You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] flyingcuttlefish [S] 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

I see you didn't read the report or any sources (all included in the post). Nice try, troll.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)



[–] flyingcuttlefish [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

ok. I take back "troll", since troll-bots don't reply ... they just hit and run.

What I didn't make clear was the blog post links to the Reuters article, the Dept. of Defense Inspector General's summary of the report, the whole 69 page report and has a link to the private agency that looks after dogs' welfare in the military branches.

It links to the House Bill that was ignored by the Army and the United States code that was grossly violated.

It links to twitter account of the man responsible for the errant dog program (that violated existing dog program regs) showing he is ignoring the report in public statements even though it is headlined around the world. And the blog post links to his face book page showing the same.

The blog post gives more details about the dog abuse than the news article.

The blog post gives more details about protocol-go-around the Provost Marshal General instigated to get rid of the dogs and to not humanely direct the dogs to service-members eager to adopt them after working with them or to appropriate households. The poor record keeping is shown to be an elaborate way to cover his tracks and not just laziness.

I conclude the man is an outright criminal but readers can make up their own minds what his motives were,

To contrast, the US Marines have no dog abuse scandal and they follow the well written law, crafted in part by veteran dog handlers.

So, my apologies for wrongly calling you a troll. You didn't like the blog. No offense in that.

For other readers -

if you readthe whole report there's worse stories in it than what I posted.