June 23, 2010
— DrewM Well, that was interesting.
I know a lot of folks here didn't think McChrystal should have lost his command and career over the Rolling Stone article and none of us like Obama. But McChrystal did throw his job away and in the end, Obama did the best thing to give us a chance for a good outcome in Afghanistan.
The Weekly Standard pulled up Gen. Petraeus' testimony from last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Here's part of what he said about the July '11 deadline.
"It's important that July 2011 be seen for what it is, the date when a process begins based on conditions, not the date when the U.S. heads for the exits," said Petraeus. "Moreover, my agreement with the president's decisions was based on projections of conditions in July 2011.
Note 'conditions', not dates.
Picking Petraeus for this command is a double edged sword for Obama. On one hand he's given himself the chance to say in the future, "I gave you the best guy and look, it's not working. Not even King David could win in Afghanistan. We're outta here".
On the other hand he's saying right now, with a lot of credibility, "I need to win this and I'm giving us the best shot with the one guy the majority of the nation will rally around".
Petraeus may well be a selfless patriot but he's not stupid enough to go into a setup.
Now, all good soldiers think they can do the mission and as CentCom commander he undoubtedly has a feeling of responsibility to the men and women in the fight, but Petraeus is more than a good soldier, he's a good inside the system fighter as well. He's not going to take on a hopeless cause. He has to honestly believe this war can be won and that Obama and the people he will have to work with can do it.
In some ways by picking the highest profile general in America, Obama is making Petraeus a partner in the war. Petraeus has laid it on the table that he will be back next year to report on whether or not the conditions are right to start withdrawing next year. Given who he is, what he's accomplish, Americans are going to believe him. If he says to Congress "No, conditions don't allow us to pull out", then Obama has to live with that.
Obama could have played through McChrystal saying that and pulled out anyway. He can't do that with Petraeus. Not after how he gets to that point.
I really thought Obama would suck up the story because keeping McChrystal was the easiest path to exiting in '11. Firing McChrystal means giving people a chance to say, 'give the new guy some more time'. But with Petraeus that pressure will be overwhelming. If he asks for it.
There won't be a change in strategy since McChrystal was running the local version of the Petraeus playbook and Petraeus was his boss but there may well be some changes in style and tactics. It will be interesting to see what becomes of McChyrstal's much criticized Rules of Engagement.
I don't know if those ROEs were coming from the White House but McChrystal accepted and defended them if they did. What will Petraeus do?
No matter what...good luck to the General, the men and women he now directly commands and yes, the President of the United States.
Added: CDR Salamander doesn't like the idea of Petraeus moving to direct command.
Posted by: DrewM at
11:37 AM
| Comments (363)
Post contains 597 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Ben at June 23, 2010 11:41 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at June 23, 2010 11:41 AM (yQWNf)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 23, 2010 11:42 AM (U5btG)
Posted by: Ben at June 23, 2010 11:42 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at June 23, 2010 11:43 AM (T0bhq)
7 heh. That tennis match is now at 55 games apiece.
Why can't tennis be more like soccer, where matches can end in a tie. These boys should be enjoying their juice boxes by now.
Posted by: Truck Monkey at June 23, 2010 11:45 AM (yQWNf)
Posted by: Alex at June 23, 2010 11:45 AM (ifK+p)
Posted by: DelD at June 23, 2010 11:45 AM (asikV)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at June 23, 2010 11:47 AM (xO+6C)
Posted by: DarkLordOfTheIntarWebs at June 23, 2010 11:47 AM (ps0+9)
Last time Petraeus was sent in to play firefighter, he had a President who went All-In.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at June 23, 2010 11:48 AM (ZESU0)
If Obama gives Petraeus the resources he needs then we have a good chance to succeed. If not, then the president is putting a lot of brave men in harms way for nothing Political Posture.
...and fixed!
Posted by: Barack Obama at June 23, 2010 11:48 AM (CQtwu)
Petraeus would most likely react in the same way, because it is his duty.
The real problem is Obama, because he is a disaster as President. The man is as incompetent at being President as anyone could possibly be.
Karzai shows Obama-esque qualities with his lack of leadership and corruption.
Get rid of Obama and Karzai and we can win the thing.
Until we win, the important thing is to kill as many Taliban as possible. At somer point, they will run out of Talibanes.
Posted by: Harry at June 23, 2010 11:49 AM (8Qhyl)
Also, I get that any President would have to fire any general with this big a storm circling his head, but it really shouldn't be lost that the Obama/Biden team is a pretty special kind of incompetent to engender the sorts of feelings voiced in the article. Dumblberry and Holbrook need the ax too, or there's no hope for the effort.
Even if *people* don't get all that, I certainly hope folks recognize that Obama's motivation was his primary concern of silencing criticism. Petraeus just happens to be the biggest bandaid. Oh and that bit about him being intimidated by the military really needs to be in a 2012 ad.
Posted by: Barry the Magnificent at June 23, 2010 11:49 AM (Xsi7M)
This is a bitter victory for the left. While they did get McChrystal's head, they lost on Obama's long term comitment to afghanistan.
Posted by: Ben at June 23, 2010 11:50 AM (wuv1c)
That said, selecting Petraeus is not politically safe. Obama has a well-documented record of declaring that Petraeus was incapable of designing, much less executing, a strategy for victory in Iraq. The one thing that would go a long way to mitigating this problem for Obama is the one thing he cannot do: give a major address to the American people saying, "I admit that I was wrong about the surge in Iraq, and that's why I now have complete confidence that Gen. Petraeus can create the conditions in Afghanistan that will lead to the same kind of victory there that he helped the US achieve in Iraq."
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 11:50 AM (W+GYq)
Posted by: Texas Hold'em All Stars at June 23, 2010 11:50 AM (ZESU0)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 23, 2010 11:50 AM (i3AsK)
Posted by: Barry the Magnificent at June 23, 2010 03:49 PM (Xsi7M)
Obama should make the counter-intuitive and bold move of appointing McChrystal to replace Eikenberry as ambassador to Afghanistan.
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 11:51 AM (W+GYq)
No matter what...good luck to the General, the men and women he now directly commands and yes, the President of the United States.
Yes, yes and yes.
Posted by: FireHorse at June 23, 2010 11:52 AM (cQyWA)
Posted by: Blue Falcon in Boston at June 23, 2010 11:52 AM (ijjAe)
Until we win, the important thing is to kill as many Taliban as possible. At somer point, they will run out of Talibanes.
Posted by: Harry at June 23, 2010 03:49 PM (8Qhyl)
Kill all you want. We'll make more.
Posted by: The Mamas and the Mullahs at June 23, 2010 11:52 AM (W+GYq)
Posted by: Gaff at June 23, 2010 11:52 AM (jDWYv)
Posted by: Gaff at June 23, 2010 03:52 PM (jDWYv)
Because the whole thing is public now and Obama's hand has been forced.
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 11:55 AM (W+GYq)
Posted by: Fresh Air at June 23, 2010 11:56 AM (8McwA)
And free to take the job!
Posted by: DelD at June 23, 2010 11:56 AM (asikV)
I'm going to hold my breath on this one, especially if the ROE don't change.
Posted by: Gaff at June 23, 2010 11:57 AM (jDWYv)
Because the whole thing is public
now and Obama's hand has been forced.
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 03:55 PM
Keep telling yourself that. I am skeptical.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at June 23, 2010 11:57 AM (ZESU0)
Posted by: Mindy at June 23, 2010 11:57 AM (TMozG)
Exactly. I now require 100k more troops and 17 nuclear bombs. Thanks.
Posted by: Bizarro David Petraeus at June 23, 2010 11:57 AM (Xsi7M)
Posted by: Unclefacts, AoSHQ Professional Debate Team at June 23, 2010 11:58 AM (eCAn3)
** SPIT **
Posted by: Fresh Air at June 23, 2010 03:56 PM (8McwA)
"Rebbe, Rebbe, is there a blessing for the President?"
"A blessing for the President? Let me think.... Ah, yes. 'May God bless and keep the President -- on the golf course, where he can't do any damage!'"
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 11:58 AM (W+GYq)
Posted by: unknown jane at June 23, 2010 11:58 AM (5/yRG)
Posted by: Blue Falcon in Boston at June 23, 2010 11:59 AM (ijjAe)
Wow... many of you don't get this...
McChrystal WORKED for Patreus... Patreus was already IN Command of Afganistan, thorough McChrystal.
Now, they fired the mid level manager, and the Boss, who is already so busy that he is not taking care of himself, is being told to do that job as well.. via remote control.
Expect another General to be put up for the Afgan Command very soon... this just happened so fast that they did not have a replacment for McChrystal selected.
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 23, 2010 11:59 AM (OlHjR)
The oil spill has been public for weeks now and that hasn't forced Obama's hand into getting the feds to be useful in plugging the damn hole.
I'm worried that once Petraeus accepts this new assignment, Barry's going to shortchange and go half-assed on the General's requests for troops and supplies.
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at June 23, 2010 12:00 PM (9hSKh)
I'm convinced that when President Christie takes office, he'll command all our troops to take off and nuke the site from orbit using one of those Jimmah Cartah nukes that only takes a few years for the radiation to dissipate.
Then we can move in and start mining that place until there's just a big, country-sized hole where the Muzzies used to be.
We can use the lithium.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 23, 2010 12:00 PM (i3AsK)
Posted by: DarkLordOfTheIntarWebs at June 23, 2010 12:01 PM (ps0+9)
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus)
Oh, we are on it, Mr. Preznit.
Posted by: Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid at June 23, 2010 12:02 PM (ZESU0)
Posted by: Unclefacts, AoSHQ Professional Debate Team at June 23, 2010 12:02 PM (eCAn3)
Posted by: Ryan Frank at June 23, 2010 12:02 PM (6mZAd)
Posted by: Vince at June 23, 2010 12:03 PM (GpQZ/)
Then we can move in and start mining that place until there's just a big, country-sized hole where the Muzzies used to be.
We can use the lithium."
China will have mined the ever living shit out of the radioactive ruins of Afghanistan long before any US based companies would even attempt to make entry due to the radiological safety concerns.
Posted by: Blue Falcon in Boston at June 23, 2010 12:03 PM (ijjAe)
LOL, Obama has shown nothing but utter disdain for the public. Why should this be any different? Hell, the "public" was the first to go under the bus.
Posted by: Vic at June 23, 2010 12:04 PM (6taRI)
Posted by: ParisParamus at June 23, 2010 12:04 PM (8NZ+B)
Posted by: unknown jane at June 23, 2010 12:04 PM (5/yRG)
Posted by: unknown jane at June 23, 2010 03:58 PM (5/yRG)
Can you point me to a link to the DailyKos comments? (I hate to wallow around in that site to search for them.)
It would be nice to think that at this point, Obama would be willing to stand up to his base in the name of success (if not "victory") in Afghanistan, especially since success in Afghanistan is essential to US national security (we need success there in order to have leverage in Pakistan). Nice, but unfortunately not necessarily realistic.
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 12:05 PM (W+GYq)
Posted by: Jean at June 23, 2010 12:06 PM (3Ds00)
Posted by: ziptie at June 23, 2010 12:06 PM (0135J)
Posted by: Weasley Clarke at June 23, 2010 12:07 PM (sYxEE)
Posted by: Nancy Pelosi at June 23, 2010 12:08 PM (ZG9as)
Posted by: unknown jane at June 23, 2010 12:08 PM (5/yRG)
Posted by: Barry Obama at June 23, 2010 12:08 PM (SZy+Y)
Let me know when he actually gives a shit about that
Posted by: Bobby Jindhal at June 23, 2010 12:09 PM (sYxEE)
RE: Wimbledon
No tie breaks in the fifth set at Wimbledon. Wonder if they might rethink that after this match.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at June 23, 2010 12:10 PM (P33XN)
LOL, Obama has shown nothing but utter disdain for the public. Why should this be any different? Hell, the "public" was the first to go under the bus.
Posted by: Vic at June 23, 2010 04:04 PM (6taRI)
Not "THE public." Public, as in, it's now not possible for him to pretend to Congress, our allies or any other people of influence that the military is just peachy-keen with his policies. The next time he tries to pull a three-month "policy review" or give Petraeus 75% of the minimum the general says is necessary for success, only the looniest of the moonbats will have the gall to defend him.
And I have to believe that he's so addicted to the perks of office that he really, REALLY wants to be re-elected.
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 12:10 PM (W+GYq)
60 Why doesn't anyone ask me? I've got operational experience in liquidating religious fanatics who are perceived to be a threat. I'd like to try it on foreign soil sometime
*ahem*
Posted by: Janet Reno at June 23, 2010 12:10 PM (yQWNf)
Very Interesting.............
Pelosi asks for donations to fend off potential GOP investigationsSpeaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is asking supporters for contributions to help prevent the "subpoenas and investigations" that would result from a GOP majority. In a fundraising letter for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Pelosi says if Republicans take back the House, they'll initiate "endless investigations against President Obama" and "bring back the days of Ken Starr and the politics of personal destruction." "Remember a Republican-controlled Congress that devoted more time to subpoenas and investigations than to solving our country's problems?" Pelosi asks. "There is far too much at stake for our country now to allow it to happen again." Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, has shown himself willing and eager to be a thorn in the side of the Obama administration on everything from the BP oil spill to the Joe Sestak job offer.
Posted by: Ferd Berfall at June 23, 2010 12:12 PM (SZy+Y)
Until we win, the important thing is to kill as many Taliban as possible. At somer point, they will run out of Talibanes.
Posted by: Harry at June 23, 2010 03:49 PM (8Qhyl)
Yeah, I had that theory about the Viet Cong.
Posted by: Zombie Lyndon B. Johnson at June 23, 2010 12:12 PM (QKKT0)
Jean, I was envisioning both being pretty much gone after the second or third mushroom cloud.
But I'm glad to see that you're detail-oriented. We'll need that when it comes to the mass deportation of the progressive pukes under the Christie administration. They've been pissing and moaning that America is so bad for so long, they should welome the relocation to a country more to their liking.
Like Cuba or Veneuzuela.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 23, 2010 12:13 PM (i3AsK)
Posted by: unknown jane at June 23, 2010 12:13 PM (5/yRG)
Since this is all public now:
Intentionally fucking up logistics and undermining the chain of command during a war sounds like gross dereliction of duty as the Commander in Chief to me. Probably warrants impeachment by an angry public acting through Congress no?
Even with the MFM giving the guy a leg to stand on, there's not fucking way following November that congress and the rapidly declining public opinion of the guy is going to allow Barry to get away with massive stunts. This is on par with if Bush invading Syria/Pakistan following the 2006 elections, you know damn well what would have resulted if that happened, impeachment.
Posted by: Blue Falcon in Boston at June 23, 2010 12:13 PM (ijjAe)
The interesting fact about Vietnam is General Giap stated that the US desimated the North Vietnese Communists and they were ready to call quits. But then the Americans went home..........He was confused, they won the war but just left....
Posted by: Jim Frankel at June 23, 2010 12:14 PM (SZy+Y)
Flashback: Obama dodges vote condemning moveon.org Betrayus ad.
Obama voted for the Democratic alternative offered by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) reaffirming strong support for all men and women in the military and condemning attacks on the “honor, integrity and patriotism” of any individual who is serving or has served in the Armed Forces.
But he skipped the vote that came next. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) offered a “sense of the Senate” resolution that Petraeus “deserves the full support of the Senate” and said the Senate “strongly condemns personal attacks” on his honor and integrity.
---------------------------------------
Obama managed to cast a vote on the other two amendments of the day, including an ‘aye’ for Sen. Russ Feingold’s amendment to start withdrawing troops within 90 days. But his campaign was insistent that he skipped his Rock Hill, S.C. event to do his work in the Senate.
Posted by: Warden at June 23, 2010 12:14 PM (QoR4a)
Posted by: David Allan McChrystal at June 23, 2010 12:14 PM (ZESU0)
Agree - and that squares with what I've heard from folks who've been there. Our strategy will work but will take years of effort and won't have alot of photo-op, feel-good moments. Incremental progress will be the rule. The opposition has to be taught that we aren't going to go away and that they might as well throw out the Ho Chi Minh / Osama playbook of beating us in the NYT rather than in the field.
Whether the American public has the stones (and whether enough grunts care to suck it up and keep targets painted on their chests) remains to be seen. For once I'd like to see a COIN strategy that was allowed to play out over time rather than being aborted due to lack of political will.
Posted by: societyis2blame at June 23, 2010 12:15 PM (7ZyYf)
Posted by: USA at June 23, 2010 12:15 PM (YZISw)
Yeah, I had that theory about the Viet Cong.
Posted by: Zombie Lyndon B. Johnson at June 23, 2010 04:12 PM (QKKT0)
Funny how after Linebacker II decimated North Viet Nam, we got a Peace Treaty... there actualy was a short period of Peace... before North VN invaded the South again, and we would not support them so they fell.
So, yes, killing enough of them, doing enough damage, did win. We didn't loose the war, we lost the Peace...
People seem to forget how that bit of history actualy occured.
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 23, 2010 12:16 PM (OlHjR)
Posted by: Mindy at June 23, 2010 03:57 PM (TMozG)
No. Even if that IS the right thing to do, it's an accident.
Posted by: Diogenes at June 23, 2010 12:16 PM (eVJ7T)
ahem
Posted by: Nostrilferatu (D-California) at June 23, 2010 12:17 PM (ZESU0)
General McChrystal is now an honest to goodness, genuine American hero, and here's why. He said all the stuff that just about every trooper wanted to say but couldn't. He brought to the fore the reason WHY we aren't winning in Afganistan. We have the best, brightest, best trained, bravest, best equipped force in the world, and we're being hamstrung by Obama, Karzai, and to a lesser extent, Hillary Clinton. The troops couldn't say that, but the General could and did. It got him fired, and that's also as it should be - he can't say that sort of thing in public. In essence, he sacrificed himself for the troops. And every one of them, and I, would follow General McChrystal straight to hell and out the other side, chasing the devil all the way.
The question is - will Obama take a lesson from what just happened? Hell no he won't, because he's just to vain to think he might be wrong about something. Will the press listen? Will anyone look at this logically? Nah, won't happen.
We will lose Afganistan and quite probably Iraq as well. He will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The sacrifice of our brave soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines will go to waste. So will the sacrifice of our latest hero, General McChrystal.
Posted by: Beau at June 23, 2010 12:17 PM (lAolX)
LOL, has pig-snout done anything other than investigations since the Dems took control?
Posted by: Vic at June 23, 2010 12:17 PM (6taRI)
Posted by: DarkLordOfTheIntarWebs at June 23, 2010 12:17 PM (ps0+9)
Posted by: Gaff at June 23, 2010 03:52 PM (jDWYv)
Because the whole thing is public now and Obama's hand has been forced.
Posted by: stuiec
And this is different from any of Obama's other disasters, how?
Obama just put in place the guy that neither he, Pelosi, or Reid would support in a lousy Congressional resolution. And now Drew thinks that Obama is going to swim upstream and suddenly want to fight the conflict that started under Bush, led by a man that he vilified, who used in Iraq a strategem that he predicted would fail? Add to this the now conveniently forgotten sneer by Obama that our effort in Afghanistan consisted of 'bombing villages and stuff'. This will get him through the midterms while troops die in quiet, agreeable numbers, covered by MFM stories about Obama's 'bold new gamble'. He is counting upon the proffesionalism of Petraeus to carry him for another short term run. He'll then turn on him and/or Petraeus will retire. And then the Dems can do as Drew predicted; "we told you that this brutal afghan winter was just toomuch"!
Posted by: Blue Hen at June 23, 2010 12:19 PM (R2fpr)
You really can't expect me to pay for my own round of golf, do you?
Posted by: Barry the Magnificent at June 23, 2010 12:19 PM (Xsi7M)
There is a basic difference between Dems and Republicans. Republicans are always more than willing to eat their own. There will never be a Dem impeached as long as Republicans do not have a 4/5 majority in both houses. Note the 4/5 is need to overcome RINOs like Arlen "Scottish law" Spector.
Posted by: Vic at June 23, 2010 12:21 PM (6taRI)
Prelude to an Isreali strike on Iran........
In the face of IranÂ’s race to obtain nuclear weapons, Israel strengthened its foothold in space Tuesday with the successful launch of a spy satellite, which defense officials said would provide the IDF with unprecedented operational capabilities. Called Ofek 9, the satellite was launched at around 10 p.m. Tuesday from the Palmahim air base along the Mediterranean coast. It was placed in low orbit by an Israel Aerospace Industries-manufactured Shavit booster rocket of the same type used for the Ofek 7 satellite in 2007.
Posted by: Yoni at June 23, 2010 12:21 PM (SZy+Y)
Posted by: MEDIBOT at June 23, 2010 12:22 PM (FjC5u)
This is pretty random, and somewhat petty, but who the fuck does Ed Morrisey think he's writing to ("effective and gracious" speech). What the fuck?
Leave the ass kissing to MSNBC, dweeb.
Posted by: shakes the clown at June 23, 2010 12:22 PM (UaxA0)
Posted by: Wodeshed at June 23, 2010 04:14 PM (MFbfZ)
Tomorrow's post today?
When will then be now?
Soon.
Posted by: President Skroob or Dark Helmet, I can't remember which at June 23, 2010 12:23 PM (i3AsK)
Posted by: unknown jane at June 23, 2010 12:23 PM (5/yRG)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at June 23, 2010 12:23 PM (ZESU0)
Posted by: Ben at June 23, 2010 12:24 PM (wuv1c)
Judging by actions and not by words, Barry seems to be concerned about not having "you lost Afghanistan" hung around his neck. He's kept up the Predator program and put McC in, albeit with a feckless lack of troops. I have no doubt that this was a political calculation, but this may be one occasion where political expediency and doing the right thing happened to sync.
If he just wanted to throw in the towel, he could have already done so. Hell, George Will would agree with him, and judging from the comments here (not exactly a hotbed of pacifism) about 1/4 to 1/3 of our commenters might agree with him.
Posted by: societyis2blame at June 23, 2010 12:24 PM (7ZyYf)
Posted by: ed at June 23, 2010 12:24 PM (Urhve)
Prelude to an Isreali strike on Iran........
In the face of IranÂ’s race to obtain nuclear weapons, Israel strengthened its foothold in space Tuesday with the successful launch of a spy satellite, which defense officials said would provide the IDF with unprecedented operational capabilities. Called Ofek 9, the satellite was launched at around 10 p.m. Tuesday from the Palmahim air base along the Mediterranean coast. It was placed in low orbit by an Israel Aerospace Industries-manufactured Shavit booster rocket of the same type used for the Ofek 7 satellite in 2007.
Jews in Space? Wasn't that part of Mel Brooks' History of the World?
Posted by: Ben at June 23, 2010 12:25 PM (wuv1c)
Posted by: unknown jane at June 23, 2010 12:26 PM (5/yRG)
Posted by: Ben at June 23, 2010 12:26 PM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Baracky O's, The Breakfast of Foreign Policy Champions at June 23, 2010 12:28 PM (pxrjp)
59 games each in the 5th set.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at June 23, 2010 12:29 PM (T0bhq)
Nearly 1,300 prison inmates wrongly received more than $9 million in tax credits for home-buyers despite being locked up when they claimed they bought a home, a government investigator reported Wednesday.
If the gov reported this then the problem is most likely 10 times worse.
Posted by: Vic at June 23, 2010 12:29 PM (6taRI)
He did ? If so, Huckabee's bringing a butter-knife to a gunfight. Careful what you wish for, Mike.
On the plus side, if he gets into a cage-match with the 'Cuda, she'll tear him up enough that any thought of him re-fucking up our primaries in 2012 with his single-issue sideshow will be scotched pronto.
Posted by: societyis2blame at June 23, 2010 12:30 PM (7ZyYf)
Yeah, Democrats always protect their own.
Posted by: Rod Blagojevich at June 23, 2010 12:31 PM (Xsi7M)
Judging by actions and not by words, Barry seems to be concerned about not having "you lost Afghanistan" hung around his neck. He's kept up the Predator program and put McC in, albeit with a feckless lack of troops. I have no doubt that this was a political calculation, but this may be one occasion where political expediency and doing the right thing happened to sync.
If he just wanted to throw in the towel, he could have already done so. Hell, George Will would agree with him, and judging from the comments here (not exactly a hotbed of pacifism) about 1/4 to 1/3 of our commenters might agree with him.
Posted by: societyis2blame
I do agree that he dosne't want to be saddled as the one responsible for the loss.
You are conflating 'just wanted to' with 'I have the ability to do this at this very moment'. We need only look at all of the other promises broken to know that this jerk is amoral and beset with problems he cannot solve. He 'could have already' closed Guantonomo. Prison space exists in the US. Some nations are stupid enough to take some. For all we know, he very much wants to cut and run, but he hasn't managed to solve the political equaion to the satisfaction of he and his merry band. Until that happens, troops will die. And that is what is prompting much of the comments to let them fight, or get them out.
Posted by: Blue Hen at June 23, 2010 12:33 PM (R2fpr)
Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 23, 2010 12:36 PM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: Jean at June 23, 2010 12:38 PM (xsupj)
Joshua would kick ass in Afghanistan!
___
Hey, give me a chance
Posted by: Samson with a bloody jawbone at June 23, 2010 12:38 PM (Xsi7M)
Holy crap... they DID Demote Patreus.
Wow... so now Patreus will have to work for someone else... probably someone Junior, who will take over his old job at CENTCOM?
Recipie for a disfunctional chain of command... and potentialy setting him (and us) up for failure.
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 23, 2010 12:40 PM (OlHjR)
Posted by: robtr at June 23, 2010 12:40 PM (fwSHf)
The Dems didn't sink you Rod, it was the federal investigation that most likely started under Bush.
Posted by: Vic at June 23, 2010 12:41 PM (6taRI)
Obama doesn't give a flying crap about anybody's opinion but his own. Saying he has to "live with anything" is naivete on a grand scale.
Posted by: Matt at June 23, 2010 12:42 PM (c4srZ)
Posted by: Jean at June 23, 2010 12:43 PM (fQbcU)
Posted by: robtr
here's your problems with this:
He wasn't insubordinate (to the right person that is)
he didn't apologize to BP
he recycles
try again when you have some real news.
Posted by: MFM at June 23, 2010 12:43 PM (R2fpr)
Posted by: joncelli at June 23, 2010 12:43 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: jakeman at June 23, 2010 12:44 PM (8QmEC)
-- The Precedent (after they changed eligibility requirements), Nobel Laureate (after they made the Peace Prize into a TOTAL joke), Precedent of the Harvard Law Review (after they changed eligibility requirements), noted Indonesian, ...
Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 23, 2010 12:45 PM (Qp4DT)
Obama has to live with that
He branded his grandmother a racist to get elected. He seems to be doing just dandy with that.
Posted by: Blue Hen at June 23, 2010 12:46 PM (R2fpr)
Posted by: Ferd Berfall at June 23, 2010 12:46 PM (SZy+Y)
General Casey objects to replacing McChrystal with Petraeus. He thinks diversity will be harmed, and that's the worst thing that can happen ...
fantastic reference!!
Johnny tell him what he's won.
Posted by: Ben at June 23, 2010 12:47 PM (wuv1c)
No matter what...good luck to the General, the men and women he now directly commands and yes, the President of the United States.
Um, unless you're referring to a future POTOS, I see different ideas about what constitutes "luck."
Posted by: dum blond at June 23, 2010 12:48 PM (gbCNS)
How would you like to be a general in the military right now? Essentially Obama said, and everyone agrees, that there are only two generals competent enough to run a war. And one of them was just fired.
Posted by: Ben at June 23, 2010 12:48 PM (wuv1c)
116 If I remember my history correctly Genghis did a pretty good job in Astan.
Can the good general ride a horse? If so, would he be too squeamish (or some might say civilized) to ride it up a mountain of skulls?
Posted by: unknown jane at June 23, 2010 12:48 PM (5/yRG)
I see what you did there.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at June 23, 2010 12:49 PM (mR7mk)
Like everything Obama does, this is politically motivated.
By putting Petraeus on the line in A-stan, one of two things happen:
1) things go badly, and Petraeus takes enough blame that he is no longer a strong candidate for President
2) things go well, and Obama takes the credit
I'm not sure Petraeus has even the slightest interest in being POTUS, but I know the Obama crowd can't conceive of someone who polls well not running (principle? what?). Without this move, Petraeus could have kept enough distance to avoid being tarred.
Posted by: TallDave at June 23, 2010 12:51 PM (/s1LA)
Posted by: unknown jane at June 23, 2010 12:54 PM (5/yRG)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at June 23, 2010 12:55 PM (T0bhq)
Posted by: Barack Obama at June 23, 2010 12:55 PM (SZy+Y)
Posted by: Wodeshed at June 23, 2010 04:54 PM (MFbfZ)
How do you get it to make a word into a link?
Posted by: Diogenes at June 23, 2010 12:56 PM (eVJ7T)
i often wonder where we would actually be in the war if the Dem's had honored our country, our men and women fighting.. backed the efforts to stop extremism 7+ years ago. for it than against it.
of course , like Obama, their words are not meant to be taken seriously.
Posted by: willow at June 23, 2010 12:57 PM (HyUIR)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at June 23, 2010 12:59 PM (T0bhq)
Posted by: Frank Goolp at June 23, 2010 12:59 PM (SZy+Y)
Posted by: joncelli at June 23, 2010 01:00 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Jean at June 23, 2010 01:00 PM (E8yyz)
Guy Fawkes--the box to the right, the drop-down will adjust itself.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at June 23, 2010 01:01 PM (mR7mk)
Posted by: Mike Hunt at June 23, 2010 01:01 PM (SZy+Y)
Patreaus is going to have the same LOSING HAND that McChrystal had.
Why the fuck would he take the job?
Posted by: gus at June 23, 2010 01:01 PM (Vqruj)
Carry on.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 23, 2010 01:03 PM (UOM48)
Posted by: Jean at June 23, 2010 01:03 PM (xsupj)
"A blessing for the President? Let me think.... Ah, yes. 'May God bless and keep the President -- on the golf course, where he can't do any damage!'"
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 03:58 PM (W+GYq)
Have you seen him golf? I thought it was an old Jerry Lewis movie
Posted by: TheQuietMan at June 23, 2010 01:04 PM (1Jaio)
"He's not going to take on a hopeless cause. He has to honestly believe this war can be won and that Obama and the people he will have to work with can do it."
Not so sure about this, Drew. Can a General simply say, "Thanks, but no thanks" to a sitting President? I know there would be some dialogue about the General not having any intention of taking on a hopeless cause, and Obama telling him "That goes without saying, you'll have control over resources, we're here to give you what you need, yada, yada". But in the end, my guess would be that it would be very hard for Petraeus to say no. In the end, even if he has some doubts about the mission, he might feel that it is a foregone conclusion, and better him running it for the good of the country and for his troops than having the buck passed down the line.
In any case, Godspeed to the General and his troops. When Obama does the right thing, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and pretend that he made his decision was based on what he felt was the good of the country, and not based on pure political calculation.
Posted by: RM at June 23, 2010 01:05 PM (GkYyh)
Jean -- That would be nice. Let's hope that's how it works out, even though that probably leaves Obama in a fairly good position having won the war.
But I fear what will happen is that Petraeus won't be allowed to run things his way, like he was in Iraq, but will be too principled to complain about it publicly, and will then be blamed for the inevitable failure.
Posted by: TallDave at June 23, 2010 01:05 PM (/s1LA)
OK... so... CENTCOM owns the MidEast and Afgan/Pakistan...
So, it would be CENTCOM who must figure out what to do when Israel strikes Iran... and Iran hits back using Hezbolah...
Now, if Patreus is the Warrior we've been led to believe he is... could he stand by while the American Precedent told him to do nothing in that situation?
Could that be one of the reasons for that Demotion? So some more "pliable" and more political General could be put in that soon to be Hot Seat?
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 23, 2010 01:06 PM (OlHjR)
Posted by: Jean at June 23, 2010 01:06 PM (HsxaI)
Posted by: john at June 23, 2010 01:07 PM (6FYZ6)
Posted by: AmishDude at June 23, 2010 01:08 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: KG at June 23, 2010 01:08 PM (S8TF5)
Keep in mind, from all indications we're still going to have these high-level Obama stooges running around A-stan screwing things up. I don't think Petraeus will resign no matter how much they muck it up.
Poor guy. I just hope he starts eating all his meals.
Posted by: TallDave at June 23, 2010 01:08 PM (/s1LA)
Posted by: andycanuck at June 23, 2010 01:09 PM (7b1Uc)
FTR, I'm on the "let them fight" side of that. If the RoE's don't change significantly, we won't keep public or troop support, and I'd join with the "get the hell out" side. I support Petraeus, not WeeWee, on this, and if he's not given the discretion to fight his way, then hang this albatross on Obama and get the hell out.
Posted by: societyis2blame at June 23, 2010 01:10 PM (7ZyYf)
Posted by: Dave R. at June 23, 2010 01:11 PM (m9Bcg)
Posted by: jpowell at June 23, 2010 01:18 PM (G1AXB)
Posted by: Jay in Ames at June 23, 2010 01:25 PM (UEEex)
5 minutes ago - the left called Petraeus "Betray Us" .
Oh yeah - the silly left. They only won the house, senate and presidency.
So glad the clown car left are in charge.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at June 23, 2010 01:26 PM (0fzsA)
I think Petraeus could very well resign if the same crap from Obama's group of morons continues, which would be a disaster for Obama.
We'll see, but I don't think this was so politically expedient except it was one of the few ways out of this mess for Obama.
Posted by: The Iphone of the Distant Future at June 23, 2010 01:27 PM (dUOK+)
Has Petraeus ever made any noise about political ambitions ? I'm not sure he's even interested in a POTUS run, and I'm not sure I'd be on board with it. The track record for even war-proven generals in the White House isn't exactly distinguished (with the exception of Washington and arguably Jackson).
Posted by: societyis2blame at June 23, 2010 01:28 PM (7ZyYf)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at June 23, 2010 01:29 PM (T0bhq)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at June 23, 2010 05:29 PM (T0bhq)
I'm watching tape? What jerks.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 23, 2010 01:31 PM (Qp4DT)
-- Fires the general who is winning the hearts & minds in A-stan
-- Demotes the general who won in Iraq and used to be responsible for the whole area
At what point does B Hussein Obama's active support of terrorism in Gaza, the West Bank, Iraq, Iran & A-stan become criminal activity?
Posted by: Mark E at June 23, 2010 01:32 PM (rNWOr)
If he wins, *he* is the man who won two wars - not Bush or Obama.
If he loses, and Obama gives him anything less then 100% of what Petraeus asks for, Petraeus can run against the guy that stopped him from winning two wars.
On the other hand, if Obama loses Afghanistan, he is going to cement his image as a failure at everything - community organizing, the economy, the war, diplomacy, etc, so I guess Obama does need a man that can win the war for him.
So oddly, the play that makes the most sense for Obama is to give Petraeus everything he wants and tells his base to bug off.
Posted by: 18-1 at June 23, 2010 01:33 PM (bgcml)
Posted by: Captain Tinkle Winkles at June 23, 2010 01:35 PM (gLNLT)
Posted by: Truman North at June 23, 2010 01:36 PM (FjC5u)
I'm watching tape? What jerks.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 23, 2010 05:31 PM (Qp4DT)
hell i thought i was watching it also........ still good tho.
Posted by: Racefan at June 23, 2010 01:38 PM (w6USY)
Posted by: Old grizzled gym coach at June 23, 2010 01:41 PM (QBQcg)
Posted by: unknown jane at June 23, 2010 01:41 PM (5/yRG)
I'd consider him, particularly when the only people in discussion are Romney, Palin, Gingrich, none of whom I'm down with, Ryan's said he won't run and Christie's never even considered it to my knowledge. Does anyone actually know anything about how he'd play as a politician or if he even wants to ?
Given that McChrystal says he voted for Obama and Colin Powell did as well, I'm not sure wearing the uniform necessarily means they're on my side nowadays once you get to the high officer ranks.
Posted by: societyis2blame at June 23, 2010 01:42 PM (7ZyYf)
195 I don't think the military is on anybody's side -- except for the country and themselves. The military has learned some bitter lessons since Vietnam, even Korea, concerning political affiliations. I would wager that hardly any of them are "for" either political party, or "for" any ideology other than which one of each stays the most out of their hair.
At least that has been my experience.
Posted by: unknown jane at June 23, 2010 01:45 PM (5/yRG)
Whoa! I just realized, for the umpteenth time, that an anti-American dickbag is the Commander-in-Chief.
Of our proud, heroic men and women who serve.
And the leader (?) of the free world.
Thankfully, I have fifth of Jack on ice, otherwise I might question reality.
Cheers!
Posted by: ErikW at June 23, 2010 01:48 PM (pdNeb)
Posted by: bulwark at June 23, 2010 01:48 PM (swBPc)
Posted by: unknown jane at June 23, 2010 01:52 PM (5/yRG)
None. He's an effective commander but that might not translate into being a good Commander-in-Chief.
Maybe President Palin or President Christie would make him the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at June 23, 2010 01:53 PM (c0A3e)
Given that McChrystal says he voted for Obama and Colin Powell did as well,
Powell was dumb enough to let race trump politics. McChrystal I have no idea. Maybe he was naive enough to believe that Obama was actually serious about fighting in Afghanistan? Seems that both have decided they made a mistake with their votes. Say what you want about their political awareness, they apparently are capable of admitting mistakes.
Posted by: buzzion at June 23, 2010 01:54 PM (oVQFe)
Posted by: Truman North at June 23, 2010 01:55 PM (FjC5u)
Some may say its dumb economics, I say its to purposely put health insurance companies out of business.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at June 23, 2010 01:55 PM (T0bhq)
Posted by: TimothyJ at June 23, 2010 01:56 PM (tgOpK)
Guy Fawkes has it partly right: This is a feature, not a bug, of price controls: it casus shortages.
Posted by: Truman North at June 23, 2010 01:58 PM (FjC5u)
Here's a tutorial. I haven't bothered to learn it.
http://bit.ly/PkKkJ
Posted by: Wodeshed at June 23, 2010 05:01 PM (MFbfZ)
thanks man......... i think i have it now.
Posted by: Racefan at June 23, 2010 01:59 PM (w6USY)
Wouldn't it be kinda cool if McCrystal decided to become a Republican and run against one of Obie's pet congress critters?
McCrystal voted for Obama. My Trust-O-Meter is bottomed out.
Posted by: ErikW at June 23, 2010 02:01 PM (pdNeb)
Boy have conservatives ever been sucked on this one.
Sure, the Moron is just doing his best to give us a victory in Afghanistan. What a peach he is!!
There are some high fives in the White House tonight. Wingnut duffus's stepped in this shit with both feet. Jerk a general around and it's like Pavlov's dogs in heat.
It's so obvious it's not even funny.
Petraeus has been taken out as a threat for 2012, and setup to take the fall for Afghanistan. Bye bye 70% approval ratings for him. He'll get to dangle in the wind for a couple of years though.
There is 0, repeat ZERO chance of winning in Afghistan with the boy king sitting in public housing in Washington. We could have 150,000 Petraeus'es and McChrystal's and it wouldn't matter. You cannot win a war when the CIC doesn't want to win. Can't happen. Will never happen.
And btw, did ya notice how the man who dithered for 7 months over a strategy absolutely SNAPPED into action to can the man in charge of the strategy. He pulled it all off in about 36 hours. What a whirlwind. Either that, or the little charade has been planned for a long time.
I'm not going with the whirlwind theory.
Posted by: proreason at June 23, 2010 02:02 PM (+8dSJ)
"Jerk a general around and it's like Pavlov's dogs in heat."
Ring my beeee-eeeee-eeeeellll,
Ring my bell.
Posted by: reason at June 23, 2010 02:12 PM (5npD/)
Posted by: pc at June 23, 2010 02:13 PM (crDIp)
Petraeus has been taken out as a threat for 2012
That assumes Petraeus would be a Republican.
I do not believe that assumption is guaranteed to be correct. I recall some comments he made a few years earlier that seemed to call his politics into question for the Right. If Petraeus is not conservative, then Petraeus is not a political threat.
Obama has nothing to fear on his right in the 2012 primaries. His base is getting disillusioned, and they're not going to be flocking to the General in 2 years. After all, they are the ones who paid for the "Gen. Betrayus" ad.
That said, Petraeus is a strategically-minded fellow, I believe. He wouldn't accept the offer unless he had an ace in the hole or two when it comes to either timetables or resources.
Posted by: shakes at June 23, 2010 02:17 PM (UaxA0)
That held true when the Dems weren't so stridently anti-military and there were still legitimate pro-military Dems in the important positions, but now that they've been wholly captured by the hard Left anti-American, anti-military wing of their party, any military man who votes Democrat isn't looking out for his own interests or those of his troops. The rank-and-file and lower-ranking officers vote for the Right about 7 to 1 or better right now.
Posted by: societyis2blame at June 23, 2010 02:20 PM (7ZyYf)
Sweet for us, and even sweeter for our troops.
Posted by: pam at June 23, 2010 02:22 PM (h8R9p)
A person I know said to me last night that McChrystal has a history of running his mouth. Does anyone have any evidence supporting this? I can't think of a time that he has run his mouth.
Posted by: Truman North at June 23, 2010 02:22 PM (FjC5u)
I'd assume McC knows he made a mistake (still no proof he'd admit it, but I gotta think so), but I've never seen anything on Powell admitting it was a mistake.
I still think that any military man or woman from grunt to 5 star that has voted for the Democrats since Clinton's first term in office is cutting their own throat and doing a disservice to any troops under their command, and the Dems track record since that time bears me out.
Posted by: societyis2blame at June 23, 2010 02:23 PM (7ZyYf)
He knew this was shaping up to be a debacle with the current RoE, so he deliberately fell on his sword.
His replacement and Obambi get to take the blame for the loss.
Posted by: Kristopher at June 23, 2010 02:25 PM (kCEOg)
They're probably referring to this
Posted by: koopy at June 23, 2010 02:27 PM (awinc)
He let some leaks out around the time he was pushing for more troops and given the loose lips of his subordinates with an RS reporter present, I'd give anyone making that claim the benefit of the doubt. Most of even the lowest-rank servicemen I see here in San Diego (mostly Navy and Marines) are pretty down-low about openly criticizing Bambi because their commanders seem to take that shit seriously. If McC's staff was so la-di-da about "Bite Me" comments, etc... I've gotta think that attitude came from the top.
Posted by: societyis2blame at June 23, 2010 02:28 PM (7ZyYf)
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at June 23, 2010 02:29 PM (w41GQ)
Posted by: alexthedude at June 23, 2010 02:34 PM (8DajW)
Posted by: Truman North at June 23, 2010 02:34 PM (FjC5u)
I thought Petraeus was made of the same stuff as McChrystal.
WTF is going on? Why is he in charge?
I don't trust a single fucking thing that comes out of Obama's mouth, why should I trust Petraeus?
Posted by: ErikW at June 23, 2010 02:35 PM (pdNeb)
Posted by: societyis2blame at June 23, 2010 06:23 PM (7ZyYf)
I thought there was something last year about him not being happy with Obama anymore. A quick search though shows more recent things saying he has no regrets, so I'll stand corrected.
Posted by: buzzion at June 23, 2010 02:36 PM (oVQFe)
snip~
Hastings was asked if McChrystal had perhaps gotten the whole strategy wrong, but Hastings explained it was the President that didn't know what he was really getting into.
"I think that ship had sailed last year," Hastings said. "I think once the decision was made to do a counterinsurgency strategy, they had a pretty clear idea in mind what they wanted to do and I think this is quite interesting. I think this is one of the issues Obama didn't really understand what counter-insurgency meant and when the military said they wanted to do a counterinsurgency strategy that that actually meant 150,000 troops. Obama thought he could get away with just sending 21,000 over and getting a new general."
http://tinyurl.com/329gqyrLink goes to Newsbusters
Posted by: Tami at June 23, 2010 02:38 PM (VuLos)
Posted by: donabernathy at June 23, 2010 02:40 PM (cRkOm)
Posted by: dr kill at June 23, 2010 02:43 PM (w9bVp)
Do issues like not disturbing the local muslims rank higher than killing the Taliban?
How does Courageous Restraint Medals and killing the enemy not end up being a whole lot of cognitive dissonance?
Going on patrols with no rounds chambered and no engaging the enemy because you can't see his weapon? What about enemy mortars?
This does not seem to be set up for victory, but to not make the muslims angry.
Neither of which seem a likely outcome.
Posted by: ontherocks at June 23, 2010 02:43 PM (HBqDo)
Let me see. Paratrooper who led the 82nd Abn. Ranger officer who led the 75th Ranger Rgt. Special Forces (Green Berets). I could go on and on.
He gets fired by a narcissistic president who could not even run a local Micky D's as a night manager? Since I do not live in NYC, I am not worried. You get what you pay for.
Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at June 23, 2010 02:43 PM (4yHLd)
Let me see. Paratrooper who led the 82nd Abn. Ranger officer who led the 75th Ranger Rgt. Special Forces (Green Berets). I could go on and on.
He gets fired by a narcissistic president who could not even run a
local Micky D's as a night manager? Since I do not live in NYC, I am
not worried. You get what you pay for.Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at June 23, 2010 06:43 PM (4yHLd)
We don't get it.
Posted by: Main Stream Media at June 23, 2010 02:46 PM (5qJM5)
Posted by: bulwark at June 23, 2010 02:46 PM (swBPc)
Obama just keeps on walking.
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 02:47 PM (W+GYq)
Posted by: robtr at June 23, 2010 02:47 PM (fwSHf)
"fat finger" goes crazy again today.
I'm not hitting that link until someone assures me it doesn't involve Rosie O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow.
Posted by: andycanuck at June 23, 2010 02:48 PM (7b1Uc)
Honestly I'd feel more confident if the fly that landed on Obama's face yesterday was calling the shots rather than the boy king
Flies can't hold public office cuz their not human. Duh!
Posted by: Billy Baxter at June 23, 2010 02:49 PM (3fiIy)
None. He's an effective commander but that might not translate into being a good Commander-in-Chief.
Maybe President Palin or President Christie would make him the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I see him as a VP balancing out an economic/jobs President in 2012 - Pence, etc.
Posted by: Jean at June 23, 2010 02:49 PM (CPefM)
Great and popular NYC song! Glowing in the Wind! http://tinyurl.com/5opol5
Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at June 23, 2010 02:51 PM (4yHLd)
Zo, Prezident Obama believed zat zis contretempz vis Herr General McCryztal voold give him an opportunity to adminishter zum Ass-gekikken, BUT! it voold zeem zat zis coold turn out zat Prezident Obama may be zettink himzelf up to haf his owwwn Azz-gekikked in 2012!!!
Posted by: Sharkman von Moltke at June 23, 2010 02:53 PM (Zj8fM)
Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at June 23, 2010 02:55 PM (4yHLd)
They think the Cuban missile crises was bad? Hehehe!!
You aint seen nothing yet. Iran, North Korea, AlQ and other muslim terrorists see what he really is. They are not stupid.
Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at June 23, 2010 02:58 PM (4yHLd)
You aint seen nothing yet. Iran, North Korea, AlQ and other muslim terrorists see what he really is. They are not stupid.
Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at June 23, 2010 06:58 PM (4yHLd)
Can you conceive of ANY circumstances in which Barack Obama would have the backbone to order a nuclear strike? (Other than to retaliate against Israel for attacking Iran, I mean.)
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 03:00 PM (W+GYq)
Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at June 23, 2010 06:55 PM (4yHLd)
Do you want to know why?
It's because your existence, the mere fact that soldiers have to kill people to protect their countrymen, disproves the Leftist liberal belief that all people can be persuaded to live in peace and harmony. If soldiers have to kill people to defend even the Leftist libs, then that means there are enemies who can't be negotiated with. And in their magical way of thinking, if they can somehow eliminate the military, then that will make those enemies cease to exist (or at least cease to hate us and want to kill us).
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 03:05 PM (W+GYq)
Can you conceive of ANY circumstances in which Barack Obama would have the backbone to order a nuclear strike?
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 07:00 PM (W+GYq)
I am unable to envision any circumstance under which Obama would order a nuclear attack, to include the annihilation of a major US city. The lefts disdain for Harry Truman's heroic decision in WWII is legendary, and Obama would rather suffer a catastrophic loss of life and property without retribution than enter history as the second president to order a nuclear strike.
Barack Obama is a spineless Marxist who would not protect his own country. He must be removed for the good of America.
Posted by: Al Gork, Climate Specialist at June 23, 2010 03:12 PM (v1gw3)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 23, 2010 03:14 PM (U5btG)
He did ONLY resign his command NOT his commission.
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 23, 2010 07:14 PM (U5btG)
Prediction: General MacChrystal retires within 6 months.
Posted by: Fish at June 23, 2010 03:15 PM (v1gw3)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 23, 2010 03:15 PM (U5btG)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 23, 2010 03:16 PM (U5btG)
Posted by: Truman North at June 23, 2010 03:17 PM (FjC5u)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 23, 2010 03:20 PM (U5btG)
Somebody mentioned on an earlier thread that the judge had only 10 or 15K in energy stocks, but his salary as a federal judge is somewhere between 200-300k.
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at June 23, 2010 03:20 PM (c0A3e)
Posted by: Elmo, furry little psychopath at June 23, 2010 03:21 PM (SwkdU)
Posted by: Truman North at June 23, 2010 07:17 PM (FjC5u)
In what form, a passively managed 401k with mutual funds that have energy holdings, or an actively managed brokerage account where he's swapping in and out depending on the days info?
Posted by: ontherocks at June 23, 2010 03:23 PM (HBqDo)
There is a stark contrast between resigning a Commission and retirement. Stanley MacChrystal was relieved of command in Afghanistan and ordered to CONUS for reassignment. He remains a Commissioned Officer with the rank of General. No reporting on his desire to retire.....yet.
Posted by: Fish at June 23, 2010 03:23 PM (v1gw3)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 23, 2010 03:26 PM (U5btG)
Shep Smith just reported that the judge has energy stocks...
Owning energy stocks is not a disqualifier any more than having a wife is a conflict to rule in a divorce case.
Owning BP would be grounds for recusal.
Posted by: Fish at June 23, 2010 03:30 PM (v1gw3)
Posted by: railwriter at June 23, 2010 03:43 PM (daRzV)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 23, 2010 07:15 PM
When I was on the staff at the SUNY Maritime College NROTCU, one of the Lieutenants was on a crusade to get Columbia affiliated with the unit, i.e. we would be putting Columbia kids on NROTC scholarships. The CO was skeptical, and I don't think it went anywhere..thankfully.
Bad enough that we have a unit at George Washington University where we pay something like $50,000 a year and hope the officer larvae can shrug off continuous libtard indoctrination. The Columbia Academy of Urban Marxism? No thanks.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at June 23, 2010 03:46 PM (ZESU0)
Posted by: Fred, Mystery Machine van driver at June 23, 2010 03:46 PM (SwkdU)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 23, 2010 03:48 PM (U5btG)
I dunno either.
I actually laughed out loud at this one!
Posted by: Hedgehog at June 23, 2010 03:48 PM (oQIfB)
Mr. Tall Dave, please consider this a cease and desist notice from our clients, Mssrs. Howard, Fine and Howard. They wish to inform you that they have worked tirelessly to give stooges a good name and they will not tolerate your sullying of that good name by comparing stooges to the running mongolian cluster-fuck that is the Jugears Administration.
Thank you.
Posted by: The Law Firm of Dewey, Cheatem & Howe at June 23, 2010 03:49 PM (tGtLi)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 23, 2010 07:48 PM
It's probably better than you remember it. The contractor failed a health inspection and got replaced a couple of years ago.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at June 23, 2010 03:49 PM (ZESU0)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 23, 2010 03:51 PM (U5btG)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at June 23, 2010 03:52 PM (ZESU0)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 23, 2010 03:53 PM (U5btG)
248 Stuic Do you want to know why?
That is only partial true. They have no problem with what their ilk did in history, and do know. How many Jews did Stalin kill? Remember the invasion of Poland? The gulugs. China, Cuba, etc. They don't have any problem killing people that dont have their idea of what the world should be.
Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at June 23, 2010 03:53 PM (4yHLd)
Of course Petraeus can do the job - but most COs would make great CHENGs should their present one be fired for cause - that doesn't mean the Commodore should make a CO the CHENG and then find a sister ship's XO to be the new CO.
True, though I've known some COs who would have best stayed CHENGs.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at June 23, 2010 03:55 PM (ZESU0)
Americans are more pessimistic about the state of the country and less confident in President Barack Obama's leadership than at any point since Mr. Obama entered the White House, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.
The survey also shows grave and growing concerns about the Gulf oil spill, with overwhelming majorities of adults favoring stronger regulation of the oil industry and believing that the spill will affect the nation's economy and environment.
Sixty-two percent of adults in the survey feel the country is on the wrong track, the highest level since before the 2008 election. Just one-third think the economy will get better over the next year, a 7-point drop from a month ago and the low point of Mr. Obama's tenure.
Amid anxiety over the nation's course, support for Mr. Obama and other incumbents is eroding. For the first time, more people disapprove of Mr. Obama's job performance than approve. And 57% of voters would prefer to elect a new person to Congress than re-elect their local representatives, the highest share in 18 years.
The results show "a really ugly mood and an unhappy electorate," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with GOP pollster Bill McInturff. "The voters, I think, are just looking for change, and that means bad news for incumbents and in particular for the Democrats."
Mr. McInturff said voters' feelings, typically set by June in any election year, are being hardened by frustration over the economy and the oil spill. "It would take an enormous and seismic event to change the drift of these powerful forces before November," he said.
Mr. McInturff added that any "little, faint signs" in the spring that voters were adopting a more optimistic outlook have now been "squished by feelings from this oil spill."
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 03:55 PM (W+GYq)
They screwed up the near-perfect fusion of chicken and bacons?
Bastards...
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at June 23, 2010 03:58 PM (c0A3e)
Morons,
The world's foremost forensic gynecologist has gone wobbly over Obambi. He hates General Petreaus more tha he loves the One's milky load.
Posted by: Old Dad at June 23, 2010 03:58 PM (LBXax)
That is only partial true. They have no problem with what their ilk did in history, and do know. How many Jews did Stalin kill? Remember the invasion of Poland? The gulugs. China, Cuba, etc. They don't have any problem killing people that dont have their idea of what the world should be.
Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at June 23, 2010 07:53 PM (4yHLd)
There's no contradiction between that and what I wrote. They have no problem with killing people with whom they disagree, because they hate those people -- the reactionaries, the imperialists, the capitalists, the petit bourgeoisie. They have a problem with the idea that anyone could hate them enough to kill THEM.
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 03:58 PM (W+GYq)
Posted by: steevy at June 23, 2010 04:00 PM (XSP2S)
The world's foremost forensic gynecologist has gone wobbly over Obambi. He hates General Petreaus more tha he loves the One's milky load.
Posted by: Old Dad at June 23, 2010 07:58 PM (LBXax)
You have a stronger stomach than I if you ventured over to his den of iniquity. I thank you for taking that hit so that others don't have to.
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 04:01 PM (W+GYq)
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 04:03 PM (W+GYq)
I wasn't at odds, the way it was reported that's what I understood, I don't think he resigned now I think he was relieved and odumbass doesn't know the difference.
Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at June 23, 2010 04:03 PM (Kd/Wz)
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at June 23, 2010 04:04 PM (554T5)
Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at June 23, 2010 04:05 PM (4yHLd)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 23, 2010 04:05 PM (U5btG)
Prime Minister of Australia resigns. It tunrs out he, not the dingo, at your baby
Posted by: Ben at June 23, 2010 04:09 PM (DKV43)
Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at June 23, 2010 04:09 PM (4yHLd)
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at June 23, 2010 04:10 PM (554T5)
I wonder if Sir Golfsalot will spend more that 10 minutes consulting with Gen. Petraeus?
General I need your advice. Do you think I should hit my 9 lightly or use my pitching wedge?
Posted by: Ben at June 23, 2010 04:12 PM (DKV43)
Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at June 23, 2010 04:12 PM (4yHLd)
*coughing over the sound of the smoke detector, AGAIN...*
Posted by: FORGER's Ex-Wife at June 23, 2010 04:12 PM (tGtLi)
Well, boo-hoo, McCrystal didn't follow the rules. And why is NO ONE castigating Obama because he publicly dissed the military in Jonathan Alter's book?
It seems to me that one of the obligations of the Commander-in-Chief is to support his own troops, no mock them and make snide comments about them/
You people are not seeing what is right before your eyes: Obama wants to withdraw from Afghanistan but he wants all the blame to fall on the military. That is why McCrystal is gone, that is why he appointed Petraeus, that is why Obama will continue with these asinine rules of engagement and cutting supplies and support money.
Plus, Obama did not fire4 McCrystal. McCrystal resigned.
This compulsion to look "fair" and "consistent" (as Glen Beck said earlier today) is killing us. I do not want to be fair to Obama. I want him destroyed politically, and I am not going to mealy-mouth around about this. McCrystal and his people wouldn't have said a word if Obama hadn't trashed them, hampered their efforts, and generally been nothing but a pain in the ass.
You all who are saying you are being fair, good luck. That and a dime might get you a cup of coffee if you are lucky, but it ain't going to get any sort of advantage with the left, who wants to destroy us.
Not in a good mood, so going to a site about gardening.
Posted by: Miss Marple (redneck teabagger) at June 23, 2010 04:15 PM (xxe/9)
Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at June 23, 2010 08:05 PM (4yHLd)
Yes, libtards are excellent at reasoning, as in creating elaborate arguments that "prove" that their beliefs are objectively correct. But they are very averse to thinking, because it takes very little thinking to understand that their reasoning is pure bullshit.
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 04:16 PM (W+GYq)
Lowery: "Obama's Home Run"
Ponnuru: For attempting to take anything written by that dullard Thomas Friedman seriously enough to even bother commenting on it. And for just generally being a squish.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at June 23, 2010 04:19 PM (ZESU0)
Hey, don't look at me. There's nothing Obama can do or say from here on out that would soften me one bit on him. He's an utter and unmitigated disaster, and I fear for this country greatly.
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at June 23, 2010 04:21 PM (554T5)
Posted by: conscious, but incoherent at June 23, 2010 04:22 PM (YVZlY)
Posted by: Eric at June 23, 2010 04:30 PM (2/Fyp)
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 04:30 PM (W+GYq)
Posted by: Winston Wolf at June 23, 2010 04:31 PM (SwkdU)
Japan had a modernized (in many ways) culture. It's apples and oranges, IMO.
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at June 23, 2010 04:32 PM (554T5)
Posted by: Eric at June 23, 2010 08:30 PM (2/Fyp)
It's not that we don't have any MacArthurs, it's that we don't have any Trumans. Because, if you'll recall, Step One in transforming the Empire of the Sun into a democratic industrial powerhouse was to level it with lots and lots of ordnance, including nukes.
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 04:33 PM (W+GYq)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 23, 2010 04:34 PM (lpx5s)
Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at June 23, 2010 04:34 PM (Kd/Wz)
Posted by: GEICO ad man at June 23, 2010 04:41 PM (SwkdU)
Posted by: Purple
Avenger at June 23, 2010 08:34 PM (lpx5s)
If he still thinks he has to make excuses to the Left or that he can somehow keep their approval without a wholesale withdrawal from Afghanistan on his original timetable or sooner, he's delusional. The Left doesn't want the listing ship righted, they want all hands to abandon it.
At some point, Obama has to decide if he wants to be President of the United States or President of his Left-wing base. He thinks he has to be the latter to have a chance at reelection, but the opposite is true.
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 04:41 PM (W+GYq)
Posted by: Joanie (Oven Gloves) at June 23, 2010 04:42 PM (wd0Iq)
Posted by: Eric at June 23, 2010 08:30 PM (2/Fyp)
It's true that we lack MacArthurs. But the worst of the Japanese Shintoists was 10 times more civilized than any Afghan POS. MacArthur had far better raw material to work with. The muslims are un-fixable.
Posted by: Reactionary at June 23, 2010 04:42 PM (4nbyM)
Posted by: FORGER - Racist Czar at June 23, 2010 04:43 PM (tGtLi)
Posted by: Bones at June 23, 2010 08:40 PM (wOtDN)
Speaking of the dead and Thai ladyboy prostitutes, what can you do for David Carradine?
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 04:44 PM (W+GYq)
It's not that we don't have any MacArthurs, it's that we don't have any Trumans. Because, if you'll recall, Step One in transforming the Empire of the Sun into a democratic industrial powerhouse was to level it with lots and lots of ordnance, including nukes.
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 08:33 PM (W+GYq)
Let's not go wishing for Trumans. No American of that generation would have made the mistake of not pounding Japan into the dirt, so it's not like he was a vital, visionary man. He was soft on the commies, and a Stalin lover. He held MacArthur back from doing what needed to be done in Korea. I've no use for more Trumans.
Posted by: Reactionary at June 23, 2010 04:47 PM (4nbyM)
Posted by: Reactionary at June 23, 2010 08:47 PM (4nbyM)
Well, there's no Democrat in this generation who has enough vision to pound the Islamofascists into the dirt. (Nor, it seems, any Republican among those in high office.)
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 04:53 PM (W+GYq)
Posted by: Cee Arr at June 23, 2010 05:01 PM (oBcy6)
(Nor, it seems, any Republican among those in high office.)
Like, perhaps, Boehner?
I was a supporter until he went soft.
And an Ohioan no less...
Posted by: ErikW at June 23, 2010 05:01 PM (/h6fY)
If General Stan MacChrystal didn't say Joe Biden was a clown, let me take this opportunity to affirm my belief Joe Bite-Me is a fucking clown.
Posted by: Fish at June 23, 2010 05:03 PM (v1gw3)
I disagree whole heartedly with anyone who believes that McChrystal deserved firing over was he said. He said that Obama was unprepared for a meeting and that he thought Obama was intimidated and uncomfortable in a meeting with generals.
That gets you fired in today's America? Bullshit!
Posted by: robtr at June 23, 2010 05:07 PM (fwSHf)
In most cases it would only get a reprimand. But our current CiC is "special".
Posted by: Ronster at June 23, 2010 05:10 PM (5Rvpc)
Well, there's no Democrat in this generation who has enough vision to pound the Islamofascists into the dirt. (Nor, it seems, any Republican among those in high office.)
Posted by: stuiec at June 23, 2010 08:53 PM (W+GYq)
You got me there, I must admit. Even the Reps have gone all limp-wristed when it comes to doling out the ass kicking. Gulf War 2 should have been used as an opportunity. We should have exploded a MOAB weapon over every major population center. The Iranians would still be hiding in their bunkers and trying to convince us of their harmlessness. Every other muslim nation would also be groveling like a beaten dog. In the name of saving a bunch of savages who hate our guts we threw away an opportunity to take matters in hand. "Innocent" civilians my ass.
Posted by: Reactionary at June 23, 2010 05:12 PM (4nbyM)
That gets you fired in today's America? Bullshit!
That's how it should be. The chain of command should be in place and needs to be followed closely, otherwise a breakdown in communication will inevitably follow and result in chaos..
FTR, Obama can go fuck himself.
Posted by: ErikW at June 23, 2010 05:14 PM (/h6fY)
I agree with President Obama, and not only should General MacChrystal be terminated, he should be forced to resign his Commission. I dreamed about his plan to surround the White House with tanks and Infantry, and that would make America more like Haiti.
Rosalynn and Mother Lillain both agree with my assessment, and I spoke with mother through Miss Cleo only last Saturday. After my passing, I will be known very favorable as a wonderful man who accomplished a lot for America, even though it's a very spiteful, angry, and hateful country full of rednecks, conservatives, and Dick Cheney.
Posted by: Jimmah Cartah at June 23, 2010 05:16 PM (v1gw3)
That's how it should be. The chain of command should be in place and needs to be followed closely, otherwise a breakdown in communication will inevitably follow and result in chaos..
FTR, Obama can go fuck himself.
Posted by: ErikW at June 23, 2010 09:14 PM (/h6fY)
That's not how it should be and it's not how it is. If McChrystal would have said something of substance that he disagreed with Obama on or that he was a dumb ass that didn't know what he was doing they yes fire him. Saying didn't think he was prepared for a meeting or that he was uncomfortable around generals is not a firing offense. Unless you are one thinskinned insercure MF.
Posted by: robtr at June 23, 2010 05:19 PM (fwSHf)
The race is on for "Worst President in Modern Times", and Jimmah Cartah has slipped into second place. This is a real tragedy because Jimmah always wanted to be number one.
Posted by: Fish at June 23, 2010 05:20 PM (v1gw3)
Posted by: Donald Sutherland at June 23, 2010 05:24 PM (SwkdU)
Barry McDippshit is 5 laps ahead of every president in the race for worst.
No, make that 50 laps on a 7 mile oval.
Posted by: Ronster at June 23, 2010 05:25 PM (5Rvpc)
Unless you are one thinskinned insercure MF.
To be sure! But based on the chain of command, Obama has the right to fire McCrystal (sp?) for being subordinate.
Posted by: ErikW at June 23, 2010 05:27 PM (/h6fY)
Pro football Hall of Famer Lawrence Taylor was indicted Wednesday by a suburban New York grand jury on charges of third-degree rape and patronizing a prostitute.
Surely this is a nothingburger? If Bill Clinton can rape and pillage with impunity, it stands to reason that LT can cop a little cooter from a flat backer in the same manner as Eliot Spitzer, star of CNN?
Posted by: Fish at June 23, 2010 05:28 PM (v1gw3)
To be sure! But based on the chain of command, Obama has the right to fire McCrystal (sp?) for being subordinate.
Posted by: ErikW at June 23, 2010 09:27 PM (/h6fY)
Obama has the right to fire him because he doesn't like his frigging hair cut. Claiming what McChrystal said was insubordinate is ridiculous.
Posted by: robtr at June 23, 2010 05:29 PM (fwSHf)
---that statement shows a lack of control, and queasiness by the commander in chief.
the firing was necessary.
Posted by: str8 outta at June 23, 2010 05:30 PM (RnEkx)
But what do you expect from someone’s conception of leadership comes from “The Apprentice”.
Posted by: spike at June 23, 2010 05:31 PM (oRmZx)
Obama has the right to fire him because he doesn't like his frigging hair cut. Claiming what McChrystal said was insubordinate is ridiculous.
If you ran a business and your manager trashed you, would you fire him?
Posted by: ErikW at June 23, 2010 05:32 PM (/h6fY)
If you ran a business and your manager trashed you, would you fire him?
Am I an effite douche-nozzle who is destroying the company I am charged with running?
Posted by: garrett at June 23, 2010 05:36 PM (CQtwu)
the general made a mistake by letting rolling stone get close, it happens. and the mistake cost him his command, and rightfully so.
Posted by: str8 outta at June 23, 2010 05:39 PM (RnEkx)
If you ran a business and your manager trashed you, would you fire him?
Posted by: ErikW at June 23, 2010 09:32 PM (/h6fY)
To start with you are assuming something that is not in the record and that being that McChrystal trashed him. I do run a business and I have had people who work for say things that are not flattering sometimes. No, I don't fire them for benine comments such as McChrystals. I talk to them and see what the problem is.
Sometimes they are right.
Posted by: robtr at June 23, 2010 05:40 PM (fwSHf)
Posted by: str8 outta at June 23, 2010 05:42 PM (RnEkx)
Posted by: str8 outta at June 23, 2010 09:39 PM (RnEkx)
I served in the Military, getting fired wasn't so easy when I was in.
Posted by: robtr at June 23, 2010 05:43 PM (fwSHf)
thats neither here nor there.
Posted by: str8 outta at June 23, 2010 05:44 PM (RnEkx)
Posted by: Michael Collins at June 23, 2010 05:51 PM (I+7Zv)
Posted by: str8 outta at June 23, 2010 05:51 PM (RnEkx)
Way back up at 214: again, let me reiterate: they will back the party/ideology that stays the most out of their hair and allows them to do their job. I don't think that has so much to do with party loyalty -- at least from my experience it has always been stressed that loyalty to one's comrades and to one's mission was where the loyalty lay, not Republicans or Democrats. (because any soldier, sailor, airman, or marine should know that politicians, like reporters, make no sense and are only out to fuck ya).
While the Dems have been infinitely worse, some Republicans haven't had the best track record so far as stabbing the military in the back -- a reality not lost on the troops or their leaders.
Posted by: unknown jane at June 23, 2010 05:55 PM (5/yRG)
---yeah because you know, the generals in the field know just how much warning people before an attack works. or that you cant fire on the enemy unless its approved by a translator is a necessary action....yeah right.
Posted by: str8 outta at June 23, 2010 05:55 PM (RnEkx)
---key words= higher command
president= commander in chief- higher command.
you dont have to like that reality, but thats just how it is.
Posted by: str8 outta at June 23, 2010 06:00 PM (RnEkx)
Sometimes they are right.
You're a better person than me.
I'd can the motherfuckers.
Posted by: ErikW at June 23, 2010 06:12 PM (/h6fY)
I'm of the opinion that how Lincoln handled it was better -- as long as the general is winning, take the insult. Call them on the carpet, but if they are winning then that is the most important thing. Winning wars is important -- politics should be shoved aside, because winning is important.
No M shouldn't have said it, but this was a petty, pissy thing imho (and I read the article -- it was groan worthy but other presidents have taken far worse stuff from their generals).
Posted by: unknown jane at June 23, 2010 06:25 PM (5/yRG)
-- this isnt a 'typical' war. 'winning' these types of wars, besides the overall body-count, is something far different from what weve known. and as such, theres different protocol involved goddammit.
Posted by: str8 outta at June 23, 2010 06:32 PM (RnEkx)
---
Says you.
Petraeus is being used to save the Administration's ass politically.
Posted by: MlR at June 23, 2010 07:10 PM (BwnDo)
I wonder if he's really that powerful.
Let's just picture Obama ordered Petraeus to accept this mission and act like he was confident and happy, but with no concessions for P.
There's a chance he'd say 'yes, sir'. He knows we have people dying in Afghanistan who need some kind of competent leadership. I don't even know if he's resign under terrible circumstances to protest, because he might feel obligated to his troops.
Either way, I'm praying for him and his success.
Posted by: The Iphone of the Distant Future at June 23, 2010 07:24 PM (dUOK+)
371 Some protocols never change...goddamnit. In fact, I would say that "winning wars" isn't a protocol -- it's a reality, or a necessity if you will.
Let's think beyond the firing of McC -- how does this shake up the system at CENTCOM now that Petraeus has been reassigned (or doubly assigned, or whatever you want to call it?)? And at a moment when that probably wasn't the best thing to do? This isn't exactly a slow work period, what with all that is currently up in the air.
Or let's look at it from the opposite end -- how does this all play out with the rank and file? And let's consider all that has happened just within the last 12 months, keeping in mind this isn't exactly a slow work period for them either.
And last but not least -- yes, McC got his from the precedent...did Rolling Stone recieve any harsh and public words from our dear leader? After all, their reporter stirred the shit in the middle of the nation's (and the president's) war -- those are the CinC's generals...his troops. Why no public censure and outrage at RS?
Posted by: unknown jane at June 23, 2010 07:51 PM (5/yRG)
Posted by: Optimizer at June 23, 2010 08:48 PM (acVo8)
So you see MCcrystal is getting off light. As much as I hate to say it Obama did right on this one.
Posted by: Oldcrow at June 23, 2010 09:34 PM (bitxf)
Posted by: Richard at June 23, 2010 10:02 PM (/x2u5)
We're talking anout an imbedded flaming liberal writer from Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone! And McChrystal and his staff didn't have sense enough to realize that the writer was there to do a hit piece that would undermine McChrystal's efforts to win that war??? Their stupidity is mind-boggling. I'm incredulous. That was a more than sufficient reason to fire McChrystal ..., and his staff of blabbermouths, too. What a bunch of incompetent, damned fools.
That was just one in a series of their recent outrageous blunders, another of which led to the exposure and murder of upper echelon, secret CIA operatives, as you may recall. I swear, this has become a country of gossipy busybodies, who shoot off their big mouths without activating their brains.
Posted by: Obama is infecting everybody on the planet with a stupidity virus at June 24, 2010 12:04 AM (sYrWB)
He's a powerful officer who should have had the balls to say 'No'. All he had to say was that he did not approve of this article, in public, and stands behind the CinC. Well, okay, they'd have canned him anyway.
McChrystal was a very competent leader at a lower level. He was promoted to his point of incompetence, but he is a very competent man in his own element. I hope they don't throw him away, even though he did majorly fuck up.
Maybe he could go back to special operations planning.
Posted by: The Iphone of the Distant Future at June 24, 2010 12:13 AM (dUOK+)
Obama wouldn't double down for McChrystal despite the report submitted from the onset of his Afghan command. McChrystal said we had only 12 months to turn things around, and Obama waited 6 months to read the report and get back to the General. McChrystal needed a minimum of 40,000 new troops and Obama dragged his heels before sending only 20,000.
For all the "double down" talk, that would only bring measures up to McChrystal's original request at this point, 18 months into Obama's presidency.
I detest a leader who sabotages his own team, and has the audacity to take offense at the image he's created for himself amongst his troops, and relies strictly on hearsay to fire McChrystal for what the reporter said he heard from unnamed sources, like the reporter's own thoughts on paper.
Petraeus [McChrystal] may well be a selfless patriot but he's not stupid enough to go into a setup. Now, all good soldiers think they can do the mission ... He's not going to take on a hopeless cause. He has to honestly believe this war can be won and that Obama and the people he will have to work with can do it.
Posted by: maverick muse at June 24, 2010 03:13 AM (H+LJc)
Karzai shows Obama-esque qualities with his lack of leadership and corruption.
And yet, Karzai agreed with McChrystal. Karzai can't be all bad!
Posted by: Curmudgeon at June 24, 2010 07:03 AM (ujg0T)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.279 seconds, 491 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Obama did the best thing to give us a chance for a good outcome in Afghanistan.
Oh! For a moment there I thought you were going to say he had resigned and hurled himself head first into the nearest Porta-Potty.
Posted by: maddogg at June 23, 2010 11:39 AM (OlN4e)