Ive never argued the point. As a military man i agree that he had to expect the repercussions. Im actually OK with the results.
Problem is...this is a real no win situation for BO and his supporters.
If McChrystal was a good and effective leader...what is it about this administration that caused he and his staff to be so dismissive of the adminsitration?
And if as some are now saying McChrystal was a bad leader, then why on earth did BO hire him? Or keep him? If the war policy is bad, then what kind of a leader tolerates that?
Maybe he stepped on it on purpose. Though what was the offending remark?
Problem is...this is a real no win situation for BO and his supporters.
If McChrystal was a good and effective leader...what is it about this administration that caused he and his staff to be so dismissive of the adminsitration?
And if as some are now saying McChrystal was a bad leader, then why on earth did BO hire him? Or keep him? If the war policy is bad, then what kind of a leader tolerates that?
Dude...did you read the article? You want to tell me that you'd have said that stuff in front of a reporter? Any of it? I don't have idiot written on my forehead, so don't play the disingenuous naif with me.
Maybe he stepped on it on purpose. Though what was the offending remark?
Obama has always been the type who can admit his mistakes.
He doesn't pretend to be more than human.
If he made a mistake putting McChrystal in charge (time will tell, but no one can deny the war has been going increasingly badly, the ROE changes have been unpopular with troops on the ground, and McChrystal's Rolling Stone interview points to a bewildering lapse of judgement which may or may not have been an isolated incident), he wouldn't have a problem admitting his mistake. And rectifying it.
His supporters wouldn't look down on him for that.
I hope the same holds true for Afghanistan in general; if, after the Christmas review, things still seem to be going downhill, I hope Obama will admit we're on the wrong path and either change strategies or begin a pull out.
I've heard so many people say "If we give up now, all these fallen soldiers have died for nothing."
But if our strategy (or our entire purpose in being there) turns out to be wrong, I can't imagine the fallen soldiers would want more of their comrades to die in service of it.
It really is beginning to seem a lot like Vietnam.
I think that Afghanistan and Iraq are becoming BO's tar babies. Add that to the list of Don't Ask, Don't Tell; Gitmo; other overseas prisons where people are being held without trial/access to counsel; torture; etc.
Obama inherited a cluster, and I'm not sure he's up to the job.
Rev...I believe it was with a purpose. I DO think that gen McChrystal HAD to know his comments were going into an article. I grant you...what he said about BO wasnt all that bad...
Rev...I believe it was with a purpose. I DO think that gen McChrystal HAD to know his comments were going into an article. I grant you...what he said about BO wasnt all that bad...
There's nothing in the article directly quoted from McChrystal that was even ABOUT Barack Obama.
Could it have been a case of blinding egomaniacism?
I don't really know much about McChrystal's character, but could he have thought perhaps that he was so valuable that they wouldn't dare reproach him for his insolence?
Could he have thought the Obama administration so weak and pussified that they just wouldn't do anything, no matter how disrespectful he was?
I know that it's easy for one's reality to become skewed, when one is surrounded 24/7 by sycophants or even by "like-minded others".
And I feel the military in general doesn't have much respect for Obama or his administration.
Maybe talking smack about them is just sort of... normal, amongst military brass.
Maybe McChrystal lost sight of the fact that in the larger, non-military world, it's viewed as unacceptable for him to publicly and openly mock the presidential administration.
I dont know...truly I dont. I have read NUMEROUS articles by journalists that are left leaning that had NOTHING but positive things to say about McChrystal. Perhaps it WAS simply arrogance. Perhaps it was incompetence. Or perhaps its disdain born from the imcpotence of the administration. Really doesnt matter as to the results regarding his assignment or retiring...but it MAY be hugely important if it IS the administration and they are still there in a capacity to cause young men and women to die. Im willing to examine both sides...are you?
Really doesnt matter. There is a general attitude of disdain that existed in his command. He is responsible for it. I believe I have said that from the beginning...no...his comments about BO werent horrible. But when your staff refers to Biden as derisively as BiteMe and calls the NSA a 'clown' (again...I dont refute the validity of the comments) then you have a general attitude that the LEADER has to be responsible for. And Im sorry...but you can say this stuff to me all you want...within the chain...but if you say this to a reporter??? NOT worthy of court martial. DEFINITELY worthy of reassignment. Reassignment would be a career ender. He just sped up the plow.
He didn't say anything too incriminating himself, but he did agree with others who did say some pretty bad stuff, his lack of an objection is agreement. Also, the staff says "the boss thinks this" and "the boss thinks that", so the comments and his staff pretty much represent what the general is thinking. The comments did everything but come from the general's mouth itself, but it doesn't matter, these are his appointed aides and he's responsible for what his staff does as their superior officer who appointed them and seeing as how the staff represent his office. Anything the general did not agree with should have been met with a reprimand. His lack of objection means agreement.I read it too.
I've still yet to figure out what the offending remark BY McChrystal is? So far the only damaging things directly attributed to him is a joking comment of wishing to answer "Who's that" in response to questions regarding his feelings towards the Vice President that seem to occur anytime he's near the press, and a statement of frustration in not wanting to read someones email in the middle of an uncomfortable diplomatic trip.
Neither are hardly worthy of an eyebrow raise let enough the hooplah that has been raised over this.
Does allowing Rolling Stone entrance into his inner circle speak of questionable decision making? Absolutely. Are the comments by some of those around him highly questionable? Definitely. However the main hype everyone seems to keep bringing up is accusations of over the line statements made BY McChrystal.
I'll ask again...please name those things. An answer of "go read the piece" isn't sufficient, because I have read the piece, and remain confused. Perhaps then you could enlighten us to what you saw as so obviously egregious so that we who missed it may be shown the light.
There are no solid comments from him about BO anywhere in that story.
And I agree with you about all the rest. However, that is not what most people argue at first, that is not what the media is presenting at first, and its not even what you said at first. It always goes back to "The things he said about Barack Obama", of which there is nothing directly attributed to him in that story. The closest is third party heresay by unnamed sources, and yet the main meme this entire time has been to focus first and foremost on McChrystals comments.
He didn't say anything too incriminating himself, but he did agree with others who did say some pretty bad stuff, his lack of an objection is agreement.
Also, the staff says "the boss thinks this" and "the boss thinks that", so the comments and his staff pretty much represent what the general is thinking.
The comments did everything but come from the general's mouth itself, but it doesn't matter, these are his appointed aides and he's responsible for what his staff does as their superior officer who appointed them and seeing as how the staff represent his office. Anything the general did not agree with should have been met with a reprimand. His lack of objection means agreement.
I highly doubt you will find my message inconstent here but if it has been then I misspoke. From the outset I have said it is the preponderance of comments made about BO, Biden and the NSA chief...and most importantly the venue in which they were spoken. I have seen the comments...none from him were specifically damning. The others...sure.
It's not ridiculous, I'm pretty sure if the General had said something, especially if it was a reprimand, it would have been included. To say that this reporter would totally twist something and omit the reprimand is also ridiculous.Lack of objection presented only through its lack of inclusion in an interview conducted by an individual with an obvious agenda and bias. To state this as conclusive evidence that nothing was said is ridiculous.
No, please show. I would not be biased to one issue and not on the other, unless the issues are not the same and are different issues. Your whole argument that the article is not true is not correct I believe, because the general has not disputed any of the article in question. And don't forget, one of the first actions was for him to fire the person that setup the interview, that to me is an admission of guilt. I don't know what McChrystal has said to the President, but I doubt it was "that article is not true". So far the general hasn't put out any statement refuting the article.Except you can not state things that did not come from his mouth as unquestionably his, or if you do, you best be consistent with it.
I readily invite you over into another thread where a similar situation of a person giving nothing but unverifiable 3rd party heresay testimony, only this time under oath rather than reprinted in a biased interview article, accusing the President of illegal activity. I'd be extremely interested to see if you hold the President to such a similar standard and would agree that at the very least an investigation into such accusations is warranted since 3rd party heresay comments presented in a biased article was enough to give reason to publicly lynch and force the removal of a general. I'm sure you wouldn't be completely hypocritical in your belief that one deserved to be removed and the other should be absolutely ignored as a non-issue.
There were no comments quoted specifically to McChrystal anywhere in that article
Perhaps your message is inconsistent because you keep making statements without backing them up.
Quote me a specific quote by McChrystal from that article about Barack Obama.
Quote me a specific quote in that article from McChrystal about Joe Biden other than his statement of wanting to say "Whose that" in reference to getting numerous questions regarding his views on the VP.
Also, hell, quote me the specific quote from the article regarding the NSA Chief, cause I'm blanking on that as well.
Perhaps you're message isn't being misunderstood, perhaps you're just poorly presenting it.
It's not ridiculous, I'm pretty sure if the General had said something, especially if it was a reprimand, it would have been included. To say that this reporter would totally twist something and omit the reprimand is also ridiculous.
But it doesn't matter, not only did the General not object, but he was actively participating in it. He contributed the "Biden, who's that?" comment when they were joking about Biden, so not only does he agree with it, he contributes as well.
To say that general is not aware of the things his staff says is completely unbelievable, he definitely knows whats going on with his staff.
Again, the point you're trying to make is that some of this is not true, the general had the chance to dispute any of this article, but he hasn't. He hasn't disagreed with any part of the article that I know of, and that is more evidence that what this article says is in fact true.
No, please show. I would not be biased to one issue and not on the other, unless the issues are not the same and are different issues. Your whole argument that the article is not true is not correct I believe, because the general has not disputed any of the article in question. And don't forget, one of the first actions was for him to fire the person that setup the interview, that to me is an admission of guilt. I don't know what McChrystal has said to the President, but I doubt it was "that article is not true". So far the general hasn't put out any statement refuting the article.
I read it too.
I've still yet to figure out what the offending remark BY McChrystal is? So far the only damaging things directly attributed to him is a joking comment of wishing to answer "Who's that" in response to questions regarding his feelings towards the Vice President that seem to occur anytime he's near the press, and a statement of frustration in not wanting to read someones email in the middle of an uncomfortable diplomatic trip.
Neither are hardly worthy of an eyebrow raise let enough the hooplah that has been raised over this.
Does allowing Rolling Stone entrance into his inner circle speak of questionable decision making? Absolutely. Are the comments by some of those around him highly questionable? Definitely. However the main hype everyone seems to keep bringing up is accusations of over the line statements made BY McChrystal.
I'll ask again...please name those things. An answer of "go read the piece" isn't sufficient, because I have read the piece, and remain confused. Perhaps then you could enlighten us to what you saw as so obviously egregious so that we who missed it may be shown the light.
Yeah, it is ridiculous to imagine that he omitted a reprimand because he is a journalist. Purposely misleading through omissions or making stuff up is one thing, while having a slight slant or bias is another thing. Please show me the evidence where McChrystal reprimanded any of his subordinate's for their behavior, until that it is more likely that he didn't than he did.How so? He's writing an article that upon reading it is clear to have a slant and a specific view towards the military, in a magazine that's known to have a certain slant towards the military? Why is it ridiculous to imagine that its no less likely that a reprimand was given and wasn't seen or wasn't reported as it is to imagine there definitely wasn't one?
This is not 3rd party heresay, this is someone who was directly in the presence of the general, heard these words, used a taperecorder, and also took down notes. This person is an experienced journalist, with journalistic integrity and has also reported for the reputable newsjournal of Newsweek. By your definition, any knowledge we come across that we have not directly experienced is heresay. How do you know that General McChrystal even exists? Have you ever met him directly? Probably not. You might have read about him in the newspaper but never seen him yourself, but how can we trust that, its heresay! Journalists and journalistic sources have more credibility than other sources and are to be trusted unless otherwise noted.No, my point is that taking 3rd party heresay and misrepresenting it as unquestionable confirmed "quotes" of the General is erroneous, especially when done by many liberals and the media who have in turn completely shunned or ignored instances of third party heresay that implicate the President in illegal activity.
This is not the same situation. This is a person who talked to someone who talked to someone who talked to someone who talked to Obama. That is heresay. One question I will ask is this: Has this person Harris ever talked to Obama directly? If not then its heresay. This reporter directly talked to the people mentioned.No, my point is that taking 3rd party heresay and misrepresenting it as unquestionable confirmed "quotes" of the General is erroneous, especially when done by many liberals and the media who have in turn completely shunned or ignored instances of third party heresay that implicate the President in illegal activity.
Here you go
Gives an aide (a bird Colonel) a one finger bird salute...kinda funny...maybe not wise in the frpesence of a reporter.
McChrystals aides comments to that reporter about a state dinner with the french "Its ****in gay". Again...Not brilliant.
Past public comments re Vice President Joe Biden as "shortsighted," saying his position would lead to a state of "Chaos-istan." OK...blowin off steam...no big deal...
"Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.
"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"
"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?" Now...I imagine Biden is the OPPOSITE of a clean, well spoken black man...but again...starting to see a trend...and in front of the kids...
"According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his ****ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed." For one thing...we are starting to notice that the general and his staff have the same kind of potty mouth Biden has. And the trend continues...by itself not that big a deal...but in front of a reporter?
"McChrystal reserves special skepticism for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating the Taliban. "The Boss says he's like a wounded animal," says a member of the general's team. "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous. He's a brilliant guy, but he just comes in, pulls on a lever, whatever he can grasp onto. But this is COIN, and you can't just have someone yanking on ****."
At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it." He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.
"Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg," an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail." Are you noticing a trend? It doesnt appear to be a healthy working relationship...and when you have a few hundred thousand lives that DEPEND on maintaining that working relationship...
OK...at the end of the day...none of this is THAT big a deal.
the preponderance of comments made about BO
...his comments about BO
what he said about BO
When I was separating from the navy, we had a class in separation(great class). One of the others in the class was the base XO(a captain who could not maintain the body fat standard), and he talked to us briefly on the media and the base closure commission decision to close the base where were at. His comment was that when speaking to the media, you are obligated to support the military and those above us's decisions. You could say that, speaking for yourself in an unofficial capacity as an individual, you disagreed, but you had to be respectful and supportive of the decisions of those above us.
The comments made by some of McChrystal's staff where mild, but they did violate the rules of how you handle yourself in front of the media. Realistically, the rules in place for the Rolling Stone visit where probably wrong(everything on the record unless agreed to in advance...no military interview should to my mind be made with that rule), but by being disrespectful of others in the chain of command, and those involved in the war process, in front of the media, was clearly a mistake.
Yeah, it is ridiculous to imagine that he omitted a reprimand because he is a journalist. Purposely misleading through omissions or making stuff up is one thing, while having a slight slant or bias is another thing. Please show me the evidence where McChrystal reprimanded any of his subordinate's for their behavior, until that it is more likely that he didn't than he did.
This is not 3rd party heresay, this is someone who was directly in the presence of the general, heard these words, used a taperecorder, and also took down notes. This person is an experienced journalist, with journalistic integrity and has also reported for the reputable newsjournal of Newsweek. By your definition, any knowledge we come across that we have not directly experienced is heresay. How do you know that General McChrystal even exists? Have you ever met him directly? Probably not. You might have read about him in the newspaper but never seen him yourself, but how can we trust that, its heresay! Journalists and journalistic sources have more credibility than other sources and are to be trusted unless otherwise noted.
This is not the same situation. This is a person who talked to someone who talked to someone who talked to someone who talked to Obama. That is heresay. One question I will ask is this: Has this person Harris ever talked to Obama directly? If not then its heresay. This reporter directly talked to the people mentioned.
And don't forget you don't acknowledge that General McChrystal did not refute any of the material in the article and also fired his PR guy, which can be construed as an admission of guilt.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?