CLINTON UNDEAD HAUNTING PENTAGON (More of the Clinton Legacy)

Insight Magazine ^ | June 10, 2002 | J. Michael Waller

[CyberAnt]

Insight on the News - Daily Insight Issue: 6/10/02

Sneak Preview Clinton Undead Haunting Pentagon By J. Michael Waller

Clinton Undead Haunting Pentagon

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his team are pulling their hair out trying to bring the Pentagon's policy apparatus into line with the president's wishes.

At every turn, it seems, they run into entrenched bureaucrats, Clinton holdovers and others who not only pursue their own agendas but actively fund outright opponents of the administration.

The Pentagon's policy shop faces the tremendous challenge of serving as the brain of an open-ended international war on terror while also providing guidance on reshaping the nation's defenses to meet new threats and adopt new technologies. The first of these tasks was thrust upon it Sept. 11, when the Department of Defense (DoD) senior-management team was only a couple of months into the job; it since has remained that team's primary focus.

Daily headlines ranging from the shooting wars in the Middle East to a possible war between India and Pakistan to an escalation in narcoterrorist violence in Colombia and a host of other crises continue to show that the Pentagon can't pick the time or the place where its attention will be needed. Added to the mix are the quotidian tasks of negotiating five-year budget plans through a difficult election-year Congress, balancing the State Department's college of rationalizers on international arms and defense agreements with existing allies, new friends and old enemies — and trying to move ahead on presidential priorities such as defending the nation from missile attack.

With a clear and urgent set of missions and an experienced leadership, several observers ask why there isn't a clearer focus with a more purposeful movement on key policy issues at a time of tremendous popular support for the war, for the secretary of defense and for the president himself. Part of the answer lies in the degree to which the message is muddled — not only in the media, in Congress and within the DoD, but by the scores of Clinton holdovers and countless bureaucrats whose opposition to presidential initiatives and policies is in fact funded by the Pentagon itself through internal think tanks and external consultants.

"This cognitive dissonance is to be found in three places: Pentagon and interagency-loan billets, the defense university system and in grants to contractors, academics and the 'CINC-tank' system of specialized regional policy shops — a series of self-styled policy centers created during the Clinton administration to bring what [conservative public intellectual] David Horowitz labeled 'tenured radicals' into the DoD ranks," says a Rumsfeld operative who asked to remain anonymous.

"CINC tanks" is shorthand for the five policy groups under the direction of the regional military commanders-in-chief (CINCs) that frustrated officials say have become sponsors of sinecures for shelved Clinton/Gore policy operatives. While not necessarily "radicals" in the political sense, such individuals have used their Pentagon-funded platforms to attack President George W. Bush's policies. The Honolulu-based Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, the CINC-tank of the U.S. Pacific Command, has come under fire during the last year for sponsoring outspoken opponents of the president's initiatives. When Rumsfeld curtailed Chinese military access to the United States following Beijing's forced downing of a U.S. Navy intelligence aircraft last year, the center's director, retired Marine Lt. Gen. H.C. Stackpole, openly criticized the secretary's move. Stackpole also drew ire for allegedly undermining the president's missile-defense initiative by criticizing it publicly during a visit to Australia — one of the few countries wholeheartedly behind Bush's early national missile-defense plan.

The DoD's Africa Center for Strategic Studies is a virtual hive of left-wing activists at a time when Africa is of increasing importance as a theater of fighting international terrorism. One of the center's senior academic officials previously was with the International Human Rights Law Group, and was a World Bank consultant and U.N. diplomat. The center's academic chair of civil-military relations is listed as "a development and gender consultant." Its academic coordinator is noted for her experience in "policy analysis and community activism" with the Washington Office on Africa, which actively sympathized with Soviet-backed revolutionary movements during the Cold War.

"The runaway CINC tanks are polluting the military officers they share billets with, they sow discord against the president's policies and legitimize criticism through their supposed representation of the JCS [Joint Chiefs of Staff], and they spin our allies' rising officers in the wrong direction," says a defense scholar currently trying to fix the problem for the Pentagon. "Some of the CINC tanks credentialize leftists and people with few legitimate credentials even as they deny the same opportunities to our good junior officers who are needful."

The National Defense University (NDU), in addition to educating U.S. military officers, plays host to research and advanced-studies institutes that focus on different defense areas. Adm. Paul Gaffney, the NDU's president, wins high marks for keeping the university on an even keel. Its Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) operates as a think tank for the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Insiders tell Insight that politicized Clinton appointees are being rotated out as soon as their contracts expire. "INSS was a problem area, but it's come a long way and still needs a little more work," says a longtime veteran of the Pentagon policy shop. "It needs good people who can follow national-security-related immigration and energy issues. It needs a Claire Sterling to connect the dots on terrorism, drugs and proliferation — a big-picture person who is cleared to study highly classified information and put the pieces together."

The late Claire Sterling was a journalist who defied the U.S. intelligence community's conventional wisdom in the late 1970s and early 1980s and pieced together a covert Soviet-sponsored operation in support of international terrorism that she dubbed the "terror network."

The Pentagon policy veteran adds: "It also needs some good China people. The China part of INSS is too small and it doesn't have the ability to fight the 'panda huggers' in every other institution of government. Congress tried to give INSS a strong China shop but refused funding when a panda hugger was to be appointed to run it."

It's hard for the defense secretary to promote the president's policies when members of his own think tank publicly undermine them, insiders tell Insight. Richard Sokolsky, a visiting INSS senior fellow, blasted Bush's nuclear-posture review in a Washington Post op-ed last January. Arguing that Bush's proposed unilateral cuts of 6,000 operationally deployed warheads to fewer than 2,200 didn't go far enough, Sokolsky compared them to President Bill Clinton's "timid" proposals of five years before. The INSS figure said that "it is hard to imagine a plausible contingency" that would merit Bush's plan to stockpile nuclear warheads, and said that Bush should make further radical cuts to help "Russian President Vladimir Putin defend his pro-American policy from domestic hawks." Sokolsky argued that the Bush plan leaves 10 times as many operational warheads as the United States ever would need. The United States should make further unilateral disarmament cuts until it had only "a few hundred" nuclear warheads, this Pentagon "expert" argued, keeping none in reserve.

"Those types of public articles undermine policy and don't serve the secretary or the president," says a senior Pentagon official dealing with nuclear-missile issues.

Nobody has produced a dollar figure, but it appears the national-security community is paying more people to oppose administration policy than to develop it. Some make a finer point: The money is going to political opponents of the administration to shape the administration's own policies. A case in point, one critic says, was a May 6-7 National Security Agency-sponsored conference to map out a four-year strategy for homeland defense. Administered by ANSER, a major defense consulting firm, the conference recruited a range of policy experts from across the political spectrum. This created "an opportunity for the field's leading thinkers and practitioners to examine how the nation can cultivate an effective homeland-security posture for the long term," according to ANSER. It was "intended to provoke debate, develop new ideas and offer recommendations for policymakers who must design homeland-security policies, strategies and institutions."

But the invitation list shows that, apart from a few invited Bush-administration officials, the participants were weighted against the administration's conservative approach and included many former Clinton-Gore appointees. Even where a sponsored policy event was organized by friends of the administration, such as a November 2001 Rand Corporation conference to develop a new policy toward Cuba, out-and-out apologists for the Cuban regime such as Wayne S. Smith were included in the deliberations.

A source close to the Pentagon's policy office laments, "You have no idea how hard it is to work on the war, find extra hours to develop a forward-looking policy that tracks with the president's and SECDEF's [secretary of defense's] priorities and then try to advance it on the Hill or in the [decision-making] process, and find yourself outmanned by an opposition funded not by the leftist foundations or the congressional-opposition staff budget, but by your own policy shop's budget."

J. Michael Waller is a senior writer for Insight.

[CyberAnt]

After reading this article, I am convinced that the juvenile and utterly disrespectful Clinton Administration has continued to this day to disgrace itself by it's selfish and totally PETTY SABOTAGE of the incoming administration of President Bush.

And .. while the DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE make it almost impossible for the President to nominate people to sensitive government positions who have a love for America, and a true sense of service to the country .. the Clinton democrats continue on their path of doing everything they can to disrupt, besmirch, denegrate and destroy the Bush Administration.

[lepton]

bookmark bump

[CyberAnt]

{{{{{{ Ping }}}}}}}

[mystery-ak]

Thanks for the ping...a very interesting read....although I think we all suspected this..

[Fiddlstix]

Thanks for the Ping J

[SoCalPol]

Great article. You're correct, the Clinton's have been
active from day 1 to upturn the Bush adm. The Clinton
bunch have such hate for this country, they hope for any
further damage be it terrorist or economic to put us under.

Most people can't see the big picture. They only hear
in sound bites.

As far as the holdover bureaucrats, Civil Service is like
cancer, getting rid of these boils on the a-- is almost
impossible. I know, I worked Civil Service for many yrs.
and it was like up is down, right is left. A Kafka land.

[TC Rider]

Hey it's the Pentagon, can't they just take them out and shoot them?

[First_Salute]

Not to mention George Bush, the willing accomplice.

[CyberAnt]

True .. but a lot of these positions were CLINTON APPOINTEES - which is a perfectly legitimate replacement candidate. I don't believe there is any rule which does not allow replacement.

Of course, like I said - the senate democrats are loathe to approve of Bush's appointments - it would take the next 4 years to get rid of these people.

[isom35]

clinton undead? if they run into Vince Foster, ask him who pulled the trigger, and where.

[homemom]

Very interesting. Thanks for the PING.

[CyberAnt]

"willing accomplice"

That's right - blame Bush! Why not blame the civil servants who are so partisan they cannot support America - but only the clinton regime! Don't they deserve any blame ..?? Bush wouldn't have to replace them if they were there to serve the administration in office - and not their partisan pals.

I believe President Bush saw them as servants of the people - not as partisan clintinoids - yes, that's a mistake - but certainly he was looking for the best in people instead of the worst - which is what he got!

[CyberAnt]

bttt

[CyberAnt]

{{{{{{ Ping }}}}}}

[PhiKapMom]

Don't think that President Bush and members of his administration realized that these people had been planted there by the Clintons -- political appointees given civil service status -- happened all over the Pentagon is my understanding.

These Blame Bush folks are here are as irritating as heck -- need to get their heads out of the sand and take a long, hard look at Kerry and realize how horrible he would be for America. Guess they have to be reminded to put America first instead of their own agenda! Or maybe their agenda is to elect Kerry?

The Clintons are behind a lot of the crap happening and since they (Clintons) put the convention in Boston, you can take it to the bank that they were sure Kerry was going to be the nominee.

[CyberAnt]

"these people were planted"

I know some of us understood this from the beginning .. and I also know a lot of people just assumed that when the Clintons left office - all their henchmen went with them.

[prairiebreeze]

Somehow I just don't picture GW Bush as that naieve. OTOH, I can offer no explanation as to why he has allowed the treachery to continue for so long.

Is it THAT DARNED HARD to get some of these characters out of their positions???

Prairie

[PhiKapMom]

Remember when we have tried to explain that once these people became civil service it is not so easy to get rid of them? Don't know if we ever got through to some people either. Political appointees go away when the President leaves -- civil service stays. State Department is loaded with Clintonites and DOJ although last I heard, AG Ashcroft had gotten most of them to quit with relegating them to the basement.

Always thought the leaks at DoD came from Clinton civilian holdovers. They have tried to undermine Rumsfeld every step of the way and are friends with the press corps.

Personally think there should be a law that forbids political appointees from becoming civil service for so many years after their appointment ends or they quit. They also got their jobs in the Pentagon during the lax Clinton Administration policies on Security Clearances. Maybe Rumsfeld should have every employee hired after 1993, redo their security clearance paperwork, and he might get rid of a bunch of holdover Clintonites.

[Ken H]

Hey it's the Pentagon, can't they just take them out and shoot them?

Regrettably, no.

[Destro]

Thank you so much for posting this. I have said Bush's greatest failure was not firing Clinton holdovers pre 9/11 and for not firing those responsible for anti-terrorisim (even if it was not their faults - fire them under the buck stops here doctrine) after 9/11.

[NonValueAdded]

CyberAnt, it sounds like more than petty sabotage occurred. More like some heavy-duty wrenches were thrown into the machine with pretty good aim.

[CyberAnt]

I agree so very much with your Rumsfeld comments, and about redoing all clearnance paperwork for those who have been employed after '93.

[CyberAnt]

According to PhiKapMom, certain appointees become civil servants after a certain period of time and then you practically have to set off a bomb under them to get them out of office. It should not be so!!

[CyberAnt]

Good point! I was hoping somebody would recognize that!

[cwb]

"Remember when we have tried to explain that once these people became civil service it is not so easy to get rid of the -- civil service stays."

True. We could always accuse them of false charges and throw an IRS audit at them:) The one thing the media completely ignored with Bubba, was his mass purges at every level of the Federal government. From his DA Massacre to unbridled cronyism, Clinton didn't just replace people, he set up one the most impenetrable walls of protection around. And even those he couldn't get to leave willingly, eventually left through frustration due to mismanagement and inaction.

[prairiebreeze]

Yes, I realize it's hard to fire them, but seems they might be shifted to another Dept. or office. Same pay, same benefits of course, but in a less tactical position.

But maybe that isn't easy either....

[Ken H]

Clinton didn't just replace people, he set up one the most impenetrable walls of protection around.

Yes, and you can bet the Clintons still have their hooks in them, in one way or another.

It makes you wonder how many other Dick Clarkes are out there.

[Maria S]

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1105829/posts?q=1&&page=101


President George W. Bush underscored his concern in a May 8 statement: "The threat of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons being used against the United States - while not immediate - is very real."

With Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ripping apart obsolete defense doctrines to keep the United States on the cutting edge of world leadership, others, with a much lower profile, are working on a more fundamental issue: homeland security.

After years of dithering under Clinton, say defense specialists, the Bush White House is taking the matter seriously. "Virtually every vital service: water supplies, transportation, energy, banking and finance, telecommunications, public health - all of these rely on computer and fiber-optic lines, the switches and routers that come from them," notes National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice. These are vulnerable. In the short time since his inauguration in January, Bush has instructed government offices to coordinate for homeland security and defense, and assigned Vice President Richard Cheney to head a group to draft a national terrorism-response plan by October 1.
~ June 18, 2001 ~

Dec. 18, 2000: the Electoral College officially elected George W. Bush - America's 43rd President.

Dec. 19, 2000: Clinton went to Kofi Annan and asked that the UN place tougher sanctions on Afghanistan if the Taliban didn't hand over Bin Laden in 30 days. Clinton and Annan both knew how the Taliban and Bin Laden would react to this - Kofi, who didn't delay for 6 months, allowed the vote immediately, pulled the UN workers out of Afghanistan as he announced the new threat to the Taliban:

---

"Today, the United Nations removed all its remaining relief workers from the country, fearing a backlash from the Taliban, who will be almost completely isolated diplomatically when the resolution takes effect in 30 days, a grace period during which the Taliban could avoid sanctions by meeting the Council's demands." - Tough Sanctions Imposed on Taliban Government Split UN, by Barbara Crossette, New York Times, Dec. 20, 2000.

---

Dec. 20, 2000: UN announced tougher sanctions on the Taliban - to go into effect in 30 days - just in time for
January 20, 2001: President-elect GW Bush's Inaugeration Day.

Clinton appeased the terrorists up to the day he knew Al Gore had no chance of winning election 2000, then, as he was escaping out the "back door" of the White House, he provoked Bin Laden (one of many messes left for our new President) intending to do him harm, and willfully endangering our nation for vanity's sake, imho.


"One morning at the nub end of Bill Clinton's presidency, Clinton chief of staff John Podesta walked into a senior staff meeting in the Roosevelt Room waving a copy of USA Today. Holding the paper aloft, Podesta read the headline out loud, "Clinton actions annoy Bush." The article detailed the new rules and Executive Orders the outgoing President was issuing in his final days, actions aimed in equal measure at locking in Clinton's legacy (in areas like environmental protection) and bedeviling his successor. "What's Bush so annoyed about?" Podesta asked with a devilish smile. "He's got four years to try to undo all the stuff we've done." Link.
"We laid a few traps," chirps a happy Clinton aide.....

133 posted on 03/27/2004 8:05:03 AM CST by Ragtime Cowgirl ("(We)..come to rout out tyranny from its nest. Confusion to the enemy." - B. Taylor, US Marine)

[Carry_Okie]

"The runaway CINC tanks are polluting the military officers they share billets with, they sow discord against the president's policies and legitimize criticism through their supposed representation of the JCS [Joint Chiefs of Staff], and they spin our allies' rising officers in the wrong direction," says a defense scholar currently trying to fix the problem for the Pentagon. "Some of the CINC tanks credentialize leftists and people with few legitimate credentials even as they deny the same opportunities to our good junior officers who are needful."

Time to save some money. Reorg.

If they get in the way, then cut the program out of existence. If they have long term contracts, (something a Republican Congress should have prohibited during a Slave Party Presidency), these leftist thugs are better paid off and flushed than being paid to obstruct or sabotage the defense of the nation.

[Carolinamom]

Since entrenched civil service bureaucrats are next to impossible to fire, I would hope there might be some lateral transfers to positions of less importance.

[meenie]

There were quite a few live investigations that were dropped when Bush came into office. These were dropped in the spirit of compassion and bipartisanship. This policy has worked so well, as we can see, in the present campaign.

[cwb]

Oh, I know. That's one of the things that irks me big-time. For far too long the definition of bi-partisanship has meant republicans conceding to Democratic demands.

[Humidston]

After reading this, I'm more convinced - Washington, D.C. needs a gigantic enema. And I do mean gigantic, starting with Congress and working its way down to the rectum (read appointee/civil service holdovers).

If Kerry wins, we can kiss this country goodbye.

[cwb]

Make that "Democrat's" demands as I was being far to generous.

[PhiKapMom]

Very good point! The Clintons set everything up if they were ousted after four years or had to leave after eight, that a Republican would find a nightmare left behind that would undermine what they were doing. It has come true.

Agree with you about an IRS audit! :)

[arglebarglewastestime]

Regarding the difficulty of firing civil servants, what I hear is that the Administration is planning to replace Federal workers with contractors whereever it can. Apparently, if there is no inherent reason the job must be done by a Federal employee, the Government can do this legally as part of privatization. Could someone please inform us whether this is true, if it has already started, and what, if any, is the backlash against it?

[visualops]

From 2003 Washington Times article:
Government opens 850,000 jobs to the public


ASSOCIATED PRESS
About 850,000 government jobs will be opened to private companies under new rules yesterday that encourage competition to replace federal workers who perform tasks such as giving weather reports to private pilots, fixing computers and taking money and tickets at national parks.
Democrats and labor unions see the Bush administration changes as union-busting and political favoritism, and they pointed to problems at NASA as a red flag.
The procurement rules are among many revisions the administration is undertaking that do not require congressional approval. Officials are rewriting rules that determine which workers are entitled to overtime pay. They also are acting to allow religious groups that receive government funds to discriminate in hiring based on religion.
Nearly half of the 1.8 million civilian government work force performs tasks that duplicate work in the private sector, the administration estimates. President Bush wants to let companies bid to provide that work, with at least 15 percent opened to competition by Oct. 31.
The regulations issued yesterday "will open much wider the doors to those businesses and their workers who can seek to provide to the American taxpayer a better value at a better price," said Mitch Daniels, outgoing director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Officials have identified examples of work being performed by government employees that probably could be done better and more cheaply by private businesses.
For example, 540 Navy workers make eyeglasses. In the National Park Service, rangers are being used to take money and tickets at the front gates.
Mr. Daniels could not say how many government jobs might be lost. He noted that agencies are allowed to compete with private companies for the work.
"We are indifferent as to who wins the competition," he said. "It need not result in any changes in federal employment. We'll just have to see what a more wide-open system brings."
The government's use of private contractors, however, is under examination at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. A board investigating the explosion of the Space Shuttle Columbia is looking at whether NASA's heavy reliance on private contractors contributed to shortcuts in maintenance inspections.
Bobby L. Harnage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said the rule changes "are merely an act to give lucrative government work to contractors without any accountability to the taxpayer."
Democrats have criticized the administration for lucrative contracts to reconstruct Iraq that have been awarded, with limited competition, to companies with ties to Vice President Dick Cheney and other prominent Republicans.
Current rules allow for public-private competition. But the regulations, which have not been significantly revised since 1983, are so cumbersome that private companies often are reluctant to seek government contracts, officials said.
The changes shortened the contract-bidding process from as long as four years to one year, with many to be completed in just 30 days. Government studies show that savings of as much as a third can result from competition. "

http://www.washtimes.com/business/20030529-113809-6035r.htm

I also believe that part of Rumsfeld's reorganization calls for turning over many jobs to civilians to free up the military for combat and/or other strictly military work.

[cwb]

Hey...remember what they did to the Travel Office employees. If they couldn't force them out, they brought 'em up on false charges.

I remember reading how even positions at the DEA were changed out so Clinton cronies could get in. Before Reno was even on the table as AG, Clinton wanted Web Hubbel in the number one position. When you look at the entire DOJ...including the unprecendented firing of all 93 US Attorneys, Clinton was guaranteed to never be held accountable for anything.

Heck, even the positions of Inspector General weren't safe, as Clinton purged this very important governemnt oversight position...at every department. When the record is finally written, this should have a chapter of its own. What's so sad is that because of Clinton's and the Dems actions during this purge...and because of the disloyality left behind for Bush, we are practically guaranteed to see no more rollovers... and alot of distrust in the years ahead.

[nopardons]

Thanks for the ping, btt

[PhiKapMom]

That makes me sick when I think about all that happened. Always have wondered what Ross Perot got out of all of this to jump back in the race when Pres Bush went ahead of Clinton in the polls in 1992?

It is almost like what I have read in the past that Clinton in the early 80's was picked to be President someday with his ties to organized crime is true. My tin foil hat is firmly in place because of the Clintons.

What that pair did to this Country should be a crime!

[Chief_Joe]

One of the center's senior academic officials previously was with the International Human Rights Law Group, and was a World Bank consultant and U.N. diplomat. The center's academic chair of civil-military relations is listed as "a development and gender consultant." Its academic coordinator is noted for her experience in "policy analysis and community activism"

This is so silly it's beyond belief. Can we say made up jobs for feminists? I've long wanted to get to the bottom of what's going on at the Pentagon. I'm really not trying to offend those females who want to sincerely serve their country in an appropriate way, but I believe the Pentagon is overly weighted with females who are ardent feminists first. I'd like to know how many females now work at the Pentagon, and I'd like to know how the number of females working at the Pentagon grew during the Clinton years in Office. I believe such information would be helpful in explaining a lot of the short comings in the effort in Iraq and in the effort to prop up the actions of certain women over there.

[PhiKapMom]

This could be one terrific way to get rid of Clintonites. I worked for the Air Force in the past and there are tons of jobs that contractors could do that would not affect readiness. In fact, it might improve over some of the civilians I worked with who spent more time trying to get out of work then if they just did their job.

[visualops]

I agree completely. My dad worked in the private sector first, for Research Analysis Corp. (RAC) and then put in some 20 years at the Pentagon, working in the Office of the Undersecretary of the Army. Most all of the work he did was classified, but I do know his major headache over the years was bureaucracy. My dad is an abosolute stickler for honesty, logic and efficiency. Once, when I asked what he did, he said he spent the day arguing. After leaving the Pentagon, he want back to the private sector, doing probably much the same type of work.

[tomball]

Lets not forget the 83(?) Attorney Generals who were fired within the first 90 days of the Clinton presidency.

[tomball]

You would think that if they can't fire them, they can at least transfer them - maybe somewhere like Goosebay, Labrador.

[CyberAnt]

"Pentagon is overly weighted with females who are ardent feminists first"

I agree it's overly weighted with females, but I believe those females are ULTRA LEFT-WING EXTREMISTS at heart.

It's the Clinton admin's attempt to feminize the military so people would like us - I THINK I'M GONNA PUKE!!

[AmericanVictory]

Memo to Rummy: Call a meeting of all the Clinton bush haters in DOD. Ask them to thinks of ways to save money. Let them blather on for a good while. Then have one of your guys that you've planted speak up, gesture around, and say: "We could get rid of all this stuff." Then have another one of your guys say: "We could save millions." Having tracked and documented all their undermining activities, then get rid of them. Save millions.

[TC Rider]

Put them in with the Danes at Thule.

[jpl]

I just spent some time overseas and I was shocked by some of what I was seeing on AFN Pacific, part of the Armed Forces Network. They were airing news reports from the "mainstream" news organizations that were directly questioning the truthfulness and legitimacy of the President's foreign policy. Why this is tolerated I can't for the life of me imagine. AFN doesn't necessarily have to be an endless stream of propaganda, but they sure shouldn't be undermining the President with the troops either.

Whoever the rotten apples are that are running AFN, I believe it would be in this administration's best interest to root them out and replace them, pronto.

[Chief_Joe]

I agree it's overly weighted with females, but I believe those females are ULTRA LEFT-WING EXTREMISTS at heart.

Can we get some numbers. I'm really interested in the actual number and percent increase in females employed by the Pentagon over the last 12 years. I'm also curious about appointments of women to high-level positions within the Pentagon over this period. It's one thing if they deserve to be there, but it's another thing if it's done to promote feminist ideology.