If somebody, out of stupidity (losing body armor would be considered stupid) lost some equipment, they should pay for it, but if it is cut off him while medics are attending to him, that needs to be written off.

Comment by Spudge_Boy

It’s only been a couple of months but I can understand why you think it’s much longer.

Comment by Spudge_Boy — February 10, 2006 @ 1:18 pm

Completely right. What I think a lot of people who have never experienced military life do not understand is the difference between “blame” and “responsibility”. Just because you are not to blame for something happening (or failing to happen) does not mean that you are not responsible. Your blamelessness might mitigate your punishment, but if you’re responsibile for something, then you’re responsible. If you don’t like that arrangement, then don’t agree to accept responsibility in the first place.

When I was stationed at Ramstein AB, the one troop I supervised came to me embarrassed because he found out his wife hadn’t paid their German landlords in three months. The First Sergeant called us both in and he told my troop, “Get this fixed right away. I hate getting letters like this.” Then he turned to me and said, “And if he doesn’t get this done, you’re going to be in here explaining to me why.” So I faced the very real possibility of an Article 15 for something I had absolutely no direct control over, short of paying the rent out of my own pocket.

So, yeah, if a soldier loses equipment due to his own incompetence or stupidity, then he should have to pay for it. But if equipment is taken off him by medics, that’s neither his fault nor his responsibility. (If anyone’s, I would guess it would be the responsibility of the medics who removed the gear to return it to him or document its destruction for him.)

I-RIGHT-I,

Would you still support this stance if the ladder ends up going to Rumsfelds desk?

Comment by Spudge_Boy

Of course. Rumsfeld doesn’t owe me any money.

The desk jockey is only following orders that he gets from his superior, his superior cannot act inthis fashion without and orfer from the DoD. The DoD can’t hand out these kinds of orders except from somebody real high up on that ladder.

It’s got nothing to do with orders. It’s longstanding policy to charge a guy if he loses company property out of neglect or whatever. It’s not a bad policy it’s just got to be flexible and somebody ought to be able to say in this case that the man was not responsible for losing his blood soaked body armor.

Comment by I-RIGHT-I — February 10, 2006 @ 12:43 pm

Wow, 18 months later and we agreee on one thing.

If somebody, out of stupidity (losing body armor would be considered stupid) lost some equipment, they should pay for it, but if it is cut off him while medics are attending to him, that needs to be written off.

Would you still support this stance if the ladder ends up going to Rumsfelds desk?

Comment by Spudge_Boy

Of course. Rumsfeld doesn’t owe me any money.

The desk jockey is only following orders that he gets from his superior, his superior cannot act inthis fashion without and orfer from the DoD. The DoD can’t hand out these kinds of orders except from somebody real high up on that ladder.

It’s got nothing to do with orders. It’s longstanding policy to charge a guy if he loses company property out of neglect or whatever. It’s not a bad policy it’s just got to be flexible and somebody ought to be able to say in this case that the man was not responsible for losing his blood soaked body armor.

While I respect these Senators greatly, I am gravely disappointed in this so-called deal. The White House agreed to only a few minor changes to the Patriot Act conference report that could not get through the Senate back in December. These changes do not address the major problems with the Patriot Act that a bipartisan coalition has been trying to fix for the past several years. We’ve come too far and fought too hard to agree to reauthorize the Patriot Act without fixing those problems. A few insignificant changes just doesn’t cut it. I cannot support this deal, and I will do everything I can to stop it.

And I would fire back with:

Washington Post
August 9, 2001
Rumsfeld Mulls Two Options: Status Quo or 10% Military Cut

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is weighing two sharply differing proposals for the future shape of the armed forces, including one from his civilian subordinates that would substantially cut the military, Pentagon officials said yesterday.

The proposal developed by civilian analysts in the Pentagon’s Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation concluded that the armed forces could be reduced by well over 10 percent, with the Army losing about two of its 10 active-duty divisions, the Air Force eliminating as many as 16 of its 61 fighter squadrons, and the Navy eventually giving up one or two of its 12 carrier battle groups.

So, when Bush and pals got into office, Rumsfeld had two options he wanted to go with: One keep the military the same as Clinton left it or two cut it by 10%.

I have posted this before and I will many more times. This should answer all of your Alberto Gonzales hearing questions or raise more.

The real reason Alberto Gonzales was not sworn in on February 6, 2006 is because he knew he would have to lie to cover-up for Bush’ illegal warrantless wiretaps.

White House
April 20, 2004
President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security

“Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”

White House
July 14, 2004
President’s Remarks at Ask President Bush Event

“A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government can’t move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order.

Now, we’ve used things like roving wiretaps on drug dealers before. Roving wiretaps mean you change your cell phone. And yet, we weren’t able to use roving wiretaps on terrorists. And so what the Patriot Act said is let’s give our law enforcement the tools necessary, without abridging the Constitution of the United States, the tools necessary to defend America.”

White House
June 9, 2005
President Discusses Patriot Act

“Law enforcement officers need a federal judge’s permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist’s phone, a federal judge’s permission to track his calls, or a federal judge’s permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S.”

Monday February 6, 2006, in his unsworn “testimony” Alberto Gonzales said that when Bush was talking about getting court orders, he meant roving wiretaps only.

Washington Post
February 6, 2006
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Holds a Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency’s Surveillance Authority – Transcript of Hearings

FEINSTEIN: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

I’d like to make clear that, for me, at least, this hearing isn’t about whether our nation should aggressively combat terrorism; I think we all agree on that. And it’s not about whether we should use sophisticated electronic surveillance to learn about terrorist plans and intentions and capabilities; we all agree on that. And it’s not about whether we should use those techniques inside the United States to guard against attacks; we all agree on that.

But this administration is effectively saying, and the attorney general has said it today, it doesn’t have to follow the law.

And this, Mr. Attorney General, I believe, is a very slippery slope. It’s fraught with consequences.

The Intelligence Committees have not been briefed on the scope and nature of the program. They have not been able to explore what is a link or an affiliate to Al Qaida or what minimization procedures are in place. We know nothing about the program other than what we read in the newspapers.

And so it comes with huge shock, as Senator Leahy said, that the president of the United States in Buffalo, New York, in 2004, would say, and I quote, “Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”

Mr. Attorney General, in light of what you and the president have said in the past month, this statement appears to be false. Do you agree?

GONZALES: No, I don’t, Senator. In fact, I take great issue with your suggestion that somehow that president of the United States was not being totally forthcoming with the American people.

I have his statement, and in the sentence immediately before what you’re talking about, he said — he was referring to roving wiretaps.

And so I think anyone…

FEINSTEIN: So you’re saying that statement only relates to roving wiretaps, is that correct?

GONZALES: Senator, that discussion was about the Patriot Act. And right before he uttered those words that you’re referring to, he said, “Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talk about wiretaps, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order.”

GONZALES: So, as you know, the president is not a lawyer, but this was a discussion about the Patriot Act, this was a discussion about roving wiretaps. And I think some people are trying to take part of his statement out of context, and I think that’s unfair.

FEINSTEIN: OK, fair enough. Let me move along.

Alberto Gonzales flat out lied. Anybody that wants to deny this fact, is only fooling themselves. Gaonzales lied to cover-up George Bush’ illegal program.

It doesn’t matter what administration is in office the desk jockeys hold their jobs for twenty or thirty years. Blaming the Commander and Chief isn’t the answer. The answer is to make the shit roll uphill for once. I’d start with the guy who signed the notice that the boy had to pay for the equipment. What’s that guys name? Lean on him and get the next one up the ladder until you find the group who is responsible for the inflexibility in the system. It will be some bean counting general staff officers who have never fired a gun.

I-RIGHT-I,

Would you still support this stance if the ladder ends up going to Rumsfelds desk? The desk jockey is only following orders that he gets from his superior, his superior cannot act inthis fashion without and orfer from the DoD. The DoD can’t hand out these kinds of orders except from somebody real high up on that ladder.

I think it was Feingold who indicated that an audio or video sample of the 04 Buffalo speech, which Specter refused to allow in, makes it clear that the President was stepping outside of his discussion of roving wiretaps and was talking about wiretaps in general.

It’ll be available a little later.

I’ve got a better idea. Let’s find out who the desk driving f******* in the army is who has the responsibility of enforcing that rule and make him pay, and his bosses. The damned Pentagon bureaucrats kill more Americans than the enemy and I’m sick of the brass getting away with long vacations and fat pensions while our fighters get screwed. If you want to do something for your country and soldiers find those Pentagon shits and make them accountable.

Wow, I-RIGHT-I,

You’re coming around. We have been bitching about this since the begining of the war.

Remember Rumsfeld saying “You go to war with the Army you have…”

Rumsfeld was talking about the soldiers not having the proper armor for their person and vehicles. If you would just slow down from time to time, you would realize we just want whats best for the soldiers. That means getting them the proper armor and not keeping them someplace they shouldn’t be.

Sorry so geeky, but you need to clean up your filthy minds!

Statement made by the Preznit in 2004 (paraphrased): “Whenever you hear about a wiretap, a wiretap requires a court order.”

The White House PressSec Scooty McCliar states that he was referring specifically to roving wiretaps under the Patriot Act. I don’t think the average American recognizes the difference between a roving wiretap and the government wiretaps. Can you guys clarify it?

3 guys in their underwear drinking Strohs…