Pete Hedgseth for Secretary of Defense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He wants to privatize the VA. He’s a Koch Brothers creation.

The VA is not part of DOD so that will not be his decision

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s a MAJOR???? Are you kidding me? Is that correct? ZERO credibility for this position.

Can you help us out? Here major a lower rank?

Is Major a lower rank?

Last guy was a 4 star general. A major is qualified to get his coffee, schedule his travel, take him to the airport, and keep his calendar.

Are you military? Are you Infantry? Do you have an EIB and CIB? Did you deploy?

4 star generals have what’s called an “exec”, and they are majors and Lt Cols. But you know that, right?

If you knew anything about command, you’d know that credibility matters and a major in the guard has NONE with the JCS.

Nobody gives a damn about 4 star generals.

Except their wives, the other 4 stars who hate them, and the syncophants (of which there are many) who kiss their asses so thoroughly that they never need to buy toilet paper.

even if that is true there are a lot of people between 4 star generals and majors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention, the agency most responsible for our national security.

Generals are morons and don’t know what’s going on. Trump figured that out in term 1.

He’s right to choose a lower rank, and it’s a big FU to the Pentacon

I mean if you say so. Your post just screams knowledge, insight, and credibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get he wants to own the libs but can we not play around with national security? There isn’t a single republican general around to take this job?

Generals are perfumed princes. They are basically politicians. That’s it .

It's the Secretary of defense. If it's always a general or other top rank in that position, maybe it's important to have a skilled politician that also achieved a top rank in that role.

Well, I am a vet who would rather be led by the guy with a CIB. Period.

Literally, you are likely more qualified than this guy.

What’s your military experience?

A good SecDef doesn't need to have had military experience. Sorta the whole point of it being a civilian position

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get he wants to own the libs but can we not play around with national security? There isn’t a single republican general around to take this job?

No smart, professional general will take a loyalty pledge to a president. This isn’t a Banana Republic. Yet.

SecDefs should be former generals actually anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get he wants to own the libs but can we not play around with national security? There isn’t a single republican general around to take this job?

Generals are perfumed princes. They are basically politicians. That’s it .

It's the Secretary of defense. If it's always a general or other top rank in that position, maybe it's important to have a skilled politician that also achieved a top rank in that role.

It's not supposed to be

[Anonymous]

I could look at him all day. Hunky military man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you Dems complain about everything Trumps does?

Do you understand that so far, no one being appointed to these positions have anything close to the requisite experience needed administer the job?

I think Rubio does. But he is the only one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get he wants to own the libs but can we not play around with national security? There isn’t a single republican general around to take this job?

Generals are perfumed princes. They are basically politicians. That’s it .

It's the Secretary of defense. If it's always a general or other top rank in that position, maybe it's important to have a skilled politician that also achieved a top rank in that role.

Well, I am a vet who would rather be led by the guy with a CIB. Period.

Literally, you are likely more qualified than this guy.

What’s your military experience?

A good SecDef doesn't need to have had military experience. Sorta the whole point of it being a civilian position

Ah, a progressive woman with no military experience declares the Secretary of Defense doesn’t need military experience.

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡 out of 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡 for you, congratulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you Dems complain about everything Trumps does?

Do you understand that so far, no one being appointed to these positions have anything close to the requisite experience needed administer the job?

I think Rubio does. But he is the only one.

Which coincidentally seems to be the only one that hasn't been solidly verified yet (that I've seen).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wtf

Princeton ROTC.

Hmmm he doesn’t seem to think much of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get he wants to own the libs but can we not play around with national security? There isn’t a single republican general around to take this job?

Generals are perfumed princes. They are basically politicians. That’s it .

It's the Secretary of defense. If it's always a general or other top rank in that position, maybe it's important to have a skilled politician that also achieved a top rank in that role.

Well, I am a vet who would rather be led by the guy with a CIB. Period.

Literally, you are likely more qualified than this guy.

What’s your military experience?

A good SecDef doesn't need to have had military experience. Sorta the whole point of it being a civilian position

Ah, a progressive woman with no military experience declares the Secretary of Defense doesn’t need military experience.

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡 out of 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡 for you, congratulations.

Yes...he or she doesn't...look up the history of the establishment of the office...can someone else back me up here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get he wants to own the libs but can we not play around with national security? There isn’t a single republican general around to take this job?

No smart, professional general will take a loyalty pledge to a president. This isn’t a Banana Republic. Yet.

SecDefs should be former generals actually anyway.

Typo, they should *not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get he wants to own the libs but can we not play around with national security? There isn’t a single republican general around to take this job?

Generals are perfumed princes. They are basically politicians. That’s it .

It's the Secretary of defense. If it's always a general or other top rank in that position, maybe it's important to have a skilled politician that also achieved a top rank in that role.

Well, I am a vet who would rather be led by the guy with a CIB. Period.

Literally, you are likely more qualified than this guy.

What’s your military experience?

A good SecDef doesn't need to have had military experience. Sorta the whole point of it being a civilian position

Ah, a progressive woman with no military experience declares the Secretary of Defense doesn’t need military experience.

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡 out of 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡 for you, congratulations.

Yes...he or she doesn't...look up the history of the establishment of the office...can someone else back me up here?

Wtf would you want someone with no experience in charge of the military?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get he wants to own the libs but can we not play around with national security? There isn’t a single republican general around to take this job?

No smart, professional general will take a loyalty pledge to a president. This isn’t a Banana Republic. Yet.

SecDefs should be former generals actually anyway.

Typo, they should *not

Why?