Whoops..... McChrystal recalled to DC

[Zaphod]

It looks like sore losers remain sore losers after they get whooped in two successive elections.

And it looks like the trolls keep trollin'

Don't worry. Your streak will be over in November.

 

[thehammer]

Forgive me, if I am not willing to take predictions seriously from the losers who thought the Iraq War was going to be a cakewalk.

Your ideology is in the dumpster. And nothing is going to change that. As a Bush Republican you should hesitate to attack a President who actually cleanly won an election, without having to have his Dad's friends in the Supreme Court hand it to him.

 

[Zaphod]

Trollin', trollin' trollin, keep the BS rollin', time for some more trollin' rawHIIIIIIDE!

 

[sprog]

Trollin', trollin' trollin, keep the BS rollin', time for some more trollin' rawHIIIIIIDE!

Agreed. It's very strange for the first post to be a political one on this forum. It usually takes at least a few cordial posts before devolving into partisan rhetoric.

I do believe there is a troll under the bridge.

 

[scoutpilot]

Forgive me, if I am not willing to take predictions seriously from the losers who thought the Iraq War was going to be a cakewalk.

Your ideology is in the dumpster. And nothing is going to change that. As a Bush Republican you should hesitate to attack a President who actually cleanly won an election, without having to have his Dad's friends in the Supreme Court hand it to him.

You don't have to take the predictions from him...you can take it from anyone on any of the 24-hour newsboxes: the Dem party sauntered up to the plate in the 2006 and 2008 elections and hit a grand slam. But now it seems the fans are leaving in droves.

I guess that's what happens when you claim you can put a chicken in every pot and then don't deliver.

 

[Zaphod]

It would seem McCrystal resigned rather than was fired. The outcome is the same, but the method is distinctly different.

We'll now see if there is any fallout, one way or the other.

 

[fly boy]

Forgive me, if I am not willing to take predictions seriously from the losers who thought the Iraq War was going to be a cakewalk.

Your ideology is in the dumpster. And nothing is going to change that. As a Bush Republican you should hesitate to attack a President who actually cleanly won an election, without having to have his Dad's friends in the Supreme Court hand it to him.

Who said the Iraq war would be a cakewalk. It seems Obama thinks it will be so, because he already has a date to retreat. At least Bush didn't shove stuff down our throats, such as health-wannabe-care, when over half the people of the U.S. disapproved it. So much for the most transparent administration. Anyway, why should we hesitate to attack him just because he "clearly won the election?" We aren't attacking him, just his policies.

 

[Maximus]

Actually, this reminds me a lot of Stormin because he did the exact same thing by publicly criticizing Bush41 and the Pentagon for forcing him to stop.

You forgot General Franks even if he wasn't a ring knocker.

 

[Maximus]

Petraeus???

Wait, didn't Obama et al just grill him (one of the 100 or so day's Barry actually showed up as a Senator) and basical call him a liar and say his plan in Iraq was a failure? I distinctly remember Harry Reid saying this war is lost when Petreaus was Commander.

 

[Zaphod]

Actually, it was MoveOn.org (you know, that profoundly pro-American outfit) that ran a full-page ad in the New York Slimes calling General Petreaus "General Betray Us", and attacking him, his patriotism, and his credibility immdiately before he was to testify to Congress on the progress in Iraq.

The ad didn't quite have the results that the moonbats had hoped.

After all of America rightly got ticked off, the Congress (yes, including most Democrats - they knew they had screwed up) passed a resolution condemning the ad. Our fearless leader (in true fashion) voted "present" and called the resolution (not the ad, mind you) a sham.

So here we are now, just a few years later, with President Obama (who opposed the surge in Iraq and has yet to admit he was wrong about it) appointing the guy who planned and executed that (successful) surge to take over in Afghanistan and do the same thing again, only this time, the orders are "Pacify the place in 12 months because we're leaving by then. I have an election to run for."

<Queue up the Twilight Zone music...>

Well... if anyone can do it, Petreaus can, provided the usual suspects stay the hell out of his way, let him do his job, and let him FINISH.

 

[Navy15]

You do something so enormously stupid as what McChrystal did, you expect to get canned. Nothing surprising about it.

 

[Christcorp]

No doubt that McCrystal deserved to get canned. He was definitely out of line. But if I was his superior, and was told I had to discipline him for such actions, it would have been very difficult to do. Especially when what he is being disciplined for is the truth. No doubt, what he did was wrong. But how long do people have to go on before they realize that the "Commander in Chief" side of his duties, president Obama totally SUCKS. And being he sucks at it, he should at least "Empower" more to the department of defense. But instead, he has to try and make it a political gain. Which he does for EVERYTHING he does or says. But in an area that he is totally unqualified, he should recognize his shortcomings, and follow the advice of those you appointed to those areas. If he's expecting to appoint a bunch of "Yes Men", like he does in his administration, and not people who will and can think for themselves, then he picked a real bad area in the military. While Petreaus is definitely qualified to be there, I wouldn't be surprised if he has a run-in with Obama. And Obama can't afford to let what happened with McCrystal happen again. If it does, everyone will realize that it wasn't a McCrystal thing, but rather an Obama administration thing. So Obama is going to have to definitely tread lightly with Petreaus. Especially considering how much crap the demonazis gave him not too long ago.

 

[Zaphod]

Especially when what he is being disciplined for is the truth. No doubt, what he did was wrong. But how long do people have to go on before they realize that the "Commander in Chief" side of his duties, president Obama totally SUCKS.

As I said, it doesn't matter. Military personnel do not have the option of airing political disagreements with the civilian leadership in public. Period.

But in an area that he is totally unqualified, he should recognize his shortcomings, and follow the advice of those you appointed to those areas.

You would think.

But you know what? Contrary to what he and the rest of his hand-licking followers believe, HE works for US, not the other way around. We will have an opportunity to hold him accountable for what he's DONE, rather than the BS he has SAID, in two years (and in just a few months, too). Just as a General can be held accountable by the President, the President can be held accountable by the people. That's OUR job. If we don't like the support the CINC is giving the troops, then we can fire the CINC and appoint another one.

And Obama can't afford to let what happened with McCrystal happen again. If it does, everyone will realize that it wasn't a McCrystal thing, but rather an Obama administration thing. So Obama is going to have to definitely tread lightly with Petreaus. Especially considering how much crap the demonazis gave him not too long ago.

All true, but it doesn't change the fact he can fire everyone with a star on their shoulder and there's not much any of us would be able to do until the next election day (short of impeaching his ass, of course).

That's life in a representative republic, and I wouldn't want it any other way.


And the more I think about it, the more I think Pima is right: the General did this on purpose. It will be interesting to see what transpires over the next few months...

 

[LineInTheSand]

His PAO was sleeping at the wheel.

An example of a reason for the distrust between the military and the media.

 

[Zaphod]

His PAO was sleeping at the wheel.

Look, if General McCrystal...

a) Forgot that Rolling Stone is a communist rag
b) Actually thought that ANY mainstream media outlet was "his friend"
c) Actually thought that anything he said to a media person was "off the record"
d) Thought he could badmouth the President to a media person and it not get out
e) Thought he could badmouth the President (especially one as narcisictic as this one) and get away with it

... then he deserved to be canned for being abjectly STUPID, let alone insubordinate.

I don't think he is abjectly stupid (despite the fact he voted for Obama).

There is a method to his madness.
Maybe he resigned in protest because the President's policy sucks.
Maybe he think the war is unwinable and doesn't want to be the one who takes the fall.
Maybe he just got sick and tired of goats, barbarians, and sand.

Who knows? Time will tell what it was.

What I find interesting is that Karzai apparently LOVED him. Whether that's good or bad, and how this will all play within Afghan politics, is another "wait and see"...

I don't much envy Petreaus at this point, but if anyone can pull this off, HE can.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

distrust?
don't be so sure. McChrystal gave this guy unfettered access. Access that anyone in the media would die for. He is not an idiot, he knew what he was doing. McChrystal and his staff knew the reporter was there, tape recorder running, taking notes.
There were things said off the record and those things were not reported. Everything in the article was on the record and this has not been disputed by McChrystal or anyone on his staff. Don't allow a fly on the wall if you don't want him to talk about what he sees or hears.

Along that vein - last night I saw an interview by Anderson Cooper with Michael Hastings. The question was did you expect Gen McChrystal would be fired. Hastings said, No. Hastings thought McChrystal was untouchable. This made me laugh - really?
In the end - it doesn't matter. This man was freely given access, he didn't sneak around. I would go one step further and say - he was obligated to report on what he saw and heard. That is a big part of our first amendment - freedom of the press. Freedom of the press keeps government accountable to the people.
Time for Obama to account.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Zaphod - you may not realize this but Rolling Stone has had a pretty good relationship with the Army since Absolutely American. You know - the book?
It began as an article for Rolling Stone. Additionally, many young people including soldiers who are serving and putting their lives in danger daily read this magazine.

 

[Zaphod]

Zaphod - you may not realize this but Rolling Stone has had a pretty good relationship with the Army since Absolutely American. You know - the book?
It began as an article for Rolling Stone. Additionally, many young people including soldiers who are serving and putting their lives in danger daily read this magazine.

I've read it too.

It's a rag.

My point is if the General thought he could say things against the CINC to Rolling Stone and nothing would happen, then he was demented. I don't think that was the case.

 

[Pima]

And the more I think about it, the more I think Pima is right: the General did this on purpose.

Not saying I am right, but I do find it interesting that McCrystal lobbed several shots at Obama over the course of last summer, starting with his 60 Minute interview. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that he slammed Obama back then. Anyone with military experience would also assume that Gates slapped his wrists for saying that to the national media. Then there was the famous meeting on the Tarmac with him and Obama.

If you believe that this 4 star was worthy of his rank, than you must acknowledge he knew the game he was playing. Anyone who has ever served more than a yr operationally as an officer, knows the system. The man served on the JCS at the Pentagon. The Pentagon in the military is the closest thing you will get to the "political" arena. He did televised briefings for OIF. The man knows the impact of the media. You can't say this was a media mis-step and defend his interview with 60 minutes or his position at the Pentagon in 02-03. If you do, than you must say he is pompous and arrogant. If he is pompous and arrogant, than you should also state you felt our President was wrong to ever put him in this position, because neither of those characteristics are what we should ever want in a military leader.

I believe McCrystal is a great soldier, he fell on his sword, risked his career for what he believed to be the most important factor. However, he is flawed. He had no business airing it the way he did, regardless of his virtuosic intentions. He gave ammunition to our enemy, created an illusion that you can attack leadership, and divisiveness within the troops. He should have shown the true soldier he was, resigned, and then took up the issue as a citizen of the US. He lost credibility not because of his beliefs, but the manner he expressed those ideas.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

If you read the article - he didn't say anything against the CIC. Most of that came from his aides. He did make fun of Biden (who doesn't? hehe) and he did criticize Eikenberry and Holbrooke.

I would like to get into McChrystal's head on that too. How about all of his aides - intelligent, well educated, high ranking military officers, lawyers. They certainly HAD to have known that Hastings was there and what he was there for....

Today - the burning questions are:
Petraeus is essentially taking a demotion to go to Afghanistan. Why?
Is he answering the call as a true patriot OR is he being required to clean up the mess of his underling?

And..... who will Obama pick as the new chief of CENTCOM?