If you like Bush & what he's done to this world, you are evil.
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 19:38
VIEWED: 30693
PAGE 17 of 32
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Do you bother to read what I write? I didn't say below Sergeant, I said not much past (higher than) it. A Warrant Officer in the US army, which is what I assume you are referring to, is between NCOs and Commissioned officers in Rank, i.e. not very high up the chain of command. As for officers I'd be surprised to see anyone above an O3 routinely in the field, but more likely an O1 or O2.
Originally posted by rallem:
Special Forces personal on the Ground in an A Team are very rarely below the rank of Sergeant and there usually is an officer there or very nearby, and there are warrent officers too.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.]
You are mistaken with the Warrent Officers in the Army. Now a Warrent Officer is considered a commisioned officer and while the pay is different it is considered a wo1 is equal to a 2lt, a cw2 to a 1lt, cw3, a cpt, cw4 a maj, and a cw5 to a ltc. When I was in the Army they only went up to cw4, but I think they are considering raising it to cw6.
http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.htmlNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually it's not that simple, because Warrant Officers are technical, not command. That's why they're on a different pay grade. A CW2 on is considered a commissioned rank, but I've not seen anything that suggests they're equivalent to the generalist command Commissioned Officer ranks.
Originally posted by rallem:
You are mistaken with the Warrent Officers in the Army. Now a Warrent Officer is considered a commisioned officer and while the pay is different it is considered a wo1 is equal to a 2lt, a cw2 to a 1lt, cw3, a cpt, cw4 a maj, and a cw5 to a ltc. When I was in the Army they only went up to cw4, but I think they are considering raising it to cw6.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Actually it's not that simple, because Warrant Officers are technical, not command. That's why they're on a different pay grade. A CW2 on is considered a commissioned rank, but I've not seen anything that suggests they're equivalent to the generalist command Commissioned Officer ranks.
Originally posted by rallem:
You are mistaken with the Warrent Officers in the Army. Now a Warrent Officer is considered a commisioned officer and while the pay is different it is considered a wo1 is equal to a 2lt, a cw2 to a 1lt, cw3, a cpt, cw4 a maj, and a cw5 to a ltc. When I was in the Army they only went up to cw4, but I think they are considering raising it to cw6.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
You are right it is more complicated than that and from the explanation I received verbally that was basically it. I don’t know if the example I provided is in any way official or not, and I don’t know if it was made to help soldiers understand the rank of the warrant officer. When I was in the Army an enlisted man did not have to salute a warrant officer but at the same time it was not a sin to salute a warrant officer and my limited exposure was to warrant officers who were helicopter pilots.
http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.htmlNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The "ability" is always there, Rapo. What you want is the legality.
I want the ABILITY to use tough tactics, even if we don't ever use them or not.
Mal4Prez- Agreed on the cult thing. What I see... take it FWIW... is that those who stick closest to Bush are run by fear. (I also noticed that they tend to pick the most self-aggrandizing names, like 'gold raptor' and 'hero' and 'Finn McCumhal'... but I digress.) I feel sorry for Rapo. He's driven by fear, which can apparently only be assuaged by burying himself into the middle of the biggest, toughest herd he can find. And now, he's thinking that his herd may be dissolving from around him. No wonder he's so paranoid. He sees every question as a defection from the group that's between him and the other.
But to get to the question of Bush's position in the cult. Curiously, he's not the real leader.
If I had to pick anyone it would be Cheney. It was Cheney who anointed himself VP (Recall that he was the head of the VP search committee. When he picked himself as the most credible candidate.. bum ticker and all.. I can't help thinking of the cartoon "Aladdin" where the Grand Vizier in fake surprise says... 'Why, that would be... me!!!'), he was the one who headed the secretive Energy Task Force that looked longingly on a map of Iraq, appointed Rumsfeld who in turn appointed Wolfowitz, Cheney who held Bush's hand during the 9-11 Commission hearings, set up the Office of Special Plans (OSP) to bypass intelligence vetting of Iraq data, and who haunted the analysts' offices while the intel was being collated.
But what about Bush?
I actually got a lot out of Scott McClellan's book. It seems the straw the broke that camels' back for Scott was the outing of Valerie Plame, and the fact that "they" subsequently lied to him... used him...to say that nobody in the WH was aware or authorized the leak when they clearly had. At some point, when he realized he'd been duped his effectiveness as Press Scy tanked.
But his take on Bush as a self-deceiver is key. Bush has a conveniently flexible inner narrative. Bush believes what Cheney tells him, and because Bush HAS to believe that he's "the decider" he also believes that he thought it up all on his own. And if the story changes, so does his inner narrative. Bush has no ethical anchor or mental compass, no sense of where he's been and what direction he's heading.
Bush may have consciously lied from time to time, but mostly he believes the latest version of what he's been told. For him it's a seamless slide from al Qaida to WMD to "mission accomplished" to "freedom" to "the surge is working". Right now Cheney et al have no reason to plant yet another narrative in Bush's mind: Altho the Iraq war didn't wind up with showers of rose petals, the oil companies are making money hand over fist and so is Halliburton. So why rock the boat? Status quo is fine for them.
---------------------------------
My mind's made up. Don't confuse me with the facts.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I sometimes wonder what's been done to Bush. He started out with some brains and abilities, even if a sociopath. Now he's some weird, putty-colored non-human puppet thing.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think he's been chemically altered. Some of it his own doing no doubt. I saw clips of him "back in the day" when he was helping his daddy's campaign. He actually had a spark of spontaneity, wit and charm. Now he's like a shell... he doesn't know what to do or what to say unless someone is telling him, like that debate picture of "the box" under his jacket, and those infamous voices to whom he spontaneously whined "Let me finish!! in the middle of his own statement when no one was interrupting.
Some people claim that his jaw shake is typical of present cocaine use. Others say he's a dry drunk. I think he's manipulated heavily. Maybe they "let" him have coke if he's a good boy. Feed him pills to sleep, and more pills to wake up. Even being the figurehead of so much damage, I kinda feel sorry for him. He's in way over his head and after his term is over they'll just kick him to the curb. But right now he's pretty much invisible... just running out the clock while oil and private security companies rake it in.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Paul O'Neill (The Price of Loyalty) described how, early-on in the administration, he would meet with Bush to discuss the economy, and Bush would stare ahead, not responding in any way. To the point of not even having a non-verbal reaction to his presence. O'Neill was an experienced CEO, playing chicken in the boardrooms of multi-nationals. I'm sure he saw every variation of high-stakes deception and game-playing imaginable. And if he says Bush was weird - far outside of behavior he'd experienced - then Bush was weird.
When it comes to Bush, I don't care how much you remind someone to 'behave' and not make any comments, ask any questions, provide any feedback, cause any problems. A person with even semi-normal neurology is going to show some trace of human reaction, if only to flick a glance at the person who is talking and moving. Bush's behavior was clearly pathological.
I can't help but think there is something creepier than delusion and a smoldering drug habit going on. And how much did baby Bush agree to and how much was done to.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What could be worse? A secret surgical frontal lobotomy? A chemical lobotomy?
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have no clue.
But think about Bush's 'deer-in-the-headlights' minutes afer 9/11. It has some congruence with what O'Neill described.
What could possibly cause both reactions ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME