Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (163911)	4/18/2006 1:38:50 PM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

Holbrook, since kerry didn't get elected he didn't get a secretary job.. maybe if joins with Hillary he could be Hillary's secretary.

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (163911)	4/18/2006 1:50:43 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

If the agreement to speak out occurs before the retirement, I suppose a conspiracy case can be made out. I don't know any military law, so cannot be positive. The real problem is not the law nor the way the dissatisfaction is handled but the fact that these guys are so united against Rumsfeld's ways that they are willing to speak out as boldly as they have. They deserve to be heard, not squelched. I frankly didn't like the way Shinseki was treated, which may account for some of the dissatisfaction. But serious and professional military men argued with a great deal of weight that more troops should have been in Iraq. I think a great many of our present problems may have been avoided if Rumsfeld had not micromanaged the number of troops issue. It was also a huge mistake to send the Iraqi army home after the war.

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (163911)	4/18/2006 2:31:41 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793843

If there are generals currently in the service who are planning something like what Blankley's article alludes to, it borders on sedition. There's "planning" and then there's "plotting." It seems reasonable to me that, when generals get together for drinks and cigars, they talk about the boss just as we all do. It's reasonable for them to discuss what they think about current policies and about the feasibility of various strategies influencing them. It's reasonable for them to draw conclusions individually and collaboratively as a function of this feedback process about if, how, and when it would be useful and/or appropriate to air their discontent. And it's also to be expected that they would have a pretty good sense of what their peers have in mind to do or not do (and that Holbrook or anyone else might have a good sense of it). In this way they are no different from GM executives or low level grousers. Just because a bunch of them speak up after retirement isn't remotely evidence of a conspiracy. It may be simply that they are similarly situated and thus react similarly. You would need direct testimony from some participants to show a conspiracy.