someones in trouble!
Apparently only Obama is allowed to shoot his mouth off.

General recalled to Washington after controversial remarks in article - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/22/general.mcchrystal.obama.apology/index.html?hpt=T1)

Sorry Jim:
Politics aside, I don't think the top brass, especially those overseeing a war should rip the current administration. Scarborough had a decent point this morning, basically that Dems and Rep's have to handle the military differently, and that if this was under Bush he would have been fired already.... who knows, but not a good idea.

You can be a retired general and be a pundit, but as an general.... not good.

yet everyone said Colin Powell should have ripped Bush when he was against the war.
Leaders speak out despite the consequences. Do some research on the Civil War and the generals criticisms of Lincoln. What about Vietnam?

yet everyone said Colin Powell should have ripped Bush when he was against the war.
Leaders speak out despite the consequences. Do some research on the Civil War and the generals criticisms of Lincoln. What about Vietnam?

'Should have' is the key word. what he does as a retired general is fine, he can go on meet the press all he wants, but an active general, leading the war in Afganastan in an interview with ROLLING STONE? rips the current administration.

the Civil war and the current information age we live in are just a bit different, no?

Doesn't sit well with me.

just curious - would you want to know after his term that he did not agree with the president? Wouldnt you rather know that now?
I agree RS is not a good venue, but whats the alternative?

just curious - would you want to know after his term that he did not agree with the president? Wouldnt you rather know that now?

Yes I would want to know that. In 2 years or so, if he comes out and says I went to the President with my concerns and we had meetings etc.. etc.. and he chose to go a different direction, or that the general disagreed with the president etc.. etc. is fine. Ultimately the buck stops with the president, not the general, for good or bad.

The problem is if I know, and you know, then Al Queda knows. I'm not a pussy liberal, remember? I didn't have a problem with Afganastan War, just the Iraq war. Undermining yout CIC in a public setting, whether you agree or disagree is NOT acceptable in my mind, period. It shows our enemies that the military and the president are not on the same page. not good.

yes - but it also shows the people of this country and in a democratic society, that can be a good thing. If the war is going bad - we may know why and can make our choice in 11/2011

actually seems like a small issue - read the excerpts. Not much is coming directly from mcchrystal. Really not a big deal


Excerpts from Rolling Stone article on Gen. McChrystal – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/22/excerpts-from-rolling-stone-article-on-gen-mcchrystal/)

If he wants to criticize the gov't policy he should take it up the chain of command. If he gets no response and thinks it is a critical issue for the nation and our troops he can then go to the press. To engage in petty name calling with his staff in front of a reporter is wrong and calls into question imo his leadership abilities. I do not think the fact that most of the comments came from staff really absolves him. Staff take their cues from those who lead them and I am sure they were playing to a receptive audience.
If you ran a company would you have someone making remarks to a paper regarding the management team above him?
To address the point about prior conflicts I can not think of one general who criticized Lincoln who had the performance on the battlefield to back it up. In Vietnam I can not recall, and I admit my knowledge about this is weak, any generals who criticized publicly the US President or the policies. The one guy I can remember doing so was Col. Hackworth and they drummed him right out of the military.
I am not anti military by nature but like in any company sometimes you rise up the ladder to a place where your faults are exposed.

LORD OF THE FLIES :rotf2:

As it has been since the Obama administration took over,

"Nobody likes the Truth!!" Maybe when they all meet tomorrow, they should have a :gh:

If he wants to criticize the gov't policy he should take it up the chain of command. If he gets no response and thinks it is a critical issue for the nation and our troops he can then go to the press. To engage in petty name calling with his staff in front of a reporter is wrong and calls into question imo his leadership abilities. I do not think the fact that most of the comments came from staff really absolves him. Staff take their cues from those who lead them and I am sure they were playing to a receptive audience.
If you ran a company would you have someone making remarks to a paper regarding the management team above him?

I think this is pretty much nuts on, and don't believe for a second his aides felt what they were saying to a Rolling Stone reporter would be challenged by their boss. No way...

Should he be fired? Absolutely if he doesn't resign immediately.

That being said, he seems like an effective leader and this has to be taken into the equation. Unless Obama feels there's a suitable replacement who can step in they might take it in stride.

Regardless, McChrystal and his people have disrespected the president and their uniform. This won't be easy to get out of...

-spence

Apparently this general does not belong in the public eye. You exspect a field officer to give the finger while being interviewed. He must have watched to many Clint Eastwood war movies. :smash:

Apparently this general does not belong in the public eye. You exspect a field officer to give the finger while being interviewed. He must have watched to many Clint Eastwood war movies. :smash:

You sound like you admire his actions.

It's sounding like he was completely aware of the comments. How are the troops in harms way under his leadership supposed to interpret this?

-spence

. How are the troops in harms way under his leadership supposed to interpret this?

-spence

How are the troops in harms way under his leadership supposed to interpret Obama not talking to Mc Chrystal for 4 months regarding Afghanistan, skipping the laying of the wreath on Memorial Day recently, trashing the military during the campaign and before, using a returning coffin for a cheesy photo op, snubbing wounded troops in Germany and on and on and on with this America hating rat...Mc Chrystal shouldn't have done what he did but this is only made possible by a president that deserves no respect because he makes it very clear that he has little respect for others...except for those thugs around the world that he has a habit of bowing to...McChrystal is just another disgruntled Obama voter finally waking up...pretty much all that's left are the pathetic Obama toe suckers..Obama has earned no respect and will continue to get none...it's just taking some longer than others to wake up to the fact that he's a disaster...:uhuh:

If it's a Dem. senator saying anything about the actions of a Repub. pres., he's anti-American and giving comfort to the enemy. If it is someone saying anything against a Dem. pres., it's his right. The hypocrisy is hilarious.

I think this is pretty much nuts on, and don't believe for a second his aides felt what they were saying to a Rolling Stone reporter would be challenged by their boss. No way...

Should he be fired? Absolutely if he doesn't resign immediately.

That being said, he seems like an effective leader and this has to be taken into the equation. Unless Obama feels there's a suitable replacement who can step in they might take it in stride.

Regardless, McChrystal and his people have disrespected the president and their uniform. This won't be easy to get out of...

-spence

He will resign. That's bad for our men over there. We will now be on the eve of a major offensive with no leadership. I quess we are getting used to that....no leadership that is.
This shows what happens when you loath the military and then become """Commander and Chief""".

Obama's a disgrace .

Mc Chrystal shouldn't have done what he did but this is only made possible by a president that deserves no respect because he makes it very clear that he has little respect for others...
Ahhh, the old "Ken Starr MADE ME LIE" defense :jester:

Looks like McChrystal has quite a track record of misbehavior. Good thing he's been effective or I doubt he would have lasted this long.

And Buck, the wasn't just about Obama but the entire Whitehouse. Do you think that Joe Biden and Holebrook loathe the military as well?

It's looking like McChrystal may have let his people make these remarks to the Rolling Stone while being completely aware and complicit.

To blame this on Obama is laughable and just shows how un-objective you really are. McChrystal has undermined the very mission he's been assigned and I believe an offense he could be court-martialed if found guilty of.

-spence

You sound like you admire his actions.

It's sounding like he was completely aware of the comments. How are the troops in harms way under his leadership supposed to interpret this?

-spence

It is his way of sticking up for them. When his Sgts. are emailing him from the field asking him to explain why our elected and appointed officials are dissing the soldiers in the field they want to know the superiors back them.

This general is a very special person. Walked over a hundred disciplinary hours in the quad at West Point. He shows up in the wee hours of the morning and goes on operations with Seals and other black ops units.

He has to accept responsibilty for what his subordinates said in the article, but I don't see personally where the general said anything wrong.

Imagine getting where he is in life only to have to turn around at the apex of his career and have to take orders from this group of miscast politicians who think they actually know how to win a war, but what they do best is dodge supoenas in the Blago trial. The general himself was one of the first people to put pen to paper and write about not only winning a war in another country but then helping rebuild it after the fighting is over.

The general has the respect and admiration of all the troops. At one time or another he has been in charge of the Delta force, the arm rangers, and the seal force as well. He ran and went on some if not most all of the blackest of ops in Iraq. Obama new who he was appointing to run and win the war. This is part of what Obama new and undertsand about the general. Obama could make a stand here against what Holbrooke and the others are saying and doing behind the general's back and send him back to the front lines. Without this general in charge the troops are not going to becoming home anytime soon.

Here is a link to an article in the today's New York Times regarding the attitude of some of the troop in Afghanistan.

News Analysis - Rules for War Vex the Warriors - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/world/asia/23troops.html?hp)

Here is a link to the Rolling Stone story as well:

The Runaway General | Rolling Stone Politics (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=0)

If it's a Dem. senator saying anything about the actions of a Repub. pres., he's anti-American and giving comfort to the enemy. If it is someone saying anything against a Dem. pres., it's his right. The hypocrisy is hilarious.

you mean like...Harry Reid stating "the surge has failed and the war is lost" on the floor of the senate while troops are fighting ?...yeah, almost exactly alike...some hypocricy...you didn't read the article did you? the capability of the troops is not in question, it's the competence, or better..incompetence of this president and those that he has determining the strategy which ties the hands of the troops as they are watching their friends die unnecessarily

read George Will's recent column on rules of engagement...oh, I forgot, you don't read...sorry

It is his way of sticking up for them. When his Sgts. are emailing him from the field asking him to explain why our elected and appointed officials are dissing the soldiers in the field they want to know the superiors back them.
This goes way beyond that. And to knowingly do so in a global magazine that you know will make a big story sounds more and more like a calculated hit every day.

Remember this is the same General who argued passionately for more troops to execute his strategy, and what did Obama do? He gave him 30,000 more fighting men and women.

This general is a very special person. Walked over a hundred disciplinary hours in the quad at West Point. He shows up in the wee hours of the morning and goes on operations with Seals and other black ops units.
When you read up on most of the elite generals they all have pretty amazing stories.

He has to accept responsibilty for what his subordinates said in the article, but I don't see personally where the general said anything wrong.

We're talking about characterizing the Whitehouse as the real enemy. That's not sticking up for your troops, it's called insubordination and almost has treasonous undertones.

Imagine getting where he is in life only to have to turn around at the apex of his career and have to take orders from this group of miscast politicians who think they actually know how to win a war, but what they do best is dodge supoenas in the Blago trial.
Many said the same thing about the Bush Administration.

The general himself was one of the first people to put pen to paper and write about not only winning a war in another country but then helping rebuild it after the fighting is over.
He was following Gen. Petraeus lead, someone who in recent times was very effective at using the media to state his mind and influence policy.

Without this general in charge the troops are not going to becoming home anytime soon.
Obama has let McChrystal run the war his way and the situation doesn't appear to be improving. The real issues here are much bigger than a single person.

-spence

Actually what I don't read is most of your posts b/c I find you (and a few others) to be poisonous and filled with hate (which I actually think is quite sad). Hopefully, your not.

So the troops are no longer fighting? I guess you can not criticize the troops but can criticize the commander in chief - ok, I understand the difference now.:rotf2: I thought that was insubordination????

Your right, I didn't read the article and frankly from what I heard, didn't think what he said was that bad. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of people who flip flop depending what party they are talking about.

Actually what I don't read is most of your posts b/c I find you (and a few others) to be poisonous and filled with hate (which I actually think is quite sad). Hopefully, your not. someone needs to look in the mirror:uhuh:

So the troops are no longer fighting? yes, with one hand tied behind their back... I guess you can not criticize the troops but can criticize the commander in chief exactly, the cic is ultimately responsible for the troops and not the other way around ..get it???- ok, I understand the difference now.:rotf2I I don't think you do: I thought that was insubordination???? when someone is restricting your ability to keep yourself from being killed, someone ought to speak up, it's not the troops fault people like you elected such an incompetent

Your right, I didn't read the article and frankly from what I heard, try reading, it's not that long and then you might actually know what you are talking about...at least a little bit for once... didn't think what he said was that bad. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of people who flip flop depending what party they are talking about.you failed

I don't think I'm filled with hate but if you think so, I'll take that under advisement.

I don't think I'm filled with hate but if you think so, I'll take that under advisement.

you amuse me :uhuh:

How are the troops in harms way under his leadership supposed to interpret Obama not talking to Mc Chrystal for 4 months regarding Afghanistan, skipping the laying of the wreath on Memorial Day recently, trashing the military during the campaign and before, using a returning coffin for a cheesy photo op, snubbing wounded troops in Germany and on and on and on with this America hating rat...Mc Chrystal shouldn't have done what he did but this is only made possible by a president that deserves no respect because he makes it very clear that he has little respect for others...except for those thugs around the world that he has a habit of bowing to...McChrystal is just another disgruntled Obama voter finally waking up...pretty much all that's left are the pathetic Obama toe suckers..Obama has earned no respect and will continue to get none...it's just taking some longer than others to wake up to the fact that he's a disaster...:uhuh:


BINGO

but shhhhh - you cant say anything!

At one time or another he has been in charge of the Delta force, the arm rangers, and the seal force as well. He ran and went on some if not most all of the blackest of ops in Iraq. .

hey come on now! Thats no excuse for him to be critical of a junior sentaor that was once a community organizer. He f'in taught at HARVARD for gods sake!

I think the bigger question all this static gives us a chance to address is that we can not change these people into some type of Western democracy. Given that I do not see any strategy whether it is COIN or anything else that is going to give us anything close to a desired result. We should pull out as quickly as possible and save as many of these brave kids from being killed or maimed as we can.

I think the bigger question all this static gives us a chance to address is that we can not change these people into some type of Western democracy. Given that I do not see any strategy whether it is COIN or anything else that is going to give us anything close to a desired result. We should pull out as quickly as possible and save as many of these brave kids from being killed or maimed as we can.

I agree. Giving the General 30K more troops and then orders not to shoot the enemy unless you are shot at first (and can prove it!!)is a losing strategy. Bring them home NOW,

hey come on now! Thats no excuse for him to be critical of a junior sentaor that was once a community organizer. He f'in taught at HARVARD for gods sake!

Right:
Much better to take orders from a failed baseball/oil man/Gov of Texas or Gov of Arkansas... the Commander in Chief is the top, agree or disagree he is the boss... Context of their experience is not important here.

If this was reversed Politically, and this was a McCain White House you guys would be clamoring for the generals head.

As one of the talking heads said last night or this morning, in the military, you salute, carry out the order or you resign, period.

It's a moot issue now...he's gone. It is a shame that such an outstanding military career would come to an end in such a disturbing way. Some people think he was looking for an out, but I'm not sure I buy that.

-spence

As one of the talking heads said last night or this morning, in the military, you salute, carry out the order or you resign, period.


So you think that lawyers are better at running a war than generals?
(see Vietnam History)

O had to show His Balls

Right:
Much better to take orders from a failed baseball/oil man/Gov of Texas or Gov of Arkansas... the Commander in Chief is the top, agree or disagree he is the boss... Context of their experience is not important here.

If this was reversed Politically, and this was a McCain White House you guys would be clamoring for the generals head.

As one of the talking heads said last night or this morning, in the military, you salute, carry out the order or you resign, period.


Never would have happened under Bush.

Never would have happened under Bush.

You meant to say, under Cheney right?

Lobby your congressman to introduce an amendment to the constitution that removes the commander in chief powers from the executive branch.

You meant to say, under Cheney right?


It is extremely sad this happened under Oprah!

Never would have happened under Bush.

No, you just had a sec. of defense removed after a half a dozen retired top tier generals claimed military incompetence.

McCrystal F-ed up.
Obama did the right thing by accepting the resignation.
It probably was a political move to put Petraus in there... we'll see how it works out.

No, you just had a sec. of defense removed after a half a dozen retired top tier generals claimed military incompetence.

McCrystal F-ed up.
Obama did the right thing by accepting the resignation.
It probably was a political move to put Petraus in there... we'll see how it works out.

Obama can't win in this one. He put McChrystal in position after passing over Petraeus the first time. He also had some harsh words for Petraeus while he was campaigning for office. Now, to have to sack the guy he handpicked and go back to the guy who originally should have been the choice, it doesn't look so good. But in the end, I think Petraeus is the better choice. As decorated as McChrystal is, he had lost the confidence of a lot of the guys on the ground fighting for him. Now it's just a matter if finding out if this is a winnable war.

we've never defined "winnable" thus it can never be won

Obama can't win in this one. He put McChrystal in position after passing over Petraeus the first time. He also had some harsh words for Petraeus while he was campaigning for office. Now, to have to sack the guy he handpicked and go back to the guy who originally should have been the choice, it doesn't look so good. But in the end, I think Petraeus is the better choice. As decorated as McChrystal is, he had lost the confidence of a lot of the guys on the ground fighting for him. Now it's just a matter if finding out if this is a winnable war.

also consider that the remaining Obama supporters are the far left whack jobs who hate Petraeus' guts and would very much like to lose the war so that we can get on to turning this crappy, misguided country into a marxist utopia, and they want their damn Obama money...they can't be happy with Obama now either....hiring "Bush's General" and all...

did ya happen to notice that all of the independent hardworking mainstream media heads and pundints are cheering support for Obama using the IDENTICAL language.."he's brilliant"...funny how they independently and without bias or coordination report as news the exact talking points of the Obama handlers, you'd think that you'd have a least a shred of self respect or at least a little respect for your profession...this is Stalinist and worrisome...:uhuh: you don't have to be brilliant to be Obama or a member of his media support group...just read what they put in front of you...:uhuh:

and based on what I'm reading here from some, it's well recieved and repeated without question by the toe suckers who will either repeat talking points(preferrably short and rhyming so as to be easily remembered), blame Bush or tell you you are on drugs... in lieu or an intelligent thought :rotf2:

hey, maybe you can look forward to some Al Gore sex tapes to really get ya goin'....

it's also a nice distraction from the Blago mess..."never let a crisis go to waste"

BY NATASHA KORECKI AND SARAH OSTMAN Staff Reporters
A top aide to former Gov. Rod Blagojevich said he believed Barack Obama knew of Blagojevich's plot to win himself a presidential Cabinet post in exchange for appointing Valerie Jarrett to the U.S. Senate.

John Harris, Blagojevich's former chief of staff, testified Wednesday in the former governor's corruption trial that three days after the Nov. 4, 2008, presidential election, the ex-governor told Harris he felt confident Obama knew he wanted to swap perks.

"The president understands that the governor would be willing to make the appointment of Valerie Jarrett as long as he gets what he's asked for. . . . The governor gets the Cabinet appointment he's asked for," Harris said, explaining a recorded call.

Harris said Blagojevich came away believing Obama knew what he wanted after having a conversation with a local union representative, who in turn spoke with labor leader Tom Balanoff, with whom Blagojevich met to discuss a Jarrett appointment. Jarrett, now a White House adviser, was seeking the appointment to Obama's Senate seat.

Defense lawyers say Harris' testimony contradicts the government's previous public statements that Obama knew nothing about deal-making involving the Senate seat appointment.

The defense on Wednesday moved to force the prosecution to turn over FBI reports of Obama's interview with federal agents in December of 2008. Obama is not accused of wrongdoing.

"Testimony elicited by the government from John Harris and wiretaps played in court raise the issue of President Obama's direct knowledge and communication with emissaries and others regarding the appointment to his Senate seat," lawyers wrote in the filing

we've never defined "winnable" thus it can never be won

It's all over in July. Obama said so.:confused: