|
Post by boxcar on Nov 17, 2012 15:53:41 GMT -5
>I thought that he had left the military before becoming the CIA director, so wouldn’t it be correct to say “retired Gen. Petraeaus”<<
He did not retire from the military and still wore the uniform as he headed the CIA. As of today, I don't know if he is in or out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2012 17:07:41 GMT -5
He will always be addressed as GEN.
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Nov 17, 2012 18:16:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Nov 18, 2012 8:51:28 GMT -5
Once granted a military rank, the person always holds that rank, unless it is withdrawn by demotion or dishonorable discharge. I am not an ex-LTC - I am always an LTC but now retired. My title is Colonel Rosie (officially). Unofficially I'm Jerry Rosie and when signing an official letter it LTC (Ret). We do the same with other positions - Ex Governeors are still addressed as Governor. Newt Gingrich is still addressed as "Mr. Speaker" even though it has been years since he held that position. We still call him "President Lincoln" not Ex-President Lincoln.
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Nov 18, 2012 15:02:50 GMT -5
WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawmakers said Sunday they want to know who had a hand in creating the Obama administration's now-discredited "talking points" about the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and why a final draft omitted the CIA's early conclusion that terrorists were involved.
The answers could explain why President Barack Obama and top aides, including U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, described the attack for days afterward as a protest against an anti-Islam video that spontaneously turned violent and why they played down any potential link to al-Qaida, despite evidence to the contrary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2012 16:30:58 GMT -5
Another witch hunt.
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Nov 19, 2012 17:48:47 GMT -5
The point is, the public does not want another cover up as occurred in the Fast and Furious operation. The administration fed the public BS on this issue from the start. The more the Community Organizer gets away with things like this, the more he will repeat.
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Nov 28, 2012 3:11:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Dec 12, 2012 23:32:51 GMT -5
Unanswered questions by Guy Benson
(1) Who, specifically, denied repeated requests for increased security resources and personnel from American officials on the ground in Libya? Why were these requests shot down? (2) A senior State Department official testified that the US had the "correct" number of security assets in Benghazi. Amb. Susan Rice stated that our security presence at the Benghazi mission was "substantial." Does the president stand by those assessments? If not, why were they made in the first place? (3) Why were US security personnel pulled out of Libya, even as Amb. Stevens warned of heightened risks? (4) Why was the Benghazi consulate operating below the bare minimum standards for a US diplomatic compound, especially after our government learned that at least ten known Islamist militias were operating in the city? (5) Why wasn't security beefed up after a series of attacks on western targets in Benghazi, including previous attempted bombings at the American consulate itself? (6) Where was the president during the raid itself? How closely did he follow what was happening, and for how long? (7) Was the president made aware of the numerous desperate pleas for help from two former SEALs, who battled the terrorists for seven hours before being killed? If not, why not? If so, what was his response? (8) Which government officials, specifically, watched the attack unfold in real time -- hour after excruciating hour -- via footage from an American drone? Was that drone armed? (9) Why were American forces and resources not deployed to help defeat the enemy, particularly while several Americans were alive and urgently seeking reinforcements? Why was a key counterterrorism task force not convened during the attack? (10) Who, specifically, changed Susan Rice's public talking points by excising references to Al Qaeda, and why? If there was a national security concern, what was it? Where did the inaccurate "spontaneous protest" narrative originate? Why was that story deemed more fit for publication than the accurate terrorism evidence? And if Rice had little direct knowledge of the facts on the ground in Benghazi, why was she selected as the administration's spokesperson on the subject? (11) Why was the president still publicly hedging on the terrorism question several weeks after the attack, especially if a terrorist link had been established "almost immediately." (12) Why did it take the FBI weeks to arrive at the unsecured, bombed-out consulate after the attack? Why were sensitive documents left in the rubble, even after they'd left? Without jeopardizing any leads, what -- if any -- progress has been made in identifying, capturing, or killing those responsible for the assault?
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Dec 13, 2012 2:31:02 GMT -5
Once granted a military rank, the person always holds that rank, unless it is withdrawn by demotion or dishonorable discharge. I am not an ex-LTC - I am always an LTC but now retired. My title is Colonel Rosie (officially). Unofficially I'm Jerry Rosie and when signing an official letter it LTC (Ret). We do the same with other positions - Ex Governeors are still addressed as Governor. Newt Gingrich is still addressed as "Mr. Speaker" even though it has been years since he held that position. We still call him "President Lincoln" not Ex-President Lincoln. Jerry, I wanna ask you a question about this. I've heard two sides of this. One the one hand, recruiters say, in not so many words, if you join, after so many years you can call yourself a major, colonel, whatever. On the other hand, I have heard some senior officers get really, really upset at this, because they say that people who just want to join to get that title are unworthy soldiers. Again, this is just anecdotal, but what's your perspective?
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Dec 13, 2012 8:38:06 GMT -5
There is no time limit on using your rank. Once confered, it is yours to use as you see fit. Not many folks would use LT if they only served for a couple of years, so it is mostly retired folks who use their rank. As to the second part of your question, if someone actually joins the service just to be able to use the rank in their correspondence, they probably will not be able to last until retirement, since they had the wrong motivation to be able to withstand the requirements of service. And you will probably find very few folks who will call themseves John Jones, Pfc or John Doe, Cpl.
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Dec 13, 2012 8:42:09 GMT -5
All great questions. Wonder if we will ever get the answers. To my mind, the least important questions were the ones the media paid the most attention to -- those dealing with what Susan Rice knew, said, etc. Much more important to discover who screwed up to the extent that we lost an Ambasador and three other patriots.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2012 9:14:30 GMT -5
Jerry,
Tell me why it is that retired officers use their rank (LTC Rosie, ret) yet I've never seen a retired NCO use theirs (except on official occasions)? I have an opinion about this but would rather know if there was something at least semi-official. I have no interest in using my rank but whenever I get correspondence from the Army it is always address to my rank and name.
Denny
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Dec 13, 2012 12:21:20 GMT -5
As far as I know, Denny, there is nothing official or semi-official about it. I think it is a matter if choice. Could be officers are more egotistical than NCOs. But, that said, I have seen some retired NCOs use their rank, but I can't point to an example right now. And I have seen many who just say USA(Ret), of USAF(Ret)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2012 16:51:09 GMT -5
Titles can become complicated, for example in Australia a man who reached the rank of Brigadier in the Australian Army later became a president of the legislative council of New South Wales state and as an MLC his title was The Honourable so he was The Honourable, Brigadier.
To add to the complication another achieved the Army rank of Major, he was a member of parliament and also The Honourable and later he was awarded a Knight of the British Empire and a Commander of the order of St Michael and St George, so he was The Honourable, Major, Sir I understand name followed by KBE CMG and university achievements following.
|
|