Shanahan out: Acting defense secretary withdraws his confirmation bid

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Go back and look at the previous office holders. You'll be able to count on one hand the number that didn't come from one of the big contractors or have deep ties to an organization tied to the MIC.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Go back and look at the previous office holders. You'll be able to count on one hand the number that didn't come from one of the big contractors or have deep ties to an organization tied to the MIC.

I wouldn't mind seeing that change.

I'm all for someone who has a backbone, but it's the secretary of defense, not offense. The military itself and advisors could balance someone intent on a defense first platform.

Old generals are hammers with everything looking like nails. MIC heavy hitters have nice stock options leaving their private sector jobs. If like to think that doesn't play into their decision making, but I'm skeptical.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

They're supposed to sign an agreement that anything related to the company that they worked for is handled by a deputy, but I'm skeptical as hell about that. It would be far too easy for them to select the company related to their boss and try to get points that way, and the SecDef can honestly say they had nothing to do with it.

It probably doesn't help that Shanahan had taken some heat from others contractors recently.

spacenews.com...

A report released on Thursday by the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General reveals that on December 6, 2018, then Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan met with SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson told IG investigators she believed Shanahan should not have met with Musk because Shanahan, a former Boeing executive, was bound by an ethics agreement to recuse himself from any official business related to his former employer.

It should be noted that there was no ethics violation found, but they were bound to pop up again and again, meaning constant IG investigation.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Go back and look at the previous office holders. You'll be able to count on one hand the number that didn't come from one of the big contractors or have deep ties to an organization tied to the MIC.

I wouldn't mind seeing that change.

I'm all for someone who has a backbone, but it's the secretary of defense, not offense. The military itself and advisors could balance someone intent on a defense-first platform.

Old generals are hammers with everything looking like nails. MIC heavy hitters have nice stock options leaving their private sector jobs. If like to think that doesn't play into their decision making, but I'm skeptical.

You know it does, the Republicans and Democrats both do it, and it smells especially with American lives at stake. If any cabinet official should be mostly free and clear of corporate ties its the SOD. yet they are normally neck deep. Its complicated cause you need somebody with the depth and connections, but to not beholden to them, or have a financial windfall from their choices. Don't like it in any department honestly but especially the Secretary of Defense. Got to find a way to get persons of integrity and intellect, our current process hinders that, LOL think its Trumps glaring weakness bet few people want to put up with or work with him.

a reply to: putnam6



We'll see who replaces him.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Seems like a lot of vested interest there.

Genuine question; was it any different under previous administrations?

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Genuine question; was it any different under previous administrations?

It's been a trend as far as I can tell.

One thing I will say though, is this admin has been good about putting restrictions on lobbyism after certain capacities in the government... But I'd say lobbyists coming into government could be more damaging.

The phrase "All the best people" has just become a joke now.
How many is it now?

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Zaphod58

We can only hope. And hopefully that ''young underling'' who created the ''USS McCain'' fiasco will be nowhere in the movement up the chain of command.

That "underling" was probably promoted.
People keep forgetting the two tier system in Government.
You have the Political Appointees and the people that they place in certain positions.
Then you have the career "Civil Service" employees.
The career CS employees are your public sector union members who are overwhelmingly Democrats. It was probably one of them who engineered the USS McCain fiasco and made sure that the Press knew about it.

As far as the "revolving door" bit goes, how much of the Liberal Socialist Democrat harassment do you have to put up with before enough is enough?

a reply to: schuyler

But they look at everyone the same way. They are supposed to delve into your family background and history to know what kind of person you are. These things tell a lot about a person. And the vetting process for all candidates for cabinet positions is the same.
Trump just keeps chosing wife beaters or fathers of wife beaters or cheaters or liars or thieves.
All the best people.
That is not the lefts fault and neither is this.

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Having a family full of violence is petty politics?

His son nearly murdered his mother by beating her with a baseball bat.

He defended him saying oh well she harassed him for several hours before he nearly killed her. ( meaning she deserved it)
Stop defending creeps and assholes just because trump chose them. WTH

a reply to: DanDanDat

Maybe he choses to keep his head in the sand when it comes to peoples shady backgrounds.
Then lie about them later.

a reply to: Freeborn

No. They were just more subtle about it.

a reply to: JIMC5499

The career CS employees are your public sector union members who are overwhelmingly Democrats. It was probably one of them who engineered the USS McCain fiasco and made sure that the Press knew about it.

Ineteresting factoid. That is if it is true. I know this to be a standard conservative puzzle piece that helps explain away some of the problems that Trump is having however where do these statistics come from.However without those stats I can see where this might be assumed.

One, these jobs are in a major urban area, Washington DC, and major metro areas are more liberal than not, hence filling those jobs would be from a major metro work force. However my thinking also can ''assume'' that those would be way down the totem pole of responsibilities. It is just as reasonable to assume that there are many many who are drawn to the DC work force from all over the country to work for senators and congressmen etc. These can reasonably be assumed to be a cross section of liberal and conservative and not the ''overwhelming ''majority' of liberal as you suggest.

Also, that they are union members does not necessarily mean that they are liberal. I've been in unions and have found there to be only a few who take that liberal message seriously. Many are in a union because they have to be in the union and do not like it but as it is a union job they have to put up with it. Indeed this is often, from my experience, something that pushes them away from liberalism.

But you also suggest that it was ''probably'' one of these low level types who engineered the USS McCAin bit. Now to me this is paranoia type logic. It fit's well with other assumptions but for me at least exposes the weaknesses of the rest of the thoughts along those lines. For one, Menuchan or however you spell his name was the one who said it was a minor employee who signaled for the McCain to be moved. Now this may be so. However this is also a simple way to find a low lying scapegoat for someone else higher up the chain who you do not want to point to as it could cause much more embarrassment then just some ''wild card'' underling. I fall to that side of the equation of how that happened.

Following up on that, Shannahan had said that the Defense department would be looking into it but then several days later said that they had found no reason to investigate further, offering no further discoveries as to who the culprit had been.

So from what I have been able to determine for my own understanding is that those actions can be easily seen as a small ''coverup'' by the administration rather than just a low level employee of the White house Military Office.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

MY GAWD, that sure looks like a rogues gallery of the Deep State to me Stinker.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

What I want to know is how the hell he got as high as he did if they're just finding this now. He should have had multiple, extensive background checks prior to now.

As to him leaving the office, good riddance.

Why the animosity when you know nothing about the man?

Turns out, it was his wife abusing him - from the link:

Shanahan confirmed a series of violent incidents involving his family, including one in which he was physically assaulted by his then-wife, and another in which she was attacked by their son. “Bad things can happen to good families…and this is a tragedy, really,” Shanahan said. Addressing the episode publicly, he said, “will ruin my son’s life.” Shanahan was also concerned that his history would be “a distraction” for the Department of Defense and for Trump himself,

I know, a concept the left has a real problem with, but there it is.

So... we'll all await your apology for vilifying a man who didn't deserve it because 'orange man bad'...

a reply to: tanstaafl

My animosity towards Shanahan doesn't have a damn thing to do with Trump, so you can stick your "orange man bad" comment wherever you choose.

And I'm not apologizing for anything. If you paid attention to more than going after people you assume just hate Trump, you'd learn that Shanahan earned that animosity all by himself from a lot more than just me.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: tanstaafl

My animosity towards Shanahan doesn't have a damn thing to do with Trump, so you can stick your "orange man bad" comment wherever you choose.

And I'm not apologizing for anything. If you paid attention to more than going after people you assume just hate Trump, you'd learn that Shanahan earned that animosity all by himself from a lot more than just me.

Ok, looks like I confused you with someone else that is always posting anti-Trump nonsense...

I also just took a few minutes to do some spot checking on Shanahan - who I admittedly knew little about - and see that while he may not be a wife beater, he may also ... I'll just say he may not be the best man for the job and leave it at that.

So, looks like I'm the one apologizing to you for jumping the gun in my response.

Sorry...

a reply to: tanstaafl

Thank you, and I mean that sincerely. It's nice to see there are still people that will own their mistakes. No harm, no foul. It happens.