373

US Senate circumvents Tuberville holds and confirms new Air Force head, first female on Joint Chiefs (apnews.com)

submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The U.S. Senate, circumventing holds by Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville, on Thursday confirmed the nominations of two senior military leaders, including the first female member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Adm. Lisa Franchetti was confirmed by a vote of 95-1 to lead the Navy, making her the first woman to serve as a Pentagon service chief and hold a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Gen. David Allvin was also confirmed by a vote of 95-1 to be chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force. The Senate was expected to vote later Thursday to confirm Lt. Gen. Christopher Mahoney to serve as assistant commandant for the U.S. Marine Corps.

Franchetti’s historic confirmation as the chief of naval operations comes as Tuberville has drawn bipartisan criticism for holding up almost 400 military nominations in an effort to protest Pentagon abortion policy. In a remarkable display, several Republican senators angrily held the floor for more than four hours on Wednesday evening and called up 61 of the nominations for votes, praising each nominee for their military service. Tuberville, of Alabama, showed no signs of letting up, standing and objecting to each one.

Allvin is the vice chief of staff of the Air Force but has been serving as acting chief, since the previous top Air Force officer, Gen. CQ Brown, became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Oct. 1. Allvin is a career air mobility pilot with more than 4,600 flight hours and key deployments in Afghanistan and Europe.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 95 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Tuberville has drawn bipartisan criticism for holding up almost 400 military nominations in an effort to protest Pentagon abortion policy.

Does anyone actually believe that it's about abortion? He's clearly trying to weaken the US military on behalf of foreign adversaries.

I'd call that treason, but then I'm not on Putin's payroll.

[-] DeepThought42@lemmy.world 87 points 1 year ago

A post by another user on this platform a few days ago suggested Tuberville's true motives were to keep key positions in the military vacant until Trump or another Republican is elected president where they can then fill those positions with loyalists. This is similar to what we've seen the GOP do on the Supreme Court.

One might be led to believe then that the ultimate goal is to use the military to support their attempts to retain power indefinitely.

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago

Having the military on side (or at least key figures of it) is absolutely critical to a dictatorship.

The pro-gun people who have promised they'd lay down their morbidly obese lives to prevent it will of course be enthusiastically cheering for the dictatorship, perhaps even firing into crowds of protesters.

[-] CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

What's so weird about these people is that, when you ask them if we should reduce the military, they say no. If you ask them why they have guns, it's so to fight against tyranny.

I'm like...why the fuck do you want to further arm your tyrannical government?!

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not just SCOTUS. The Republicans were blocking federal judges in huge numbers during the latter half of Obama's 2nd term.

The GOP-controlled Senate is on track this year [2015] to confirm the fewest judges since 1969, a dramatic escalation of the long-running partisan feud over the ideological makeup of federal courts.

[-] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Why would you have to be on anyone's payroll to call traitors what they are

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The implication is that only people on Putin's payroll wouldn't see it as treason.

this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023

373 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19241 readers

2111 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News