Well, I just learned something I hadn’t known. From your link:
That’s what I’d always assumed it meant too: the crime boss (e.g. Gutman in The Maltese Falcon) doesn’t need to carry a gun himself, he’s got a couple of guys who do that for him - gunsels.
Apparently that misunderstanding was so widespread that it’s become at least an alternate meaning for the term.
I’m going with ‘toady’ for Sanders. I think it nails her role perfectly.
For Kelly: ‘hit man’ maybe?
Evidence continues to pile up that Kelly was ‘one of them’ well before that particular ‘them’ came into being. The link delves into a speech he gave back in 2010.
It wasn’t any different under Dubya. Remember how Cheney forced any Republican with a reputation for integrity to support his Iraq invasion plans?
Maybe my memory is bad, but no, I don’t. Given that nearly half the Dems in Congress voted for the Iraq AUMF, GOP opposition had to be pretty minimal even without any strong-arming.
Yeah, but that Democratic support was after people like Condaleezza Rice and Colin Powell gave unequivocal testimony that the weapons of mass destruction were 15 minutes away from raining down on our heads. By the time everyone found out they were lying sacks of shit the AUMF was a done deal.
And the other big fat steaming turd of a lie: that the purpose was to strengthen GeeDubya’s negotiating position, that he might bring Saddam to the table and thus prevent a war. All that would have been required was for Saddam to hand over all the shit he didn’t have.
Kelly went from being a four star general to being a five star liar. It seems to me that “Chief of Staff” implies that there must be staff under him. Surely one of them could have researched what Rep. Wilson actually said at the FBI dedication. Faced with audio of the actual speech, this weasel falls back on “oh, she said that off camera”. So you were shocked that she would use the dedication as self promotion except that she didn’t use the speech for that purpose. She did her self promotion off camera. Right.
Let’s not forget that Kelly was in charge of Gitmo during the torture days and resisted efforts by the Obama administration to resettle detainees. He apparently thinks the president is above reproach and immune from questioning, as long as he isn’t black. Sure, he is often the only adult in the room in the Oval Office, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that he is an authoritarian fascist wanna-be.
Through this whole sorry incident, it’s hard to see what is most offensive. Going two weeks without mention of the deaths of four men, lying about how previous presidents handled condolences, being so incapable of empathy that a simple condolence can be fucked up royally, lying about a Congresswoman, not admitting error when caught lying about the congresswoman, taking questions only from those reporters who knew Gold Star families, expressing outrage at the Khans for exercising their rights to free speech and to peacefully assemble or Sarah Sanders saying that generals should not be questioned.
Bill and 'luc, I’m not disagreeing with either of you. But Elvis’ point that I’m questioning here is whether Cheney forced Republicans to support the Iraq war, not whether they were lied into supporting it.
That isn’t the way your initial objection was stated, now was it? :dubious:
Now that you’ve had your memory of that period refreshed, how about giving us your own view of it, complete with parallels to today? Contribute something here, dude.
The ONLY definition on m-w.com for the word is “Gunman”. This is getting weird.
Well, they’re wrong then. In 1929, when Hammett was writing The Maltese Falcon, it was a slang tern for a “punk,” or sexual bottom.
Can someone translate this for me, please?
Seriously, Elvis, I’ve got no clue what this means.
Aye, I believe you. I was just pointing out that it was weird that MW would have such a wildly different definition, and only that definition.
Kelly was in charge of the Southern Command, which includes Gitmo. I’d like to see a good cite on his direct involvement with abuses at Gitmo.
This whole thread is predicated on the premise that somehow 4 Star Generals are to be assumed to have integrity, to be upstanding paragons of virtue, to be respected. Can we talk about why that is? With the organization of the military, they are essentially comparable to a corporate Sr. VP, responsible for a large organization. They may be adept at marshaling large numbers of people and resources to achieve some strategic objective - but they have advantage of working in a command and control model (unlike in civilian life). But why does this achievement impart this assumption of virtue? (You know who else was effective at marshaling large numbers of people…) I’m just not seeing it, virtue and being an effective leader are not in any way related.
IMHO a more pertinent assumption is that they are effective at working within a chain of command. Therefore, when thinking about a 4 Star General, remove the assumption of virtue, assume they are effective within a chain of command, and voila - nothing Kelly did surprises me in the least.
When you’re in command, everything under your command is your responsibility. When it’s been getting big publicity for years, there is literally no possible excuse.
*Please *contribute something, dude.
Says the guy who claims without evidence (because that’s how he remembers it - his memory is his cite) that Cheney forced Republicans to go along with the Iraq war.
That’s practically a negative contribution.
Being any kind of soldier (airman or marine!) nominally means taking risks and making sacrifice on behalf of the population as a whole. That sort of thing is usually widely admired. What’s more, the military, in theory, is judging officers based on more than just competence–it also judges their character and integrity. So becoming a general is a proxy for those virtues.
That said, I suspect the larger and more sad truth about humanity is that people like power. They attribute to power all kinds of benevolent virtues as a sort of retroactive justification for it. A 4-star general is regarded as virtuous because he is powerful, and would be regarded that way even without any degree of self-sacrifice after service in an army known for its lack of morality.
As the OP, I’d have to disagree. I’m judging him by what I’d regard as normal standards of human decency (which he flunks), not by any higher standard of virtue I expect from high-ranking military, because I have no such expectations.
There’s no question that Kelly assumes that the military, as a group, is more virtuous than we civilians are, and that’s one of the issues I have with him. (From the OP: “7. And fuck the notion that the military and those connected with them are somehow better than the rest of us.”)