Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Southern Federalist
Hmmm. I've never looked at this as a women's issue. She's a CO in the US Military. She knew what she was getting into when she raised her hand and took that oath and some of that was - sometimes you have to do things you find personally infringing.

Her primary mission is her military responsibilities. This other stuff is a distraction from that mission. And contrary to some, I am questioning if she followed her Chain of Command on this all the way. Some folks believe she did not and I remember seeing that posted someplace on FR...

I believe her military career is smoked at this point. Maybe not, but that is a hunch...

870 posted on 01/29/2002 7:12:48 PM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 862 | View Replies ]


To: Fury
Her primary mission is her military responsibilities. This other stuff is a distraction from that mission. And contrary to some, I am questioning if she followed her Chain of Command on this all the way. Some folks believe she did not and I remember seeing that posted someplace on FR...

And yes, MWR issues are also important, but not to the point of overshadowing why we are in SA. 1) Support and enforce no-fly zones 2) Provide a source of US presence in an area vital to US interests.

876 posted on 01/29/2002 7:16:08 PM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 870 | View Replies ]

To: Fury
You see the core of this as a military discipline issue. I see it as an issue of our fawning and grovelling before the Fatso Fascists of Fahd's Family. It seems to me perfectly plausible that she knew good and well it would cook her career, but couldn't stand to see her country degrade itself in that way any longer. That might explain why Jesse Helms jumped immediately to call for the same changes she was calling for. And why she went to the Rutherford Institute and not to the Gyno-dynamic Sisterhood Peace and Justice Women's Legal Cooperative in Berkeley, CA or Cambridge, Mass.

At this point, I have been able to find very little detailed information on the Web about the case or McSally, so it's all speculation on both sides. Perhaps more information will emerge and prove me dead wrong, or maybe right.

Question: Do you think that Michael New was equally in the wrong, in challenging -- in his case directly refusing to obey -- orders he believed to be unconstitutional?

888 posted on 01/29/2002 7:42:22 PM PST by Southern Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 870 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson