previous post next post  

Speaking of Generals Colonels.

By The Armorer on April 28, 2006 | | Comments (28) | TrackBacks (1)

Let's talk about Colonel Janis Karpinski and what this wretched example of the Officer Corps is up to.

She has a book out. One Woman's Army. I haven't read it, I'm not sure I'll have the stomach to wade through it. I might have to go see if the local library has it, as I'm not sure I want to contribute to the financial health of this pathetic example of an officer totally unable to accept responsibility for her failures in command. Mind you, even though we finally have a LTC being charged over Abu Ghraib, I'm *still* looking for more senior scalps to hang at the portcullis.

While I know nothing is going to happen to her for this - her book cover is, quite simply, wrong, and in that little, dark, vindictive corner of my soul, I wonder if it's chargeably so.

Karpinski is a Colonel. Not a General. And all her wishing to the contrary doesn't make it so. And, technically, she's never *been* a General, her promotion to same having been tainted by her failure to acknowledge her arrest for shoplifting while a Colonel. That event caused her promotion to be set-aside... as if it had never happened. Like it or not, in a very real legal sense, she has *never* been a General, and she certainly is not one now.

Ergo - *this* is what her book cover *should* look like.

COLONEL Janis Karpinski

And lest anyone have any doubt - I checked her AKO entry. Colonel.

I left the tagline to the book title unchanged. The story is right on the cover.

But I *will* accept a review copy, should the publisher (as the *brilliant* firms of Simon and Schuster and Regnery already do) wish to provide one...

Update: If you are coming in from the Unpartisan.com link, you really want to see this post. But you're welcome to hang around and poke in the corners.

Share This Article:

Categories:

1 Trackbacks

TrackBack this entry at http://www.thedonovan.com/cgi-bin/mt41/mt-tb.cgi/5557

Army charges former Abu Ghraib officer from Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator on April 29, 2006 7:33 AM

The Army on Friday charged the former head of the interrogation center at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq Read More

28 Comments

By AFSister on April 28, 2006 8:30 AM
Damn straight. She is SO messed up it's not even funny. She's an embarassment to the Army and the US, but it's unlikely she'll ever know it.
 
By Barb on April 28, 2006 8:39 AM
That's disgusting! There she is in the picture with Colonel's wings for all to see, putting the lie right to the words. What an a$$.
 
By John of Argghhh! on April 28, 2006 9:37 AM
Barb - just to be clear - I put the Eagle on her collar. The actual book cover has a star (click the link to the book to see the original). I shoulda been more obvious, I guess.
 
By Maggie on April 28, 2006 11:30 AM
OK, we'll go with the snotty Boston accent for this on.............Janice Karpinski is a "HOSSIS AHHSS" (horse's ass)
 
By Masked Menaceİ on April 28, 2006 11:43 AM
You forgot to strike the General at the top too. "The Commanding *Colonel* of Abu Ghraib..."
 
By John of Argghhh! on April 28, 2006 12:20 PM
Geez, MMİ. Does *no one* read what I write anymore? Shall I just do a picture blog? What part of the last line of the post is confusing...? Help me out here, folks! 8^ D
 
By Barb on April 28, 2006 12:39 PM
Good photo-shopping, John! Fooled me on the wings :-) Maggie - I can almost hear you sayin' it! (Yess, I caught your appearance at the conference ... *grin*)
 
By fdcol63 on April 28, 2006 12:53 PM
Karpinski is no Boorda, that's for sure. Instead, she's the poster child of today's culture of "victimization" and "entitlement", where no one accepts responsibility for his or her own culpability, and suffers no shame.
 
By John of Argghhh! on April 28, 2006 12:58 PM
Frank - while I agree, I think Admiral Boorda took his responsibility a little too thoroughly.
 
By ry on April 28, 2006 1:15 PM
"Instead, she's the poster child of today's culture of "victimization" and "entitlement", where no one accepts responsibility for his or her own culpability, and suffers no shame." In total agreement with this sentiment.
 
By fdcol63 on April 28, 2006 1:34 PM
John, Boorda's suicide does seem a bit extreme, especially for a man who was dynamic and capable enough to rise through the ranks as he did. And then there are those who don't think it was a "suicide" at all.
 
By John of Argghhh! on April 28, 2006 1:50 PM
And what motive is advanced for murdering a CNO?
 
By fdcol63 on April 28, 2006 2:04 PM
What motive? Here we get into the murky world of conspiracy theory. And there's a bunch of them in the fever swamps out there. One of which is this one, Part 4 at the bottom of this link: http://www.darkconspiracy.com/conspiracies/assassinations/clintonbc/boorda.txt I'll just excerpt this portion for convenience: ==================== Part 4. Adm Boorda's "suicide" - A Filegate connection? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- :)5.) Anyone who is being considered for the job of CNO - or any other job :)of that magnitude - is investigated throughly. Lie detector tests, :)background screening, etc. Yet, investigations that are known to uncover :)even the minutest of details - employment of illegal aliens as maids 30 :)years ago, smoking of one joint in college - did not uncover the :)apparent discrepancy in the records - and the records were there all the :)time. Why not? I had to quote myself on this one to provide background. First, let me say UPFRONT AND OUT LOUD this is pure speculation and a hunch. Okay, so stand by: If the WH keeps innuendo files on everyone close to the WH, then it *had* to have Adm Boorda's file. The press reports are that the stories have been circling D.C. for quite some time that senior Pentagon officials wore ribbons they were not entitled to wear. I would expect that this is *just* the type of rumor that might land in Adm Boorda's FBI innuendo file. Q: Who had access to this file? A: WH/Clinton/Livingstone/Marceca and apparently a zillion other Clintonistas - no security. IF, the rumor was in the file, IF, Adm Boorda drew a line in the sand, IF, the WH wanted him to keep toeing the Clinton line, What might they do with the innuendo file information on the ribbon? Leak it to the press as a warning not to rock the boat? Trento of NSNS says the info on the "Vs" came from a "Charles Thompson" a producer at "60 Minutes" who had since left that organization. Thompson has yet to be interviewed by the press on where the info came from, not that he divulge it anyway. BUT, put 2 and 2 together ... Rumor+FBI innuendo file+WH+Boorda taking a stand=LEAK? That's *if* Adm Boorda took a stand on some latest Clinton order and said "NO!" ... and I feel in my heart he did. Was the order the firing of Adm "Snuffy" Smith, NATO commander in Bosnia? Adm Smith is highly respected in the Navy. The announcement of his firing occurred just weeks after Adm Boorda's death - coincidence? The Clinton plan wasn't working - the scandals showed it over and over again. Change was too fast and too radical and the harassment, sex, accidents, cheating scandals were saying that! It was *his* Navy, it was over 200 proud years old and Clinton/Shroeder were killing it. Almost like a father deciding to protect he needed to protect his cubs - "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or of the one." =====================
 
By John of Argghhh! on April 28, 2006 2:18 PM
I'm sorry, Frank - I'm having trouble hearing you over the "Twilight Zone" theme music playing when I read that comment...
 
By fdcol63 on April 28, 2006 2:27 PM
LOL - hey, I didn't say I believed them ** MYSELF ** !!! Oh, there's a number of them out there. My personal favorites are the ones linking Boorda's death with those of Vince Foster and Ron Brown, and those about Clinton's transfer of weapons technologies to Red China.
 
By John of Argghhh! on April 28, 2006 2:57 PM
Aaaaand, I found a copy of her book available, used, for $3.55 I'll read that one and see what she has to say. Obviously, she has an uphill battle.
 
By Maggie on April 28, 2006 3:24 PM
Barb - The conference was nothing! You should have heard it after several Cape Codders during the pub crawl! But there is always next year and you had better be there!
 
By Barb on April 28, 2006 6:18 PM
Yes'm, I sure hope to be.
 
By 1SG Keith on April 28, 2006 8:57 PM
Barb, Sure hope you can get to the next one. I think maybe John and Beth should arrange for it to be near Ft. Leavenworth. With a Castle crawl afterwards....
 
By John of Argghhh! on April 28, 2006 9:12 PM
Well, the VFW *was* heavily involved in this one, and their National Headquarters is in KC...
 
By Heartless Libertarian on April 28, 2006 10:58 PM
You know, maybe it's just me, but I was under the impression that the color of the rank had to match the color of the NAME/US ARMY and the qual badges. I've seen all black, I've seen all brown...never seen a mix. I don't have a current AR 670-1 handy. And no John, I don't blame you...it's on the original book cover.
 
By Murray on April 28, 2006 11:42 PM
When you say a "used" copy, in what manner has it been "used". I have a few sugestions.
 
By LongTabSigO on April 29, 2006 1:05 AM
On principle..the cover is wrong for another reason... Even if the subject of the book WAS a flag officer...a one-star General is "Brigadier General". The term "General", when used in a title, is reserved for the four-star variety.
 
By John of Argghhh! on April 29, 2006 9:20 AM
SigO- that convention of the conversational use of General has long been the norm in the publishing industry... unless the GO in question insists on proper usage. Obviously Karpinski didn't, whether by commission or ommission. HL- When I put that eagle on her collar, I actually used a photo of black subdued pin-on, and I didn't even try to mess with the other collar point. I was pretty sure I wasn't going to find any MP pistols from *that* angle!
 
By Cricket on April 29, 2006 2:44 PM
John, that is just so creepy. Just the other day the Engineer and I were discussing Karpinski (without horking all over the kitchen)and I off-handedly commented that she would prolly write about about her 'experiences' in the Army and it would become a hiss and a byword...but oh that is so WIERD... I need to check my crystal ball and have my charkas aligned.
 
By triticale on April 30, 2006 10:10 PM
I noticed the book just today on the display table at the library, and decided after a brief moment's thought that I really had no interest in what she had to say.
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 1, 2006 6:21 AM
Triticale - for $3 used, since she won't see a dime of it and I *did* pick on her... oh why not. If nothing else, she may name some targets I'd like to see in the dock with her. Because I'd like to see her in the dock for dereliction. General's don't get to use the "But I wasn't experienced enough for the job!" excuse. That's what having a staff is for. So, we'll see what she offers as evidence that she did due diligence and was stymied at every turn.
 
By MajMike on May 1, 2006 8:42 AM
...and then drop me a line for the "Paul Harvey" on this one.
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.