Lucky... 0 #51 February 23, 2010 Quote Quote Saying he was a war hero that was connected to a corrupt admin is an attack? OK. Uh, you wrote that he was promoted to 4 star status over qualified candidates. That's as clear an attack as it gets. (and in typical fashion for you, not supported by any facts) That was a paraphrazation for greater thibgs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Haig --> Haig remained White House Chief of Staff during the early days of the Ford Administration until Donald Rumsfeld replaced him in September 1974. By that time, Ford, in a highly controversial move, had pardoned Nixon for any crimes he may have committed as president. Author Roger Morris, a former colleague of Haig's on the National Security Council early in Nixon's first term, wrote that when Ford pardoned Nixon, he in effect pardoned Haig as well. --> http://www.startribune.com/nation/84842867.html Nixon promoted Haig in 1972 from a two-star general to a four-star rank, passing over 240 high-ranking officers with greater seniority. The next year, as the Watergate scandal deepened, Nixon turned to Haig and appointed him to succeed H.R. Haldeman as White House chief of staff. He helped the president prepare his impeachment defense — and as Nixon was preoccupied with Watergate, Haig handled many of the day-to-day decisions normally made by the chief executive. On Nixon's behalf, Haig also helped arrange the wiretaps of government officials and reporters, as the president tried to plug the sources of news leaks. So when you fully understand who promoted him and sleeze involved around Nixon, it becomes clear this was a hook-up for favor returns. Nixon was cultivaing a yes-man; I find that dishonorable. Read teh links Kallend and otehrs posted, Haig had an ugly side, but was a war hero. So as for clear attack, Haig was promoted above >240 officers with more seniority by Nixon to work for Nixon and do his dirty work....doesn't sound like such an atatck now, does it? Or are you defending Nixon now? I guess I'm attacking Nixon too, huh? Yea, he was just misunderstood. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #52 February 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Saying he was a war hero that was connected to a corrupt admin is an attack? OK. Uh, you wrote that he was promoted to 4 star status over qualified candidates. That's as clear an attack as it gets. (and in typical fashion for you, not supported by any facts) Historical note: http://www.startribune.com/templates/fdcp?1266862722583 QuoteNixon promoted Haig in 1972 from a two-star general to a four-star rank, passing over 240 high-ranking officers with greater seniority. I have no real stake in this but... just because the other senior officers had greater seniority it doesn't mean he wasn't just as qualified as them to hold the position he was placed into... at the GO level very often the Position and the Rank go hand in hand... Gen Haig could have been easily just as qualified or more qualified for the position as the other 2/3 star Generals that were more "senior" then him... Culminate that with Noxon pulling in Haig in the Watergate times..... many say Ford not only pardoned Nixon, but pardoned Haig too, as if Nixon had to testify he would have had to bring Haig in in some fashion. Remember, Haig was ferociously trying to set up a pardon for Nixon as the walls were falling in. That out-of-rank promotion was and is tainted with corruption. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #53 February 23, 2010 Quote QuoteNixon promoted Haig in 1972 from a two-star general to a four-star rank, passing over 240 high-ranking officers with greater seniority. I don't want generals being promoted in order of seniority. I suspect I'm not an outlier on this. Do you want them promoted by corrupt presidents who later use them as yes-bitches to cover up major corruption? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #54 February 23, 2010 QuoteThat's why I called it an historical note - simply to point out the fact, without argument. The fact is that sometimes senior general officers get in the good graces of the President and are appointed by him to top positions. When that occurs, they "need" to be raised, if they're not already there, to an "appropriate" rank that befits the position. Another historical example of this is during WWII, when Gen. Eisenhower, under the sponsorship of his good friend, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Marshall, quickly soared through the GO ranks, especially when FDR appointed him Supreme Commander of the European Theater. He, too, was promoted over quite a few more-senior generals. And since no corruption followed, that out-of-seniority promotion isn't tainted with collusion, corruption, etc. That's the point I was making and the one you've illustrated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #55 February 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100220/ap_on_go_ot/us_obit_haig Altho a war hero, he was certainly tainted with typical Republican corruption. Oh well, RIP. Unbelievable. I know, how could such a war hero be tied to such corrpution? Oh well, it happens. No, that you can't even reign in your attacks in an obit thread. Of course, given your past history, I really shouldn't have expected anything better of you. Some people are born bitter. Others have to work at it every day. And other's yet don't address issues, just cheerlead in threads. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #56 February 23, 2010 Quote Quote That's why I called it an historical note - simply to point out the fact, without argument. The fact is that sometimes senior general officers get in the good graces of the President and are appointed by him to top positions. When that occurs, they "need" to be raised, if they're not already there, to an "appropriate" rank that befits the position. Another historical example of this is during WWII, when Gen. Eisenhower, under the sponsorship of his good friend, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Marshall, quickly soared through the GO ranks, especially when FDR appointed him Supreme Commander of the European Theater. He, too, was promoted over quite a few more-senior generals. The problem lies in that the historical note doesn't support the arguement that Gen Haig was promoted over more qualified officers just that he was promoted over more senior officers... Unless someone is in a Union... Considering the absolutely immediate pulling in of Haig by Nixon after the questionable out-of-seniority promotion, the scandals, Haig's brokering of deals to immunize Nixon...... it's hard to think there wasn't a whole lot of knowledge and performance by Haig to further Nixon thru this shit. I mean, if ya wanna ignore all the brokering to get Noxon off the hook as a gratuity for the HUGE promotion, then I guess it was all clean. And that's just the starter. The Republcian Party as a whole turned ugly in the 1920's, they turned lethal in the 1970's and with Reagan in the 80's they capped it off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #57 February 23, 2010 Quotethe points are more focused at Lucky. We'll see if he offers up a real argument, and if the seniority argument was all he had. That's right, if you weren't full of ad hominem as an automatic reply, you would be more concewrned with the issues than with those bringing the issues. You've kinda brought that forward onyour own. But What Andy brought in was what I had the entire time, I just paraphrased. Andy will understand this, being a lawyer, but Clinton being a womanizer and Haig being corrput with Nixon are refered to as, "Judicial Notice." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #58 February 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe set of war heroes and the set of assholes are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who has read deeply and extensively into the history of the inner-most workings of the Nixon and Ford Administrations and their key top personnel, including Haig - which I have - knows how very true that is. I say that purely from an historical perspective. Do you really have to read that deeply into it to make that determination? From a standpoint of scholarly diligence and historical objectivity, and considering all the spin and demagoguery from Haig and Haig-allies on one side, the spin and demagoguery from Haig-antagonists (or critics) on the other side, together with media-polished pop culture, I'd have to say "Yes". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #59 February 23, 2010 QuoteQuotethe points are more focused at Lucky. We'll see if he offers up a real argument, and if the seniority argument was all he had. That's right, if you weren't full of ad hominem as an automatic reply, you would be more concewrned with the issues than with those bringing the issues. You've kinda brought that forward onyour own. The issue is your attack laced RIP message, which is pretty unclassy. Not whether or not he or Nixon were patriots or scumbags, or a little of both. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #60 February 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuotethe points are more focused at Lucky. We'll see if he offers up a real argument, and if the seniority argument was all he had. That's right, if you weren't full of ad hominem as an automatic reply, you would be more concewrned with the issues than with those bringing the issues. You've kinda brought that forward onyour own. The issue is your attack laced RIP message, which is pretty unclassy. Not whether or not he or Nixon were patriots or scumbags, or a little of both. So truth must be sacrificed to niceness in RIP messages?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #61 February 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotethe points are more focused at Lucky. We'll see if he offers up a real argument, and if the seniority argument was all he had. That's right, if you weren't full of ad hominem as an automatic reply, you would be more concewrned with the issues than with those bringing the issues. You've kinda brought that forward onyour own. The issue is your attack laced RIP message, which is pretty unclassy. Not whether or not he or Nixon were patriots or scumbags, or a little of both. So truth must be sacrificed to niceness in RIP messages? Only in threads about rePUBIClowns... as evidenced by their hatefilled posts in thread about Sen Kennedy and Rep Murtha. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #62 February 24, 2010 Quote So truth must be sacrificed to niceness in RIP messages? Truth was sacrificed. How many times did he repeat that he wasn't attacking Haig? Personally, I think that if you don't like a guy, when he dies, you say nothing. It's not necessary to overstate how great he was, but if you have nothing good to say, just let it rest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #63 February 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotethe points are more focused at Lucky. We'll see if he offers up a real argument, and if the seniority argument was all he had. That's right, if you weren't full of ad hominem as an automatic reply, you would be more concewrned with the issues than with those bringing the issues. You've kinda brought that forward onyour own. The issue is your attack laced RIP message, which is pretty unclassy. Not whether or not he or Nixon were patriots or scumbags, or a little of both. So truth must be sacrificed to niceness in RIP messages? Only in threads about rePUBIClowns... as evidenced by their hatefilled posts in thread about Sen Kennedy and Rep Murtha. Such as the classy comment "As with Cronkite, maybe someone can make better use of his oxygen now." from one of our prominent right wing self-professed Christians? Or the equally classy "Senator Kennedy expressed his wishes to be memorialized by his blubber being rendered in order to fuel the eternal still at his graveside." No right wing double standard showing there.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #64 February 24, 2010 Both extremes are equally deplorable. The RIP Thread should be that, RIP. If any one R, D, Liberal, Conservative Moderate, or what ever, wants to discuss the politics, they should do that in a so titled thread. I expect better from all of those here who decided that two wrongs make a right. We are but a small sample of our country and a smaller sample of our world. If our actions here are any indication no wonder our world is full of failure and things seem to be getting worse. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #65 February 24, 2010 QuoteBoth extremes are equally deplorable. The RIP Thread should be that, RIP. Thank you for being the moral monitor for everyone, it is oh so unwelcome. I love the, "both sides" idea, reminds of the rhororic about, "both sides are equally responsible for the debt." Try to understand why people find conservatism so deplorable; THEY WANT TO SET THE RULES FOR EVERYONE FOR EVERYTHING. QuoteIf any one R, D, Liberal, Conservative Moderate, or what ever, wants to discuss the politics, they should do that in a so titled thread. WHat's your point? We do. If you want to pretend Haig wasn't tied to politics, well, sorry. People in politics die, so death and politics have a relationship, if you don't like to read about it, don't pop in; how's that for moral moderation? QuoteI expect better from all of those here who decided that two wrongs make a right. (hangs head) And I feel so dirty, please forgive me. Calling a guy who was scandalous, a person who was tied to Nixon corruption is factual, and it's fair when alos saying he was a war hero; it's just objective and fair on both ends. Youw ant to ignore the truth and praise the limited. QuoteWe are but a small sample of our country and a smaller sample of our world. If our actions here are any indication no wonder our world is full of failure and things seem to be getting worse. US corporations have bilked this country dry, millions have no HC, people are getting murdered all over the world, there is mass starvation, natural disaster kill thousands in one fell swoop and you choose to get your feathers ruffled and think the sole origin of all this evility is because of a thread about a war hero who moved on to become a corrupt politician? Get your priorities straight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #66 February 24, 2010 QuoteQuote So truth must be sacrificed to niceness in RIP messages? Truth was sacrificed. How many times did he repeat that he wasn't attacking Haig? Personally, I think that if you don't like a guy, when he dies, you say nothing. It's not necessary to overstate how great he was, but if you have nothing good to say, just let it rest. What truth was sacrificed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #67 February 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe set of war heroes and the set of assholes are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who has read deeply and extensively into the history of the inner-most workings of the Nixon and Ford Administrations and their key top personnel, including Haig - which I have - knows how very true that is. I say that purely from an historical perspective. Do you really have to read that deeply into it to make that determination? From a standpoint of scholarly diligence and historical objectivity, and considering all the spin and demagoguery from Haig and Haig-allies on one side, the spin and demagoguery from Haig-antagonists (or critics) on the other side, together with media-polished pop culture, I'd have to say "Yes". Nah, it's pretty prima facie that Haig was in deep. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #68 February 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe set of war heroes and the set of assholes are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who has read deeply and extensively into the history of the inner-most workings of the Nixon and Ford Administrations and their key top personnel, including Haig - which I have - knows how very true that is. I say that purely from an historical perspective. Do you really have to read that deeply into it to make that determination? From a standpoint of scholarly diligence and historical objectivity, and considering all the spin and demagoguery from Haig and Haig-allies on one side, the spin and demagoguery from Haig-antagonists (or critics) on the other side, together with media-polished pop culture, I'd have to say "Yes". Nah, it's pretty prima facie that Haig was in deep. Nope. "Pretty prima facie" is what I was referring to when I used the short-hand "media pop culture". I stand by my reasons for "Yes". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #69 February 24, 2010 QuoteBoth extremes are equally deplorable. The RIP Thread should be that, RIP. If any one R, D, Liberal, Conservative Moderate, or what ever, wants to discuss the politics, they should do that in a so titled thread. I expect better from all of those here who decided that two wrongs make a right. We are but a small sample of our country and a smaller sample of our world. If our actions here are any indication no wonder our world is full of failure and things seem to be getting worse. Matt Can't say that I noticed your righteous lecture to the right wingers when they were trashing Kennedy and Murtha. Just sayin'.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icon134 0 #70 February 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteBoth extremes are equally deplorable. The RIP Thread should be that, RIP. If any one R, D, Liberal, Conservative Moderate, or what ever, wants to discuss the politics, they should do that in a so titled thread. I expect better from all of those here who decided that two wrongs make a right. We are but a small sample of our country and a smaller sample of our world. If our actions here are any indication no wonder our world is full of failure and things seem to be getting worse. Matt Can't say that I noticed your righteous lecture to the right wingers when they were trashing Kennedy and Murtha. Just sayin'.Does that make his comment less applicable in those cases? Because from my interpretation of his comment is just as applicable to any other thread... perhaps he has chosen to make the post in this thread on the basis that he feels more of a connection/kinship with Haig then he did with Sen Kennedy or Rep Murtha since Haig was in the Army... His motivitations may not be political in nature...Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #71 February 24, 2010 Quoteperhaps he has chosen to make the post in this threadl on the basis that he feels more of a connection/kinship with Haig then he did with Sen Kennedy or Rep Murtha since Haig was in the Army... That's a bit of a stretch. Kennedy was in the Army, too. As for retired career military, as Matt is, Murtha was retired career military, too (albeit Marines). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #72 February 24, 2010 I actually hope they are resting in piece and I do believe I posted as much. As for Conservatives attacking them, I don't think they where right either Prof, but lately it seems that the "two sides" are HAPPY that some one dies and is making great use of the forum to laugh it out. Two wrongs. IMO, this is an indication of why we are so screwed up as a country. We, as a small faction of the populace, have a great and common bond, skydiving, and can go out and hang together all day in person while doing this, but get back in front of our computer and our compromising skills and the common sense that we use to achieve a record or goal in our sport all of a sudden leaves us and what we get is this vile hatred with no actual attempt at moving forward. Our competitors used to stand side by side with our countries "enemies" and showed they could work at a personal level to resolve issues, but we as fellow citizens can't sit down and calmly work some thing out? MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icon134 0 #73 February 24, 2010 Quote Quote perhaps he has chosen to make the post in this threadl on the basis that he feels more of a connection/kinship with Haig then he did with Sen Kennedy or Rep Murtha since Haig was in the Army... That's a bit of a stretch. Kennedy was in the Army, too. As for retired career military, as Matt is, Murtha was retired career military, too (albeit Marines). I guess Matt has just never struck me as overly political and turning his comment into something that didn't seem appropiate of his personality seemed wrong somehow... (and from his response to Kallend I'm not proven wrong...) Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #74 February 24, 2010 Thanks Scott, but yeah it was more of a "enough is enough" feeling. I should stick to the Bonfire and Instructor stuff, I can get into plenty of trouble there all by myself.Matt An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #75 February 24, 2010 Quote Can't say that I noticed your righteous lecture to the right wingers when they were trashing Kennedy and Murtha. Others covered that perfectly fine. We don't need "me too" postings from every other person who might agree with the sentiment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
