UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

From your article:

The Quantico speech — described by other sources as “embarrassing” and theatrical to a degree that “is below our institution” — seemed to crystallize beliefs about Mr. Hegseth that had taken root among some senior officers, including the view that the secretary operates with a junior officer’s mentality that has led him to micromanage policies about issues such as military facial hair standards and press access to the Pentagon, sometimes at the expense of the much broader portfolio of a typical defense secretary.

“Mainly what I see from him are not serious things,” a current senior officer said. “It’s, ’Why did this service member tweet this?’ Or internal politics and drama. That’s mostly what I see.”

These are serious people serving a profoundly unserious administration.

and how close you got to becoming one since you claim to know how they think.

(no message)

(no message)

...therefore, he has MUCH, MUCH MORE knowledge...and Flag Officer connections...than you have.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_War_College

I am guessing no.

(no message)

Try using AI.

Pete Hegseth.

(no message)

(no message)

when i simply asked him to quantify his answer, he provided a non-answer and you, for some reason, then felt compelled to jump in with a second non-answer.

the question was, and still is, "how much time has he spent with flag officers"?

while naval war college gives one exposure to high ranking officers, it is, nevertheless, a very limited environment for a limited time.

so, since he made that claim, let's see if he'll answer the question in this same public environment and we'll compare our experience levels.

With another two at the Naval Academy.

I've taught remotely for the NWC on and off since.

ANd I am sorry that I did not log my hours interacting with/listening to/learning from flag officers. Oops, I guess.

as a career air force pilot and officer, i had over 16 years (of my 22+ year career) of valuable experience with flag officers of every level (4 star and below) and service - including foreign (in joint and combined exercises, operations, and planning endeavors). i know first hand how dedicated, intelligent, and patriotic these defenders are. i know how they think, how detailed they are, how careful their planning is, and how much they value their charges. if there was a discrepancy or difference of opinion, they invariably held it close and most certainly did not share it with the media. it would be considered a show of weakness that could possibly be exploited by enemies. i would find it very surprising that any of our flag officers would be willing to share a national weakness with the outside. could be wrong, but that's my experience with our military leaders.

so, when you post, "much, much more than you do," you might want to quantify before you jump off the cliff.

it's a credibility thing, y'know. and not just in this thread.

And I’m not interested in a contest. But if you interacted with flag officers who would appreciate the shenanigans that Hegseth pulled, then you met different ones than I did.

and I’m not implying there were never differences among our senior leadership. they just never let it get publicized - for the good of the country and our national security. like I said, maybe some things have changed. I’m no longer privy to the inner circle. but I can’t believe any member of our military would provide the media with any derogatory information. msm is public enemy #1.

ok, done. have a great day.

(no message)

neither of you has the balls to quantify chris' claim because you have no idea what my experience with flag officers is. so you have no basis for debate until you answer the original question. you're actually missing without even swinging. usually that would be some sort of record, but with you guys, it's pretty normal.

so, are you going to answer the question and compare or not?

waiting......

...sounds to me like enough of a "deployment" to get to know quite a few present and future Flag Officers...and develop confidential contacts. Works for me, so I'm done...carry on with him if you wish to challenge his credibility.

to compete.

don't do that.

if chris has the balls to answer his frivolous claim on his own recognizance, we'll pick it up from there. otherwise, i call bullshit on his uninformed, insulting, and inane statement.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

the use of "Unnamed Sources"...here's what the NYT has to say about that practice...btw, don't forget that the "Watergate Scandal" was uncovered by Woodward and Bernstein at WaPo, through the use of an "Unnamed Source" ("Deep Throat"...later identified as Associate FBI Director, Mark Felt), thus benefitting the nation by eventually leading to the resignation of Richard Nixon as President.

---------------------
Why does The New York Times use anonymous sources?
Explaining the policies and processes that define our journalism.

June 11, 2025

“Speaking on the condition of anonymity …”

“Discussed the incident on the condition that they not be named …”

“According to people familiar with …”

You’ve undoubtedly seen these phrases in Times articles, but what exactly do they mean?

Our reporting is based on sources. They can be officials, witnesses, records — essentially anyone or anything that can offer information on a particular topic. When we don’t disclose a human source by name, that person is considered an anonymous source. Under our guidelines, these sources should be used only for information that we believe is newsworthy and credible, and that we are not able to report any other way.

But why does The Times shield the identity of some sources? We recognize that the use of anonymous sources is sometimes crucial to our journalistic mission. It can give readers genuine insight into the uses and abuses of power — in Washington, on Wall Street and beyond. In sensitive areas like national security reporting, it can be unavoidable. Sources sometimes risk their careers, their freedom and even their lives by talking to us.

What we consider before using anonymous sources:

How do they know the information?

What’s their motivation for telling us?

Have they proved reliable in the past?

Can we corroborate the information they provide?

Because using anonymous sources puts great strain on our most valuable asset: our readers’ trust, the reporter and at least one editor is required to know the identity of the source. A senior newsroom editor must also approve the use of the information the source provides.
-------------------

(no message)