Custer Victorious! Oct 26, 2011 18:18:30 GMT -5
Post by strange on Oct 26, 2011 18:18:30 GMT -5
Oct 26, 2011 17:33:40 GMT -5 @brittles said:Strange: An Army officer, any officer in any of our services, is a servant of the government. When he or she speaks in an official capacity, or when they act inappropriately in or sometimes out of uniform, it is a direct reflection upon the government they serve. That is why the commission contains the words "special trust and confidence"
Military officers do not make national policy. By extension they do not comment on it either. Their job is to carry out that policy within the parameters of their duties and responsabilities. So in effect once one signs on he gives up some of that free speech. So don't pull that Constitutional argument on me. I lived it and more than once I bit my tongue, wanting to say something, which while I may have been right in what I would have said, would have been wrong in the saying.
I will call it to you attention for instance that an officer who is publicly critical of the President of the United States, Members of the Cabinet, Members of Congress, Governors of the Several States, and certain other funtionaries has committed a punishable offense according to at least two of the articles set forth in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This is not a limitation on freedom of speech, because you swore an oath to the effect that you would willingly subject yourself to the provisions of UCMJ.
If you want to know what is wrong with the military, and there is something seriously wrong with it, it is careerism, where the career, and the enhansement thereof, is more important than duty and service to country. So for the love of God don't mix one up with the other.
If you come to a point AFTER your life as a military officer where whatever you write, or whoever writes it for you, is deemed to be interesting by the reading public, then you can say any damned thing you wish to. If you shade the truth, if you tell a lie, if you don't say something that you should be morally obligated to reveal, and it is consistent with the security interests of the United States, then you and you alone are to blame. It is not then the government, or the military estanlishment that then keeps these things hidden it is you who do not have either the desire and/or moral courage to reveal them.
Are you speaking of "Profiles In Courage" ? If so who was the ghost writer? Name him here or keep your own council.
I think I heard something about the ambulance but I just do not remember.
Sorenson apparently ghost wrote for the Profiles in Courage book. I imagine also, and damn me for assuming, that Kennedy rarely did much of any reading or writing much of anything later in his life. He had a number of glaring health problems that he took medication for, his own signature is also the sloppiest in the history of U.S. presidents and I saw a poor woman who just got a squiggly line for an autograph from him.
This fact in my opinion also may have contributed to several problems through out his presidency and may have even contributed to his death if you believed some of the theories. I think he verbally dictated most of his orders and policies and didn't read much into them afterwards or keep an eye on anything. Bobby was probably a much harder worker and a sharper wit than John.
Reagan also worked a similar style, but he did it better.
Again now I vehemently disagree with this policy of telling someone like Patton to keep their mouth shut. He should have every right to speak up for himself.
Abraham Lincoln was obviously a very considerate wit about things because he let tons of people dump on him and his party and his cabinet and still kept people in their slots as long as they did their job well. And his army should have been a model for all future generations of Americans because it was a powerful army that allowed many fresh and creative talents to advance in rank and these armies had practically no restraint towards how much wrath they could inflict. If we were to do that to our own people in the war of North vs South, then we have every right to do it to anyone else and not bind ourselves with any treaty or agreement with other countries that might get in the way of our armies.
The example set by Lincoln should be the one to be followed. If he can put up with McClellan for as long as he did, then no one like Patton should have ever been fired.
Eisenhower, by the way, ended up being a bit of a lazy bum. Its very possible that Nixon and others did most of the work during that presidency while he was out playing golf. There's something wrong with Eisenhower in that he kept draining off his energies. This was the same guy who was one of the best football players in the country and competing against Jim Thorpe when he was younger, and yet this same guy just really decreased in his stamina even as he was climbing the highest ranks.
Maybe it was good that he wasn't so power thirsty. In the grand scheme of things, Eisenhower had a lot of power and responsibility that other people may have misuesed if they had been in his shoes. But the potential for what Eisenhower could have done with himself is just limitless. He's just one of those guys settled down way too much.