Officers being removed from military to ensure idealogical purity...

[ArcadiaGP]

Consider the source, and I'm offering this more of a "What do you think" rather than "OMG ITS HAPPENING!!1!1"

Doug Ross @ Journal: OUTRAGE: Nearly 200 Officers Purged From U.S. Military to Ensure Ideological Purity

I already knew about officers being removed, and for all I know, it could be with good reason.

This entire concept of appointing those that will "obey" the current leadership may be Alex Jones territory, or it may be true. I honestly don't know.

That's why I'm asking you. What do you think is going on? Are military officers being replaced by those that will not stand with "we the people", or is it just paranoia?

 

[Birds Away]

The source may be questionable but there have been an unprecedented number of senior officers relieved. Definitely makes you wonder.

 

[model67a]

It has been reported in a number of articles that Obama is giving a "litmus test" to senior officers asking them if they would order their troops to fire on American citizens and would they disarm them. If their answer is "no" they are purged from the military. The way this administration violates everything, I think this is very plausible!

 

[Kutnupe14]

Are these NOT good reasons?

.... a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given. Stated grounds range from "leaving blast doors on nukes open" to "loss of confidence in command ability" to "mishandling of funds" to "inappropriate relationships" to "gambling with counterfeit chips" to "inappropriate behavior" to "low morale in troops commanded."

 

[jrogers]

Those are all good reasons, but when there's an opportunity to ignore them in favor of continuing the "Obama Hates America" rhetoric you can bet the usual suspects will jump on and ride it all the way into the ground.

 

[Birds Away]

Are these NOT good reasons?

.... a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given. Stated grounds range from "leaving blast doors on nukes open" to "loss of confidence in command ability" to "mishandling of funds" to "inappropriate relationships" to "gambling with counterfeit chips" to "inappropriate behavior" to "low morale in troops commanded."

Yes, there are legitimate reasons for some of these. But the number is historically high and when you have "loss of confidence..." and "low morale..." there are going to be questions. Not all of these should be in dispute but many are highly questionable.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The source is the Investor's Business Daily. I've seen their articles referenced quite often on INGO.

 

[jrogers]

The source is the Investor's Business Daily. I've seen their articles referenced quite often on INGO.

Because the editorial staff is perfectly comfortable running unvetted right wing propaganda that publications with integrity won't touch.

 

[Evermoore]

Are these NOT good reasons?

.... a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given. Stated grounds range from "leaving blast doors on nukes open" to "loss of confidence in command ability" to "mishandling of funds" to "inappropriate relationships" to "gambling with counterfeit chips" to "inappropriate behavior" to "low morale in troops commanded."

Now if we could get the government held to the same standards..

 

[Manatee]

The number of admirals and general officers are higher today than in WWII. For example, there is an admiral for every equivalent ship afloat (I recognize that they perform other tasks).

The ranks at the top need to be thinned down.

 

[netsecurity]

The number of admirals and general officers are higher today than in WWII. For example, there is an admiral for every equivalent ship afloat (I recognize that they perform other tasks).

The ranks at the top need to be thinned down.

Manatee is always quick to jump in and protect Obama and liberalism. Nothing to see here right?

Well, I don't know the full truth, and none of us may ever. But I do know Obama's foreign policy is horrendous, and many in the military surely disagree with him. That is a legit reason to fire a general I suppose. So I think the purge is real, and for obvious reasons (who wouldn't disagree with Obama on his Middle East policy?). Obama thinks anyone who opposes his policy is a bigot also, so there's that. To shake things up even more, he has forced gays into the ranks, and of course this is a much more loyal demographic. So that's all just a bunch of politicking.

But what about Benghazi specifically? Is there something to that? Even Manatee should have to admit that the reason we get such stories from right wing news sources is because the left wing news outlets are covering for Obama in every way possible. They called Benghazi a "fake scandal" for a year, when the populace knows there was a massive cover up. If you disagree with that then we cannot even have a logical discussion, because the liberal media is so in collusion with Obama, and only those who are 'brainwashed' cannot see that (visit newsbusters.org for daily examples).
Obama Administration Replaces Top Generals Following Benghazi Disaster | The Gateway Pundit

 

[Birds Away]

Within this article is a fairly large kernel of truth. But saying so will get you bashed on here by the usual crowd and, surprisingly, many, if not most, in the LE community. While I understand that mass media wholly supports the radical socialist agenda and the usual suspects lack the intellectual wherewithal to understand the implications of same, the LE thing puzzles me. The George Orwell quote in Netsecurity's sig line rings true.

 

[Expat]

The US Military was traditionally a meritocracy. The cream rose to the top (generally, there have been exceptions). A meritocracy is repugnant to liberals. They believe in victimology. They like to identify groups for special "protections". The military was one area that they were unable to impose most of their social policies for too long. Now they have begun.

 

[Manatee]

Manatee is always quick to jump in and protect Obama and liberalism. Nothing to see here right?

Well, I don't know the full truth, and none of us may ever. But I do know Obama's foreign policy is horrendous, and many in the military surely disagree with him. That is a legit reason to fire a general I suppose. So I think the purge is real, and for obvious reasons (who wouldn't disagree with Obama on his Middle East policy?). Obama thinks anyone who opposes his policy is a bigot also, so there's that. To shake things up even more, he has forced gays into the ranks, and of course this is a much more loyal demographic. So that's all just a bunch of politicking.

But what about Benghazi specifically? Is there something to that? Even Manatee should have to admit that the reason we get such stories from right wing news sources is because the left wing news outlets are covering for Obama in every way possible. They called Benghazi a "fake scandal" for a year, when the populace knows there was a massive cover up. If you disagree with that then we cannot even have a logical discussion, because the liberal media is so in collusion with Obama, and only those who are 'brainwashed' cannot see that (visit newsbusters.org for daily examples).
Obama Administration Replaces Top Generals Following Benghazi Disaster | The Gateway Pundit

Bull. Obama sucks, all right? But the DOD has too much brass. And do we need a Defense Intelligence Agency?

Get your facts from Google on this. General Officers today and in WWII compared with men in service. I don't mind counterpoint with reasonably intelligent people, but your continuing ad hominem's are f**g bizarre.

ps. ALL of Congress should be put on a destroyer and dropped off with a complimentary boat anchor.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

There has been a tradition of "grade creep" in the military; occasionally the crop gets pruned; sometimes for cause, sometimes - especially at the field and general officer level - because the officer in question has either not kissed enough ass, not kissed the proper asses, or not performed well enough while kissing enough ass. At the general officer level, position, relationships within the hierarchy, the ability to play "politics" (the 'office politics' kind, not the 'Politics' of the national parties) all factor in to selection for promotion or retention. It's very possible that a combination of these factors has contributed to the retirement of these particular officers, but it's not unheard-of for a promising career to be cut short because the officer pissed off an influential politician. And there ain't no more 'influential" politician than the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

Myself, I suspect that if senior officers are being vetted as to whether or not they are willing to order troops to fire on American citizens, the word will spread and the majority of questioned officers will dissemble. Integrity is important in the officer corps, but we are taught to deceive the enemy to the extent possible under the circumstances obtaining.

 

[5.56'aholic]

Now if we could get the government held to the same standards..

Crazy. I was just thinking the same thing. Funny how the government gets away with murder, dui's, tax evasion, adultery, lying under oath, lack of credibility, lack of ability to command, etc yet they go on like its business as usual.