Oh come on you know all the stuff Hobbs said is all true about Carter as Rich says he would run from his own shadddoooowwww.

At least Jimmy doesn't politic anymore.

Enough about 25 year old stuff. We need to clean up this terrible mess in the middle east, NOW. Change the Sec. of Defense, the top five Generals, and many of the pentagon staff, then issue the order to new Sec. of Defense to occupy Iraq and run it until we don't want to any longer. Surely Bush can issue that order and then get the hell out of the way and let our military win. With a new draft we could do this within 6-8 months, assuming we aren't out of equipment and supplies. If we are it might take a year. The first politician who wants to issue contracts to his state would need to be put into a holding pen: when he is neded to announce the contracts, he will be let out and allowed to take the credit.

It seems you are always wanting to determine or redetermine the topic. This is Mr. Hobb's blog dollaraday - if you want to rant about bush - which you ALWAYS do - start your own blog!

One of the benefits of being old is having lived thru things such as the Carter governors race and recalling the interactions.

At the time, I worked in place where everyone was supporting Hal Suite, former TV news anchorman and the Republican candidate for Governor, except for one guy, who was the only black in our area.

Mr. Carter came by our area one day at lunch and tried to engage each of us in conversation... each of us EXCEPT his one supporter, who was following him around like a puppy with a big grin on his face.

Carter would not acknowlege the man, he purposely ignored him and litterly looked through him at one point while the guy was trying to shake his hand.

Jimmy Carter is a fake, a fraud, senile and has shown time and again to be inept in decision making and effectiveness.

Taking into consideration the history of the recipients of the "Nobel Peach Prize", Carter does fit right in with that anti-american crowd.... Arrafat, Mandella, etc.

Carter can think Hamilton Jourdan for his victory in both the Governors race as well as his Presidential run. Ham Jourdan was the "Carl Rove" of the 1970's when it came to political campaigns.

I believe that would be “through” instead of “thru,” “Governor’s" not “governors,” it was “Hal Suit” not “Hal Suite,” “acknowledge” not “acknowlege,” “literally” not “litterly,” the “Nobel Peace Prize,” not the “Nobel Peach Prize,” “american” should be capitalized, “Arafat” not “Arrafat,” “Carter can thank,” not “Carter can think,” “Hamilton Jordan” not “Hamilton Jourdan,” and (again) “Governor’s" not “Governors.”

Tomorrow we can discuss “senile” and “inept.”

...are both extremists. Play politics between the 35's if you want to succeed. It would do JeffC well to stay on topic unless he wants to be seen as unable to address the accusation of 30YearMoron.

JeffC, do you attack black people who don't use proper spelling and grammar or do you limit your attacks to older people, whom we should honor and whose wisdom and experiences that we should cherish. In defense of 30YearResident, maybe he is simply a product of failed government schools--or, maybe how he writes is less important than what he writes. I would rather have someone express his ideas quickly as they come to mind rather than break up a train of thought worrying about whether or not someone is going to make petty comments and hit the remarks with a red pencil. 30YearResident made a better contribution to this thread than did you.

Well said!

Tug13 you seem like a nice person so let me ask you two questions and I seriously want you to answer them for me if you will, please. Question 1: What would you say to someone who, in an anonymous forum like this, called your father “a fake, a fraud, senile and inept?” Now you can read this whole dreary blog again (and please note that I have responded with facts to most of the policy issues which were raised here) and collect the slurs posted against my family. Pausing for you to do that…… OK, you’re back…. Now you posited that you bet my mama taught me better, which leads me to question 2: If those things were said about your father, would your mama object to your responses?

Now consider this, almost everyone here knows who I am and they are aware that I invite discussion and will defend against attacks. They know this before they write and I suspect some relish the response and some are overwhelmed. OK. Now someone writes that Dad is a fake and a fraud, I could argue, “Where is the evidence for the accusation?” I could argue that he is very up-front with everything he does and therefore neither faking nor trying to perpetrate a fraud. Boring! He was said to be senile. I could argue that at this specific point in time he is touring the country on a book tour promoting his 22nd book which is soon to be a Number 1 best seller and I could hold this up as evidence of his not being senile. He was claimed to be inept. I could point out that he was President and won the Nobel Peace Prize which is strong evidence that he is not inept. Again, Boring! And also consider this; would such a response have changed his mind that Dad was a fake, a fraud, senile and inept? Would I turn to the blog tomorrow and expect to find a post that said I was right and that I had convinced them that he was none of those things? No, of course not! No one here, to my knowledge, has ever had their mind changed by anything posted here.

Now consider this penultimate point (because my posts are way, way too long most of the time as this one is getting to be also), can you imagine the irony of someone attacking my father in such a way and then another blogger like Woody admonishing me about correcting spellings in it with the title of his blog being: “Respect the Ideas!” Did Woody even grasp the irony do you think? Woody commented that the “a fake, a fraud, senile and inept” blogger made a better contribution than I did. Do you think that Woody thought I was going to change my mind and suddenly agree with the “ideas” expressed in the previous blog because good old Woody disapproved of my pointing out spelling errors?

And finally my last point, your response about “Respect the Ideas” was “Well said!” and I gave you a complete pass. Why? Because I thought that you were honestly posting an objection to my correcting of people’s spelling and not launching an attack against my family. When people here post harsh things I respond in my bitingly sarcastic best so as not to disappoint them. If they can’t stand the heat they shouldn’t go into the kitchen and put their hands in the fire.

Awaiting your answers to my two questions….

I answered your questions. I have a question for you, if you don't mind.

What is your profession?

Thanks, and the best to you and yours!

I do analysis on conflict and war. The group I work with generates weekly and monthly reports on every conflict worldwide. Based on this, we also make predictions and projections(which is sometimes unfortunate because they are reviewed later, sometimes to hysterical laughter, and predicting the future is more difficult than predicting the past). The area that I am responsible for specifically is SE Asia, focusing on North Korea, Indonesia, East Timor and the Philippines. I also track terrorist groups, military movements, military abuses of civilians (particularly in North Korea) and other interesting things.

Jeff,
Thank's for answering my question. Wow! What an interesting life you must have!

I must say I have learned a lot from several people on these posts.

We may not always agree but that's alright!

God Bless

JeffC, my remarks to you are no different than what I would have said to anyone else, because I didn't make a connection between you and the former president. You did a better job in your latest comment to address the ideas expressed, which have value, rather than to attack the person, which do not. On your dad's book, here's the take on it from someone who once worked at the Carter Center and who has regular disagreements with the President.
Carter Book Criticized
You or anyone else are welcome to respond to that without personal attacks from me.

I am more than happy to discuss actual policy questions with facts and, in spite of my attacks; I believe that a fair reading of these entire blogs would support my contention that I have responded with attacks only to others who attacked first. If anyone wishes to point out a specific instance where that has not been the case then I will endeavor to clarify.

As to the book, I did not click the link but I presume it is referring to Ken Stein who did work at the Carter Center. He was and is a remarkable person full of knowledge and insight about the Middle East. Although he was not consulted on the book and is therefore in no way responsible for its contents, I was very sorry to hear of his departure.

I have not yet seen the specifics of Dr. Stein’s complaints however I have been following Alan Dershowitz’s complaints and since he is one of the most prominent critics of the book let me briefly touch on his list. The chief complaint against the book seems to be that the book somehow alleges that Israel is an apartheid state. A lot of vigor has been put into defending the state of Israel against this charge which was never made in the book. The book is about Palestine. The next series of complaints revolve around the book not mentioning a varied and long list of things that have befallen Israel and Jews worldwide of which both you and I and everyone else are well aware. Mostly, this is true but irrelevant. The book is about Palestine and is not meant to be a comprehensive review of history. Finally, there are specific questions of errors in the book; one of which is a dispute over the exact number of people killed in a specific clash described in the book (I believe the disputed numbers are 108 vs. 123 but I am probably wrong. My recollection is in the ballpark I hope). Another specific error alleged was whether Jordan attacked Israel first in 1967. To me this is murky given the 1967 timeframe when Jordan and the rest of the United Arab Republic united to attack Israel. I have found it almost impossible to determine this specific incident without doing a lot more research than I am willing to do. Can the Jordanian attack be lumped in with the rest of the UAR of which they were part or are we discussing a specific date when a Jordanian tank fired shells into Israel? I certainly don’t know, but the debate is raging.

However, the book was meant to be controversial and to provoke debate here in the US. As you may know, there is a robust debate about what to do about Palestine in Israel but strangely, not here in the US. Nevertheless, because of its controversial intent and subject matter, there was a tremendous amount of fact checking done before it was published (as you can probably imagine) and I have not yet run across a specific verifiable error that has been alleged that was actually in the book as opposed to being attributed to being in the book. If its intent was to provoke debate, it has been very successful.

What's the capital of Mongolia? No Googling!

(These discussions of your dad prompted me to read a bit about your family. I learned of your particular expertise.)

is Ulan Bator. This is a very pointed and interesting question and leads me to believe that you have some inside knowledge to ask that specific question. If so, then you know I did not have to Google it.

It was quite random, I assure you.

Ouestion # 1. I would absolutely defend my Daddy until my last breath! My point was, and still is, I believe you were being smug and a smart aleck, to correct someone's spelling and grammar. I would tell my children and grandchildren the same. That's my opinion and I'm keeping it.

Ouestion # 2. My comment, "I'll bet your Mama taught you better." That was re your post going down the line correcting all the spelling and grammar. I taught my children to be respectful, and like I said," I bet your Mama did too."

Did this answer your two questions?

Usually, I don't get involved in, or read your banter about politics. The post re the spelling caught my eye. Most of you seem to have more knowledge than I do. Too smart for me!

I am a very nice person. I even say "Merry Christmas." I refuse to say "Happy Holidays."

Merry Christmas Jeff, to you and yours!

I thought it was a more subtle form of disagreement than launching into another long diatribe of which I am weary of writing and of which y’all must surely be weary of reading or at the minimum paging down through to skip. If you find wisdom from someone who writes: “Jimmy Carter is a fake, a fraud, senile and has shown time and again to be inept in decision making and effectiveness.” and who on the other hand cannot spell or construct sentences, well then more power to you. To me it diminishes the force of his argument. I mean here is someone who is saying some very harsh things about a former President and Nobel Peace Prize winner and who can’t spell “literally.” How seriously am I supposed to take him? He says these things about my father and it seems to me he is fair game for me to portray as a blithering idiot. However, since he has come across as a veritable font of wisdom to you and because even the attorneys here cannot spell, I promise that in the future I will try to not correct either spelling or grammar. I will try. I'm not swearing to it but I will try. I will also be generous and assume that you were joking when you said that I should respect his ideas. But only because I am tired.

I'll bet your Mama taught you better!

Just to list a couple more people who won the prize:
Martin Luther King Jr.
Mother Teresa
Albert Schweitzer
Woodrow Wilson
Teddy Roosevelt
Elie Wiesel
Desmond Tutu

Not exactly a bad bunch of people to be associated with.

Let's remember that peace is a goal worth striving for, no matter who you are or what side you represent.

You list goes back quite a number of years. In recent times, the NPP has taken a hard turn to the extreme left and has concentrated on some pretty despot characters.

Also, "Peace at any price" is not an option. There are bad guys out there and because you raise the Peace sign, doesn't mean they will. They look at the "Peace at any price" crowd as weaklings and will run all over them.

It's human nature, so we have to use the Teddy Roosevelt "walk softly but carry a big stick" philosophy... (oh yeah, you pointed out, he won the NPP, didn't you)

The winners of the prize since Carter won -

Shirin Ebadi - an Iranian woman who was the first female judge, founded society to protect children's rights in the country and fought for the victims (writers and intellectuals who opposed the government of serial murders and their families).

Wangari Matthai - founder of the Green Belt Movement which provides income and sustenance to the people of Kenya while also offering educational campaigns for women's rights, civic empowerment and the environment in Kenya

The International Atomic Energy Agency and Mohammed El Baradei - for thir efforts to make nuclear energy safer and for it to not be used by the military.

Muhammad Yunus - an author from Bangladesh and founder of the Grameen Bank and his efforts to fight world poverty.

Are these issues that only people on the left are concerned about? is it liberal to want people all over the world to be safe and not poorer than anyone in this country could even imagine?

I don't believe I ever said anything about peace at any price - but it is something that people should aspire to. We should want warring factions to settle their differences non-violently, whether it is the Bloods and Crips, Northern Ireland and Ireland (Protestants and Catholics), Israel and the palestinians, Sunnis, shiites, kurds, etc.

Yeah there are bad guys and sometimes peace can't be achieved but if someone wants to sit down and try, you sit down and try.

Peace isn't a synonym for wussiness and liberals shouldn't be the only people on Earth looking for it. The message is on a lot of Christmas cards out there and it is even a Christmas carol - Let there be peace on Earth.

Strive for it and honor those who give of themselves to attain it.

"Blessed are the Peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God." Matthew 5:9 (The Beatitudes).

Mr. O'Doyle's comments are very appropriate. May we at least for this Christmas holiday season embrace what Jesus stood for. I would have to concur that the Nobel Peace Prize should be an honor to anyone, regardless of politicial affiliation. And a true admirer of the U.S. Constitution would give Mr. Carter the respect that a former President, any former President, deserves.

The Marines are the Peacemakers!!!

As a true admirer of the U.S. Constitution I would give Mr. Carter the respect that a former President deserves, if he acted appropriately.

I can not remember in my lifetime a former President criticizing the current President.

Remind me during Clinton's eight years of any negative comments from any former president. Nope, none because it did not happen.

In 2000 the Democrats became unhinged and Michael Moore became their love child!

Mr. Carter should stick to building houses and writing books. I'm sure he is a good man, but a very bad politician.

Since the election and the resignation of Rumsfeld and the admission that most of us were correct about the terrible Iraq war, for at least three years, I find it amusing that these same dudes are dropping the defense of this crappy administration and jumping on Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton!
Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, and others are also jumping on the bandwagon with their "I also told you so" about the war. These stupid housepainters need to go!
When something is wrong, say it is wrong.

What respect is due a president who attacks large swaths of the country? Massachusettes liberals, California liberals, the "democrat cut and run" party? What respect is due a president that lies to the country about retaining the sec def in time of war after already notifying his replacement? What respect to afford a president who has vowed to disregard the will of the people whom he serves by keeping troops in Iraq throughout his presidency no matter what? Oh yes, the "Carter saga" is sooo much more relevant today. If he had only lost that gubenatorial race 36 years ago.... but he did not, did he?

Choose your battles wisely is advice you and 1600 Pennsylvania could use.

Hack

Please provide links to the "attacks" you claim come from the President. Many talking heads may use inflamitory language, but I cannot remember it comming from the White House.

As far as the Secdef, I applaud the president for keeping his announcement a SECRET (something the Dems love to reveal to our enemies) until after the election. If he had announced tyhe change before, you would have screamed like a little girl that he was just doing it to sway the election.

Here's another lie that I would support, a reporter asks "Are you planning to bomb Iranian Nuclear facilities. The President says no and 18 hours later a joints strike hits a nuclear reactor. Damn, the President lied, impeach him. Grow up. Are you really upset that Rumsfeld is gone? I didn't know you cared.

If you remember the President was reelected after the war. Seems to say he had the support of the people. He does not lead by taking polls like some have. It isn't a popularity contest and as the ,man once said, I'd rather be right than President. He is trying to keep us from dragging away, tail between our legs which would lead to MY SONS having to finish this fight!

Carter is relevant today becuase he sold out the Shah and allowed Islamic exteremists to begin their Jihad as well as leaving Americans in bondage for 444 days!

He thinks he can lecture anyone else on foreign policy, that's a joke just like the economy under him. I remember the 18% mortgages and gas lines pal.

Greetings,

You got to see the "evil Hack" again. Ohh well. This Hobbs bafoon slays me. I wish he had served his country. He'd have gotten rid of some of the misplaced aggression. Question for you: How many of the hostages in Iran died? How many days have our people been stuck in Iraq? How many civilians, military, and contractors have died in 43s Iraq? Where should anger be aimed?

Hack

That might be a good start. No hostages died, but the spread of jihad and today's violence in Iraq can be traced to the failed Carter administration! He traded a flawed ally for a soon to be nuclear enemy. Never mind history, just bash the President for trying to stop the flood of Islamic jihad.

I'll miss these chats when we are under sharia law. Just run away without winning in Iraq and it's just a matter of time.

Aim anger at the enemy? Is that what you did when you brought up 444 days of captivity in Iran to make a mental leap and blame President Carter for our current admin's quagmire?

"Just run away without winning in Iraq and it's just a matter of time."

You are one of the only men on the planet who thinks "winning" is possible in Iraq. Yet you never say HOW. Yes, if we just stay there several hundred years, we will eventually start seeing progress? I swear to you that I wish "winning" and democracy were possible in Iraq. The whole situation is heart breaking. And no one has an answer; no one. And blaming Jimmy Carter won't change a thing about the decisions made two decades after his presidency.

Cheers, and I'll try to wind back down. Now I understand why people smoke and drink

Kevin Hack King

I do not live in the past, but you and many others want to repeat the mistake of Vietnam and Iran. Osama even stated the US was a "paper tiger" after leaving Somalia and Vietnam. Sun Tsu said to know your enemy.

You claim that I never say how to achieve victory, OK sport how do you fight terrorist if you withdraw from Iraq. Ask nancy Pelosi, I'm sure she has a sure fire plan that ensures the civil rights and constitutional protection to the terrorists.

Reagan was brutalized by his opponents and the media, much like President Bush, but he stared down the Soviets and they blinked!

Strength and resolve is the ONLY thing our opponents understand, or do you want to negotiate with them? Have we ever negotiated with the Mafia, KKK, Black Panthers, Bader Meinhoff?

Hack...you said: You are one of the only men on the planet who thinks "winning" is possible in Iraq.

I'm not sure how do define the word "win" when it comes to the Middle East. Might Iraq be considered the "high ground" in this ever escalating war against terrorism? I do not pretend to have all the answers. But what should be plain and obvious to all is that we should fight for Iraq and against terrorism even at a high price. What that price is I again don't pretend to know nor do I know what this should look like. All I do know is that if we fold in Iraq we have enabled and bolstered the world influence of despot leaders such as Amajewhater from Iran, (sorry...hadn't mastered the spelling of his name yet) Hugo Chavez, Kim the North Korean Mad Man Midget, Syria, Hamas, and Alqueerda. And not to mention France....Ok..maybe not France.

Sometimes one needs to hold their ground even if that ground gets costly. Our presence in Iraq is the only thing keeping Amajewhater from gaining a Soviet style radical Islamic influence over the Middle East. The difference there is that the Soviets understood restraint while the Wacko Muslim's doctrine is the antithesis to the concept of restraint.

I wish I had a more optimistic view of peace in the Middle East but history has proved that this is virtually impossible with out some sort of divine intervention. I'm convinced that man just ain't a gonna make it happen. Wish there was another way but like rats all we can do is contain them the best we can and kill off the ones that attempt to come after us.

The Major said: Strength and resolve is the ONLY thing our opponents understand, or do you want to negotiate with them? Have we ever negotiated with the Mafia, KKK, Black Panthers, Bader Meinhoff?

Unfortunately I think he's right.

The problem with saying we need to hold our ground is this: It is not OURS. Iraq is sovereign. The people there by and large don't want us there. The terrorists of wich you speak are 2% of the combatants there. The other 98% are in civil unrest which looks alot like civil war. Al Qaeida is comming back in Afghanistan. Refocusing on that battle ground is necessary.
How does Vietnam look today? I believe it would look the same if we had knocked off the combat there 20,000 lives earlier.
But again, I ask you: What specifically will begin to improve Iraq as we stay year after year? What mechanism do you see will cause Shiite and Sunni and Kurd to embrace one another with our large military presence in the midsts of them? I can't see the light through that tunnel.

Cheers, friends,

Hack

A very big nuclear device before they use multiple little ones on us. Seriously though...like I said I don't have the answers other than continuing the inevitable fight on their turf.

I may be wrong in this but I don't consider Vietnam being a total loss. What would the world look like today had we not fought and stemmed the rapid expansion of communism at that time. Vietnam was a mere front on the war against Communist expansion. After years of thinking about this I don't think our guys died in vain as costly in human life as that war was.

No matter whether we win, lose, or flee Iraq nothing will be solved. This war against these hate filled, jealous extremists will not end by virtue of us fleeing Iraq and Afghanistan. The mere talk of defeat is emboldening them to fight harder in a massive effort where they realize that we have not the desire nor the heart for victory. They've claimed this all along and they are right.

So we back up to the next trench which will be Israel and then Europe. What or where next?

Bush Sr. criticized Clinton during the Monica scandal......my what a short memeory we have...

In an appearance at a San Antonio grade school on October 13, 1993, Bush expressed concern that the humanitarian mission to Somalia that he had launched nearly a year earlier was being "messed up" by the Clinton administration. "If you're going to put somebody else's son or daughter into harm's way, into battle, you've got to know the answer to three questions," Bush told the students. He said the president has to know what the mission is, "how they are going to do it," and "how they're going to get out of there." [The New York Times, 10/14/93; The Boston Globe, 10/23/93]

In an interview published in the February 1994 issue of Washingtonian magazine, Bush criticized the Clinton administration's purported lack of a "general strategy" in the foreign policy arena and the "start-and-stop" failures it had exhibited. Bush said: “The specific point of difference I'd make with the current administration, however, is that when you send a US ship loaded with military personnel to go ashore, you don't say, "They're going ashore" unless you mean it. And you don't get turned back by a group of thugs standing on the dock. What that does -- starting and stopping -- is weaken the image of the United States as a strong, resolute leader. It was devastating, sent a horrible signal, when that troop ship was turned back -- a signal not just to Latin America, but to Europe and elsewhere. Where I find most fault in the Clinton foreign policy, the area where I find room for criticism, is this pattern of start-and-stop, start-and-stop.”

That took 30 seconds to find, so your assertion about Carter's criticism was blown in about the same time it took to read it. However, I'll tell him you don't think he's a good politician. I'm sure he'll be devastated.

Thanks for that research, I missed those comments, probably busy as a Battalion XO at the time.

If I had a few days to kill, I would qoute the hundreds of times your dad and Clinton have bashed the current President.

Bush decided not to make a career of running down the presidency.

So many people feel sick to their stomach as to what they see in our fiscal policy. They cringe at the inarticulate "leadership." They weep at the impossible mission given our bravest in Iraq. Patriotic Americans like myself, feel obligated by duty to the Constitution to voice heartfelt concerns over policies that seem to have no rudder, wings, or even motors. Such is the character of the "decider" whom you wish still appeared figuratively bullet proof. Unfortunately for ALL OF US, this is definitely not the case.

Hack

I hope you are not making derogatory remarks about your commander in chief. His title to you is Mr. President. I'm sure that "Boy Wonder" remark wouldn't go well during a promotion board.

As a civilian, I can say anything I want. When I was on active duty I kept my mouth shut about President Clinton because he was commander in chief and Article 88 of the UCMJ.

If you feel so stongly, maybe you should resign your commission, or zip your lip.

ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

"How dare you say that while sitting at home in sweats as reserve guy that is on duty sometimes?" Boy Wonder was Batman's side kick. He was a freakin super hero, man? How is that derogatory???!!!

Come on Hack, a little intellectual honesty here, one MAJ to another.

First the word boy: Dismissive, immature, diminutive, inexperienced.

Second word wonder: said with sarcasm since you do not admire, respect or support the President.

Why do you insist on using nick names, slurs and everything but the proper title?

Why would you refer to the President as a "side kick" rather than Batman? No Hack, nice try to deflect but no cigar. Oops, sorry for the Monica reference.

Two words as written by you, self proclaimed "ArmyMAjretired", quoter of military articles and rules of conduct:

Jon Cary

Who is that person of whom you often make reference?????

HAck

1. Since you are a "serving" officer, Article 88 applies to you, not me. Like it or not when actively serving you give up certain liberties and freedoms, I know I did for over 18 years. like it or not I'm retired and can speak my mind and try to do so respectfully occasionally slipping.

2. You call the Commander in Chief boy wonder. I mispell the junior Senator from MA the way our insulted troops do, not quite the same. I do not call him Lurch, Giggalo, Horse Face, Loser, Band aid boy or any other name.

Interesting how you quoute being a "Battalion XO at the time". I think nobody cares if you were a Boy Scout or what nobility titles you have, what's a "Battalion XO" anyways? Sounds like a "cross-over" to me. Are you gay?

-----------------------------------
Making you think twice......

Are you saying that there is something wrong with being gay?

If you are looking for gay sex. I'm a raging heterosexual!

When you use the words "I think" you are guilty of gross mischaracterisation of your Cranial capacity.

I don't know how anyone with the word "drag" in their name has any business talking about sexuality!

Forgive me for accomplishing something with my life and being proud of it. I don't care that you fried your brain on drugs and live in your parents' basement!

Well, he could be gay but that would have nothing to do with an XO of a battalion.
A battalion is usually several companies of soldiers, a few hundred, with a headquarters. It is run by a Lt. Colonel, a Major or two and many Captains and Lt's.
All of them don't do the same thing however. Some battalions are infantry, some are cooks.

Major: I served 55 years ago and up until that time anyway we cooked for ourself, cut each other's hair, cleaned our own buildings and offices, even the hospital; one week in, one week to work before release. I sometimes think Halliburton gets paid to go to the toilet with officers now, just to get paid!
There is nothing that says you can't drive a truck, type, cook, clean, etc., and still carry your piece and have other equipment near-by. If we use mercinaries and contractors to get killed for us, nobody will respect us. Britian and France lost a world that way.

I've heard of Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Engineer, Signal, Military Police, Transportation, Civil Affairs, Quartermaster and even Support Battalions, but I ain't never heard of no cook battalion.

Is that a new one or an old one?