12 Generals and Admirals Endorse John Kerry

BBB, I remember reading on another thread about a admiral saying that Kerry is unfit to be commander in chief with the concluding statement that his opinion is not political. He must be the stupidest admiral in our navy.

c.i.
c.i. I am beginning to detect that the Military from the top to the bottom are losing confidence in their Commander in Chief and are quietly turning against him. We would hear more except a lack of obedience and a show of disrespect to the commander in chief during your term of active service can get you court martialed. Retirees are the only ones free to speak their minds.

BBB

We are all aware of what happened to general of the army, Shinseki, when he disagreed with Rummy on the post-war troop requirement in Iraq. I just wonder what the active military will say after Bush is gone?

Wow! Here's some explosive stuff on Bush.
***************
Last Updated: Jul 29th, 2004 - 09:12:13
Bush Leagues
Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
By TERESA HAMPTON
Editor, Capitol Hill Blue
Jul 28, 2004, 08:09
Email this article
Printer friendly page

President George W. Bush is taking powerful anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned.

The prescription drugs, administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician, can impair the President's mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis, administration aides admit privately.

"It's a double-edged sword," says one aide. "We can't have him flying off the handle at the slightest provocation but we also need a President who is alert mentally."

Angry Bush walked away from reporter's questions.
Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly-upset Bush stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay.

"Keep those motherfuckers away from me," he screamed at an aide backstage. "If you can't, I'll find someone who can."

Bush's mental stability has become the topic of Washington whispers in recent months. Capitol Hill Blue first reported on June 4 about increasing concern among White House aides over the President's wide mood swings and obscene outbursts.

Although GOP loyalists dismissed the reports an anti-Bush propaganda, the reports were later confirmed by prominent George Washington University psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank in his book Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as a "paranoid meglomaniac" and "untreated alcoholic" whose "lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions and pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad" showcase Bush's instabilities.

"I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything he did and reading what he wrote and watching him on videotape. I felt he was disturbed," Dr. Frank said. "He fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated."

Dr. Frank's conclusions have been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School.

The doctors also worry about the wisdom of giving powerful anti-depressant drugs to a person with a history of chemical dependency. Bush is an admitted alcoholic, although he never sought treatment in a formal program, and stories about his cocaine use as a younger man haunted his campaigns for Texas governor and his first campaign for President.

"President Bush is an untreated alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies," Dr. Frank adds.

The White House did not return phone calls seeking comment on this article.

Although the exact drugs Bush takes to control his depression and behavior are not known, White House sources say they are "powerful medications" designed to bring his erratic actions under control. While Col. Tubb regularly releases a synopsis of the President's annual physical, details of the President's health and any drugs or treatment he may receive are not public record and are guarded zealously by the secretive cadre of aides that surround the President.

Veteran White House watchers say the ability to control information about Bush's health, either physical or mental, is similar to Ronald Reagan's second term when aides managed to conceal the President's increasing memory lapses that signaled the onslaught of Alzheimer's Disease.

It also brings back memories of Richard Nixon's final days when the soon-to-resign President wondered the halls and talked to portraits of former Presidents. The stories didn't emerge until after Nixon left office.

One long-time GOP political consultant who - for obvious reasons - asked not to be identified said he is advising his Republican Congressional candidates to keep their distance from Bush.

"We have to face the very real possibility that the President of the United States is loony tunes," he says sadly. "That's not good for my candidates, it's not good for the party and it's certainly not good for the country."

© Copyright 2004 by Capitol Hill Blue

Top of Page


Bush Leagues
Latest Headlines
Sullen, Depressed President Retreats Into Private, Paranoid World
White House Moves Quickly on 9/11 Recommendations
Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
Bush To Push for Speedy 9/11 Reforms
Undecided Voters Don't Think Much of Dubya

Subscribe to the Capitol Hill Blue email newsletter Get Blue's headlines delivered to your email inbox every weekday morning.

Insubordination and mutiny: 'A Hanging Offense'
'A Hanging Offense'
With Buckner F. Melton, Jr.
Author
Friday, May 23, 2002; Noon ET

In "A Hanging Offense: The Strange Affair of the Warship Somers," author Buckner F. Melton recounts the story of the USS brig-of-war Somers and a disturbed midshipman who fomented a plan to kill the officers and turn the boat into a pirate ship. The incident culminated in an irregular, illegal and deadly decision: the ship's officers decided to hang the midshipman to quell a mutiny.

Melton was online Friday, May 23 at Noon ET, to discuss the book, the events aboard the USS Somers and nature and challenge of command at sea.

A transcript follows.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

washingtonpost.com: Buckner, thank you so much for joining us today. To start out, can you explain how you became acquainted with the events aboard the USS Somers and what you saw in the events that led you to believe it was a good subject for a book?

Buckner F. Melton, Jr.: I have been interested in maritime history for 30 years, but it wasn't until a friend of mine mentioned the Somers episode to me a few years ago that I thought it might make a good book. It has a lot of the ingredients of a classic maritime story -- isolation at sea, the moral dilemmas of command, mutiny, murder, legal thriller, conspiracy and a lot of other great elements. So I don't see how it could not make a great book!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington, D.C.: Did you get cooperation from the Navy when you were researching this book?

Buckner F. Melton, Jr.: I didn't actually need to since most of the records are in the National Archives or otherwise accessible in the public domain. I got a lot of help from former Naval officers and the one or two times that I did approach the Navy, it was very helpful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Virginia: Are you primarily focused on military history?

Buckner F. Melton, Jr.: I do a lot with military and Naval history. From a national security/constitutional law point of view. My wife is the main military historian in the family, and I also learn a lot from her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vienna, Va.: Is your book based on a real life story? If so, how long did it take you to do research and how did you come across the idea to write a book on this topic?

Buckner F. Melton, Jr.: It's all completely true and because I have the fortunate ability to be able to write and research quickly it only took about a year and a half from beginning the research to finishing the book.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington, D.C.: When researching the book, did you find any parallels to the modern Navy?

Buckner F. Melton, Jr.: Yes indeed! The technology is different but a commanding officer is still a commanding officer and he often faces crucial moral questions. The biggest technological parallel lies probably with submarines because they tend to operate by themselves rather than as part of a fleet. And they tend to have poorer communications with land. And in these respects today's submarine in more like sailing ships of the 19th century than other ships.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arlington, Va.: Do you teach history or law?

Buckner F. Melton, Jr.: Technically I am a law professor, but if you ask me to describe myself professionally in one word it would be "historian." I teach both history and law and my history courses tend to have a lot of law while my law courses tend to have a lot of history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington, D.C.: In the U.S. Navy, what is the most recent case of mutiny or attempted mutiny?

Buckner F. Melton, Jr.: The one that I am most familiar with is a case of ammunition handlers -- I believe in San Francisco -- during World War II. I believe that most of them were African-American who were being asked to do a very dangerous job in ammunition loading and if I'm recalling correctly, there may have been an explosion that killed several people. Afterwards the ammo handlers were naturally very upset and resorted to a strike to attempt to get better working conditions and I believe it was successful. It wasn't exactly a mutiny, but it certainly could be seen as insubordination.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Springfield, Va.: Is this the only mutiny in U.S. naval history?

Buckner F. Melton, Jr.: I think that it comes closest to being an outright mutiny of any event in the U.S. Navy. But there is a question as to whether this is in fact a mutiny. The commanding officer and many others claimed that it was and my own reading of the articles of war suggest that it probably meets the definition.

Since you had disobedience of orders of a superior officer and open threats against the life of that officer then I think the definition is satisfied. But I don't think you would find anything more extreme than this anywhere else in U.S. Naval history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sacramento, Calif.: Wouldn't you say that the Somers was atypical as a mutiny? Historically haven't most mutinies been more along the lines of labor stikes such as the mutinies on the Kitty Hawk and the Constellation in 1972 in which commanders aren't killed and the mutineers don't actually seize command?

Buckner F. Melton, Jr.: The "mutinies" of the 20th century to tend to be more in the style of management/labor and you certainly see the enlisted men of earlier generations behaving this way for generally the same reasons as the more modern events. On the other hand, many earlier mutinies tended to be led by junior officers and they could in fact lead to bloodshed or removal of the captain from command. An excellent example of the later is of course The Bounty, which was led by a gentleman, Fletcher Christian. So I tend to think that Somers may be atypical of more modern episodes, but more in line with mutinies that occurred during the age of sail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seattle, Wash.: When was the Somers incident? What was its historical context?

Buckner F. Melton, Jr.: The incident took place in 1842 in the U.S. Navy. On shore you had increasing "common man" democracy and greater hostility to special privilege, while in the Navy you still had the old aristocratic system that was a direct descendent of the the Royal Navy. I think that young Philip Spencer was getting mixed messages from a more egalitarian society and a system founded on obedience and discipline. So this is an excellent opportunity to see the conflict between a libertarian and democratic tradition that was emerging and a strongly aristocratic system that soon would exist only in a few places in American society -- most especially the military establishment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spingfield, Va.: Is there a particular definition of a mutiny?

Buckner F. Melton, Jr.: My working definition of mutiny is "treason at sea" or "treason in the armed forces." It is a failure to honor ones duty to obey lawful authority of commanders appointed over one. Mutiny is particularly dangerous because an armed force must translate its commander's will into action as efficiently as possible and if anything calls the commander's judgment or authority into question this could be disastrous not only for that force but for the entire military establishment and consequently the nation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington, D.C.: How was Philip Spencer able to convince crewmembers to plot something as serious as killing the officers and becoming pirates? It seems fantastical. How long were they at sea before the plan was hatched?

Buckner F. Melton, Jr.: It is quite possible that Spencer didn't convince anyone to join him in his plot and that he was simply fantacizing. Nevertheless, conditions aboard a warship, especially an overcrowded, small warship such as Somers, were absolutely miserable. Sleeping arrangements, food, work schedules, and general hygeine would be completely unacceptable in any quarter of modern American society. Most of these sailors could never hope or aspire to anything better than this sort of existence, and so when a youngster supplies them with alcohol and tobacco free of charge and suggests a better way of life it is possible that some of these people may be seduced into believing the vision no matter how fanstastic that vision seems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Middleburg, Va.: How common was mutiny at that time -- both on official naval ships and merchant/shipping boats?

Buckner F. Melton, Jr.: There were often minor infractions of rules or the authority of non-commissioned officers. Often these infractions would lead to various punishments. The most famous of which was probably flogging. But an attempt to kill an officer and to take over an entire ship was a very rare matter indeed. This may well have been the only such occasion in the U.S. Navy when such a plot was seriously discussed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Silver Spring, Md.: Are you working on any new books? If not, any ideas you're kicking around?

Buckner F. Melton, Jr.: I am working on several new books, including a children's biography of Aaron Burr that will be out next year, a book of quotations of the founding fathers that should also be out in about a year, a history of the typhoon that struck Admiral Halsey's carrier task force in December 1944 and a biography of Robert E. Lee. But I'm a little bit backed up right now as you can probably tell from the above list, so the last two books may be a few years down the road.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington, D.C.: I read on the flyleaf of the book that these events led to the founding of the U.S. Naval Academy. How?

Buckner F. Melton, Jr.: Prior to 1845 the term "midshipman" was quite literal. It referred to officers in training who slung their hammocks amidships. There was no formal school; midshipmen received only on-the-job training. This was in emulation of the Royal Navy system as opposed to the French Navy, which did have a Naval academy, but since the British won Naval battles, while the French tended to lose them we decided to go with the winning system.

The fact that Spencer was obviously completely unsuitable officer candidate material made American political leaders realize that we needed some sort of better system for selecting future Naval officers. As a result the Naval Academy was founded three years after the Somers affair.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vienna, Va.: The real problem is not so much ordinary sailors but in the traditionally inflexible Naval and Marine Corps chain of command... which, much more so than other branches of the service, has had stubborness, tunnel vision, a tendency to hide from reality, and manipulate events to try and conform to THEIR idea of the way things should be. This was especially evident during the rise of air power in the 1920's and 30's, with the dud-torpedo issue during World War II, and, more recently, with the terribly botched investigation of the turret explosion on the USS Iowa.

Buckner F. Melton, Jr.: I agree that the Navy, by its very nature, is a more insular branch of service than the other branches, and this was especially true in the age of sail. A military establishment by definition has to have a fairly high degree of organization and this is often difficult to work with. No institution is perfect and we have to realize that, but I would hope that all branches of the service are constantly trying to improve in every respect -- even though change can be hard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Buckner F. Melton, Jr.: I sure appreciate all of the questions. I have tried to make this book not merely good history but good reading because I don't think the two can be separated. I hope you all agree and that you will enjoy the book!

c.i.
C.I, see this thread:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=814942&sid=d840cac9c1b73fe911f45e8b8772a449#814942

Text of General Shalikashivili's speech
Text Of Comments From John Shalikashvili
POSTED: 9:52 PM EDT July 28, 2004

The following is a transcript of before Ret. General John Shalikashvili's speech before the Democratic National Convention.
----------------------------------------------

Thank you very much, General Kennedy. It is a great honor to stand here before you this evening and to experience first hand the enormous energy of "democracy in action." But I do not stand here as a political figure. Rather, I am here as an old soldier and a new Democrat. I am a new Democrat because I believe that John Kerry and John Edwards are the right choice for America's security -- and the right choice for America.

We live in a dangerous time. Terrorists have attacked us at home and they continue to strike around the world. And the greatest danger before us is that these terrorists will somehow get their hands on weapons of mass destruction. If that were not enough, some nations continue to threaten regional stability while pursuing their nuclear ambitions which threaten all of us. Throughout his campaign John Kerry has shown time and again that he understands these dangers and is fully prepared for the challenges ahead.

He knows that to be truly safe at home we must significantly strengthen the protection of our homeland and that we must not again allow ourselves to be distracted from the relentless pursuit of these terrorists. At this moment thousands upon thousands of our brave troops are deployed in Afghanistan and in Iraq in a protracted and bloody struggle. Still countless other soldiers remain deployed around the world upholding the cause of freedom and representing what is best about America.

John Kerry was the first to warn that these worldwide military deployments are dangerously overstretching our military and particularly our Army. That unless we appreciably increase the size of the Army and restructure it to give it new capabilities needed in the new war against terrorism, we are in real danger of returning to the days of a hollow Army.

And, John Kerry has made it crystal clear that no matter how strong we might be, success in the war on terror or in bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan and to Iraq will likely elude us unless we bring friends and allies to our side both for the fight and for the long, hard work of reconstruction. We must do this not because we need anyone's approval when we act to protect our security but because we are more effective when friends and allies stand by our side as together we share the burden and the risks. There is no doubt that capable allies and strong alliances are today more important to our security than ever before.

I am no stranger to war. Before I was 10 years old I had lived through the brutal occupation of Poland, the country of my birth, and the total destruction of my hometown during the 1944 Warsaw Uprising. Years later, like John Kerry and so many other young Americans, I participated in a very different kind of war in the rice paddies and jungles of Vietnam. And still later, when at the end of Desert Storm Saddam Hussein with unbelievable brutality turned against the Kurds, I was asked to lead an international operation to stop the dying and the misery and to return some 700,000 Kurds to what was left of their villages and their homes.

I know about the horror of war and thus join with others like John Kerry in believing that we must go to war only when all other efforts to resolve the threat to us have been exhausted. And only then, when going to war becomes absolutely necessary, then to go with full resolve and to use force decisively. But we should never go to war without a comprehensive plan for how to secure the peace once military victory has been won.

While I know the dark side of war I also know first-hand about the bright side of America. The America that from its earliest days has been a land of boundless opportunity and a beacon of hope and of liberty around the world. This is the America we cherish and defend and that is the America that John Kerry will lead. From my first days as a private in basic training, I have always been proud to be an American soldier. In my eyes there is no higher title. And for 39 years I had the great privilege to serve in the company of such heroes -- ordinary men and women whose selfless service and courage and love of country befit this extraordinary nation of ours.

In places like Kabul and Kandahar and Fallujah and Tikrit and a thousand others we can hardly pronounce they are writing their own page in the glorious history of American fighting men and women. They fought and bled and too many of them have died. And all they have ever asked in return was that we lead them well, train them for the tasks at hand, equip them properly and give them enough men and material so no matter what they will always have enough of both to get the job done and to protect themselves and their buddies. And the only other thing they ask is that when we send them into harm's way we take care of their families here back home. That is all.

And you and I we are so incredibly blessed that there are men and women such as these who are prepared to lay down their lives for our country. From here in Boston where the first patriots stood up for freedom I ask you as Americans as Democrats as modern day patriots I ask you to stand up for our troops and give them the rousing round of applause that they so richly deserve.

I stand before you this evening because I believe that no one will be more resolute in defending America nor in pursuing terrorists than John Kerry. And that no one will be more skilled in bringing allies back to our side but John Kerry cannot do it alone. You here tonight and all those you represent have to be equally committed to give your total support to John Kerry and John Edwards to keep our Armed Forces the strongest, the best led, the best trained, and the best equipped in the world.

I believe in John Kerry. As a young man he heeded his country's call to service when it needed him. He commanded in combat and did so with bravery and distinction. He knows from experience a commander's responsibility to his troops. He stands with our troops and with their families. And that is why I stand with John Kerry. I thank you all.

I have many friends in the military and they all say that Bush may not be the best president, but Kerry would be much worse when it comes to going to war. He will be so against going to war against anyone that he will not go to war, even when he might need to.

And just how do they know that? Common sense tells me they don't know deadly. How can anyone predict what anybody else will do? I know for sure Kerry won't continue to be reading to kindergarten children for seven mintes when informed our country has been attacked. Now, that's scary!

bookmark

Just got this one in my email. You gotta love it!
www.jibjab.com

As a member of the US Army, I don't like the idea of Kerry as my boss. I look at his record when he was in Vietnam and his record after Vietnam and it scares me. Someone he says that thousands of Soldiers took part in war crimes and then 30 years later boosts his service to the Nation scares me. Why should a man that slandered the vets of Vietnam be allowed to be commander in chief.

His voting record on the military and intelligence is opposite of what he wants to do now. He has said he will make the military stronger but his voting record doesn't reflect it.

Bald, People can change their minds with changing world environments. It's easy to vote against national defense spending when we've had no real war for fifty years. September 11 has changed all that. If you think you would have viewed the same situation differently, maybe it's you that needs to change.

Neither him nor Edwards were going to vote for the 86 billion that the troops needed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think the only reason they voted for it was because of political back lash.

Bald, Here's the "real" dope on that 87 billion.

link

I have friend in, and out of the military they say the opposite. So....