RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/9/2005 12:34:28 AM

DeepSix

Posts: 395
Joined: 12/22/2004
From: Music City
Status: offline

One way to think of it as "milked" was the issue of the midget sub sunk by the Ward an hour before the Japanese planes arrived at the harbor. Had it been public knowledge on the 7th or 8th, with the Pearl Harbor attack still raw, public opinion might have been different (not much, but some). You have to keep in mind that following WWI, the U.S. really beat its swords to ploughshares. We were attacked on December 7. This was more than two years into the war (from a European perspective, longer from an Asian one) -- *after* Europe's fall to Germany, after Dunkirk, after the Battle of Britain, after the sinkings of merchant ships, and yet there were few people who openly espoused getting into the war (incidentally, Dr. Seuss was one of them. He ripped Charles Lindbergh and the America First crowd a new one with his political cartoons).

Roosevelt had to a difficult political situation to manage -- the historic Anglo-American "special relationship" placed political demands on him, and yet public opinion had to be reckoned with. I think it was evident to FDR and Churchill that the next war would not be like World War I, and yet I don't think this was widely understood by the American public. Whether or not Pearl was a tactical surprise is less important in light of the inevitable strategic situation that *was* anticipated. Historically, Japan had been the aggressor, and so for political reasons we were just waiting for them to strike (thus placing God firmly on our side). No one could have predicted exactly where and when it would develop, but based on the latter half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, the Philippines was the safe bet.

< Message edited by DeepSix -- 3/8/2005 5:36:46 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 61

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/9/2005 3:47:35 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

Not to mention more likely to be able to rescue survivors - one of my alternate history nightmares is - the fleet sorties - many ships are sunk and 10,000 men die instead of 2,000.

(in reply to Skyros)

Post #: 62

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/9/2005 3:50:47 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

Well in USN wargames in the 5 years before Pearl Harbor ... 3 practice UFOs had landed ( i.e. the times USN carrier groups had struck PH by surprise in fleet problems ). Further in early 1941 Kelly Turner warned that a UFO landing was likely soon ( i.e. that Japanese carriers were likely to strike PH soon ).

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 63

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/9/2005 5:01:44 AM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Well in USN wargames in the 5 years before Pearl Harbor ... 3 practice UFOs had landed ( i.e. the times USN carrier groups had struck PH by surprise in fleet problems ). Further in early 1941 Kelly Turner warned that a UFO landing was likely soon ( i.e. that Japanese carriers were likely to strike PH soon ).

Most of the stuff i've read indicates Kelly Turner minimized the possibility of any such thing. Adm. Layton (read "And I Was There" - an excellent source to this material, written by one of the top codebreakers) specifically says so. See also ChezDaJez earlier message and reference of :
http://www.microworks.net/pacific/intelligence/pearl_harbor.htm

_____________________________

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 64

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/9/2005 6:16:54 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

Both of them were scapegoats. What was really at fault was the basic US belief that "it couldn't really happen to us". From the Commander-in-Chief to the lowest "swab jockey" nobody really believed that the Japanese would attack the US. Those funny little guys with the "coke bottle glasses"?
Get real!

Oh, they might get up to mischief in the Far East..., and MacArthur in the PI had better stay "on his toes"----but Hawaii? Hawaii was the greatest posting in the Armed Forces. Any potential enemy was thousands of miles away, and the beaches were lovely. Hookers were cheap and booze plentiful.

We all grew up in the Cold War, with the shadow of an enemy attack looming on the horizon all the time. This was not the case in 1941. America was the greatest nation on earth and had two huge oceans to protect her. If we got involved in a War, we had to go "over there" to actually fight it. Hindsight makes a great deal obvious to us today that was not at all obvious to those living in 1941. But every bit os important was the set of blinders we had developed over the previous 100+ years.

It is almost impossible to reproduce the "mind set" of the period, but the answer recieved by the radar operators who spotted "a large flight of A/C
heading for Hawaii" is typical. It COULDN'T be an enemy..., so it MUST be the flight of B-17's that were due---even if the course was all wrong!.

They were scapegoats for America's disbelief that it could happen to US.
Unfortunately for them, in a Democracy scapegoats are necessary and they were the two most obvious candidates. They could be relieved and imediately replaces with no disruption in the now suddenly necessary implementation of all the emergancy war mobilization plans now required.
Had the targets chosen been higher up the command chain (Marshall or
Roosevelt or such), then a political crisis would have paralized the Government at the exact moment that the country could least afford it.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 65

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/9/2005 7:12:11 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Well in USN wargames in the 5 years before Pearl Harbor ... 3 practice UFOs had landed ( i.e. the times USN carrier groups had struck PH by surprise in fleet problems ). Further in early 1941 Kelly Turner warned that a UFO landing was likely soon ( i.e. that Japanese carriers were likely to strike PH soon ).

Most of the stuff i've read indicates Kelly Turner minimized the possibility of any such thing. Adm. Layton (read "And I Was There" - an excellent source to this material, written by one of the top codebreakers) specifically says so. See also ChezDaJez earlier message and reference of :
http://www.microworks.net/pacific/intelligence/pearl_harbor.htm

ChezDaJez seems to be consistantly working from a different set of facts than I have access to [ I note his recent diatribe on the use of celestial navigation by which to direct naval bombardments ! ] - but then I've only been reading about the WITP since the late 50s ... but specific source for Turner's prediction in January 1942 regarding the possibility of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor at the start of a war is Hearings: Pearl Harbor Attack, part 1, SECNAV to SECWAR, letter dated January 24, 1941, p.120.

Note that Gerow and Turner [ heads of Army and Navy War plans respectively ] seem to stand out as the "stars" in pre-war [ 1941 ] predictions of what would happen especially when compared to the senior commanders ... especially Dougie Mac who convinced Marshall in late summer 1941 that his 200,000 man P.I. Army could whoop the Japanese and thus got Marshall to revoke Rainbow-5 ... these things being against Gerow's specific data and recommendations. Clearly Gerow was right and MacArthur and Marshall were dead wrong.

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 66

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/9/2005 7:40:29 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

A commander of a military force needs to prepare his forces, as best as possible, for the worst that might happen, not for what he believes is likely to happen. Since Pearl Harbor had been surprised by carrier forces during maneuvers three times before the actual attack (in 1928, 1932 and 1938), the military commanders of the Hawaiian Islands were obligated to consider this as a possibility when they received their "war warnings." No one is saying that they could have prevented the attack, or even most of the damage, but they were caught flat footed and this is inexcusable fro men in their positions. There is a lot of blame to be passed around in this matter, but it remains that these two "captains of their ships" failed to take even minimal measures against a possible attack that their own forces had shown to be a possibility. This is where they were derelict in their duties.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 67

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/9/2005 8:24:54 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

They were scapegoats for America's disbelief that it could happen to US.
Unfortunately for them, in a Democracy scapegoats are necessary and they were the two most obvious candidates. They could be relieved and imediately replaces with no disruption in the now suddenly necessary implementation of all the emergancy war mobilization plans now required.
Had the targets chosen been higher up the command chain (Marshall or
Roosevelt or such), then a political crisis would have paralized the Government at the exact moment that the country could least afford it.

Good lord Mike. 2 hours after a sub was sunk off the mouth of the harbor, not 1 search plane was in the air!! NOT ONE! Scapegoats? 2 hours after a sub is sunk 3 miles from your HQ base, you dont have search planes out? Criminally incompetent period. Both of them. The ONLY way they could have been "scape goats" is if they were ordered to not have planes up and then left to hold the bag.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 3/9/2005 6:26:33 AM >

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 68

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/9/2005 8:29:39 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

You do realize, that it helps to order scout planes if you know that the Ward DCed a sub, right? I don't really see how you can blame them, when they weren't even told about it for 2 hours. I won't dispute someone is to blame, but blaming the man on top for not receiving timely info from his subordinates is rather short sighted.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 69

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/9/2005 8:53:26 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

You do realize, that it helps to order scout planes if you know that the Ward DCed a sub, right? I don't really see how you can blame them, when they weren't even told about it for 2 hours

Hitler left orders to not be disturbed when he went to bed Jun 5, 1944. "I didnt know" isnt an excuse.

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 70

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/9/2005 8:59:11 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

The Hawaiian Detachment was under standing orders to have both dawn and dusk air patrols, which the standing agreement within the command became the navy's responsibility. Admiral Kimnmel failed to verify that the air patrols were active. Admiral Bloch was the officer responsible, but there is no excuse for Kimmel's not making sure that they were up. They had received the war warning on Nov 27, ten days later they still didn't have aerial reconnaisance up?

Unforgiveable in 1941.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 71

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/9/2005 8:59:56 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Hitler also forbade his commanders from making on the spot decisions, something the US commanders didn't do. Had German commanders been given the freedoms accorded US commanders were (even at Pearl) then June 6 could have been a lot different.

_____________________________

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 72

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/9/2005 9:06:40 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

A commander is responsible for his staff, true or false? If Kimmels staff AND Shorts staff failed to tell them (not 1 person in EITHER of these mens staffs bothered to tell them -- Im sure) its ok then?

Thats just arguing for the sake of arguement.

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 73

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/9/2005 9:18:45 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Its not arguing for the sake of arguing... I do not hold that these men were blameless, far from it. However, I do maintain that they were scapegoated rather quickly. Pearl was a comedy of errors. Should not Washington be blamed, for not getting warning to Pearl Quick enough? Or why not Roosevelt, for sending the fleet to San Pedro? It was the fault of many people, not just Kimmel and Short (though I do believe that Short did a lot to bring PH about.... parking your planes so damn close together is moronic).

_____________________________

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 74

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/9/2005 9:28:17 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Should not Washington be blamed, for not getting warning to Pearl Quick enough?

What was Admiral Starks job after Pearl Harbor again?

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 75

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/9/2005 9:46:37 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

Again, I do not believe that either Kimmel or Short should have been relieved because they hadnt planned for a CV raid on their base. I believe they should have been relieved because they failed to react to anything. The biggest percievable threat to Pearl Harbor was submarines, and neither of them even had ASW patrols up.

Now for those that want to argue that they SHOULD have planned for a CV attack, then its even more so that they were incompetent. The lack of dispersal of aircraft (yes the Navy hadnt dispersed theirs either, although they didnt park them in the middle of the field), further lack of recon. ect. The only way either or both of them could have been "scapegoats" is if they were ordered not to conduct these missions and then the people that ordered them not to later said they didnt.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 76

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/9/2005 4:29:15 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ChezDaJez seems to be consistantly working from a different set of facts than I have access to [ I note his recent diatribe on the use of celestial navigation by which to direct naval bombardments ! ] - but then I've only been reading about the WITP since the late 50s ... but specific source for Turner's prediction in January 1942 regarding the possibility of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor at the start of a war is Hearings: Pearl Harbor Attack, part 1, SECNAV to SECWAR, letter dated January 24, 1941, p.120.

Turner might have predicted the possibility - but given his track record, i strongly suspect that any testimony he and/or his subordinates gave after the attack about his predicting the possibility of a PH attack is probably, (how can i put this delicately) - exaggerated.

Layton pretty much calls Turner and out and out lier in his book (not in such strong terms, but he presents Turner's stories and then proceeds to demolish them with convincing supporting evidence.)

I agree that MacArthur should have been hung out to dry after Dec 8 debacle in the PI. You'll get no argument from me there.

THe fact that he was not relieved of command is why i think Short and Kimmel were scapegoats. One of the mainstays of our legal system is SUPPOSED to be that all are treated the same under the law. If Kimmel and Short were dismissed, why not MacArthur? Why not members of the Joint Chiefs. I suspect i know why...

_____________________________

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 77

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/9/2005 9:10:03 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Again, I do not believe that either Kimmel or Short should have been relieved because they hadnt planned for a CV raid on their base. I believe they should have been relieved because they failed to react to anything. The biggest percievable threat to Pearl Harbor was submarines, and neither of them even had ASW patrols up.

Now for those that want to argue that they SHOULD have planned for a CV attack, then its even more so that they were incompetent. The lack of dispersal of aircraft (yes the Navy hadnt dispersed theirs either, although they didnt park them in the middle of the field), further lack of recon. ect. The only way either or both of them could have been "scapegoats" is if they were ordered not to conduct these missions and then the people that ordered them not to later said they didnt.

"Yamato Hugger" If you had fully read my initial post, you would understand that I
wasn't relieving Kimmel or Short of their responsibility. I was pointing out that from
top to bottom the United States wasn't really ready to BELIEVE in the actual possibility
of a Japanese attack. The Higher Command put out vague and non-specific "war war-
nings" several times, but even they didn't anticipate any Japanese activity east of Guam.
The Officers and Enlisted Men of the Hawaiian Commands didn't really believe it could
happen to them. Even when the Ward's initial report of engaging a sub came through,
almost everyone recieving it thought it was just another piece of debris being depth
charged by some gung ho new reservist CO. It wasn't until the later report confirming
that she had "sighted, fired on, deaph charged and sunk" a submarine was any serious
notice taken. This wasn't because of any "plot" or even "incompatency"---it was just a
typical "peace time" response to the situation. Hawaii COULDN'T be attacked, so the
report must be in error.

This is the point that all the "conspiracy freaks" and "blame tossers" just don't get. Like
the proverbial ostrich, America had her head in the sand. War was something that hap-
pened elsewhere; and while we might eventually be dragged into it, it would be our
choice (as in WWI or with Spain) and not because we were attacked. Even when the
evidence started coming to hand, it was still hard for anyone to really believe. My point
was that Kimmel and Short were "scapegoats" for a whole society's failings, not just
their own. My personal feeling is that if the Japanese had delivered their ultimatum
effective at midnight ton the 6th, PH would still have been suprised just by sheer inertia
and disbelief in all ranks. And Japan would still have been pounded into rubble in re-
sponse.

_____________________________

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 78

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/9/2005 9:35:16 PM

DeepSix

Posts: 395
Joined: 12/22/2004
From: Music City
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

You do realize, that it helps to order scout planes if you know that the Ward DCed a sub, right? I don't really see how you can blame them, when they weren't even told about it for 2 hours

Hitler left orders to not be disturbed when he went to bed Jun 5, 1944. "I didnt know" isnt an excuse.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.... I have to respectfully disagree here. There's a world of difference between simply saying "I didn't know" and a complete breakdown in the tactical intelligence-gathering process. Which is what actually happened. They were not aware of the Ward's contact, nor of the fact that the entire Japanese strike force was detected on radar, nor of a slew of other things which, taken together, could have changed the tactical picture for them so they could act accordingly. There were more than two people to blame for what happened, and I think it had more to do with blind mistakes than any premeditated disregard of warning signs.

It is true that a captain bears ultimate responsibility for his ship, but not in a vacuum where there's no such thing as fog of war.

_____________________________

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 79

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/9/2005 11:09:47 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I have to respectfully disagree here. There's a world of difference between simply saying "I didn't know" and a complete breakdown in the tactical intelligence-gathering process.

If there was a "breakdown" in the reporting, it still falls directly into Kimmels and Shorts lap. If the people in their staff didnt inform them, then WHY didnt they? When Patton took over 7 corps (I think) in Africa he kicked some ass and inattention to detail and laziness went right out the window. The general he replaced wasnt replaced just because he wasnt a good commander, his STAFF was replaced just as quickly. I dare say he was relived because of the lack of performance of his staff as any other reason. And that is a necessity.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 3/9/2005 9:16:04 PM >

(in reply to DeepSix)

Post #: 80

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/10/2005 12:49:34 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

I do not have the Layton book - but the guy who was doing the work down in the basement ... Rochefort ... I'd certainly agree with putting him on a pedestal ! I was comparing Turner and Gerow to the senior leaders not the doers. My point with the specific Turner letter from January 1941 predicting an attack on Pearl Harbor, in conjunction with USN knowledge of 3 exercises in which Pearl was [ surprise ] attacked by carriers formed a pattern of a possible surprise attack on Pearl Harbor ... that should have removed such a possibility for the realms of UFO sightings ( i.e. .impossible events ). Unfortunately, despite this attested pattern senior leaders DID view the possibility of attack in the category of a UFO sighting.

I'd be curious as to why you think Douggie and Marshall got off the hook ! Because it does seem like they got very different treatment from Stark, Kimmel and Short and at least Douggie may have be more guilty than all the others combined.

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 81

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/10/2005 1:01:56 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

Doug got off because daddy was a Medal of Honor winner and he was effectively the "King" of the Phillipines (supposedly the locals loved him) I think is why he got off.

Marshall I believe was a good leader. He had a good staff. He appointed good sub-commanders. Easy to over-look 1 mistake.
Edit:
And I think it also goes to show that Kimmel and Short may not have been relieved because Pearl Harbor wasnt ready for a carrier attack as much as it wasnt doing much of anything. Recon being the key issue.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 3/10/2005 2:03:57 AM >

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 82

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/10/2005 6:07:03 AM

DeepSix

Posts: 395
Joined: 12/22/2004
From: Music City
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

I have to respectfully disagree here. There's a world of difference between simply saying "I didn't know" and a complete breakdown in the tactical intelligence-gathering process.

If there was a "breakdown" in the reporting, it still falls directly into Kimmels and Shorts lap. If the people in their staff didnt inform them, then WHY didnt they? When Patton took over 7 corps (I think) in Africa he kicked some ass and inattention to detail and laziness went right out the window. The general he replaced wasnt replaced just because he wasnt a good commander, his STAFF was replaced just as quickly. I dare say he was relived because of the lack of performance of his staff as any other reason. And that is a necessity.

So you would eject the team manager because the third baseman socked the line ump?

_____________________________

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 83

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/10/2005 6:45:09 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

[When Patton took over 7 corps (I think) in Africa he kicked some ass and inattention to detail and laziness went right out the window. The general he replaced wasnt replaced just because he wasnt a good commander, his STAFF was replaced just as quickly. I dare say he was relived because of the lack of performance of his staff as any other reason.

If you are going to use "facts" for comparison you could at least try to be right. Patton
succeeded to command of the II Corps in Tunisia. And very little of the staff war replaced. The man he replaced WAS an incompetant jack-ass (yet he was promoted
to an Army command back in the States). And most of Patton's work had already been
done by Rommel at Kasserine, when he showed the Americal Army that it could be beaten
like a dog by the other side. Patton's job was to remind them of the good side of the experiance, (9th Division's Arty stopping the Kraut's cold, and the men who crawled up the side of Kasserine and kept the Germans from widening their breach). Like it's society as a whole, the American Army needed a boot in the pants to realize that the job they were there to do required real fighting. It's an experiance that American troops have
had to go through in several wars.

_____________________________

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 84

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/10/2005 6:49:01 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Methinks he was watching the movie Patton for the info

But you are right, it does seem that in almost every war we (the United States) have ever fought, we get our asses handed to us first, and then come back with a vengance.

FYI, after II Corps in Tunisia, Patton took command of the 7th ARMY, then was replaced their by Patch and took over the 3rd Army for Operation Cobra.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 85

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/10/2005 7:52:07 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

" But you are right, it does seem that in almost every war we (the United States) have ever fought, we get our asses handed to us first, and then come back with a vengance. "

It's part of our British heritage...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 86

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/10/2005 7:58:16 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Ouch..... that ones gotta hurt.

_____________________________

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 87

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/10/2005 8:32:46 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

If you are going to use "facts" for comparison you could at least try to be right

What part of "I think" didnt you understand? Its been a while and I am SURE people knew what I ment. You obviously did.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 3/10/2005 6:33:37 AM >

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 88

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/10/2005 8:33:18 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Actually, he is referring to when you said the entire staff was fired.... of which it wasn't.

_____________________________

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 89

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/10/2005 8:34:25 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

So you would eject the team manager because the third baseman socked the line ump

Nope, but I might if the 3rd base coach did. Seriously, a Generals or Admirals staff isnt assigned to him, it is PICKED by him. If the turdball cant put good people in the right positions, then who's fault is that? Would you re-elect a president that has incompetents on his cabinet? Same thing. A Generals or Admirals staff is his advisors, his confidants, and in a lot of cases act on his behalf without his knowledge (and dont even go there, if your son charges $5000 on your creditcard and you didnt know about it, who pays?). And seriously, if you dont understand the concept, then there is no explaining it to you I guess. /shrug

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 3/10/2005 6:39:28 AM >

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 90