VA Secretary lies and claims he served in special forces

[rudeguy]

I see. So parents that tell their children Santa Claus exists should be ineligible for public office?

Does that rule apply to actions other than lies? So, for example, a motive of self defense doesn't excuse the action of killing a person on a murderous shooting rampage?

 

[umbrella39]

Jesus... first Brian William, then Bill oreilly, and now this idiot. Just tell the truth and be honest, is that so hard?
That and what did that lie help with anyway? Its not like it would make him look better or do his job better. I can understand Williams and Oreilly lying as it makes them seem like "real" journalist, but this guy?

No shit. Even Joe Teti from Dual Survivor likes to stretch the truth about his service. This is high school again?

 

[umbrella39]

What lie?

Like I said, for liberals lying is a resume booster. Helped him get a job in a liberal obama white house didnt it?

Does your bike have any gear other than back peddle?

 

[HomerJS]

For those of you bitching about the "librul media", first publication to report the story?

The Huffington Post.

 

[Darwin333]

I'm in agreement here. He broke trust with the vets and needs to go. If one feels a need to BS about one's heroic past, one should BS about stuff that can't be fact checked. Like the night I taught rudeguy what it meant to be a complete man.

You let him be on top?

 

[Matt1970]

Could happen if he's telling bigger lies than Obama. It's never good to one up the boss.

I think that's nearly impossible.

 

[Matt1970]

The left was clearly being bashed,...






,... yet the lie came from someone who is from the right.

I never mentioned left or right, you were the first one to bring up his party affiliation. Post #8.

 

[Fern]

I agree it looks very bad for the guy in charge of the VA to lie about his service, but I don't have a real big problem with it. He was talking to a homeless person and happened to be filmed. Had he lied on his resume I would say 'fire him'.

Actually, I would like him fired, but for a different reason. He seems an incompetent @ss. He either doesn't know jack about the VA or he's a liar: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ed-60-people-for-manipulating-wait-time-data/

Four Pinocchios?

Fern

 

[HomerJS]

I just watched the clip. I think he was just trying to empathize with the homeless vet. However he should know better.

Doesn't look nefarious.

 

[HomerJS]

BTW - Don't think Fox News will hype this much since Billo has the same problem.

You know this is their wheelhouse

 

[kage69]

I just watched the clip. I think he was just trying to empathize with the homeless vet. However he should know better.

Doesn't look nefarious.

No, it looks sleazy. Ethically bankrupt.

Not sure why I'm supposed to feel better about it now that we've established this guy thinks such a ballsy, bald-faced lie serves as friendly, introductory chit chat with the goal of friendship. To me that discounts him from both friendship and trust (the latter being kind of important given his position, IMO).

Someone help me out here.

 

[rudeguy]

BTW - Don't think Fox News will hype this much since Billo has the same problem.

You know this is their wheelhouse

You really are a stupid person.

 

[kage69]

BTW - Don't think Fox News will hype this much since Billo has the same problem.

You know this is their wheelhouse

Course not. Besides, there's always 'Add more debutant pantie shots' and Easter is almost here; fertile ground for the perennial victimhood complex.

 

[Cozarkian]

Not at all. As your image indicates, a straw man must be a misrepresentation of the argument, I didn't misrepresent your argument at all. What I used is the logically valid form of argument called reductio ad absurdum.

I'm assuming, since you chose to falsely cry straw man rather than defending your position, that you recognize the absurdity of your stated moral principle but had too much pride to admit you were wrong.

That's fine, I think we can agree that motives do sometimes excuse an action and move to the next step. So, why do you feel that motive can't excuse this particular action?

Note, that's different then analyzing what the motive is. I would agree, for example, if the motive was to make himself look like a good VA secretary then he is a scumbag and should be fired. The question, here, is IF his motives were solely based on a compassionate desire to make the person he was talking to feel better, why would that call into question his ability to serve as secretary of the VA?

 

[PlanetJosh]

When I found out he was an Army Ranger I thought for a moment that it could be a mitigating circumstance in his favor. But then I had to admit that special forces is whole other level than even a Ranger without such training.

 

[Ackmed]

My personal experience with the VA has been pretty good so far. Claim started last August, went to VA hospital last week. All appointments went smoothly. Got paid for travel in cash that day. Have one more next week. I have not tried to receive any medical treatment though so who knows on that part. But so far I am very happy.

 

[werepossum]

When I found out he was an Army Ranger I thought for a moment that it could be a mitigating circumstance in his favor. But then I had to admit that special forces is whole other level than even a Ranger without such training.

I'd accept Rangers as special forces myself, although I can see how vets would be more discriminating.

Besides, maybe this guy meant short bus special. He IS in upper VA management, and from observation I'm pretty sure that's a requirement.

 

[MongGrel]

Ya gotta love it.

 

[MongGrel]

For the liberals, being a liar is a resume booster.

 

[glenn1]

When I found out he was an Army Ranger I thought for a moment that it could be a mitigating circumstance in his favor. But then I had to admit that special forces is whole other level than even a Ranger without such training.

Depending on who you ask, you'll get different answers whether SF or Rangers is the "whole other level." People who did both ("Triple Tabbers") inevitably will say whichever school they attended first.

An apt comparison might be a medical doctor who did a surgical residency calling himself a surgeon even though they "only" worked as a general practitioner for the rest of their career. You could be assigned to a Special Forces unit and not be SF certified, does that somehow make you "better" than someone who went through the SFQC course but never served on an ODA team afterwards? I personally think not.

 

[Nebor]

Depending on who you ask, you'll get different answers whether SF or Rangers is the "whole other level." People who did both ("Triple Tabbers") inevitably will say whichever school they attended first.

An apt comparison might be a medical doctor who did a surgical residency calling himself a surgeon even though they "only" worked as a general practitioner for the rest of their career. You could be assigned to a Special Forces unit and not be SF certified, does that somehow make you "better" than someone who went through the SFQC course but never served on an ODA team afterwards? I personally think not.

If you're not an 18-series you're not SF. Its that simple. No green beret is going to brag about Ranger school, and unless you have a scroll you're not a Ranger.

 

[glenn1]

If you're not an 18-series you're not SF. Its that simple. No green beret is going to brag about Ranger school, and unless you have a scroll you're not a Ranger.

Those are reasonable rules of thumb but not universal. I disagree with direct experience about SF qualified guys who brag on Ranger school as I know and worked with several. Also disagree about not having a regiment scroll unit patch as many (especially officers) don't spend their entire career in the 75th. By your logic if an infantryman in the 82nd Airborne got transferred into a recruiter billet for a couple years, they would therefore no longer be either an infantryman or a parachutist because they weren't currently assigned to a PIR?