Israel and Iran

[Marauder06]

I think you you can be anti war without being anti Trump or anti Israel.

Sure you can. But Joe Kent isn't, and that's what we're talking about.

 

[Topkick]

Sure you can. But Joe Kent isn't, and that's what we're talking about.

Okay, maybe I'm not informed enough about how Kent is anti Trump and anti Israel. I'll do some more research. I didn't see that in his resignation letter.

 

[amlove21]

Source? You know that for a fact, or are you repeating what an AIPAC funded politician said?

That is a hell of an accusation. What is it based on?

The closest you'll get to an objective "Joe Kent is involved in leaking" is his inclusion in the larger SignalGate issue. He engaged in there on behalf of Gabbard, and then defended it iduring his Senate confirmation hearing.

So, if you had strong words about the SignalGate and painted everyone in there with a broad brush as leaking war plans (not saying either of you did), then there's your square to circle on that one. He's either pure as the driven snow, or he leaked classified information once before. Choose your own adventure.

For the record, I was living in Washington state, loved Joe Kent and what he was trying to do there (he lost 2 times), and even if it turns out all the allegations (deep rumors about a canary trap he got caught in and his resignation was an "I quit you can't fire me" sort of deal) turn out to be true- I am glad that a politician was just willing to be honest and say "I dont agree with this admin on this issue, I am out."

Watching everyone on the right just jump in lock step for the character assasination/cancel culture surrounding this one gives me the ick.

 

[ThunderHorse]

"in his recent position" is the entire point (I think) - that I am trying to make with my empty, politically biased, right wing sycophant, sarcasm

He "was" in a position of public trust. Yet, he seemingly waited until he could squeeze "media impact" out of his resignation.

I spent a few days in the service of this nation - MANY of the people on this board spent a few days (maybe more) in the service of this nation.
...and it is just mt two cents that this - "cannot in good conscience support the ongoing thing" - is a bunch of horseshit

I remember having to wear an "Army Values" dog tag around my neck that oddly coincided with Bill Clinton sodomizing a government clerk - but I didn't just get to say "I cannot in good conscience support this ongoing conflict " in Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, or Kuwait becuase I didn't agree with him.
When Obama used a drone strike for the extra judicial killing of an American citizen - were "we the people" all OK with that?
Was everyone that served in Iraq and Afghanistan well after we realized that we had overstayed and outran our headlights - STILL OK- with serving?
...even AFTER it became mainstream that MAAAAYBE we used poor intel as an excuse to initiate hostilities?

How many of us left service because we couldn't "in good conscience" support the POTUS ??
How many of us chose to enter the private sector - free of the military industrial complex - when we realized that the defense industry was just in it for profit ??

"The ongoing war in Iran" didn't happen overnight - he didn't just get "trolled" a few days ago - we dropped bombs on their asses LAST YEAR - and yet, his conscience remained intact. Still he didn't have a battle with his principles until just recently and even then, it was a solid three weeks after we started destroying a force that HE HIMSELF has described as a threat. Now - suddenly - overnight - because he was trolled by the evil Orangeman - and because he "knows" that this isn't about national security - its about 'Israel bad' - because he said so. If he wants me to listen, he needs to come clean with the evidence that Israel is driving this train. Otherwise its just sensationalized talk that seems to be the typical setup for a run at elected office.

He can't change the past - either he has been telling everyone a lie about the threat - or he is telling a lie now. In short...

Fuck Joe Kent - he quit - he is no longer part of the effort, good or bad - he's got what he wanted - time to move on Joe - next slide....

I remember a lot of people had strong "feelings" about Obama on this board and more than a few about Trump during his first administration and I remember getting a lot of hate for telling them that being in service to your country is voluntary. The Service be that military service or civil, is not a train station and they are not trains. There need not be an announcement of their arrival or their departure. Only that they work while they're here.

Dude just engagement farmed and bunch of people are falling for it.

The closest you'll get to an objective "Joe Kent is involved in leaking" is his inclusion in the larger SignalGate issue. He engaged in there on behalf of Gabbard, and then defended it iduring his Senate confirmation hearing.

So, if you had strong words about the SignalGate and painted everyone in there with a broad brush as leaking war plans (not saying either of you did), then there's your square to circle on that one. He's either pure as the driven snow, or he leaked classified information once before. Choose your own adventure.

For the record, I was living in Washington state, loved Joe Kent and what he was trying to do there (he lost 2 times), and even if it turns out all the allegations (deep rumors about a canary trap he got caught in and his resignation was an "I quit you can't fire me" sort of deal) turn out to be true- I am glad that a politician was just willing to be honest and say "I dont agree with this admin on this issue, I am out."

Watching everyone on the right just jump in lock step for the character assasination/cancel culture surrounding this one gives me the ick.

Fellow Aaron Bro, remember just because someone says they quit doesn't mean they weren't fired. Happens all the time.

ETA: When personnel quit or are fired they are not eligible for unemployment. They are only eligible for unemployment if they were laid off. Where this is different for service members is that once your contract is up is you're eligibly for unemployment...I stupidly did not file for unemployment after leaving active service. Would have made life slightly easier at the time.

 

[Marauder06]

The closest you'll get to an objective "Joe Kent is involved in leaking" is his inclusion in the larger SignalGate issue. He engaged in there on behalf of Gabbard, and then defended it during his Senate confirmation hearing.


For the record, I was living in Washington state, loved Joe Kent and what he was trying to do there (he lost 2 times), and even if it turns out all the allegations (deep rumors about a canary trap he got caught in and his resignation was an "I quit you can't fire me" sort of deal) turn out to be true- I am glad that a politician was just willing to be honest and say "I dont agree with this admin on this issue, I am out."

Bold part--concur, if true; especially the "willing to be honest" part. If it's "honest" and not "disingenuous." I don't have enough information at this time to make an informed determination.

 

[The Quartermaster]

I remember a lot of people had strong "feelings" about Obama on this board

One in particular who had mod powers at the time, was visibly upset with me at my remark about Obama being one of the worst presidents ever at the time. Made me leave this site on my own for a long break despite the very fact that I was a site FNG at the time.

Which is why I hold contempt for him with his anti Trump rants as he played the double standard card with me. Either we are allowed free speech to dissent when we feel the need to or we are lock, step, and heel with every president good or bad. So which is it?

 

[Topkick]

One in particular who had mod powers at the time, was visibly upset with me at my remark about Obama being one of the worst presidents ever at the time. made me leave this site on my own for a long break despite the very fact that I was a site FNG at the time.

Which is why I hold contempt for him with his anti Trump rants as he played the double standard card with me. Either we are allowed free speech to dissent when we feel the need to or we are lock, step, and heel with every president good or bad. So which is it?

I never understood the love for Obama. Anytime I asked someone why they were voting for him, I usually got the deer in the headlights look because he ran on no policy other than "Hope and change." I have never cared about anything other than policy. Skin color, nah. Gender, nah. But can we at least require a candidate to have a stance on some issues?

I said all that to say...when Obama won is when I realized that I can't take politics personal and I'm not going to change anyone's mind.

 

[Devildoc]

Part of the problem, a BIG part of the problem, is everyone has become binary: you are for me, or you are against me; you either support President XXXXXX 100%, or you are a douchebag. I have seen this significantly rise since Bush v Gore and the great Florida debacle and SCOTUS intervention.

Kent said publicly that Iran was a threat; now he resigns because he doesn't agree with the administration's position on Iran. I still think something happened or something changed, but if it is no more than what esteemed colleague @amlove21 said (I am glad that a politician was just willing to be honest and say "I dont agree with this admin on this issue, I am out."), I'm fine with that.

 

[amlove21]

Bold part--concur, if true; especially the "willing to be honest" part. If it's "honest" and not "disingenuous." I don't have enough information at this time to make an informed determination.

Yeah no one does, and I don't think we ever will. Even if the admin comes out wtih some damning proof of a canary trap and has him dead to rights, we still don't know what was in his heart or his intent.

Two things can be true at the same time. He could have leaked info because he felt such a deep ideological divide with the admin once he saw behind the curtain. Who knows.

 

[Marauder06]

Okay, maybe I'm not informed enough about how Kent is anti Trump and anti Israel. I'll do some more research. I didn't see that in his resignation letter.

I think reasonable people can disagree about it, and it's quite possible my assessment is off.

But to me, the fact that he had this public meltdown on the way out the door is indicative of his opposition to President Trump. He could have just quit quietly and walked away.

As to the anti-Israel part, this was from his letter: " ...we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby." He also said that his wife died "in a war manufactured by Israel." There are probably other indicators out there as well, but those are the most obvious.

 

[Blizzard]

He also said that his wife died "in a war manufactured by Israel." There are probably other indicators out there as well, but those are the most obvious.

That part stood out to me as well. Just...odd.

 

[Topkick]

we started this war due to pressure from Israel

Are you sure this isn't true?

 

[Box]

Part of the problem, a BIG part of the problem, is everyone has become binary: you are for me, or you are against me...

Kent said publicly that Iran was a threat; now he resigns because he doesn't agree with the administration's position on Iran. I still think something happened or something changed, but if it is no more than what esteemed colleague @amlove21 said (I am glad that a politician was just willing to be honest and say "I dont agree with this admin on this issue, I am out."), I'm fine with that.

Please don't misunderstand my intentionally contrarian writing style. I agree 100% with the bolded comment above.


The ability to transcend binary thinking for more than just one opinion to be considered The Truth™ is what fuels my jackassery.
It's the very thing that allows me to accept that someone can be a consummate professional with an impeccable pedigree and praiseworthy service record, while simultaneously saying and doing things that might cause a lesser man to be treated like the French word for a shower...
By deciding to make a sensational public display of his resignation letter on social media - along with wild accusations that Israel is in charge of US foreign policy - changes his status from honorable former service member to rank and file DC insider that has positioned himself as a branded trademark instead of a former servicemember “faithfully serving”
As far as I’m concerned he is from here forward just Joe Kent™

Americans from all walks of life are entitled to their opinions. The difference in this case (my misguided opinion of course) is that when one accepts appointment to a position of public trust, there comes a point when part of your job is to just shut the fuck up and row. For example, I served faithfully under Bill Clinton and yet, I didn’t feel like I needed to “resign” because he abused his power when he sodomized a government clerk with a cigar. I felt that it was morally and ethically outside of what I could tolerate – for sure – but I didn’t quit my fucking job over it.

I didn’t like the “weapons of mass destruction” push that we used to get into Iraq – but that didn’t stop me from staying in the Army and using violence to force US policy on those poor innocent Iraqis that were so unfairly oppressed by nefariously influenced Israeli foreign policy pressure on George Bush.

I didn’t leave service when Obama used an extrajudicial drone strike to target and kill an American citizen.

I didn’t quit my civil service job when the Biden administration labeled me as a hopeless racist and Nazi apologist simply because I didn’t agree with his politics as they related to DEI issues. I also didn’t quit my job when I was given an ultimatum to get an experimental flu shot lest I be fired from my mother fucking government job.

…apparently Joe Kent™ has a much higher standard of values and principles than I do - especially when it comes to quitting his job when he doesn’t agree with his boss. He is clearly a better man than I.

I've served faithfully - and more importantly - under oath - for every President since Ronald Regan and there is no hope giving a count of every time a seated President has done something well outside the bounds of what I’d consider to be blatant douchebaggery.
BUT
I swore an oath – and so I served – quietly and faithfully.
Joe Kent™ also swore an oath.
...or maybe that just doesn't mean anything anymore.

I applaud his determination to resign in protest because this is still America - if that was truly what is in his heart. I do not think he is a villain simply because he resigned in protest - if that was truly what is in his heart. However, just as I don’t think he is a villain simply because he resigned in protest, I also think it is far beyond silly, that so many folks are suddenly comfortable praising him as some sort of modern-day hero as if quitting his job because he disagrees with his boss somehow makes him worthy of adoration.

He didn’t like the way his boss did things, so he quit his job. Big fucking deal. People quit their job because the boss is a dick EVERY.SINGLE.DAY. Trailer parks are full of people that do that several times a year. So you quit your job - that's too bad - hate to see ya go - anyway, Bye Joe - now, clean out your desk and turn in your access badge.

I also refuse to accept that his actions demonstrate great "character" above and beyond the character of those working at lower levels of public trust. Most of us would essentially be blowing up our lives by posting a resignation letter on social media. The Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen prosecuting this conflict don’t get to post a resignation letter on social media.
Posting his resignation letter on social media was just a douche move done for attention.

Some of the nuance here - in my opinion - rests in his daily duties and responsibilities. So tell us, exactly what is it you'd say you do here Joe Kent™ ??? Wait - don't tell me, because the mission of the NCTC is quite clear...
Lead the nation’s effort to protect the United States from terrorism by integrating, analyzing, and sharing information to drive whole-of-government action and achieve our national CT objectives.

His job isn’t to prosecute Wars – that is Pete Hegseths Job.
His job isn't to carry Americas diplomatic torch - Marco Rubio does that.
Joe Kent™ wasn't hired to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access for students of all ages...
...the former CEO of the WWF has that job – and she has it in a mother fucking sleeper hold.

Joe Kent™ was hired to “Lead the nation’s effort to protect the United States from terrorism by integrating, analyzing, and sharing information to drive whole-of-government action and achieve our national CT objectives.” So, if he was not happy with how the President was protecting the United States from terrorism using the information integrated and analyzed by the NCTC to drive a whole of government approach, then it would be his DUTY to resign in protest.

But that isn’t what happened here.
We all know what he resigned for because he posted his resignation letter.
…on social media.

If he is the example for how to behave when serving in a position of public trust, then a few of our Supreme Court Justices, a handful of ambassadors, a shit load of SES, GS-15, and maybe even GS-14 bureaucrats, and a metric fuck ton of US Representatives and US Senators...
...should resign because they don’t like how things are going
…because quitting in protest is noble now.
…even when the nation is counting on your service and expertise.

How many of us (let’s have a show of hands - and BE HONEST) currently work for the US government in some capacity, and think this is just another Foreign Policy™ boondoggle that brings profit to Military Industrial Complex while only complicating day to day life for a few hundred million Americans that just want a good night sleep?

I'll raise MY fucking hand for sure. For the record, it looks like we are doing the same thing we always do - we outrun our headlights.
...but I'm not QUITTING my job in protest
...because I’ve got a family
...I’ve got bills to pay
...I swore an oath to faithfully discharge the duties of my office
...and most importantly, I have really expensive hobbies.

My innate preference for obtuse sarcasm aside: Joe Kent™ most certainly has more going on here than just "resigning in protest" – if this was just an honest walk out after numerous efforts to provide relevant and actionable information that would change his bosses mind, or at least clearly document that he had given his boss the The Truth™ only to watch his boss shit on The Truth™ then I’d feel different about this entire situation.
But it isn’t
And I dont
I don't buy this prattle for one second. His "pedigree" is written on the same exact paper that he used for his resignation letter.

He wanted sensationalism.
He got it.

Best wishes Joe Kent™ - Thank you for your service. I wish you luck in your future endeavors, and I hope your run at elected office is successful – as long as you aren’t moving to North Carolina.

 

[Marauder06]

Are you sure this isn't true?

I think I'm as confident as any random person on the Internet who has no special sources, no access to classified information, and/or special regional expertise (all of which apply to me) can be.

At the same time, though, how does one prove a negative? I think the burden of proof should be on the person making the initial assertion, don't you?

"Oh, Israel made the most powerful country that ever existed go to war with someone else? That's interesting, what's the evidence?"

 

[amlove21]

I think I'm as confident as any random person on the Internet who has no special sources, no access to classified information, and/or special regional expertise (all of which apply to me) can be.

At the same time, though, how does one prove a negative? I think the burden of proof should be on the person making the initial assertion, don't you?

"Oh, Israel made the most powerful country that ever existed go to war with someone else? That's interesting, what's the evidence?"

Burden of proof has entered the chat.

I have had the most adversarial conversations with a bunch of the biggest influencers you know about this very thing. "Ok, you said the thing, it's on you to now prove the thing. The bigger the thing you said, the more proof you need."

"YOU CANT PROVE IT'S NOT THE CASE AND WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING X PERSON OR Y EVENT?!"

It's tiresome. I don't even bother trying anymore with most of them.

 

[Topkick]

At the same time, though, how does one prove a negative? I think the burden of proof should be on the person making the initial assertion, don't you

I don't know either way, but Joe Kent may. He wasn't just a random guy on the internet. Also, Marco Rubio all but said it on National TV. I respect your perspective, though.

I do find it odd that all of the sudden, everyone trusts our government. I haven't forgotten that I buried a Platoon Sergeant, who was a great friend, killed in a war based on lies.

 

[The Quartermaster]

I never understood the love for Obama. Anytime I asked someone why they were voting for him, I usually got the deer in the headlights look because he ran on no policy other than "Hope and change." I have never cared about anything other than policy. Skin color, nah. Gender, nah. But can we at least require a candidate to have a stance on some issues?

I said all that to say...when Obama won is when I realized that I can't take politics personal and I'm not going to change anyone's mind.

Clinton made me realize that the morally superior party was in actuality a party of charlatans and grifters. Obama made me realize that hate does indeed still exist in this world and it's not the kind from the Right and was tamer than even the nastier Far Right. And Biden? Biden proved that being worse than Carter was an attainable goal to peak at.

But in regards to taking politics personal, I learned this long ago that no one is going to change anyone's minds politically. However I do take it personal when people make it personal with me when I refuse to bend to their wills and it's their words coming out my mouth. It's on now. My thing is this, either we are human beings able to respect each other's opinions without making it personal or we are subhuman filth.

I respect you Top, I do. I don't always agree with you and that's okay. It's the civil discourse between us that we can get along with and learn from each other with that should the standard everywhere else.

 

[Marauder06]

I don't know either way, but Joe Kent may. He wasn't just a random guy on the internet. Also, Marco Rubio all but said it on National TV.

I find it odd that all of the sudden, everyone trusts our government. I haven't forgotten that I buried a Platoon Sergeant, who was a great friend, killed in a war based on lies.

Who's talking about trusting the government? Maybe I missed some posts.

I don't trust our government; I don't know our government. I don't trust Joe Kent; I don't know Joe Kent.

What I do trust is that people, and governments, will act in their interests.

I think it is very much in our long-term strategic national interests to go after Iran. Hard. Right now. Boot on the throat and push down. Having Israel along to go hard in the paint with us--because it's in their interests--is a bonus.

 

[Devildoc]

I think it is very much in our long-term strategic national interests to go after Iran. Hard. Right now. Boot on the throat and push down. Having Israel along to go hard in the paint with us--because it's in their interests--is a bonus.

The analogy of "go hard in the paint" during March Madness is not lost on me.

Oh, I also happen to agree.

 

[Topkick]

Who's talking about trusting the government? Maybe I missed some posts.

Serious question, how did you come to the conclusion that Iran was an imminent threat and its necessary to go to war with them?