Latest Breaking News

RiverNoord

(1,150 posts)

28. A very, very bad sign.

Tue Jul 12, 2016, 01:45 PM

Jul 2016

Former NATO supreme allied commander? Madness. You need another general when you've got the Joint Chiefs available to you, and can, virtually at will, require opinions of hundreds of generals and admirals?

Ugh.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

James Stavridis, Retired Admiral, Is Being Vetted as Hillary Clinton’s Running Mate [View all] Renew Deal Jul 2016 OP

A VEEP choice from the MIC? R. Daneel Olivaw Jul 2016 #1

Worse he is the Dean of the Fletcher School whistler162 Jul 2016 #6

Worse still, he oversaw the 2011 Libya campaign. forest444 Jul 2016 #51

I was kind of hoping for someone we had all heard of. Skinner Jul 2016 #2

His nickname is Zorba Renew Deal Jul 2016 #7

He's a feint.....to be used as comparison to any ex military Trump looks at. nt msanthrope Jul 2016 #8

I'd have to agree. This guy brings nothing to the table LynneSin Jul 2016 #22

WTF does "military experience" have to do with being VP? arcane1 Jul 2016 #3

Well one aspect is its assumed he would have experience with running a large organization cstanleytech Jul 2016 #48

If you're a war hawk, I guess you can't go wrong with a general or admiral. fbc Jul 2016 #4

Depends on how you look at the election Renew Deal Jul 2016 #9

"according to a person with knowledge of the vetting process." Was this the same person who still_one Jul 2016 #5

His referral to the campaign is the same as everyone else that is being vetted. Renew Deal Jul 2016 #11

These things are usually leaked on purpose to the media FLPanhandle Jul 2016 #12

either a trial ballon, or a finesse to misdirect the media. I choose the later still_one Jul 2016 #15

Nice choice as it negates the whole "Trump can protect Americans" FLPanhandle Jul 2016 #10

Maybe not... freebrew Jul 2016 #29

This "news" concerns me... Moostache Jul 2016 #13

That's a good point Renew Deal Jul 2016 #14

But not Yukari Yakumo Jul 2016 #68

and I would bet it isn't going to happen either. As you alluded, he really brings nothing to the still_one Jul 2016 #16

They love to trial balloon these things Renew Deal Jul 2016 #20

you are right still_one Jul 2016 #23

Good point NWCorona Jul 2016 #41

I suspect that Hillary is vetting anyone reasonably qualified to be Vice President LynneSin Jul 2016 #24

"...addition of a military commander to the ticket is a hideously bad idea." mpcamb Jul 2016 #62

Why? Do we really need the military for less involvement sinkingfeeling Jul 2016 #17

Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #21

This guy is nothing more than a leak and a distraction from any Trump VP news LynneSin Jul 2016 #25

^^^ Hear, hear! sofa king Jul 2016 #38

We have Obama's wars to maintain as well n/t arcane1 Jul 2016 #26

Sorry, but I prefer my elected officials without epaulets. PSPS Jul 2016 #18

Interesting choice... Wounded Bear Jul 2016 #19

I would be very disappointed if.... chillfactor Jul 2016 #27

"fiery"? red dog 1 Jul 2016 #52

A very, very bad sign. RiverNoord Jul 2016 #28

It's a trial balloon Renew Deal Jul 2016 #34

I'll believe it if it happens. Until then, sounds unlikely. yardwork Jul 2016 #30

This makes it seem like she's worried about who trump picks from the military. They're craigmatic Jul 2016 #31

Exactly. forest444 Jul 2016 #45

He was still high kicking and waving sulphurdunn Jul 2016 #32

I would be against that choice. LiberalFighter Jul 2016 #33

Sweet Jesus on a Pogo stick - NO and more NO packman Jul 2016 #35

BAD JUDGEMENT. (nt) w4rma Jul 2016 #36

Was he selected? Was anyone selected? LynneSin Jul 2016 #39

"angry white men and the women that can't think without first consulting their husbands" HughBeaumont Jul 2016 #47

Why? By who? Renew Deal Jul 2016 #54

Interesting. A "neutralizing dangle." sofa king Jul 2016 #37

Nice summary LynneSin Jul 2016 #40

Yep. sofa king Jul 2016 #42

Fishing? I thought you were being vetted LynneSin Jul 2016 #43

No... sofa king Jul 2016 #44

Is this SERIOUS? WE NEED A PROGRESSIVE VP. HughBeaumont Jul 2016 #46

+ 1 red dog 1 Jul 2016 #53

What? She's not hawkish enough? lunatica Jul 2016 #49

Choosing an Admiral does absolutely nothing to unite the Democratic Party red dog 1 Jul 2016 #50

Warren's not ready, is needed in the Senate, brings no purple state to the table, and no gender RBInMaine Jul 2016 #55

"Warren's not ready"? red dog 1 Jul 2016 #56

If Hillary wins Sgent Jul 2016 #57

If Hillary loses to Trump because she failed to unite the Democratic Party, red dog 1 Jul 2016 #58

If Warren is Clinton's VP, Harry Reid has a plan to replace her (but not the other Senators) w4rma Jul 2016 #59

Very interesting!! red dog 1 Jul 2016 #61

she is more ready than Hillary was DonCoquixote Jul 2016 #60

Just a bone for the Military Night Watchman Jul 2016 #63

I'm getting sick of this "electing a commander in chief" line in elections Feeling the Bern Jul 2016 #64

In fairness... Sand Rat Expat Jul 2016 #69

War has always been more important than diplomacy Feeling the Bern Jul 2016 #70

Leak from the GOP trying to slow the migration of Sanders supporters to Clinton hollowdweller Jul 2016 #65

Nope. Screw that shit. Android3.14 Jul 2016 #66

Admiral Who? Hillary is all the hawk I can handle on one ticket. 99th_Monkey Jul 2016 #67

Who am I? Why am I here? JustABozoOnThisBus Jul 2016 #71