Quote:
Originally posted by Rodeo
If you are active duty, you either work from the inside for change, or you muster out. Calling for active duty officers to take on the Secretary of defense is dangerous and unwarranted. I think Rumsfeld's handling of the war has been criminally incompetent, but I don't want active brass to do anything but follow orders from the president, speaking through Rumsfeld.
|
It's more than that, anyone serving at O-6 (Colonel) and above serves at the leisure of the President, particularly if over 20 years service. They can be retired at any time by the stroke of a pen.
Quote:
Civilians control the Pentagon. Until Bush replaces him, active duty officers either do the best they can to work around his incompetence, or retire.
Hancock, you're the only "Hanoi Jane" here. Rumsfeld has given more aid and comfort to the enemy than all the "lefties" in the world combined. By supporting incompetence, you support the enemy.
|
You have that right. Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam because she was in sympathy with communism, not for any special animous otherwise, and certainly not because the war was being run poorly by the Sec. Def. (which it was).
Hancock, and other cultists, think loyalty to the government in it's every activity consitututes patriotism.
Not only is that not true, loyalty to a government as dangerous as this one is to Americans is at the heart of treason towards America.