What I am hearing is that McChrystal was not asked into the Strategy Meeting and that he may not return to Afghanistan, that they might have his things packed up and sent to his home. I'd have hoped that he would be involved in a strategy meeting for which he'd have the most pertinent information....just for background information, where things stand today, etc.
I'd just like to say "Thank GOD he didn't vote Republican"...this story's big enough without having the media pile on Republicans for that, too. By the way, this is a guy who apparently saw his family 30 days a year for the last 9 years.
General Petraeus is taking over. (Congratulations to my commenter, 'Major!')
By the way...HERE is the Rolling Stone story...Please read it....you'll find that McChrystal didn't like attending French military dinners and that his colleague jokingly said "Bite Me" about Biden...... He never connected with obama, though he voted for him, and McChrystal was dismayed that Obama'd taken 3 months during a war to re-evaluate the situation and to evaluate McChrystal's request for more troops. Let me know if you find anything more heinous than those points. Other than that, Afghanistan's not going well; Let's hope Petraeus can help the situation. And let's wish McChrystal peace of mind and thank him for his many years in the service. I don't know quite what happens to him next....if he gets retirement for having resigned or not...Anybody know?
z
35 comments:
Good luck to McChrystal, but let's hope Petraeus can help the situation.
Maybe Holbrooke and Biden are jerkoffs, but based on what we know, I've got to put the blame for whatever problems the relationship has squarely on the General's shoulders. McChrystal obviously tolerates--if not outright encourages--an environment in which civilian leadership is mocked openly. This is apparently so normal in his view that it doesn't even merit comment in the presence of some freelance Rolling Stoner, so can you imagine what they're like when the press isn't around?
His strategy hasn't produced results in Afghanistan (not that any oter will), he was openly critical of Biden previously (and admonished), and now we have this cherry on top that is him and his staff feeling perfectly okay with criticizing the CINC (his boss)?
Dude has got to be shown the door. Resigning hell. He has to be fired.
Now you can watch as The Black Bush and his ego go down in flames.
Good. He can spend more time with his wife. Seeing her 30 days in 9 years must have been tough. Now he can enjoy life the way it should be after serving well.
Obama in the meantime shows that his decision process is only ego-based as Ducky suggests. Great way to run a country. Like a dictator. Thank God we have a Bill of Rights otherwise we'd all be in jail by now.
Ducky, McC asked for 40,000 troops for a reason, not to have it cut back to 30K and expect to be successful, not that I have any high hopes for Afghanistan, trust me.
As a woman, even I know that the military's a little saltier than a normal corporate male or female talk might be and so it surprises me that you'd be condemnatory of such stupid things as his flipping the finger and saying he hates to go to fussy French dinner parties.
Kudos to the Rolling Stone guy..he embedded himself after much paperwork by our military to get him there, then he gets everybody comfy and reports on a military type giving the finger (not to the CIC). HORRORS OF HORRORS......
"Openly critical of Biden" only puts him in better standing with me.
Obama's ego IN FLAMES? Are you kidding?
z, our biggest achievement in bringing "freedom" to Afghanistan is to assist in turning 10% of the adult male population into heroin addicts.
More drone flights is just what they need. However, not McChrystal nor The Black Bush is going to emerge whole from that debacle.
Yeah. wave the flag. here comes "freedom". It's sad, really sad.
Damn Ducky. You don't even let the ink dry on leftist talking points before you're off parroting them. You're so partisan that your toilet paper even has an instruction sheet.
Remember kids. War during a Republican administration, it's "listen to the generals." War during a Democrat administration, it's "civilian control of the military is paramount."
His strategy hasn't produced results? Really Ducky? McChrystal's strategy called for three times as many troops as are over there. The Predator drone strike strategy is Joe Biden's strategy, not McChystal's.
thanks, Beamish.
Ducky, I don't picture you approving of flag waving anywhere if it's our flag.
Also, I just treated myself to that dumb Rick Sanchez at CNN...he actually asked Borchers "So, before we gave a time we're leaving Afghanistan, things weren't looking good and now that we have given a time, things aren't looking good....any difference?"
you can't make this stuff up.
Ducky, stop your GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN here....I'm tired of your haranguing this blog when you're not reading it. Most of us (ALL) would LOVE to get the heck out of Afghanistan. We didn't fight this like a war, we were polite because liberals like you tied our hands and embeds had constant cameras on us.
The left REALLY has a lot of nerve criticizing that we're getting nowhere.
As for heroin addicts...you can't be serious! WE made them addicts? Are you NUTS?
perhaps what really ruffled obama's feathers is that hillary got the only good reviews from the general and his staff.
i have no problem with a general being openly critical of anyone - up to and including the cinc. however, it is within the cinc's purview to fire him (which is what it looks like has actually happened) if he so desires.
mcchrystal has the write to speak freely, however it's important to note that there is often a cost associated with free-speech. am i the only one who notices the contradiction from the left once again?
if a celebrity or officer or even enlisted man (or woman) said something derogatory about gwb or cheney and received even the mildest bit of criticism, the left was up in arms screaming about free speech. but the minute any one says anything in the slightest opposition to bho and company, the same people from the left are screaming for the detractor's head.
why was it perfectly acceptable to these people for generals, cia officials, fbi agents, enlisted men and women, and so on and so forth to criticize the cinc when it was bush - and i'm talking full on slamming of bush, not some maybe it was something like mcchrystal has done - but not if it's being done towards bho?
oops, forgot to enter for follow up...
Heidianne, the media CELEBRATED and made hey on anything the soldiers said derogatorily about Bush.
Of course, it was kind of hard to find.......remember the pictures of them greeting him and then greeting Obama. YIKES...THOSE guys know a man who loves the country, don't they.
From the first linked piece:
Pres. Obama
...assert(ed) that the critical remarks from the general...displayed conduct that doesn't live up to the necessary standards for a commanding officer.
So, is the problem with McChrystal's criticism that it is untrue...or is that it is true but spoken in a disrespectful manner...or is this simply about "don't criticize this administration"?
Something else?
I didn't read past the first page of the RS article, Z. That might offer the answer to my question, but the language was a bit more "seasoned" than is my typical reading fare.
H
No,z, the whole point is that this "kill them all" mentality is a failure.
Now McChrystal OPPOSED that strategy, unlike The Black Bush.
Take responsibility for what has been done in your name. OWN IT.
I can't help but wonder how Gen. McChrystal feels now about having voted for Howdy-Doody. A case of hindsight being 100%, maybe, now that he has seen him in 'action'. Buyer's remorse king size.
Silvrlady
Z,
I read the article and didn't think much of it. A general certainly should watch what he says, but this is weak stuff. Having said that it's the prerogative of the president to hire and fire generals.
If the war wasn't Obama's it is now. He's firmly on the line with this firing. He made a good choice, but Petraeus may be overloaded now. I was in a war that was horribly mismanaged, but the only enlisted men who ever are quoted are dissenters. Generals need to watch what they say. They're fair game. I hope this plays out well for the troops.
I believe he asked for 60,000 Z.
General's shoulders. McChrystal obviously tolerates--if not outright encourages--an environment in which civilian leadership is mocked openly.
it was an informal setting duhkkky...the only issue I see is that he let some stupid reporter hear it
duhkkkleberry...no one has a kill them all attitude.
what I find ironic is that the president of anyone else for that matter would find a whole lot of support among the troops for a liberal in the office
it's unspoken but everyone knows it...I lived it for 20 years...all of us despised Clinton but still did our jobs.
What a shame. This administration has set Rules for Engagement that are unrealistic, and I think--ONCE AGAIN--purposefully harmful.
Ducky, One question re being killed in Afghanistan:
Our guys or theirs?
Pris
I'm not sure exactly what to make of this story, but if Obama made the right decisions for the right reasons in this situation...that's unprecedented.
Duncy
The man spoke the truth about a commie clod who talked tough on the campaign but showed no interest later. Now his removal will force Obama to act like a President.
The Generals first loyalty is to his men.
I seem to recall the duck talking differently when Civil Servants used nepotism to hire her husband perjured herself in congress and lied about Uranium sales.
Readers if you wish to see the Duck satirically skewered read my blog.
The Obama Presidency is in serious trouble when his hand-picked Wartime 4-Star General and his staff openly disparage and denigrate the Commander-In-Chief and high-ranking civilian government officials. That just doesn't happen in public, with a reporter within earshot.
Not that Obama hasn't earned the disdain and disrespect of the military, along with everyone else.
and besides he openly disparaged the military while he was in the Senate...
what does he expect? The general was still doing his job.
RightKlik said...
I'm not sure exactly what to make of this story, but if Obama made the right decisions for the right reasons in this situation...that's unprecedented.
BRAVI
tis all about power and ego Z..its mad!
Actually, McChystal didn't say anything. The "incriminating" words reported by Rolling Stone came from his staff.
I for one believe their candor should be praised for its diplomatic tact. In a truly serious discussion, it's hard to dance around the indisputable fact that Obama, like all leftists, is incapable of rationality and that it's abso-fucking-lutely absurd to assume or pretend otherwise. The left has never produced an intellectual, and the simple reason for that is that they can't. Leftism and intellectuality are incompatible. You'll have better luck trying to get milk out of a subway turnstile.
So now the Staple Gun Loader in Chief has appointed General Petreus to command the fight in Afghanistan, what will change?
Will Attorney General Holder's Miranda-izing and lawyering up captured terrorists continue? For that matter, if Obama pushes for a UCMJ court martial of McChystal and / or his staff for insubordination, can he get his hearing moved to a civilian venue, or that a luxury afforded only to terrorists?
Will Petreus be given the troops McChrystal was denied? Will our incompetent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton try to convince Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan to re-grant NATO forces overflight and air basing rights that our supply trains enjoyed there during the Bush adminstration? Will she push Pakistan to allow us to defend our supply convoys coming up from Karachi and north to Afghanistan through the Taliban-controlled NWFP, as we could during the Bush administration?
Will Petraeus be allowed to discard Obama's rules of engagement for a plan towards victory? Will Petreus' reports be scoffed at by the same people in the administration now that scoffed at his reports on progress in Iraq? When "moveon.org" begins another round of calling him "General Betray-Us" for killing too many of the left's friends in al Qaeda, and the Senate moves to condemn them again, will Obama lead the effort to try to derail that condemnation effort as he did last time?
Check out this whining about General McChrystal:
[Diane] Sawyer fretted that Obama “now faces a mind-boggling choice,” before Stephanopoulos kvetched “the President has really been put in a real political box” and “a very painful political position,” forcing him to choose between “looking thin-skinned and petulant” or “looking weak.”
So, for a diehard follower of the Cult of Obama, the main concern is how BHO looks in all of this?
Always...isn't that typical?
Beamish...well, it's rumored now that we have been paying something like 4 mill a week to the Taliban to keep them from attacking our supply guys......I'd like to know how long that's been going on. The news barely picked up the story. amazing.
And yes, will Obama listen to Petraeus any more than he listened to McC?
Hell no
If the Taliban is being paid not to attack our supply convoys moving through Pakistan...
a.) the Taliban attacking our supply convoys in Pakistan didn't get the memo, and
b.) the UCMJ calls for the death penalty for any service member passing money to the enemy.
Now if Obama really wants to show his stones as Commander-in-Chief, let him sit before a military tribunal and defend his paying the Taliban.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/13/us-trucks-security-taliban
here ya go, Beamish.x
see the Punitive Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 104, "Aiding the enemy."
It would be a tragedy if the military put their Commander-in-Chief on courts martial for passing material support to the Taliban and informing them of a US troop withdrawal date from Afghanistan by any means, including the media, found him guilty and blew his brains out before a firing squad. A tragedy that would be somewhat mitigated if the execution were filmed and uploaded to YouTube for posterity and enjoyment with popcorn.
Who wants to bet Obama lacks the balls to push his "I'm the Commander-in-Cheif" bullshit too far? He's not above the law or the UCMJ.
Beamish...that's interesting, isn't it. I guess the gov't would say "we were protecting our servicmen"??
I just remember Co-President Bill Clinton floating the idea of trying to shield himself from the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit by claiming that his status as "Commander-in-Chief" made him "active duty military" and thus protected by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act from being sued while in office.
Then his lawyers saw all the death penalties and hard labor sentences recommended in the UCMJ and decided it best Clinton take his lumps as a civilian.
That's what hilarious to me about Obama's fit of ego in firing McChrystal over getting badmouthed by people with a higher, unforgiving code of conduct. Can you imagine Obama busting rocks at Leavenworth for conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman? How about getting shot for cowardice in wartime?
Post a Comment