That’s a fascinating article. I was just thinking the other day that Trump had applied the OODA loop to politics. Interesting to see someone develop that idea further.
“Hollywood” callsigns that use words are not random but there are different ways they can happen for several reasons.
If you are communicating and there is a chance of being intercepted you are supposed to use the random callsigns that change daily. A call sign would be something like A2B (Alpha 2 Bravo).
One type of Hollywood call sign comes from the unit nickname. Each position has a number. The commander is 6. The Executive Officer is 5. The First Sergeant is 7. If Delta company has the nickname “Dragon” then the commander would be Dragon 6.
Individuals can have a nickname bestowed upon them. It is bad form to come up with your own nickname. Those names can follow you from assignment to assignment.
I respect that opinion and I believe it has merit. That doesn’t necessarily mean as an individual he is not suited for the job. After all the issue here is that he has been retired 3 years instead of 7.
Harry Truman disagrees. Pedantically it’s “illegal” for him to be SECDEF but I’m sure you understand that it will only take a vote from congress to approve him. One extra layer of consent.
While it almost certainly won’t be any major hurdle, one of the other things that Congress should consider is how many former generals Trump is placing in his cabinet. George Marshall served as SecState for two years and is credited for the Marshall Plan for Europe before he was nominated for SecDef. Even then, he was only SecDef for one year.
If Trump nominates Petraeus for SecState, then three former generals will have the three biggest roles in his administration (National Security Advisor, SecState, and SecDef). Perhaps four, if Trump also nominates Gen. John Kelly as Secretary of Homeland Security. This would especially create the impression that the military is some kind of praetorian warrior caste that is uniquely qualified to run the government.
How about two more Terminal Lance strips? 
The first strip is from 2014. The last strip directly addresses his selection by Trump.
I am also wary about how many former generals that Trump is nominating for his cabinet. There is something to be said for simple competence, though, especially when the alternative is some of the incompetent whack jobs whose names have been mentioned (like Giuliani and Palin).
P.S. On the other hand, Flynn may well fall into the “whack job” category. :rolleyes:
I am going to be surprised if Petraeus is nominated for State. Not with his baggage. I’m not willing to put money on it.
Despite his mistress/classified email problems I would much rather have Petraeus in the cabinet than a religious zealot like Flynn.
For the past three years all Republicans could do is express shock and outrage over Hillary having a private email server for [gasp] potentially classified documents. Now they want to nominate Betrayus for State, after he has admitted to leaking classified information to his mistress? And, in theory, would have to give his probation officer access to his work email?
What’s the deal with the hand signs in this photo and a couple of similar ones? (The index and middle fingers of each hand crossed in a diamond shape.)
I’ve never seen that before.
Who’s “they?” What I have seen is the same issues being brought up by republicans that you bring up. Which is why I personnally don’t think it’s going to happen.
It’s the Terminal Lance hand sign which mimics Marine lance corporal rank (one chevron with crossed rifles underneath).
I believe that it was approved with great difficulty, and a plea that it be the last time this ever happens.
Well, names get bandied about pretty frequently. State is the big kahuna, he came by The T Tower to interview for something. If he gets anything at all, it means Republicans don’t care about classified material like they pretend to. And nominating someone to the cabinet who still has a probation officer- shows what they think about character.
Conversely if the democrats make a big stink about it then they were lying when they said it wasn’t important for Clinton. The point is really moot if he is not picked at all or if he is nominated for a position that does not require handling classified material like the VA. I keep bringing up the VA because please God anyone but Palin.
When Palin heard she was considered for VA she said “Great! I love Virginia!”
No-It means they are pissed off about the hypocrisy.
That was a different circumstance. Anyone with a 5-star General of the Army rank remains on the active officer roll regardless of their retirement date. When Marshall was appointed Secretary of Defense 5 years after resigning as Chief of Staff he was still officially an active general. Mattis is not but he hasn’t been retired the abritrary 7 years.
Clinton did not deliberately handout classified materials. Her sever wasn’t intended for classified materials. Remember, the only classified materials on her server were unmarked or classified later. Exception: Three emails that had portion marking but no header markings.
Petraeus’s actions went further as he made the decision to physically give classified materials to his mistress/biographer and then lied about it.
Also, isn’t have an affair a big no-no at that rank and clearance? Something about possible blackmail?
And I’m not saying that Clinton didn’t do something monumentally stupid.
Whether or not they are pissed off at the hypocracy shoukdnt have any bearing on whether they believe he is qualified. If you think Clinton’s mishandling of emails was a big deal then so should what Petraeus did. If you think what Clinton did was inconsequential then what Petraeus did shouldn’t have much bearing on his nomination. Anything else is hypocrisy. Which is why many Senate republicans are not happy about the possibility.
All true except leaving out the fact that the woman he gave the information to did have a security clearance. She was a Reserve Military Intelligence Lieutenant Colonel. The classified information was mishandled but not exposed to the public.
I’m not defending Petraeus. He was punished and rightfully so.