Democrat and Independent Thinker..."The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -Nietzsche

Commenting on many things, including..."A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from." - Keith Olbermann

Friday, November 10, 2006

One thought

Before it becomes even more irrelevant...

I used to work for the Navy in civil service and am a former Navy wife. When the Navy Times, et al, came out against Rumsfeld, I was very concerned. It doesn't matter that Gannett owns the military newspapers. The papers speak for the military. They are ultra-conservative and, naturally, very pro-military and pro-military families.

For the only media mouthpiece of the military to come out against Rumsfeld like that was foreboding, at best. Basically, you may as well say that the SECNAV and all of the other Chiefs of the military branches were speaking out to the public via the military. The only reason they would have done that would have been because they were not being listened to in the Administration, and had attempted to convey their views in an ungodly amount of attempts.

You have to understand. This is simply NOT DONE. That it occurred was extraordinary. Tantamount to military coup manuevers. That is fucking scary as hell.

Bush did not fire Rumsfeld because of the election.
Bush did not fire Rumsfeld out of his own volition.
Bush fired Rumsfeld because the military told him he had to, period.

My best bet is that the only reason the editorials were published is because Bush was threatened with their publication, and still resisted up to the day before the election. He probably pooh-poohed them even when published, thinking that if his party retained Congress, he would have enough power to continue resisting the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Once they lost, he had no choice but to fire Rumsfeld to avoid an overt mutiny of the military. It will never be admitted, of course. But, I'd lay odds that it happened.

One more thought about the military. I'd like to point out, especially to the media whose knowledge of the military is nil, that members of the military of any rank or branch will not ever speak their true thoughts when being interviewed.

You can interview them from here to the moon, and they will never speak against the chain of command, which includes the President and SECDEF. They CAN'T, you numbfucks!

When you join the military, you are owned by the military, lock, stock and barrel. If you challenge the chain of command in any way, shape or form, or intimate anything other than complete compliance and agreement, you will be court-martialed for treason. Let me spell that for you...T.R.E.A.S.O.N. If not treasonous, any comment not fully supportive of the chain of command will land you in court martial for I.N.S.U.B.O.R.D.I.N.A.T.I.O.N.

Got it yet? Stop harrassing the troops by asking them what they *THINK* about the war. They are not paid to think. They are paid to kill. Period.

To paraphrase an old Navy saying, if the Navy (Army, Marines, etc.) wanted you to have an opinion (or a thought) they would have issued you one in your duffle bag.

'Nuff said.

No comments: