Top generals: Obama is 'purging the military'

[Springer]

Article found on November 1 Drudge Report:

https://www.wnd.com/2013/10/top-generals-obama-is-purging-the-military/

“There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” Brady told WND.They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” one source told WND.

Not only are military service members being demoralized and the ranks’ overall readiness being reduced by the Obama administration’s purge of key leaders, colonels – those lined up in rank to replace outgoing generals – are quietly taking their careers in other directions.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was with Delta Force and later Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence under President George W. Bush, says it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama. “Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,” Boykin said.

“I believe there is a purging of the military,” he said. “The problem is worse than we have ever seen.”

Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2013/10/top-generals-obama-is-purging-the-military/#2zzumLYvY0j38ieZ.99

[Vertigo]

WND. GREAT source.

Can you post an article from the National Enquirer next?

[HeloDude]

"Vertigo", aka the Libertairan who almost always supports Obama. Had you had quoted from the Huffington Post, Vertigo wouldn't have questioned the source.

Here's an idea Vertigo--the article quotes certain people saying certain things. Why don't you comment on the reputation of the guys quoted and/or the substance of their quote? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the retired Generals, but I'm also not just making a worthless response the the source of their quotes. Focus on substance not emotion.

[drewpey]

This article uses two sources: both generals, one that retired in 2007 and another in 1993.

[Vertigo]

"Vertigo", aka the Libertairan who almost always supports Obama. Had you had quoted from the Huffington Post, Vertigo wouldn't have questioned the source.

Here's an idea Vertigo--the article quotes certain people saying certain things. Why don't you comment on the reputation of the guys quoted and/or the substance of their quote? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the retired Generals, but I'm also not just making a worthless response the the source of their quotes. Focus on substance not emotion.

I may appear as if I almost always support Obama because I look at things with a neutral eye first, whereas 99.69% of the members here come in with a predetrmined mindset on the president.

This article uses two sources: both generals, one that retired in 2007 and another in 1993.

And Obama was elected when?

[RASH]

And Obama was elected when?

And that matters because???

[Vertigo]

And that matters because???

Because unless they are in and actually observe what is happening first hand, everything else is speculation and gossip. Or contrived stories for the sake of an article on a site that is known for making up stories.

[RASH]

Because unless they are in and actually observe what is happening first hand, everything else is speculation and gossip. Or contrived stories for the sake of an article on a site that is known for making up stories.

You don't think either of them may have direct access, or maybe even still be directly involved with, these types of events?

[TreeA10]

Because unless they are in and actually observe what is happening first hand, everything else is speculation and gossip. Or contrived stories for the sake of an article on a site that is known for making up stories.

No, it matters because RETIRED generals who are not worried about maintaining their jobs are speaking up. Same reason it is a good thing to speak to young officers and enlisted guys about how things are going because they usually will speak their minds.

[Vertigo]

You don't think either of them may have direct access, or maybe even still be directly involved with, these types of events?

Did you read the quotes by the ret Generals?

“People I’ve spoken to would like to see..."

"I talk to a lot of folks who don’t support where Obama is taking the military..."

"I hear from many off the record who are upset with the current military leadership..."

A lot of "I hear" and "I talk to" yet no "I witnessed" "I can show proof" or "I can verify".

Sounds like gossip to me.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Vertigo

[Boxhead]

No way! Once a general retires, they are immediately banned from all communication with current generals! There are no retired generals lurking around the Pentagon in cool "advisor" positions.

lol, that would be pretty impressive though. "Yeah, I was drinking with current General X, Y and Z, and they all say the POTUS is a tool", matter of fact, I have it on tape just in case someone thinks it's gossip!, since it was said at my house, please don't hold them accountable."

I bet they just retire, grow mullets and sit on their porches drinking PBRs . (OK, that may just be what I am going to do!)

Edited November 1, 2013 by Boxhead

[Disco_Nav963]

Don't know anything about Baker, but Boykin is well-known to be an assclown. WND is a hive for birther fanaticism and is slightly less credible on defense issues than the "Washington Free Beacon."

[HercDude]

What a load of shit. I didn't even make it all the way through the article. Is there one shred of empirical evidence anywhere in there? If GO's are being forced out at an unprecedented rate, surely this could be documented and compared with historical rates. If morale is at an "all time low" this implies that you have quantified and compared today's morale with historical rates. Personally, I think the AF is going to shit, but it has almost nothing to do with the POTUS. There were useless, asinine policies under Bush and there are useless asinine policies under Obama.

[Prosuper]

WND. GREAT source.

Can you post an article from the National Enquirer next?

The National Enquirer did break the John Edwards mistress story and using campaign funds to keep it quiet.

[xaarman]

Historically, after wars wind down, the military downsizses. We're in the midst of ending a second war. Of course the military is going to be unhappy any time cuts come our way. A significant number of people I know still haven't forgiven Clinton for his military cuts... but honestly, we could have a trillion dollar budget and 1) we'd still be asking for more 2) we'd still be bitching if anything was cut.

edit: Onto the article... losing the desire to win? Yeah right- but of course Generals get fired when they publicly disagree with the policy, same as in the civilian world when you go against your boss. I just don't see or agree with what he's saying in the article.

Edited November 2, 2013 by xaarman

[HeloDude]

I am fairly new around here and don't know Vertigo's political affiliations, but you may want to double check the meaning of libertarian. As an actual libertarian I can tell you there aren't too many things the current administration is doing with which we agree.

Your post doesn't make much sense...but I welcome you to the forum anyway.

I agree with you that Obama isn't doing too many things in line with the Libertarian philosophy (did I ever say that he was?), hence why my comment to/in response to Vertigo was 'tongue in cheek'. Vertigo is a Libertarian (I'm assuming he's honest when he says so), however, he is quick to jump on the GOP much more often than Obama and the Dems...and, drum roll please, the Dems run the federal executive branch! So they're the ones to bash right now at the federal level...just like Bush was the one to bash 5 years ago. At best the GOP can only stop (or at least try to) the Dems, so it's hard to bash the guys for their policies when they can't get any of their policies through. But yet, Vertigo rarely bashes Obama and Obamacare, the increased regulations, the gun control push by the Dems, etc.

As a fellow Libertarian, I'll bash the GOP all day long when they're doing stupid shit. I bash them for reauthorizing the Patriot Act, not passing recent proposed restrictions on the NSA, still authorizing all the crazy spending in the House, etc. But right now the Dems are taking the cake...they saw how the GOP spent under Bush and decided to take it even further into crazy land. They're still hoping to get some more gun control through, and the Obamacare crap, well, I think that is self explanatory.

Vertigo keeps us all on honest on here, and vice versa. If he wants to bash a certain news report, then that's fine--but he has to offer something substantive on the story itself and back up his opinions vs just giving an emotional response about where the story was reported. I think he gets where I was coming from.

[drewpey]

And Obama was elected when?

I'm agreeing with you. Not to detract from their service, the sources the author uses are out of date. While they no doubt still talk with guys in-the-know now, I imagine it's a lot of sport-bitching. Generals are people too and will tend to bitch to suit their agenda. Without any data or in-depth discussion on why this may be the article is on par with TMZ.

[Red Fox]

If the story is true, then it speaks poorly of the integrity our current military leadership. Not one current GO/FO is willing to fall on his/her sword over this? Seems more like a couple of ORFs who don't like Barry (can't say that I blame them).

Also, I don't see how a Libertarian (which I consider myself) can be a fan of Barry. Our government is the most instrusive and incompetent it has ever been, IMHO. Regards, RF.

[Vertigo]

Ok- just to clear the air, AGAIN, I am not a fan of Obama. Yes I defend him when absolute bullshit is thrown his way. He has enough bad policies out there that there's no need to make shit up- which happens a lot.

I appear to be an ardent supporter of him on this forum because most everyone on here is so far anti-obama that anyone who calls BS on BS gets labeled a supporter. And because I don't dogpile on with everyone else on every little thread that has to do with him.

So if you want to know my actual view on a particular subject- ask me. I'd be more than willing to give you an answer.

[HeloDude]

Ok- just to clear the air, AGAIN, I am not a fan of Obama. Yes I defend him when absolute bullshit is thrown his way. He has enough bad policies out there that there's no need to make shit up- which happens a lot.

I appear to be an ardent supporter of him on this forum because most everyone on here is so far anti-obama that anyone who calls BS on BS gets labeled a supporter. And because I don't dogpile on with everyone else on every little thread that has to do with him.

So if you want to know my actual view on a particular subject- ask me. I'd be more than willing to give you an answer.

As a Libertarian, tell me what you think he is doing well/right? And tell me where he has messed up during his 5 years in his presidency? (and just for clarification, what his administration does, good or bad, also falls underneath him).

The floor is yours.

[Vetter]

Where is Liquid?

[Liquid]

Where is Liquid?

UCMJ Article 88: "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Punishable by dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinement for a year.

I don't make the laws, but I try to know them. As a rule, I avoid conversations about politics. Commissioned officers have a duty to be politically impartial. We should not violate the trust between the military and our civilian leadership. This should apply to our retired GOFOs. Their remarks damage the trust and confidence our civilian leaders have with current GOFOs.

[Vertigo]

As a Libertarian, tell me what you think he is doing well/right? And tell me where he has messed up during his 5 years in his presidency? (and just for clarification, what his administration does, good or bad, also falls underneath him).

The floor is yours.

Right- immigration reform; but not enough. It should be very easy and very cheap for migrant workers to come over, earn a little and travel back and forth easily. I wouldn't go so fas as some Libertarians who believe in an open border... but we should be close to that.

Repeal of DADT.

Not defending DOMA.

Opening up concealed carry into national parks

Withdrew from Iraq

Wrong:

Killing U.S. citizens via drone strikes without due process

Individual mandate

Not actually doing anything to lower healthcare costs (which is what the ACHA SHOULD have been about)

Continued Patriot Act (and apparently expanded it to include domestic spying)

-gotta run- I'll try to finish this extensive list later.

[mudhen69]

UCMJ Article 88: "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

I don't think any of the recent GO/FO "firings"/forced retirements (McCrystal, Ham, Fallon et al.) had anything to do with UCMJ article 88. Rather, I think it has more to do with an employee/employer relationship than breaking a law. If I was an Apple employee and wrote an Op-ed piece saying the iPhone sucked and Steve Jobs was an @$$hole, I would expect to be fired. The same goes for those in the military. I think any military member is well within their rights to disagree, even publicly, with anyone in government. Consequences may include being asked to leave the military but I think you would have a line of free speech attorneys willing to defend you pro-bono if it ever went to court martial.

[B.M.]