Update on those bipartisan knuckleheads who flew to Afghanistan without permission.

[Baitball Blogger]

Pentagon briefing:

A journalist asked what was the inconvenience. And the answer was that it took time away from the plans they had that day.

Bet you, that those plans involved flying helicopters out to the outskirts of Kabul to pick up evacuees?

[SheltieLover]

1. K&R!

[former9thward]

2. Oh please.

What time? Nobody in the military works for anyone in Congress. If they took "time" to deal with them, its was their choice. If they wanted to ignore them they could have.

[Baitball Blogger]

3. They would have had to focus their attention on protecting the two congressmen and

maybe making sure that they didn't gander on to the missions they were running to get people out from danger areas.

[nitpicker]

4. +1

[former9thward]

5. They were at the airport.

They didn't need protection. The military is making too much of this. The military has total contempt for civilians no matter who they are.

[Baitball Blogger]

6. In this case, I disagree with you. Admonishment should be harsh

because if it isn't, others will think that they should follow in their footsteps. An active mission is taking place, it is pretty successful. What is the purpose of having congressmen flying to Afghanistan when they don't even have a purpose? We are on borrowed time. Missions of the nature that the military is doing rarely go without casualties. Why would we want to add to their problems?

[hlthe2b]

8. Baitball is totally right on this. 9thward, which of the evacuees with children should be left

behind since two seats were taken by these grandstanding jackasses?

[JohnSJ]

7. exactly. It was an unecessary distraction, and there is no doubt that security needed to be

attended to these two showboating clowns