Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

This has got to be some sort of practical joke...

AP Source: Ex-Miss. gov to get nod for Navy post
Mar 27 10:56 AM US/Eastern
By EMILY WAGSTER PETTUS
Associated Press Writer

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... 1&catnum=0

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) - A person familiar with discussions on the matter says President Barack Obama will nominate former Mississippi Governor Ray Mabus to be the secretary of the Navy.

The person requested anonymity because the White House has not yet made an official announcement.

Mabus served in the Navy from 1970-72 as a surface warfare officer on the Newport, R.I.-based USS Little Rock.

The 60-year-old Democrat was governor of Mississippi from January 1988 to January 1992. He also served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 1994-96 under President Bill Clinton.

Mabus campaigned extensively for Obama last year.

Another fine nominee selection by Obama's vetting team...


...dying to hear DU's spin on this...

Yeah, that is terrible.

What is next, a Secretary of Defense that was never in the military at all??

dbackjon wrote:Yeah, that is terrible.

What is next, a Secretary of Defense that was never in the military at all??

Shhhh...

That's not coming out for a few weeks...

...until Rosie's had a chance to learn the phonetic alphabet...



Sierra Mike Foxtrot Hotel

So appointing a Secretary of Defense with NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE, except for recieving FIVE deferments is only valid for REPUBLICANS?



Really, T-man, you are reaching with this crap.

Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense for 4 years under Bush I. NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE.


SMFH

Sounds a lot like Bush's appointment of Harriett Myers to the SC. I was in law school at the time, it was a laughing matter then, much like this probably is in the Navy.

Horrible, just horrible. A political position being filled by some one with no practical experience. What will we hear of next.

DUbackjon wrote:So appointing a Secretary of Defense with NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE, except for recieving FIVE deferments is only valid for REPUBLICANS?

Really, T-man, you are reaching with this crap.

Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense for 4 years under Bush I. NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE.

SMFH

...the DU spin...

"Yeah...well The Evil One Cheney...he, he, had no experience...just taking money for Halliburton while killing poor Americans...so there!"

Bullshit, T-man, and you know it.

You tried to score a "Point" by saying he was not qualified because he only had two years military experience.

I showed you how your beloved Republican party appointed someone to a HIGHER position with NO military experience.


Just face it - I OWNED you on this lame attempt to make Obama look bad.


GAME, SET and MATCH: DBACK JON

dbackjon wrote:Bullshit, T-man, and you know it.

You tried to score a "Point" by saying he was not qualified because he only had two years military experience.

I showed you how your beloved Republican party appointed someone to a HIGHER position with NO military experience.


Just face it - I OWNED you on this lame attempt to make Obama look bad.


GAME, SET and MATCH: DBACK JON

I never said Cheney was qualified...

game, set, match, indeed...SE...

dbackjon wrote:Bullshit, T-man, and you know it.

You tried to score a "Point" by saying he was not qualified because he only had two years military experience.

I showed you how your beloved Republican party appointed someone to a HIGHER position with NO military experience.


Just face it - I OWNED you on this lame attempt to make Obama look bad.


GAME, SET and MATCH: DBACK JON

So doing something wrong, if someone else has done it wrong, makes it not wrong? SMFH



I THOUGHT YOU MOTHERFUCKERS WERE CHANGING SHIT!!! Every defense has been, well the republicans did it. Well, all dems have said republicans were fucking up, so now what? It's right all of a sudden? Please, spare me dback. This is wrong, the Cheney choice was wrong, and Obama is wrong. Bush was wrong. The list goes on. This administration was supposed to CHANGE all of that, am I wrong? When ever the defense deals with the past actions, it is apparent change is not present at all.

travelinman67 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Bullshit, T-man, and you know it.

You tried to score a "Point" by saying he was not qualified because he only had two years military experience.

I showed you how your beloved Republican party appointed someone to a HIGHER position with NO military experience.


Just face it - I OWNED you on this lame attempt to make Obama look bad.


GAME, SET and MATCH: DBACK JON

game, set, match, indeed...SE...

I thought you would appreciate that touch (Just like I thought you would like The Older Gentleman's Reid/Pelosi joke, which is why I asked him to post it where you could read it)

wideright82 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Bullshit, T-man, and you know it.

You tried to score a "Point" by saying he was not qualified because he only had two years military experience.

I showed you how your beloved Republican party appointed someone to a HIGHER position with NO military experience.


Just face it - I OWNED you on this lame attempt to make Obama look bad.


GAME, SET and MATCH: DBACK JON

So doing something wrong, if someone else has done it wrong, makes it not wrong? SMFH



I THOUGHT YOU MOTHERFUCKERS WERE CHANGING SHIT!!! Every defense has been, well the republicans did it. Well, all dems have said republicans were f**k[*] up, so now what? It's right all of a sudden? Please, spare me dback. This is wrong, the Cheney choice was wrong, and Obama is wrong. Bush was wrong. The list goes on. This administration was supposed to CHANGE all of that, am I wrong? When ever the defense deals with the past actions, it is apparent change is not present at all.

Yes, you are wrong

I was merely pointing out the hypocracy of T-man's lurid "sky-is-falling" post.

It might shock you to know that as a Secretary of Defense, Cheney actually did a decent job. So for me, this is one big NON-issue.

dbackjon wrote:

wideright82 wrote:

So doing something wrong, if someone else has done it wrong, makes it not wrong? SMFH



I THOUGHT YOU MOTHERFUCKERS WERE CHANGING SHIT!!! Every defense has been, well the republicans did it. Well, all dems have said republicans were f**k[*] up, so now what? It's right all of a sudden? Please, spare me dback. This is wrong, the Cheney choice was wrong, and Obama is wrong. Bush was wrong. The list goes on. This administration was supposed to CHANGE all of that, am I wrong? When ever the defense deals with the past actions, it is apparent change is not present at all.

Yes, you are wrong

I was merely pointing out the hypocracy of T-man's lurid "sky-is-falling" post.

It might shock you to know that as a Secretary of Defense, Cheney actually did a decent job. So for me, this is one big NON-issue.

Well, then what we have here is a complete misunderstanding, carry on knobgobblers.

The only defense Bush 1 had in appointing Cheney was his experience on chairing House Intelligence Committee and his work alongside Sen. Aspin when Aspin chaired the House Armed Services Committee during Reagan's tenure. Despite his deference...inexcusable in my book...Cheney took an interest in DOD, and while Sec. Def...deferred most of the heavy decisions to Pentagon leadership.
You are right, dback, when suggesting Cheney was reasonably "successful" as Sec. Def...overseeing several "successful" major military operations during his tenure.

But that still DOES NOT excuse a moronic selection by Obama. IMHO, this is a selection solely based upon partisan rewarding, and is indicative of Obama's weak relations with DOD leadership (supported by the infamous "Firestation" meeting with Sec. Def. Gates asking him to stay on...).

This is a nonissue. It's a civilian post... it's not made based on years in the Navy or service to one of the branches of the military... We've had plenty of Navy secretaries with NO time in the Navy.

Pace yourself, travelinman... it's going to be a long 4-8 years.

Skjellyfetti wrote:This is a nonissue. It's a civilian post... it's not made based on years in the Navy or service to one of the branches of the military... We've had plenty of Navy secretaries with NO time in the Navy.

Pace yourself, travelinman... it's going to be a long 4-8 years.

You mean we don't have a vote of no confidence in this country?!?!?!?!

wideright82 wrote:
So doing something wrong, if someone else has done it wrong, makes it not wrong? SMFH

I THOUGHT YOU MOTHERFUCKERS WERE CHANGING SHIT!!! Every defense has been, well the republicans did it. Well, all dems have said republicans were f**k[*] up, so now what? It's right all of a sudden? Please, spare me dback. This is wrong, the Cheney choice was wrong, and Obama is wrong. Bush was wrong. The list goes on. This administration was supposed to CHANGE all of that, am I wrong? When ever the defense deals with the past actions, it is apparent change is not present at all.

Oh contraire mon frair...!!!
There has been a sh!t load of change...

From:
A bunch of "know-it-all" completely over confident under qualified Conservatives screwing everything up
To:
A bunch of highly competent under qualified Liberals screwing everything up

Pick your poison..!!! (I'll take the latter every time)
Oh and that's your first French lesson

Skjellyfetti wrote:This is a nonissue. It's a civilian post... it's not made based on years in the Navy or service to one of the branches of the military... We've had plenty of Navy secretaries with NO time in the Navy.

Pace yourself, travelinman... it's going to be a long 4-8 years.

So...according to your reasoning, you'd have no problem appointing Yogi Berra to replace Treasury Secretary Geithner?

Yogi's spent a lot of time around the financial markets, and been a manager for years...










...like shooting fish in a barrel...

travelinman67 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:This is a nonissue. It's a civilian post... it's not made based on years in the Navy or service to one of the branches of the military... We've had plenty of Navy secretaries with NO time in the Navy.

Pace yourself, travelinman... it's going to be a long 4-8 years.

So...according to your reasoning, you'd have no problem appointing Yogi Berra to replace Treasury Secretary Geithner?

Yogi's spent a lot of time around the financial markets, and been a manager for years...










...like shooting fish in a barrel...

So, according to your logic... the Secretary of the Navy is a military post and is given to someone in the Navy that has earned the position through their service?

Why should Obama appoint him? Why wouldn't it be done through the Navy?

Why not just automatically promote Chief of Naval Operations (highest officer in the Navy) to Secretary of Navy?

Cleets Part 2 wrote:There has been a sh!t load of change...

From:
A bunch of "know-it-all" completely over confident under qualified Conservatives screwing everything up
To:
A bunch of highly competent under qualified Liberals screwing everything up

Pick your poison..!!! (I'll take the latter every time)
Oh and that's your first French lesson

"...highly competent..."

Ummm....yeeeaahhhh...right!

Couple years as a deck hand?

One term as Governor of Mississippi?

Two years as Ambassador to Saudi Arabia?

...oh...wait...a Harvard Law grad...BINGO!!!!

The Obama-Connection!

travelinman67 wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:There has been a sh!t load of change...

From:
A bunch of "know-it-all" completely over confident under qualified Conservatives screwing everything up
To:
A bunch of highly competent under qualified Liberals screwing everything up

Pick your poison..!!! (I'll take the latter every time)
Oh and that's your first French lesson

"...highly competent..."

Ummm....yeeeaahhhh...right!

Couple years as a deck hand?

One term as Governor of Mississippi?

Two years as Ambassador to Saudi Arabia?

...oh...wait...a Harvard Law grad...BINGO!!!!

The Obama-Connection!

His resume is more impressive than our last POTUS.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
So...according to your reasoning, you'd have no problem appointing Yogi Berra to replace Treasury Secretary Geithner?

Yogi's spent a lot of time around the financial markets, and been a manager for years...



...like shooting fish in a barrel...

So, according to your logic... the Secretary of the Navy should be a military post and based on service in the Navy?

Why should Obama appoint him? Why wouldn't it be done through the Navy?

Why not just automatically promote Chief of Naval Operations (highest officer in the Navy) to Secretary of Navy?

Negative, Excusafetti...

The man has NO military understanding other than what he learned during two years in the service and his two years as Ambassador.

You can make excuses all day...

...but appointing someone who's clearly unqualified is inexcusable.

There are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of individuals more qualified to serve as Sec. of Navy...

...this is merely a political appointment/payback by Obama to a fellow Harvard lawyer/politician who backed him during the election.

And while that may not seem like a "big deal" to you, he'll be dealing with decisions, budgets, and long-term strategic planning that dwarfs his skillset.

bobbythekidd wrote:His resume is more impressive than our last POTUS.

I'm not a Bush apologist...but I'll disagree with you here...

Bush was Gov. of Texas, the second largest and populaced state in the nation for 5 years...

...I'd say that trumps two years as a deckhand, 4 as Gov. of MS, and 2 as Ambassador to Saudi Arabia...

IMHO...


But...then again...we ALL SAW how underprepared Bush was...

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

wideright82 wrote:
So doing something wrong, if someone else has done it wrong, makes it not wrong? SMFH

I THOUGHT YOU MOTHERFUCKERS WERE CHANGING SHIT!!! Every defense has been, well the republicans did it. Well, all dems have said republicans were f**k[*] up, so now what? It's right all of a sudden? Please, spare me dback. This is wrong, the Cheney choice was wrong, and Obama is wrong. Bush was wrong. The list goes on. This administration was supposed to CHANGE all of that, am I wrong? When ever the defense deals with the past actions, it is apparent change is not present at all.

Oh contraire mon frair...!!!
There has been a sh!t load of change...

From:
A bunch of "know-it-all" completely over confident under qualified Conservatives screwing everything up
To:
A bunch of highly competent under qualified Liberals screwing everything up

Pick your poison..!!! (I'll take the latter every time)
Oh and that's your first French lesson

Merci! Je comprends peu francais. Peu par peu. Je serai a l'aise.


Se stiamo parlando italiano, capisco molto. Ma non lo aiuta con sceinza.


For poison however, I would prefer neither of the two, and get some people who are HIGHLY qualified, competent, and......... well I guess that is asking for a lot from the people running this country, huh?

The United States Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) is the civilian head of the Department of the Navy. The position was a member of the President's Cabinet until 1947, when the Navy, Army, and newly created Air Force were placed in the Department of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy was placed under the Secretary of Defense.


Previous Secretary of the Navy:
Donald C. Winter is an American businessman who served as United States Secretary of the Navy. A former top executive of Northrop Grumman

Naval Experience: ZERO

Dubya's first Secretary of the Navy:
Gordon England:
72nd Secretary of the Navy
England was a controversial choice for Secretary of the Navy due to his lack of any military service experience and his long career in the defense industry including his most recent appointment as Executive Vice President of General Dynamics Corporation. Critics such as William D. Hartung, Head of the Arms Trade Resource Center, felt that it was inappropriate to appoint businessmen whose companies would be the prime benefactor of any increase in defense spending. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld however had decided to make corporate experience one of the key requirements in his appointees as was reported in the Washington Times.



So BOTH of Dubya's Secretary of the Navies had ZERO Naval experience, and were both tied to Defense Contractors.



Still want to bitch, T-man, or should I bitch-slap you some more?