Posted on 05/25/2004 10:18:35 AM PDT by chambley1
And what about the Captains? No O3s running around in that joint?
What I don't understand is why she keeps showing up on talking head shows in civies. There are a lot of retired military on them and they wear civilian cloths but she isn't retired. Is she ashamed of the uniform that she serves in?
Methinks those who wear the uniform are rightly embarrassed by her.
Your comments please, gentlemen!
The person who allowed this happen, on their command, is a woman and was the highest ranking female General in the theater.
This is not the aspect of the story they wish to focus on. They beat the story to death, day after day and night after night, for one reason only. They wanted to embarrass President Bush and help John Kerry.
Exactly, but I can't understand why they would be in a very uncomfortable postion. The truth means nothing to the media. All that matters is they have something sensational they can try to pin on the president day after day. They've never been more comfortable.
She is a frocked general, so I don't believe she went through the normal process. She's had many problems before with her unit. My father-in-law had a run-in with her during some training at Camp A.P. Hill in Virginia. He's a Reserve CI warrant officer and was trying to teach her MPs about basic handling of prisoners. When her unit was determined to be below standard she tried to blame it on poor training by the CI guys. Fortunately, my f-in-law is the type that saves and files every iota of paper and was able to produce everything necessary to have it shoved right back down her throat. But, that wasn't enough to keep the stars from being pinned on her later on (for quota purposes, of course).
Theory & Practice seem to be a bit closer in the Navy -- at least where sea commands are concerned.
Every time Karpinski's picture is shown I can't help but think of Nurse Ratchet from "Cookoos Nest"
Cue the Blue Danube Waltz music...
Some here have assumed that what we are seeing is a clearing out of the phalanx of officers who have achieved early promotions under the previous administration. But who knows?
I just took a look at her in a television clip, and I knew immediately that the buck never stops at her desk.
She came across as misinformed and obtuse, but very willing to blame someone else for her own shortcomings.
I'm sorry to hear that your father-in-law had the misfortune to deal with her.
I hear you Moonman, but they are uncomfortable. You are entirely correct that they care little for the truth--other than this: they do not like being found out.
This story is not developing along some paths that they did not fully think through while they were intoxicated with venom and delight. In the same way that an alcoholic is not interested in sobriety, the media is not interested in the truth. Both, however, fear discovery of their affliction.
An alcoholic does not want someone to find the wiskey bottle hidden in the closet. The media does not want anyone to know they exploited this story and twisted in the most perverse fashion.
Moreover, the story is now focusing on a woman general who is acting childish, without integrity, and without resonsibility. She is, however, blaming everyone else. This is not what the media intended. Look at what they wanted vs. the way things have turned out: 1. Rumsfeld's head on a platter: ---didn't happen, in fact, 67% of the public were behind Rummy, and people realized how much they need men like him in time of war.
2. Poll number to change to favor Kerry: --while Bush's numbers did drop (shocker), Kerry did not benefit! Extraordinary. One of the main reasons was that the story made Kerry nervous, since he is on record before Congress as a younger man stating he was an admitted war criminal.
It seems to me that she didn't need more troops to watch the prisoners but rather she needed to pay more attention to watching the troops.
This cow will become the next darling of the liberal media...up there next to that POS Zinni.
Perfect for a Clintonista bootlicker!
I'm sorry to hear that your father-in-law had the misfortune to deal with her.
Thank you, but I guess we could say she had the misfortune of dealing with him. He came out on top: She eventually got her star but he kept his integrity intact. And now she has a past record of running a poorly-trained and trying to foist off the responsibility. Gee, and the Clintonistas said character doesn't count!
I think she was confirmed as a BG on Nov 7, 2003.
The problem is, DoD and the Uniformed Services were infected with Feminazi Political Correctness long before President Bush got to the White House.
The ding on the Bush administration is that they did not purge DoD and the Uniformed Services of Feminazi Political Correctness when they assumed command.
It was an Administration command failure, pure and simple.
HST, she probably looked good on paper. And, how much harm can a female BG do? She was promoted based on flawed, politically correct FitReps, IMHO.
Not the first time that has happened in the government, BTW.
And, Lord Help Us, it will not be the last!
Yo General if ya can't see them stars on yer collar maybe a whack with a whiffle bat to the snout will help ya see em.
They are used to command ! Not as friggin jewelry ! Get off yer fat ass and lead or leave !
OOOOOOOPS...........To Late ! Now yer just example # 2389B-aa1Z of how to end a career 101 at the war college.
Stay Safe Dave !
You bring up a good point -- also surprised she wasn't tossed!
One of the Clintonite Generals still around -- wish we could get rid of all of them!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.