Lt. Gen. John A. Bradley - Admonishment

[RingLeader]

PLEASE!!! Don't tell me the investigating official states, "Bradley acted on the advice of his personal staff, and it turned out to be the wrong advice." AF Times 14 Jul 08, page 5

WHAT? Are you kidding me? That’s his excuse? He is the Chief of the AFRC. He has no excuses, especially since the buck stops with him.

What kind of a commander puts or even allows blame to go to his subordinates when he has the final decision? Not one I want to work for, good riddance, don’t let the canopy hit you in the head on your last flight.

Yea, another GREAT Air Force Leader living by Air Force core values,
Integrity first, Service before self and Excellence in all we do.

For everyone but the Sr. Officers… Anyone else disillusioned but the Sr. Leadership through out the Air Force, Active, Guard, and Reserve?

Anyone want to share what the so called “minor personnel” issues were that stopped his retirement?

[JetJock]

This is so typical. Blame the commander, use the trite phrase, "The buck stops with him!" You're obviously unfamiliar with how the system works.

I don't have any idea what exactly happened in this case, but a commander relies on his staff to give him good information. Would you REALLY expect the AFRC commander to go to the regs and look this stuff up on his own? Heck no! You ask your personnel reps and expect that they'll give you good info. You have to trust your subordinates to know their jobs.

Yes, it's great to say, "He makes the ultimate decision," but the reality is that commanders are presented with countless decisions to make, and they have to trust the subject matter experts to be just that.

Ringleader, I don't know what your job is, but I guarantee you that you've been in this situation before...you had to trust that someone gave you the proper information from which to make a decision. Maybe you didn't get burned...if so, good for you. But when a personnel expert tells Bradley that it's okay to do something, especially if similar things have been done like this over the years, you can't assign 100% of the blame to the CC.

This was why Gen Fogleman retired several years ago. Terry Schwalier had taken significant steps to beef up security around Khobar Towers, yet when the terrorists hit the building, Schwalier was fired by the SecDef. He did everything a REASONABLE MAN would have done, yet was fired. At what point does the buck really stop? Ultimately, wasn't it Clinton's fault? (If you want to go to extremes, it should have been.) Fogleman retired because he understood that sometimes "Sierra Happens," and you have to correct the problem and move on...and firing the commander doesn't fix the underlying cause.

Remember the quote in Animal House, from Otter to Flounder? "You f**ked up. You trusted us!" Shouldn't the commander be able to trust his people? If he doesn't, he becomes a micromanager....and none of us wants somebody like that looking over our shoulder.

JJ

[RingLeader]

JJ - All Very god points.


This is so typical. Blame the commander, use the trite phrase, "The buck stops with him!" You're obviously unfamiliar with how the system works.

I am VERY familair with the system

I don't have any idea what exactly happened in this case, but a commander relies on his staff to give him good information. Would you REALLY expect the AFRC commander to go to the regs and look this stuff up on his own? Heck no! You ask your personnel reps and expect that they'll give you good info. You have to trust your subordinates to know their jobs.

I agree I don't expect any Commander to know the regs by heart, etc, etc, I trust my subordinates but the bottom line is HE MADE the final decision.

Yes, it's great to say, "He makes the ultimate decision," but the reality is that commanders are presented with countless decisions to make, and they have to trust the subject matter experts to be just that.

Agree. I guess this is a difference in philosophy. Personally, when I make a decision, even with advice from my staff and it turns out wrong, I DO NOT, let me repeat that, I DO NOT, throw them under the bus. I have been in a situation similar, and what it boiled down to with the investigator and me was, yes, my staff gave me the best advice, looked at regs, etc. etc, But it was MY FINAL call and my staff will NOT be put to blame; It's on me! Trust me, it was the right thing to do, plus it paid back a million times. Why? Because my staff knew they messed up, they also knew that I would stand beside them. They worked harder to make sure the info was good and to protect me from something like that again. I always tell them, that as long as their decisions are morally, ethically, and not self servicing, we will never have a problem.

Call me stupid but it has always worked for me.


Ringleader, I don't know what your job is, but I guarantee you that you've been in this situation before...you had to trust that someone gave you the proper information from which to make a decision. Maybe you didn't get burned...if so, good for you. But when a personnel expert tells Bradley that it's okay to do something, especially if similar things have been done like this over the years, you can't assign 100% of the blame to the CC.

Agree, but don't throw your people out with the baby water. I did think this issue was over the ART wearing uniforms.

This was why Gen Fogleman retired several years ago. Terry Schwalier had taken significant steps to beef up security around Khobar Towers, yet when the terrorists hit the building, Schwalier was fired by the SecDef. He did everything a REASONABLE MAN would have done, yet was fired. At what point does the buck really stop? Ultimately, wasn't it Clinton's fault? (If you want to go to extremes, it should have been.) Fogleman retired because he understood that sometimes "Sierra Happens," and you have to correct the problem and move on...and firing the commander doesn't fix the underlying cause.

That would should MG Schwalier. Great point, I guess my issue is because Bradley is the end of the line. I do know 3 people who were there when it happened, thank God known of them were hurt. We spoke in length about BG Schwalier, they felt he did everything possible and host Nation and politics played a major rule in the terrorist attach, by holding him back on some of the things he wanted to do.

Remember the quote in Animal House, from Otter to Flounder? "You f**ked up. You trusted us!" Shouldn't the commander be able to trust his people? If he doesn't, he becomes a micromanager....and none of us wants somebody like that looking over our shoulder.

Oh you are SOOO right about micromanagers, dealing with one now!

JJ

[JetJock]

Directly from the Air Force Times:
-------------------
An Air Force inspector general investigation recently substantiated two personnel-related complaints against Lt. Gen. John A. Bradley.

Bradley received a letter of admonishment regarding the complaints, which an Air Force official described as minor personnel issues involving the creation of a full-time military position and an extension of a mandatory separation date. (My emphasis added.)

Bradley acted on the advice of his personnel staff, the official said, and it turned out that advice was improper.

No further information on the complaints is available.
-------------------

From the above, it appears it WASN'T about the ART uniform issue. Sounds like personnel things to me.

I can't argue with your point about "throwing your people under the bus." However, without knowing exactly what was said and by whom, our speculation is just that. I don't think it's right to condemn a man for something "an official said." We really don't know just what transpired, so I think it's premature to accuse him of blaming his subordinates when we haven't heard from the man himself.

I guess my complaint with your initial "rant" is that you're jumping to conclusions and making extreme judgments about a man with very little actual information. Granted, that's the way we do things in today's society, but it doesn't make it right.

I do appreciate your additional comments, and I was aware of the additional issues in the Schwalier case...just didn't know how much detail to go into.

Regards,
JJ

[smarg]

This was why Gen Fogleman retired several years ago. Terry Schwalier had taken significant steps to beef up security around Khobar Towers, yet when the terrorists hit the building, Schwalier was fired by the SecDef. He did everything a REASONABLE MAN would have done, yet was fired. At what point does the buck really stop? Ultimately, wasn't it Clinton's fault? (If you want to go to extremes, it should have been.) Fogleman retired because he understood that sometimes "Sierra Happens," and you have to correct the problem and move on...and firing the commander doesn't fix the underlying cause.

Disagree. The report done by a retired Army four star laid out the things that Schwalier should have done, but he was "preening" for his 2nd star and was distracted. The thing that made Fogleman look like a complete fool was that when he took the stick he was big on accountability....and quit like a scolded schoolboy on the playground when he refused to look at the incident without bias.

He was the typical asshole arrogant fighter pilot, who, along with his ilk, almost completely ruined us.

Thank God their reign is over.

[JetJock]

Disagree. The report done by a retired Army four star laid out the things that Schwalier should have done, but he was "preening" for his 2nd star and was distracted. The thing that made Fogleman look like a complete fool was that when he took the stick he was big on accountability....and quit like a scolded schoolboy on the playground when he refused to look at the incident without bias.

He was the typical asshole arrogant fighter pilot, who, along with his ilk, almost completely ruined us.

Thank God their reign is over.

You, sir, have proven without a doubt that you have absolutely NO clue whatsoever about this entire affair. I refer you to http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj01/spr01.html, specifically the article titled, "The Early Retirement of Gen Ronald R. Fogleman, Chief of Staff, United States Air Force", edited by Dr. Richard H. Kohn, former Air Force Historian.

You mention General Downing's report. I would then refer you to this source: http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2007/07/general-downings-other-legacy.html. I quote, in part:


"Equally damning was a second inquiry into the bombing, headed by Air Force Lieutenant General James Record. Unlike the Downing team (which focused on regional security issues and the bombing attack), General Record was allowed to concentrate solely on the Khobar Towers incident. Using the work of the first task force as a starting point, Record's team conducted another 207 interviews and reviewed transcripts of the 200 interviews conducted by the Downing team. Record also allowed General Schwalier to provide a point-by-point response to the Downing report, which highlighted 37 incorrect statements, 61 misleading implications and 23 contradictions.

"In his assessment, General Record concurred with many of Downing's recommendations for improving force protection, but sharply disagreed with its criticism of General Schwalier. As Matt LaBash wrote, the Record investigation "issued a strong rebuke to the Downing findings, saying that the desire to deliver quick results had caused individuals to be "unfairly and publicly criticized as being derelict in their duties." He also notes that Schwalier was exonerated a second time in a subsequent investigation by the Air Force Inspector General and Judge Advocate General."



So, LGen Record exonerates Schwalier, as do the Air Force IG and the Air Force JAG. In fact, of the four investigations conducted into this incident, three of them do not hold Schwalier responsible, and in fact say that his preparations actually prevented further loss of life. I quote again:


"Both Cohen and Downing faulted General Schwalier for failing to protect his installation from outside attack, despite the fact that (a) the bomb was detonated in an area under the jurisdiction of Saudi security forces; (b) the Saudis had been previously unwilling to let the U.S extend the defensive perimeter at Khobar, and (c) Schwalier's unit had already implemented an impressive number of security improvements at the facility, while flying daily combat missions over Iraq."



You say Fogleman "was big on accountability [and]...refused to look at the incident without bias." Let see...he held Kelly Flinn accountable. He held several people accountable in the Blackhawk shootdown in Iraq. Don't these things count? Fogleman knew the difference between "mistakes" and "crimes." I would even argue that the Khobar Towers incident was not even a mistake...it was an act of war, and in war there are, sadly, occasional losses.

And finally, in your absolute, raving insanity, you completely blow away every piece of potential credibility you might have had, and say he and his fighter pilot buddies "almost completely ruined us." Rrriiiigggghhhhttttt. Those same "typical asshole arrogant fighter pilots" gave us air supremacy, dominance in space, and the lead in cyber warfare. If that's "almost completely ruined," I wonder what the opposite is?

And by the way, "typical asshole arrogant fighter pilots" is about the most incredibly redundant phrase I've ever seen! ;)

JJ

[JetJock]

Smarg,

Just for fun I went back and took a look at some of your posts. The common thread, aside from your obvious homophobia, is your incredibly pathetic whining about fighter pilots. Son, you are nothing but a sad, pitiful little man who apparently had neither the talent nor the balls to put yourself in a place where you might actually have to fight for your life, or the lives of people who might count on you. (Ok, I didn't give you credit for crawling out from under your desk after the bombs stopped falling.)

You're nothing but a coward who throws stones from the bushes at people who are your betters. No, not because they're fighter pilots, but because they put themselves on the line everyday, in peace and in war, to protect good, honest, hard-working people as well as sniveling thumbsuckers like you.

Are fighter pilots better human beings because they fly fighters? Hell, no! In fact, I'd NEVER say they're better human beings in the first place. (They're just better than you.) McPeak was, and is, an embarassment to the uniform. But your petty jealousy and rash generalzations about the fighter pilot mafia just make you sound like a little baby who was always picked last in the dodgeball game.

I've got no problem if you criticize someone for a particular thing they may have done wrong. But when you say it was wrong JUST BECAUSE HE WAS A FIGHTER PILOT, you once again knock the legs out from under your argument. I've known fighter pilots who were absolutely horrible commanders, and I've also known public affairs officers who I'd follow to hell and back. But I've based my opinions on their leadership qualities, not their job descriptions. Maybe you'll gain a little maturity someday and learn to do the same.

JJ

[MO6303329]

I agree with jj

[MO6303329]

There are alot fo good leaders in the Air Force from all backgrounds.

[JetJock]

There are alot fo good leaders in the Air Force from all backgrounds.

Absolutely, MO. BTW, what is the soaring commander's name? Just curious...I know some of those folks.
JJ

[DAG48]

This has been an interesting Thread and heated debate. Lt. General Bradley trusted his staff at AFRC, which from my experience is risky at best. Active Duty Folks move in and out of the Positions at HQ AFRC and for the most part try to do thier best, Enlisted and Officer alike. The Civillians on the other hand are entrenched, latched on like ticks. You really could get Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever up there! The Civillians call the shots basically and they don't give a rats @$$ about Air Force Instructions. My advise, request a second opinion and an actual legal reference from these folks. You probably won't get the right answer, but at least it would be documented!

[redjoker]

Wait, wasn't he admonished for some "special treatment" of a reservist in dental school, who was simply reinstated after recovering from cancer, which she had been discharged for? Oh, and he also thought she shouldn't have to pay back the government so long as she completed her schooling and could perform her duties upon completion. I've known the man all my life and those actions are totally consistent with his and his family's beliefs.

[proud2bblue]

Disagree. The report done by a retired Army four star laid out the things that Schwalier should have done, but he was "preening" for his 2nd star and was distracted. The thing that made Fogleman look like a complete fool was that when he took the stick he was big on accountability....and quit like a scolded schoolboy on the playground when he refused to look at the incident without bias.

He was the typical asshole arrogant fighter pilot, who, along with his ilk, almost completely ruined us.

Thank God their reign is over.

Are you out of your mind???? I served with Gen Schwalier twice and he was an amazing officer. Never bucking for the next star and cared about people. He was already a select when Kobar happened. The orginal investigation cleared him, but the US Gov wanted to blame someone except themselves/Saudis for not implementing his requests.

[johca]

This is so typical. Blame the commander, use the trite phrase, "The buck stops with him!" You're obviously unfamiliar with how the system works.

I don't have any idea what exactly happened in this case, but a commander relies on his staff to give him good information.

Leading ability is not present equally in all persons and in relations to matter of rank and grade, such ability is presumed to be stronger the higher the rank and grade the person has. However within the military system the buck does stop with the person having command appointment and performing commander duties. This mean getting blame and praise that is earned and unearned.

I do however agree the commander does rely on his or her staff to give them good information. While I cannot say what went wrong in the situation starting this thread, commanders typically surround themselves with those who conform to his or her style of leadership and expectations. It is my experience such conformity brings the dangers of the self serving career yes-man or yes women.

Lack of honesty and truthfulness to include having courage to up channel bad news information accurately and completely can and often does increase risk to a particular job or an entire operation. Pertinent to this is truthfulness and courage can be thought of as fairness in regard to information; it is giving others what is their due, specifically to information related to hazards and risks that need elevating up the chain of command. Honesty is being allied with fairmindedness needed for any cooperative effort involved in the conveyance of information. This element of honesty is essential for trust because higher levels of command depend upon the thoroughness and accuracy when risks outside a supervisor or commander’s control are elevated to them for action. Officers given increasing higher levels of command often must trust they are being given all the information they need.

Of course there is becoming a very common leadership style of plausible deniability that must also be considered. Pertinent to this Command Influence has a way of causing officers to cower and comply or being extraorinary selective on the gathering and weighing of evidence and facts for purpose of remaining promotable.

[ramprat]

This is so typical. Blame the commander, use the trite phrase, "The buck stops with him!" You're obviously unfamiliar with how the system works.

I don't have any idea what exactly happened in this case, but a commander relies on his staff to give him good information. Would you REALLY expect the AFRC commander to go to the regs and look this stuff up on his own? Heck no! You ask your personnel reps and expect that they'll give you good info. You have to trust your subordinates to know their jobs.

Yes, it's great to say, "He makes the ultimate decision," but the reality is that commanders are presented with countless decisions to make, and they have to trust the subject matter experts to be just that.

Ringleader, I don't know what your job is, but I guarantee you that you've been in this situation before...you had to trust that someone gave you the proper information from which to make a decision. Maybe you didn't get burned...if so, good for you. But when a personnel expert tells Bradley that it's okay to do something, especially if similar things have been done like this over the years, you can't assign 100% of the blame to the CC.

This was why Gen Fogleman retired several years ago. Terry Schwalier had taken significant steps to beef up security around Khobar Towers, yet when the terrorists hit the building, Schwalier was fired by the SecDef. He did everything a REASONABLE MAN would have done, yet was fired. At what point does the buck really stop? Ultimately, wasn't it Clinton's fault? (If you want to go to extremes, it should have been.) Fogleman retired because he understood that sometimes "Sierra Happens," and you have to correct the problem and move on...and firing the commander doesn't fix the underlying cause.

Remember the quote in Animal House, from Otter to Flounder? "You f**ked up. You trusted us!" Shouldn't the commander be able to trust his people? If he doesn't, he becomes a micromanager....and none of us wants somebody like that looking over our shoulder.

JJ
perhaps he surrounded himself with yes men and cronies who didnt want to be the bearer of bad news.
happens all the time.
chaney fired three admirals on the same day for lying about a ac program ,1991.

[Gunner007]

This is so typical. Blame the commander, use the trite phrase, "The buck stops with him!" You're obviously unfamiliar with how the system works.

I don't have any idea what exactly happened in this case, but a commander relies on his staff to give him good information. Would you REALLY expect the AFRC commander to go to the regs and look this stuff up on his own? Heck no! You ask your personnel reps and expect that they'll give you good info. You have to trust your subordinates to know their jobs.

Yes, it's great to say, "He makes the ultimate decision," but the reality is that commanders are presented with countless decisions to make, and they have to trust the subject matter experts to be just that.

Ringleader, I don't know what your job is, but I guarantee you that you've been in this situation before...you had to trust that someone gave you the proper information from which to make a decision. Maybe you didn't get burned...if so, good for you. But when a personnel expert tells Bradley that it's okay to do something, especially if similar things have been done like this over the years, you can't assign 100% of the blame to the CC.

This was why Gen Fogleman retired several years ago. Terry Schwalier had taken significant steps to beef up security around Khobar Towers, yet when the terrorists hit the building, Schwalier was fired by the SecDef. He did everything a REASONABLE MAN would have done, yet was fired. At what point does the buck really stop? Ultimately, wasn't it Clinton's fault? (If you want to go to extremes, it should have been.) Fogleman retired because he understood that sometimes "Sierra Happens," and you have to correct the problem and move on...and firing the commander doesn't fix the underlying cause.

Remember the quote in Animal House, from Otter to Flounder? "You f**ked up. You trusted us!" Shouldn't the commander be able to trust his people? If he doesn't, he becomes a micromanager....and none of us wants somebody like that looking over our shoulder.

JJ

Kudos!!! Yes i have been on the shit end of the stick! My flaw is i empower my guys and always have. Several times over the years i trusted my guys to do a job and something didnt turn out roses. On those ocassions i did what i felt obligated to do, i took my lumps then went to the guys and explained what happened and tried to figure out why. 99.9% of the time is was a genuine accident or mistake and i provided them top cover and took the lumps. When it wasnt they got a lump or two of their own!

It sucks and it is never fun but thats how people learn. Unfortunately in this guys case his folks got him in some very deep hot water. I was fortunate enough to only bear bumps, bruises, and scars! LOL

To this day i am still the same way. I empower first and micromanage last, if ever. I have no regrets, even if i wont make MSgt before i retire.

[TJMAC77SP]

You, sir, have proven without a doubt that you have absolutely NO clue whatsoever about this entire affair. I refer you to http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj01/spr01.html, specifically the article titled, "The Early Retirement of Gen Ronald R. Fogleman, Chief of Staff, United States Air Force", edited by Dr. Richard H. Kohn, former Air Force Historian.

You mention General Downing's report. I would then refer you to this source: http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2007/07/general-downings-other-legacy.html. I quote, in part:


"Equally damning was a second inquiry into the bombing, headed by Air Force Lieutenant General James Record. Unlike the Downing team (which focused on regional security issues and the bombing attack), General Record was allowed to concentrate solely on the Khobar Towers incident. Using the work of the first task force as a starting point, Record's team conducted another 207 interviews and reviewed transcripts of the 200 interviews conducted by the Downing team. Record also allowed General Schwalier to provide a point-by-point response to the Downing report, which highlighted 37 incorrect statements, 61 misleading implications and 23 contradictions.

"In his assessment, General Record concurred with many of Downing's recommendations for improving force protection, but sharply disagreed with its criticism of General Schwalier. As Matt LaBash wrote, the Record investigation "issued a strong rebuke to the Downing findings, saying that the desire to deliver quick results had caused individuals to be "unfairly and publicly criticized as being derelict in their duties." He also notes that Schwalier was exonerated a second time in a subsequent investigation by the Air Force Inspector General and Judge Advocate General."



So, LGen Record exonerates Schwalier, as do the Air Force IG and the Air Force JAG. In fact, of the four investigations conducted into this incident, three of them do not hold Schwalier responsible, and in fact say that his preparations actually prevented further loss of life. I quote again:


"Both Cohen and Downing faulted General Schwalier for failing to protect his installation from outside attack, despite the fact that (a) the bomb was detonated in an area under the jurisdiction of Saudi security forces; (b) the Saudis had been previously unwilling to let the U.S extend the defensive perimeter at Khobar, and (c) Schwalier's unit had already implemented an impressive number of security improvements at the facility, while flying daily combat missions over Iraq."



You say Fogleman "was big on accountability [and]...refused to look at the incident without bias." Let see...he held Kelly Flinn accountable. He held several people accountable in the Blackhawk shootdown in Iraq. Don't these things count? Fogleman knew the difference between "mistakes" and "crimes." I would even argue that the Khobar Towers incident was not even a mistake...it was an act of war, and in war there are, sadly, occasional losses.

And finally, in your absolute, raving insanity, you completely blow away every piece of potential credibility you might have had, and say he and his fighter pilot buddies "almost completely ruined us." Rrriiiigggghhhhttttt. Those same "typical asshole arrogant fighter pilots" gave us air supremacy, dominance in space, and the lead in cyber warfare. If that's "almost completely ruined," I wonder what the opposite is?

And by the way, "typical asshole arrogant fighter pilots" is about the most incredibly redundant phrase I've ever seen! ;)

JJ


I was going to weigh in with my two cents on the Downing Commission Report (I actually played a small part in their actions) but you have answered the mail nicely.

[Recruiter1]

I just came across this and I must say that I am completely blown away by some of the remarks. All I have to say is that I have known Maj Gen Bradley since 1986. I have never in my life met anyone with more integrity and anyone more dedicated to the U.S. Air Force. It breaks my heart that after a 40 year career something like this could even be printed about him. It is very obvious that anyone that could possible say anything derogatory against this man has never acutally had the pleasure of serving with him or being in his command. As far as I'm concerned he will always be a "Hero" in my book. God Speed Sir.

[smarg]

You, sir, have proven without a doubt that you have absolutely NO clue whatsoever about this entire affair. I refer you to http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj01/spr01.html, specifically the article titled, "The Early Retirement of Gen Ronald R. Fogleman, Chief of Staff, United States Air Force", edited by Dr. Richard H. Kohn, former Air Force Historian.

You mention General Downing's report. I would then refer you to this source: http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2007/07/general-downings-other-legacy.html. I quote, in part:


"Equally damning was a second inquiry into the bombing, headed by Air Force Lieutenant General James Record. Unlike the Downing team (which focused on regional security issues and the bombing attack), General Record was allowed to concentrate solely on the Khobar Towers incident. Using the work of the first task force as a starting point, Record's team conducted another 207 interviews and reviewed transcripts of the 200 interviews conducted by the Downing team. Record also allowed General Schwalier to provide a point-by-point response to the Downing report, which highlighted 37 incorrect statements, 61 misleading implications and 23 contradictions.

"In his assessment, General Record concurred with many of Downing's recommendations for improving force protection, but sharply disagreed with its criticism of General Schwalier. As Matt LaBash wrote, the Record investigation "issued a strong rebuke to the Downing findings, saying that the desire to deliver quick results had caused individuals to be "unfairly and publicly criticized as being derelict in their duties." He also notes that Schwalier was exonerated a second time in a subsequent investigation by the Air Force Inspector General and Judge Advocate General."



So, LGen Record exonerates Schwalier, as do the Air Force IG and the Air Force JAG. In fact, of the four investigations conducted into this incident, three of them do not hold Schwalier responsible, and in fact say that his preparations actually prevented further loss of life. I quote again:


"Both Cohen and Downing faulted General Schwalier for failing to protect his installation from outside attack, despite the fact that (a) the bomb was detonated in an area under the jurisdiction of Saudi security forces; (b) the Saudis had been previously unwilling to let the U.S extend the defensive perimeter at Khobar, and (c) Schwalier's unit had already implemented an impressive number of security improvements at the facility, while flying daily combat missions over Iraq."



You say Fogleman "was big on accountability [and]...refused to look at the incident without bias." Let see...he held Kelly Flinn accountable. He held several people accountable in the Blackhawk shootdown in Iraq. Don't these things count? Fogleman knew the difference between "mistakes" and "crimes." I would even argue that the Khobar Towers incident was not even a mistake...it was an act of war, and in war there are, sadly, occasional losses.

And finally, in your absolute, raving insanity, you completely blow away every piece of potential credibility you might have had, and say he and his fighter pilot buddies "almost completely ruined us." Rrriiiigggghhhhttttt. Those same "typical asshole arrogant fighter pilots" gave us air supremacy, dominance in space, and the lead in cyber warfare. If that's "almost completely ruined," I wonder what the opposite is?

And by the way, "typical asshole arrogant fighter pilots" is about the most incredibly redundant phrase I've ever seen! ;)

JJ

Flashback!! It's a good thing I stopped looking at this thread after my post back in July '08, or I would've went a round with this guy. Woo hoo! I think time has completely justified my post back then. Moseley (and the SecAF) was shyt-canned because he was so arrogant that he carried over his predecessor's moronic "bodies for planes" fiasco, and refused to look seriously at the need for more Predators. Yup, it only took Gates about 2 weeks to realize that he had to dump that assclown SOON, and he did. Hee! And, their pet project, the F-22, was stopped, too. Double hee!

And, thank you fighter pilot CSAFs, for building the colossus AF Fighter Pilot Memorial to remind us all of how rotten your reign really was. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

[RingLeader]

UPDATE:

First questions, does the AFRC/CC have any say who is the Vice Commander under him? I think so.

Rumor has it MG Poulin is in a heap of trouble for “influence” in where “someone” was placed in the Air Force. The “someone” does not matter. What matters is the former 1 & 2 of AFRC proves that an old saying has merit, “birds of the same feather flock together”.

This does not matter any more, my point is to all of those “defenders” of Bradley, who now most likely will defend Poulin. Birds of a feather…

[BRUWIN]

Smarg,

Just for fun I went back and took a look at some of your posts. The common thread, aside from your obvious homophobia, is your incredibly pathetic whining about fighter pilots. Son, you are nothing but a sad, pitiful little man who apparently had neither the talent nor the balls to put yourself in a place where you might actually have to fight for your life, or the lives of people who might count on you. (Ok, I didn't give you credit for crawling out from under your desk after the bombs stopped falling.)

You're nothing but a coward who throws stones from the bushes at people who are your betters. No, not because they're fighter pilots, but because they put themselves on the line everyday, in peace and in war, to protect good, honest, hard-working people as well as sniveling thumbsuckers like you.

Are fighter pilots better human beings because they fly fighters? Hell, no! In fact, I'd NEVER say they're better human beings in the first place. (They're just better than you.) McPeak was, and is, an embarassment to the uniform. But your petty jealousy and rash generalzations about the fighter pilot mafia just make you sound like a little baby who was always picked last in the dodgeball game.

I've got no problem if you criticize someone for a particular thing they may have done wrong. But when you say it was wrong JUST BECAUSE HE WAS A FIGHTER PILOT, you once again knock the legs out from under your argument. I've known fighter pilots who were absolutely horrible commanders, and I've also known public affairs officers who I'd follow to hell and back. But I've based my opinions on their leadership qualities, not their job descriptions. Maybe you'll gain a little maturity someday and learn to do the same.

JJ

Lemme gues....you are a fighter pilot too.