I didn't know they were that competitive? Harder to get into than, say, Holy Cross or Tufts?

I would have thought that since 09/11, applications would be down.

That is not your best posting there, Nebe. So, so wrong. I'm not saying West Point is the same as Berkley or Wesleyan (because if it were the same, we couldn't win a war against Holland). But they sure aren't churning out robots. Have you ever spoken with anyone who ever graduated from one of the academies? Ever?

When I worked at Travelers, the Humen Resources Department concluded that service academy graduates were the very best candidates for the most intellectually grueling positions.

I have been honored and had the pleasure to have spent a lot of time with
my Niece and Nephews and their many Annapolis friends in private and social events.
These people are very special and share a bond between them that I would
like to have with so many people. All of them served in Afghanistan and Iraq
on the ground and air and many of them extended their service and volunteered extra time in the fighting zones.
These people are respectful, very knowable about what's going on in the world,
and a blast to party with. Closed minds, never. They have great values, true intelligence and a sense of service to others.
Most people couldn't hold a candle to them.

I have served with grads from USMA as well as Annapolis and have the pleasure of having a wife who is a USMA grad and a son who is currently at USMA. I am blessed to be exposed to a significant amount of grads and cadets and they are all very independent thinkers. I would put our Service Academy Grads up against ANYONE IN THE WORLD when it comes to looking at a situation independently and choosing the best course of action. As for individualism, these young people make a decision very early in life to set themselves apart from the crowd so they know better than anyone about individualism but understand that success is the result of TEAMWORK.

Are there any other institutions of higher learning out there who's primary mission is to train leaders of character?

Great post FP. In thinking about it, having known more than a few "Libertine Thinkers", I have found many of them to be full of themselves, self centered. boring and a lot more closed minded than they think they are.

And the opposition modern ship (and aircraft) can project more power (though only ships can persist) but the government is trimming the amount of ships yet conducting more global missions. This is causing periods at sea to go over 8-9-10 months. Is that fair? For .001 percent of the nation to spend 9 months at sea because there are too many missions or not enough ships? Plus the type of ships we have been getting suck, are overpriced, undermanned, and undercapable.




Virginia class subs are a 2/year now (though we are seeing more than 2/yr LAs retire)

:cheers:

I think the Marine Corporal that served a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan is more capable than the Wesleyan grad of independent and critical thinking.

I have seen a few kids out of college recently and a few young adults post military (enlisted or commisioned) and I think, they are far better adjusted and realistic than the My Little Pony crew.

Just saw the movie . Not the least bit political . Very well done . As has been said before ... You could hear a pin drop at the end .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You just reinforced point, given the real-world complexities, comparing simple numbers of ships is irrelevant.

Would that be the pin from the Hillary voodoo doll you were clinging to the entire movie?

I think you would find it an honest movie , you might like it . No talking animals, magic or rainbows so it might be a refreshing change .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd pay to watch Spence watch the movie...:hihi:

Just offer to take him to Marahalls for a 15 minute Italian leather men's dress shoes shopping spree. :rotfl:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Marshall's rarely has decent shoes any more. I think my top Marshall's shoe score was a pair of $900 made in Switzerland Bally Scribe monkstraps in british tan for 90 bucks years ago in the mall by the old Silverdome in Detroit.

Very good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I heard that in the movie there was a stand down order. Is that correct?

There is a scene of men mobilizing and waiting for the go order . Not sure if that happened for real or not . Still waiting for the results of the investigation :)
It's a pretty good movie. You really should go see it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm taking Spence this weekend...

The movie showed the stand-down order. The book mentioned the stand-down order. Everyone that participated in the conversation, minus one, claims that there was a stand-down order. The one person who denies it, is the man accused of giving it, who therefore has a fairly significant reason to deny it.

Only those 6 guys know whether or not the stand-down order was given. I'm curious to know why the committees ignored the group and believed the one guy.

And yet another thing that Polifact finds the right is less than truthful on:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...recent-round-/


Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, suggested in May 2013 that the United States could have prevented the deaths with military action. Here’s what he told Sean Hannity on Fox News:

"The administration including (Defense) Secretary (Leon) Panetta were very crystal clear, there were no military assets, but I got to tell you, we had proximity, we had capability, we had four individuals in Libya armed, ready to go, dressed about to get into the car to go in the airport to go help their fellow countrymen who were dying and being killed and under attack in Benghazi and they were told to stand down."

By all accounts, though, this description doesn’t match the timeline of what happened in Benghazi. The four people in Benghazi were already dead when the decision was made to keep the special forces team in Tripoli. (We outline this in more detail in our fact-check.) The mortar attack was over. We rated this


From the Washington post:
Issa’s ‘suspicions’ that Hillary Clinton told Panetta to ‘stand down’ on Benghazi

Feb. 21, 2014: During a fundraising dinner for Republicans in New Hampshire, Issa said he had “suspicions” that Clinton told Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to “stand down.” He also asked why “there was not one order given to turn on one Department of Defense asset.” But both a report by Republicans on the Armed Services Committee and a bipartisan Senate Intelligence report had found that no allegations of a “stand down” order could be substantiated. Moreover, DOD assets were certainly moved per Panetta’s orders. One could argue that the response was slow, bungled or poorly handled. But we determined that Issa crossed a line when he claimed there was no response — or a deliberate effort to hinder it. Issa earned Four Pinocchios.

And from Factcheck.org

House Speaker John Boehner says there are “unanswered questions” about the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi. He specifically asks “why didn’t we attempt to rescue” Americans under siege and why were some U.S. personnel “told not to get involved” in rescue attempts?

But those questions have been answered at length in several investigative reports, including two by Republican-controlled House committees. Congressional committees and an independent board detail the rescue attempts that night, carried out despite U.S. military assets not being in position to defend the Benghazi facility. Those reports say there were no undue delays in responding to the attacks, and they pointedly rejected unfounded allegations that the U.S. response was deliberately thwarted by a “stand down” order.

“Quite the contrary: the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack and subsequently to Ramstein Air Force Base was the result of exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response,” the independent Accountability Review Board concluded in its Dec. 18, 2012, report.

I'm sure we'll continue to hear how people where told to stand down until after the election.

I was planning on it but it left the theater pretty quick. There were like 4 movies we wanted to see recently. Will def. watch it when it comes to cable.

I'm just curious, how did the committees (some of which were controlled by the GOP, so it' snot pure partisan crap) determine that the special forces guys in Benghazi, were lying when they said they were ordered to stand down?

Does anyone know how congress determined these guys are lying? Because these guys are still claiming they were ordered to stand down, so if the contradictory evidence was as clear as an audiotape, common sense suggests they'd change their tune.

If this is true , what I would like to see answered is why there were no assets available . I have never heard a truthful,intellectual response to that question . "Mistakes were made" isn't a good enough answer . Well it isn't good enough for me anyways
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

true. Libya was a well-known hot spot (other countries had evacuated from benghazi because of threats, so it wasn't a secret). So if we had notign that could have gotten there within 12 hours, that's almost as bad as if we had assets that just sat there.

Not every country left. We are supposed to lead, not follow.

I couldn't agree more and those that did not do their job should be held accountable. Just like in real life
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So leadership, even if it involves leading your people into an ambush, is good? The people who followed England out of Benghazi, are still alive.

Come on, Paul. Multiple countries and the Red Cross got their people the hell out of Benghazi. Not only did we leave Stevens there, but we denied his repeated requests for extra security. Hindsight is always 20-20, I don't expect anyone to be able to predict the furure every time. But are you going to tell me that this wasn't badly bungled? Really?


- Multiple countries leave Benghazi, because they realize they can't keep their people safe.

- We leave our people there.

- Stevens asks for more security, his bosses decline.

- during a 13 hour attack, no outside assets were brought to help in the fight, except for 4 guys who drove themselves to the Tripoli airport and arranged for a plane to fly to Benghazi, then arranged for a car to take them to the CIA station.

- after the attack, every statement Hilary made in private, claimed it was a terrorist attack. Every statement she made in public, blamed a spontaneous reation to an offensive video (and therefore, not something she could have foreseen or prevented).

That's effective leadership?

Come on. If you think there's no cause for concern there, that's as bad as my saying that Bush responed well to Hurricane Katrina.

As I said, were supposed to lead, not follow.

So your idea of leadership was leaving your embassy , on 9/11 , in a virtual war zone , with no security and no plan A,,B or C ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They thought they had adequate security. Maybe the Repubs. should have voted for more money for security? There has been more time spent on this than trying to find out how we ended up in Iraq. Many of Our embassies are in dangerous places with dangerous people. Should we leave 1/2 of the Mid East and Africa?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul, but this is an opportunity to attack Clinton...wink wink.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And really " what does it matter anyway "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

God that's pathetic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Buck, the posts by PaulS and Spence should confirm for you the circle jerk of denial that they keep spinning. And the last one by Spence perfectly describes their own effort: "God that's pathetic." At least he occasionally uses the word "God." "Heaven" only knows why.

I mean, really? Paul says "They thought they had adequate security." Is that supposed to be an excuse for being wrong? the so-called "security" plan was a departure from the norm. And it was seriously stupid. (Not to mention Stevens' repeated requests for more protection).

Then he asks "Maybe the Repubs. should have voted for more money for security?" As if they could get past Obama's veto. Maybe the Dems should have provided more security with the proper funding? They have no compunction about spending money we don't have whenever they want to do something. Funding adequate security would have been a financial drip in a bathtub compared to all the "investments" in their sacred Great Society programs which have bankrupted the nation. Let us just overlook the fact that they intentionally provided a lack of normal security in order to show the Libyans that we weren't somehow trying to invade their turf, or bullying our way into it. Lack of funding was not the problem. Lack of proper security provided by an intentional and foolish plan was the problem.

Then he says "There has been more time spent on this than trying to find out how we ended up in Iraq." I didn't know that time was spent on trying to find out how we ended up there. Didn't think that was even a mystery. And so what? Must there be some equivalence in time spent? What does his sentence have to do with anything other than trying to make something important look ridiculous.

Then he says "Many of Our embassies are in dangerous places with dangerous people." Which makes one ask why we had such inadequate security. :hs:

Finally he asks "Should we leave 1/2 of the Mid East and Africa?"
Many think we should. But, if we don't, shouldn't we have better protection than was provided at Benghazi?

But the circle jerk of denial insists that we should not be wasting time on such things because lots of "investigations" supposedly didn't find that Clinton did anything wrong . . . wink wink.

Its all "old news" except when they come across some article in the NY Times or Salon that makes their circle jerk look good. Then it's worth talking about. (Unless we keep bringing up time-wasting discussions about the incompetent management of Benghazi.)

What is pathetic is using someone's death to try to make political points.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oops, almost started reading that boring post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There it is, Buck. They just keep deflecting by piling on the nonsense.

What's pathetic is 4 good people died because politics and self ambition took precedence over proper procedure and commonsense .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bad things happen when bad people are involved. Just bc someone died in a bad part of the world doesn't mean someone did something wrong. But the right will continue to try to blame it on someone so they can get their pound of flesh. The only reason politics even entered into it is so the Right can try to use the death of the 4 to blame Clinton - Pathetic.

And for you to say in an earlier post that there was no politics involved in the movie shows you either missed the point or were unaware. A major part of the issue was whether they where told to stand down.

First of all Paul, someone did do something wrong and many mistakes were made and nobody has been held accountable . That is undeniable

Secondly you would be a fool to think politics were not involved in this, from the excuse of the video to the reason there was no security .

And finally, go see the damn movie.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Its comical those who continue to insist on their Historical revisionism

I think if you look at the volume of who and what is gets posted here they clearly are By definition the circle jerk


VIA Urban Dictionary
When a bunch of blowhards - usually politicians - get together for a debate but usually end up agreeing with each other's viewpoints to the point of redundancy, stroking each other's egos Basically, it's what happens when the choir preaches to itself.