Jump to content
Baseops Forums


Super User
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Disco_Nav963 last won the day on October 26 2018

Disco_Nav963 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

165 Excellent


About Disco_Nav963

  • Rank
    Flight Lead
  • Birthday 05/19/1984

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Article 32 officer hasn't even determined there is probable cause for a trial yet, Colorado Springs PD already determined that there was not, and we're plastering the guy's name all over the place? Not relevant to topic, and prejudicial to someone that is innocent until proven guilty. Delete and move on.
  2. With the DoD forcing the AF to buy against its will Big Blue going all in on the two-seat F-15EX variant, is the CONOP to use the second seat on the regular for a WSO or second pilot as part of the basic crew... or just for B-Course IPs?
  3. Except that the actual documents which are linked to on the Fox News story do not match the spin that the Daily Wire has put on them... Notably "On Monday, Fox News' Gregg Re reported that over two years later, the allegation that the FBI and State Department floated a 'quid pro quo' deal has now been confirmed, and it originated with the FBI." Well, no. The PDFs make clear that the documents Page was forwarding to Quinn were the source of the October '16 news stories. Lisa Page on Thursday 10/13/16: "These 302s are scheduled to be released to Congress in an unredacted form at the end of the week..." Then two days later, Saturday 10/15/16, Fox's Herridge emails the FBI "Two congressional sources tell fox news that fbi interview summaries and notes, provided to the house intelligence committee late Friday, contain allegations of a 'quid pro quo' between a senior state department executive Patrick Kennedy and FBI agents during the Clinton email investigation." None of the new FBI emails in the FOIA PDF release that was given to Judicial Watch, which include Page's brief summary of the 302s but not the 302s themselves, speak to who originated the quid pro quo proposal like the Daily Wire piece claims they do. Nor does the Fox News story by Gregg Re that Daily Wire cites speak to who proposed it. This Atlantic Monthly piece from 10/17/16, citing language from the 302s themselves (which the FBI released at the time), states explicitly that the proposal originated with State's Patrick Kennedy and that the FBI agent he floated it to wasn't having it. These new docs don't "confirm" the 2016 story inasmuch as no one has been saying it needed confirming. The 302s were already public back then. The only thing that is new here is we now have a heavily redacted set of emails including a couple from Page discussing the impending release of the 302s. ... And of course the Daily Wire piece uses that to muddy the waters, and quotes sloppy language from the Fox News piece ("trove of documents turned over by the FBI, in response to a lawsuit by the transparency group Judicial Watch, also included discussions by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page concerning a potential quid pro quo between the State Department and the FBI") to make it sound like Page was a party to the proposed quid pro quo as opposed to a third party who was forwarding on the 302s from the agent that actually was in the room when State proposed it. To your statement that HRC got away with crimes we would not, well, fact. Civilians get away with things we do not. That's the rub. Where DOJ can't prove intentional unauthorized removal/retention, false statements, leaking, etc. they have not charged criminally... To include cases like Bush's AG Al Gonzales. DOD is much quicker to drop the hammer. To me the most appropriate COA given the facts that were known at the time would have actually been to strip HRC of her security clearance, and review the clearances of her top aides who sent classified stuff to the private email account (esp. this apparent doucher Kennedy). Especially a no-brainer given the "extremely careless" conduct combined with the fact that she was no longer performing the role of Secretary of State when all this was discovered anyway... Then if she can explain in a non-dissembling way to the American people (a) that she f---ed up, she's sorry, and (b) if and how she would employ the former aides that had their clearances reviewed, then the vote of the electorate is kind of the ultimate avenue of appeal to get her clearance back. Of course, (a) she was congenitally incapable of talking about the issue without deflecting responsibility like Millennial Blue 4 at his first debrief, and (b) having sweated out the FBI probe BHO wasn't about to hose his party's nominee by publicly imposing an administrative penalty. But all that being said... the 45 administration's sweetheart treatment of Clown Prince Kushner's clearance after his 69 SF-86 revisions and forgetting to mention having tried to establish a secret, surveillance-proof back channel to the Kremlin via the Russian embassy is significantly stinkier. And if you think the FBI was in cahoots with the Clinton campaign after dropping an October Surprise on HRC (Weiner laptop) while keeping the CI probe of the Trump campaign secret squirrel, I can't help you. Source links to recap: The new Fox story that Daily Wire misleadingly quotes The FOIA docs themselves The October 2016 Atlantic piece that says it originated with State 10/19/16 story from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution confirming Atlantic Monthly's version (incl. interview with the FBI agent, Brian McCauley, not Lisa Page)
  4. Well, when I said that I was alluding to my own particular experience of 8 years in BUFFs where of my AD wing commanders I had many B-2 pilots, 1x B-1 pilot, and 1x B-1 WSO. Didn't have a BUFF wing king until I became a Reservist. Just switched to Reserve B-1s and my wing king is the same BUFF dude as before (because GSU of same Reserve wing), and the AD wing/CC is... a BUFF guy. In any case, they have all been proficient in the bomber mission... Just not our particular bomber. Not like AMC with tanker dudes commanding mobility wings and vice/versa. (Of course, I started my career in AWACS with a wing commander from... The B-1. So there's that.)
  5. They're a necessary desirable evil when the wing commander only has a senior officer qual in the MDS his wing flies.
  6. Jesus you're dense. His Ph.D. is in clinical psychology. All his refereed publications are in psychology. To the extent any of them touch on politics, it's on the personality traits of liberals and conservatives. He has no peer-reviewed publications in history, economics, or political theory. To the extent he has any formal education in those subjects it's a B.A. in Political Science... So did my high school soccer coach. His own statements show he is hardly "exceptionally educated" about those subjects, or Marxist thought in particular. Of course there are Marxists in academia. There are also postmodernists/poststructuralists in academia, which is his real bête noire and what he means when he says "cultural Marxism." The two groups do not overlap. They believe very different things about basic epistemology. Saying "cultural Marxist" is like saying "Malthusian infertility medicine"; you're conflating two schools of thought or fields of study that not only don't overlap, but are actually fundamentally contradictory. Marx made specific claims about economics, politics, and history (claims that were severely wrong by the way) based on an underlying belief in epistemological realism—that is, that objective reality exists. Post-modern critical social theorists (like the gender extremists that hold gender is entirely socially constructed) believe the opposite. The targets of Peterson's ire disagree with Marx on epistemology, and they also don't care much about economics either. But "cultural Marxism" sounds scary and taps into people's concerns about contemporary academia. Ultimately it's a meaningless pejorative like Neo-Conservative (which the Left stripped of its domestic policy meanings to use only to refer to a particular subset of foreign policy thought on the Right, because it conveniently sounds like Neo-Nazi), Neo-Liberal (which once had a particular meaning in international economics, but socialists have co-opted to attack liberals), or "Globalist." It appeals to people whose knowledge of political theory comes from owning but not actually reading/understanding Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism." Dishonest oversimplification and claiming to speak as an expert about subjects outside your field is not what academics do. It's what hucksters do.
  7. I was referring to his moonlighting beyond the scope of his field to opine about scary sounding things like "Cultural Marxism" (which, btw, is not a thing). I'm not scoffing his actual academic work in his field (Chomsky was a great linguist, but also a terrible historian and political theorist—that's my point), or the substance of "12 Rules." But at the same time there are scores of people and books you could go to for good life advice that aren't also hucksters selling fear for profit.
  8. Testing the lines for a new method of EAM dissemination.
  9. Jordan Peterson is the Noam Chomsky of what passes for conservatism these days. He may have once been a reputable academic psychologist, but at this point he's just another outrage salesman telling people what they want to be pissed off about.
  10. Might need to jump on one sooner to negotiate your way out of Dyess! Otherwise they might keep you at the FTU until you're hot for one.
  11. If that was the choice before you, I'd completely agree. The reality is that we were 100% able to say "The United States does not recognize any unilaterally-declared Kurdish state and will not support the Kurds if they try to do so. At the same time, the United States believes governance of NE Syria is a matter to be resolved through negotiations between the inhabitants of NE Syria and the government in Damascus. Any attempt by Damascus, non-state actors, or external parties [i.e. Turkey, but left unsaid] to change the status quo east of the Euphrates will be strenuously opposed and met by whatever response the president deems necessary." In other words de facto autonomy for the Syrian Kurds similar to what the Iraqi Kurds enjoyed under the umbrella of Op NORTHERN WATCH backed up by calculated ambiguity regarding the means by which we would respond (presumably defensive but not offensive support for the SDF against the Assad regime, continued military support against ISIS or any ISIS 2.0 that rises up), and unspoken diplomatic/trade consequences for Turkey who need not even be named in the statement... While our crack State Department diplomat nerds negotiate a better long term framework. Of course, Trump doesn't do nuance or anything that doesn't benefit him personally, so I'm not surprised we are where we are.
  12. Classic associate with 9th Bomb Squadron (Active Duty)... Strong TFI relationship. In the past 345 BS/CC has had G-Series authority over the garrison 9 BS folks during 9 BS deployments, and on one Guam deployment the 345 BS/CC actually commanded the 9 EBS for 2-3 months. 345th has participated with other 307 BW players (93 BS/343 BS BUFFs) on a couple of EUCOM trips and I believe was also the lead squadron as the 345 EBS for a short TFI Fairford deployment in conjunction with the 9 BS and 7 OSS. Anecdotally there is (or at least has in the past been) an expectation that members either deploy for half of every 9 BS deployment or all of every other 9 BS deployment, but I think this is managed through carefully controlled mobilizations so dudes get dwell protection. YMMV based on needs of both units. At home station I know the AGR, ART, and trougher types are generally making RAP (4 sorties/month inexperienced and 3/month experienced)... Don't know about the true TRs, but I imagine it could be a crapshoot depending on aircraft availability. Anecdotally the participation expectation is at least 6 days/month, which I understand is in line with other CAF-affiliated Reserve units. I'm not smart on average sortie duration, so can't help you there. When the 9 BS is in garrison they only fly 345th-only lines (callsign CROOK) during UTAs and fly as part of rainbow crews with the 9 BS during the work week.
  13. ^ Two. No break in service = 6 months of free Tricare via TAMP. A $1,440ish value, yours for only $0 dollars.
  14. Pretty good T-38 drops after a bit of a drought...
  15. Perhaps because McSally hugged Trump/MAGA hard and Ducey did not?
  • Create New...