Hegseth removes four officers - two women and two Black men - from military promotion list: report | The Independent
By: Ariana Baio (The Independent)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Defense secretary reportedly removed the names of officers himself before list of potential promotions went to the White House
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is reportedly attempting to block four Army officers, two women and two Black men, from a military promotion list to become one-star generals - though his motivations are unclear.
For months, Hegseth has been asking Army leaders, including Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll, to remove the officers' names, the New York Times reported Friday. After Driscoll allegedly refused to remove the names, citing the officers' excellent records, Hegseth allegedly took matters into his own hands.
The defense secretary reportedly removed the four officers' names from the list himself - although it's unclear whether he has the authority to do so - before the list was sent to the White House for review.
A senior military official told the New York Times that the promotion list includes three dozen officers, most of whom are white men, though some Black and female officers remain on it.
Since becoming head of the Pentagon, Hegseth has sought to eliminate "woke" policies, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion, and promised to make all promotions "based on merit."
open image in gallery (Getty)
Pentagon Spokesperson Sean Parnell denied the New York Times story and said promotions are given on merit.
"This story, like many others from the Failing New York Times, is full of fake news from anonymous sources who have no idea what they're talking about and are far removed from actual decision-makers within the Pentagon," Parnell said. "Under Secretary Hegseth, military promotions are given to those who have earned them. Meritocracy, which reigns in this Department, is apolitical and unbiased."
"The President is proud to serve as Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in the world, and he is incredibly proud of the Americans from all walks of life who selflessly choose to serve our country in uniform," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.
"Secretary Hegseth is doing a tremendous job restoring meritocracy throughout the ranks at the Pentagon, as President Trump directed him to do, and it's not a coincidence U.S. military recruitment is skyrocketing to historic levels under their leadership," Leavitt added.
It's unclear what Hegseth's motivations are for removing the individuals' names, but while speaking with military leaders in September, the defense secretary said there would no longer be promotions based on "immutable characteristics or quotas" and that those with records of taking risks would be considered leaders.
The defense secretary has encouraged military commanders and officers to take risks and be aggressive, downplaying the severity of making "honest mistakes" on a person's record. Hegseth said some mistakes are forgivable.
"Commanders and [noncommissioned officers] don't take necessary risks or make tough adjustments for fear of rocking the boat or making mistakes. [A] blemish-free record is what peacetime leaders covet the most, [which] is the worst of all incentives," Hegseth said.
In interviews with at least 11 unnamed current or former military officials, the New York Times found that some military personnel have pushed back on Hegseth's approach to promotions.
open image in gallery (Getty Images)
According to the report, last summer, Hegseth's chief of staff, Ricky Buria, argued with Driscoll about the promotion of Major General Antoinette Gant to become commander of the Military District of Washington.
Buria allegedly argued President Donald Trump would not want to stand next to a Black woman officer at military events, which Driscoll pushed back on. Gant was eventually promoted.
Buria denied the allegation, saying, "This is completely false. Whoever placed this made up story is clearly trying to sow division among our ranks in the Department and the administration. It's not going to work, and it will never work when this Department is led by clear-eyed, mission driven leaders unfazed by Washington gossip."
Hegseth has made other changes to military membership, including removing transgender service members.
Last year, Heseth reassigned Vice Admiral Yvette Davids, the first woman to lead the U.S. Naval Academy, dismissed Navy Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield as the U.S. military representative to the NATO Military Committee and dismissed Navy Admiral Linda Fagan as chief of naval operations.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that are known plagiarists, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt/deflect the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted. Any use of the term "Brandon", "Traitor Joe", or any variations thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted. Right wing trolls can expect to have their irrelevant questions and comments deleted. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion. Use of the terms "leftist" or "lefty" will also be subject to deletion. ©
Tags
Who is online
102 visitors
I'm pretty sure that pete's going to experience the lifespan of a fruit fly after trump leaves office ...
Trump came by his racism and misogyny while being bounced on his father's knee (the very few times his father would have anything to do with him).
back when he was wearing a diaper and a pillow case ...
I honestly don't think Fred ever bounced young donny on his knee
I am not going to be able to un-see this image. Thanks a lot!
you're welcome
Back when he was raping little girls and being protected by his father. Donald Trump is the most evil person ever!
military school in lieu of reform school ...
he should have been sent to juvie. Military school just made him more of a bully
he should've been dropped off in harlem wearing a sheet ...
[deleted][✘]
You presume non-caucasian and/or female promotions are not based on merit!!
I know that promotions are based on merit. I earned all of mine on merit alone.
But I don't feel like talking to him
fucking pointless to argue with maga anyway ...
So, you're saying worthless magas shouldn't apply. Agreed.
... anyone in the military too fucking stupid to comprehend and embrace the width and breadth of our constitution is absolutely expendable.
Hard to believe such common sense needs to be said, but it does.
you're right
no...it doesn't. Some one just wanted to invade my seed with his trolling....just like you
Everybody who ever actually served in the military (not vic) knows that promotions are based on merit. Where you 2 got this idea that the people passed over or denied promotions because they weren't deserved (ie, they were black, female) is just another one of your sicko fantasies. The both of you
I'm really only interested in hearing what those who served that still honor their oath of service have to say anyway, which excludes almost every maga vet ...
I don't presume anything
That was the reason given for the changes and based on the DEI that was installed in the military and throughout government under Biden, I have to believe the Secretary of War.
Same. I sure as shit don't want any valueless comments from someone who never served but thinks he knows everything there is to know about the armed services.
And the next person in this seed that calls the Dept of Defense the Dept of War gets that deleted for no value. Kegsbreath is not authorized to change the name of a cabinet level department just because he had one too many beers and thought he came up with a great idea. Right after puking his guts out
No it does not need to be said. I expect almost everyone on this site holds that promotions should be based on merit.
If someone is passed over because they are non-Caucasian or female that is the opposite of promotion based on merit.
Promoting someone simply because of demographic characteristics is wrong and it is equally wrong to NOT promote someone because of demographic characteristics.
But that was not the case here.
Do you know what is also immoral? To see wrongdoing and not say anything.
maga!
One of the themes of the neo-Fascist movement in America.
Exactly. Something that Trump supporters like you do repeatedly.
You know that Trump illegally entered the USA in a war.
You know that there is no stated objective, no endgame, no exit strategy.
You know that this is an irresponsible abuse of the US military.
Yet you, per your comments, do not just stay silent, you actually defend it. Just as you, per your comments, have defended Trump's other wrongdoings.
So yeah, Vic, not saying anything about wrongdoing is bad and trying to defend it is even worse.
These people started their service 30 years ago and served George Bush and Donald Trump, knocking out promotion after promotion because they are the best.
They are almost guaranteed to be Republicans in "good standing" like Allen West, Colin Powell, Wesley Hunt.
They have had to be better than their white counterparts their whole lives while operating within a system that touts honor and fairness.
The last time these people were promoted was by Trump himself.
It has been the policy for decades that promotion boards do not use photos at all.
So maybe you could explain to us how DEI under Biden affected these people's careers
when neither he or Trump or anyone outside the Promotion Board knew who the Blacks were?
Hegseth's policy reeks of racism and the DoD will lose any legal battle that comes of his racist, misogynistic behavior as an interfering civilian advisor to the President.
[✘]
There was no imminent threat from Iran. Trump cannot just invent one and then pretend that doing so satisfies the War Powers Resolution.
Well, believe this: The democrats had better not ever take over the government again. . . as I will lend my voice for a sweeping purge of all Trump staffing in the Department of Defense/War or whatever the hell it truly is. Hardball? Two (sides) can play that game!
[✘]
Why? That is the Question?
Ironically, no other POTUS would ever have considered this ROTC weekend warrior for such a position, let alone SECDEF.
Hegseth's bio sounds like it was written by AI or his Mom, and Hegseth believes every word of it and bragged about it on Fox News,
the only place Trump could have found this cluster fuck.
A cluster fuck who himself had to go through several rubber stamp US Nat Guard filed grade promotion boards and should know better.
Trump has no legal authority to engage in a war. Military operations, yes, but this is not just a military operation anymore. This is a war and using euphemisms does not change that reality.
Do you hold that this is not a war?
Do you know how Iran —whose nuclear options were just obliterated per Trump— could now manifest an imminent threat to the USA per Trump?
At what point will you pen comments that do not attempt to defend Trump no matter what, and start dealing with what is happening in the real world?
Did Obama? Did Clinton?
Why not? Who decides? Based on what criteria?
Deflection.
Are you seriously trying to pretend that this is merely a military operation and not a war? Just an " ~~excursion~~ "?
Provide the legal basis that authorized Trump to commit U.S. forces to sustained hostilities against Iran. Congress has not clearly enacted a new authorization for this war. Instead, the administration has relied on an “imminent threat” rationale, yet per Reuters: " Pentagon tells Congress no sign that Iran was going to attack US first, sources say ". ( But of course, you will not read this because you demand that I use my own words and not offer an external source.)
Worse, Trump contradicted the very idea of an imminent threat when he claimed last year that he had obliterated Iran's nuclear capabilities and now, when pressed, claims that they still could "dig them up". ( Do you recognize how idiotic that is? )
Iran has been a bad state for decades and the planet is IMO well-justified to act against Iran's ambitions. That is not the same as Iran posing an imminent threat that would justify unilateral presidential hostile military force. An ongoing threat and an imminent threat are very different.
The point, however, is that Trump yet again engaged in illegal acts beyond his authority. And this time it is very serious because he has gone beyond a military operation (what he did last year) and has created a war with Iran with no defined end in sight.
You okay with that?
Trump is using Hegseth for his dirty (and questionable) choices in deploying the military. And unfortunately, if and when he decides to balk Trump is going to threaten him with no help (pardon) for Trump authorized and supported (questionable) actions he took on behalf of the administration. Then, "Mr. no-mercy" for perceived enemies will want to ask for MERCY from prosecution and deep investigation. I say: Just deserts!
Are we all just supposed to pretend no other president has dropped bombs?
Or is "deflection" simply code for "inconveniently reveals a double standard"?
I simply asked a question. You conspicuously failed to answer.
Why wouldn't it be the same legal basis Clinton used to bomb Yugoslavia? Or the one Obama used to bomb Libya? Or Syria?
Do you pretend the approximately 15,000 US military strikes so far on targets inside Iran is comparable to Kosovo or Syria?
I just asked a question.
But is that the criteria? The number of strikes? What's the threshold? When does it cross from being "operation" to "war'?
We dropped 26,000 bombs on 7 countries in 2016 and about 30,000 in Yugoslavia in 1999. Wars or operations?
did either of those former presidents threaten to commit war crimes without a peace agreement?
What other presidents did does not change the law. I am talking about what is happening right now.
I have already noted that there is a difference between a military operation (e.g. "dropping bombs") to take out a limited strategic target and what Trump is doing. There is even a large distinction between what Trump did last year (ostensibly "obliterating" Iran's nuclear enrichment capabilities) and what he is doing now (destroying their entire military infrastructure), and worse, his threat to destroy their economic infrastructure. What Trump is doing right now is engaging in a full-scale war with unclear and dynamic objectives, and no exit plan. It is NOT a specific, limited, well-defined military initiative.
Then I will rephrase the answer:
on (1) A PotUS cannot declare war, only Congress can do that.
on (2) No statutory authorization has been given to attack Iran.
on (3) We are not addressing an emergency in response to Iran attacking the USA, its territories, etc.
It would be the same legal basis, but different circumstances. Each circumstance needs to be addressed individually. Here we are addressing the Iran "war". Both Obama and Clinton's actions were controversial, but the key is that they were much more limited in scope than what Trump is doing. Bush 43's action's, however, were in line with the WPR since it was in response to an attack upon the USA.
Trump has no such basis. He just decided that after "obliterating" their nuclear enrichment capabilities he was going to attempt a regime change by killing the top layers of their leadership and destroying their entire military. He declared war and for this level of activity he needed Congress to declare war or specifically authorize his actions.
Again, Iran is bad news and them being hobbled is a good thing. But that is not the point I have been making.
Is this a limited, well-defined initiative with clear justification? Or is it a spur-of-the-moment impulse with unclear objectives, strategy, exit, and maintenance plans that has turned into a full-scale war (i.e., regime change, destruction of entire military, destruction of economic infrastructure)?
the objectives of trump's attack were clear to me. remove the epstein and ICE scandals from the news cycle ...
Exactly. Also, Ukraine is gone. . .and so is Gaza from the news cycle. This nation is being 'had' yet again by the bloated head one!
Soooo.... All those other guys broke the law also?
And nobody ever prosecuted anyone?
Seems kind of unlikely.
So, again, how are we measuring that, exactly? What are the metrics? What threshold(s) have to be crossed?
It's lasted less time and involved fewer strikes than either Clinton's or Obama's. How are we defining "more limited"?
How does that not describe Yugoslavia? Or Syria?
How exactly were those totally legal and this is somehow not?
trump starts a war, goes golfing, and congress takes 2 weeks off ...
trump lets bff putin sell and deliver oil past blockade to cuba as he supplies intel on the US military to the iranians ...
And back you go to dishonesty. I have never argued that these were "totally legal". I noted that they both were questionable and compared them to Bush 43's actions noting that his early responses were legal. Go back and read what I wrote.
You keep deflecting rather than dealing with reality.
Is it your position that Trump has not engaged in a war with Iran?
If so, what exactly would it take before you acknowledge that Trump started a war? 'Obliteration' of their enrichment capabilities? Clearly not. The demand for unconditional surrender? Nope, Trump already demanded that. The destruction of their military? Well, Trump seems to claim he has effectively done that. The killing of multiple levels of their leadership to enable a regime change? Trump claims he did that too. Escalation of hostility by both sides? Already there. No clear end in sight? Got that too. Call for assistance from allies? Done that as well.
Is that the official litmus test? Your law reference didn't seem to mention any of that.
Did we have that in Syria?
Isn't that what we did in Yugoslavia? How many bridges did we destroy?
Didn't we regime change Panama, and Venezuela and technically Grenada?
Is it your position that Trump has not engaged in a war with Iran?
If so, what exactly would it take before you acknowledge that Trump started a war? 'Obliteration' of their enrichment capabilities? Clearly not. The demand for unconditional surrender? Nope, Trump already demanded that. The destruction of their military? Well, Trump seems to claim he has effectively done that. The killing of multiple levels of their leadership to enable a regime change? Trump claims he did that too. Escalation of hostility by both sides? Already there. No clear end in sight? Got that too. Call for assistance from allies? Done that as well.
That is: "when does it cross from being "operation" to "war'?" I suspect that you will have no point at which you will acknowledge that Trump started a war.
We'll just hold this here for when you start whining about making things personal.
Never said you did.
Just observing the absence of charges filed.
I am curious, though, did you object to those as strongly as this one? Did you run around telling everyone how "illegal" they were?
Interesting question. We seem to define things as "wars" only when it suits us.
Why would this be a "war" when so many other things that look so similar or vastly worse were not?
My father served in the non-war in Korea.
My uncle (career Army) served in the non-war in Vietnam.
Those were not wars but this is? Really?
It would have to look materially different from all the other "non-wars" we've had over the years.
If you pen a post that misrepresents what I wrote, I will note it.
In terms of what exactly? At what point do you recognize a war?
What exactly would it take before you acknowledge that Trump started a war? 'Obliteration' of their enrichment capabilities? Clearly not. The demand for unconditional surrender? Nope, Trump already demanded that. The destruction of their military? Well, Trump seems to claim he has effectively done that. The killing of multiple levels of their leadership to enable a regime change? Trump claims he did that too. Escalation of hostility by both sides? Already there. No clear end in sight? Got that too. Call for assistance from allies? Done that as well.
That is: "when does it cross from being "operation" to "war'?" I suspect that you will have no point at which you will acknowledge that Trump started a war.
And of course, do you approve of what Trump is doing with Iran? Is this a responsible move? Would you do this if PotUS?
Careful now, pointing out any blatantly obvious faults of De Fuhrer will get you called a 'never Trumper with TDS!'. Either that or some pretender claiming to be non-partisan and objective about Trump will spend hours defending him and 'objectively' showing you how wrong you are for ever doubting Trump or his supporters, of which they definitely are not, 'wink' 'wink'.
Had you read more carefully, you would have recognized the only misrepresentation was in your imagination.
Again, interesting question. If 15 years fighting in Vietnamese jungles with 50,000 American dead isn't a war, how exactly do we define one?
It would have to look materially different from all the other "non-wars" we've had over the years.
It would have to look materially different from all the other "non-wars" we've had over the years. (I can copy and paste over and over again, too.)
I'm sure you'd like to think that, but you're generally pretty terrible at predicting what I think.
Also, the irony of you accusing someone else of partisanship is pretty hilarious.
Ah. A much better question.
Generally speaking.... I can see a rationale for removing the regime as a matter of American national security interest. They've been funding terrorists attacks against us for nearly 50 years, they are hell bent on getting a nuclear weapon, and we will very surely be their 2nd target once that happens. There is no reason to think they are not fully prepared for our predictable smart bombing tactics and every reason to think they will rebuild their nuclear weapons program very quickly no matter how many missiles we launch. I think we agree they are a problem.
But the execution just appears to be a complete mess. It looks like we grossly overestimated the will of the Iranian people to actually rise up and overthrow the local dog catcher, much less the central govt. It looks like the whole "close the Strait" situation caught us completely by surprise, and it seems very much like that should not have caught us by surprise.
I was (and still am) extremely critical of the Biden withdrawal from Afghanistan, and this looks every bit as inept.
As to "responsible".... meh. Is it "responsible" to take action? Probably so. Is this particular action "responsible"? Tough to say with the microscopic amount of intel available to the public.
Finally, with regard to "what would I do as POTUS?" That's probably more a story about what I would have done ahead of time.
If you're going to change a regime, somebody has got to physically go in and seize some key locations and install some new people in power. That somebody needs to be native to the place you're changing, or else you're a conqueror instead of a liberator.
You can't leave that forcet to chance, so I would probably have backed, trained, organized, and armed a group of Iranian freedom fighters who were willing to install a non-Islamic government. If I couldn't get a big enough group, then we have to figure something else out.
Once the fighting starts, I would secure the oil shipping lanes, send in the freedom fighters and then provide enough air cover to obliterate everything in their path.
This is obviously not a new, imaginative or unique strategy. The US has been overthrowing foreign governments for a very long time.
he can't
congratulations....your whiny meta got that stupid comment reinstated.
I still say you're trolling because I don't need to be told that promotions must be based on merit! Stop pretending you are so much smarter and more informed than me about any military matters. I actually served
The question is not if Vietnam was a war; the question I asked was if you recognize that Trump started a war with Iran.
Clearly you are going to keep dodging.
In summary, you recognize that Trump created a mess and recognize that Iran should be dealt with (in some responsible way).
Points of agreement on at least some obvious facts.
In all of this, you have not defined what you consider a war except to give vague statements that appear to suggest that the hostilities must have taken place for years for you to consider it a war.
Given that Trump committed the USA into sustained hostilities, killed its supreme leader and claims to have killed layers of leadership below that to encourage regime change, seeks Iran’s unconditional surrender, aims to destroy ("annihilate") its military capabilities (missile, drone, naval, air, security), and is now in an escalating cycle of wider and more intense combat (where Iran can and does escalate), we are at war.
Oh, okay. So, you're saying that you know it's a war but want to keep playing semantic games because other partisans have played semantic games in the past and you wouldn't want to break with tradition. Got it.
What's hilarious is that you keep pretending not to be a Trump supporter while continuing to defend him daily. It really is funny to watch. Most everyone else is honest about which side they're standing instead of pretending to be a fence sitter, so you don't have to accept any Trump criticisms while also getting to bitch and whine about Trump opponents. But it's okay, as long as the rest of us know what you are it's rather fun to watch you metaphorically wiggle and squirm your way around openly defending Trump. It's quite the impressive reach around.
So why not open with your criticism of the President like I heard you do against Biden? Instead of criticisms of Trump, you serve up what-about-isms in his defense but then flip around and claim you're critical of both sides when it's obvious that's just an attempt to seem 'non-partisan' when its beyond clear what team you're regularly batting for. So enough with the pretense, you're not fooling anyone other than yourself if you actually believe yourself a non-partisan who isn't taking any sides in these political debates.
Your fictional Monday morning quarterbacking is still just more defense of Trump because you're not even counting 'not invading' as one of the potential strategies. You've already apparently agreed that we had to invade, you just would have done more work 'ahead of time'.
Shouldn't questioning the need to do overthrow foreign governments be the first discussion and not just a point of acceptance like "Well, we've done it before, so I guess we have no choice but to do it again!". I've been just as critical of Democrat administrations that have taken us to war as I have Republican administrations, though of course most US wars have been started by Republican administrations which is why they have to pretend they're not wars so they can keep lying to their gullible moron base of voters who support them. Perhaps if honest Republicans would actually be vocally critical of their own party and Presidents this wouldn't happen as much. Sadly, most are just ball licking sycophant loyalists who have never challenged their own party or Presidents, they just kneel and grovel when their dear Leader does whatever he wants and then spend their days defending the indefensible.
another example of what passes for patriotism in maga america. bring on the next civil war ...
He also wears suits that are too small for him to try and get the same effect.
If you're going to stuff your highwater tight pants, try something other than a number 2 pencil Pete. His new nickname, 'Pencil Pete' Hegseth.
good one
I understood exactly what you asked, and I understood how desperately you're looking for an oversimplified answer to what should be a complex issue.
Why? Because because you say so? Because you invented some arbitrary criteria that you now demand the rest of us adopt without question?
Because it's convenient for another one of your witch hunts? Because objectivity is hard?
Have any of your criteria necessarily constituted a war before? In any reasonable, intelligent discussion, shouldn't historical context matter? Or are we all supposed to ignore reason and intelligence because Truuuuuuuump?
Anyone who thinks Trump has been the subject of witch hunts needs their head examined.
How else to show his muscles bursting out?
Citation?
It's pretty well established at this point beyond any reasonable doubt that the definition of Trump supporter is anyone who introduces an alternative idea that might deviate from or interrupt anti-Trump hysteria.
Angry liberals: "Trump needs to be held accountable for his role in the assassination of President Lincoln"
Sane person: "Didn't that happen before he was born?"
Angry liberals: "BURN THE TRUMP SUPPORTER!!!". "NO KINGS!!!!!"
It's the most Salem witch trial thing going on in American culture today.
Of course it's fictional. It could hardly be autobiographical. Seriously. WTF?
I'm not sure what part of "they're going to nuke the fuck out of us at their first opportunity, and they're doing everything they can to make that sooner rather than later" is still debatable at this point.
Ordinarily sure. But not when they're doing everything they can to develop the ability and execute a plan to incinerate your ass.
Are you old enough to remember 9/11? Do you remember in the aftermath of 9/11 how we all looked at each other and said "somebody should have done something about this beforehand"?
After nearly 50 years of these assholes funding terrorism against the United States and a dozen other countries, I am done believing we can reason with them.
If you don't think they would do to us what they payed to have done to the Israelis on October 7th, I have a bridge to sell you.
I don't believe that for a nanosecond, but okay.
If you've been paying attention at all, you would have noticed that I haven't been critical of Obama or Clinton for their military endeavors.
I'm merely pointing out that this is less involved than what a lot of other presidents have done, so the idea that it is either" illegal" or a "war" is far from certain.
I think it's telling that merely raising that question has sent a few people into orbit with their traditional angry tirades and personal attacks.
We now have two different people trying to crawl down my throat because I dared to ask questions rather then simply blindly accept any nonsense as long as it is anti-Trump.
That's the witch hunt.
tone down the hyperbole
get over yourself
If you can't argue their points, that's not on them. You're not a part of any witch hunt
[✘]
I'm sick of his shit that almost always goes sideways when he gets his fucking maga clock cleaned here.
I explained this to you:
Given that Trump committed the USA into sustained hostilities, killed its supreme leader and claims to have killed layers of leadership below that to encourage regime change, seeks Iran’s unconditional surrender, aims to destroy ("annihilate") its military capabilities (missile, drone, naval, air, security), and is now in an escalating cycle of wider and more intense combat (where Iran can and does escalate), we are at war.
I am certainly not the desperate one. This has obviously turned into a war and is obviously illegal.
[✘]
No, Jack, you did not merely ask questions. You have engaged in an argument that the Iranian military operation has not evolved into a war. Your argument was rebutted and now you claim 'witch hunt' and play victim.
[✘]
[✘]
Clearly you have nothing but snark at this point.
Given that you disagree, then you recognize that the Iranian military operation has evolved into a war.
I made an argument with details.
As you noted, you asked a question, and I have answered it in detail.
You have disagreed. You failed repeatedly to state what actually constitutes a war in your opinion, but your 'nuh-uh' has been acknowledged.
Casting my argument as "arbitrary criteria that you now demand the rest of us adopt without question" is yet again dishonest trolling.
Well, as we can see how this conversation is going, it has clearly run its course. Have a good day.
You asked for a citation backing up my claim (an obvious fact) that you have engaged in an argument that the Iranian military operation has not evolved into a war.
Normally, that would mean that you disagree with my claim. If so, then you hold that this has evolved into a war.
Of course, rather than clear this up, you demure.
[✘]
oh brother
the butt hurt feelings here are palpable
[✘]
[✘]
Wish I believed in merit. Seems politics are what matters now. And has for a long time. So glad I no longer work for USA fascism.
[✘]
Trump said it's a war.....many times.
trump is going to excursion iran back to the stone age ...
I see a pattern here
... a civil war against thumped out white supremacists pattern?
more like a misogynistic and racist pattern
and here they come!
that's what I said ...
Seems we need to stand together.
... maga season opens in 75 days and runs until they unconditionally surrender. /s
You'd have to be willingly blind not to.
maga!
I was expecting an orange pile of shit with a white hair comb over ...
Trump and his MAGA are about as evil as it gets.
since their demigod has basically destroyed the american judicial system, before it's repaired I'm hoping to witness lots of vigilante types of justice against unamerican maga in the near future ...
I just want to slap them. Maybe punch them in the face but I don't my arthritic hand can take that
if you can still bend your index fingers, you'll be fine ...
hopefully the next POTUS uses the precedent to completely gut the military of traitorous maga scum that have infested it ...
Amen.
Please, don't use religion to confront religion.
... like every middle east war so far.
It would be inappropriate to introduce that sort of retribution to the services.
it may become a moot point if trump can't find his ego boosting iran exit ramp soon ...
SP, I will have to disagree. If MAGA wants to play hardball with the hearts and minds of good Americans trying to serve their country. . . then FU-k all of MAGA. Call it what they call us: "Collateral damage." And kick their asses to the curb! No apology. No regret. It is time MAGA supporters get it through their thick heads. . . fu-king with peoples career choices and prosperity is fu-king with their emotional well-being too! Many of these members will never recover from this abuse.
And by the way, what is just a 'mechanical' step for MAGA is an actual 'direct' stab or cut to the lives of dedicated men and women working in their fields of 'endeavor.' Moreover, minorities can REMEMBER THIS DISRESPECT from annals of history in this country (not so long ago to escape thinking) when we were treated like dogs and never given a chance to be a proper part of this country by its CRUEL (conservative) Majority. . . and they are back at it again!
It is a shame this will have to be done. . . but damn it if a Fu-ker and bully won't leave off. . .then, you have to get in his or her head some way. Try 'just deserts'!
Yeah, why would he have this authority? He’s a civilian. The list goes to the president because he is Commander in Chief, but the Secretary of Defense/War/Circle Jerks is not a military rank.
What sucks is he is basically doing what this administration always does: break the law and dare people to do something about it. But I can’t see someone savvy enough to make general rocking the boat in that way. Even if you go to court and win, and get put back on the list, the president doesn’t have to approve the promotion. And even if he does, you might get deployed to the South Pole or something.
pete's main job is to make sure POS/POTUS stays awake during cabinet meetings ...
This greatly impacts the four people bumped off the list. You can only be passed over for promotion twice before being forced out in retirement.
At this level you need to get your next 2 year assignment and you are counting every year for retirement income.
The process is more like culling than promotion and very beneficial to those promoted.
Any successful civil suit against Hegseth, could not put them back on the promotion list ( if it was their second strike) but it could result in an increase in retirement allowance.
Both Trump and Hegseth should be impeached. Way past time for these fascist criminals to be in prison!
the guy that carries the nuke football around for trump needs to get an ankle holster ...
... but MAGA isn't racist...
Trump clearly does not want to be seen standing next to a black or female commanding officer. God forbid if it was a black female.
he's already gotten rid of the other higher ranking military women that may cross his field of vision ...
Have an old friend who is a female army general and thinks that she should bow to Trump. I thought better of her. Damn!
We talked about "be all you can be" seems the general scoffs at that idea. Can't say that I blame her. Punks will be punks.
time to get trump's name tattooed under your navel ...
Trump's perfect little henchman.
himmler ...
Trump is the epitome of fascism.
Trump's war might just be a very serious war. WWIII?
don't say that. My granddaughter is only a month old. I want her to grow old