Clinton's military uniform?
Andrew Gore™
Bill Clinton, as is well known, evaded the draft and
never served in the military. But as President, of course, he
is now... what is he, exactly? He isn't Head of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. (The wimpy poet he installed in that position
also never served in the military, BTW) Is he Supreme Allied
Commander? No, that would be SACEUR at Nato, Gen Kashmilli.
King of All Military, a la Howard Stern? But I wonder, is
Clinton - or any president - entitled to wear a military
uniform? I suspect he's technically entitled to, they just
choose not to; it would look a little rediculous. (Can you
imagine Clinton, or maybe Nixon, in a fancy uniform?) After
all, the President, in a very real sense, outranks even the
highest general. So could he, if he wanted? Huh?
Your friend,
-- Andrew Gore™ --
Gary S. Callison
: Bill Clinton, as is well known, evaded the draft and
: never served in the military. But as President, of course, he
: is now... what is he, exactly?
a member of the armed forces is a matter for legal scholars to debate.
I don't think he is. If he was, we could court-martial him for adultery
and conduct unbecoming... ;-)
: But I wonder, is
: Clinton - or any president - entitled to wear a military
: uniform? I suspect he's technically entitled to, they just
: choose not to; it would look a little rediculous. (Can you
: imagine Clinton, or maybe Nixon, in a fancy uniform?)
And further, imagine the half-million or so military personnel who would
be instantly outraged. Bill Clinton putting on a military uniform would
cause a whole new world of political problems.
: After
: all, the President, in a very real sense, outranks even the
: highest general. So could he, if he wanted? Huh?
Hey, if he wanted, he could screw up the government, bomb people for no
reason, use his office for his own personal gain... -no, wait a minute.
...oh, never mind.
--
Huey
My wife gets upset when I start talking like I'm God. I don't see what the
big deal is. I mean, if Bill Clinton can be president, why can't I be God?
Deborah
> Bill Clinton, as is well known, evaded the draft and
>never served in the military. But as President, of course, he
>is now... what is he, exactly? He isn't Head of the Joint
>Chiefs of Staff. (The wimpy poet he installed in that position
>also never served in the military, BTW) Is he Supreme Allied
>Commander? No, that would be SACEUR at Nato, Gen Kashmilli.
>King of All Military, a la Howard Stern?
The term you're looking for is "Commander In Chief."
Best regards from Deborah
FAQ file: http://members.aol.com/SJF1959/index.html
Found in the in-box: http://in.box.listbot.com
Dutch Courage
Date: Mon, 27 September 1999 07:13 took hard time out from a busy schedule of
ice cream scooping to write:
>
> Bill Clinton, as is well known, evaded the draft and
>never served in the military. But as President, of course, he
>is now... what is he, exactly?
Commander in chief.
> But I wonder, is
>Clinton - or any president - entitled to wear a military
>uniform? I suspect he's technically entitled to, they just
>choose not to; it would look a little rediculous. (Can you
>imagine Clinton, or maybe Nixon, in a fancy uniform?) After
>all, the President, in a very real sense, outranks even the
>highest general. So could he, if he wanted? Huh?
I suspect that would be a no-no, what with the value we Americans place on
civilian control of the armed forces.
"There is no land beyond the law, where tyrants rule with unshakable power.
It is but a dream from which the evil wake to face their fate, their
terrifying hour."
-Wesley Dodds.
R124c4u2
have to match that of the troops.
So how did the "Ike jacket" come to be the official uniform jacket? What was
its evolution?
Timothy A. McDaniel
Andrew =?iso-8859-1?Q?Gore=99?= <dice@primenet+.com> wrote:
>Bill Clinton ... as President, of course, he is now... what is he,
>exactly?
Article II, section 2, of the US Constitution: "The President shall be
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of
the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service
of the United States".
( http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/constitution.html )
>He isn't Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (The wimpy poet he
>installed in that position also never served in the military, BTW)
Excuse me? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff never served in
the military? I thought that was a four-star general's position.
Perhaps you mean the (civilian) Secretary of Defence? Regrettably,
I can't seem to find the names and stats of the current incumbents;
anyone have URLs?
--
*** NEW PERSONAL ADDRESS ***
Tim McDaniel is tm...@jump.net; if that fail,
tm...@austin.ibm.com and tm...@us.ibm.com are my work accounts.
tm...@crl.com is old and will go away.
Bermuda999
>
> Bill Clinton, as is well known, evaded the draft and
>is now... what is he, exactly? He isn't Head of the Joint
>Chiefs of Staff. (The wimpy poet he installed in that position
>also never served in the military, BTW)
The Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff is General Henry (Hugh) Shelton. He
has served in the military (U.S. Army) and is still in the military. He served
in Vietnam and Desert Storm (among other altercations)
Lalbert1
(R124c4u2) writes:
Gen. Eisenhower had the design copied for him when he saw a similar jacket
being worn by British officers when he was in England during WWII. It was
added to the regular soldiers wardrobe long after Eisenhower started wearing
it. One of the interesting things about being a general is that they are
allowed to design their own uniforms.
We discussed this here not too long ago. There is a government web site that
tells how military uniform changes are adopted. I don't remember the address,
but it should be an easy search.
Les
Bermuda999
>
>In article <19990927090415...@ng-cl1.aol.com>, r124...@aol.com
>(R124c4u2) writes:
>
>>I would think the Commander in Chief could design his own uniform. It
>>doesn't
>>have to match that of the troops.
>>
>>So how did the "Ike jacket" come to be the official uniform jacket? What
>was
>>its evolution?
>
>Gen. Eisenhower had the design copied for him when he saw a similar jacket
>being worn by British officers when he was in England during WWII. It was
>added to the regular soldiers wardrobe long after Eisenhower started wearing
>it. One of the interesting things about being a general is that they are
>allowed to design their own uniforms.
>
It's good to be General.
Shawn Wilson
Gary S. Callison <hu...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:ruulum...@corp.supernews.com...
> Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Whether or not he is ~technically~
> a member of the armed forces is a matter for legal scholars to debate.
> I don't think he is. If he was, we could court-martial him for adultery
> and conduct unbecoming... ;-)
Conduct unbecoming *what*? Certainly not an officer, he wasn't
commissioned. Not an NCO either.
RM Mentock
>
> lalb...@aol.com (Lalbert1) writes:
<snip>
> >it. One of the interesting things about being a general is that they are
> >allowed to design their own uniforms.
> >
>
> It's good to be General.
Well, sure. The devil is in the details.
--
D.
Bill Baldwin
> Bill Clinton, as is well known, evaded the draft and
>never served in the military.
I'm no fan of his, but I think the draft-evasion thing is bogus. I could see
calling his behavior that if it had occurred in the context of WWII. There, we
had an identifiable enemy that had attacked U.S. soil and one could argue it
was the responsibility of all Americans not to shirk their duty to defend the
country.
Vietnam was this bizarre foreign war that not everyone understood. We could
have pulled out at a moment's notice and not affected national security at
all. In that situation, almost everyone did what they could to avoid service.
Young men were very happy when they got a high draft number.[1] They weren't
traitors for failing to enlist anyway.
I guess my feeling is I don't need the draft-dodging charge in order to have
plenty to complain about with this pres.
--
Bill Baldwin
[1] Unless it was the high ones that went first. I think it was t'other way.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> Bill Clinton, as is well known, evaded the draft and
> is now... what is he, exactly?
The phrase is "Commander in Chief" aften reduced to CinC.
> But I wonder, is
> Clinton - or any president - entitled to wear a military
> uniform?
Sticking to the US. No. In fact it flies in the face of the intent of
having a civilian head of the military. Even Eisenhower, who most
certainly would be _entitled_ to wear his uniform while in office,
generally didn't.
> I suspect he's technically entitled to, they just
> choose not to; it would look a little rediculous. (Can you
> imagine Clinton, or maybe Nixon, in a fancy uniform?) After
> all, the President, in a very real sense, outranks even the
> highest general. So could he, if he wanted? Huh?
I suppose like the Surgeon General or the head of the Supreme court, he
could make up his own uniform and possibly it could stick. But I don't
think it would fly, politically.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
Big Iron5
>Whether or not he is ~technically~
>a member of the armed forces is a matter for legal scholars to debate.
>I don't think he is. If he was, we could court-martial him for adultery
>and conduct unbecoming...
I'm pretty sure he's not a member of the armed forces, technically (e.g., not
subject to the UCMJ), although I suppose he might be able to make himself one.
Big Iron5
> Bill Clinton, as is well known, evaded the draft and
>never served in the military.
Actually, he didn't "evade" the draft (which would have been illegal), he
avoided it, like many of his peers both in and out of politics.
But as President, of course, he
>is now... what is he, exactly? He isn't Head of the Joint
>Chiefs of Staff. (The wimpy poet he installed in that position
>also never served in the military, BTW) Is he Supreme Allied
>Commander? No, that would be SACEUR at Nato, Gen Kashmilli.
>King of All Military, a la Howard Stern?
He's Commander in Chief.
But I wonder, is
>Clinton - or any president - entitled to wear a military
>uniform? I suspect he's technically entitled to, they just
>choose not to; it would look a little rediculous. (Can you
>imagine Clinton, or maybe Nixon, in a fancy uniform?) After
>all, the President, in a very real sense, outranks even the
>highest general.
He outranks every general in every real sense, during his term of office.
>So could he, if he wanted? Huh?
Dunno why he'd want to, but I suppose he could. I suppose Congress could try
to pass a law to prevent it, although such a law would be of dubious effect, to
put it mildly.
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> Bill Clinton, as is well known, evaded the draft and
> never served in the military.
In the technical sense his defenders depend on, he didn't "evade" the
draft, he "avoided" it, in a semi-legal way.
> But as President, of course, he
> is now... what is he, exactly?
CinC (Commander in Chief) of the Armed Forces.
> He isn't Head of the Joint
> Chiefs of Staff. (The wimpy poet he installed in that position
> also never served in the military, BTW)
Are you certain? JCS usually consists of general officers only.
Perhaps you are thinking of the current Secretary of Defense, William
Cohen, who is a poet and (unrelatedly) is a wimp.
> But I wonder, is
> Clinton - or any president - entitled to wear a military
> uniform?
Indeed, only Clinton and FDR are the only presidents this century
*not* entitled to do so, every other one having honorably served. FDR
was Secretary of the Navy, so at least he did something. Hoover,
Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Bush actually saw combat.
> (Can you
> imagine Clinton, or maybe Nixon, in a fancy uniform?)
Nixon was a Navy lieutenant during WWII. Of course, as a staff
officer, he would have worn the same black, clip-on tie he seemed to
favor in the White House.
> After
> all, the President, in a very real sense, outranks even the
> highest general. So could he, if he wanted? Huh?
As a practical matter, no. Americans, especially those in the
military, take the idea of civilian control of the military very
seriously. General officers (like Washington, Taylor, and Eisenhower)
have always resigned their commissions before taking office.
M.
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> Andrew Gore wrote:
> > Bill Clinton, as is well known, evaded the draft and
> >never served in the military.
>
> I'm no fan of his, but I think the draft-evasion thing is bogus. I could see
> calling his behavior that if it had occurred in the context of WWII. There, we
> had an identifiable enemy that had attacked U.S. soil
Peripherally. One of our enemies had dropped bombs on American ships
-- some of those bombs hit "soil" of course -- and occupied islands
in the Aleutians that were technically ours.
> and one could argue it
> was the responsibility of all Americans not to shirk their duty to defend the
> country.
You could, but America could have stayed out of the war if it had
wanted to, by not interfering with the Japanese war effort or
semi-legally aiding Britain.
NOT THAT I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD IDEA! If I had been
*Hoover*, I would have intervened when the Japanese occupied Manchuria
in 1932 and again (now becoming FDR) during the militarization of the
Ruhr in 1935 (?). Would have saved about 70 million lives, but
hindsight is always 20/20.
> Vietnam was this bizarre foreign war that not everyone understood.
Indeed, it seems almost no-one did. Read MacNamara's book -- he
didn't understand Vietnam and he was Secretary of Defense.
> We could
> have pulled out at a moment's notice and not affected national security at
> all.
Or it could have encouraged an incursion into Thailand, a re-invasion
of South Korea, an occupation of Taiwan. Who knows?
M.
Jim Beaver
Gary S. Callison wrote in message ...
>My wife gets upset when I start talking like I'm God. I don't see what the
>big deal is. I mean, if Bill Clinton can be president, why can't I be God?
Nobody elected you? :-)
Jim Beaver
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote in message <7sodlg$gn8$5...@mycroft.westnet.com>...
>Sticking to the US. No. In fact it flies in the face of the intent of
>having a civilian head of the military. Even Eisenhower, who most
>certainly would be _entitled_ to wear his uniform while in office,
>generally didn't.
No. Generally, he did. Presidentially, he didn't. ;-)
Jim Beaver
Big Iron5
>> Bill Clinton, as is well known, evaded the draft and
>> never served in the military.
>
>In the technical sense his defenders depend on, he didn't "evade" the
>draft, he "avoided" it, in a semi-legal way.
Yeah, what's the difference between actually breaking the law and not breaking
the law when it involves someone you don't like who you enjoy characterizing as
a criminal?
fastrada
>
> In article <7snje6$3vu$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>,
> Andrew =?iso-8859-1?Q?Gore=99?= <dice@primenet+.com> wrote:
>
> >exactly?
>
> Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of
> the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service
> of the United States".
> ( http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/constitution.html )
>
> >installed in that position also never served in the military, BTW)
>
> the military? I thought that was a four-star general's position.
> Perhaps you mean the (civilian) Secretary of Defence? Regrettably,
> I can't seem to find the names and stats of the current incumbents;
> anyone have URLs?
>
> --
> *** NEW PERSONAL ADDRESS ***
> Tim McDaniel is tm...@jump.net; if that fail,
> tm...@austin.ibm.com and tm...@us.ibm.com are my work accounts.
> tm...@crl.com is old and will go away.
Here's your link to the current Joint Chiefs of Staff:
Which includes a fairly nice picture of the Chairman of the JCS, General
Henry H. Shelton. Please note the medals. Some are honorary - many are
not.
From the same site, here is General Shelton's biography:
General Henry H. Shelton became the
fourteenth Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff on Oct. 1, 1997.
In this
capacity, he serves as the
principal
military advisor to the President,
the
Secretary of Defense, and the
National
Security Council. Prior to
becoming
Chairman, he served as Commander
in
Chief of the United States Special
Operations Command.
Born in Tarboro, North Carolina in
January, 1942, General Shelton
earned
a Bachelor of Science degree from
North Carolina State University
and a
Master of Science degree from
Auburn
University. His military education
includes completion of the Air
Command and Staff College and the
National War College.
Commissioned a second lieutenant in the Infantry in 1963 through the
Reserve
Officer Training Corps, General Shelton spent the next 24 years in a
variety of
command and staff positions in the continental United States, Hawaii,
and
Vietnam. He served two tours in Vietnam - the first with the 5th Special
Forces
Group, the second with the 173d Airborne Brigade.
(In other words, he was a jumper *and* a ground slogger in Vietnam.)
He also commanded the 3d
Battalion, 60th Infantry in the 9th Infantry Division at Fort Lewis,
Washington,
served as the 9th Infantry Division's assistant chief of staff for
operations,
commanded the 1st Brigade of the 82d Airborne Division at Fort Bragg,
North
Carolina, and served as the Chief of Staff of the 10th Mountain Division
at Fort
Drum, New York.
Following selection for brigadier general in 1987, General Shelton
served two
years in the Operations Directorate of the Joint Staff. In 1989, he
began a
two-year assignment as Assistant Division Commander for Operations of
the
101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), a tour that included the
Division's
seven-month deployment to Saudi Arabia for Operations Desert Shield and
Desert Storm. Upon returning from the Gulf War, General Shelton was
promoted to major general and assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina,
where he
assumed command of the 82d Airborne Division. In 1993, he was promoted
to
lieutenant general and assumed command of the XVIIIth Airborne Corps. In
1994, while serving as corps commander, General Shelton commanded the
Joint
Task Force that conducted Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti. In March
1996, he was promoted to general and became Commander in Chief of the
U.S.
Special Operations Command.
General Shelton's awards and decorations include the Defense
Distinguished
Service Medal (with 2 oak leaf clusters), Distinguished Service Medal,
Legion of
Merit (with oak leaf cluster), Bronze Star Medal with V device (with 3
oak leaf
clusters), and the Purple Heart. He has also been awarded the Combat
Infantryman Badge, Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge, Master
Parachutist Badge, Pathfinder Badge, Air Assault Badge, Military
Freefall Badge,
and Special Forces and Ranger Tabs.
Not exactly a wimppy poet, eh? Someone (Andrew) needs to investigate
before putting out false information.
Regards,
Joseph
--
"i don't have to put up with this shabby crap--i'm a
journalist!" --transmetropolitan
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
Is there, in fact, no difference between "morally qualified to be a
world leader" and "no yet convicted of breaking the law"?
He's scum. You know it. I know it. Scott knows it. Hillary knows
it. I expect Buddy the Chocolate Lab knows it. That he didn't need
to break the law to accomplish his goal in a particular case doesn't
make him into anything but scum.
M.
Dutch Courage
>bigi...@aol.com (Big Iron5) writes:
>
>> mlorton writes:
>>
>> >> Bill Clinton, as is well known, evaded the draft and
>> >> never served in the military.
>> >
>> >In the technical sense his defenders depend on, he didn't "evade" the
>> >draft, he "avoided" it, in a semi-legal way.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, what's the difference between actually breaking the law and not
>breaking
>> the law when it involves someone you don't like who you enjoy
>characterizing as
>> a criminal?
>
>Is there, in fact, no difference between "morally qualified to be a
>world leader" and "no yet convicted of breaking the law"?
I would assume a person morally qualified to be a world leader has not yet
been convicted of breaking the law.
>
>He's scum.
If Clinton is scum, what's Pat Buchanan, or Jim Trafficant, or Saddam Hussein,
or Hitler, or the average advertiser?
> You know it.
I know that Clinton is guilty of being about the double talker you'd expect an
effective politician to be, but then again double talk is de rigeur for that
free market you think so highly of. Is McDonald's scum for claiming "We do it
all for you" when they don't bring your food to your table, or clean up after
you?
> I know it. Scott knows it.
The pair of you, together, don't know your ass from a hole in the gound, as we
see here daily, Johnny Scribe of Baltimore.
That he didn't need
>to break the law to accomplish his goal in a particular case doesn't
>make him into anything but scum.
Ah. So now, scum=people who don't break the law. Thanks for clearing that up.
W.R. Giacona
Big Iron5 <bigi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990927152046...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
Although he did try to be protected under the "Soldiers & Sailors Relief
Act" early in the Paula Jones suit. The court laughed it off.
James Gifford
>>> One of the interesting things about being a general is that they
>>> are allowed to design their own uniforms.
>> It's good to be General.
> Well, sure. The devil is in the details.
But Ike jackets don't have any tails.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gif...@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Robert Heinlein FAQ |
| and information on "Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader's Companion" |
Steve Kraus
> That he didn't need
> to break the law to accomplish his goal in a particular case doesn't
> make him into anything but scum.
Oh...you mean like Dan Quayle who used his dad's
connections to get a nice, safe, stateside post
in the National Guard? I'm sure you'll come up
with some excuse why this was different.
"I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the
only regret I have was that I didn't study Latin harder
in school so I could converse with those people."
-- J. Danforth Quayle
More Quayle Quotes:
http://www.iag.net/~greth/quayle.html
Shawn Wilson
Dan Tilque <dti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7sp90r$agl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> On the other hand, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
> Staff is always a General and thus entitled to wear a uniform.
Untrue, sometimes the Chairman is an Admiral.
Jose (JRDelirio) Diaz
>> Bill Clinton, as is well known, evaded the draft and
>> is now... what is he, exactly?
Evaded, avoided, details, details . . . The system itself offered him the
means to legally save his ass, he took them, got away with it. I ain't
getting an ulcer over it.
>
>The phrase is "Commander in Chief" aften reduced to CinC.
>
>> But I wonder, is
>> Clinton - or any president - entitled to wear a military
>> uniform?
>
>Sticking to the US. No. In fact it flies in the face of the intent of
>having a civilian head of the military. Even Eisenhower, who most
>certainly would be _entitled_ to wear his uniform while in office,
>generally didn't.
Indeed. The whole point is that the constitutional CinC is a freely elected
civilian official, who comes from and is primarily beholden to the civil
political establishment and the electoral process. Whoever the People Who
Bother To Vote of the United States elects, *that* *IS* the CinC and every
beribbonned, star-laden brass hat in the land stands smartly at attention
and says "Yes, Sir!"
Makes this former Private feel good to consider that.
>> After
>> all, the President, in a very real sense, outranks even the
>> highest general. So could he, if he wanted? Huh?
As the CEO of the Republic itself, he's up *two* levels of civilian
authority above any General/Admiral. Remember the Secretaries.
Of course, part of the deal also is that the Law constrains the Prez to NOT
do things like appoint his imbecile brother Fleet Admiral by decree, and the
services themselves to be internally run on a non-partisan basis by
professionals. But the essential part is that the military is subordinate
to the civilian, and both to the Law. As it should ever be as long as it's
a free country.
>
>I suppose like the Surgeon General or the head of the Supreme court, he
>could make up his own uniform and possibly it could stick.
I don't think the SG makes up his/her own service uniform: Koop and Novello,
and their faceless, unmemorable successors, wore Regulation USPHS Corps
uniforms for service grade O-9 (equivalent to a ViceAdmiral/LtGen). They do
have some leeway for "personalized" details.
IIRC the ones who got to design their own uniforms were the old Generals of
the Army[Armies]/Fleet Admirals, and that mostly for the real early ones
(Pershing, Dewey)
JRD
Andrew Gore™
"Timothy A. McDaniel" wrote:
>
> >He isn't Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (The wimpy poet he
> >installed in that position also never served in the military, BTW)
>
> Excuse me? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff never served in
> the military? I thought that was a four-star general's position.
> Perhaps you mean the (civilian) Secretary of Defence? Regrettably,
> I can't seem to find the names and stats of the current incumbents;
> anyone have URLs?
>
OK, you're right. Technically. I was trying to think of the Grand
Poo-bah of the Military. I meant Secretary of Defense. Hey, it was four in
the morning.
Randy Poe
> [1] Unless it was the high ones that went first. I think it was t'other way.
Nope, you got it right. Number 1 meant your birthday
got called up first.
Randy "evaded the draft by being 16 when it ended" Poe
Bill Baldwin
>His draft evasion charge is not bogus. It's there for everyone to examine.
The fact that he took precautions to avoid the draft is not bogus. Calling it
"evasion" is, of course, a value judgment. I'll tell you here and now that if
there had been a draft while I was in college and I'd had a chance to study at
Oxford (or, preferably, Cambridge), I wouldn't have stood around weighing my
options. I don't think that makes me unfit to be President.[1]
Study in England ... Risk dying for my country in a war I don't understand ...
Study in England ... Risk dying for my country in a war I don't understand
.... Hmmmm....
--
Bill Baldwin
[1] Like Clinton, there are naturally many other things that *do* make me
unfit to be President. Unlike Clinton, none of those things involve grotesque,
enormous, and sustained moral failure, lust for power and recognition, or
pathological dishonesty of both the legal and illegal sort.
Bill Baldwin
> If Clinton is scum, what's Pat Buchanan
Woohoo! It's time for a taxonomy of wackos. Buchanan's a foaming at the mouth
looney.
>Jim Trafficant
A guy who needs a better press agent if he wants me to have heard of him.
>Saddam Hussein,
A megalomaniacal dictator.
>Hitler
A monster.
>or the average advertiser?
Roughly 1,000 times more honest and moral than Clinton, but still the scum on
the bottom of my shoe.
Hope this helps. ;-)
Dan Tilque
Andrew =?iso-8859-1?Q?Gore=99?= <dice@primenet+.com> wrote:
>
> Bill Clinton, as is well known, evaded the draft and
> never served in the military. But as President, of course, he
> Chiefs of Staff. (The wimpy poet he installed in that position
> Commander? No, that would be SACEUR at Nato, Gen Kashmilli.
> Clinton - or any president - entitled to wear a military
> imagine Clinton, or maybe Nixon, in a fancy uniform?) After
> all, the President, in a very real sense, outranks even the
> highest general. So could he, if he wanted? Huh?
He could put one on, but that wouldn't make him entitled to wear it.
After all, the actors on JAG wear them and they aren't entitled either.
Clinton is most definitely NOT entitled to wear a military uniform.
Neither is the Secretary of Defense or the Secretaries of the Army,
Navy and Air Force or the various Undersecretaries and Deputy
Secretaries in the Dept. of Defense. These are all civilian
positions. On the other hand, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff is always a General and thus entitled to wear a uniform.
--
Dan Tilque
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
bobwh...@my-deja.com
Vince Foster, Jim McDougal, Syteve Kangas, JFK Jr.: Who's next?
Who are they going to murder next?
http://www.angelfire.com/ky/ohwhy/tripp.html
WhitePunksOnDope
>
>In article <7sodlg$gn8$5...@mycroft.westnet.com>, ra...@westnet.poe.com
>says...
>
>> I suppose like the Surgeon General or the head of the Supreme court, he
>> think it would fly, politically.
>
>shirt and straw hat, and wave a cane...
>
>...the proper attire for a shameless carnival barker selling snake oil to
>those bumpkins too uneducated, unthinking, or inbred to see through his
>pitch.
Wouldn't this have been funnier if you could have come up with an outfit that
did not take longer to explain than to describe?
F.Waybill
Lalbert1
writes:
>Andrew Gore™ wrote:
>> Bill Clinton, as is well known, evaded the draft and
>>never served in the military.
>
>I'm no fan of his, but I think the draft-evasion thing is bogus. I could see
>calling his behavior that if it had occurred in the context of WWII. There,
>we
>had an identifiable enemy that had attacked U.S. soil and one could argue it
>was the responsibility of all Americans not to shirk their duty to defend the
>country.
>
>Vietnam was this bizarre foreign war that not everyone understood. We could
>have pulled out at a moment's notice and not affected national security at
>all. In that situation, almost everyone did what they could to avoid service.
>Young men were very happy when they got a high draft number.[1] They weren't
>traitors for failing to enlist anyway.
>
>I guess my feeling is I don't need the draft-dodging charge in order to have
>plenty to complain about with this pres.
Bogus? Vietnam may have been a war that not everyone understood. And many
young men may have been happy not to go. And some ran off and left the country
to avoid going. But none of them became the President of the United States.
Bill not only became the president, but before the election he also tried to
deny that he received any assistance in avoiding the draft.
We accept a lot questionable mental acuity, and some degree of bad role model
stuff from our elected officials, but evading national service (regardless of
what the war is about) is not something that we want to see in the President.
It goes entirely against our sense of fair play and the notion that we are all
supposed to be treated equally. In addition, scuzziness in trying to deny his
draft evasion is something that we do not want to see in the national leader.
His draft evasion charge is not bogus. It's there for everyone to examine.
Les
Gary S. Callison
: Gary S. Callison wrote in message ...
Well, the collective members of AFCA are encouraged to start a write-in
campaign! Vote Huey for God!
--
Huey
I would like to thank my predecessor for his 2000 years of faithful
service to humanity. Now that He's leaving, I want you all to know that
I'm serious about that 10% thing, and we're going to do some tightening up.
Gary S. Callison
: Gary S. Callison <hu...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
: news:ruulum...@corp.supernews.com...
: > Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Whether or not he is
: > ~technically~ a member of the armed forces is a matter for legal
: > scholars to debate. I don't think he is. If he was, we could
: Conduct unbecoming *what*? Certainly not an officer, he wasn't
: commissioned. Not an NCO either.
Surely the president should be held to a higher standard than commissioned
officers! At every level, more is expected. More is expected of soldiers
than civilians, of NCOs than junior enlisted, of company-grade officers
than NCOs... Shouldn't the commander-in-chief be the paragon of virtue
that all soldiers aspire to follow?
And I don't mean "follow, so's I can sneak up behind him with a cricket
bat" either...
<serious>
I find it disgusting that a career field-grade officer with no other flaws
could have his life destroyed by having consentual sex with a woman not
his wife, while someone much higher up in the food chain has no real
repercussions from a similar act.
</serious>
--
Huey
Gary S. Callison
: In article <19990927205325...@ng-fh1.aol.com>,
: whitepun...@aol.com says...
: > >This president could most appropriately make himself up in a striped
: > >...the proper attire for a shameless carnival barker selling snake
: > >oil to those bumpkins too uneducated, unthinking, or inbred to see
: > >through his pitch.
: > Wouldn't this have been funnier if you could have come up with an
: > outfit that did not take longer to explain than to describe?
: well, something funny ... rather than an un-funny comment on someone
: else' post?
...er... ...uh... "I have a rabid badger in my pants"?
--
Huey
Ok, this guy walks into a bar with a duck on his head...
Majormd
could make up his own uniform and possibly it could stick. But I don't
The Surgeon General does not design his/her own uniform.
(S)he is a member of the Public Health Service, a "Uniformed Service". By
tradition, the PHS wears uniforms which are slightly modified from those of the
US Navy.
- Sue from El Paso
Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted.
Majormd
Often the CinC, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army, etc. tour in areas
where troops are deployed. They do NOT wear uniforms, but usually are
presented with a coat or hat or something to identify the unit, theater, ship,
or whatever else they are visiting.
Gary S. Callison
: mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com wrote:
: > That he didn't need
: > to break the law to accomplish his goal in a particular case doesn't
: > make him into anything but scum.
: Oh...you mean like Dan Quayle who used his dad's
: connections to get a nice, safe, stateside post
: in the National Guard? I'm sure you'll come up
: with some excuse why this was different.
Different? Why of course it's different! The country would never elect a
draft-dodging buffoon who tries to cover his gaffes with 'spin' and a wife
who could best be described as 'scary'... ...no, wait a minute...
...never mind.
--
Huey
Quayle quit running because he said George W's $100M war chest made it
"impossible for him to win". I think what made it impossible is the
general perception by the public that he's a total and complete moron.
Big Iron5
>Although he did try to be protected under the "Soldiers & Sailors Relief
>Act" early in the Paula Jones suit. The court laughed it off.
>
Well, that was his lawyers -- professional responsibility generalyl requires
you to make every argument you can make in good faith.
WhitePunksOnDope
>In article <19990927205325...@ng-fh1.aol.com>,
>whitepun...@aol.com says...
>
>> >This president could most appropriately make himself up in a striped
>> >shirt and straw hat, and wave a cane...
>> >
>> >...the proper attire for a shameless carnival barker selling snake oil to
>> >those bumpkins too uneducated, unthinking, or inbred to see through his
>> >pitch.
>>
>> Wouldn't this have been funnier if you could have come up with an outfit
>that
>> did not take longer to explain than to describe?
>
>Wouldn't *this* have been funnier if you could have come up with ...
>well, something funny ... rather than an un-funny comment on someone
>else' post?
Let's see, "Would a funny post have been funnier than an unfunny post"
Yes, regarding both posts.
Of course, I wasn't attempting a funny post. Or even a lame and strained excuse
for a funny comment that even I might feel needed 24 additional words to
explain.
F.Waybill
WhitePunksOnDope
>Date: Mon, 27 September 1999 11:02 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19990927230208...@ng-fi1.aol.com>
>
>[[I suppose like the Surgeon General or the head of the Supreme court, he
>could make up his own uniform and possibly it could stick. But I don't
>think it would fly, politically.]] - Raven
>
>The Surgeon General does not design his/her own uniform.
>
>(S)he is a member of the Public Health Service, a "Uniformed Service". By
>tradition, the PHS wears uniforms which are slightly modified from those of
>the
>US Navy.
CA covered this in http://www.straightdope.com/columns/940826.html , apparently
written before SG Elders dispensed masturbation advice.
He kinda intimated that a) Koop revived the long-lost practice of
uniform-wearing and b) most PHS employees did not wear uniforms ["Eventually,
though, Koop's considerable personal presence enabled him to put the uniform
thing over, so much so that he decided all commissioned PHS personnel should
start wearing them. This rankled the troops and the current SG, Joycelyn
Elders, has not insisted that they be worn"]
Are these untrue?
F.Waybill
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
wrote:
>choose not to; it would look a little rediculous. (Can you
>imagine Clinton, or maybe Nixon, in a fancy uniform?) After
I am the very model of a modern major President,
I spooge on interns sell our secrets irritate the Cabinet...
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information,
and information on which artists do and do not want their
work posted!
http://home.icubed.net/starchsr/table.htm
Address munged for the inconvienence of spammers:
My address is starchsr <at> icubed dot net
WhitePunksOnDope
> Andrew Gore <dice@primenet+.com>
>
>...it would look a little rediculous. (Can you
>imagine Clinton, or maybe Nixon, in a fancy uniform?)
Nixon would probably look like this, only older
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq60-8.htm
F.Waybill
Gary S. Callison
: >Andrew Gore™ <dice@primenet+.com> wrote:
: >> After
: >> all, the President, in a very real sense, outranks even the
: >> highest general. So could he, if he wanted? Huh?
: authority above any General/Admiral. Remember the Secretaries.
I don't think so. Secretary of the (Army/Navy/Air Force/Foot Fungus/
Interior/Power Mowers/whatever) are advisory positions with no real
command authority, right? I mean, if he shows up at an army post, we'll
give that bad-poetry-dude a tank ride, but he just can't up and decide to
invade Cuba, f'rinstance.
--
Huey
Majormd
>>
>>(S)he is a member of the Public Health Service, a "Uniformed Service". By
>>tradition, the PHS wears uniforms which are slightly modified from those of
>>the
>>US Navy.
>
>CA covered this in http://www.straightdope.com/columns/940826.html ,
>apparently
>written before SG Elders dispensed masturbation advice.
>
>He kinda intimated that a) Koop revived the long-lost practice of
>uniform-wearing and b) most PHS employees did not wear uniforms ["Eventually,
>though, Koop's considerable personal presence enabled him to put the uniform
>thing over, so much so that he decided all commissioned PHS personnel should
>start wearing them. This rankled the troops and the current SG, Joycelyn
>Elders, has not insisted that they be worn"]
>
>Are these untrue?
>
>F.Waybill
>
I'll admit - my knowledge of PHS is limited to what I learned in 1984-1988 in
med school. For the record, I went to the Uniformed Services Universtity of
the Health Sciences, in Bethesda, next to NIH & the National Navy Medical
Center.
A few classmates were in PHS (like 6 out of 156); they always wore uniforms at
school & while rotating in the hospitals. That may well have been a new thing
since Dr. Koop was SG; or it just may have been the school policy. I won't
argue with Unca Cecil...
Lars Eighner
In our last episode <MPG.12598bed5...@news.giganews.com>,
the lovely and talented Scott K. Stafford <sco...@UNSPAM.together.net>
broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
|> could make up his own uniform and possibly it could stick. But I don't
|> think it would fly, politically.
|
|shirt and straw hat, and wave a cane...
You mean like Taft and TR?
--
Lars Eighner 700 Hearn #101 Austin TX 78703 eig...@io.com
(512) 474-1920 (FAX answers 6th ring) http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/
bookstore: http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/bookstore/
A lot of fashion fetishists love to do it with rubber...
Big Iron5
>Vietnam may have been a war that not everyone understood. And many
>young men may have been happy not to go. And some ran off and left the
>country
>to avoid going. But none of them became the President of the United States.
No, but a number of them have sought to be President (e.g., Quayle, Buchanon,
Dubya -- in WWII, Reagan). Clinton at least genuinely opposed the war and
protested against it, and didn't just weasel out while continuing to maintain
that it was a good idea for others to go.
>We accept a lot questionable mental acuity, and some degree of bad role model
>stuff from our elected officials, but evading national service (regardless of
>what the war is about) is not something that we want to see in the President.
Except he didn't "evade" it, he avoided it, like tons of other reasonable
people. Sure, he snowed a couple of Colonels to do it, hardly at the top of
his resume or anything, but it's hardly a particularly big deal, it seems,
especially compared to a low level of mentl acuity (which Clinton, despite his
flaws, cannot be accused of having).
>His draft evasion charge is not bogus. It's there for everyone to examine.
>
I think it's largely bogus.
Dutch Courage
>I think it's largely bogus.
>
And if we don't get some cool rules, pronto, well, we'll just be bogus too!
Dutch "I'm soooo wasted!" Courage.
"There is no land beyond the law, where tyrants rule with unshakable power.
It is but a dream from which the evil wake to face their fate, their
terrifying hour."
-Wesley Dodds.
Rob Baran
The framers of the Constitution wanted a civilian to be in charge of the
military. Why should a civilian (unless retired military) be allowed to wear
a military uniform for official functions? Just because he's CIC doesn't
give him the privilege to wear a uniform . . .
--
Rob Baran
bar...@futureone.com
DISCLAIMER: All thoughts and ideas put forth in this communication are sole
property of the voices in my head.(C) 1998, 1999 - "The Voices" (TM)
All rights reserved.
Andrew Gore™ wrote in message <7snje6$3vu$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>...
>
> Bill Clinton, as is well known, evaded the draft and
>never served in the military. But as President, of course, he
>is now... what is he, exactly? He isn't Head of the Joint
>Chiefs of Staff. (The wimpy poet he installed in that position
>also never served in the military, BTW) Is he Supreme Allied
>Commander? No, that would be SACEUR at Nato, Gen Kashmilli.
>King of All Military, a la Howard Stern? But I wonder, is
>Clinton - or any president - entitled to wear a military
>uniform? I suspect he's technically entitled to, they just
>choose not to; it would look a little rediculous. (Can you
>imagine Clinton, or maybe Nixon, in a fancy uniform?) After
>all, the President, in a very real sense, outranks even the
>highest general. So could he, if he wanted? Huh?
>
> Your friend,
>
> -- Andrew Gore™ --
>
>
Shawn Wilson
Rob Baran <bar...@futureone.com> wrote in message
news:rv0qt7...@corp.supernews.com...
> Lemme drag up a constitutional point,
>
> The framers of the Constitution wanted a civilian to be in charge of the
> military. Why should a civilian (unless retired military) be allowed to
wear
> a military uniform for official functions?
It's not just retired military. Any soldier honorably discharged has the
right to wear the uniform for the rest of his life.
Gary S. Callison
: Rob Baran <bar...@futureone.com> wrote in message
Yup. Ten more years, and I get to regrow my bitchun Axl Rose hair
(assuming I'm still physically capable of growing actual hair anyplace
other than out my eardrums that far in the future) and a big poofy ZZTop
beard, and go thumb my nose at the folks who get bent out of shape at such
a thing currently. Even if it is against AR 670-1 - what are 'ya gonna do,
article 15 me once I'm retired? More nose thumbing ensues.
--
Huey
RM Mentock
> <serious>
>
> I find it disgusting that a career field-grade officer with no other flaws
> could have his life destroyed by having consentual sex with a woman not
> his wife, while someone much higher up in the food chain has no real
> repercussions from a similar act.
>
> </serious>
Are you talking about Eisenhower?
--
D.
Why not?
RM Mentock
> [1] Like Clinton, there are naturally many other things that *do* make me
> unfit to be President. Unlike Clinton, none of those things involve grotesque,
> enormous, and sustained moral failure, lust for power and recognition, or
> pathological dishonesty of both the legal and illegal sort.
Whoa, you just don't understand. Those things that you're
missing there are *essential*
--
D.
Maybe you can work on that
Dutch Courage
>Bill Baldwin wrote:
>
>> [1] Like Clinton, there are naturally many other things that *do* make me
>> unfit to be President. Unlike Clinton, none of those things involve
>grotesque,
>> enormous, and sustained moral failure,
I really have a hard time, in all honesty, thinking of anything worse than
lying about a blow job and cheating on his wife that Clinton did. If anyone can
think of anything, and keep in mind I have a higher standard of evidence than
Stafford, so I am not interested in accusations of rape, or the wishy washy
crap Raven and Mike put forth to accuse him of murder, please speak up.
> lust for power and recognition,
I'm also not interested in an any particular cause you support or oppose, so
presenting Clinton's support or opposition for debt reform, abortion, gun
control, vouchers, marijuana legalization, etc. do not interest me. I'm really
truly wondering what standards you're using to establish that Clinton is even
an especially bad example of the double talker we call an "effective
politician."
> or
>> pathological dishonesty of both the legal and illegal sort.
I'm still wondering about things Clinton lied about that were any of your
business.
>
>Whoa, you just don't understand. Those things that you're
>missing there are *essential*
Mmmm...yeah, they sort of are. Trimming down Baldwin's hyperboyle to its
essence, we see "Clinton is the kind of guy who tries to faithfully represent
his constituents." This might make him opportunistic, or even empty, but the
invisible hand is served.
Dan Tilque
"Shawn Wilson" <shawn....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Dan Tilque <dti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:7sp90r$agl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > On the other hand, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
> > Staff is always a General and thus entitled to wear a uniform.
>
Ok, but the point about the Chairman of the JCS being entitled to wear
a uniform is still valid.
Dan Tilque
hu...@interaccess.com wrote:
> Jose (JRDelirio) Diaz (JRDeli...@worldnet.removetorepy.att.net)
wrote:
> : >Andrew Gore™ <dice@primenet+.com> wrote:
> : >> all, the President, in a very real sense, outranks even the
> : >> highest general. So could he, if he wanted? Huh?
> : authority above any General/Admiral. Remember the Secretaries.
>
> I don't think so. Secretary of the (Army/Navy/Air Force/Foot Fungus/
> Interior/Power Mowers/whatever) are advisory positions with no real
> command authority, right? I mean, if he shows up at an army post,
we'll
> give that bad-poetry-dude a tank ride, but he just can't up and
decide to
> invade Cuba, f'rinstance.
Right. The various Secretaries in the DoD are in administrative
positions. They set policies about important military things (such as,
what order the ribbons on uniforms are worn and who can use the pool at
the officers club). But when it's time to start bombing Bagdad or
Belgrade, they become interested observers. The chain of command goes
from the president to the Chairman of the JCS to the theater commander.
Dan Tilque
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com wrote:
> "Bill Baldwin" <ju...@micronet.net> writes:
>
> > Andrew Gore wrote:
> > >never served in the military.
> >
could see
> > calling his behavior that if it had occurred in the context of
WWII. There, we
> > had an identifiable enemy that had attacked U.S. soil
>
> -- some of those bombs hit "soil" of course -- and occupied islands
> in the Aleutians that were technically ours.
It was a bit more than that. The Japanese bombed Hawaii and Midway I.,
invaded and occupied the Philippines, Guam, Wake I. and a few of the
Aleutians. All of these were US Territories or possessions at the time.
Besides these, there were a number of minor incidents mostly involving
submarines and the US mainland.
- A German submarine shelled somewhere in Puerto Rico in early '42
- a Japanese submarine shelled a refinery in California doing minor
damage
- a Japanese submarine-based airplane bombed Brookings, Oregon.
- a Japanese submarine entered the Columbia River and fired about a
dozen shells at Ft. Stevens (near Astoria) doing no damage
As far as I know, the only casualties on the mainland US caused by
enemy action were the deaths of several people in Oregon who discovered
an incendiary balloon bomb just before it exploded.
David Martin
>
> On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:38:03 -0500, Steve Kraus <sf-k...@BLOCKERgovst.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com wrote:
> >> That he didn't need
> >> to break the law to accomplish his goal in a particular case doesn't
> >> make him into anything but scum.
> >
> >Oh...you mean like Dan Quayle who used his dad's
> >connections to get a nice, safe, stateside post
> >in the National Guard? I'm sure you'll come up
> >with some excuse why this was different.
>
> their training, National Guard members /do/ risk being called to active duty,
> don't they? 'Scuse me if I'm mistaken.
>
> -- Geno
Not long ago Dan B. Gerson wrote a column for the Houston
Chronicle regarding his service in the National Guard.
Among other things, he wrote:
"We college men of the late 1960s knew that if we
were fortunate enough to gain entry into a reserve
unit, we were unlikely to ever be called to active
duty in Vietnam . Anyone who claims that he joined
the reserves in the years between 1965 and 1970 for
any other reason is, quite simply, fudging the
truth. Although it was a perfectly legal form of
draft dodging, it was nevertheless draft dodging,
which left the horror and dying to other, mostly
less fortunate souls."
He clearly included his National Guard service in that
group. He also contends that the Air National Guard
had the "cushiest, safest and almost-impossible-to-
get-into reserve units of all."
David
Jim Beaver
Scott K. Stafford wrote in message ...>
>In any event, five minutes into combat, Clinton's uniform would have a
>long yellow streak down the leg...
Can I ask for some details of your firsthand knowledge of combat? If you
don't have any, I will be glad to share some of mine. In fact, you can have
it all.
Jim Beaver
(who enlisted in the Marines in 1968 and spent a year in Vietnam in a place
without a name and never let anyone near him speak disrespectfully of the
President of the United States even though it was Richard Nixon)
Jim Beaver
Big Iron5 wrote in message <19990928024152...@ng-bh1.aol.com>...
>No, but a number of them have sought to be President (e.g., Quayle,
Buchanon,
>Dubya -- in WWII, Reagan). Clinton at least genuinely opposed the war and
>protested against it, and didn't just weasel out while continuing to
maintain
>that it was a good idea for others to go.
If I read you correctly, you imply that Ronald Reagan avoided service in
some way. I'm a liberal, Clinton-supporting, ex-Marine Vietnam-combat vet
(you know, just the typical guy), but despite my political leanings, I have
to correct you as regards Reagan. He enlisted in the Army (in fact, I
believe he went into a reserve unit before the war, IIRC), and made enormous
efforts to be sent overseas, but his horrendous eyesight prevented it. If
you want to find a national icon whose actions during WWII actually
resemble Clinton's, you're way, way off the mark with Reagan. A better
example, in almost every aspect, would be John Wayne, whose attempts to
avoid WWII service have been recently documented in great detail. The only
difference I can see (and I'm a huge fan of Wayne's) is that Clinton opposed
the war he endeavored to avoid fighting in and Wayne supported the war he
endeavored to avoid fighting in.
For extremely detailed documentation of the efforts made to keep Wayne from
having to serve, see JOHN WAYNE: AMERICAN, by Randy Roberts and James
Olson. Wayne's draft records and letters to and from the draft boards have
been examined. In neither his case nor Clinton's do I think the label of
coward applies. But at least Clinton didn't talk support for the war while
trying to get out of getting killed in it.
Jim Beaver
Jim Beaver
Shawn Wilson wrote in message <7spair$92l$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>Dan Tilque <dti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:7sp90r$agl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>> On the other hand, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
>> Staff is always a General and thus entitled to wear a uniform.
>
>
>Untrue, sometimes the Chairman is an Admiral.
Nitpicking, but an admiral is a general officer. The Chairman of the JCS is
always a General .... Officer.
Jim Beaver
Jim Beaver
Gary S. Callison wrote in message ...
>Jose (JRDelirio) Diaz (JRDeli...@worldnet.removetorepy.att.net)
wrote:>I don't think so. Secretary of the (Army/Navy/Air Force/Foot Fungus/
>Interior/Power Mowers/whatever) are advisory positions with no real
>command authority, right? I mean, if he shows up at an army post, we'll
>give that bad-poetry-dude a tank ride, but he just can't up and decide to
>invade Cuba, f'rinstance.
Not too accurate. When I was in the Marines, we were taught (ad nauseam)
that the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of Defense were very real
links in the official chain of command. That's command, not advice.
Jim Beaver
Jim Beaver
Shawn Wilson wrote in message <7spvbj$9bv$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>It's not just retired military. Any soldier honorably discharged has the
>right to wear the uniform for the rest of his life.
Are you sure about this? I recall being told that I had to keep my uniforms
while on inactive reserve (after my active duty), but that unless called up
I was not allowed to wear them. Anyone know the exact rule here?
Jim Beaver
Bill Baldwin
>Trimming down Baldwin's hyperboyle to its
>essence, we see "Clinton is the kind of guy who tries to faithfully represent
>his constituents." This might make him opportunistic, or even empty, but the
>invisible hand is served.
Wow, Dutch. Under the current standards, you could be President some day.
Bill Baldwin
>Bill Baldwin wrote:
>> [1] Unless it was the high ones that went first. I think it was t'other
>> way.
>
>Nope, you got it right. Number 1 meant your birthday
>got called up first.
>
>Randy "evaded the draft by being 16 when it ended" Poe
Now you can never be President, you traitor.
Big Iron5
>>No, but a number of them have sought to be President (e.g., Quayle,
>Buchanon,
>>Dubya -- in WWII, Reagan). Clinton at least genuinely opposed the war and
>>protested against it, and didn't just weasel out while continuing to
>maintain
>>that it was a good idea for others to go.
>
>If I read you correctly, you imply that Ronald Reagan avoided service in
>some way. I'm a liberal, Clinton-supporting, ex-Marine Vietnam-combat vet
>(you know, just the typical guy), but despite my political leanings, I have
>to correct you as regards Reagan. He enlisted in the Army (in fact, I
>believe he went into a reserve unit before the war, IIRC), and made enormous
>efforts to be sent overseas, but his horrendous eyesight prevented it.
Well, perhaps you are correct (and I certainly have no intention of challenging
your veracity), although I am not aware that he made "enormous efforts" to get
overseas. It does seem odd that a person who could read perfectly from a
Teleprompter in his 70s had eyesight so poor that he was ineligible to serve
when he was a young man. Where did you hear about these effort? I am under
the impression that this was one of those aspects of the Reagan mythos has had
never really ben nailed down one way or the other.
However, it was needlessly cheesy of me to assert as a fact that Reagan
weaseled out of combat.
A better
>example, in almost every aspect, would be John Wayne, whose attempts to
>avoid WWII service have been recently documented in great detail. The only
>difference I can see (and I'm a huge fan of Wayne's) is that Clinton opposed
>the war he endeavored to avoid fighting in and Wayne supported the war he
>endeavored to avoid fighting in.
>For extremely detailed documentation of the efforts made to keep Wayne from
>having to serve, see JOHN WAYNE: AMERICAN, by Randy Roberts and James
>Olson. Wayne's draft records and letters to and from the draft boards have
>been examined. In neither his case nor Clinton's do I think the label of
>coward applies. But at least Clinton didn't talk support for the war while
>trying to get out of getting killed in it.
I was gonna mention the Duke (who I also love), but it didn't really fit in.
David Martin
If you're curious about the lottery system, the selective
service administration has the results for the first
several lotteries online. It's thought that the first
lottery was screwed up because they didn't stir the
capsules very well before drawing. so the last ones
dumped in the bin were picked first. September 14
was lucky # 1 in the first lottery.
See: http://www.sss.gov/lotter1.htm
David
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com wrote:
> > That he didn't need
> > to break the law to accomplish his goal in a particular case doesn't
> > make him into anything but scum.
>
> Oh...you mean like Dan Quayle who used his dad's
> connections to get a nice, safe, stateside post
> in the National Guard? I'm sure you'll come up
> with some excuse why this was different.
Uh, no, actually I won't. In fact, I will boldly assert that Quayle
and Clinton are probably about equal in overall presidental
suitability.
Quayle isn't Clinton-style sleezola, but he has his own, shall we say,
negatives.
M.
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> WRG writes:
>
>
> >Although he did try to be protected under the "Soldiers & Sailors Relief
> >Act" early in the Paula Jones suit. The court laughed it off.
> Well, that was his lawyers -- professional responsibility generally requires
> you to make every argument you can make in good faith.
Nice of you to defend Gingrich, who was fined $300,000 for an error
his lawyer made.
Did his lawyers actually believe that Clinton *was* in the military
and therefore *should* be subject to UCMJ? Or does "good faith" like
"sex" and "is" mean whatever Clinton needs it to mean?
M.
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> Koop and Novello,
> and their faceless, unmemorable successors, wore Regulation USPHS Corps
> uniforms for service grade O-9 (equivalent to a ViceAdmiral/LtGen).
Unmemorable? I think I'll remembers SG Joclyn Elders and her
off-the-cuff suggestion that masturbation be taught as a subject in
public schools for quite some time. (If you read the transcript very
carefully, you might conclude she was suggestion not that the praxis
be taught, just that children should be told it won't make you go
blind &c.)
M.
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> It does seem odd that a person who could read perfectly from a
> Teleprompter in his 70s had eyesight so poor that he was ineligible to serve
> when he was a young man.
It could be odd, or it could be myopia, which afflicts millions of
people and tends to improve with age (or so my opthamologist assured
me, but then my opthamologist is about 700 years old and wears
coke-bottle glasses, so if he's shining me, I'll never be able to pin
it on him).
> However, it was needlessly cheesy of me to assert as a fact that Reagan
> weaseled out of combat.
I don't know about "cheesy", but it certainly represents the first
time anyone has ever posted to Usenet without being absolutely sure of
his facts.
> I was gonna mention the Duke (who I also love), but it didn't really
> fit in.
You don't need much in the way of moral courage to be an actor, but
you need it to be a decent president.
As for trying not to participate in a war you are supporting in
public, I'd like to think that *I* wouldn't do it, but until I've been
put in the situation myself, I'd hate to point fingers.
M.
Shawn Wilson
> Right. The various Secretaries in the DoD are in administrative
> positions. They set policies about important military things (such as,
> what order the ribbons on uniforms are worn and who can use the pool at
> the officers club). But when it's time to start bombing Bagdad or
> Belgrade, they become interested observers. The chain of command goes
> from the president to the Chairman of the JCS to the theater commander.
No. As a soldier I was required to do things like memorize the chain of
command, and the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army were
right there.
Big Iron5
>> >Although he did try to be protected under the "Soldiers & Sailors Relief
>> >Act" early in the Paula Jones suit. The court laughed it off.
>
>> Well, that was his lawyers -- professional responsibility generally
>requires
>> you to make every argument you can make in good faith.
>
>Nice of you to defend Gingrich, who was fined $300,000 for an error
>his lawyer made.
Frankly,Ii doubt your assertion that the error was his lawyer's, and that he
didn't have any personal culpability in that matter. The House of
Representative obviously thought he was culpable. If that was the case, so be
it -- I haven't attacked the Newtster (who I always viewed as more silly than
sinister, anyway).
>Did his lawyers actually believe that Clinton *was* in the military
>and therefore *should* be subject to UCMJ? Or does "good faith" like
>"sex" and "is" mean whatever Clinton needs it to mean?
It means his lawyers honestly believed there was a possibility, even if maybe
somewhat improbable, that Clinton was covered by that Act. I do not know (nor,
of course, do you) whether coverage under the Relief Act would likely mean
coverage by the UCMJ -- indeed, I would assume that they are two very different
things, and that the Relief Act has a definition of who is covered that Clinton
at least arguably fit as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
Jim Beaver
Big Iron5 wrote in message <19990928162925.22500.00003385@ng-
>
>Well, perhaps you are correct (and I certainly have no intention of
challenging
>your veracity), although I am not aware that he made "enormous efforts" to
get
>overseas. It does seem odd that a person who could read perfectly from a
>Teleprompter in his 70s had eyesight so poor that he was ineligible to
serve
>when he was a young man. Where did you hear about these effort? I am
under
>the impression that this was one of those aspects of the Reagan mythos has
had
>never really ben nailed down one way or the other.
>
>However, it was needlessly cheesy of me to assert as a fact that Reagan
>weaseled out of combat.
From a good number of interviews with people who served with him in the Army
Air Corps First Motion Picture Unit, from research into that unit's history,
from brief contact with Reagan himself, and from a wide variety of published
material, some of which of course cannot be taken unquestioningly, but much
of which backs up more first-hand evidence. I was not interviewing or
researching the subject of Reagan, BTW, but rather that of the First Motion
Picture Unit. Although many of his colleagues in that unit did not have
much to say in favor of Reagan, it was generally noted even by those who
found him insufferable (at the time) that he tried very hard to get
transferred to an overseas unit for action without success. I spoke to the
gunnery training NCO for the unit who described several of Reagan's trips to
the firing range. He told me that Reagan was so close to blind he couldn't
have hit a bull in the back with a bass fiddle. I'm told that Reagan had
corrective measures taken for his sight in later years, which would perhaps
satisfy your curiosity about his teleprompter abilities. Again, I'm not
defender of the political Reagan, but he does seem to have been a willing
volunteer for combat duty who just couldn't get the assignment.
Jim Beaver
Arthur Wohlwill
>From: sjf...@aol.com.net.org (Deborah)
>Subject: A.F.C.A. essay challenge (Re: Clinton's military uniform?)
>Date: 29 Sep 1999 01:02:28 GMT
>Better yet, this could be an a.f.c.a. essay challenge, with all comers eligible
>to write 500 words or less on why they are unfit to be president. Entries
>explaining why someone else is unfit to be president will be disqualified.
A serious presidential candidate should not have time to read AFCA much less
write an essay on why they are unfit. Therefore, I am disqualified.
Arthur "500 words? How about 25?" Wohlwill adwo...@UIC.EDU
John Gilmer
Jim Beaver <JUMB...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:7sr42e$147i$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
Yep!
The highest military function is either chief of staff or chief of
operations. Either way, the top military types are STAFF to the
Secretaries of the individual services and the Secretary of Defense.
In WWII, Gen. Marshal was cosidered to be Ike's boss. Marshals title of
Chief of Staff for the Army.
JLG
>
> Jim Beaver
>
>
Estron
> I find it disgusting that a career field-grade officer with no other flaws
> could have his life destroyed by having consentual sex with a woman not
> his wife, while someone much higher up in the food chain has no real
> repercussions from a similar act.
Which, to me, points out how terribly unfair the military injustice
system is to that career field-grade officer.
--
As always, all opinions are just that.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@tfs.net
Kansas City, Missouri
Estron
> We accept a lot questionable mental acuity, and some degree of bad role model
> stuff from our elected officials, but evading national service (regardless of
> what the war is about) is not something that we want to see in the President.
immediately after he wrote:
> Bill not only became the president, but before the election he also tried to
> deny that he received any assistance in avoiding the draft.
So, who's the "we" that you are referring to, Lalbert? The draft stuff
was public knowledge before the 1992 election. Whatever wasn't out
there before '92 was out there before '96.
If "we" as in "We the People" didn't want to see our President evading
military service, "we" had Republicans with service records to choose
instead. "We" didn't choose those Republicans, did "we"?
In 1992, those who voted against Clinton acted like idiots and split
their votes between Bush and Perot, allowing Clinton to win even though
he had less than 43 percent of the vote.
In 1996, more than half the voting-age population showed they didn't
care by not voting and leaving the decision to the 49 percent who
bothered to, and there were still enough people who didn't mind
Clinton's lack of service to give him a second term.
So, Lalbert, isn't the "we" who object to Clinton's lack of military
service more like "you"?
--
As always, all opinions are just that.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@tfs.net
...who never got the chance to evade the draft.
Deborah
writes:
>Like Clinton, there are naturally many other things that *do* make me
>unfit to be President. Unlike Clinton, none of those things involve
>grotesque,
>enormous, and sustained moral failure, lust for power and recognition, or
>pathological dishonesty of both the legal and illegal sort.
Well, let's hear about them, then.
Better yet, this could be an a.f.c.a. essay challenge, with all comers eligible
to write 500 words or less on why they are unfit to be president. Entries
explaining why someone else is unfit to be president will be disqualified.
Best regards from Deborah
Best regards from Deborah
FAQ file: http://members.aol.com/SJF1959/index.html
Found in the in-box: http://in.box.listbot.com
Lalbert1
It won't? Then what about what we were told as kids, that it would shrivel up
and fall off?
Les
Lalbert1
>Lalbert1 wrote:
>>His draft evasion charge is not bogus. It's there for everyone to examine.
>
>The fact that he took precautions to avoid the draft is not bogus. Calling it
>"evasion" is, of course, a value judgment. I'll tell you here and now that if
>there had been a draft while I was in college and I'd had a chance to study
>at
>Oxford (or, preferably, Cambridge), I wouldn't have stood around weighing my
>options. I don't think that makes me unfit to be President.[1]
>
>Study in England ... Risk dying for my country in a war I don't understand
>...
>Study in England ... Risk dying for my country in a war I don't understand
>.... Hmmmm....
>--
>
>Bill Baldwin
>
>[1] Like Clinton, there are naturally many other things that *do* make me
>unfit to be President. Unlike Clinton, none of those things involve
>grotesque,
>enormous, and sustained moral failure, lust for power and recognition, or
>pathological dishonesty of both the legal and illegal sort.
>
>
Gosh, what a difference 24 hours can make. Today I heard Clinton say (in an
address before some religious group) that after all the painful counseling he
has gone through that he has been forgiven for all his transgressions by his
wife, his daughter, the American public, and God! He actually said those
words.
So if God has forgiven him for the rough stuff then I can forgive him for the
draft
evasion /avoidance/went-someplace-else thing. Can you forgive him for his
grotty moral failure, power lust, and dishonesty?
Les
Paul Drye
>Better yet, this could be an a.f.c.a. essay challenge, with all comers eligible
>to write 500 words or less on why they are unfit to be president. Entries
>explaining why someone else is unfit to be president will be disqualified.
How 'bout five words: "I was born in Canada".
Cheers,
Paul "You guys and your silly rules" Drye
Gary S. Callison
: Dan Tilque <dti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
: news:7sreq2$sui$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
: > Right. The various Secretaries in the DoD are in administrative
: > positions. They set policies about important military things (such as,
: > what order the ribbons on uniforms are worn and who can use the pool at
: > the officers club). But when it's time to start bombing Bagdad or
: > Belgrade, they become interested observers. The chain of command goes
: > from the president to the Chairman of the JCS to the theater commander.
: No. As a soldier I was required to do things like memorize the chain of
: right there.
Shawn: I was too. But if you're going to tell me you were never lied to
in the service, I'm going to have to put on the suit of armor and hit you
with the chicken. The Secretary of Defense, fr'example, is an interested
observer of the military and an advisor to the president. If he's good,
he'll have a pretty thorough knowledge of situations and capabilities,
and can make well-informed recommendations to the president. Then the
president gives orders to the JCS.
I'll try and dig up some research to nail this down, but if you're going
to use "It's true because they told me this in Basic Training", I'm going
to be forced to laugh until I wet my pants.
--
Huey
Gary S. Callison
: In article <19990928210228...@ngol03.aol.com>
: sjf...@aol.com.net.org (Deborah) writes:
: >Better yet, this could be an a.f.c.a. essay challenge, with all
: >comers eligible to write 500 words or less on why they are unfit to be
: >president. Entries explaining why someone else is unfit to be
: >president will be disqualified.
: much less write an essay on why they are unfit. Therefore, I am
: disqualified.
Good answer! Personally, I lack telepresence as well as being a total
and complete bastard, and I'm too smart & honest. Any two of those are
disqualifying conditions for getting elected by the american public.
--
Huey
If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not line my pockets any
worse than the rest of those boobs have. And I'm certainly not sticking
any perfectly good cigars up some big-foreheaded airhead.
Bob Roberds
> Better yet, this could be an a.f.c.a. essay challenge, with all comers eligible
> to write 500 words or less on why they are unfit to be president. Entries
> explaining why someone else is unfit to be president will be disqualified.
Funny voice[1]; unmarried[2]; chronic life-threatening five o'clock
shadow;
too lazy; not interested in the job anyway; prone to indigestion;
have left a paper trail of uncouth statements behind me; have left
an aluminum trail of malt liquor cans behind me; drive a foreign-
made car (but not a cool, impressive one); know how to spell
"potato"; know that Pearl Harbor Day is in December, not September;
don't like to kiss hands or shake babies; prone to lying (but
unable to keep a straight face while doing so); likely to panic
during an assassination attempt and hold up a child as a human
shield, like the guy in "The Dead Zone".
More of a list than an essay, but it gets the job done.
[1] No, not like Bullwinkle or anything, but still not suitable
for giving speeches.
[2] What's more, my girlfriend is a RealDoll(TM).
--
Bob Roberds____________| Read "Soap On A Rope" -
Spam Free or Die!______| http://www.soaprope.com
__| And some of *them*...are Camp Fire Girls |__
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
>Better yet, this could be an a.f.c.a. essay challenge, with all comers eligible
>to write 500 words or less on why they are unfit to be president. Entries
>explaining why someone else is unfit to be president will be disqualified.
Why I'm unfit to be President, by StarChaser Tyger.
I'd be good at it.
Hmm, now I need to fill this out a bit...erm...Whoopie granola
mellowness!
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information,
and information on which artists do and do not want their
work posted!
http://home.icubed.net/starchsr/table.htm
Address munged for the inconvienence of spammers:
My address is starchsr <at> icubed dot net
Carey
> Clinton - or any president - entitled to wear a military
> uniform? I suspect he's technically entitled to, they just
> choose not to; it would look a little rediculous
> -- Andrew GoreT --
Possibly-- but there's one good reason for him not to-- it emphasizes
the notion that the military (those guys in uniform) is under civilian
control (the guys in suits) rather than vice versa. Which is why the Supreme
Commander's elected, anyhow.
Carey
ScottM7810
>Date: Mon, 27 September 1999 03:49 PM EDT
>Message-id: <m3670wg...@zorro.civet>
>
>"Bill Baldwin" <ju...@micronet.net> writes:
>
>> Andrew Gore wrote:
>> > Bill Clinton, as is well known, evaded the draft and
>> >never served in the military.
>>
>> I'm no fan of his, but I think the draft-evasion thing is bogus. I could
>see
>> calling his behavior that if it had occurred in the context of WWII. There,
>we
>> had an identifiable enemy that had attacked U.S. soil
>
>Peripherally. One of our enemies had dropped bombs on American ships
>-- some of those bombs hit "soil" of course -- and occupied islands
>in the Aleutians that were technically ours.
>
That same enemy on Dec. 7 dropped bombs on the inland Marine installation,
Wheeler Field in the center of Oahu, Hickam Field, and 2 land-based naval air
stations.
They also bombed, invaded and occupied the Philippines, a U.S. Commonwealth at
the time.
Guam and Wake Island were attacked and occupied -- at the time they were under
the administration of the U.S. Department of Navy
And in the process of all of the above they killed American servicemen and
servicewomen and American civilians, and those under the protection of the
American flag.
SJM
Dutch Courage
And I promise to say and do anything that will get me elected and keep me that
way, so just never you people mind about the hookers and blow!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"There is no land beyond the law, where tyrants rule with unshakable power.
It is but a dream from which the evil wake to face their fate, their
terrifying hour."
-Wesley Dodds.
Bill Baldwin
>bigi...@aol.com (Big Iron5) writes:
>> However, it was needlessly cheesy of me to assert as a fact that Reagan
>> weaseled out of combat.
>
>time anyone has ever posted to Usenet without being absolutely sure of
>his facts.
Actually, that's not true. Didn't you think to check Deja.com before making
such a claim?
--
Bill "There was another time back in 1991" Baldwin
Bill Baldwin
>Better yet, this could be an a.f.c.a. essay challenge, with all comers
>eligible to write 500 words or less on why they are unfit to be president.
>Entries explaining why someone else is unfit to be president will be
>disqualified.
*This* is what they should have made us write about instead of what I did with
my freakin' summer!
<school boy voice>
<notebook paper in death grip in front of my face>
Why I Am Unfit to Be President
an essay by Bill Baldwin
<stain on front of pants appears>
My assignment is to describe in this essay of 500 words or less why I feel
that I am unfit to be President. There are many reasons why I am unfit to be
President. The first reason why I am unfit to be President is that I am a
blurter. I say things first and then think later about how they will sound or
whether they are diplomatic or not. Later, I can always backpedal – my friends
in alt.fan.cecil-adams will confirm this – but by that time a President can
have offended many people.
The second reason I am unfit to be President is there is no way I could put in
that kind of hours. I need at *least* eight hours of sleep a night. And if
someone wakes me up in the middle of the night with some nuclear "emergency,"
I’m liable to be cranky.
The third reason I am unfit to be President is that I cannot stand the company
of politicians. I would not want to spend any of my time brokering deals with
a bunch of sleazeballs. Instead, I would soon give myself over to fantasies
about slicing their heads off with a chain saw. Even if I didn’t actually do
that in reality, I would still probably get much more enjoyment out of
tormenting them with petty little obstructions than in actually trying to
understand what their stupid problem is.
The fourth reason I am unfit to be President is that I like to mull things
over. My impression is that the President needs to be able to make many
decisions quickly and be satisfied with the results. I cannot do this. I need
time to think about my decisions and maybe sleep on them for a few days. There
are just too many decisions a President must make for this plan of action to
be feasible.
Related to this is the fifth reason I am unfit to be President. The fifth
reason I am unfit to be President is that I do not multi-task well. Nor do I
deal well with interruptions. If I am supposed to consider whether to veto the
newest tax debacle from Congress, I want to think about that and nothing else
until I reach a decision. I do not want to be interrupted for photo
opportunities and Cabinet meetings and questions from a million different
directions. In such circumstances, I would get nothing done. I would go crazy.
For these six reasons I have just stated, I feel in 500 words or less
(including title, by line, and the words "The End" at the end of this essay as
well as counted separately within the text itself, because they *say* 500
words "or less" but just try giving them, say, 165 words and see what kind of
grade you get, oh no I’m not making that mistake again) that I am unfit to be
President.
The End
Steve Kraus
> In any event, five minutes into combat, Clinton's uniform would have a
> long yellow streak down the leg...
That's just plain stupid. Avoiding the Viet Nam
fiasco wasn't a sign of cowardice, it was a sign
of wisdom.
Steve Kraus
the Republicans and conservatives are a much nastier
bunch than their Democratic and liberal opposition.
I am a liberal on social issues (more middle of the road
on fiscal and other matters) and I consider myself an
independent voter though I lean to the Democratic side
for reasons of issues not loyalty. Thus, I disagreed
with the policies of Reagan and Bush up and down the line.
And I think there are many questions that can be raised
about Reagan's competence in office and whether Bush
criminally violated the law regarding Iran/Contra. I'm
not trying to start a debate about those items--just
pointing out that each side can raise issues about the
other. Anyway, I never noticed the hatred from the
liberal side against the conservatives the way I notice
it in the opposite direction. It's certainly not because
there weren't reasons to. But it never seems as nasty
going back the other way. And this is nothing new nor
is it about personal morals. I recall the same outright
HATRED directed against President Carter when he was in
office. But it seems to have gotten worse in the last
few years--probably due to the conservative faction pretty
much taking over the Republican party. It's out of this
sort of hatred that you get the win-at-all-costs Starr chamber
and right wing-financed Jones lawsuit. But even besides
those items just reading some of the comments in this thread
would lead one to conclude the right/conservative side
is simply a much nastier group of people.
David Martin
> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:29:09 -0400, Bob Roberds <brob...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Funny voice[1]; unmarried[2]; chronic life-threatening five o'clock
> >shadow; too lazy; not interested in the job anyway; prone to indigestion;
>
> Bob is the first candidate I'd vote for, because he's obviously honest. And ...
> I'd like to see a Real Doll as First Lady. (You don't mean a /blow-up/ doll, do
> you?)
Nothing so tacky as a blow-up doll. He's talking about a
$5,000 life-like rubber doll. See: http://www.realdoll.com
David
Disqualified because not only do I know the url given
above, but I've also visited http://www.realhamster.com/
without the aid of an anonymous account.
W.R. Giacona
> from the president to the Chairman of the JCS to the theater commander.
>
Well not really. The JCS and with it its' Chairman have been changed to
"advisors to the President" and are no longer in the direct chain of
command.
Here's a quote from the JCS site
(http://www.dtic.mil/jcs/core/jcs_defn.html):
Since its establishment in 1947, statute has prohibited the Joint Staff from
operating or organizing as an overall armed forces general staff; therefore,
the Joint Staff has no executive authority over combatant forces.
Lalbert1
(Estron) writes:
Maybe, but I have already forgiven him; see my later posting about Clinton
being forgiven by his family, God, and much of the American public (who are
sometimes referred to as "we").
Les