Gay.
Posted on 03/25/2008 5:55:33 AM PDT by PurpleMan
"... [VADM] Stufflebeem had an "inappropriate relationship" while serving as a military aide to the former president in 1990.
Thorp emphasized to CNN that Stufflebeem was removed because the inspector general found he had provided "false and misleading" information, not because of the allegation. "
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
If during Bubba's, does it not follow that he was following the lead of his Commander-in-Chief who lied about nothing more than a sexual relationship?
BTW: Fired for something 17 years ago? There has GOT to be more to this.
1990 - Bush 41, Clinton was elected in 92 and inaugurated in January 93..............
Wonder if the Admiral will be allowed to continued his career? /sarc
Gay.
Never mind! Seems like the Clinton’s have been in Washington forever.
The incident occurred in 1990. He was fired for lying to the investigators. My point was that we don’t know when that investigation began (Although it was probably before Bubba took over.)
However, lying in an official investigation is lying an official investigation whether or not POTUS did the same thing or not.
This is sad. He was a great SIXTH Fleet Commander. Hopefully this will get straightened out and he is found innocent. Anyway, another day goes on...the press just loves this stuff.
You know as well as I do that if he was relieved, he’s toast.
Huh Huh , Huh huh, he said stufflebeem...
He can always start a political career.
Or a ministerial.
“BTW: Fired for something 17 years ago? There has GOT to be more to this.”
No, that will do it. There MAY be more to it, but lying to investigators would be enough.
Admiral Stufflebeem?... somebody promoted him as a joke .. Obviously..
Since this occured 17 years ago, he’s been vetted for the highest positions in the Navy requiring the highest level of security clearance (TS/SCI) and probably read into other stuff (i.e SAP) all of which required anal investigations of the highest of order.
Think Roughhead (CNO) found an opportunity to clean up an old score?
(poofy voice with limey accent) "Stufflebeem, I'll be having my tea and crumpets in the drawwwwwing room now".
Hairdresser, butler or............Admiral?
Definitely Admiral...but in OUR navy? I’m thinking Royal Navy, but not now, back when Horatio Hornblower plied the seas.
I think there is a major, and bizarre, problem with many of our higher ranking military officers: they can’t get married!
That is, within the military, unless an officer marries another officer, and one outside their chain of command, there are few if any opportunities for them to meet a civilian potential spouse.
There is little or no military-civilian interface, where even junior officers could meet potential mates. The end result is that the military has become almost a celibate priesthood. If not chaste.
As I said, it is a bizarre problem.
Yet at a particular point, advancement without being married becomes problematic, so officers are encouraged to “take what they can get” from among a pool of spouses that are hardly the cream of the crop. They are discouraged to take a foreign spouse, however, which was another traditional remedy.
On top of that, a military officer is not a particularly good catch for a spouse, as they are transient, there is little chance for their spouse to have a career, and they tend to live in some pretty unpleasant locations.
While a lot of this has always been the case, and is just part of the job, the inherent prudishness of the military and the congress tends to exacerbate the problem.
The military strongly prefers unmarried personnel, because they are just easier to deal with. But there is only about a 15 year window for most people in which they can find a spouse, get married, and have children. Otherwise they are damned to bachelorhood at worst, or childlessness at best.
Spending four or more of those essential years in uniform, and in the absence of marital prospects, puts a lot of pressure on personnel to leave after one tour of service, even if they like the military. Even so, when leaving the military, they have lost four or more critical years of advancement and promotion in civilian employment, making them less desirable as marriage prospects.
The bottom line is that, while the military may prefer unmarried personnel, in the future, to retain enough good people, it may have no other choice but to do what used to be done, to create opportunities for its personnel to meet civilian spouses, and to insist that at least a majority of its junior officers get married.
And get married not to just anyone, but someone worth marrying. And to offer more stable opportunities to its married personnel. Let the bachelors go gallivanting around the world. Let the marrieds spend the bulk of their career in the same regiment and duty station.
Marriage and children are hardly topics that the military enjoy discussing, compared to its primary mission, but unless they are given consideration, it will continue to impact their mission and inhibit their performance.
“there are few if any opportunities for them to meet a civilian potential spouse.”
“military has become almost a celibate priesthood.”
“If not chaste”
“encouraged to “take what they can get””
“military officer is not a particularly good catch for a spouse”
and on and on and on.........
Wow. You have a great future in writing fiction.
He's not on the CFR Member's list, where he'd be around # 3838 if he was so listed. It's likely a CFR member wants the post as a ticket-punch for his career, and will get it instead. http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/roundtable/CFRS-Zlist.html
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.