Hegseth "incident."
-
Hmmm. I am just surprised, that if you take the partisan from this pick, that people think Mr. Hegseth is a good choice.
The
column seems to have a lot more entries than the 
column(and yes, I know that there have been minister picks in the past that were less qualified. But.......... that still does not justify this one. If you look at importance, I think that the Minister of Defense is one of the more important Minister positions.)
-
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":
I guess I should have read that before making my confirmation prognostications. If he gets the ax, that’s good news for Gabbard.
Watched a bit of this morning’s interrogation of Hesgeth on BBC. Meh, a lot of theatre by all involved.
I personally think that despite his baggage, Hesgeth is far less of a liability to the country risk than Gabbard. That woman should not have access to anything classified above Personal & Confidential.
@Renauda said in The Hegseth "incident.":
the country risk than Gabbard. That woman should not have access to anything classified above Personal & Confidential.
Sen. McConnell is a crucial vote
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/17/mcconnell-gabbard-senate-confirmation-trumpPresident-elect Trump Trump's transition thinks Gabbard, the nominee for director of national intelligence, can get confirmed even with a "no" vote from McConnell. But his public opposition — if it materializes — could open the door to other GOP defectors.
Gabbard's team isn't banking on McConnell's vote, sources tell Axios.
McConnell is studiously avoiding public or private indications that he'll support Trump's nominees, three people familiar with the matter tell Axios.
Voting against Gabbard would resume hostilities between McConnell and Trump. It could have implications for big policy questions down the line, from funding Ukraine to raising tariffs.McConnell said on the Senate floor on Thursday that he'll support nominees to "senior national security roles whose record and experience will make them immediate assets, not liabilities, in the pursuit of peace through strength."
When asked specifically about Gabbard, McConnell told CNN's Manu Raju he was not ready to announce whether he can back her. -
Why did she leave her boots in a field? Seems unnecessary. Hopefully she had flip flops or good socks.
-
Ouch, 89th…
-
-
@89th said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Oh bloody hell. My bad
Two points.
- Waving your Purple Heart in someone's face to discredit them is poor form.
- She proves, in a way, Hegseth's point. If she had been in a non-combatant role, she'd be walking down the halls of congress.
"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.
-
Random (not even really interesting) fact: When I was in Wash DC this past summer, stopped by Sen. Duckworth's office. She happened to be there and was on her way out. Talked for about 10 seconds. She is half Thai so I greeted her with "Swa dee ka" , and she was kind of surprised. LOL
-
I didn't like him until I saw his white supremecy tats on his chest. That makes him good people.
-
I didn't like him until I saw his white supremecy tats on his chest. That makes him good people.
@NobodySock said in The Hegseth "incident.":
I didn't like him until I saw his white supremecy tats on his chest. That makes him good people.
Yes, white supremacy is the highest danger the country now faces.
-
@89th said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Oh bloody hell. My bad
Two points.
- Waving your Purple Heart in someone's face to discredit them is poor form.
- She proves, in a way, Hegseth's point. If she had been in a non-combatant role, she'd be walking down the halls of congress.
@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":
- She proves, in a way, Hegseth's point. If she had been in a non-combatant role, she'd be walking down the halls of congress.
Not really because that argument is not specific to women. Almost any wounded vet wouldn’t have been wounded had they not been in combat roles.
-
@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":
- She proves, in a way, Hegseth's point. If she had been in a non-combatant role, she'd be walking down the halls of congress.
Not really because that argument is not specific to women. Almost any wounded vet wouldn’t have been wounded had they not been in combat roles.
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":
- She proves, in a way, Hegseth's point. If she had been in a non-combatant role, she'd be walking down the halls of congress.
Not really because that argument is not specific to women. Almost any wounded vet wouldn’t have been wounded had they not been in combat roles.
Not following that one. If women were restricted to non-combat roles, their chances of getting limbs blown off go way down. Not saying it wouldn't happen with asymmetric warfare, since with drones, IEDs, etc., the rear areas are also subject to violence, but chances are much less.
-
Same with left handers, gingers, and guys named Todd.
Is that an argument for excluding them from combat roles?
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Same with left handers, gingers, and guys named Todd.
Is that an argument for excluding them from combat roles?
Hegseth argued "standards".
Here's an article from Military.com:
What he said is pretty much in line with his previous position... Lowering standards results in a less deadly and efficient military. If you follow this stuff much at all, you know what he's talking about...Infantry, Special Ops, maybe some Engineering battalions, Calvary (women can't crank tracks)etc. It doesn't preclude them from combat roles such as fighter or helicopter pilots, drone operators, or near combat roles such as medical or quartermaster units.
