The Hegseth "incident."
-
@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.
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 19:30 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@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.
You just contradicted yourself. You detailed how infidelity is grounds for dismissal then when Jolly mentions Eisenhower, you comment that it’s not illegal in the military.
As far as illegal goes, infidelity is an actual felony punishable by jail in some states. It’s a misdemeanor in others. It’s one of those laws that aren’t enforced. Two thirds of our senior command would be disqualified for infidelity.
The only real concern is the order on when to fire. I would like to know more details about that, but a unit leader does have some leeway in a combat situation to modify or change orders if they feel it’s necessary. Now, there will be reviews, and they damn well better have been good decisions on the part of the commander, or they are toast. The fact that Hegseth was not drummed out and was not demoted speaks volumes.
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@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.
You just contradicted yourself. You detailed how infidelity is grounds for dismissal then when Jolly mentions Eisenhower, you comment that it’s not illegal in the military.
As far as illegal goes, infidelity is an actual felony punishable by jail in some states. It’s a misdemeanor in others. It’s one of those laws that aren’t enforced. Two thirds of our senior command would be disqualified for infidelity.
The only real concern is the order on when to fire. I would like to know more details about that, but a unit leader does have some leeway in a combat situation to modify or change orders if they feel it’s necessary. Now, there will be reviews, and they damn well better have been good decisions on the part of the commander, or they are toast. The fact that Hegseth was not drummed out and was not demoted speaks volumes.
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 20:46 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in The Hegseth "incident.":
You just contradicted yourself. You detailed how infidelity is grounds for dismissal then when Jolly mentions Eisenhower, you comment that it’s not illegal in the military.
Sorry, I was not very clear.
The three things I was referring to as being legal were:
drinking - Grant
being a prick - Patton
being a prima donna - McArthurThe alleged activity I was referring to was Eisenhower.
As I said, usually when someone in the military is fired for adultery, there are usually other factors that also are part of it. It is rarely just being an adultery.
(Hegseth) has said he told his troops to ignore commands about when to fire on potential enemies.
I do understand that there is some leeway in a field of battle. But still a concern for me at least. At some level, ignoring direct orders is a problem.
He may not have been officially drummed out. But could have been that he was told he was not going to get promoted to the next level. That is kind of the unofficial way to let a military guy know that it is time to look for another job. Or, "we are going to transfer you to XX position", knowing that the person would not be willing to do so, and would leave the military instead. (Having said that, I have no idea of his time he left the military and the reasons for leaving.)
-
@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.
wrote on 15 Jan 2025, 20:55 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@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.
I have it on good authority that a soldier that won't fuck won't fight.
-
wrote on 16 Jan 2025, 01:03 last edited by
LOL. Seen on X:
"Did anyone ask Pete Hegseth if he’d disappear for weeks without telling anyone like Lloyd Austin did?"
-
wrote on 16 Jan 2025, 02:47 last edited by
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.)
-
wrote on 16 Jan 2025, 03:08 last edited by
The military needs a radical overhaul and you want more of the same.
-
wrote on 17 Jan 2025, 00:00 last edited by
-
@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.
wrote on 17 Jan 2025, 02:57 last edited by@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. -
wrote on 17 Jan 2025, 14:42 last edited by
Why did she leave her boots in a field? Seems unnecessary. Hopefully she had flip flops or good socks.
-
wrote on 17 Jan 2025, 14:42 last edited by
-
Why did she leave her boots in a field? Seems unnecessary. Hopefully she had flip flops or good socks.
wrote on 17 Jan 2025, 14:44 last edited by@89th said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Why did she leave her boots in a field? Seems unnecessary. Hopefully she had flip flops or good socks.
-
wrote on 17 Jan 2025, 14:45 last edited by
Ouch, 89th…
-
wrote on 17 Jan 2025, 15:56 last edited by
Oh bloody hell. My bad
-
wrote on 17 Jan 2025, 15:57 last edited by
-
wrote on 17 Jan 2025, 16:03 last edited by
@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.
-
wrote on 17 Jan 2025, 18:59 last edited by
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
-
wrote on 18 Jan 2025, 07:00 last edited by
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.
wrote on 18 Jan 2025, 08:10 last edited by@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.
wrote on 18 Jan 2025, 12:21 last edited by@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.
wrote on 18 Jan 2025, 12:44 last edited by@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.