« Closer and closer to war ... | Main | US Navy DDG attacked in Bab al-Mandab strait. - Tidewater »

10 October 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.



"Trump brings out the worst side of the racism..."

When Mr. Roof shot those people in the Church in Charleston it was not Mr. Trump who equated all white southerners with that mans actions.


Here is what wikipedia thinks are the reasons a lawyer can withdraw from representing a client:

"Mandatory withdrawal

There are many circumstances which require that an attorney must withdraw from a case:
- The client fires the attorney.
- The attorney determines that he is not competent to continue representing the client in a matter.
- A conflict of interest arises under which the attorney's continued representation of multiple clients impairs the attorney's obligations to the individuals.
- The client insists upon advancing a frivolous claim.
- Continued representation would violate the rules of professional responsibility.
- The attorney is in a physical or emotional state that seriously impairs the attorney's ability to continue the representation.
- It is likely that the attorney will be called as a necessary witness as to a contested issue in the proceeding, and that testimony cannot be obtained elsewhere.
- The attorney discovers that the client is using the attorney's services to further a criminal act.

Voluntary withdrawal

An attorney may voluntarily terminate the attorney-client relationship at any time and without reason, if this will not have a material adverse effect on the interests of the client. Even if the withdrawal will be adverse to the client the attorney may still withdraw for a number of reasons:

- The client is engaged in illegal or fraudulent activity.
- The client fails to pay fees as agreed.
- The financial burden on the attorney of continuing the representation is too great.
- The client refuses to follow the advice of counsel, or engages in acts relating to the representation without informing the attorney or seeking the attorney's advice.
- The attorney is engaged with co-counsel of the client's choosing, and is unable to work with that co-counsel."

(I apologize for the horrible formatting - this may be easier to read at the original article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_responsibility)

However, the bottom line is, any defendant in a criminal trial has a Constitutional right to representation, even if they're guilty. And even if they perjure themselves, and even if their lawyer KNOWS they're perjuring themselves. In this case at least, Hillary did what was precisely her job, and I don't see how any approbation should attach to her because of it.



"...nuking ..." That would be a pretty damn dumb thing to do.



The Bush administration (with the help of the same MSM that is helping she who voted for the war in Iraq get elected) manipulated the US into that war. My question as posed does not have this come out of "nowhere" but be in direct response to US provocation by the killing of Russian and Syrian personnel.


Remember Nixon?

Nancy K

I realize that but they did not initiate it. C. Rice has come out against Trump. I much preferred Bernie Sanders take on the ME and war. My feeling is the majority, definitely not all women, do not appreciate Trump and will not vote for him. They may not vote for Hillary but they will not vote for Trump.


Nancy K

No. These women were among the initiators and boosters of the war. I was here and suffered through it. pl


I well understand the Preamble & its meaning. "more perfect" in that time & context means improvement. We ought always seek improvement, aware that a perfect condition can never be achieved in this world. I should have been more clear. Anyway, my intended comparison was to an ideal that can never be achieved - certain, pure outcomes.

While I'm at it, I just read an article about hate for Hillary. The level of sheer unlevened hate that I am observing is beyond sad... it is detrimental to a civil society, to our values as a people.

"When we treat politics like sport or war, then we treat ourselves as fans or soldiers, cheering or booing or following orders...
When we treat politics like that, then those who hold differing views from us are not wrong, they are evil. They are not mistaken, they are enemies."



I reject the idea that the US is a vehicle for the perfectibility of humanity. For me it is a country like all others. The "shining city on a hill" meme is just that and it has become a theme song for aggression. The improvement that was sought was in governance and not more than that. pl


mike allen

I agree about Mark Clark but then you have to deal with the memory of Rupertus. pl


Hillary not only endorsed Bush & Cheney's war, she convinced her campaign rival, John Kerry, to change his mind and vote for the war as well.

I was in Isfehan when, in order to corral Jewish votes in Pennsylvania in the primaries, Hillary told Iran, "We will obliterate you."

mike allen

Yes Rupertus was a piece of work. Recruited by the Corps from the National Guard to be a team shooter because of his extremely expert marksmanship. Did a great job as a team shooter, but then good snipers do not always make good generals. He wrote the Riflemans Creed. A good creed perhaps, but thank God they did not put us through that recital nonsense that they showed in the film "Full Metal Jacket" when I was a boot in 1960.

On Pelelieu, I guess he must have thought that rifles alone could take down heavy weapons in well entrenched bunkers and caves with armored steel doors and interconnecting tunnels. Over 2000 KIA and 8000 WIA suffered between just three regiments.


I must disagree. The Starship Troopers film is brilliant. The whole point of the film is that it was made to be ironic, but with such subtlety that most viewers won't realize it is ironic. It is like a self parodying Triumph of the Will.

That said, this commitee of correspondence has made me extremely sympathetic to Heinlein's idea that only veterans should be allowed to vote.



The process by which the USMC acquired the senior officers who led it in WW2 is interesting and seems mostly to have been a matter of direct offers of commissions at various times. Often these were to National Guard people. At times there were competitive examinations at others active recruiting carried on by retired generals like Lejeune. There must have been USNA grad entrants as well. It is hard to compare the processes by which the Army and USMC acquired people who eventually were senior commanders. The Army was so much bigger that a comparison does not seem appropriate. Yes, Rupertus was a piece of work. Peleliu we have discussed before. IMO the island should have been bypassed since after the Philippine Sea battles there was no real Japanese air threat to the Phillipines Campaign. We have discussed before whether or not the campaign in the Phillipines itself was a good idea. I have come to think that considering the loss of life involved that maybe that whole thing was a poor idea. In any event Rupertus' insistence on capturing Peleliu solely with the much bled 1st USMC Division was pretty close to criminal malpractice. As you know the quite good US Army 81st Infantry Division were sitting on their hands on Angaur Island nearly within sight after capturing their island against much lighter opposition than on Peleliu. As I understand the story Rupertus refused to ask for reinforcements from the 81st until very late in the game when the 1st Marine Regiment had been virtually destroyed. Other commanders have done similar things. Luftwaffe general Heydrich (not the SS man) falsified his strength reports at casino because he did not want non-airborne reinforcements. This is just crazy. pl

mike allen

Colonel -

In my reading of that history, Rupertus insisted on going straight at the Japanese dug in on Pelelieu instead of an envelopment. Madness IMHO.

Regarding the acquisition of officers, I believe Rupertus was a rare case although certainly not the only one. Prior and during WW1 the Corps took in some disaffected National Guardsmen that wanted to be in the Regular Army but could not. That was not for reasons of unfitness, but rather for red tape.

Generals Wallace and Greene, both later Commandants were Naval Academy grads, and I'm sure there were others.

BTW I note that General Vandegrift, CG of 1st Marine Division at Guadalcanal and later CG of the Amphibious Corps landings on Bougainville attended University of Virginia. He was a Charlottesville native and the first ever four star in the Corps.

Nancy K

Most of congress endorsed because they were lied to. Also she may have endorsed but she did not start the war. Both parties try and corral Jewish vote, what else is new. It wasn't Democrats who invited Netenyahu to speak to congress.


Nancy K

No. The Congress voted for war because they had been bulldozed into doing it in the same manner that she and her AIPAC/R2P/neocon backers are now bulldozing us into war with Russia.


mike allen

There were a couple of VMI people who became Commandant of USMC. Pate and Shepherd come to mind . I think Greene was a later acquisition than the period 1900 to 1917 that I was thinking of. The "red tape" you speak of with regard to Army Commissions had to do with the size of the Army and the fact that all WP grads got RA commissions. The Army was quite small then although much larger than USMC. It is curious to me that with USNA as a source of commission that there were excess USMC commissions available that had to be filled in odd ways. pl

mike allen

Colonel -

Pate and Shepherd were before my time. Pate had prior Army enlisted time before attending VMI. Shepherd, a Virginian, was a legend in the Corps, serving at Chateau Thierry, St Mihiel, Meuse Argonne, Guadalcanal, New Britain, Guam, and Okinawa. He was one of the old breed China Marines. Plus during his tours at Quantico he was said to be a damn fine instructor of tactics. Maybe the curriculum at VMI and their teaching techniques rubbed off on him?

General Shoup was Commandant when I enlisted in 60. He and later Commandants General Wilson and General Barrow that I served under were outstanding. None of those three were Naval Academy grads. Barrow was an LSU alumni. Shoup and Wilson went to small colleges, Millsaps in Jackson Mississippi for Wilson, and DePauw in rural Indiana for Shoup. Interestingly both Millsaps and DePauw have a Methodist Church heritage.

Regarding your curiosity on the USNA as a source of commissions for the USMC: I suspect the reason was that pre-WW1 Naval Academy midshipmen saw the Corps as a career dead end. Many Marine officers at that time never made it past Major, even the Commandant was only a two-star. That changed later. There were many USNA ring-knockers during my time.


mike allen

There was no naval ROTC at VMI when I was there. Shoup was Commandant. I wrote him in the summer between my third and fourth year and asked if USMC would be interested in me. The US Army had made it clear that they wanted my company. I was invited to take a physical by headquarters USMC. The visiting acquisition team had all the papers if the navy doc cleared me. This O-3 put me through a regime of calisthenics for half an hour and then declared that I had a heart murmur, but said I could appeal his judgement. The chief of cardiology at Walter Reed thought that was funny when he listened to my ticker the next month and nobody has ever after said there is anything wrong with my heart. This made my decision easy. I suppose someone in the USMC thought Shoup was being overly generous. It seems to me that you probably right in thinking that USNA grads before WW1 thought the Marine Corps was a dead end. pl

Mark Logan


Narcissists are seldom if ever contrite.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

September 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad