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:
Old Saltine is obviously not in the same class as King Henry V. Good thing he wasn't at Agincourt either.
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.
...Prince Hal's Band of Brothers stuck it out & deployed across the channel with him.
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.
Salty,
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?
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.
I know what happened to the primary complainant & to her Admiral, who was not present.
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.
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?
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?
Re: 2024
Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2024 5:14 pm
by youthathletics
Worth listening to latest SRS Podcast, how an active duty Naval Officer is fighting top brass in Navy over his name and death of a BUDS participant post Hell Week. It is riveting.
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:
Old Saltine is obviously not in the same class as King Henry V. Good thing he wasn't at Agincourt either.
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.
...Prince Hal's Band of Brothers stuck it out & deployed across the channel with him.
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.
Salty,
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?
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.
I know what happened to the primary complainant & to her Admiral, who was not present.
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.
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?
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?
Re: 2024
Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2024 6:31 pm
by MDlaxfan76
youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 5:14 pm
Worth listening to latest SRS Podcast, how an active duty Naval Officer is fighting top brass in Navy over his name and death of a BUDS participant post Hell Week. It is riveting.
Not at all a fan of Shawn Ryan, much less many of his guests.
I definitely don't want to add to his YouTube count.
Summary of situation?
Is this relevant to this year's election?
Or more to the discussion re Tailhook, culture, etc?
He didn’t “earn”? What does “earn” mean in this context? Did he lie? And if so, since when didn’t lying disqualify someone for Old Salt?
I did not opine that Walz is disqualified for anything. Let the voters decide that.
Since when did lying deserve criticism from Old Salt…..
"Let the voters decide...."
And we get to the real intent here (like that's a shock): defame a man BECAUSE he served his country INTENTIONALLY so he loses an election.
Disgusting.
And Old Salt wonders why enlistment is down: if this is how soldiers support one another, F the US Military, and the POS officers who turn on each other ENTIRELY for political gain.
I thought rock bottom for Trump supporters was Jan 6th.
Turns out, nope. Republicans said "hold my beer....."
That's what it's all about isn't it ? Walz will have to account for the veracity of what he has claimed in his political career.
He can either prove his accusers wrong, do a mea culpa, or ride it out. Either way, the voters will decide.
He is being accused by fellow soldiers who served with him & his immediate superiors.
Walz is the only soldier seeking political gain.
Right. Vance isn't seeking political gain.
YOU are seeking political gain by doing this, OS.
Your party is also seeking political gain.
And you've sunk so freaking low now, that you're willing to trash someone who served with you for 24 years to achieve your political objective.
Let me tell what this would look like if YOU ran for office>
"Old Salt is a rapist Naval officer who was involved in the Tailhook Scandal, and he is now trying to run for political office"
Now what? "That's what's it's all about...." according to you, right? After all, it's fine since "old salt is the only soldier seeking political gain", right?
You're now on the hook for defending yourself. You CLAIMED you weren't there. Now you have to defend yourself. And the more you plead innocence, the more guilty you'd look.
And this is the low level game you want to play, is it?
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:
Old Saltine is obviously not in the same class as King Henry V. Good thing he wasn't at Agincourt either.
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.
...Prince Hal's Band of Brothers stuck it out & deployed across the channel with him.
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.
Salty,
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?
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.
I know what happened to the primary complainant & to her Admiral, who was not present.
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.
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?
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?
Re: 2024
Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2024 8:17 pm
by ggait
FTR counselor even the Harris campaign has updated the sight and is no longer referring to Walz as a " retired command sergeant major " they must not have sent you an email. Perhaps maybe the Harris campaign is engaging in swift boat slime too.
Old website: Walz is "the son of an Army veteran and a retired command sergeant major...himself."
New website: Walz is "the son of an Army veteran who served as a command sergeant major."
So Walz was a CSM and served as a CSM at the time of his retirement. But he is not a "retired CSM"...?
Seriously? That's your entire point?
I cannot believe a veteran would sink this low. What is wrong with you?
FTR counselor even the Harris campaign has updated the sight and is no longer referring to Walz as a " retired command sergeant major " they must not have sent you an email. Perhaps maybe the Harris campaign is engaging in swift boat slime too.
Old website: Walz is "the son of an Army veteran and a retired command sergeant major...himself."
New website: Walz is "the son of an Army veteran who served as a command sergeant major."
So Walz was a CSM and served as a CSM at the time of his retirement. But he is not a "retired CSM"...?
Seriously? That's your entire point?
I cannot believe a veteran would sink this low. What is wrong with you?
People that suck on America’s titties for most of their life care about that level of minutiae….
Re: 2024
Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2024 8:41 pm
by ggait
Today's Silver Bullet update:
Check out how much the change has been since Joe dropped out.
Harris ahead in PA. 5.4 point improvement in the last month.
Ahead in WI. 5.4 point improvement.
Ahead in Mich. 8.3 point improvement.
Ahead in AZ. 11.2 improvement.
Ahead in NV now. Data not available.
0.7 points behind in GA. 10.3 point improvement over the last month.
Unbelievable.
But still a close toss up overall. Harris: 54.8% win probability. Trump: 44.7%.
youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 5:14 pm
Worth listening to latest SRS Podcast, how an active duty Naval Officer is fighting top brass in Navy over his name and death of a BUDS participant post Hell Week. It is riveting.
Not at all a fan of Shawn Ryan, much less many of his guests.
I definitely don't want to add to his YouTube count.
Summary of situation?
Is this relevant to this year's election?
Or more to the discussion re Tailhook, culture, etc?
Not surprised you are not a fan, you don’t seem too concerned about military men and women, their mental health, and struggles post military service, not to mention his entire intention to help this in the SOF community. Shooting the messenger before understating the message….carry on.
He didn’t “earn”? What does “earn” mean in this context? Did he lie? And if so, since when didn’t lying disqualify someone for Old Salt?
I did not opine that Walz is disqualified for anything. Let the voters decide that.
Since when did lying deserve criticism from Old Salt…..
"Let the voters decide...."
And we get to the real intent here (like that's a shock): defame a man BECAUSE he served his country INTENTIONALLY so he loses an election.
Disgusting.
And Old Salt wonders why enlistment is down: if this is how soldiers support one another, F the US Military, and the POS officers who turn on each other ENTIRELY for political gain.
I thought rock bottom for Trump supporters was Jan 6th.
Turns out, nope. Republicans said "hold my beer....."
That's what it's all about isn't it ? Walz will have to account for the veracity of what he has claimed in his political career.
He can either prove his accusers wrong, do a mea culpa, or ride it out. Either way, the voters will decide.
He is being accused by fellow soldiers who served with him & his immediate superiors.
Walz is the only soldier seeking political gain.
Right. Vance isn't seeking political gain.
YOU are seeking political gain by doing this, OS.
Your party is also seeking political gain.
And you've sunk so freaking low now, that you're willing to trash someone who served with you for 24 years to achieve your political objective.
Let me tell what this would look like if YOU ran for office>
"Old Salt is a rapist Naval officer who was involved in the Tailhook Scandal, and he is now trying to run for political office"
Now what? "That's what's it's all about...." according to you, right? After all, it's fine since "old salt is the only soldier seeking political gain", right?
You're now on the hook for defending yourself. You CLAIMED you weren't there. Now you have to defend yourself. And the more you plead innocence, the more guilty you'd look.
And this is the low level game you want to play, is it?
Count me out.
...gimme a break. Walz brought this on himself by bs'ing about his military career.
Those were his fellow soldiers who dropped a safe on him. It was a blanket party.
Progressives take responsibility for nothin' . It's always someone else's fault.
The voters will decide whether Walz is a blowhard charlatan or an innocent victim.
Re: 2024
Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2024 11:58 pm
by NattyBohChamps04
Imagine a former Commander-in-Chief and now Presidential Candidate calling American servicemen suckers and losers. And insulting them again and again. Saying he's smarter than generals. A dude who never served, draft dodged and played pretend.
And instead we're really analyzing a Vice President candidiate, 24 year National Guardsman's verbiage on a few words vs. some reality TV star blowhard?
He didn’t “earn”? What does “earn” mean in this context? Did he lie? And if so, since when didn’t lying disqualify someone for Old Salt?
I did not opine that Walz is disqualified for anything. Let the voters decide that.
Since when did lying deserve criticism from Old Salt…..
"Let the voters decide...."
And we get to the real intent here (like that's a shock): defame a man BECAUSE he served his country INTENTIONALLY so he loses an election.
Disgusting.
And Old Salt wonders why enlistment is down: if this is how soldiers support one another, F the US Military, and the POS officers who turn on each other ENTIRELY for political gain.
I thought rock bottom for Trump supporters was Jan 6th.
Turns out, nope. Republicans said "hold my beer....."
That's what it's all about isn't it ? Walz will have to account for the veracity of what he has claimed in his political career.
He can either prove his accusers wrong, do a mea culpa, or ride it out. Either way, the voters will decide.
He is being accused by fellow soldiers who served with him & his immediate superiors.
Walz is the only soldier seeking political gain.
Right. Vance isn't seeking political gain.
YOU are seeking political gain by doing this, OS.
Your party is also seeking political gain.
And you've sunk so freaking low now, that you're willing to trash someone who served with you for 24 years to achieve your political objective.
Let me tell what this would look like if YOU ran for office>
"Old Salt is a rapist Naval officer who was involved in the Tailhook Scandal, and he is now trying to run for political office"
Now what? "That's what's it's all about...." according to you, right? After all, it's fine since "old salt is the only soldier seeking political gain", right?
You're now on the hook for defending yourself. You CLAIMED you weren't there. Now you have to defend yourself. And the more you plead innocence, the more guilty you'd look.
And this is the low level game you want to play, is it?
Count me out.
...gimme a break. Walz brought this on himself by bs'ing about his military career.
Those were his fellow soldiers who dropped a safe on him. It was a blanket party.
Progressives take responsibility for nothin' . It's always someone else's fault.
The voters will decide whether Walz is a blowhard charlatan or an innocent victim.
You win. F Walz, and everyone who served.
Re: 2024
Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:39 am
by old salt
*
Re: 2024
Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:52 am
by old salt
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 5:05 pm
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?
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?
Good grief.I'm trying to tell you what happened & how & why it played out as it did. Of course it was sexual abuse/assault & unacceptable/deplorable behavior by the miscreants & inadequate supervision by some of the immediate superiors of the miscreants.
The other women/victims did not know what they were walking into at the Hilton. Paula did, but she thought that because she was a fellow Naval Aviator that she would not be at risk. She thought she was one of the guys. She had partied with many of them. That's not asking for it or blaming the victim. That"s a lack of situational awareness. It's risk assessment. Right or wrong is not at issue. What happened to her was wrong. It was like flying into a thunderstorm. I'm not excusing the frat boy behavior of a bunch of victorious warriors just home from extended combat deployments. She could have avoided exposing herself to a dangerous situation. She could have had a promising career. Professionally, career wise, she was in the right place at the right time. By jumping the chain of command & going public, she destroyed any chance of ever being trusted by her peers or being accepted in a ready room or wardroom. The publicity caused all the guys to clam up & stonewall, even the innocent ones who feared being punished for just attending the convention. It reduced the chances of identifying the miscreants. It generated so much heat, it made NIS's job impossible. It brought the Wash Post to Pax River. Gumshoe reporter George Wilson camped out in the BOQ bar. It generated a side show that distracted from the investigation. Meanwhile, the miscreants were back in CA, FL & VA, dodging NIS. She should have stayed in Pax River, maintained her anonymity as a sexual abuse victim while cooperating with NIS, & trusted her command to protect her from the blowback. She had options in Pax River that would have kept her flying & prepped her for going back to a fleet squadron, but she chose to go to DC , go public & try to swim in that maelstrom. Her decision, ignoring the advice of officers trying to protect her, ruined her life & future, enabled the miscreants to skate, produced a purge that ruined the careers of officers who had nothing to do with what went on in Vegas & drove even more of them out of the Navy. Jim Webb was right about the adverse impact. Tom Wolfe should have come back to Pax River & told this story too. The title would have been The Wrong Stuff.
He didn’t “earn”? What does “earn” mean in this context? Did he lie? And if so, since when didn’t lying disqualify someone for Old Salt?
I did not opine that Walz is disqualified for anything. Let the voters decide that.
Since when did lying deserve criticism from Old Salt…..
"Let the voters decide...."
And we get to the real intent here (like that's a shock): defame a man BECAUSE he served his country INTENTIONALLY so he loses an election.
Disgusting.
And Old Salt wonders why enlistment is down: if this is how soldiers support one another, F the US Military, and the POS officers who turn on each other ENTIRELY for political gain.
I thought rock bottom for Trump supporters was Jan 6th.
Turns out, nope. Republicans said "hold my beer....."
That's what it's all about isn't it ? Walz will have to account for the veracity of what he has claimed in his political career.
He can either prove his accusers wrong, do a mea culpa, or ride it out. Either way, the voters will decide.
He is being accused by fellow soldiers who served with him & his immediate superiors.
Walz is the only soldier seeking political gain.
Right. Vance isn't seeking political gain.
YOU are seeking political gain by doing this, OS.
Your party is also seeking political gain.
And you've sunk so freaking low now, that you're willing to trash someone who served with you for 24 years to achieve your political objective.
Let me tell what this would look like if YOU ran for office>
"Old Salt is a rapist Naval officer who was involved in the Tailhook Scandal, and he is now trying to run for political office"
Now what? "That's what's it's all about...." according to you, right? After all, it's fine since "old salt is the only soldier seeking political gain", right?
You're now on the hook for defending yourself. You CLAIMED you weren't there. Now you have to defend yourself. And the more you plead innocence, the more guilty you'd look.
And this is the low level game you want to play, is it?
Count me out.
...gimme a break. Walz brought this on himself by bs'ing about his military career.
Those were his fellow soldiers who dropped a safe on him. It was a blanket party.
Progressives take responsibility for nothin' . It's always someone else's fault.
The voters will decide whether Walz is a blowhard charlatan or an innocent victim.
You win. F Walz, and everyone who served.
He won a long time ago. RR got behind Trump on this too…
Re: 2024
Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2024 1:09 am
by Typical Lax Dad
Describes a faction here….
Re: 2024
Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2024 2:10 am
by old salt
a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:38 am"Old Salt is a rapist Naval officer who was involved in the Tailhook Scandal,
That would be a stretch, from SoMD to Vegas. You give me too much credit. You should be a Senate staffer.
a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:38 am"Old Salt is a rapist Naval officer who was involved in the Tailhook Scandal,
That would be a stretch, from SoMD to Vegas. You give me too much credit. You should be a Senate staffer.
Sorry, that's not how it works, you're not paying attention to what you're advocating.
See....I get to throw around the charges. It's up to YOU to defend yourself. Doesn't matter if what I say is true or an exaggeration. 'It's up to the voters" to decide how big of a POS you are.
You see, this is a blanket party, where I beat the sh(t out of your reputation so that you don't get elected. Reality has NOTHING to do with the conversation.
This is what YOU want, not me. I can't believe you're denying that you were in Las Vegas after all that groping you did.
We should get Congress involved, and investigate these horrible things you did. Even worse, you're lying that you didn't do them.
Oh, btw, the Congressional hearings will stop on November 6th, if you lose the election. By then, no one will care whether or not you were in Las Vegas.
Isn't this neat? What was the term you gave it? Oh, that's right....I'm "weaponizing" your military service against you. Cool, right?
a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:38 am"Old Salt is a rapist Naval officer who was involved in the Tailhook Scandal,
That would be a stretch, from SoMD to Vegas. You give me too much credit. You should be a Senate staffer.
Sorry, that's not how it works, you're not paying attention to what you're advocating.
See....I get to throw around the charges. It's up to YOU to defend yourself. Doesn't matter if what I say is true or an exaggeration. 'It's up to the voters" to decide how big of a POS you are.
You see, this is a blanket party, where I beat the sh(t out of your reputation so that you don't get elected. Reality has NOTHING to do with the conversation.
This is what YOU want, not me. I can't believe you're denying that you were in Las Vegas after all that groping you did.
We should get Congress involved, and investigate these horrible things you did. Even worse, you're lying that you didn't do them.
Oh, btw, the Congressional hearings will stop on November 6th, if you lose the election. By then, no one will care whether or not you were in Las Vegas.
Isn't this neat? What was the term you gave it? Oh, that's right....I'm "weaponizing" your military service against you. Cool, right?
These same soldiers who served with Walz have been making these same claims since Walz first ran for Congress.
We just didn't hear about them until he became a candidate for national office.
He's had more than enough time to set the record straight, make amends with his former Battalion mates, & put the issue to rest.
He failed to do so & now he's paying the price. It's Walz's fellow soldiers from MN making the accusations.
Walz can turn this around & help himself if he'll sit down for an interview on a show like 60 Minutes & gave a heartfelt explanation about how he agonized over his retirement decision, but had to act when the opportunity presented itself to continue his service in a position from which he could do even more for his fellow soldiers. He should praise the soldiers who are criticizing him, saying he knew that his replacement would do an even better job than he could.
...Prince Hal's Band of Brothers stuck it out & deployed across the channel with him.
...gimme a break. Walz brought this on himself by bs'ing about his military career.