Posted on May 8, 2014
Should vets be able to share their strife with their leaders once they are no longer under their command?
19K
367
124
9
9
0
I just got done reading this letter in the link. I have my personal feelings on the subject, but I wanted the community view. Was this retired, triple amputee right or wrong for his comments? Should vets be able to share their strife with their leaders once they are no longer under their command?
http://www.secretsofthefed.com/triple-amputee-veterans-fck-letter-obama-presidents-day-goes-viral/
http://www.secretsofthefed.com/triple-amputee-veterans-fck-letter-obama-presidents-day-goes-viral/
Posted in these groups: 
Office of the President (POTUS)
Leadership
Office of the President (POTUS) Leadership
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 40
5
5
0
Should vets be able to share their strife with their leaders once they are no longer under their command?
I don't see how this can even be a question. Absolutely, yes. Would you like your free speech limited once you part ways with the Army? I would think not.
I don't see how this can even be a question. Absolutely, yes. Would you like your free speech limited once you part ways with the Army? I would think not.
(5)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Capt Jeff S. That was a cut n paste from the OP.
If you look at the numbers of veterans who are homeless vets who are left behind by our country, I'd say the use the word "strife" to describe the plight they find themselves in is none too harsh and highly accurate.
If you look at the numbers of veterans who are homeless vets who are left behind by our country, I'd say the use the word "strife" to describe the plight they find themselves in is none too harsh and highly accurate.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
Agreed, he's out of the Service and is free to exercise his 1st Amendment rights; further, he's personally earned that right through his service; and, he's paid for that right through the sacrifice of his limbs. He also is uniquely positioned to gain the attention of the President. I believe that answers your second question, SPC Smith.
Now, to your first question: was he right or wrong to make those comments? That depends on his intent. There was no solution posed. While he put a good deal of thought into what he said, there was no open door for discussion; there was no potential for engagement from the other side except for POTUS to defend himself or attack; no room for surrender or truce. Lastly, the tone was disrespectful. The ability to disrespect a position of authority such as POTUS does not lie within the argument of whether one agrees or disagrees. If any question my assessment of the tone of the letter, one has no further to look than in the address line to get to the letter: it's very clear the intent. The probable response of POTUS is that this is a bitter individual.
Did he have the right to send the letter? Absolutely.
Did he have good points to his letter? Not all, but a good number.
Was the time and effort spent writing and sending the letter worth it? Not worth the postage it cost to send it. Someone that gave so much to uniquely position himself to gain the ear of POTUS wasted his opportunity to make a thoughtful, intelligent, indefensible argument. Sorry... disappointed.
Now, to your first question: was he right or wrong to make those comments? That depends on his intent. There was no solution posed. While he put a good deal of thought into what he said, there was no open door for discussion; there was no potential for engagement from the other side except for POTUS to defend himself or attack; no room for surrender or truce. Lastly, the tone was disrespectful. The ability to disrespect a position of authority such as POTUS does not lie within the argument of whether one agrees or disagrees. If any question my assessment of the tone of the letter, one has no further to look than in the address line to get to the letter: it's very clear the intent. The probable response of POTUS is that this is a bitter individual.
Did he have the right to send the letter? Absolutely.
Did he have good points to his letter? Not all, but a good number.
Was the time and effort spent writing and sending the letter worth it? Not worth the postage it cost to send it. Someone that gave so much to uniquely position himself to gain the ear of POTUS wasted his opportunity to make a thoughtful, intelligent, indefensible argument. Sorry... disappointed.
(5)
(0)
MSgt Lowell Skelton
Honest mistake at the border? All the blatantly clear evidence points to gun running.
(1)
(0)
SrA Ben Barton
MSgt?!
A) That wasn't the main point of his post. Why do you feel the need to attack details in posts on here. I have yet to see you post something constructive or helpful. I see a lot of little quips like this one, and the rest of the time, you wax defensive, trying to pass the buck to someone else.
B) Blatantly clear evidence?! Because ONE (1) PUMP-action shotgun, ONE (1) .45 pistol, and ONE (1) AR-15 totally screams gun-running, right? Wouldn't a "gun-runner" probably have at least upgraded to an M-16 or M-4?! (He IS a marine, after all, not some interpreter - so he would have access) At least those have 3 shot burst! And if he were gun running, wouldn't a SEMI-AUTO shotgun make just a TINY bit more sense? I mean, the whole point of gun-running is selling guns that are difficult to get ahold of. That doesn't descibe any of those THREE guns.
So let's look at this from an intelligent point of view. Let's try and look at motive, shall we: Why drive through a checkpoint when you're running guns, and you have them just sitting here, openly in the trunk?! Why risk any of that for THREE (3) guns, one of which (the shotgun) is probably worth less than $200 bucks?!
Point is, MSgt Skelton, there is ZERO (0) "blatantly clear evidence" here to suggest gun running or motive to do so! Man-to-man, maybe have some support for anything you feel you need to say, rather than just popping off with the first hair-brained quip that pops into your head. My two cents...
A) That wasn't the main point of his post. Why do you feel the need to attack details in posts on here. I have yet to see you post something constructive or helpful. I see a lot of little quips like this one, and the rest of the time, you wax defensive, trying to pass the buck to someone else.
B) Blatantly clear evidence?! Because ONE (1) PUMP-action shotgun, ONE (1) .45 pistol, and ONE (1) AR-15 totally screams gun-running, right? Wouldn't a "gun-runner" probably have at least upgraded to an M-16 or M-4?! (He IS a marine, after all, not some interpreter - so he would have access) At least those have 3 shot burst! And if he were gun running, wouldn't a SEMI-AUTO shotgun make just a TINY bit more sense? I mean, the whole point of gun-running is selling guns that are difficult to get ahold of. That doesn't descibe any of those THREE guns.
So let's look at this from an intelligent point of view. Let's try and look at motive, shall we: Why drive through a checkpoint when you're running guns, and you have them just sitting here, openly in the trunk?! Why risk any of that for THREE (3) guns, one of which (the shotgun) is probably worth less than $200 bucks?!
Point is, MSgt Skelton, there is ZERO (0) "blatantly clear evidence" here to suggest gun running or motive to do so! Man-to-man, maybe have some support for anything you feel you need to say, rather than just popping off with the first hair-brained quip that pops into your head. My two cents...
(3)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
News flash folks... All politicians... All Presidents... Lie. Period. Stop putting Obama on a pedestal. He lies just as much of the rest of them do. He's just got the luxury of a liberal media news complex running interference for him. Just because the lie doesn't show up on MSNBC, does not mean he did not lie. So, please, lets sift through the BS here and say things for what they are.
(3)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
It's not that we know that most all politicians lie... if not outrightly, at least by omission. Lawyers are very careful how they word things. For example, "That depends on what the defnition of 'is' is."
The public could handle a few of these as they did with Bill Clinton and get past it. But Obama is in a league all by himself. NEVER in U.S. history have we had such a race-baiting, lying, scandal plagued and fraudulent Administration so deserving of impeachment and prosecution. And they know it. And they're running scared and currently busy destroying and hiding evidence related to their arms dealing in Libya. I don't think Obama much cares about the victims families or even gives his poor policies a second thought while he's out playing on the golf course. Rome is burning and Nero is fiddling.
The public could handle a few of these as they did with Bill Clinton and get past it. But Obama is in a league all by himself. NEVER in U.S. history have we had such a race-baiting, lying, scandal plagued and fraudulent Administration so deserving of impeachment and prosecution. And they know it. And they're running scared and currently busy destroying and hiding evidence related to their arms dealing in Libya. I don't think Obama much cares about the victims families or even gives his poor policies a second thought while he's out playing on the golf course. Rome is burning and Nero is fiddling.
(3)
(0)
4
4
0
I think he NAILED IT!
Then I'm: WHAT? WAIT? HUH?! Not only does he have the RIGHT to express his disgust, but he ALSO FOUGHT FOR IT. There is no question this man is fully deserving of saying whatever the hell he wants to whomever the hell he wants. I applaud him for saying what must of us OIF/OEF soldiers are feeling but don't either know how to express or have the guts to say it. BRAVO
Then I'm: WHAT? WAIT? HUH?! Not only does he have the RIGHT to express his disgust, but he ALSO FOUGHT FOR IT. There is no question this man is fully deserving of saying whatever the hell he wants to whomever the hell he wants. I applaud him for saying what must of us OIF/OEF soldiers are feeling but don't either know how to express or have the guts to say it. BRAVO
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
My only response to this is an old, well known one, "if the shoe fits, wear it"!!!!!!
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
Sorry, I did not see this as a rant.
I sent a telegram to the white house during the fall of Saigon that was very similar in content. He not only had the right to vent his spleen , but a duty, to all of those he speaks of. Were I him, I would have probably been much more profane.
I sent a telegram to the white house during the fall of Saigon that was very similar in content. He not only had the right to vent his spleen , but a duty, to all of those he speaks of. Were I him, I would have probably been much more profane.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
SPC Smith of course vet should be able to share their strife and opinions after they separate and are no longer under the command. After all, to do so while still under the command risks punishment under the UCMJ, and not being selected for schools or promotion. This guy is right and I'm glad to hear his opinion.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
Do you mean should vets be able to voice their oppinion about problems or ideas for improvements in the system? Of course!
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
Veterans should - and do - have all the rights and privileges of any American citizen. If a similar letter had been written by some Hollywod actor (that would never happen), no one would be questioning his right to speak up. Why are we in the military and veteran community so hard on our own? Is it because we're so used to voluntarily living under unusual restrictions to our rights and liberties while on active duty? Do we unconsciously assume those restrictions to our 1st Amendment rights continue after we take off our uniform? The Senior Airmen - right, wrong or indifferent - has every right to say what he wants. And every military man and woman should recognize that these are the very rights we fight to provide for our fellow citizens. At some point, we all take off the uniform and rejoin society. Would you then expect to have your rights questioned? I think not. Agree or disagree with his point, but don't question the man's right to speak his peace!
(3)
(0)
Suspended Profile
He's retired. I have not met one single retired veteran who did not have strong opinions about politics, foreign policy, political leadership etc. You may not agree with what he said or how he said it but we live in a nation that allows him to say it and he paid for that right in blood.
3
3
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google