brickhistory

*cough* Ben Rhodes *cough**cough*

Quals: - American citizen - seen a few Administrations - able to read/write/draw my own conclusions about politics, the political establishment, and recognize hypocrisy of whatever political bent. - sadly, the only pilot quals are all too seldom used FAA-issued PPL from some decades ago. Never much of a Heath Ledger/dark Batman genre. And I'd go with this for me over characterization. Since 'facts' are important to you, perhaps you can stick with those in your arguments versus personal attacks. I can play that and am not too shabby at it, but then we become liberals if we stay on that path. I do have standards after all. edited to remove superfluous personal achievement stuff.

It's curious how the past Administration received, largely, a pass here at Baseops due mainly to the auto-racisim charge that was leveled at dissent. Now that there's a white boy with a bad combover in the seat, it's game on. I am absolutely digging the amount of consternation and gnashing of teeth that this administration is causing on both sides of the political aisle. There have been comments in this thread about how even the GOP greybeards are aghast at Trump & Co. and their nascent methods of governing. The first, obvious question is "How well did those greybeards work out and improve our position at home and abroad?" Oxen are being gored and I am pleased.

If only the leaders during WWII had known what to do and been perfect. Never mind Douhet, Trenchard, et al. Even H.G. Wells. Nope, it was those selfish fighter guys. Who despite having their toys didn't instantly deploy long-range escort from August, 1942 on-ward. Nope, those long-range tanks should've instantly appeared. Remind me who led the fighter escort on the Enola Gay mission? And what was the leadership scheme for Big Blue from the end of WWII until well into Vietnam? And the roster of perfectly suited aircraft we had for the wars in Korea and Vietnam? USN submariners suffered, as a percentage, the greatest number of casualties during that war. I guess even dead guys need to have d1ck-measuring contests... *sorry-ish for being a d1ck in this post - working nights and am cranky. The point is there is always two-sides to history.

Yep, just like David Brooks, Jennifer Rubin, Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, et al. "Highly respected" and "conservative" are not adjectives I would ascribe to Frum or the rest. They, collectively, remind of this guy: as they seek to curry favor with the MSM machine. As to your point of "carrying on Obama's policies," it appears you miss the point. When Barry did it, it never raised the slightest hackle for eight loooooong years. If Trump does it and only after three weeks, it is the End Times. Firing a disobedient acting AG? A dictator. Firing a four-star general who was quoted from off the record conversations and it's ensuring civilian control of the military. Must be nice...

Jeezuzzz, it's been two (2) weeks since the guy was sworn in. His staff isn't even in place yet via the Senate. And he's already undone some things that were done by his predecessor.* Not to mention the near open revolt of supposedly apolitical civil servants at State and EPA. I'm not happy with the GOP and the reported** backpedaling on immediate repeal of Obamacare, etc., but Jesus who was not an immigrant despite what the Rev Sharpton claims, it's been all of two weeks... * The attention whore can't help but try to stay in the spotlight. Instead of staying quiet like the tradition of ex-President's are supposed to be - nobody wants the peanut gallery complaining during their time, so they haven't done it - mostly - to the replacement guy. But this guy takes the narcissistic cake. Just f'in' go away already... **I LOVED the immediate firing of the acting AG yesterday.

That'd be a crazy Austrian. But I quibble...

Political leaders using the military as an instrument for political purposes on the world stage. Huh, who'da thought? Wasn't there some crazy German who wrote a long time ago something about war and politics?

Maybe pertinent to this idea. https://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2017/01/20/donald_trump_has_a_coherent_radical_foreign_policy_doctrine_112180.html

THAT is funny, I don't care who you are.

I think we are agreed that reading is fundamental and implying that I hadn't read the article isn't. If the transition team wanted to keep him on, but Big Green was pushing him out the door, who exactly is the action figure in this scenario? And if we get "it's all Trump's fault" on these forums (liberal or not, I don't know), just imagine what the wider world is going to say - at least 1/2 anyway and that percentage of unhappy campers contains most of the media so the effect will only be magnified. - to BFM - Yep, that's the one, thanks. edited to add: The Commander of the DC Guard, appointed by the President, traditionally offers his resignation to each new Commander in Chief who decides to decline or accept the resignation. This particular commander was appointed by George W. Bush in 2008. Thus he has been in the same position for eight years. The Trump team offered to keep the MG through January 20 with his retirement effective 21 January. The MG refused and decided to voluntarily leave effective 1201 EST, 20 Jan 17. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/fake-news-wapo-not-tell-whole-story-dc-national-guard-chiefs-resignation-video/ Nope, it's gotta be Trump's fault...

According to his Nat'l Guard GO bio: He entered service in 1979, so he is waaaay beyond the 35 year total military service law (unless waived by Congress as in Rickover); probably his Guard time played with that calculation. The TAG of the DC Guard, unlike states' Guard which are appointed by the respective governor, is appointed by the President of the United States who is currently, and was when this order was given, Barack H. Obama. The MG is also 65, again a mandatory military retirement age unless waived by Congressional action. Nope, it's Trump's fault. We're gonna see a lot of that, I reckon. There was a good column (forget the venue and writer) on how everything for the past eight years was Bush's fault, and from here on out everything is Trump's fault. It's as though the last Administration didn't exist. Sure must be nice...

Hmmm, Trump isn't in office yet and his SecDef isn't either yet he gets blamed for an action taken recently under the current Administration. THAT, my friends, is power.

Soooo, Germans (assuming here based on the accents) like big schwanzes. Or maybe they were Russkis. Good to know. Watch out Poland!

The Air Force District of Washington (AFDW) commander, a two-star, issued GO #1 ordering that USAF military assigned/attached/OPCON to him were forbidden to drink during the 48 hours prior to and after the coming inauguration. Department of Air Force civilians were "highly encouraged" to follow GO#1. His rationale was members need to be ready. WTF? As small potatoes as this is in the entire DC scheme of things, it is another brick in the load of "Screw this, I'm out" that Big Blue seems to not understand. For me as an old retired fart, this has either domestic disturbance implications or a Maj Gen who needs his sails trimmed. There is an entire thread on this. F-22 - 189 minus the ones lost thus far, ain't enough.

- Status of repealing Obamacare? - Status of introduced 50-state reciprocity bill and likelihood of both Houses passing? - BAH shenanigans (see the thread and get McCain to an old folks home) - Re-opening F-22 line? - Chances of getting the budget anywhere controlled? -edited to add - how about a lil friendly Congressional enquiry to the AFDW/CC regarding his General Order #1? That seems both ludicrous and has overtones that are scary.

Anonymous calls to various left- and right-wing news outlets seems to be in order. Each would love to go to town on the implications for such an order for an inauguration. I'd also be calling my Congress critters.

Someone in the chain can't read United States Code, i.e., DOPMA. Twice passed over = out unless offered continuation. It may take a while and will screw those affected in the short-term, but the class action suit that will result should net them a nice piece of change. Not enough to make up for not building seniority or whatever sh1t sandwich they are handed for those three years, but it will come. I'd also be calling the sh1t out of my Congressional critters and DoD IG. IF I wasn't promoted, twice, then the law states I must be separated unless you offer and I accept continuation. Key word is accept. Lots of lawyers around who like and know how to stick to The Man since it pays them handsomely to do so.

Sooo, I got whisky and books. Guess my family has figured me out.

Paraphrasing a Churchill quote (I believe): If you aren't liberal when you are young, you haven't a heart. If you aren't conservative as you get older, you haven't a brain. As the military tends to make us grow up a tad faster than the average bear, I think that is one reason why the military tends conservative.

I do it intentionally including and especially to those who wish me "Happy Holidays." 99% of the time you can see the relief on the well-wisher's face that they aren't A) going to be sued or called racist and that B) some traditions remain. I started to post the below in the "leaving for the airlines thread" since it essentially dealt with a form of stop-loss. But in the time from work to driving home, the powers that be caved to liberal pressure so to here it is posted: Rockettes must perform With this as a nice chaser: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/23/donald-trump-voters-revenge-giving-holidays-christmas-gifts-donations Tell me again how it'sboth sides that need to "get along?"

As noted by others above, "liberal" today doesn't mean what it used to. And as I intend it is most definitely a pejorative. Likewise, for most of the media which is synonymous with liberal. A liberal of old was open-minded and looked at all angles and came to a conclusion based on the evidence, facts, and the internal deliberation. Today's liberal is the opposite. And after the last eight years of being at fault because I am a white, hetereosexual, Christian-ish military officer (ret) from the South (pretty much the full monty for being to blame for everything) for the complete and utter buffoonery of the current Administration and its lap-dog press (imagine the 24/7 slanted, blaming coverage of Deepwater Horizon, the lack of results for the $1 trillion stimulus that didn't, the IRS targeting U.S. citizens, the President of the United States literally targeting U.S. citizens without benefit of a trial and then executing them via Hellfire, leaving Iraq in "truimph" only to be back in a far worse position today, etc, etc, etc, to the finale of Russian "hacking" but doing nothing about it until after the election), I am deeply and personally invested in rejecting that mantra. That much of what others want or want to tear down was largely, but not completely, built by those like me from past generations, I scoff at those who want to tear it down. It would appear that I am not alone. Trump was simply the means to an end for me. He wasn't my preferred candidate, but he won the nomination and I would have defected to North Korea before voting for Hillary (and her skewed nomination system is a whole 'nother thread). Since it gave a nice raised middle finger as well to the establishment Republicans who are essentially Democrat-lite, I am enjoying that discomfort and groveling that is occurring from them as well. As noted above, I dropped my Republican party affiliation in disgust. A pox on both parties since they have been responsible for the leviathan that is government at all levels, but especially at the federal level. I don't cotton much to being told what to do, how to do it, and how much of my labor's investment should be given to those who tell me they "know better." Again, it would appear that I am not alone. Finally, although it is very difficult to discern personalities or proclivities via short notes as on this thread, I would, however, think that perhaps I was taught wrong in my schoolin'. It would seem that snowflakes are indeed identical. So being directed "Stick to the facts instead of sweeping generalization and political non-sense. Put some arguments back into these posts instead of the Facebook standard "liberals... blah blah" "Obama... rabble rabble" etc." certainly seems directive and not a suggestion. If my writing is not to your standards, feel free to ignore it or rebut it. Either way, I am indifferent. I do, however, thank you for your service and commend you on completing the long, difficult road to being a fighter pilot. I wish we had a lot more of you. So sayeth one of the "bunch of curmudgeonly middle aged men[who] smugly laugh."

I am not trying to cast spears at the IC on being wrong sometimes or even many times. They have a literally impossible job of trying to predict the future. And get beaten up to where they are abused spouses because they can't do it 100% of the time. Which leads to paralysis which leads to it being much easier to politicize what is forwarded to decision-makers. "Give the wookie what he wants" syndrome. My point is that the IC is not immune from the DC games and are politicized at the senior levels. As are all instruments of the USG. It's is literally why elections have consequences. But for the liberals in the losing side and the press (again, repetitive but oh so satisfying to say) to blame Vlad and Co. on the nationwide rejection of transgendered, trans-fatted, trans-national, "we know better than you" attitude of the current Administration, the majority of the media, and the well-insulated liberals in the coastal enclaves is purely denial. He doesn't like you.  I don't like you either...

An agency or even several being politicized in the IC? Say it ain't so! But don't bring up CENTCOM's J2 and the watered down reports on ISIS that 40+ analysts hit the "BS" button on. Or the CIA's director's (ok, acting director) direct, personal coordination on the Benghazi was a video demonstration gone bad. Or conflicting assessments prior to the Arab Spring but only the rosy ones being accepted and briefed. Nope, no history of a politicized IC. BTW, the ODNI is not an intel agency. It is a coordinating body for the IC. Which, again, BTW, was created as a result of the Director of Central Intelligence not doing his job prior to 9/11 and that Administration not wanting to admit it was wrong. Hint, the clue of who was responsible for being the coordinator of the IC was in the job title. Set up by the same act that created Big Blue for some history learnin' for ya. But since politics demanded that no one be blamed for the inter-agency FUBAR, another entity is created. Another layer of bueracracy (sp?) and more money is poured on the political wound of an IC gone wild. There are a lot of good people in the IC who want to do their jobs and tell the truth as they know it. Senior level management is very politicized and responds to the political masters for their own personal agendas and for assuring larger future budgets. Which often times equates to the same thing. Sound familiar? edited for J-code buffoonery