So, do you accept that the abuse was real and rampant at Tailhook, involving a very large number of officers ("miscreants"), and according to many, many women?old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 4:17 pmI know what happened to the primary complainant & to her Admiral, who was not present.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 12:00 pmSalty,old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 11:08 am...Prince Hal's Band of Brothers stuck it out & deployed across the channel with him.Kismet wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 7:01 amOld Saltine is obviously not in the same class as King Henry V. Good thing he wasn't at Agincourt either.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 6:34 am “Be in their flowing cups freshly remember’d.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember’d;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother;”
Unless he is nominated for high office by a political party with which I disagree.
You are an odious, disloyal ice of sh@t.
And your Tailhook narrative discloses at least some clues as to why you became an unforgiving, unforgivable charlatan.
Postscript: and all of this, in the toafying servile service of this POS:
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/11/nx-s1-50 ... conference
I suppose I'm not qualified to weigh in on other military history either. Funny that Salty's hero VDH never served a MINUTE in the military but he's good to go.
Come to think of it - I made no comments about Tailhook other than to reference when it occurred and Salty's reference to it. Typical for him to go off on what he thinks others may be thinking. He sucks at that, too.
You claimed I'm still not over Tailhook. It cinched my decision to retire & pursue a civilian career 7 years before I had to. Turned out to be a good decision.
I did not attend Tailhook, but I was near the center of the ensuing storm. I worked closely with the primary complainant & her boss, an Admiral, who was one of the finest officers I ever worked for. Based on what actually happened at Tailhook, & in the aftermath, It was unconscionable what was done to him & several other fine officers, & a travesty how she made herself a celebrity, based on the way she comported herself on liberty, before & at Tailhook. I'll say no more -- she's still cashing in & filing lawsuits.
You did not attend Tailhook, but you believe you know, without any doubt "what actually happened" at Tailhook?
What exactly "actually happened"?
How is that different from what the (many) women reported happened?
How is that different from this wikipedia account?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailhook_scandal
Or is your issue not that the event was properly accounted, but rather the "aftermath" ?
If so, exactly what did you think the response should have been to what happened, both the officers involved, and those tasked with the investigation?
Please include what you think is correct about this accounting as well.
She was not the innocent victim she was portrayed to be. I will leave it at that. I do not want to be accused of "victim" shaming.
You might say, in nautical terms, that she showed poor situational awareness & embarked upon a freedom of navigation exercise & used poor judgement sailing into harms way. The Admiral we both worked for was not present, but he gave her sound advise. He should not have lost his job for supposedly not sufficiently supporting her in the aftermath. He was working to resolve her complaint in a way that would not adversely impact her future service with her fellow naval aviators. She chose to jump the chain of command & go public. Her prospects for returning to the Fleet & having a viable career were ended, along with several naval aviators who had nothing to do with her case or what went on at Tailhook. NIS bungled the investigation, which turned into a witch hunt for scapegoats & failed to identify most of the miscreants. A black officer who worked for me was abusively interrogated because she said one of her abusers was black. He wasn't even present on the floor of the gauntlet.
My complaint had nothing to do with all the other women who attended.
Apparently, 40 naval and marine officers were disciplined, but none went to jail...and as you say the investigation was "bungled" and "failed to identify most of the miscreants".
So, a very large group of officers were involved in what is a pretty darn disgusting behavior, including assault, and yet none go to jail. And the "investigation" is bungled, read cover-up...
And your issue is that the person who broke the silence, initially within chain of command, was essentially 'asking for it'? should not have put herself in a position to be abused, nor evidently should have the other women? They didn't belong there?
Or do you accept that was a reprehensible disgusting situation in which a culture was actually exposed as reality?
I get it that you deeply respected the Admiral who you say gave 'sound advice' and you say was "one of finest officers I ever worked for". And that he and other "fine officers" had damaged careers as a result of their roles, large or small, in this culture, the "bungled" investigation...etc. You experienced these men as a fellow male officer and in respect to their performance relative to you and men like you, so I understand that your lens was limited to that arena...assuming you didn't observe or participate in other abuse of women contemporaneously to Tailhook or before.
I get that you respected these guys....but did you respect that culture that gave rise to rampant misogynistic and sexist and sexual abuse?
Can you understand that the discussion we were having about the bureaucratic, hierarchical, chain of command culture we were having re Walz, with its advantages at times in organizing around warfare, also implicates a responsibility of the leaders for the actions of their subordinates?