Ted Cruz demands meeting with the Commandant of the USMC

[cpwill]

So are you trying to say that someone outside the military couldn't possibly have any affect on our unit cohesion?

Certainly not, which is why I didn't make that argument, but instead pointed out:

He's not in a military leadership role, so, even to the extent that military members might listen to him, certainly not more than the reaction he posed. ​

I've seen plenty of people outside the military harm unit cohesion. We had a lady who was married to one of our Marines, but sleeping with a couple of others behind his back. That sure as hell effected unit cohesion. We had an NCO go home and his "friend" got him back into drugs; leading to a relapse while deployed. That effected unit cohesion. Fat Leonard bribed a bunch of Navy officers and that effected good order and discipline, and a few other things besides. The military is surrounded by people, politicians, trends, conditions, localities, cultures, and a host of other factors that can impact good order and discipline and unit cohesion. That is why military leadership is tasked with ensuring good order and discipline and unit cohesion, instead of setting a bad example by breaking the rules, and thus degrading good order and discipline.

Those were not attacks, regardless of how you, Cruz or Carlson are trying to describe them. Those are standing up for our people.

A) you don't get to stand up for your people from domestic political critics. They are allowed to say whatever they please and we do not get involved. Hillary can call us liars. The left can call us baby murderers. Tucker can call us feminized. And we do not go after or respond to or attack or gang up on or engage on the domestic political or cultural front against people we do not like. That concept is pretty important. There are a lot of countries around the world where the military decided it was going to respond as an institution to domestic political criticism. Typically, they are not nice places.

B) were that the case, there would have been no reference to Carlson

 

[cpwill]

Heard a joke a while back:

Q: What's the difference between and Insurrection, and Ted Cruz' wife?

A: Ted Cruz will defend an insurrection

 

[Rawley]

Well, sadly, the right wing media has already demonstrated its ability to undermine the vote and to incite insurrection. Why shouldn't the military defend itself? The election officials failed to prevent democracy itself from being poisoned by Q-tards. The police couldn't stop the terrorists from attacking the capital. I think they are right to be nervous and even a little bit defensive.

COngratulations. I knew one of you were going to somehow connect this to Trump. Kudos.

They shouldn't "defend" themselves because it's against military regulations.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Trump held the republican convention there. I suppose they were all on the clock. The president is always on the clock. As I said, Trump employees violated it hundreds of times.

Trump commanding his minions to attend and/or help on the clock is still their responsibility to the President, not a personal choice.

 

[Rawley]

Ok, feel free to keep supporting the professional hate mongers on the right like Tucker.

Not supporting Carlson as much criticizing the pantwaists in the military and the Pentagon who can't handle a little criticism.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Tucker Carlson is getting ripped a new one for the comments he made, but whoever said they ought to stop broadcasting Fox on base because of Tucker Carlson's show is ridiculous. I wonder if he'll be sent on a longish vacation for this.

Not at all, quite the contrary. Its the military members who commented publically several times in responce to Carlson who will get reprimanded over this. Prompting the military to write a retraction and promise to not do it agian. While Tucker has the freedom of the press on his side.

 

[Rawley]

Thanks for posting that, it totally confirms my point. No one is using their position in the military to insult Tucker Carlson. He's a snowflake that needs a safe space.

Really" You don't consider "Maybe those folks feel like they have something to prove, that's on them,” said Kirby, who added that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin "certainly shares the revulsion of so many others to what Mr. Carlson said in his opening statement." to be an insult? That they feel "revulsion" at hearing Carlson's opinion?

 

[Variant]

Not supporting Carlson as much criticizing the pantwaists in the military and the Pentagon who can't handle a little criticism.

All they did was criticize back. That's often how one handles "criticism".

Then we got Senators involved to defend the honor of the guy who started the word fight. Throwing around their official capacity as a threat. So, who is having a problem taking criticism now?

 

[Rawley]

All they did was criticize back. That's often how one handles "criticism".

Not in the military.

Then we got Senators involved to defend the honor of the guy who started the word fight. So, who is having a problem taking criticism now?

Nope. Cruz is asking why the Military is geting political over this issue and speaking out publicly. It's against all military regulations.

 

[Variant]

Not in the military.

Nope. Cruz is asking why the Military is geting political over this issue and speaking out publicly. It's against all military regulations.

Someone talked back to Tucker Carlson!

Maybe we should have a trial.

Or maybe Biden should pardon them.

 

[Rawley]

Someone talked back to Tucker Carleson!

Maybe we should have a trial.

As cpwill has pointed out, the active military members that did speak out will get reprimanded.

 

[Variant]

As cpwill has pointed out, the active military members that did speak out will get reprimanded.

Maybe. I don't think they deserve it. The guy in charge of the military could always step in and say to hell with Tucker Carlson's feelings.

 

[roguenuke]

It certainly can be.



Actually I saw MGuns Stalker's comments pretty early, because we are connected on social media, and saw II MEF twitter posting and their apology.

And why did they apologize? Because they were in the wrong.



perhaps he recognizes that "a politicized military" is a lot more dangerous than "jackass on television says things other people don't like".

Mind you, that's giving him a lot more credit than he deserves. More likely he's doing it for personal political reasons.

Part of our annual training, every year, was a module on the Hatch Act. What is the Number One Big Time Under No Circumstances Shall You Break This Commandment? You do not comment on domestic politics or any political controversy while in uniform. If these leaders had chosen to use their personal accounts with the appropriate caveats, or if they had chosen to merely celebrate women in uniform without referencing a domestic political actor they decided to take part in a response against, then they probably wouldn't have crossed any boundaries. Sadly, they didn't make that choice.

They did it because they took the high road, not because they were actually wrong.

And this is not a political issue. Simply claiming something like this is "political" is part of the problem.

 

[roguenuke]

Certainly not, which is why I didn't make that argument, but instead pointed out:

He's not in a military leadership role, so, even to the extent that military members might listen to him, certainly not more than the reaction he posed. ​

I've seen plenty of people outside the military harm unit cohesion. We had a lady who was married to one of our Marines, but sleeping with a couple of others behind his back. That sure as hell effected unit cohesion. We had an NCO go home and his "friend" got him back into drugs; leading to a relapse while deployed. That effected unit cohesion. Fat Leonard bribed a bunch of Navy officers and that effected good order and discipline, and a few other things besides. The military is surrounded by people, politicians, trends, conditions, localities, cultures, and a host of other factors that can impact good order and discipline and unit cohesion. That is why military leadership is tasked with ensuring good order and discipline and unit cohesion, instead of setting a bad example by breaking the rules, and thus degrading good order and discipline.



A) you don't get to stand up for your people from domestic political critics. They are allowed to say whatever they please and we do not get involved. Hillary can call us liars. The left can call us baby murderers. Tucker can call us feminized. And we do not go after or respond to or attack or gang up on or engage on the domestic political or cultural front against people we do not like. That concept is pretty important. There are a lot of countries around the world where the military decided it was going to respond as an institution to domestic political criticism. Typically, they are not nice places.

B) were that the case, there would have been no reference to Carlson

No. His words were far more controversial and damaging than the responses to them.

He was not prevented from saying whatever he pleased. He was not threatened or insulted in any way.

 

[Variant]

They did it because they took the high road, not because they were actually wrong.

And this is not a political issue. Simply claiming something like this is "political" is part of the problem.

You can make issues political if you turn something into a political fight. That was the whole idea behind Tuckers criticism.

 

[Rawley]

Maybe. I don't think they deserve it. The guy in charge of the military could always step in and say to hell with Tucker Carlson's feelings.

You're finally starting to get a clue as to the problem. That's exactly what happened. But you refuse to recognize the problem becasue he's going after a member of the other team - so you support it.

 

[roguenuke]

You can make issues political if you turn something into a political fight. That was the whole idea behind Tuckers criticism.

That he was trying to make changes made in the military for women into a political fight? For what purpose? Ratings for him. He wasn't trying to actually change anything. He just wants to rile up those who listen to him, which negatively affects actual military cohesion.

 

[Rawley]

They did it because they took the high road, not because they were actually wrong.

And this is not a political issue. Simply claiming something like this is "political" is part of the problem.

Women in combat will always be a political issue.

 

[joko104]

What your daughter did or didn't do is irrelevant to this conversation.

I understand. Joe Biden said facts (reality) is irrelevant to Democrats.

The relevancy is not one Democrat on this thread gives a damn about women in the military. Rather, they just are ranting about Tucker. Who is irrelevant to the topic of women in the military is Tucker, you and I. My daughter is not because she has repeatedly "broken the glass ceiling" for women - a phrase so often used.

 

[roguenuke]

Not supporting Carlson as much criticizing the pantwaists in the military and the Pentagon who can't handle a little criticism.

That criticism actually negatively affects unit cohesion.

 

[Variant]

You're finally starting to get a clue as to the problem. That's exactly what happened. But you refuse to recognize the problem becasue he's going after a member of the other team - so you support it.

I don't see a problem aside from someone being mad that the military dare find someone abhorrent enough to deserve a response.

 

[roguenuke]

Women in combat will always be a political issue.

He talked about women in combat, but that was not what he was actually criticizing with those statements. Women in combat has nothing to do with hairstyles or even maternity flight suits, as neither apply to women in combat.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Really" You don't consider "Maybe those folks feel like they have something to prove, that's on them,” said Kirby, who added that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin "certainly shares the revulsion of so many others to what Mr. Carlson said in his opening statement." to be an insult? That they feel "revulsion" at hearing Carlson's opinion?

I think you snowflakes can find a million ways to be offended and I think you should grow thicker skin and get over it.

You can't find any real controversy so you fabricate it.

 

[Variant]

That he was trying to make changes made in the military for women into a political fight? For what purpose? Ratings for him. He wasn't trying to actually change anything. He just wants to rile up those who listen to him, which negatively affects actual military cohesion.

The purpose of Carlson's screed was to attempt to say Biden is soft, even though this is something the military has been doing for decades.

 

[roguenuke]

The purpose of Carlson's screed was to attempt to say Biden is soft, even though this is something the military has been doing for decades.

I'm well aware, since I was still in when the first round of military hairstyle changes occurred.