This guy is probably a careerist desk jockey. His wife says he is going to retire in a few weeks... yeah right! Obviously she doesnt know our military and how it works. That whole discharging without pay thing includes retirement. Which is pretty good for this guy considering he probably thought he was on the road to a cozy retirement after 23 yrs of boot licking. Throw in 1-2 yrs of hard labor in Leavenworth, KS... ahhhhh hope he enjoys his "retirement".

I know that the whole Commander-in-Cheif thing is pretty important, but could someone explain to me why this is such a huge deal. I'm sure there are many people at many different ranks who have said similar things. Sure, it is a stupid comment, but what is the big deal?

And that last question is not rhetorical.

Mad props to your father in law. Driving a wild weasel, man, it takes real stones to head right at a SA-2 site equipped with 6 telephone pole-sized missiles ready to kill you..... playing high-tech chicken

and enrak, as a former serviceman, i can tell you that you don't disparage your superiors. you shut up and do your job. this guy deserves what he's getting.

Ironically, i was a USAF linguist who was trained at the base where this a-hole was, DLI-FLC. Monterey is beautiful, and the best posting i had.

Generally, remarks over a beer within a peer group (i.e. Sgt-Sgt or Col-Col) are not prosecuted. In fact, I can't think of a single time that's happened. I myself have had many conversations like that (about a previous president), even with my boss (I'm a major), and never faced any recriminations.

The problem with these kind of statements is if they are made in public, or vertically within the chain of command. These things are seen as undermining morale.

If you badmouth your boss to your subordinates, especially in a large forum you can expect some kind of official reprimand. I would expect this guy will be removed from his leadership provision, maybe fined, be forced to retire, and that's about it.

I'm dumbfounded at the level of this guy's idiocy. To make remarks is one thing; to publish them in the local paper is quite another. What the hell was he thinking?

Incidentally, I also spent a year at DLI, and the head of the school at the time was a Lt. Colonel. If this person is the same rank, in a less responsible position, that sounds to me like he's stepped on his dick before and was put somewhere where he can't do too much damage.

This is analygous to the general who got dismissed for referring to Clinton as a "Lying, Draft-Dodging, Pot-Smoking Womanizer" The General, despite being 100% right, got what he deserved, and this Colonel in Monterey deserves the same. It'll be interesting to see if the press savages this guy as badly as they did the general who spoke up about Clinton.

This may well be a military urban legend, but a Navy friend of mine told me a story about Clinton visiting an aircraft carrier at sea in the 90's. Before he arrived, the Captian allegedly called an all-hands in one of the hangar bays, and laid down the law regarding derogatory comments, boos, etc. during the Slickster's appearance. According to my bud, the skipper finished off with, "Mind your manners, no matter what you think of the Communist son-of-a-bitch."

I'm guessing this story isn't 100 percent true... but it's still a good one.

Speaking of which, Steve, I'd like to direct you to here: http://www.sgtstryker.com/stupid/archives/week_2002_06_02.html#000817

Enrak, the big deal is that the military in this country is non-political, and the government is non-military. Contrast this with the situation in so many countries in the world where the Head of State appears in uniform. Everyone in the service knows that their opportunities for political expression are limited, including the colonel. It's just one of those things. Anyone who doesn't like it is advised not to let the door hit them on the way out.

After my first year of law school, I worked at the Los Angeles Air Force Base in the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate (JAG) during the summer. I can tell you that military cohesion depends on respect for superiors. A lack of respect will undermine that cohesion. That is why the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) is so adamant on this issue. As it should be.

There's a bit more to the problem with making public comments disparaging the Commander-In-Chief.

The strictness is due to the fact that the military ultimate reports to the Commander-In-Chief, the President, not to a single man. The respect is to the office, and the allegience is to our country.

Military personnel are in a position of both trust and force, and may NEVER decide which President they will support. They support the office, period.

Without that discipline, we very well could see our military exihibit the same behavior found in every banana republic - military coups every other month. Certainly, the effectiveness, morale and efficiency of our military would be decimated without that discipline and commitment.

The military is not a democracy, and is not run by consensus - not effectively, anyway.

Maybe he shouldn't have said it, but Bush has a lot of cover-up to answer for. Why are we just now finding out about all the lapses at the FBI? I don't say Bush knew, but he sure gives the impression of someone with plenty to hide; from Enron to oil pipelines, to advance warning of Al Qaeda attacks.