More Bush Administration Idiocy

WalterM140 wrote:
In case you did not know, Bush is smart enough to leave the operational
decisions in the hands of the military.

He's in charge.

He's responsible.

He's responsible for the overall conduct of the operation, not the actions of
every single US service member. You're letting your politics get in the way
of
rational thinking.


I know Bush is in charge. I know he's responsible.

Actually, it was that damned Truman's fault. He made deniability difficult if
not impossible with his "The Buck Stops Here" sign on his desk for all of the
Republican presidents who followed him. It would have been so much easier to
blame someone else when something went wrong and someone screwed up. (^-^)))

George Z.

Walt

Actually, it was that damned Truman's fault. He made deniability difficult
if
not impossible with his "The Buck Stops Here" sign on his desk for all of the
Republican presidents who followed him. It would have been so much easier to
blame someone else when something went wrong and someone screwed up. (^-^)))

George Z.


LOL

As BuffDvr knows, they pound that accountability thing into your head in the
military. If you are in charge, you are responsible. And excuses don't cut
it.

Walt

As BuffDvr knows, they pound that accountability thing into your head in the
military. If you are in charge, you are responsible. And excuses don't cut
it.

What a partison joke. I've already acknowledged the President is responsible
for the overall conduct of military operations, but to lay blame at his feet
for the individual actions of every service member is a joke. Using that
rationale, your hero Bill Clinton was the worst President ever. During his 8
years in office the U.S. military had its highest sexual harrasment and DUI
rate.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
WalterM140 wrote:
In case you did not know, Bush is smart enough to leave the
operational
decisions in the hands of the military.

He's in charge.

He's responsible.

He's responsible for the overall conduct of the operation, not the
actions of
every single US service member. You're letting your politics get in the
way
of
rational thinking.


I know Bush is in charge. I know he's responsible.

Actually, it was that damned Truman's fault. He made deniability
difficult if
not impossible with his "The Buck Stops Here" sign on his desk for all of
the
Republican presidents who followed him. It would have been so much easier
to
blame someone else when something went wrong and someone screwed up.
(^-^)))

So if one of your crewmembers had been guilty of maybe rape, you should be
held accountable? I don't think so, unless you instituted or facilitated an
environment encouraging such action. As we have seen in the recent case
here, where the military initiated criminal actions against those involved
before the press even got wind of the situation, that is hardly the case.
Sometimes the buck actually stops with the individual performing the act.

Brooks


George Z.

Walt

So if one of your crewmembers had been guilty of maybe rape, you should be
held accountable?

Yes, defintely at some level. The leader should have kept a better eye on that
person.

No excuses.

Walt

WalterM140 wrote:
So if one of your crewmembers had been guilty of maybe rape, you should be
held accountable?

Yes, defintely at some level. The leader should have kept a better eye on that
person.

No excuses.

I'm not sure I can go that far. Certainly, a supervisor ought to be responsible
for the performance of his crew, but isn't it asking a bit too much to expect
him to be cognizant of the off-duty criminal behavior of all his people? Maybe
in those days when everybody lived in the same barracks, it might have been
possible but nowadays, when the sun goes over the yardarm, the guys mostly
scatter.

George Z.

Walt

So if one of your crewmembers had been guilty of maybe rape, you should be
held accountable?

Yes, defintely at some level. The leader should have kept a better eye on
that
person.

You're kidding right? What if you had no reason to; "keep a better eye on that
person"? I won't even go as far as rape. Using your logic, if my navigator goes
out on Friday night and gets pulled over for a DUI, my rear end should be
reprimanded as well. And I guess since the buck doesn't stop with me, my flight
commander....then Ops Officer....then Sq/CC....then OG/CC...then WG/CC....then
NAF/CC....then MAJCOM/CC....then AF CoS....then the CJCS and finally the
President should all be held accountable for my navigator, who got a DUI. If
you truely believe this I think you need to step away from the computer for a
while and reintroduce yourself to reality.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

So if one of your crewmembers had been guilty of maybe rape, you should be
held accountable?

Yes, defintely at some level. The leader should have kept a better eye on
that
person.

You're kidding right?

No I am not kidding at all.

If you're in charge, you are responsible. That's what I heard over and over in
the Marine Corps. Maybe you heard something different in the Air Force.

Walt

No I am not kidding at all.

If you're in charge, you are responsible.

Nice snippage of my DUI example.

That's what I heard over and over in
the Marine Corps.

I'm willing to bet they didn't teach you in the Marine Corps; "and don't screw
this up or there will be hell to pay from the Prseident since he's ultimately
responsible".

Maybe you heard something different in the Air Force.

In the Air Force they teach you that you are responsible for the direction and
supervision of those below your chain of command. However, that does not mean
you are accountable for their off-duty behavior since we are all expected to be
professionals. Additionally, you are not responsible if someone under your
command decides to violate the UCMJ, military regulations or the Geneva
convention unless you were in a position stop that behavior and didn't or if
you command influance somehow built an atmosphere where this behavior was
acceptable.

Your attacks on the President are a joke. You expect me to believe that the
Marine Corps Commandant gets grief from the CNO or the CJCS for every
infraction of every Marine. That's absurd, and so are you.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
No I am not kidding at all.

If you're in charge, you are responsible.

Nice snippage of my DUI example.

Who is this guy? Obviously one of those I previously killfiled--perhaps a
guy by the name of Case? Whoever it is, BUFDRVR, you are dead on target
here, and obviously this guy has his head so deep in the sand that he has no
idea of which way is up, much less how to define the limits of command
responsibility.

Brooks


That's what I heard over and over in
the Marine Corps.

I'm willing to bet they didn't teach you in the Marine Corps; "and don't
screw
this up or there will be hell to pay from the Prseident since he's
ultimately
responsible".

Maybe you heard something different in the Air Force.

In the Air Force they teach you that you are responsible for the direction
and
supervision of those below your chain of command. However, that does not
mean
you are accountable for their off-duty behavior since we are all expected
to be
professionals. Additionally, you are not responsible if someone under your
command decides to violate the UCMJ, military regulations or the Geneva
convention unless you were in a position stop that behavior and didn't or
if
you command influance somehow built an atmosphere where this behavior was
acceptable.

Your attacks on the President are a joke. You expect me to believe that
the
Marine Corps Commandant gets grief from the CNO or the CJCS for every
infraction of every Marine. That's absurd, and so are you.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"