Obama to Decide Future of US Commander in Afghanistan

[chefcraig]

The ever astute staff at Rolling Stone online finally decided to make this story available this afternoon. You can read what all the hubbub is at this link: The Runaway General (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236)

Obama to Decide Future of US Commander in Afghanistan

President Barack Obama is deciding whether to fire his commander in Afghanistan after the officer, U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal, and some members of his staff made derogatory statements about the president and other senior administration officials. The comments were made to a reporter for Rolling Stone magazine.

President Obama took the unusual step of ordering General McChrystal home for an Oval Office meeting on Wednesday, after he read the article that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said made the president "angry."

"The magnitude and graveness of the mistake here are profound," he said.

Gibbs said the mistake was to say things and to allow his staff to say things that have distracted the president's national security team from its top priority -- defeating the Taliban and related groups in Afghanistan, so U.S. troops can begin to come home a year from now.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs briefs reporters at the White House, 22 Jun 2010
AP
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs briefs reporters at the White House, 22 Jun 2010

Gibbs said "all options are on the table" regarding General McChrystal's future.

In the Rolling Stone article, McChrystal is quoted as belittling the importance of a meeting with President Obama, making fun of Vice President Joe Biden and accusing the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, of betraying him in a policy dispute. According to the article, McChrystal stood by as members of his staff ridiculed the vice president, the president's national security adviser, retired Marine Corps General James Jones, and the special U.S. envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke.

On Tuesday, McChrystal apologized for the article, calling it "a mistake reflecting poor judgment." He said he has "enormous respect" for the president and his national security team. He telephoned several of them on Tuesday.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recommended McChrystal for the Afghanistan command a year ago, and fired his predecessor to make room for him. At the time and repeatedly since then, Gates has called McChrystal the right man for the job and said he has a unique understanding of the complex counterinsurgency approach that Afghanistan requires.

Gates praised McChrystal again last week at a Senate hearing.

"We think we have the right assets, we have the right strategy, we have the right leadership. And most of our allies and partners share our view that things are heading in the right direction," said Gates.

On Tuesday, Gates issued a statement saying that McChrystal had made a "significant mistake and exercised poor judgment," and lamenting the "distraction" from what he said should be the "singular focus" on the war effort.

At the same hearing, the top U.S. military officer, Navy Admiral Michael Mullen, also offered an endorsement of McChrystal and his team.

"We've got [a] tremendous leadership team we've put the resources in, and it's a very, very difficult counterinsurgency," said Mullen.

On Tuesday, a spokesman said Mullen expressed "deep disappointment" in a telephone call with McChrystal.

General McChrystal also got in trouble last year, during the White House Afghan policy review, when he said the effort in Afghanistan could fail if the president refused to send more troops.

The Rolling Stone article has resulted in much speculation about whether McChrystal should be fired. But the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry, offered some of the few words of support for the general heard around Washington on Tuesday.

"I have enormous respect for General McChrystal. I think he's a terrific soldier," he said. "And this is a critical moment in Afghanistan. As far as I am concerned, personally, the top priority is our mission in Afghanistan and our ability to proceed forward competently," said Kerry.

The question is whether McChrystal's ability to lead that mission has been compromised beyond repair in terms of his ability to command respect at the Pentagon, at the White House and in the field.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who McChrystal has worked hard to build a good relationship with, expressed support for the general on Tuesday. But at the White House, spokesman Robert Gibbs indicated no one, not even as important a commander as General McChrystal, is indispensable.

"I think our efforts in Afghanistan are bigger than one person," said Gibbs.

Gibbs said President Obama's decision will be announced on Wednesday, after a private White House meeting with McChrystal and a previously-scheduled meeting of his national security team to discuss the situation in Afghanistan.

SOURCE LINK (http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Commander-in-Afghanistan-Slams-Obama-Administration-Then-Apologizes-96868884.html)

[Jagermeister]

I heard this on the radio this morning. lol Sone dude quit because of this.

[Jagermeister]

I think the guy has balls the size of Venus for speaking his mind. LMAO!

[Guitar Shark]

I think the guy has balls the size of Venus for speaking his mind. LMAO!

Hm. What happened to those balls after he was called on it? I haven't seen this much apologizing in a long time.

[hambon4lif]

Unless this is interfering with the job he was sent out there to do, I don't see the point in any of this.

This "sending people to the principals office" for saying what they feel is getting a bit ridiculous.

He's a United States General, and they're taking him away from his job (which is defending America) to sit in the fucking "time-out" chair.

The fact that he's apologizing so profusely is more disturbing than anything else.......

[Guitar Shark]

Unless this is interfering with the job he was sent out there to do, I don't see the point in any of this.

This "sending people to the principals office" for saying what they feel is getting a bit ridiculous.

He's a United States General, and they're taking him away from his job (which is defending America) to sit in the fucking "time-out" chair.

The fact that he's apologizing so profusely is more disturbing than anything else.......

Like it or not, Obama is his boss.

Imagine if you talked shit about your boss to a local reporter and your local newspaper picked up the story. Are you telling me your boss wouldn't "call you into the principal's office?"

Frankly, most people would be fired for doing that. So spare us the "he's just doing his job" crap. Talking shit about the boss isn't part of his job description. He knows it, which is why he's apologizing like the pussy he is.

[PETE'S BROTHER]

NEW YORK – Even Rolling Stone's editor agreed with Gen. Stanley McChrystal that the Afghan war's U.S. commander showed poor judgment in airing complaints about the Obama administration in the magazine.
But Eric Bates said it was in keeping with McChrystal's character that he didn't try to waffle about what was said in the article, which exploded into a political controversy that threatened the general's job. Bates said the piece accurately reflected what McChrystal and his team feel about the job they've been given in Afghanistan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100622/ap_en_ot/us_mcchrystal_rolling_stone;_ylt=AupryLA1GocXyKYZe nKXrfZxFb8C;_ylu=X3oDMTJzZjA0ODlnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwM TAwNjIyL3VzX21jY2hyeXN0YWxfcm9sbGluZ19zdG9uZQRjcG9 zAzEEcG9zAzEEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDZXZlbm1hZ 2VkaXRv


he's wafflin' his butt off now.

[BigBadBrian]

Talking shit about the boss isn't part of his job description. He knows it, which is why he's apologizing like the pussy he is.

"Pussy." You crack me up Mr. Never-served-a-day. I guess this is the folow-up to the General Betray-Us comment a few years back, right? And he apologized once, not "I haven't seen this much apologizing in a long time."

General McChrystal new exactly what he was doing: telling Obama and Biden and their armchair General team of civilians in the White House they have no clue what they are doing. He wants out.

Obama's lack of leadership skills and knowledge of the real world becomes more apparent every day.

[Guitar Shark]

General McChrystal new exactly what he was doing: telling Obama and Biden and their armchair General team of civilians in the White House they have no clue what they are doing. He wants out.



LOL. Yes, I suppose this is why every word out of his mouth today is deferential, apologetic, and remorseful. Get a clue man.

[hambon4lif]

Even Rolling Stone's editor agreed with Gen. Stanley McChrystal that the Afghan war's U.S. commander showed poor judgment in airing complaints about the Obama administration in the magazine.Yeah....he can agree all he wants to, but I'm willing to wager a bet that this will do nothing to halt the presses.

If anything, it's a grand opportunity to sell more copies of that rag....it's just the way they are.

If McChrystal should apologize for anything, it's for talking to Rolling fuckin' Stone!

[BigBadBrian]

LOL. Yes, I suppose this is why every word out of his mouth today is deferential, apologetic, and remorseful. Get a clue man.

You're too stupid to realize he's been in the air most of the past day and the Obama-dick-sucking /State-Run Media is recycling old quotes.

Go back to sometjing you know Mr. Ambulance-Chaser: waiting around Emergency Rooms for the next victim...err, client.

[Guitar Shark]

Good to see you are on top of your game as usual.

[sadaist]

Rolling Stone? Really? How the fuck did they get the exclusive access? I can see Time, Newsweek, USA Today, etc.... but RS? I mean, unless they wanted to know his favorite top 50 songs of all time, they got no business with this man.

[chefcraig]

Rolling Stone? Really? How the fuck did they get the exclusive access? I can see Time, Newsweek, USA Today, etc.... but RS? I mean, unless they wanted to know his favorite top 50 songs of all time, they got no business with this man.

The answer is...a volcano. Seriously.

How Did Rolling Stone Get the McChrystal Story?

By JEREMY W. PETERS

Of all the questions surrounding the Rolling Stone article that detailed Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s surprisingly blunt criticisms of the Obama administration’s handling of the war in Afghanistan, few are as puzzling as this: Why would a top military commander allow a journalist so much unfettered access to his inner circle?

The explanation, it seems, is a volcano.

Michael Hastings, the freelance journalist who wrote the provocative piece about General McChrystal’s displeasure with the war effort, met the general and his staff in Paris right as the Eyjafjallajokull volcano erupted in Iceland, forcing the closure of the airspace over most of Europe.

As a result, Mr. Hastings waited in Paris with the general and his staff as they attempted to get to Berlin by bus. And Mr. Hastings then stayed in Berlin–whiling away days at the Ritz-Carlton hotel with General McChrystal for nearly a week while they waited for the ash cloud to clear so they could fly to Afghanistan.

Initially, Mr. Hastings was not scheduled to travel with the general and his staff to Afghanistan. Only after he arrived in Europe did Mr. Hastings learn that the general’s staff would be willing to take him with them.

“We assigned this story before we knew we had any access,” said Eric Bates, Rolling Stone’s executive editor. “We just wanted to profile McChrystal as the commander of the war in Afghanistan.”

Mr. Hastings ended up spending about a month on and off with the general and his staff while they were in Afghanistan — the vast majority of it in settings and interviews that the general allowed to be on the record. Very little of Mr. Hastings interactions with the general were off the record, Mr. Bates said.

Mr. Bates declined to speculate about why General McChrystal was so blunt in his assessment of the war. At one point in the story, the general is quoted as being dismissive of Vice President Joseph Biden, quipping, “Who’s that?” In another exchange, the general sarcastically complains about receiving an e-mail message from Richard C. Holbrooke, a special envoy to Afghanistan, groaning, “Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke.”

Mr. Bates said that whether General McChrystal intended to be so direct or not is not the point. The general, Mr. Bates said, was clearly frustrated with the Obama administration’s prosecution of the war, and he let that slip out.

“I think there’s an enormous frustration there where they feel like people don’t get it,” Mr. Bates said. “And that seeps through into a lot of those quotes. They feel that the people who are supposed to be working with them aren’t working with them or don’t understand what the strategy is.”

Asked whether he felt General McChrystal let his guard down because it was Rolling Stone, a publication devoted primarily to pop culture and the music business, Mr. Bates said it would not be the first time a political figure opened up to the magazine.

“In their mind, I think people sometimes forget how much reporting is in the DNA of Rolling Stone,” he said. “And there’s some glamour attached to the name. I don’t know at all if that was the case here. But in general, I’d say that sometimes people are excited to be in the magazine.”


http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/how-did-rolling-stone-get-the-mcchrystal-story-a-volcano-helped/

[Nickdfresh]

Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House

By Michael Hastings
Jun 22, 2010 10:00 AM EDT

This article appears in RS 1108/1109 from July 8-22, 2010, on newsstands Friday, June 25.

'How'd I get screwed into going to this dinner?" demands Gen. Stanley McChrystal. It's a Thursday night in mid-April, and the commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan is sitting in a four-star suite at the Hôtel Westminster in Paris. He's in France to sell his new war strategy to our NATO allies – to keep up the fiction, in essence, that we actually have allies. Since McChrystal took over a year ago, the Afghan war has become the exclusive property of the United States. Opposition to the war has already toppled the Dutch government, forced the resignation of Germany's president and sparked both Canada and the Netherlands to announce the withdrawal of their 4,500 troops. McChrystal is in Paris to keep the French, who have lost more than 40 soldiers in Afghanistan, from going all wobbly on him.

"The dinner comes with the position, sir," says his chief of staff, Col. Charlie Flynn.

McChrystal turns sharply in his chair.

"Hey, Charlie," he asks, "does this come with the position?"

McChrystal gives him the middle finger.

On the ground with the Runaway General: Photos of Stanley McChrystal at work.

The general stands and looks around the suite that his traveling staff of 10 has converted into a full-scale operations center. The tables are crowded with silver Panasonic Toughbooks, and blue cables crisscross the hotel's thick carpet, hooked up to satellite dishes to provide encrypted phone and e-mail communications. Dressed in off-the-rack civilian casual – blue tie, button-down shirt, dress slacks – McChrystal is way out of his comfort zone. Paris, as one of his advisers says, is the "most anti-McChrystal city you can imagine." The general hates fancy restaurants, rejecting any place with candles on the tables as too "Gucci." He prefers Bud Light Lime (his favorite beer) to Bordeaux,
Talladega Nights

(his favorite movie) to Jean-Luc Godard. Besides, the public eye has never been a place where McChrystal felt comfortable: Before President Obama put him in charge of the war in Afghanistan, he spent five years running the Pentagon's most secretive black ops.

The Spill, The Scandal and the President: How Obama let BP get away with murder.

"What's the update on the Kandahar bombing?" McChrystal asks Flynn. The city has been rocked by two massive car bombs in the past day alone, calling into question the general's assurances that he can wrest it from the Taliban.

"We have two KIAs, but that hasn't been confirmed," Flynn says.

McChrystal takes a final look around the suite. At 55, he is gaunt and lean, not unlike an older version of Christian Bale in Rescue Dawn. His slate-blue eyes have the unsettling ability to drill down when they lock on you. If you've fucked up or disappointed him, they can destroy your soul without the need for him to raise his voice.

Looting Main Street: Matt Taibbi on how the nation's biggest banks are ripping off American cities.

"I'd rather have my ass kicked by a roomful of people than go out to this dinner," McChrystal says.

He pauses a beat.

"Unfortunately," he adds, "no one in this room could do it."

With that, he's out the door.

"Who's he going to dinner with?" I ask one of his aides.

"Some French minister," the aide tells me. "It's fucking gay."

Get more Rolling Stone political coverage.

The next morning, McChrystal and his team gather to prepare for a speech he is giving at the École Militaire, a French military academy. The general prides himself on being sharper and ballsier than anyone else, but his brashness comes with a price: Although McChrystal has been in charge of the war for only a year, in that short time he has managed to piss off almost everyone with a stake in the conflict. Last fall, during the question-and-answer session following a speech he gave in London, McChrystal dismissed the counterterrorism strategy being advocated by Vice President Joe Biden as "shortsighted," saying it would lead to a state of "Chaos-istan." The remarks earned him a smackdown from the president himself, who summoned the general to a terse private meeting aboard Air Force One. The message to McChrystal seemed clear: Shut the fuck up, and keep a lower profile

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. 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?"

When Barack Obama entered the Oval Office, he immediately set out to deliver on his most important campaign promise on foreign policy: to refocus the war in Afghanistan on what led us to invade in the first place. "I want the American people to understand," he announced in March 2009. "We have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan." He ordered another 21,000 troops to Kabul, the largest increase since the war began in 2001. Taking the advice of both the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he also fired Gen. David McKiernan – then the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan – and replaced him with a man he didn't know and had met only briefly: Gen. Stanley McChrystal. It was the first time a top general had been relieved from duty during wartime in more than 50 years, since Harry Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur at the height of the Korean War.

Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. 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 fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

Article Pages 2-6 Continues Here (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=1)

[chefcraig]

EDIT: Merged

[Nickdfresh]

Merged my late thread into this... :)

[chefcraig]

Merged my late thread into this... :)

It is funny though...this story broke this morning, yet Rolling Stone failed to have it on their web site. The magazine recently revamped the crummy thing, requiring you to pay for most of the stories they used to offer for free. So instead of featuring a story dealing with political intrigue, until sometime this afternoon the only story you could get was yet another profile on Lady Gaga.

How Rolling Stone Won The News Cycle And Lost The Story

In a multi-platform, multimedia environment, it's difficult for a magazine to break the kind of news that will lead every cable broadcast, every newspaper and every website for hours on end. But that's what the Rolling Stone profile (written by Michael Hastings, who is currently in Afghanistan) of General Stanley McChrystal did this morning.

But if you wanted to read that profile, rather than rely on a couple of pull quotes or the punditocracy? Tough luck: Rolling Stone didn't even bother putting it online before they rolled it out. In fact, despite the fact that everyone else's website led the profile, Rolling Stone's site led with Lady Gaga's (admittedly impressive) machine gun jumblies all day and didn't even put the story online until 11: 00 ET.

In the mean time, readers looking to get the full scoop did have an option other than their local newsstand: Politico had a downloadable file of the full article -- likely provided to them by Rolling Stone for the purpose of getting press coverage of it -- on their site until well after 9: 00 ET, after which the file disappeared. Rolling Stone Managing Editor Will Dana said the publication of the reprint was unauthorized, but "there's been no discussion" of legal action.

If print publications are going to keep committing suicide, they really ought to stop blaming the web. A guide to how to have the biggest news story and still lead to the death of investigative print journalism is after the jump.

1. Pay an investigative journalist with experience in the region to shadow the general in charge of executing our war in Afghanistan and get a piece that highlights the insular and insult-laden way he and his team deal with those atop the chain of command and consolidate the power of the military. Bonus points for details about how he spent his 33rd wedding anniversary partying with his staff in an Irish bar in Paris while his staff acted like jerks.

2. Publish the story and shop it to every media outlet under the sun because you realize that it's actual news, unlike Lady Gaga's machine gun jumblies.

3. Fail to publish even excerpts of the story on your own website, figuring that your promotion of the story will cause people to go out and buy the magazine.

4. Go to bed and sleep like a baby after the story hits.

5. Wake up to find out that Politico has published a reprint of the story you gave them, since you weren't smart enough to put the story on your own site and despite the intellectual property violation.

6. Book CNN and MSNBC.

7. Have lawyers call Politico when they get into the office to demand that their violation of your intellectual property cease.

8. Appear on CNN and MSNBC.

9. Wait.

10. Publish story on your website, and link on Twitter. Don't bother to include it on your front page.

11. Profit.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/how-rolling-stone-won-the-news-cycle-and-lost-the-story.php

[Nickdfresh]

"Pussy." You crack me up Mr. Never-served-a-day...General McChrystal new exactly what he was doing: telling Obama and Biden and their armchair General team of civilians in the White House they have no clue what they are doing.

Oh, okay Mr. Badass Sailor boy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw

Since you were in the service, maybe you could enlighten the civilians here as to what happens when you publicly criticize the people in your chain-of-command? You get fucking drawn and quartered generally speaking. And according to some critics, Gen. McCrystal is a holier-than-thou back-biting dick that should STFU as he hasn't exactly wowed anyone with his strategy in Afghanistan. Just sayin'...


He wants out.

Fine. Then GTFO and don't let the door hit him on the ass after his retirement party. Nobody is holding a gun to his head to be the fearless leader, though some have questioned his leadership. But he can bow out gracefully without playing the blame-game and (probably inadvertently) throwing not only Obama, but other officers, under the bus...


Obama's lack of leadership skills and knowledge of the real world becomes more apparent every day.

Coming from a shithead that actually voted for Dumbya Bush TWICE, I'd have to question your qualifications to make such judgments, as I'm pretty sure you spent a good deal of time sucking his dick until he became such an untenable, indefensible idiot that you disappeared from these parts...

[Va Beach VH Fan]

"Pussy." You crack me up Mr. Never-served-a-day. I guess this is the folow-up to the General Betray-Us comment a few years back, right? And he apologized once, not "I haven't seen this much apologizing in a long time."

General McChrystal new exactly what he was doing: telling Obama and Biden and their armchair General team of civilians in the White House they have no clue what they are doing. He wants out.

Obama's lack of leadership skills and knowledge of the real world becomes more apparent every day.

With all due respect, it's fairly easy to tell those that haven't done any military time when it comes to this issue....

I agree with you BBB with reference to McChrystal in that he knew EXACTLY what he was doing, and I agree, he wants out....

Although I could have easily said those same "armchair" comments during the Bush Administration....

But the bottom line, and BBB knows this just as much as I do, Obama MUST relieve him, he MUST.... Like him, hate him, but Obama, Biden and Gates are directly in their chain of command and McChrystal's comments are absolutely insubordination.....

Rule #1 when it comes to this in the military, you keep your fucking mouth SHUT when it comes to politics....

[Nickdfresh]

McChrystal doesn't have to be relieved, he can quit anytime!

[BITEYOASS]

That son of a bitch should have been fired a long time ago! Especially when he falsified the cause of Pat Tillman's death and commanded the secret Task Force 6-26 in Iraq, which was infamous in it's abuse of prisoners. And don't get me started on the so-called great job he's doing in Afghanistan. Opium imports are at record levels, the government is corrupt and the Taliban are still running around like they own the place, even after the surge. Yeah, great fuckin job!

Now I'm probably gonna get some flack from all of you conservatives who think all generals are holier than art thou. So let me give you all a pre-emptive FUCK YOU and SUCK MY COCK! :soapbox::fufu::finger33::mad0244:

[Va Beach VH Fan]

McChrystal doesn't have to be relieved, he can quit anytime!

Actually Nick no, he can't just quit, he is under orders. Although I agree as a Flag Officer he can modify his orders much easier than schmucks like me could.

[Baby's On Fire]

The President is the commander in chief. Fucking period.

Obama needs to string this fukcing hillbilly up by the balls.

WTF? People defending the traitor?

The general is the president's bitch. If the president tells him to grab his balls on camera..,.then the general grabs his balls.....no questions asked....

This piece of shit limelighter should be executed for treason...he should keep his mouth shout and speak only when spoken to by Obama....

Wake me up when the whitewash is over.

If Obama doesn't fire this him..then his presidency is a sham..and that makes Elvis look legititmate...Gawd help us...

[Nickdfresh]

Actually Nick no, he can't just quit, he is under orders. Although I agree as a Flag Officer he can modify his orders much easier than schmucks like me could.

Well, they fired the last commander in Afghanistan. So, I'm pretty sure that he could pretty much state that he wants to leave off-the-record, and McChyrstal would be accommodated. I haven't read the article fully yet, so I cannot comment on specifics. But is sounds more like (from reading about him in the past--where he pretty much took thinly veiled shots at Gen.Petraeus) that Mickey-C is a bit arrogant and filled with self ascribed effulgence and singular vanity...

In any case, I've lost a lot of the respect I had for him...

[Nickdfresh]

The President is the commander in chief. Fucking period.

Obama needs to string this fukcing hillbilly up by the balls.

WTF? People defending the traitor?

The general is the president's bitch. If the president tells him to grab his balls on camera..,.then the general grabs his balls.....no questions asked....

This piece of shit limelighter should be executed for treason...he should keep his mouth shout and speak only when spoken to by Obama....

Wake me up when the whitewash is over.

If Obama doesn't fire this him..then his presidency is a sham..and that makes Elvis look legititmate...Gawd help us...

You have a singular gift for hyperbole and posturing...

[Va Beach VH Fan]

Well, they fired the last commander in Afghanistan. So, I'm pretty sure that he could pretty much state that he wants to leave off-the-record, and McChyrstal would be accommodated. I haven't read the article fully yet, so I cannot comment on specifics. But is sounds more like (from reading about him in the past--where he pretty much took thinly veiled shots at Gen.Petraeus) that Mickey-C is a bit arrogant and filled with self ascribed effulgence and singular vanity...

In any case, I've lost a lot of the respect I had for him...

Well, sure, those types of transfers are done regularly, behind the scenes, for Flag Officers....

The term "quit" is really what I disagreed with... So he can "arrange" to quit, but not in a situation like this....

[Nitro Express]

Unless this is interfering with the job he was sent out there to do, I don't see the point in any of this.

This "sending people to the principals office" for saying what they feel is getting a bit ridiculous.

He's a United States General, and they're taking him away from his job (which is defending America) to sit in the fucking "time-out" chair.

The fact that he's apologizing so profusely is more disturbing than anything else.......

Apparently the General is scared of a purple lipped baboon more than the Taliban.

[Nitro Express]

We are losing the war in Afganistahn anyways. Typical US tactics are bomb the hell out of the place and bribe the officials and then take over. Afganistahn is so fragmented with so many different factions, you can't buy them all off and they have been there for a decade and the Taliban are on the offensive and gaining ground. This thing was unwinable from the start and now the financing machine running this war is imploding. Shit. US soldiers may be stuck there with no way home because because the government goes broke during the war. The US is no different than Greece.

[Nitro Express]

Plus, why would the terrorists waste time on us now? We are fucking ourselves better than they ever could. We have destroyed our economy and the Gulf of Mexico ourselves.

[BigBadBrian]

Although I could have easily said those same "armchair" comments during the Bush Administration....

But the bottom line, and BBB knows this just as much as I do, Obama MUST relieve him, he MUST.... Like him, hate him, but Obama, Biden and Gates are directly in their chain of command and McChrystal's comments are absolutely insubordination.....



I agree on both counts. Somehow civilians in the White House and Pentagon, and this goes clear back to Rumsfeld and his lackeys in 2001, seem to think they know more than the commanders in the field.

McChrystal must be relieved, although this doesn't look good for Obama: firing two commanding generals in Afghanistan in the last year. I just wonder how this will affect the upcoming offensive.

[Nickdfresh]

It's not just the civilians at the White House and Pentagon, it's the brass too! Many of the people that fucked up the Iraq War were people like Gen. Tommy Franks, who fled the minute the initial shooting stopped and let things fall into an insurgency...

NYT: General faces unease from 'handcuffed' troops
McChrystal's problems reach beyond White House as GIs resent restrictions
By C.J. Chivers
The New York Times
updated 7:49 a.m. ET, Wed., June 23, 2010

Riding shotgun in an armored vehicle as it passed through the heat and confusion of southern Afghanistan this month, an Army sergeant spoke into his headset, summarizing a sentiment often heard in the field this year.

“I wish we had generals who remembered what it was like when they were down in a platoon,” he said to a reporter in the back. “Either they never have been in real fighting, or they forgot what it’s like.”

The sergeant was speaking of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and the circle of counterinsurgents who since last year have been running the Afghan war, and who have, as a matter of both policy and practice, made it much more difficult for troops to use airstrikes and artillery in the fight against the Taliban.

No matter the outcome of his meeting on Wednesday in Washington over caustic comments he and his staff made about President Obama and his national security team, the general, or his successor, faces problems from a constituency as important as his bosses and that no commander wants to lose: his own troops.

As levels of violence in Afghanistan climb, there is a palpable and building sense of unease among troops surrounding one of the most confounding questions about how to wage the war: when and how lethal force should be used.

Since last year, the counterinsurgency doctrine championed by those now leading the campaign has assumed an almost unchallenged supremacy in the ranks of the American military’s career officers. The doctrine, which has been supported by both the Bush and Obama administrations, rests on core assumptions, including that using lethal force against an insurgency intermingled with a civilian population is often counterproductive.

Rules tightened
Since General McChrystal assumed command, he has been a central face and salesman of this idea, and he has applied it to warfare in a tangible way: by further tightening rules guiding the use of Western firepower — airstrikes and guided rocket attacks, artillery barrages and even mortar fire — to support troops on the ground.

“Winning hearts and minds in COIN is a coldblooded thing,” General McChrystal was quoted as telling an upset American soldier in the Rolling Stone profile that has landed him in trouble. “The Russians killed 1 million Afghans, and that didn’t work.” COIN is the often used abbreviation for counterinsurgency.

The rules have shifted risks from Afghan civilians to Western combatants. They have earned praise in many circles, hailed as a much needed corrective to looser practices that since 2001 killed or maimed many Afghan civilians and undermined support for the American-led war.

But the new rules have also come with costs, including a perception now frequently heard among troops that the effort to limit risks to civilians has swung too far, and endangers the lives of Afghan and Western soldiers caught in firefights with insurgents who need not observe any rules at all.

Young officers and enlisted soldiers and Marines, typically speaking on the condition of anonymity to protect their jobs, speak of “being handcuffed,” of not being trusted by their bosses and of being asked to battle a canny and vicious insurgency “in a fair fight.”

Some rules meant to enshrine counterinsurgency principles into daily practices, they say, do not merely transfer risks away from civilians. They transfer risks away from the Taliban.

Firefights drag on
Before the rules were tightened, one Army major who had commanded an infantry company said, “firefights in Afghanistan had a half-life.” By this he meant that skirmishes often were brief, lasting roughly a half-hour. The Taliban would ambush patrols and typically break contact and slip away as patrol leaders organized and escalated Western firepower in response.

Now, with fire support often restricted, or even idled, Taliban fighters seem noticeably less worried about an American response, many soldiers and Marines say. Firefights often drag on, sometimes lasting hours, and costing lives. The United States’ material advantages are not robustly applied; troops are engaged in rifle-on-rifle fights on their enemy’s turf.

One Marine infantry lieutenant, during fighting in Marja this year, said he had all but stopped seeking air support while engaged in firefights. He spent too much time on the radio trying to justify its need, he said, and the aircraft never arrived or they arrived too late or the pilots were reluctant to drop their ordnance.

“I’m better off just trying to fight my fight, and maneuver the squads, and not waste the time or focus trying to get air,” he said.

Several infantrymen have also said that the rules are so restrictive that pilots are often not allowed to attack fixed targets — say, a building or tree line from which troops are taking fire — unless they can personally see the insurgents doing the firing.

This has lead to situations many soldiers describe as absurd, including decisions by patrol leaders to have fellow soldiers move briefly out into the open to draw fire once aircraft arrive, so the pilots might be cleared to participate in the fight.

The grand puzzle
Moments like those bring into sharp relief the grand puzzle faced by any outside general trying to wage war in Afghanistan. An American counterinsurgency campaign seeks support from at least two publics — the Afghan and the American. Efforts to satisfy one can undermine support in the other.

Video: McChrystal profile author surprised at fallout
The restrictions on using fire support are part of a larger bundle of instructions, known as rules of engagement, that guide decisions on how troops can interact with Afghans, and how they can fight. The rules have shifted frequently over the years, becoming tighter and tighter.

Each change, often at the urging of the government of President Hamid Karzai, has shown the delicacy of the balance.

NATO needs the Afghan government’s support. But restrictions that are popular in Kabul have often alienated soldiers and Marines whose lives are at stake, including rules that limit when Western troops can enter Afghan homes. Such rules, soldiers and Marines say, concede advantages to insurgents, making it easier for them to hide, to fight, to meet and to store their weapons or assemble their makeshift bombs.

It is an axiom of military service that troops gripe; venting is part of barracks and battlefield life. Troops complain about food, equipment, lack of sleep, delays in their transportation and the weather where they work.

Complaints about how they are allowed to fight are another matter and can be read as a sign of deeper disaffection and strains within the military over policy choices. One Army colonel, in a conversation this month, said the discomfort and anger about the rules had reached a high pitch.

“The troops hate it,” he said. “Right now we’re losing the tactical-level fight in the chase for a strategic victory. How long can that be sustained?”

Whatever the fate of General McChrystal, the Pentagon’s Afghan conundrum remains. No one wants to advocate loosening rules that might see more civilians killed. But no one wants to explain whether the restrictions are increasing the number of coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base, and seeding disillusionment among those sent to fight.

This article, "General Faces Unease Among His Own Troops, Too," first appeared in The New York Times.


Copyright © 2010 The New York Times (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37865973/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/)

[ELVIS]

If Obama doesn't fire this him..then his presidency is a sham..and that makes Elvis look legititmate...Gawd help us...

He should be relieved of his command, but his comments give yet more insight into this administration's total lack of leadership and shows how out of touch with reality they really are...

Either way, it's a SHAM


:biggrin:

[Va Beach VH Fan]

Word is he's out, Obama to speak in a few minutes....

[BigBadBrian]

Word is he's out..

...and that Petraeus is in.

[Jagermeister]

By JENNIFER LOVEN and ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writers Jennifer Loven And Anne Gearan, Associated Press Writers – 3 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama ousted Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan on Wednesday, choosing the embattled general's direct boss — Gen. David Petraeus — to take over the troubled 9-year-old war, a source told The Associated Press.

McChrystal was summoned to Washington from Kabul to explain scathing, mocking remarks about administration officials, including Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, by him and his team in a magazine article. But the morning showdown with Obama in the Oval Office was not enough to save his job.

McChrystal offered his resignation and Obama accepted it, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the president's decision was not yet made public.

Obama planned to speak at 1:30 p.m. EDT from the Rose Garden, accompanied by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the controversy.

Petraeus, who attended a formal Afghanistan war meeting at the White House Wednesday, now oversees the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq as head of U.S. Central Command.

By pairing the decision on McChrystal's departure with the name of his replacement, Obama is seeking to move on as quickly as possible from the firestorm surrounding the Rolling Stone magazine story and the renewed debate over his Afghanistan policy that it provoked.

With Washington abuzz about this controversy, there was an almost complete lockdown on information about the morning's developments. It was not even known where McChrystal went after his half-hour meeting with Obama at the White House, which came not long after his early morning arrival from Afghanistan.

Petraeus is the nation's best-known military man, having risen to prominence as the commander who turned around the Iraq war in 2007. The Afghanistan job is actually a step down from his current post.

Petraeus has a reputation for rigorous discipline and careful attention to his image. He keeps a punishing pace — spending more than 300 days on the road last year.

Petraeus briefly collapsed during Senate testimony last week, apparently from dehydration. It was a rare glimpse of weakness for a man known as among the military's most driven.

He is also among the brightest, and rose to command through a mix of brains and now has been adapted for Afghanistan.

Petraeus has repeatedly denied that he plans to run for president in 2012, and is said to want only one job: chairman of the joint Chiefs of Staff.

In the hearing last week, Petraeus told Congress he would recommend delaying the pullout of U.S. forces from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011 if need be, saying security and political conditions in Afghanistan must be ready to handle a U.S. drawdown.

That does not mean Petraeus is opposed to bringing some troops home, and he said repeatedly that he supports the new Afghanistan strategy that Obama announced in December. Petraeus' caution is rooted in the fact that the uniformed military — and counterinsurgency specialists in particular — have always been uncomfortable with fixed parameters.

[Nickdfresh]

Well, Gen. McChrystal should have been happy, as he used that intimidation to goad Obama into spending trillion$ on his "COIN" baby in a nation where I don't think we have a whole lot of vital interests anymore...

And while I respect Stanley McChrystal as a warrior, I've read he's alienated a lot of folks (I read an article on him months ago where he intimated that Gen. Peterus was a dandy and that he didn't like him), both military and civilian and runs with a posse of group-thinkers posing as renegades. And while that quote is in the article, the article goes onto explain a tense meeting where Obama wasn't quite as "intimidated" and basically told the general to shut the fuck up and keep his head down in the press.

In the end, if the war is going badly--and I think it is--he can talk shit about Obama all he wants (which I think is overstated here). But McChrystal (in the parts of the article you didn't quote) is under fire from his own troops for second guessing his combat commander junior officers and NCOs. And he's taken heat for overstepping into the political arena and undermining everyone by allowing a free-for-all with visiting politicians, both Dem and Repub, that destroys any political cohesiveness while basically shilling for the ineffective Hamid "Mayor of Kabul" Karzai, thusly doing the very thing he sought to avoid--pandering to an ineffective, corrupt regime just like we did with those Saigon RVN dictator-faggots in Vietnam...

In the end, you can't just fight against something nebulous like al Qaida, terrorism, or the Taliban. You have to fight FOR something, something we are apparently incapable of learning...

[Guitar Shark]

And the countdown to the book tour begins.

[ELVIS]

I might read such a book...

[Nickdfresh]

Read "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks...

It would give you a lot of insight into this stuff...

[Catfish]

Unless this is interfering with the job he was sent out there to do, I don't see the point in any of this.

This "sending people to the principals office" for saying what they feel is getting a bit ridiculous.

He's a United States General, and they're taking him away from his job (which is defending America) to sit in the fucking "time-out" chair.

The fact that he's apologizing so profusely is more disturbing than anything else.......

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The pussiest president ever just trying to look like Mr. Toughguy.

[Catfish]

All you did was weaken a nation!

http://www.jack-nicholson.info/images/moviestills/fgm03.jpg

[Blaze]

Well, Gen. McChrystal should have been happy, as he used that intimidation to goad Obama into spending trillion$ on his "COIN" baby in a nation where I don't think we have a whole lot of vital interests anymore...

And while I respect Stanley McChrystal as a warrior, I've read he's alienated a lot of folks (I read an article on him months ago where he intimated that Gen. Peterus was a dandy and that he didn't like him), both military and civilian and runs with a posse of group-thinkers posing as renegades. And while that quote is in the article, the article goes onto explain a tense meeting where Obama wasn't quite as "intimidated" and basically told the general to shut the fuck up and keep his head down in the press.

In the end, if the war is going badly--and I think it is--he can talk shit about Obama all he wants (which I think is overstated here). But McChrystal (in the parts of the article you didn't quote) is under fire from his own troops for second guessing his combat commander junior officers and NCOs. And he's taken heat for overstepping into the political arena and undermining everyone by allowing a free-for-all with visiting politicians, both Dem and Repub, that destroys any political cohesiveness while basically shilling for the ineffective Hamid "Mayor of Kabul" Karzai, thusly doing the very thing he sought to avoid--pandering to an ineffective, corrupt regime just like we did with those Saigon RVN dictator-faggots in Vietnam...

In the end, you can't just fight against something nebulous like al Qaida, terrorism, or the Taliban. You have to fight FOR something, something we are apparently incapable of learning...

I noticed this popped up the other day. First in the AP on the 14th, then in the DOD on the 15th.

You are right, you can't fight a concept. All that can be done is help refine the concept to something workable.
Think about it, if your culture did not have Lady Gag-Gag, Lil Wayne, and so much other "social" aspects that are unregulated ( industrialized farming IE McDonald's) unaccountable information ( Fox, Rush Limba,) a place to be heard you have to be outlandish ( Colbert and Jon).
I could imagine being and saying Strongly : Holy Shit! Cover the woman! Cover yourselves! Monitor the presses! We don't want THAT here! And a final glance at Nigeria would confirm the conclusion. Keep the cancer away at all costs!


That said.... Here are the clips and a few I see are not on here yet.


<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UqsHcM5G27w&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UqsHcM5G27w&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GiNZiU0Ssvs&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GiNZiU0Ssvs&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



<object width="660" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UKI5i_ZAW_4&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UKI5i_ZAW_4&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="405"></embed></object>

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4Zi0U6p-MN0&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4Zi0U6p-MN0&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TEFAgS4uBWc&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TEFAgS4uBWc&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>

[Blaze]

And on a side note funny....
Biden is really does look like Sam the Eagle. :D

[Nickdfresh]

All you did was weaken a nation!

http://www.jack-nicholson.info/images/moviestills/fgm03.jpg

Oh look, another douche that's never served with an opinion about all things badass!

[knuckleboner]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The pussiest president ever just trying to look like Mr. Toughguy.

dude, reagan was the pussiest president ever. beirut marine barracks.

[Catfish]

Oh look, another douche that's never served with an opinion about all things badass!

Me, or Jack? Because you don't know Thing One about me--other than I'm a prick!

But I don't blame you for jumping to cuntclusions. You're not very smart.

[Catfish]

Oh look, another douche that's never served with an opinion about all things badass!

Wait, you know what? I think Nickdfelch is talking about Obama!

LMAO!

My bad Nick! You're right! :baaa:

[GAR]

In the end, you can't just fight against something nebulous like al Qaida, terrorism, or the Taliban. You have to fight FOR something, something we are apparently incapable of learning...

Quit using the all-inclusive term of "we" when when substituting the personal pronoun of "me" for whatever reason you insist on being vague about shit Liberals want nothing to do with.

[LoungeMachine]

:biggrin:


What part exactly of this 9 YEAR "war" and occupation costing many lives is FUNNY to you?

Asshole

[Nitro Express]

What part exactly of this 9 YEAR "war" and occupation costing many lives is FUNNY to you?

Asshole

Well we invaded Iraq, Afganistahn, are bombing Pakistahn, and saber rattling Iran to find a 6'7" Saudi Arabian with kidney problems. It has cost us around $1 Trillion and has killed possibly millions of people to get this guy. If Al Quaida really wanted to get us, they would come into the country with a bunch of Mexicans and smuggled their explosives and weapons in bails of drugs. We spend 60% of the US budget on the military and why have a military if you aren't going to use it. When that kind of money is spent on a kill people and break things industry, shit, peace is a dumb idea. Nobody makes any money off of peace and happiness.

[Nitro Express]

Obama sounds just like Bush now. What happened to getting our boys back? What happened to the open process government? Obama sounds like a neocon now.

[Igosplut]

Quit using the all-inclusive term of "we" when when substituting the personal pronoun of "me" for whatever reason you insist on being vague about shit Liberals want nothing to do with.-

You mean like when you refer to how "We" want things at this website?? You mean like how YOU do that?? Like that???

Don't worry, even the "Shit Liberals want nothing to do with your cowardly ass"

[BigBadBrian]

Oh, okay Mr. Badass Sailor boy!

Since you were in the service, maybe you could enlighten the civilians here as to what happens when you publicly criticize the people in your chain-of-command? You get fucking drawn and quartered generally speaking.

From now on, you say "Sailor Boy" with respect, you got that Mr. Latrine-Scrubber? I've got more time on the shitter than you have in the Army.

Re-read my posts. Nowhere did I say McChrystal SHOULDN'T be relieved. I merely said he wanted out of a situation with inept civilian leadership.

BTW, McChrystal didn't give "intimidation to goad Obama into spending trillion$ on his "COIN" baby." McChrystal was chosen to replace Gen. McKiernan last May because he fit in with Obama's desired strategy for Afghanistan.

It really wouldn't speak well of Barry and his National Security "Team" if they let a General twist their arms now would it?

[ELVIS]

Well we invaded Iraq, Afganistahn, are bombing Pakistahn, and saber rattling Iran to find a 6'7" Saudi Arabian with kidney problems. It has cost us around $1 Trillion and has killed possibly millions of people to get this guy. If Al Quaida really wanted to get us, they would come into the country with a bunch of Mexicans and smuggled their explosives and weapons in bails of drugs. We spend 60% of the US budget on the military and why have a military if you aren't going to use it. When that kind of money is spent on a kill people and break things industry, shit, peace is a dumb idea. Nobody makes any money off of peace and happiness.

What he said...

Not to mention that Obama campaigned on ending the wars. He has fired two generals since he's been in office. There is no clear objective. Nobody in government wants to seal the borders, but yet we have all sorts of unnecessary bullshit at the airports...

I think it's all funny except for the young soldiers who are carted off to die in a region of the world most people could care less about...


How's that, LoungeN-word ??

:mad2:
:mad2:

[Blaze]

<object width="660" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gMpJ83Q3wIs&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gMpJ83Q3wIs&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="405"></embed></object>

[Nitro Express]

What he said...

Not to mention that Obama campaigned on ending the wars. He has fired two generals since he's been in office. There is no clear objective. Nobody in government wants to seal the borders, but yet we have all sorts of unnecessary bullshit at the airports...

I think it's all funny except for the young soldiers who are carted off to die in a region of the world most people could care less about...


How's that, LoungeN-word ??

:mad2:
:mad2:

The top objective after 9/11 should have been securing the borders and deporting illegal aliens. That should have been priority number one. Sure you have to have some increased security but you don't have to roll the US Constitution to do it. It's clear Bush and Obama want to break US Sovergnty. That's the goal of their handlers and they are quite open about it. Just read David Rockefeller's memiors. He admits it openly. I mean you have to be blind as a bat to not see it. The US is under attack by a different kind of terrorist and it's called central fractual reserve banking and big oil. The little terrorists with their box cutters do far less damage.

[Nitro Express]

You also don't fight terrorism by sending a huge military in. You fight it like how we fought the cold war. You cease assets, you defend the home turf, and you systematically and patiently kill off the bad guys. Israel did exactly that after the Munich attacks at the Olympics. Al Quaida is not a big organization and they have to put their money somewhere. You cut their money supply and then wait for them to get passive and sloppy and cut their throats using very few highly trained people. But nobody makes any money doing that.

[sadaist]

What he said...

Not to mention that Obama campaigned on ending the wars. He has fired two generals since he's been in office. There is no clear objective. Nobody in government wants to seal the borders, but yet we have all sorts of unnecessary bullshit at the airports...

I think it's all funny except for the young soldiers who are carted off to die in a region of the world most people could care less about...




What else strikes me funny is that if the top General and his aides believe the President and his people are idiots with no clue on the war, what does the average front line soldier think? I'm sure the same. Just shows that our military has very little faith in the President. They probably feel like Louisiana residents do. ;)

[Nitro Express]

Shit. We haven't had a loved president since I've been on this planet. I popped out into the world during the Vietnam war and Lyndon Johnson. Oh then Nixon. Ford was probably the best liked. Carter was a disaster. Reagan was either loved or hated, but he almost got us into the nuclear war running his mouth and spent a ton of unnecessary money. We all know the Berlin wall came down because Gorbechov sold out to the globalists and they put Yeltsin in to rape the assets. Any russian will tell you this. Then we had bomb and read my lips Bush. Then we had NAFTA Clinton. Then we had Dick Cheney because we all know he was really president and now we have spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax, Obama.

[Igosplut]

You cut their money supply and then wait for them to get passive and sloppy and cut their throats using very few highly trained people. But nobody makes any money doing that.

The biggest truth in this thread.

[Guitar Shark]

Shit. We haven't had a loved president since I've been on this planet. I popped out into the world during the Vietnam war and Lyndon Johnson. Oh then Nixon. Ford was probably the best liked. Carter was a disaster. Reagan was either loved or hated, but he almost got us into the nuclear war running his mouth and spent a ton of unnecessary money. We all know the Berlin wall came down because Gorbechov sold out to the globalists and they put Yeltsin in to rape the assets. Any russian will tell you this. Then we had bomb and read my lips Bush. Then we had NAFTA Clinton. Then we had Dick Cheney because we all know he was really president and now we have spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax, Obama.

Ford was the best liked? By who, Chevy Chase?

Ford?

I'd put both Reagan and Clinton above Ford for "best liked."

[Igosplut]

Ford was only there by default. And he probably seemed benign compared to Nixon's augering in...

[PETE'S BROTHER]

Ford was the best liked? By who, Chevy Chase?

Ford?

I'd put both Reagan and Clinton above Ford for "best liked."

good thing he is on hiatus, that may hurt his feelings.:hee:

[chefcraig]

Ford was the best liked? By who, Chevy Chase?

Ford?

I'd put both Reagan and Clinton above Ford for "best liked."

Gerald R. Ford's contributions to America can be summed up by two things: Comedic impressions of his general ineptitude and the cultural significance of his campaign to end overwhelming inflation by creating buttons with the word "WIN" (Whip Inflation Now) on them, as if wishing and positive thinking would make the problem go away. No one was particularly upset when he left office.


http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/5016/winbutton.jpg (http://img338.imageshack.us/i/winbutton.jpg/)

Conversely, when Ronald Reagan left office, there was a weird sense of an era coming to an end, typified by once critical newspapers and magazines featuring a picture of the departing Reagans waving goodbye with the caption "Happy Trails".

[Guitar Shark]

as if wishing and positive thinking would make the problem go away.

"Gulf disaster needs divine intervention as man's efforts have been futile. Gulf lawmakers designate today Day of Prayer for solution/miracle." Sarah Palin tweet, 6/20/10

[Nickdfresh]

Me, or Jack? Because you don't know Thing One about me--other than I'm a prick!

But I don't blame you for jumping to cuntclusions. You're not very smart.

I'm pretty sure I've seen more enlightened commentary from high school girls. But yeah, I'm sure you're a closet badass. Well, you're something in the closet...

[Nickdfresh]

Wait, you know what? I think Nickdfelch is talking about Obama!

LMAO!

My bad Nick! You're right! :baaa:

.:handjob:

In this post, I'm talking about you...

[Nickdfresh]

From now on, you say "Sailor Boy" with respect, you got that Mr. Latrine-Scrubber? I've got more time on the shitter than you have in the Army.

Yeah, that's apparent. Some of us went to college instead of enduring bellicose idiocy and apparent infantile behaviors by "lifers" like you to afraid to have to get a job. I'll take my education and the volumes I've read on warfare over your toilet plunging, poop-deck swabber...


Re-read my posts. Nowhere did I say McChrystal SHOULDN'T be relieved. I merely said he wanted out of a situation with inept civilian leadership.

And I think your post is asinine and makes no sense, and gives McChrystal as sort of pass as a water-walker. But then, I don't think you actually made that post...


BTW, McChrystal didn't give "intimidation to goad Obama into spending trillion$ on his "COIN" baby." McChrystal was chosen to replace Gen. McKiernan last May because he fit in with Obama's desired strategy for Afghanistan.

Obama did not solely, personally "choose" McChrysal. He was on a list of candidates and his prior service in Iraq hardly fit in to the mold you're trying to pigeon-hole him, and Obama, in...


It really wouldn't speak well of Barry and his National Security "Team" if they let a General twist their arms now would it?

What difference would it make to you? You sucked Bush's dick all the way through the Gulf war, and he got his arm "twisted" after the Democrats won the houses in 2006? Yet, you've never said ONE FUCKING WORD of criticism, Brian.

The truth is that you're a retard. I told you EXACTLY the only way we could stabilize Iraq in 2005, and you called me some sort of 'terrorist-sympathizer' for it when I was merely anticipating the strategy that the Surge would ultimately take (namely "reconciling with" and paying off the Sunni insurgents). But for a guy whose pretty slow, and had gotten nothing right in the last ten years, you're pretty apt at second-guessing now...

[Nickdfresh]

Did Rolling Stone betray McChrystal?
Military contends Rolling Stone reporter broke interview ground rules
By Karen DeYoung
The Washington Post
updated 5:20 p.m. ET, Fri., June 25, 2010
http://www.celluloid-dreams.de/content/images/kritiken-filmbilder/team-america-world-police/team-america-world-police-1.jpg
WASHINGTON - Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal has made no public comment since President Obama relieved him of his Afghan war command Wednesday, silently taking his lumps for disparaging remarks he and his aides made about administration officials in the presence of a reporter from Rolling Stone magazine.

But the command has concluded from its own review of events that McChrystal was betrayed when the journalist quoted banter among the general and his staff, much of which they thought was off the record. They contend that the magazine inaccurately depicted the attribution ground rules for the interviews.

"Many of the sessions were off-the-record and intended to give [reporter Michael Hastings] a sense" of how McChrystal's team operated, according to a senior military official. The command's own review of events, the official said, gleaned "no evidence to suggest" that any of the "salacious political quotes" in the article were made during a series of on-the-record and background interviews Hastings conducted with McChrystal and others.

The official, one of many subject to a Pentagon advisory not to discuss the situation without authorization, spoke on condition of anonymity. He said he was motivated by what he described as untrue claims made by Rolling Stone.

Two others with direct knowledge of the command's dealings with Hastings offered similar accounts.

Rolling Stone executive editor Eric Bates categorically denied that Hastings violated any ground rules in writing about the four weeks he spent with McChrystal and his team. "A lot of things were said off the record that we didn't use," Bates said in an interview. "We abided by all the ground rules in every instance."

"In every case in this story there were multiple times in which there were express requests for off the record and background or not-for-attribution and we abided in every instance," Bates said.

No push-back
Neither McChrystal nor anyone else has denied making the derisive comments, including a depiction of Obama as "uncomfortable and intimidated" in his first meeting with the general and of national security adviser James L. Jones as a "clown."

Some commentators have questioned why McChrystal and his aides were being pilloried for complaints about Washington commonly heard in diplomatic and military facilities overseas. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters Thursday that the atmosphere of disrespect for civilian leaders that McChrystal tolerated was grounds for dismissal regardless of the context in which the offensive comments were made or who made them.

In an interview with Politico.com this week, Bates said that the Kabul command was forewarned about the article and offered "absolutely" no push-back.

"We ran everything by them in a fact-checking process as we always do. They had a sense of what was coming and it was all on the record and they spent a lot of time with our reporter, so I think they knew that they had said it."

But 30 questions that a Rolling Stone fact-checker posed in a memo e-mailed last week to McChrystal media adviser Duncan Boothby contained no hint of what became of the controversial portions of the story.

In the e-mail, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, Boothby is asked to confirm the makeup of McChrystal's traveling staff on a trip Hastings took with them to Paris, and the communications equipment they brought with them on an earlier visit to London. "They don't come close to revealing what ended up in the final article," said the military official.

"Does McChrystal's staff joking refer to themselves as Team America?" the fact-checker asked. "Not really," Boothby replied. "We joke that we are sometimes perceived that way by many of the NATO forces" under McChrystal's command.

In the article, Hastings wrote that McChrystal and his aides "jokingly refer to themselves as Team America, taking the name from the South Park-esque sendup of military cluelessness, and they pride themselves on their can-do attitude and their disdain for authority." In other passages, Hastings took what appear to be similar minor liberties with the facts as Boothby described them.

Off the record
In the last question, the fact-checker asked "Did Gen. McChrystal vote for President Obama? (The reporter tells me that this info originates from McChrystal himself.)"

Boothby replied in all capitals. "IMPORTANT -- PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE THIS -- THIS IS PERSONAL AND PRIVATE INFORMATION AND UNRELATED TO HIS JOB. IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO SHARE." He went on to describe the "strict rules" under which military personnel keep their political views to themselves.

In the article, Hastings reported that the general "had voted for Obama."

Bates said that the remark was "absolutely" not off the record, and noted that Boothby's appeal "isn't on accuracy or even that it was off the record," but that it was irrelevant.

Why this remark, but not other controversial utterances, were included in the fact-checker's questions was unclear. But the magazine was under no obligation to check them, Bates said. "If we have [remarks] on tape or said . . . in our presence, and we have detailed notes, it's not like we're hearing from someone else and checking 'Hey, is this right?'" he said.

When public figures say things that are unwise, "we don't go back to the sources and say 'Hey, did you really say that?' " he said.


© 2010 The Washington Post Company (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37932033/ns/us_news-washington_post/)

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images/kim-jong-il-in-team-america.jpg

[chefcraig]

That's a pretty creative line of defense. Essentially, the staff isn't denying or upset the words were said, what is at issue is that they were heard and quoted. This is more or less like someone defending against a DUI charge by claiming he was too wasted to walk.

[Nickdfresh]

I agree with your sentiments, Craig. But there is a such a thing as "off-the-record" as a means to record honest whistle-blower statements. Something like this could be a severe setback to open and honest military journalism, a field already beset by Pentagon spin doctors...