Good riddance to insubordinate rubbish. He'll be lucky if he doesn't face a court martial.
:roll: Yeah, so I guess a four star general badmouthing the commander-in-chief to a Rolling Stone reporter is within the limits of "acceptable insubordinate" behavior? And if you're talking about a sanction over an Article 88 violation, where are your facts? Show me the black letter law and maybe you'll persuade me.
Can you link to his exact quotes of his "badmouthing the CiC" and specifically quote what you are talking about? Thanks.
Let me explain something to you, since you appear to be woefully underinformated as to the kind of behavior that is expected from military officers. "Joking" criticism of superior officers is generally frowned upon, particularly by four star generals talking to reporters. We're not talking about about a guy who was accidentally overheard making a joke in the privacy of his own home or something, we're talking about a four star general representing the military to the press who permitted an unforgivable lapse of decorum. What's so hard about accepting the fact that this guy failed to live up to his duty? Oh yeah, I guess that'd require you to not be critical of Obama. :roll: I repeat, you and tex are indulging in the worst kind of partisan hackery.
I already gave a quote where be badmouthed the vice-president in violation of Article 88. He's known to have said something along the lines of "Obama looked scared" meeting with military brass for the first time, and I call that badmouthing the CIC. He tolerated contemptuously language from his advisors and staff. All this happened in front of the press. There are numerous other news outlets that can provide you with all the rest of quotes if you take the time to look them up. Honestly, why bother to defend this guy? He's a disgrace to the uniform.
You can concede at any time now.
I already gave a quote where be badmouthed the vice-president in violation of Article 88. He's known to have said something along the lines of "Obama looked scared" meeting with military brass for the first time, and I call that badmouthing the CIC. He tolerated contemptuously language from his advisors and staff. All this happened in front of the press. There are numerous other news outlets that can provide you with all the rest of quotes if you take the time to look them up. Honestly, why bother to defend this guy? He's a disgrace to the uniform.
You'll get my concession when you can show me the law not just some law professor saying it's debatable. Until that time, I'd prefer to let a tribunal decide what counts as an article 88 violation, not an academic, thanks.:2wave:
You'll get my concession when you can show me the law not just some law professor saying it's debatable. Until that time, I'd prefer to let a tribunal decide what counts as an article 88 violation, not an academic, thanks.:2wave:
Now...Why do you suppose a man with the credentials and apparently the universal respect of so many people would be so repulsed by representatives of this administration that he would go so far as to say such things?
There won't be a court martial. As a partisan hack you can pretend and pray there will be one, but in reality, no one is going to jail for daring to say as you failed to prove that obama looked "scared".....
Hey, you'll get no argument with me there. It doesn't say good things about Obama's leadership at all. But I don't give a flying ferret if McChrystal was right or wrong, the point is he should have kept his mouth shut.
Nice try, but the only partisan hack thing is to deny that there is a legitimate case to be made that his comments, taken as a whole (as provided for in article 88 the comments are to be taken as a whole, not isolated) are contemptuous. Frankly, I don't really know if they rise to the level of an 88 violation or not, and I never said I did. But it is definitely border line, as Tex proved when he quoted that iffy Yale prof. I say let a tribunal decide. If he gets off, good for him. He's still a prick.
Yeah thats right. He's just an ivy league expert on military law. What does he know compared to you?
This would only be apt if I was comparing him to me. I'm not, I'm comparing him to the military tribunal that ought to hear this case. Again, nice try, but your hack ways will get you no traction with me.
I accept your concession.
Fail. I never conceded to anything, no will I.
You might have read my comments thoroughly from the beginning before jumping to conclusions, though. He should face a court martial, and they ought to decide what to make of his insubordination. If it's not an article 88 violation, it's too close for anybody in this thread to know it from an actual article 88 violation. Tex brought up one quote from an academic who said, "it probably isn't" which only goes to prove my point. So I accept yours and tex's concession. QED Always a pleasure to best you in an argument, Hellhound, even if you don't realize it.
One would have to be a complete imbecile to believe McChrystal will ever be brought up on charges of any kind related to this episode. :roll:
Yeah, so what's your point? :roll:Whether he will be and whether he should be are two different things.
You are comparing your knowledge of the law to his and whether it amounts to a court martial.
Don't try and spin your nonsense. You think you know more than an ivy league military law expert. It doesn't get funnier than that.
Fail. I never conceded to anything, no will I. You might have read my comments thoroughly from the beginning before jumping to conclusions, though. He should face a court martial, and they ought to decide what to make of his insubordination. If it's not an article 88 violation, it's too close for anybody in this thread to know it from an actual article 88 violation. Tex brought up one quote from an academic who said, "it probably isn't" which only goes to prove my point. So I accept yours and tex's concession. QED Always a pleasure to best you in an argument, Hellhound, even if you don't realize it.
Whether he will be and whether he should be are two different things.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?