wtaq.com— General Stanley McQuitstal has submitted a letter of resignation to President Obama in the aftermath of an article to be published this week in "Rolling Stone" magazine.
Jun 22, 2010View in Crawl 4
That's the thing... he had to know this would be the end of his career. So what the heck was he thinking? Somone who makes it to the rank of General does not generally make stupid blunders.
It's likely he never imagined he'd have to run an indefinite police action in the middle of nowheresville. He's just had it with being undermined, ignored, deterred, and basically used for political fodder. Even a man with the staunchest of honor, wouldn't want to be a general working for an admin who wants to hamstring the military he presides over. The U.S. is basically occupying this place and he can't fight a real warrior's war. I'd be frustrated enough to let loose a few complaints. He is only human after all.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
as the top General in one of America's toughest insurgencies, you can't afford to let loose complaints like that. we have the Taliban claiming a political victory. it's silly. if you're fed up with the job put your stars on the table. until then you should be acting like a soldier first. save the cult hero for your memoirs
>> That's the thing... he had to know this would be the end of his career. So what the heck was he thinking? <<
He was thinking that his commander-in-chief is so inept, he was willing to sacrifice his entire career just to speak his mind about Obama (and he voted for Obama too, btw.)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The problem is that he is undermining his Chain of Command. I can't help but feel that this is the way he wanted the cookie to crumble. If he gets a pass on this then everybody under him loses respect for the Civilian authority which leads our Military. This is unacceptable, and he had to have been aware of the position that he put himself and the Civilian authority in.
Having said all of that, I can only imagine the frustration he must be dealing with. America does not have the stomach to win this war. Not with the high cost in blood and treasure and the relatively low strategic value of a victory in Afghanistan. The only reason that it is worth fighting (strategically, there are plenty of moral arguments in both directions) is the high strategic cost of a loss there.
it's easy to win the war - just redraw the borders over there
the reason the war's been so hard to win, is that the current land is dysfunctional along with its borders
so scrap those worthless borders, and come up with more workable borders, then you'll have a working functioning country that can stand on its own feet without requiring outsiders to prop it up
David, the president is asking the General to jump out a building, then stop halfway down. This is true, and I understand the frustrated empathy that you have for the general. This does not excuse a General from undermining the chain of command.
You have a credible source that indicates that the rules of engagement are being changed on a constant basis at the behest of the White House? I would be very interested to read about that. Can you provide a link?
Doesn't matter. He violated Army Regulations (several of them, actually), and probably a few DoD policies I'm not aware of. It'd be like if I said something bad about my superiors in a public forum -- only, I wouldn't be given the option of resignation, I'd be punished under UCMJ, and likely booted out of the military with a dishonorable discharge. We aren't allowed the same freedoms you civvies have, especially when functioning in an official capacity.
The executive editor of Rolling Stone gave General McChrystal a chance to back away from some of the quotes he made, so it's not like a got caught making some ill-advised remarks, this was calculated and surely he knew the blowback that would result.
It seems McChrystal (who voted for Obama) was so disillusioned with the commander-in-chief that he was willing to sacrifice his military career to let his feelings about the CIC be known.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Let me help you out here Jokreig1. When you are in a position of power and control during a time of war, talking poorly about the Commander in Chief can be detrimental to the morale of the men and women fighting under you (and in turn, fighting under the person you're bashing). A general openly critiquing the Head of State can lead troops to question why they even have to fight in the first place.
That being said, I am sad to see this happening. In my opinion, General McChrystal seemed to have the right idea regarding Afghanistan, in terms of winning the hearts and minds of the people. I almost hope that Obama doesn't accept his resignation, but to be honest, I don't know what the repercussions of that will be.
If the sitting President was Bush, there would be 100 different versions of this story on the front page, all diggers hailing the General for his Heroics in speaking out..Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
@Samueul And likewise, those saying he is being wronged would be saying that no one in the the military should speak ill of the president and his administration.
yeah, f**k free speech. it might undermine confidence. im willing to bet that's the argument they use in china for not allowing criticizm of the government.
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
If it were Bush, I would say the same thing. Whether you agree with it or not, a commissioned officer is simply not allowed to publicly ridicule the POTUS. Once he's retired, all bets are off: go wild.
Exactly what the guy above me said. Jokreig, you obviously don't know how the military operates. "f**k free speech!" nothing. Servicemembers do not have free speech, plain and simple. Ever hear of "Disrespecting a superior?" That's basically what the General did, not to mention his violation of Article 88 of the UCMJ.
So, in summation, no, we're not blind, you're just ignorant to the workings of the military.
Why? The incredible increase in resources the CiC has directed to the long-neglected theater is well known, and Obama has taken considerable flak from the left for giving the military considerable leeway to get the job done, from Bagram interogations to drone assassinations. If the military lacks confidence in this President, I see the fault lying with them.
President Obama is the Commander in Chief. A failure of the military is a failure of President Obama; this is not something you can spin off responsibility from.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
In this particular case honest General noted that while CiC was ordering Military to do one thing he, with his own political hand worked against it (actions of Obama's political representative in Afghanistan Amb. Holbrook ). It is CiC incompetence bordering on treason. And for Amb. Holbrook who actively worked against his own USA Military interests - real treason. Yet, the honest working General is one resigning while incompetent CiC and traitor Amb. Holbrook keep on political theater of "pretend war".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
If you served in the military you would know that weather you are a General or a PFC, you are not allowed to contradict the civilian authority. It is the law and we who served were bound by it. It is why we dont have coups.
No, I implied that losing is inevitable but McChrystal is more qualified than most to lead the effort and will likely not be defeated as quickly others would be.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
If losing is inevitable, what purpose would it even serve to drag it out and waste further resources? If losing is indeed inevitable, anybody truly "qualified" would understand that, and the harm being done by merely delaying defeat.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I can't wait for the next Republican president. Before he even gets sworn in, I'm going to draw a Stalin 'stache on him and photoshop a Swastika armband on him.
No way does a career military man who rises to the rank of General and then top commander in Afghanistan, no way does this guy not know he was not guilty of insubordination here. This had to be a calculated decision on his part that not speaking out and holding his peace on Obama (a man he voted for) would do more harm to the country than the consequences of a top commanding General acting in insubordination to the CiC.
That is a real heavy choice he made to speak out like that.
CNN were the first to post this report at about 5 pm, not this radio station. But CNN too were citing 'sources'. Clearly there has been no formal announcement, just leaks.
Historically there is no way to 'win' Afghanistan. It was never a consolidated country in the first place, even under the Taliban. Expect it to remain tribal on into the future.
Openly mocking the Vice President, openly mocking our allies, and publically criticizing your commander over personal issues, not even command or policy, in a military command structure will get you fired.
I don't care which side of the political spectrum you're on, even if you agree with every word he said you still know he has to go.
Not just every General, every soldier gripes. It's part of the culture. It's the only way they keep their head on straight. You can even gripe to commanding officers.
But this was a huge mistake, and there's only one direction he's going...
That would be fine if he was a whistle-blower exposing corruption or incompetence, but from what I have read, McChrystal was simply airing his opinion on the disposition of the President and Vice President. Hardly someone to admire because he "speaks the truth"
I am not sure that it is too much different from the current trend of stating "the source, who wishes to remain anonymous discussing a personal matter."
Honestly, how is that more of a source then just stating 'an anonymous source.' I know it is a result of a situation a few years ago w/anonymous sources, but they are still anonymous. They just now have a 'reason.' There is no change other an a few more words per article.
This article didn't even state any source, but I guess my point is that how is that much different than the 'anonymous' quoted source who no one can verify?
General McChrystal is only pre-emptively resigning in the hopes that he'll get to keep his job. He's trying to change the focus here. He's hoping that President Obama will save his ass by refusing the resignation.
Like any General worth his salt, he's a master of strategy. It's a Hail Mary, but it's all he's got if he wants to remain in command.
When I first heard about the story my thought was : "WTF is our top general in Afghanistan doing giving access and time to Rolling Stone?" Maybe it was some new pr strategy, but I think ... I STILL think it was just plain stupid.
How exactly does that factor in? Rolling Stone has a long history of reputable journalism, and Michael Hastings has an especially excellent reputation.
I'm implying that our top General in Afghanistan shouldn't be giving an interview to Rolling Stone in my opinion. I'm not just implying it...I'm saying it.
Oh crap, I didn't notice it was you or I wouldn't even have bothered.
But, (he says, preparing himself for the non-stop stupidity that is a quirkopatra thread) what I was asking was, of course, what are you implying about Rolling Stone when you say he should not have been giving an interview to them?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Hey...thanks for the personal insult subduction. It just suits you guys to constantly do that.
We are at war. He is our top general. I do not think that Rolling Stone is the proper venue for our top General to allow access. Rolling Stone has some content I enjoy...but this is a general at war.
You may love this journalist...I don't know much ABOUT the journalist, but he has probably secured fame due to the controversy surrounding this story. I would also think it was inappropriate for McChrystal to travel with Entertainment Weekly. Or Variety. Or Billboard. Or TV Guide.
C'mon quirkopatra, you and I both know what you're saying here and why...I've been watching Fox News today.
You're parroting exactly what they're saying on Fox News -- but they haven't been telling you why, so you don't know why. You just keep repeating the same point over and over. Once Fox News explains themselves you will explain yourself as though you thought of it.
Of course you don't know much about the journalist, because Fox News hasn't told you and you're too lazy to look it up. You also don't know the history of serious investigative journalism in Rolling Stone because Fox News hasn't told you and you're too lazy to look it up.
This is why, when I see a thread of yours, I usually ignore it. Not because I disagree with you, but because you're just so painfully lazy when it comes to learning that it isn't even worth bothering. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
To be fair I think that quirkopatra was making the point that Gen. McChrystal should have know better. He should have known that Rolling Stone would publish anything he said and not edit or censor it. Unlike a Conservative magazine that would have not published it, if it were a Republican President. Imagine if this were one of Bush's Generals, do you think The Weekly Standard or The National Review were ever publish this? Which presents another interesting point. If the right considers Rolling Stone to be part of the MSM in the tank for Pres. Obama, then why would they ever publish an article that would be trouble for the President? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I don't know that this is trouble for the president. I think it's trouble for McChrystal. And it's the last thing the man in charge of Afghanistan needs at this time. I don't blame Rolling Stone...this journalist got his story. I just do not believe Rolling Stone is the right forum for our top General (under considerable stress) at a time of war.
Again, no support for your point on why Rolling Stone is different from all other magazines and Michael Hastings should not be respected as a journalist.
I'll watch Fox tomorrow -- if they make the point then I'll rush back here so you can elaborate on "your" opinions.
And am I intellectually superior to you? Well, as long as you're repeating what other people said, rather than forming original ideas that you can actually have an intelligent discussion on, we'll never know.
Her choice's: Entertainment Weekly, Variety, Billboard and TV Guide were not to make a general point about no PR -- you'll notice that Time or Newsweek or the Wall Street Journal were not on the list.
The point Fox News has been trying to further all day is that Rolling Stone is a profoundly *unserious* venue for a general to be speaking with, on journalistic par with Entertainment Weekly, and that this controversy is somehow the fault of the amateur reporting rather than what actually came out of the General and his staff's mouths. That is simply not the case, and is certainly not true with Michael Hastings. Both the magazine and the reporter have excellent records in serious journalism.
I'm not guessing here, I've been watching Fox News and this is the exact line they've been promoting all day -- "Well, this is what happens when you talk to *Rolling Stone*." "This is why the Army shouldn't them talk to *just anybody*." "Well, what did they expect? It's *Rolling Stone*"
It's a defense. It's an organized attempt by Fox and their parrots to try to reduce the credibility of the news source.
So Minarchian, while I can't speak to your "lunatic" credentials, you have definitely missed the point she is trying to parrot here, and you are definitely overlooking what's going on.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
You seem to be saying that people can't have their own opinions if those opinions happed to agree with some news source you detest...whether the person was aware of it or not. And you seem to be saying that once made aware of it that person must change their opinion.
Hell, I agree with a lot of s**t that the leftists believe in and I'm a Minarchist. Maybe now I should change my opinions?
Honestly Minarchian, I don't know who you are or what you believe in, or care, nor am I curious as to what you believe your leftist cred is.
I was having a discussion, albeit a pointless one, with quirkopatra, over what she meant and what she was saying, and the "coincidence" that it was a word-for-word rehashing of the line being distribute by the right-wing media.
@Subduction:
What, do you want her to list EVERY media outlet on the planet? Her point had nothing to do with Fox News' statements on the subject. Where'd you pull THAT out of your ass? What she's very clearly saying, and something I completely agree with, is that the General should be focusing on the damn war. What the HELL was he doing giving an interview with Rolling Stone (or any other magazine or news outlet, you douchenozzle) when we have people DYING out there?
C'mon overridemymind, the choice of light entertainment and television magazines was not a random list in a discussion that went specifically to the credibility of the news outlet.
"I don't think he should be talking to Rolling Stone any more than he should be talking to Teen Beat or Hustler," makes a very different point than the sentence "I don't think he should be talking to Rolling Stone any more than he should be talking to The Nation or The Wall Street Journal."
Am I really down to having to explain how the English language works? This is really getting silly and exactly why I usually don't even get involved in quirkopatra threads, one wacko really brings out all the other ones.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
That's funny -- your posts have spent more time declaiming what you believe and the philosophical traditions to which you align yourself and the origins of your username and who you think you are and what I should believe about you than even dealing with the substance of the discussion.
It's not too surprising that narcissism should be right on the tip of your tongue.
Um, considering the fact that I have a very high-level understanding of the English language and how it works, I'll thank you to cease your pretentious douchebaggery. At any rate, if you're too foolish to comprehend what she meant via the context of her comment, I doubt you should be lecturing anyone on their understanding of the language. The core point, which, in my opinion, any infant could see, is that General McChrystal has a war to run - a 9-year-and-counting war to run. People are dying, and the man in charge is taking out time to do interviews with, as you pointed out, an entertainment magazine. In my opinion, he shouldn't be taking time out for interviews at all. That's what the man has aides for.
Also, if you read my comment history, you'll find that quirk and I have had more than a few heated discussions -- I don't agree with her on many subjects. However, on this one, she has a very clear, and very logical point.
What bothers, and even confuses, me is that you're so "gung-ho" about disagreeing with quirk that you're arguing semantics, and have been for several hours.
Well overridemymind, between "douchebaggery" and "douchenozzle" your understanding of the English language seems somewhat skewed towards douche and douche-related products, but I suppose we all have to have hobbies.
>>The core point...is that General McChrystal has a war to run - a 9-year-and-counting war to run.
That is a very good point, and a point I agree with. The only problem is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the point she was making or that is under discussion. I also believe Twinkies could and should be made with healthier ingredients, which is another very good point that has nothing to do with this discussion.
>>>do interviews with, as you pointed out, an entertainment magazine
Uh oh, your claims about understanding the English language are beginning to falter. I *never* pointed out that it was an entertainment magazine. In fact, I was making exactly the opposite point, that quirkopatra and Fox news have been trying to ignore Rolling Stone's history of serious journalism in an attempt to impugn the source and therefore discount the accuracy of the statements, which is offensive to any thinking person. Well, except, apparently a few.
Perhaps I should put it in some douche-related context next time to keep you engaged.
>>>What bothers, and even confuses, me is that you're so "gung-ho" about disagreeing with quirk that you're arguing semantics, and have been for several hours.
Well..."semantics" being the study of what words actually mean, yes, I am arguing the semantics of what people like quirkopatra and Fox News really are trying to say when they make those statements. It's an important debate because this is exactly how the radical right frame their arguments in public forums.
If we can can't defend his statements then we'll go after the source and imply, even though it isn't true, that it is somehow unreliable. That kind of anti-intellectualism on either side of the political spectrum seriously doesn't offend you?
You don't think it's worth me staying and standing up against people being intentionally disingenuous in order to smear credible people? Fine, then I guess you and I do have different standards than you. At least it's a little more interesting talking with you than talking to Minarchian about what he finds impressive about himself.
I read the attached article, it was very uninformative. I don't read rolling stone, do they honestly go around interviewing soldiers in foreign countries?
""
In the article, McChrystal and several aides are quoted making very critical and unflattering comments about Obama and several members of the administration including Vice President Biden.
""
It doesn't say that they made them to rolling stone, it says they're being quoted. I'm surprised someone could be so dumb as to make negative comments about one's boss to a magazine and yet be promoted to General.
Why would you just bother typing things that are wild speculations you're having from your laptop when you can actually read the primary source right online, using the same machine you're using to speculate from?
"Most likely the Iliad is about Odysseus fighting the Eskimos in the 1800s."
"Most likely a recipe for lemon chicken includes gasoline."
"Most likely Lady Gaga carved Mount Rushmore before single-handedly fighting Odysseus and the Eskimos in the 1800s."
Wrong, Rolling Stone reporter had made it clear when the General was on and off the record. The General also allowed Rolling Stone reporter to be with them for a month, not some 1hr sit down interview. The General was well aware that what ever he said would be in the article. It was not like the reporter was hiding behind a wall and secretly listening to the General.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I have a hard time believing that Gen. McChrystal would have made the decision to give so much access to a reporter from any magazine without approval from higher up. This may have been a PR moved conceived possibly even in the White house that backfired. Public opinion is turning against the war and someone might have thought that putting Rolling Stone close to the action would help it gain support.
@avengingturnip: Yeah, it was a PR move. I don't think it backfired though.
==
@emjaymj: If losing is inevitable, what purpose would it even serve to drag it out and waste further resources? If losing is indeed inevitable, anybody truly "qualified" would understand that, and the harm being done by merely delaying defeat.
["Truly qualified" -- erm, like McChrystal, you mean?]
@avengingturnip: It might be better if Obama accepts his resignation. Then we will lose more quickly and be out of there sooner.... Losing is inevitable, but McChrystal is more qualified than most to lead the effort and will likely not be defeated as quickly others would be.
[yep]
@Armageddon2012: No way does a career military man who rises to the rank of General and then top commander in Afghanistan, no way does this guy not know he was not guilty of insubordination here. This had to be a calculated decision on his part that not speaking out and holding his peace on Obama (a man he voted for) would do more harm to the country than the consequences of a top commanding General acting in insubordination to the CiC. That is a real heavy choice he made to speak out like that.
[As elsewhere stated, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one." I think this was true patriotism in action. There really is no other explanation. Think about it. McChrystal's approach was one designed to cut losses. This was his personal, maximum effort to cut America's overall loses. Good luck storming the castle, boys. Think it will work? It'll take a miracle.]
Some day the swords will become plowshares. I hope.
@avengingturnip: Public opinion is turning against the war
==
Yes, public opinion is turning against the war. Moreso, the war is turning against America. In the vernacular, we are losing. Under what terms do we cut our losses?
America has a headache from trying to run the world.
When someone speaks up, he must be put down quick, according to Obama. Anything not to let the truth out. Anything to keep us Americans having a rosey picture.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
He didn't voice disagreement with policy, he just insulted our political and military leaders and our allies. There's a huge f**king difference. When this same General clashed with Obama earlier saying he needed even more troops than the huge surge Obama was proposing, he wasn't fired. And Obama hasn't even accepted the resignation yet. There's a decent chance he won't. Your post makes no sense. It was Bush who immediately fired anyone who expressed a different opinion.
Well gotmoobs, DougChristian is pointing out that Bush did fire several generals for speaking out against his policies. Obama hasn't fired anyone. So your initial comment to which all these replies are based on is faulty. Prove Obama fires generals or anyone for speaking out against his policies.
Also I can't count how many times a right wingers used Clinton as an excuse for a Bush failure. Hey guess what Reagan blamed a lot of his failures on Carter. Seems to be a trend huh?
Yea, there is a trend, repub, dem, everyone blames everyone. Obama has not been in office long enough, Bush was in office 8 yrs. HUGEE difference. Watch, comment on this in a few days and we will see. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
But amid the well-documented tensions with his U.S. civilian counterparts, McChrystal over the last year has quietly forged what might be the closest relationship any senior American official has had with President Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's mercurial leader. Reports of Holbrooke and Vice President Joe Biden shouting at Karzai on separate occasions offended the cultural sensibilities of many Afghans, particularly Karzai's fellow Pashtuns.
"I think he cares about whether we Afghans live or die," said Khalil Jalalai, a businessman who lost a son to a suicide bombing last year. "With the Americans, sometimes that kind of thinking gets lost." He sees his wife fewer than 30 days a year and marked their 33rd wedding anniversary with her at an Irish pub in Paris, along with his inner circle from Afghanistan, many of whom end up very drunk.
McChrystal has a reputation for saying and thinking what other military leaders are afraid to, one of the reasons cited for his current appointment, which he assumed on June 15, 2009.
He's a soldier. It doesn't god damned matter what he believes publicly. If he has a problem with the president, that needs to be brought up in private. As far as the wider world is concerned, he has no opinion other than the president's opinion. If you take that discipline out of the armed forces, everything falls to s**t. He's been around long enough to fully understand that. There is a very big difference between constructive criticism and angry ranting. At the end of the day, our president is the president. This is still a democratic nation of majority rule, whether you like the majority opinion or not.
Yet I bet the guy above me applauded when everyone went s**t-crazy and were up in arms about Bush and Iraq... Even those soldiers who didn't want to go to Iraq eh Rujtu? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Actually, akamurph, no. I felt sorry for the soldiers in our volunteer military who chose to sign up, but didn't want to go to Iraq, but I didn't approve of the way some of those men chose to react to their circumstances. They made a choice, and they had to live with it. I found some of their behaviour to be dishonorable. So, no, I didn't applaud or support a single one of them.
Also, unfortunately, the people who should have gone s**t-crazy and gotten up in arms over Iraq didn't. The democrats and the media, the two groups I would have expected to hold Bush's ass to the fire over the rationale for Iraq just went along for the ride for a looooong time.
I didn't like Iraq. That had nothing to do with my political leanings. It was just a invalid war. But I can say that publicly. I'm a civilian.
Note the comment: "the fiction that we actually have allies." SIGNIFICANT.
From the Stone's article:
'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.
After 8 years of exactly that from the Bush League, you're going to toss bulls**t at Obama for giving this very childish general a talking to. You clearly haven't bothered to go read the truth yourself. Exactly what McChrystal and his aides said in front of Rolling Stone is published all over the Internet. Read it and feel ashamed of the pettiness of this general. At the very least he should have kept his childish mouth shut to the press.
Let's be clear here: McChrystal shot himself in the foot. Turning this into another Bash Obama propaganda ritual is desperate. Go change your own diapers.
Unbelievable. I guess you weren't counting as Bush fired or forced into retirement several generals who dared to voice an opinion contrary to his own. While all that was happening, Neocons and Republicans were touting the chain of command and how wrong those generals were to question Bush Almighty, even though they hid it under the guise of Bush The Commander-In-Chief. Well, now Obama is Commander-In-Chief and the same rules apply. Suck it, hypocritical right wing asshats.
Insulting the Pres, Vice Pres and their administration is not telling the truth. You and I can bitch about the President from sun up to sundown, but Generals are not put in a position so they can do that and you know it. The right always made it a point that it was wrong to criticize the President during war time. Now your are telling us that it is ok to do that and from a General no less?
Odd isn't it how GW Bush was the President who spent the most time on vacation of any in history. Therefore, the propaganda wing of the Neo-Con-Jobs flips reality on its head. Desperate bulls**t as usual.
In the military, President Obama is Commander in Chief, that puts him over McChrystal. Order in the military is based on an absolute organization set. Article 88 UCMJ Your politics are irrelivant, as a General. "W" dismissed several Generals, a President gets to do that. Obama is President.
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA): "If the standard for resignation was a YouTube moment or an inappropriate statement, wouldn't you think the vice president would be handing in his letters twice a week?"
He was thinking "My superiors are not supporting my decisions and are constantly trying to undermine me, I need to get the f**k out of here..."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I haven't heard anything to indicate that McChrystal's decisions were being undermined in any way. Do you have a citation for that, because if there is some evidence I would genuinely be interested in reading it. Thanks
I think he's speaking more of insubordination in general, rather than the strict military definition of the term. Broadly, insubordination can be understood as "in opposition to and usually in defiance of established authority" or "failure or refusal to recognize or submit to the authority of a superior."
You could ask pretty much anybody who manages other people and they'll tell you that going to the media and openly badmouthing your superiors is most definitely insubordination.
McChrystal violated Article 88 of the UCMJ. " Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
What McChrystal did falls into that whole not-doing-your-job-properly category.
I remember when people repeatedly said this during the Bush Administration....no wait....THEN it was, "Freedom of speech!" "Dissent!" "Patriot!"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
It was wrong for that lieutenant to criticize Bush then, and it was wrong for General McChrystal to criticize Obama more recently.
This doesn't have to be a partisan issue. Do you think it helps or hurts the war effort when the commander of the war in Afghanistan criticizes the most senior member of our military? A four-star general knows better than this.
Under Bush, if you thought the war was wrong, you were screwed. Legal or not, ethical or not, you're going.
Under Obama, if McChrystal thinks it's wrong, he's allowed to resign. He can critique the war. With Bush, no...you couldn't, really. And a big difference, even many liberals got behind Bush because it was important to show a united front. Conservatives have done nothing but try to de-legitimise Obama's presidency from day 1.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Personally, I think it's a tough call. Certainly, he and his staff weren't behaving at a level appropriate for an officer, but it sounds to me like they were just blowing off steam. A stern reprimand and a genuine public apology are in order, but I don't think resignation is necessary. This isn't on the scale of what Douglas MacArthur did.
This was all calculated, I'm sure. The executive editor gave him one last chance to recant some of the quotes they were going to run, he was okay with it. That's what's really eye-opening here, there's no way he wasn't aware of the consequences that would come from this article being published, so he must have been so completely disillusioned by the president, that he was willing to sacrifice a life of military service to speak out on the inept clowns who were running the show.
He spent his entire life as a soldier dedicated to honor and self discipline in a way most people will never understand. To think he spoke out against the CiC without forethought to the consequences is absurd.
I disagree with a general speaking out against the President regardless of how I feel about that President… But I’d like to hear more about this when the general moves into the civilian world and can speak freely.
"I’d like to hear more about this when the general moves into the civilian world and can speak freely."
The General and his aides publicly expressed childish insults about VP Biden and an administrator.
So you want to hear more baby rants from this General out in the civilian world? He's already shot himself in the foot. So you want him to shoot himself in the head? There are no reasoned opinions here. Just stooopid remarks unworthy of any military officer.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Dude. I don't want baby tantrums anymore than anyone else. But there is an element here i would love to see exposed. I want to see McChrystal's HONEST rationale for making these choices. I mean, what if Hitler's right hand man had suddenly done something that "broke protocol" when he learned he had to orchestrate the genocide of the jews? Might he have been seen as a hero of man if that were a reality? I know I';m being extreme here but the point is, there's a reason he did this. I want to hear it.
Same here. I simply cannot imagine that this man would make such a blunder. If it indeed is an error of judgment, he deserves to be fired simply because the lives of a hundred thousand troops and thirty million civilians rests on his ability to exercise sound judgment. But I don't think that is what this is. We'll find out perhaps, sooner or later.
NewsFlash! Most of the comments on the foxnews website call for Obama's impeachment over this. Funny that they no longer want to impeach him over Gary Coleman's death even though it was clearly his fault.
If they believe Obama can personally stop the Gulf oil spill, but chooses not to, then surely he could have saved Coleman's life, but chose not to. It all makes perfect sense now!
I find it odd that this article is from a small radio station which has no sources, but the likes of CNN and NYT aren't running this. And google news isn't picking up any story with this in them...
Granted, this is kind of expected given the situation. Still, it would make sense for this to happen at least after his meeting with Obama tomorrow rather than before it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rofl Obama is so f**ked - from all accounts he was not only an extremely exceptional General was also very well liked by the Afghans and his troops. Good luck replacing him Barry. lol Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The Afghan President actually came out supporting him. It would be bad news if Obama replaces him, because his successor will likley fail and it will be labeled as having happened due to Obama's "vendetta". Obama has to play politics or make it personal, if he accepts the resignation he will of taken it personal and suffer down the road politically.
Yea, while you sit and laugh that "Obama is so f**ked" you forget the real people who could be f**ked are the troops and the greater populace at large.
It baffles me how you assh**es can reduce everything down to a f**king you vs them attitude, your side vs Obama. This isn't some f**king game, this is people's lives...the thousands who die because of political infighting, insubordination, and a lack of focus.
So yea...laugh at Obama...he's not the one getting his ass shot up.
With all due respect, trying to paint one side more than the other isn't really the issue. I'm responding to THIS post...in which case my point is applicable.
Do both sides play the game, of course they do. That's why I didn't say "GOP wingnuts" or "freeper!" or "tea party assh**e" because everyone's guilty.
If you've missed the point I'm making to try to and rebalance the scales, that's your prerogative. That anyone would bury me for stating what's true...that people miss the bigger picture for some cheap political gains (especially when laughing about OUR CiC...who controls OUR troops losing)...well that's just pretty f**ked up.
This was all his plan to get out of Afghanistan. He couldn't just resign in defeat with a job he couldn't handle, so he said things he knows a person in the military doesn't say. Especially one in his position. So he creates this firestorm and then turns around and offers his resignation. His out. His out of Afghanistan and his responsibility in dealing with it.
I 100% agree. Nobody with this mans history, clout, or accomplishments would be so foolish as to say something like this.. NOBODY. He wants out of a no win situation and this is it...
Actually he wants to stay in Afghanistan forever but Obama and most Americans don't support nation building. So he whines and cries and then resigns. This McChrystal guy is an utter disgrace.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
This guy is supposed to be running a war and commanding 100,000 troops, yet he hasn't got the brains not to diss his superiors to a reporter from Rolling Stone.
Rolling Stone, for crying out loud.
He should not be fired for insubordination. He should be fired for stupid.
"This was all his plan to get out of Afghanistan. He couldn't just resign in defeat with a job he couldn't handle, so he said things he knows a person in the military doesn't say. Especially one in his position. So he creates this firestorm and then turns around and offers his resignation. His out. His out of Afghanistan and his responsibility in dealing with it."
If this was a General speaking out against Bush and then resigning, he'd be a hero. He's "General McQuitter" on digg because he spoke out against Obama. What happened to all the Michael Moore "I can be critical and still love America" propaganda? Doesn't apply now that your idiot in chief is in the white house rather than the Republicans'?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
How can one NOT be critical of either side and still love America? I am not picking a fight and don't want to even put my views out there, but regardless of what you believe I hope you don't think patriotism means going along with the flow at all costs.
Imagine the awesome PR digg and other liberal sites would give this if a top general in Afghanistan ranted on bush?
This is biased politics at its best.
Before you guys digg me down know Im a independent who voted for Obama and generally votes to the left. And Im dugg down for speaking what everyone knows is the truth.
You're a bit weak on your history. Go back over the news from the Bush administration and see how many senior generals were fired or forced out for expressing any criticism of the Bush admin policies in Iraq or Afghanistan.
He should have resigned a long time ago. He is an utter failure as a General as the deteriorating mess in Afghanistan proves. Actually, Obama should refuse to let him resign so he has to face what his own incompetence has lead to in that stinking quagmire.
I wouldn't be too hard on McChrystal. He was put in place to conduct a counter-insurgency campaign. Counter-insurgency requires close co-ordination with the central government but the central government in Afghanistan is weak, riddled with corruption, and has little authority outside of Kabul.
The US is trying to fight an irregular army that can move freely across the border between two states that are both too weak to fully control their territories. And in both countries, the opposing force has more authority over the local population than the state.
McChrystal didn't create that situation and the best generals in the world can't change it.
There's a tendency by the pundit class on both the left and right, depending on who's in power, to call treason when a military policy is threatened. The whole General Betrayus episode and now this years later. "you don't criticize the General and he doesn't criticize the President."
I don't know what makes one person more American or Patriotic than another but some people sell it as absolute fealty to the current military policy. If that's the case, then there's something higher than patriotism, and it's called basic human decency. If McChrystal felt his troops were dying in vain, then I commend him for telling the truth, because there's not enough to go around these days.
Sooooo.....does anyone know what he actually said? You know, what the Rolling Stone article is actually going to say?
Although, the fact that he's resigning BEFORE the article is even published...that says a lot.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
the article is online .. on the rolling stone website and is/has been on digg. Why don't you sit down and let me tell you about this thing called Google ...
"he's resigning BEFORE the article is even published"
NO. The article was published ON THE INTERNET before McChrystal resigned. That is what this is all about. Big DUH factor. Do your homework before posting.
I'm not defending this guy, but this seems like one of those times when people got their priorities f**ked up. A general can send orders that can cost soldiers and innocent civilians their lives, or make a bad situation worse. However, all of that is okay with people. It's only when he says a few off the wall critical comments about the other guys running the war that he is deemed out of line and people demand that he be removed from his duties. It just seems to me that what people say is more important to people nowadays than their actions.
Actually, for Obama's sake, Obama should deny the resignation. If he accepts it, then McChrystal is free to say whatever he wants about Obama as a civilian, and something tells me it wont be favorable. This information, is spread, could be seen as embarrassing to the Obama administration, as I'm sure there are things Obama would not want to get out.
As a former USMC devil dog, I still know quite a few other Marines still active, and their thoughts about Obama are not very positive. But, most of these are low ranking NCO's and are not involved with the secretive politics that generals see and must manage. McChrystal would know quite alot about the real reasons for why we are in Afghanistan still, and I'm sure Obama would like to see this kept quiet.
"I just finished reading the entire rolling stone article . . .
and I didn't see anything in there that McChrystal said about the Obama administration that deserves a resignation letter."
Sad. Here we have a US General making insults worthy of a 5 year old regarding Biden and an administrator in front of the press. And you don't see why he resigned.
(o_0)
I agree with you. I read it too and I didn't see anything that derogatory or insubordinate that was directly said by McChrystal about his commander-in-chief. The worse thing that he said directly himself was when he said "who's that" referring to Biden. Most of everything that was said was said by aides or inner circle people.
I definitely see the General disparaging the VP and other senior civilian authorities in his chain of command. Clearly, this is an article 88 violation. However, I think the press is making too big a deal about his comments. The comments are more or less in this story to give you some sense of who this guy is, and the fact that he has a healthy distrust of authority. He seems to believe in his mission, and he believes the mission can be accomplished, which is good, because most people don't feel that way. If we are going to have any measure of success it is going to be with him or somebody like him. I hope that if he did submit a letter of resignation it will be rejected.
I think the President and him having a conversation wouldn't hurt anything. Everybody gaffes. After reading this article, I doubt that the General considered that his wise ass comments would make it into print, and I doubt he saw a lot of harm in it. I doubt he really cares too much, but he and everyone else who will matter can probably do a passable job of pretending he's sorry and he learnt his lesson.
This war really needs somebody who sees Afghanistan as their personal responsibility, and this person should probably be the toughest guy you can think of. As far as I can tell that person is the General in charge over there.
By the way, did anybody else who read the article imagine McChrystal smoking a cigarette, saying to Karzai, "We have to push out the Taliban," and Karzai saying, "But I'm le tired..."
McChrystal's interview has nothing to do with freedom of speech, squelching opposing viewpoints or any other damn thing. He's a four-star general, he should be fairly familiar with Article 88 of the UCMJ which states pretty clearly that a commissioned officer may not make contemptuous comments about the POTUS, among other officials. There is a time and place to voice his dissent, and it is not in front of the public. The same was true under Bush, and the same is true under any sitting president. I'm sure if one of his subordinates spoke in an interview the same way he did they would be out on their ass, facing court martial, or cleaning toilets for the remainder of their commission/enlistment. Once the officer is retired? Talk to your heart's content.
McCrystal kind of fell on his sword for the troops here. He must have been sick of seeing things get worse in Afghanistan while Obama and Biden demagogue and pretend like they're totally focused on winning the war when they obviously want to focus on domestic issues. He probably had it back in the fall when Obama dithered for political reasons and ended up giving him less support than he asked for.
Obama isn't on the ground, even if he were, he wouldn't know what to do. There is nothing in his background that has prepared him for this. At a time of two wars, that is dangerous.
Obama thought he could come in and get his agenda done and not have to worry about all that icky war stuff. Now I worry that decisions aren't being made on how to win or what is best for the troops, but what will help him win elections.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
More like he was just trying to figure out a clever way to resign since he's been such a failure in Afghanistan.
Obama gave him the 'troop surge' he asked for and the Marjah offensive he banked on was accomplished without diminishing violence or corruption in any meaningful way. This neo con joke of a general would rather take some partisan parting shots at the President and get himself canned than admit what an abject failure he is.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Isn't it supposed to be "Support Our Troops!," and that questioning the motives of or insulting the President or his decisions in time of war was anti-American, and treasonous?
We do support out troops, and this includes McChrystal. Obama is a civilian. A big difference when you use the phrase "support our troops".
Did you feel the same way about Bush, in that questioning his motives was unAmerican? Now, do you feel the same way about Obama?
Sorry, but I had to turn this question around to you.
Also, I'd say this issue has grown to be much larger than it should be. We've got people losing their jobs and livelyhoods in the gulf, and our media is instead focused on the words "bite me".
A better question to ask on the issue is "Is Obama winning or losing the war in Afghanistan, and are our troops being restrained from winning it, if that is our goal. And, what is our goal?"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Yes, it would be turn-coat behavior no matter who the president is. If he feels he can't do his job properly with what he's got then the honorable thing for the general to do is step down, not go bitching to Rolling Stone. Speaking "truth to power" is an important job, but the general could call Obama and have a face-to-face with him within an hour's notice so really it was cowardly to go to a news-rag. He should have known better.
I think the war in Afghanistan is stupid, being run terribly, and has no end-goal. I thought that when Bush abandoned Afghanistan for Iraq and I think it now when I see how little progress is being made in "America's longest war".
It is about time the media got back to the wars. Yes the gulf and economy are important but the wars have been almost forgotten. The "Bite me" isn't a small thing, it's an indicator of how poorly the wars are going and we at home just don't give a s**t. We bitch about the economy and can't figure out how many billions of dollars are being wasted in Iraq and Iran that could instead be used for recovery here.
Let me get this straight: The man who talked Obama into Afghanistan, now resigns and gets to leave Afghanistan while Obama, the troops, and the Country are now all stuck in the war? Hmm I wonder if all the people saying Obama, is weak if he didn't go in there, are now going to attack Chrystal for Just leaving. Just wow, Do people see what he is doing.
How the Hell can he draw up the plan and then just leave when it doesn't go the way you want. This guy is the worse man ever, this is what happens when you turn somebody who is a simple weapon into a leader. This man should have never been in charge of troops.He even covered his ass, by insulting Obama, if Obama keeps Chrystal, he won't be able to wipe his ass with out his TP giving him back talk. This situation is truly screwed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Americans and the members of the Senate and Congress are not prepared for the time and monetary investment that the military would require in order to make things work there. This is how the General chose to voice that opinion, as stupid as possible for him to do. I've been a long-time supporter of my country's (Canada) investment in Afghanistan, I was calling for more troops there instead of Iraq after 9/11. But now? s**t or get off the pot, if you're going to fix it, do so, otherwise just get the hell out and let it revert to the s**t-hole it has been for a thousand years.
Everyone wants to blame Obama for the Afghanistan situation, but I'm not sure what exactly he can do when most of the country wants the soldiers out. They really need to scale back and redefine the mission ASAP instead of trying to keep pretending they're going to stick it out when they're really not going to.
And yes, it's basically the fault of a good chunk of Americans on both sides of the aisle that the situation is as it is. Your politics are asinine.
A tale of two stories:
hates his job and resigns = coward
hates his job, tells off the f_ing dems first, flies first class outta the desert, visits the Pentagon, makes front page of digg.com, resigns = GOP 2012 Presidential Nominee War Hero, book deal, TV deal (ooooh faux will love him), military retirement on big fat paycheck, and some unlimited access to the Commissarie for some tax free bud light
There are only two quotes in the Rolling Stone article made by McChrystal that are even remotely negative.
"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"
&
"Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it."
All the soundbites people are reacting to were made by advisors and aids. This is a non-story.
to be fair, the aide seems to suggest that the interviewer made the word "biden" sound like "bite me".
here is the full quote with both the general and the aid being qouted:
"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?"
i dugg you up, seeing as how you are in negative diggs and honestly misread something
I didnt misread it. I also addressed the fact that all the juicy soundbites (Bite me....) were made by aids, not McChrystal. If people think a wartime General should be fired for having loudmouth aids, thats fine with me. I made the post because people dont seem to understand that McChrystal himself said nothing bad about the Obama admin.
kufurexJun 22, 2010
Too much yackin' will send you packin'.
skyjis6Jun 23, 2010
you would think a former special operator would know that.
cysailorJun 23, 2010
That's the thing... he had to know this would be the end of his career. So what the heck was he thinking? Somone who makes it to the rank of General does not generally make stupid blunders.
life036Jun 23, 2010
C'mon, the guy's favorite movie is Talladega Nights, and his favorite beer is Bud Light w/ Lime. I'm not convinced he knows much of anything.
hermitninjaJun 23, 2010
It's likely he never imagined he'd have to run an indefinite police action in the middle of nowheresville. He's just had it with being undermined, ignored, deterred, and basically used for political fodder. Even a man with the staunchest of honor, wouldn't want to be a general working for an admin who wants to hamstring the military he presides over. The U.S. is basically occupying this place and he can't fight a real warrior's war. I'd be frustrated enough to let loose a few complaints. He is only human after all.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
skyjis6Jun 23, 2010
as the top General in one of America's toughest insurgencies, you can't afford to let loose complaints like that. we have the Taliban claiming a political victory. it's silly. if you're fed up with the job put your stars on the table. until then you should be acting like a soldier first. save the cult hero for your memoirs
hermitninjaJun 23, 2010
@skyjis6 - i agree with you. The reality is sometimes people don't do the "decorum" stuff, that's all.
thereyagoJun 23, 2010
this guy was completely involved with the Tilman cover up and subsequent lies. Good riddance.
armageddon2012Jun 23, 2010
>> That's the thing... he had to know this would be the end of his career. So what the heck was he thinking? <<
He was thinking that his commander-in-chief is so inept, he was willing to sacrifice his entire career just to speak his mind about Obama (and he voted for Obama too, btw.)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
funklorJun 23, 2010
Yes, he f**ked up. But is it smart to sack your top general over a few stupid words when you're kind of involved in a war?
seltaeb4Jun 23, 2010
Yes, if he can't deliver results and has lost the confidence of the Commander-in-Chief.
This is true for any President.
funklorJun 23, 2010
Except this wasn't about him failing to deliver results. It was over criticism.
revisrevJun 23, 2010
The problem is that he is undermining his Chain of Command. I can't help but feel that this is the way he wanted the cookie to crumble. If he gets a pass on this then everybody under him loses respect for the Civilian authority which leads our Military. This is unacceptable, and he had to have been aware of the position that he put himself and the Civilian authority in.
Having said all of that, I can only imagine the frustration he must be dealing with. America does not have the stomach to win this war. Not with the high cost in blood and treasure and the relatively low strategic value of a victory in Afghanistan. The only reason that it is worth fighting (strategically, there are plenty of moral arguments in both directions) is the high strategic cost of a loss there.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
There is NO winning "this" war.
Afghanistan has always been ruled by tribal warlords nothing is going to change that.
rpgmakrJun 23, 2010
@funklor: He failed to deliver good results. See: any report about the afghan war.
funklorJun 23, 2010
"@funklor: He failed to deliver good results. See: any report about the afghan war."
I don't deny that, I said they weren't what prompted this.
sanmanJun 23, 2010
it's easy to win the war - just redraw the borders over there
the reason the war's been so hard to win, is that the current land is dysfunctional along with its borders
so scrap those worthless borders, and come up with more workable borders, then you'll have a working functioning country that can stand on its own feet without requiring outsiders to prop it up
theinformerJun 23, 2010
I don't care for Obama's policies myself, but General McQuitstal should keep his opinion to himself while still on active duty.
davidg11Jun 23, 2010
No he doesn't. f**k that. If you can't engage a war because Obama people change the rules of engagement on a constant basis....f**k that.
Soldier's lives come before Obama and his hurt feelings. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pierrelourensJun 23, 2010
@davidg11:
Much of Obama's policy in Afghanistan has been shaped by the advice of McChrystal and other top aides.
Read: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/world/asia/23mcchrystal.html?pagewanted=1&hp
revisrevJun 23, 2010
David, the president is asking the General to jump out a building, then stop halfway down. This is true, and I understand the frustrated empathy that you have for the general. This does not excuse a General from undermining the chain of command.
treehugger87Jun 23, 2010
You have a credible source that indicates that the rules of engagement are being changed on a constant basis at the behest of the White House? I would be very interested to read about that. Can you provide a link?
phrawghJun 23, 2010
Perhaps he was planning on leaving anyway and decided to lob a few behind him on the way out.
orubinsteinJun 23, 2010
He only spoke the truth...
The Obama administration is incompetent. They can't do anything right.
overridemymindJun 23, 2010
Doesn't matter. He violated Army Regulations (several of them, actually), and probably a few DoD policies I'm not aware of. It'd be like if I said something bad about my superiors in a public forum -- only, I wouldn't be given the option of resignation, I'd be punished under UCMJ, and likely booted out of the military with a dishonorable discharge. We aren't allowed the same freedoms you civvies have, especially when functioning in an official capacity.
armageddon2012Jun 23, 2010
The executive editor of Rolling Stone gave General McChrystal a chance to back away from some of the quotes he made, so it's not like a got caught making some ill-advised remarks, this was calculated and surely he knew the blowback that would result.
It seems McChrystal (who voted for Obama) was so disillusioned with the commander-in-chief that he was willing to sacrifice his military career to let his feelings about the CIC be known.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bluto36Jun 22, 2010
well thats one way to improve things for the troops.
I'm sure confidence in the CiC is at an all time high now.
therednewtJun 23, 2010
Huh? This guy made a huge mistake. Military leaders simply do not do what he did. It sucks, but this really shouldn't be a surprise.
jokreig1Jun 23, 2010
Yes, a HUGE mistake - he was honest.
nintendesertJun 23, 2010
Opening his mouth was the action he did that was wrong.
elcheeserpuffJun 23, 2010
Let me help you out here Jokreig1. When you are in a position of power and control during a time of war, talking poorly about the Commander in Chief can be detrimental to the morale of the men and women fighting under you (and in turn, fighting under the person you're bashing). A general openly critiquing the Head of State can lead troops to question why they even have to fight in the first place.
That being said, I am sad to see this happening. In my opinion, General McChrystal seemed to have the right idea regarding Afghanistan, in terms of winning the hearts and minds of the people. I almost hope that Obama doesn't accept his resignation, but to be honest, I don't know what the repercussions of that will be.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
@Jokreig1,
If the sitting President was Bush, there would be 100 different versions of this story on the front page, all diggers hailing the General for his Heroics in speaking out..Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
therednewtJun 23, 2010
@Samueul And likewise, those saying he is being wronged would be saying that no one in the the military should speak ill of the president and his administration.
God, isn't partisanship s**tty?
jokreig1Jun 23, 2010
yeah, f**k free speech. it might undermine confidence. im willing to bet that's the argument they use in china for not allowing criticizm of the government.
you people are blindComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
paidhimaJun 23, 2010
Article 88 of the UCMJ:
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
If it were Bush, I would say the same thing. Whether you agree with it or not, a commissioned officer is simply not allowed to publicly ridicule the POTUS. Once he's retired, all bets are off: go wild.
overridemymindJun 23, 2010
Exactly what the guy above me said. Jokreig, you obviously don't know how the military operates. "f**k free speech!" nothing. Servicemembers do not have free speech, plain and simple. Ever hear of "Disrespecting a superior?" That's basically what the General did, not to mention his violation of Article 88 of the UCMJ.
So, in summation, no, we're not blind, you're just ignorant to the workings of the military.
jhw539Jun 23, 2010
Why? The incredible increase in resources the CiC has directed to the long-neglected theater is well known, and Obama has taken considerable flak from the left for giving the military considerable leeway to get the job done, from Bagram interogations to drone assassinations. If the military lacks confidence in this President, I see the fault lying with them.
cysailorJun 23, 2010
President Obama is the Commander in Chief. A failure of the military is a failure of President Obama; this is not something you can spin off responsibility from.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dusanmalJun 23, 2010
In this particular case honest General noted that while CiC was ordering Military to do one thing he, with his own political hand worked against it (actions of Obama's political representative in Afghanistan Amb. Holbrook ). It is CiC incompetence bordering on treason. And for Amb. Holbrook who actively worked against his own USA Military interests - real treason. Yet, the honest working General is one resigning while incompetent CiC and traitor Amb. Holbrook keep on political theater of "pretend war".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
If you served in the military you would know that weather you are a General or a PFC, you are not allowed to contradict the civilian authority. It is the law and we who served were bound by it. It is why we dont have coups.
beratebirthersJun 23, 2010
The military just needs to fear the CiC, not respect him. They now learn that insubordination means termination.
avengingturnipJun 23, 2010
It might be better if Obama accepts his resignation. Then we will lose more quickly and be out of there sooner.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
Yeah, if he had kept on his current pace we would have been out of there in a month.
/s
avengingturnipJun 23, 2010
Maybe you can replace him, Mr. Military Genius?
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
I didn't say I could. Though you implied you want us to lose, which frankly, just isn't f**king cool.
avengingturnipJun 23, 2010
No, I implied that losing is inevitable but McChrystal is more qualified than most to lead the effort and will likely not be defeated as quickly others would be.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
emjaymjJun 23, 2010
If losing is inevitable, what purpose would it even serve to drag it out and waste further resources? If losing is indeed inevitable, anybody truly "qualified" would understand that, and the harm being done by merely delaying defeat.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
imbaackJun 23, 2010
Ever heard of lithium emjyamj?
piratearggghhhJun 23, 2010
Yes, let's hope the guy who's trying to undo 8 years of f**kups resigns.
lormendiJun 23, 2010
Looks like we have a Joe Biden fan.
I can't wait for the next Republican president. Before he even gets sworn in, I'm going to draw a Stalin 'stache on him and photoshop a Swastika armband on him.
Rationality is long gone in the US.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
goldyoshiJun 23, 2010
You mean what all you wingnuts do to Obama?
lormendiJun 24, 2010
Wow, you guys suck at reading. What you said was kinda my point. I guess you guys didn't get past "I cant wait for the next Republican president...."
anomaly100Jun 23, 2010
The Rolling Stone article was overkill. The President, love him or hate him, is his Commander In Chief. That wasn't the best way to handle things.
armageddon2012Jun 23, 2010
No way does a career military man who rises to the rank of General and then top commander in Afghanistan, no way does this guy not know he was not guilty of insubordination here. This had to be a calculated decision on his part that not speaking out and holding his peace on Obama (a man he voted for) would do more harm to the country than the consequences of a top commanding General acting in insubordination to the CiC.
That is a real heavy choice he made to speak out like that.
nullzeroJun 24, 2010
Talking s**t is not insubordination, its talking s**t. Going against a direct order is insubordination.
niradgJun 23, 2010
not sure why this story that is everywhere is getting the most diggs from some no-name talk radio station.
homercles337Jun 23, 2010
Look at the submitter, im certain this is a right-wing, hate radio outlet. No doubt this is their first honest reporting all month.
zunipusJun 23, 2010
CNN were the first to post this report at about 5 pm, not this radio station. But CNN too were citing 'sources'. Clearly there has been no formal announcement, just leaks.
seltaeb4Jun 23, 2010
Do you really have to ask?
[Attack of the Freepers]
gasclownJun 23, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
zunipusJun 23, 2010
Historically there is no way to 'win' Afghanistan. It was never a consolidated country in the first place, even under the Taliban. Expect it to remain tribal on into the future.
bobosmitorJun 23, 2010
I am not sure if someone who speaks the truth, harsh as it is, should have to resign.
subductionJun 23, 2010
Openly mocking the Vice President, openly mocking our allies, and publically criticizing your commander over personal issues, not even command or policy, in a military command structure will get you fired.
I don't care which side of the political spectrum you're on, even if you agree with every word he said you still know he has to go.
mirunitJun 23, 2010
Every General does this, it's just like in Business or Politics. The problem was, he let a reporter hear it.
subductionJun 23, 2010
Not just every General, every soldier gripes. It's part of the culture. It's the only way they keep their head on straight. You can even gripe to commanding officers.
But this was a huge mistake, and there's only one direction he's going...
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
talk s**t about your boss and see if you have a job the next day.
treehugger87Jun 23, 2010
That would be fine if he was a whistle-blower exposing corruption or incompetence, but from what I have read, McChrystal was simply airing his opinion on the disposition of the President and Vice President. Hardly someone to admire because he "speaks the truth"
badtzmartinJun 23, 2010
Doesn't it bother anyone that this article cites ZERO sources?
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
If sources mattered to people most of the media outlets would be out of business by now.
random12345Jun 23, 2010
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-22/mcchrystal-offers-resignation-after-disparaging-remarks-on-afghanistan-war.html
badtzmartinJun 23, 2010
Thank you.
deakerJun 23, 2010
I am not sure that it is too much different from the current trend of stating "the source, who wishes to remain anonymous discussing a personal matter."
Honestly, how is that more of a source then just stating 'an anonymous source.' I know it is a result of a situation a few years ago w/anonymous sources, but they are still anonymous. They just now have a 'reason.' There is no change other an a few more words per article.
This article didn't even state any source, but I guess my point is that how is that much different than the 'anonymous' quoted source who no one can verify?
paultripJun 23, 2010
the reporter was with the team for 2 months...read.
badtzmartinJun 23, 2010
You're talking about the reporter that wrote the Rolling Stone article. This is in reference to a different article. Read.
winklemanJun 23, 2010
The resignation was sorta expected, IMO.
korvan504521Jun 23, 2010
if you're badmouthing your boss in public, good things are not likely to come down from on top.
seltaeb4Jun 23, 2010
General McChrystal is only pre-emptively resigning in the hopes that he'll get to keep his job. He's trying to change the focus here. He's hoping that President Obama will save his ass by refusing the resignation.
Like any General worth his salt, he's a master of strategy. It's a Hail Mary, but it's all he's got if he wants to remain in command.
No one gives up power like that voluntarily.
amaoicanJun 23, 2010
"He submitted his resignation" is often code for "He got fired".
emjaymjJun 23, 2010
The fact that a "master of strategy" did what he did has me seriously reconsidering whether or not that's even an accurate thing to call him.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
When I first heard about the story my thought was : "WTF is our top general in Afghanistan doing giving access and time to Rolling Stone?" Maybe it was some new pr strategy, but I think ... I STILL think it was just plain stupid.
subductionJun 23, 2010
How exactly does that factor in? Rolling Stone has a long history of reputable journalism, and Michael Hastings has an especially excellent reputation.
What are you implying?
tonicksJun 23, 2010
Get a haircut.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
I'm implying that our top General in Afghanistan shouldn't be giving an interview to Rolling Stone in my opinion. I'm not just implying it...I'm saying it.
subductionJun 23, 2010
Oh crap, I didn't notice it was you or I wouldn't even have bothered.
But, (he says, preparing himself for the non-stop stupidity that is a quirkopatra thread) what I was asking was, of course, what are you implying about Rolling Stone when you say he should not have been giving an interview to them?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hermitninjaJun 23, 2010
Maybe this was his way of "getting out". He may have simply lost it or hope or both.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
Hey...thanks for the personal insult subduction. It just suits you guys to constantly do that.
We are at war. He is our top general. I do not think that Rolling Stone is the proper venue for our top General to allow access. Rolling Stone has some content I enjoy...but this is a general at war.
You may love this journalist...I don't know much ABOUT the journalist, but he has probably secured fame due to the controversy surrounding this story. I would also think it was inappropriate for McChrystal to travel with Entertainment Weekly. Or Variety. Or Billboard. Or TV Guide.
subductionJun 23, 2010
C'mon quirkopatra, you and I both know what you're saying here and why...I've been watching Fox News today.
You're parroting exactly what they're saying on Fox News -- but they haven't been telling you why, so you don't know why. You just keep repeating the same point over and over. Once Fox News explains themselves you will explain yourself as though you thought of it.
Of course you don't know much about the journalist, because Fox News hasn't told you and you're too lazy to look it up. You also don't know the history of serious investigative journalism in Rolling Stone because Fox News hasn't told you and you're too lazy to look it up.
This is why, when I see a thread of yours, I usually ignore it. Not because I disagree with you, but because you're just so painfully lazy when it comes to learning that it isn't even worth bothering.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
WTF? I haven't seen anything about this on Fox News. My thoughts on this are mine. I explained to you what I thought...and why I think it.
If you cannot read what I wrote and understand my reasoning, that is your problem.
And again...with the personal insults. I'm thinking that you might be projecting.
jdenzerJun 23, 2010
To be fair I think that quirkopatra was making the point that Gen. McChrystal should have know better. He should have known that Rolling Stone would publish anything he said and not edit or censor it. Unlike a Conservative magazine that would have not published it, if it were a Republican President. Imagine if this were one of Bush's Generals, do you think The Weekly Standard or The National Review were ever publish this? Which presents another interesting point. If the right considers Rolling Stone to be part of the MSM in the tank for Pres. Obama, then why would they ever publish an article that would be trouble for the President? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
I don't know that this is trouble for the president. I think it's trouble for McChrystal. And it's the last thing the man in charge of Afghanistan needs at this time. I don't blame Rolling Stone...this journalist got his story. I just do not believe Rolling Stone is the right forum for our top General (under considerable stress) at a time of war.
subductionJun 23, 2010
Again, no support for your point on why Rolling Stone is different from all other magazines and Michael Hastings should not be respected as a journalist.
I'll watch Fox tomorrow -- if they make the point then I'll rush back here so you can elaborate on "your" opinions.
And am I intellectually superior to you? Well, as long as you're repeating what other people said, rather than forming original ideas that you can actually have an intelligent discussion on, we'll never know.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
Damn Subduction, what's your malfunction?
She said "I would also think it was inappropriate for McChrystal to travel with Entertainment Weekly. Or Variety. Or Billboard. Or TV Guide."
What part of this is so hard to understand?
She's against ANY General doing PR stunts during a "war".
subductionJun 23, 2010
No Minarchian, "no PR" is not what she is saying.
Her choice's: Entertainment Weekly, Variety, Billboard and TV Guide were not to make a general point about no PR -- you'll notice that Time or Newsweek or the Wall Street Journal were not on the list.
The point Fox News has been trying to further all day is that Rolling Stone is a profoundly *unserious* venue for a general to be speaking with, on journalistic par with Entertainment Weekly, and that this controversy is somehow the fault of the amateur reporting rather than what actually came out of the General and his staff's mouths. That is simply not the case, and is certainly not true with Michael Hastings. Both the magazine and the reporter have excellent records in serious journalism.
I'm not guessing here, I've been watching Fox News and this is the exact line they've been promoting all day -- "Well, this is what happens when you talk to *Rolling Stone*." "This is why the Army shouldn't them talk to *just anybody*." "Well, what did they expect? It's *Rolling Stone*"
It's a defense. It's an organized attempt by Fox and their parrots to try to reduce the credibility of the news source.
So Minarchian, while I can't speak to your "lunatic" credentials, you have definitely missed the point she is trying to parrot here, and you are definitely overlooking what's going on.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
I know one thing.
You're one of those who won't let s**t go.
You seem to be saying that people can't have their own opinions if those opinions happed to agree with some news source you detest...whether the person was aware of it or not. And you seem to be saying that once made aware of it that person must change their opinion.
Hell, I agree with a lot of s**t that the leftists believe in and I'm a Minarchist. Maybe now I should change my opinions?
Man...do you not see how far out there that is?
subductionJun 23, 2010
Honestly Minarchian, I don't know who you are or what you believe in, or care, nor am I curious as to what you believe your leftist cred is.
I was having a discussion, albeit a pointless one, with quirkopatra, over what she meant and what she was saying, and the "coincidence" that it was a word-for-word rehashing of the line being distribute by the right-wing media.
I'm not sure why you have decided this is the moment to jump in and try to talk about yourself.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
When I saw you going after her over and over again without realizing your own position didn't hold water I jumped in.
But its become clear to me that your real intention is to have the last say. It's called narcissism.
So have at it.
overridemymindJun 23, 2010
@Subduction:
What, do you want her to list EVERY media outlet on the planet? Her point had nothing to do with Fox News' statements on the subject. Where'd you pull THAT out of your ass? What she's very clearly saying, and something I completely agree with, is that the General should be focusing on the damn war. What the HELL was he doing giving an interview with Rolling Stone (or any other magazine or news outlet, you douchenozzle) when we have people DYING out there?
subductionJun 23, 2010
C'mon overridemymind, the choice of light entertainment and television magazines was not a random list in a discussion that went specifically to the credibility of the news outlet.
"I don't think he should be talking to Rolling Stone any more than he should be talking to Teen Beat or Hustler," makes a very different point than the sentence "I don't think he should be talking to Rolling Stone any more than he should be talking to The Nation or The Wall Street Journal."
Am I really down to having to explain how the English language works? This is really getting silly and exactly why I usually don't even get involved in quirkopatra threads, one wacko really brings out all the other ones.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
subductionJun 23, 2010
@Minarchian:
That's funny -- your posts have spent more time declaiming what you believe and the philosophical traditions to which you align yourself and the origins of your username and who you think you are and what I should believe about you than even dealing with the substance of the discussion.
It's not too surprising that narcissism should be right on the tip of your tongue.
But please, tell me more about Minarchian! What's Minarchian's favorite color? Is Minarchian a cat or a dog person?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
overridemymindJun 23, 2010
Um, considering the fact that I have a very high-level understanding of the English language and how it works, I'll thank you to cease your pretentious douchebaggery. At any rate, if you're too foolish to comprehend what she meant via the context of her comment, I doubt you should be lecturing anyone on their understanding of the language. The core point, which, in my opinion, any infant could see, is that General McChrystal has a war to run - a 9-year-and-counting war to run. People are dying, and the man in charge is taking out time to do interviews with, as you pointed out, an entertainment magazine. In my opinion, he shouldn't be taking time out for interviews at all. That's what the man has aides for.
Also, if you read my comment history, you'll find that quirk and I have had more than a few heated discussions -- I don't agree with her on many subjects. However, on this one, she has a very clear, and very logical point.
What bothers, and even confuses, me is that you're so "gung-ho" about disagreeing with quirk that you're arguing semantics, and have been for several hours.
One wacko, indeed.
subductionJun 23, 2010
Well overridemymind, between "douchebaggery" and "douchenozzle" your understanding of the English language seems somewhat skewed towards douche and douche-related products, but I suppose we all have to have hobbies.
>>The core point...is that General McChrystal has a war to run - a 9-year-and-counting war to run.
That is a very good point, and a point I agree with. The only problem is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the point she was making or that is under discussion. I also believe Twinkies could and should be made with healthier ingredients, which is another very good point that has nothing to do with this discussion.
>>>do interviews with, as you pointed out, an entertainment magazine
Uh oh, your claims about understanding the English language are beginning to falter. I *never* pointed out that it was an entertainment magazine. In fact, I was making exactly the opposite point, that quirkopatra and Fox news have been trying to ignore Rolling Stone's history of serious journalism in an attempt to impugn the source and therefore discount the accuracy of the statements, which is offensive to any thinking person. Well, except, apparently a few.
Perhaps I should put it in some douche-related context next time to keep you engaged.
>>>What bothers, and even confuses, me is that you're so "gung-ho" about disagreeing with quirk that you're arguing semantics, and have been for several hours.
Well..."semantics" being the study of what words actually mean, yes, I am arguing the semantics of what people like quirkopatra and Fox News really are trying to say when they make those statements. It's an important debate because this is exactly how the radical right frame their arguments in public forums.
If we can can't defend his statements then we'll go after the source and imply, even though it isn't true, that it is somehow unreliable. That kind of anti-intellectualism on either side of the political spectrum seriously doesn't offend you?
You don't think it's worth me staying and standing up against people being intentionally disingenuous in order to smear credible people? Fine, then I guess you and I do have different standards than you. At least it's a little more interesting talking with you than talking to Minarchian about what he finds impressive about himself.
And anyway, why does it bother you -- did we have somewhere to be?
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
korvan504521Jun 23, 2010
Most likely they are comments he was making to other people, not to rolling stone.
subductionJun 23, 2010
Says someone who has clearly not read *any* article, much less the one under discussion.
korvan504521Jun 23, 2010
I read the attached article, it was very uninformative. I don't read rolling stone, do they honestly go around interviewing soldiers in foreign countries?
""
In the article, McChrystal and several aides are quoted making very critical and unflattering comments about Obama and several members of the administration including Vice President Biden.
""
It doesn't say that they made them to rolling stone, it says they're being quoted. I'm surprised someone could be so dumb as to make negative comments about one's boss to a magazine and yet be promoted to General.
subductionJun 23, 2010
Why would you just bother typing things that are wild speculations you're having from your laptop when you can actually read the primary source right online, using the same machine you're using to speculate from?
"Most likely the Iliad is about Odysseus fighting the Eskimos in the 1800s."
"Most likely a recipe for lemon chicken includes gasoline."
"Most likely Lady Gaga carved Mount Rushmore before single-handedly fighting Odysseus and the Eskimos in the 1800s."
Lazy. Just lazy.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jdenzerJun 23, 2010
Wrong, Rolling Stone reporter had made it clear when the General was on and off the record. The General also allowed Rolling Stone reporter to be with them for a month, not some 1hr sit down interview. The General was well aware that what ever he said would be in the article. It was not like the reporter was hiding behind a wall and secretly listening to the General.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
avengingturnipJun 23, 2010
I have a hard time believing that Gen. McChrystal would have made the decision to give so much access to a reporter from any magazine without approval from higher up. This may have been a PR moved conceived possibly even in the White house that backfired. Public opinion is turning against the war and someone might have thought that putting Rolling Stone close to the action would help it gain support.
ireneattoliaJun 24, 2010
@avengingturnip: Yeah, it was a PR move. I don't think it backfired though.
==
@emjaymj: If losing is inevitable, what purpose would it even serve to drag it out and waste further resources? If losing is indeed inevitable, anybody truly "qualified" would understand that, and the harm being done by merely delaying defeat.
["Truly qualified" -- erm, like McChrystal, you mean?]
@avengingturnip: It might be better if Obama accepts his resignation. Then we will lose more quickly and be out of there sooner.... Losing is inevitable, but McChrystal is more qualified than most to lead the effort and will likely not be defeated as quickly others would be.
[yep]
@Armageddon2012: No way does a career military man who rises to the rank of General and then top commander in Afghanistan, no way does this guy not know he was not guilty of insubordination here. This had to be a calculated decision on his part that not speaking out and holding his peace on Obama (a man he voted for) would do more harm to the country than the consequences of a top commanding General acting in insubordination to the CiC. That is a real heavy choice he made to speak out like that.
[As elsewhere stated, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one." I think this was true patriotism in action. There really is no other explanation. Think about it. McChrystal's approach was one designed to cut losses. This was his personal, maximum effort to cut America's overall loses. Good luck storming the castle, boys. Think it will work? It'll take a miracle.]
Some day the swords will become plowshares. I hope.
ireneattoliaJun 24, 2010
@avengingturnip: Public opinion is turning against the war
==
Yes, public opinion is turning against the war. Moreso, the war is turning against America. In the vernacular, we are losing. Under what terms do we cut our losses?
America has a headache from trying to run the world.
phrawghJun 23, 2010
I bet it will be a cold day in hell before another commander even pisses in the direction of a Rolling Stone reporter.
gotmoobsJun 23, 2010
When someone speaks up, he must be put down quick, according to Obama. Anything not to let the truth out. Anything to keep us Americans having a rosey picture.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rujtuJun 23, 2010
I'm calling you out. Defend your position.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
Plenty of generals have been asked to resign or been fired for bad mouthing other administrations and their staffs. Nothing unusual here.
dougchristianJun 23, 2010
He didn't voice disagreement with policy, he just insulted our political and military leaders and our allies. There's a huge f**king difference. When this same General clashed with Obama earlier saying he needed even more troops than the huge surge Obama was proposing, he wasn't fired. And Obama hasn't even accepted the resignation yet. There's a decent chance he won't. Your post makes no sense. It was Bush who immediately fired anyone who expressed a different opinion.
gotmoobsJun 23, 2010
wow good job, you have to bring Bush into everything. Libby lefty here, no reason to even argue, you have only your kool aid and ear plugs.
chuckdeesJun 23, 2010
Well gotmoobs, DougChristian is pointing out that Bush did fire several generals for speaking out against his policies. Obama hasn't fired anyone. So your initial comment to which all these replies are based on is faulty. Prove Obama fires generals or anyone for speaking out against his policies.
Also I can't count how many times a right wingers used Clinton as an excuse for a Bush failure. Hey guess what Reagan blamed a lot of his failures on Carter. Seems to be a trend huh?
gotmoobsJun 23, 2010
Yea, there is a trend, repub, dem, everyone blames everyone. Obama has not been in office long enough, Bush was in office 8 yrs. HUGEE difference. Watch, comment on this in a few days and we will see. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smacksawJun 23, 2010
GotMoobs, that's a hell of a way to admit you're wrong.
magus_melchiorJun 23, 2010
@DougChristian: It wasn't just generals, Bush's staff fired US Attorneys for not prosecuting Democrats.
dougchristianJun 23, 2010
Anyone want to get really depressed about the future of this country? Wait and see what these f**kers say when Obama decides NOT to fire McChrystal.
gotmoobsJun 23, 2010
But amid the well-documented tensions with his U.S. civilian counterparts, McChrystal over the last year has quietly forged what might be the closest relationship any senior American official has had with President Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's mercurial leader. Reports of Holbrooke and Vice President Joe Biden shouting at Karzai on separate occasions offended the cultural sensibilities of many Afghans, particularly Karzai's fellow Pashtuns.
"I think he cares about whether we Afghans live or die," said Khalil Jalalai, a businessman who lost a son to a suicide bombing last year. "With the Americans, sometimes that kind of thinking gets lost." He sees his wife fewer than 30 days a year and marked their 33rd wedding anniversary with her at an Irish pub in Paris, along with his inner circle from Afghanistan, many of whom end up very drunk.
McChrystal has a reputation for saying and thinking what other military leaders are afraid to, one of the reasons cited for his current appointment, which he assumed on June 15, 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal
This is a man that has been in the service since 1976. This man loves nothing more then his country, his people, and the culture of the armed forces. Above that, the locals respect this man, and have a bond with him. We have people that have no exp running things in Washington. Its a shame that this man has to resign a great career for speaking what he believes.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-general-20100623,0,262238.storyComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rujtuJun 23, 2010
He's a soldier. It doesn't god damned matter what he believes publicly. If he has a problem with the president, that needs to be brought up in private. As far as the wider world is concerned, he has no opinion other than the president's opinion. If you take that discipline out of the armed forces, everything falls to s**t. He's been around long enough to fully understand that. There is a very big difference between constructive criticism and angry ranting. At the end of the day, our president is the president. This is still a democratic nation of majority rule, whether you like the majority opinion or not.
akamurphJun 23, 2010
Yet I bet the guy above me applauded when everyone went s**t-crazy and were up in arms about Bush and Iraq... Even those soldiers who didn't want to go to Iraq eh Rujtu?
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rujtuJun 23, 2010
Actually, akamurph, no. I felt sorry for the soldiers in our volunteer military who chose to sign up, but didn't want to go to Iraq, but I didn't approve of the way some of those men chose to react to their circumstances. They made a choice, and they had to live with it. I found some of their behaviour to be dishonorable. So, no, I didn't applaud or support a single one of them.
Also, unfortunately, the people who should have gone s**t-crazy and gotten up in arms over Iraq didn't. The democrats and the media, the two groups I would have expected to hold Bush's ass to the fire over the rationale for Iraq just went along for the ride for a looooong time.
I didn't like Iraq. That had nothing to do with my political leanings. It was just a invalid war. But I can say that publicly. I'm a civilian.
ireneattoliaJun 24, 2010
@gotmoobs: Agreed.
Note the comment: "the fiction that we actually have allies." SIGNIFICANT.
From the Stone's article:
'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.
zunipusJun 23, 2010
"Anything not to let the truth out."
After 8 years of exactly that from the Bush League, you're going to toss bulls**t at Obama for giving this very childish general a talking to. You clearly haven't bothered to go read the truth yourself. Exactly what McChrystal and his aides said in front of Rolling Stone is published all over the Internet. Read it and feel ashamed of the pettiness of this general. At the very least he should have kept his childish mouth shut to the press.
Let's be clear here: McChrystal shot himself in the foot. Turning this into another Bash Obama propaganda ritual is desperate. Go change your own diapers.
spacem00seJun 23, 2010
Lots of Generals spoke out against Bush .... but they were all retired.
notachickenhawkJun 23, 2010
Unbelievable. I guess you weren't counting as Bush fired or forced into retirement several generals who dared to voice an opinion contrary to his own. While all that was happening, Neocons and Republicans were touting the chain of command and how wrong those generals were to question Bush Almighty, even though they hid it under the guise of Bush The Commander-In-Chief. Well, now Obama is Commander-In-Chief and the same rules apply. Suck it, hypocritical right wing asshats.
jdenzerJun 23, 2010
Insulting the Pres, Vice Pres and their administration is not telling the truth. You and I can bitch about the President from sun up to sundown, but Generals are not put in a position so they can do that and you know it. The right always made it a point that it was wrong to criticize the President during war time. Now your are telling us that it is ok to do that and from a General no less?
chriskzooJun 23, 2010
Don't worry, the Relaxer-in-Chief has this covered.
subductionJun 23, 2010
What? How does Bush factor into this?
zunipusJun 23, 2010
Odd isn't it how GW Bush was the President who spent the most time on vacation of any in history. Therefore, the propaganda wing of the Neo-Con-Jobs flips reality on its head. Desperate bulls**t as usual.
smacksawJun 23, 2010
Ah, that's funny. Like when Obama got criticised for golfing this weekend while the oil spill was happening?
Reminds me of Bush saying "Now watch me hit this shot" when he played golf...good times, good times.
jaxcsJun 23, 2010
20 billion in escrow says he earned his game. Bush, not so much. bad times, bad times.
rdldr1Jun 23, 2010
At the very least, Gen. McChrystal is guilty of insubordination.
hermitninjaJun 23, 2010
more like at most... it's not treason
theswashbucklerJun 23, 2010
Not insubordination, "contempt towards officials", Article 88 of the UCMJ.
davidnivenJun 23, 2010
All defiance against the Obamessiah must be dealt with harshly. Now, resign and kiss his Nobel Prize.
u2canfailJun 23, 2010
In the military, President Obama is Commander in Chief, that puts him over McChrystal. Order in the military is based on an absolute organization set. Article 88 UCMJ Your politics are irrelivant, as a General. "W" dismissed several Generals, a President gets to do that. Obama is President.
ireneattoliaJun 24, 2010
@DavidNiven - haha.
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA): "If the standard for resignation was a YouTube moment or an inappropriate statement, wouldn't you think the vice president would be handing in his letters twice a week?"
frccJun 23, 2010
Time to "reset", "reorganize", "refresh" and other such buzzwords that means another 10 years of occupation.
vegetablelambJun 23, 2010
We can be the new Soviets!
maynardjkJun 23, 2010
We're definitely heading down the same path economically.
slipperyottterJun 23, 2010
and socially
socialistmediaJun 23, 2010
and economically
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
What could go wrong!
ireneattoliaJun 24, 2010
ACK! Oh, ow, the logic! ~my ears! I'm not listening....
http://tinyurl.com/36qp5g3
jordanmcJun 23, 2010
What was this guy thinking?
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
He was thinking "My superiors are not supporting my decisions and are constantly trying to undermine me, I need to get the f**k out of here..."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Jun 23, 2010
I haven't heard anything to indicate that McChrystal's decisions were being undermined in any way. Do you have a citation for that, because if there is some evidence I would genuinely be interested in reading it. Thanks
danconiaJun 23, 2010
He'll be glad he left in a year when we start scaling down and the tribes start fighting for control of the leftovers.
zunipusJun 23, 2010
Inevitable. No one rules Afghanistan. Read its history.
danieltttJun 23, 2010
Finally at last; obama can maybe get a lawyer in there to really put a kibosh on the Taliban's reign of terror.
youareretardedJun 23, 2010
I think he would get an oil guy in there wouldn't you?
/s
hermitninjaJun 23, 2010
and S.W.A.T.
mugichaJun 23, 2010
Great now he can retire and become a Fox News analyst.
vegetablelambJun 23, 2010
he seems to have the prerequisite of an abysmal lack of common sense
zenmojoJun 23, 2010
But he hasn't committed an act of treason by selling arms to enemy countries yet.
lormendiJun 23, 2010
And/or smuggling cocaine.
armageddon2012Jun 23, 2010
You do know he voted for Obama, right?
scy1192Jun 23, 2010
Why do people resign over trivial things like this and not things like not doing their job properly?
kibblesnbittsJun 23, 2010
Insubordination.
rain12913Jun 23, 2010
I think he's speaking more of insubordination in general, rather than the strict military definition of the term. Broadly, insubordination can be understood as "in opposition to and usually in defiance of established authority" or "failure or refusal to recognize or submit to the authority of a superior."
You could ask pretty much anybody who manages other people and they'll tell you that going to the media and openly badmouthing your superiors is most definitely insubordination.
cysailorJun 23, 2010
Military is under different rules in the UCMJ. Being an active duty soldier means you have fewer rights than the citizens you defend.
untreadatomJun 23, 2010
McChrystal violated Article 88 of the UCMJ. " Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
What McChrystal did falls into that whole not-doing-your-job-properly category.
bloodwineJun 23, 2010
politics
lightinggodJun 24, 2010
Idiot
theswashbucklerJun 23, 2010
This IS not doing his job properly.
keithlolbermannJun 23, 2010
He needs to resign. Criticizing the CIC is never acceptable, especially when the criticisms don't relate to policy or strategy.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
I remember when people repeatedly said this during the Bush Administration....no wait....THEN it was, "Freedom of speech!" "Dissent!" "Patriot!"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mirunitJun 23, 2010
Ha, I totally remember this. Some random LT sending out emails talking trash about GW. There is a double standard, because nobody here voted for Bush.
keithlolbermannJun 23, 2010
It was wrong for that lieutenant to criticize Bush then, and it was wrong for General McChrystal to criticize Obama more recently.
This doesn't have to be a partisan issue. Do you think it helps or hurts the war effort when the commander of the war in Afghanistan criticizes the most senior member of our military? A four-star general knows better than this.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
@quirkopatra: always the first to take any argument and reduce it down to tit for tat.
smacksawJun 23, 2010
Under Bush, if you thought the war was wrong, you were screwed. Legal or not, ethical or not, you're going.
Under Obama, if McChrystal thinks it's wrong, he's allowed to resign. He can critique the war. With Bush, no...you couldn't, really. And a big difference, even many liberals got behind Bush because it was important to show a united front. Conservatives have done nothing but try to de-legitimise Obama's presidency from day 1.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stillhateyouJun 23, 2010
Personally, I think it's a tough call. Certainly, he and his staff weren't behaving at a level appropriate for an officer, but it sounds to me like they were just blowing off steam. A stern reprimand and a genuine public apology are in order, but I don't think resignation is necessary. This isn't on the scale of what Douglas MacArthur did.
armageddon2012Jun 23, 2010
This was all calculated, I'm sure. The executive editor gave him one last chance to recant some of the quotes they were going to run, he was okay with it. That's what's really eye-opening here, there's no way he wasn't aware of the consequences that would come from this article being published, so he must have been so completely disillusioned by the president, that he was willing to sacrifice a life of military service to speak out on the inept clowns who were running the show.
cysailorJun 23, 2010
He spent his entire life as a soldier dedicated to honor and self discipline in a way most people will never understand. To think he spoke out against the CiC without forethought to the consequences is absurd.
I disagree with a general speaking out against the President regardless of how I feel about that President… But I’d like to hear more about this when the general moves into the civilian world and can speak freely.
hermitninjaJun 23, 2010
I can't digg u up enough. Hopefully he isn't severely gagged. I wanna know what he knows for good or for bad. The genesis of this will be juicy stuff.
zunipusJun 23, 2010
"I’d like to hear more about this when the general moves into the civilian world and can speak freely."
The General and his aides publicly expressed childish insults about VP Biden and an administrator.
So you want to hear more baby rants from this General out in the civilian world? He's already shot himself in the foot. So you want him to shoot himself in the head? There are no reasoned opinions here. Just stooopid remarks unworthy of any military officer.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hermitninjaJun 23, 2010
Dude. I don't want baby tantrums anymore than anyone else. But there is an element here i would love to see exposed. I want to see McChrystal's HONEST rationale for making these choices. I mean, what if Hitler's right hand man had suddenly done something that "broke protocol" when he learned he had to orchestrate the genocide of the jews? Might he have been seen as a hero of man if that were a reality? I know I';m being extreme here but the point is, there's a reason he did this. I want to hear it.
socialistmediaJun 23, 2010
Same here. I simply cannot imagine that this man would make such a blunder. If it indeed is an error of judgment, he deserves to be fired simply because the lives of a hundred thousand troops and thirty million civilians rests on his ability to exercise sound judgment. But I don't think that is what this is. We'll find out perhaps, sooner or later.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
NewsFlash! Most of the comments on the foxnews website call for Obama's impeachment over this. Funny that they no longer want to impeach him over Gary Coleman's death even though it was clearly his fault.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
If they believe Obama can personally stop the Gulf oil spill, but chooses not to, then surely he could have saved Coleman's life, but chose not to. It all makes perfect sense now!
indubitablyJun 23, 2010
Rolling Stone magazine? That still exists? Next thing you'll tell me is that SNL is still on the air. :/
nintendesertJun 23, 2010
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100044536/breaking-general-stanley-mcchrystal-tenders-his-resignation/
lunchbox37Jun 23, 2010
I find it odd that this article is from a small radio station which has no sources, but the likes of CNN and NYT aren't running this. And google news isn't picking up any story with this in them...
Granted, this is kind of expected given the situation. Still, it would make sense for this to happen at least after his meeting with Obama tomorrow rather than before it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
subductionJun 23, 2010
WHAT?! Are you with Bin Laden in a cave?
This story is the *only* thing every major news outlet in every medium has been running!
prashant1981Jun 23, 2010
That was on the cards..irresponsible behavior
gsny88Jun 23, 2010
At Obama may be keeping his cool by only saying McChrystal used "poor judgement" at his press conference,
http://www.frequency.com/video/obama-not-too/126360
But you know Rahm Emmanuel is in the background right now crackin' some skulls over this interview!
theinformerJun 23, 2010
Rahm's ready for a "shower" meeting.
henryewingJun 23, 2010
rofl Obama is so f**ked - from all accounts he was not only an extremely exceptional General was also very well liked by the Afghans and his troops. Good luck replacing him Barry. lol Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mirunitJun 23, 2010
The Afghan President actually came out supporting him. It would be bad news if Obama replaces him, because his successor will likley fail and it will be labeled as having happened due to Obama's "vendetta". Obama has to play politics or make it personal, if he accepts the resignation he will of taken it personal and suffer down the road politically.
dirtyfriesJun 23, 2010
Yea, while you sit and laugh that "Obama is so f**ked" you forget the real people who could be f**ked are the troops and the greater populace at large.
It baffles me how you assh**es can reduce everything down to a f**king you vs them attitude, your side vs Obama. This isn't some f**king game, this is people's lives...the thousands who die because of political infighting, insubordination, and a lack of focus.
So yea...laugh at Obama...he's not the one getting his ass shot up.
f**king wingnut morons.
maynardjkJun 23, 2010
"It baffles me how you assh**es can reduce everything down to a f**king you vs them attitude, your side vs Obama."
Oh come on. Don't even act like only one side is overly partisan. This s**t has been going on with both sides for years.
Before you accuse me of being a freeper wingnut, I don't think he should have spoken out to the press either.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dirtyfriesJun 23, 2010
With all due respect, trying to paint one side more than the other isn't really the issue. I'm responding to THIS post...in which case my point is applicable.
Do both sides play the game, of course they do. That's why I didn't say "GOP wingnuts" or "freeper!" or "tea party assh**e" because everyone's guilty.
If you've missed the point I'm making to try to and rebalance the scales, that's your prerogative. That anyone would bury me for stating what's true...that people miss the bigger picture for some cheap political gains (especially when laughing about OUR CiC...who controls OUR troops losing)...well that's just pretty f**ked up.
Thanks for the cheap deflection though.
vegetablelambJun 23, 2010
What kind of traitor gloats over the loss of a commander while his country is at war?
amaoicanJun 23, 2010
The kind that is completely shameless, I suppose.
zunipusJun 23, 2010
No HenryEwing. Dumbass Neo-Con-Job suckers are f**ked. Nice try little troll.
enantiodromiaJun 23, 2010
Already replaced, by we a well admired and respected expert on the War on Terror. Thanks for playing.
dirtyfriesJun 23, 2010
This is not substantiated...gonna have to bury as inaccurate. NO ONE has info about this...no one. Not the AP...nor sources right, left, or center.
Let's wait for better confirmation.
nintendesertJun 23, 2010
This was all his plan to get out of Afghanistan. He couldn't just resign in defeat with a job he couldn't handle, so he said things he knows a person in the military doesn't say. Especially one in his position. So he creates this firestorm and then turns around and offers his resignation. His out. His out of Afghanistan and his responsibility in dealing with it.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
I 100% agree. Nobody with this mans history, clout, or accomplishments would be so foolish as to say something like this.. NOBODY. He wants out of a no win situation and this is it...
hydroponikJun 23, 2010
If he wanted out, he could have retired.
What he did was incredibly stupid.
Closed AccountJun 24, 2010
You think a high profile general in control of the biggest military operation can just retire???
hotleperJun 23, 2010
Actually he wants to stay in Afghanistan forever but Obama and most Americans don't support nation building. So he whines and cries and then resigns. This McChrystal guy is an utter disgrace.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thisisbobJun 23, 2010
This guy is supposed to be running a war and commanding 100,000 troops, yet he hasn't got the brains not to diss his superiors to a reporter from Rolling Stone.
Rolling Stone, for crying out loud.
He should not be fired for insubordination. He should be fired for stupid.
vegetablelambJun 23, 2010
bingo
andrewtheartJun 23, 2010
Comment above says it best;
"This was all his plan to get out of Afghanistan. He couldn't just resign in defeat with a job he couldn't handle, so he said things he knows a person in the military doesn't say. Especially one in his position. So he creates this firestorm and then turns around and offers his resignation. His out. His out of Afghanistan and his responsibility in dealing with it."
slipperyottterJun 23, 2010
i read the article, there doesn't seem to be very much insubordination, or anything that would get you fired at a normal job.
all he implied was that this is a no win scenario, unless we stay there and revamp the afghani culture.
thelakeshowJun 23, 2010
this is utter bulls**t. no confirmation has been made.
200 diggs, front page article, no sources.
lightinggodJun 24, 2010
This is utter what?
bigtacobillJun 23, 2010
If this was a General speaking out against Bush and then resigning, he'd be a hero. He's "General McQuitter" on digg because he spoke out against Obama. What happened to all the Michael Moore "I can be critical and still love America" propaganda? Doesn't apply now that your idiot in chief is in the white house rather than the Republicans'?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jd72277Jun 23, 2010
How can one NOT be critical of either side and still love America? I am not picking a fight and don't want to even put my views out there, but regardless of what you believe I hope you don't think patriotism means going along with the flow at all costs.
reposadoJun 23, 2010
You are so right.
Imagine the awesome PR digg and other liberal sites would give this if a top general in Afghanistan ranted on bush?
This is biased politics at its best.
Before you guys digg me down know Im a independent who voted for Obama and generally votes to the left. And Im dugg down for speaking what everyone knows is the truth.
teebirdJun 23, 2010
You're a bit weak on your history. Go back over the news from the Bush administration and see how many senior generals were fired or forced out for expressing any criticism of the Bush admin policies in Iraq or Afghanistan.
nihilvilleJun 23, 2010
He should have resigned a long time ago. He is an utter failure as a General as the deteriorating mess in Afghanistan proves. Actually, Obama should refuse to let him resign so he has to face what his own incompetence has lead to in that stinking quagmire.
teebirdJun 23, 2010
I wouldn't be too hard on McChrystal. He was put in place to conduct a counter-insurgency campaign. Counter-insurgency requires close co-ordination with the central government but the central government in Afghanistan is weak, riddled with corruption, and has little authority outside of Kabul.
The US is trying to fight an irregular army that can move freely across the border between two states that are both too weak to fully control their territories. And in both countries, the opposing force has more authority over the local population than the state.
McChrystal didn't create that situation and the best generals in the world can't change it.
toastminJun 23, 2010
There's a tendency by the pundit class on both the left and right, depending on who's in power, to call treason when a military policy is threatened. The whole General Betrayus episode and now this years later. "you don't criticize the General and he doesn't criticize the President."
I don't know what makes one person more American or Patriotic than another but some people sell it as absolute fealty to the current military policy. If that's the case, then there's something higher than patriotism, and it's called basic human decency. If McChrystal felt his troops were dying in vain, then I commend him for telling the truth, because there's not enough to go around these days.
ripersnifleJun 23, 2010
Sooooo.....does anyone know what he actually said? You know, what the Rolling Stone article is actually going to say?
Although, the fact that he's resigning BEFORE the article is even published...that says a lot.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thriftyoliveJun 23, 2010
the article is online .. on the rolling stone website and is/has been on digg. Why don't you sit down and let me tell you about this thing called Google ...
zunipusJun 23, 2010
"he's resigning BEFORE the article is even published"
NO. The article was published ON THE INTERNET before McChrystal resigned. That is what this is all about. Big DUH factor. Do your homework before posting.
ripersnifleJun 23, 2010
FTA: "in the aftermath of an article to be published this week in "Rolling Stone" magazine."
Fine. I just thought it was weird that neither the article nor any diggers here posted the link or even quoted the quote or anything.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
davidg11Jun 23, 2010
Obama is tying the hands of McChrystal behind his back
So shut the F up all you "waaaa....he's insubordanate....waaaaaa"
vegetablelambJun 23, 2010
a genius doesn't put his foot in his mouth in an international publication
ireneattoliaJun 24, 2010
yeah. So thinkaboutit.
bracomadarJun 23, 2010
I'm not defending this guy, but this seems like one of those times when people got their priorities f**ked up. A general can send orders that can cost soldiers and innocent civilians their lives, or make a bad situation worse. However, all of that is okay with people. It's only when he says a few off the wall critical comments about the other guys running the war that he is deemed out of line and people demand that he be removed from his duties. It just seems to me that what people say is more important to people nowadays than their actions.
zymophidethJun 23, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
friday1970Jun 23, 2010
Actually, for Obama's sake, Obama should deny the resignation. If he accepts it, then McChrystal is free to say whatever he wants about Obama as a civilian, and something tells me it wont be favorable. This information, is spread, could be seen as embarrassing to the Obama administration, as I'm sure there are things Obama would not want to get out.
As a former USMC devil dog, I still know quite a few other Marines still active, and their thoughts about Obama are not very positive. But, most of these are low ranking NCO's and are not involved with the secretive politics that generals see and must manage. McChrystal would know quite alot about the real reasons for why we are in Afghanistan still, and I'm sure Obama would like to see this kept quiet.
zunipusJun 23, 2010
"I just finished reading the entire rolling stone article . . .
and I didn't see anything in there that McChrystal said about the Obama administration that deserves a resignation letter."
Sad. Here we have a US General making insults worthy of a 5 year old regarding Biden and an administrator in front of the press. And you don't see why he resigned.
(o_0)
theoptimatorJun 23, 2010
The quote you are referring to was made by a top advisor, not McChrystal.
"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?"
yeahwhatever58Jun 23, 2010
Zymo,
I agree with you. I read it too and I didn't see anything that derogatory or insubordinate that was directly said by McChrystal about his commander-in-chief. The worse thing that he said directly himself was when he said "who's that" referring to Biden. Most of everything that was said was said by aides or inner circle people.
revisrevJun 23, 2010
I definitely see the General disparaging the VP and other senior civilian authorities in his chain of command. Clearly, this is an article 88 violation. However, I think the press is making too big a deal about his comments. The comments are more or less in this story to give you some sense of who this guy is, and the fact that he has a healthy distrust of authority. He seems to believe in his mission, and he believes the mission can be accomplished, which is good, because most people don't feel that way. If we are going to have any measure of success it is going to be with him or somebody like him. I hope that if he did submit a letter of resignation it will be rejected.
I think the President and him having a conversation wouldn't hurt anything. Everybody gaffes. After reading this article, I doubt that the General considered that his wise ass comments would make it into print, and I doubt he saw a lot of harm in it. I doubt he really cares too much, but he and everyone else who will matter can probably do a passable job of pretending he's sorry and he learnt his lesson.
This war really needs somebody who sees Afghanistan as their personal responsibility, and this person should probably be the toughest guy you can think of. As far as I can tell that person is the General in charge over there.
By the way, did anybody else who read the article imagine McChrystal smoking a cigarette, saying to Karzai, "We have to push out the Taliban," and Karzai saying, "But I'm le tired..."
paidhimaJun 23, 2010
McChrystal's interview has nothing to do with freedom of speech, squelching opposing viewpoints or any other damn thing. He's a four-star general, he should be fairly familiar with Article 88 of the UCMJ which states pretty clearly that a commissioned officer may not make contemptuous comments about the POTUS, among other officials. There is a time and place to voice his dissent, and it is not in front of the public. The same was true under Bush, and the same is true under any sitting president. I'm sure if one of his subordinates spoke in an interview the same way he did they would be out on their ass, facing court martial, or cleaning toilets for the remainder of their commission/enlistment. Once the officer is retired? Talk to your heart's content.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
McCrystal kind of fell on his sword for the troops here. He must have been sick of seeing things get worse in Afghanistan while Obama and Biden demagogue and pretend like they're totally focused on winning the war when they obviously want to focus on domestic issues. He probably had it back in the fall when Obama dithered for political reasons and ended up giving him less support than he asked for.
Obama isn't on the ground, even if he were, he wouldn't know what to do. There is nothing in his background that has prepared him for this. At a time of two wars, that is dangerous.
Obama thought he could come in and get his agenda done and not have to worry about all that icky war stuff. Now I worry that decisions aren't being made on how to win or what is best for the troops, but what will help him win elections.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nihilvilleJun 23, 2010
More like he was just trying to figure out a clever way to resign since he's been such a failure in Afghanistan.
Obama gave him the 'troop surge' he asked for and the Marjah offensive he banked on was accomplished without diminishing violence or corruption in any meaningful way. This neo con joke of a general would rather take some partisan parting shots at the President and get himself canned than admit what an abject failure he is.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
neo con? He voted for Obama.
And Obama didn't give him the number of troops he asked for. He gave him a politically motivated "compromise" instead.
ireneattoliaJun 24, 2010
[You are so right. Succinct and to the point.]
@georgeboner: McCrystal kind of fell on his sword for the troops here. He must have been sick of seeing things get worse in Afghanistan
seltaeb4Jun 23, 2010
Why are so many here defending the General?
Isn't it supposed to be "Support Our Troops!," and that questioning the motives of or insulting the President or his decisions in time of war was anti-American, and treasonous?
It's not a rhetorical question. I'd like to know.
friday1970Jun 23, 2010
We do support out troops, and this includes McChrystal. Obama is a civilian. A big difference when you use the phrase "support our troops".
Did you feel the same way about Bush, in that questioning his motives was unAmerican? Now, do you feel the same way about Obama?
Sorry, but I had to turn this question around to you.
Also, I'd say this issue has grown to be much larger than it should be. We've got people losing their jobs and livelyhoods in the gulf, and our media is instead focused on the words "bite me".
A better question to ask on the issue is "Is Obama winning or losing the war in Afghanistan, and are our troops being restrained from winning it, if that is our goal. And, what is our goal?"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vegetablelambJun 23, 2010
"Obama is a civilian."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief#United_States
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
Yes, it would be turn-coat behavior no matter who the president is. If he feels he can't do his job properly with what he's got then the honorable thing for the general to do is step down, not go bitching to Rolling Stone. Speaking "truth to power" is an important job, but the general could call Obama and have a face-to-face with him within an hour's notice so really it was cowardly to go to a news-rag. He should have known better.
I think the war in Afghanistan is stupid, being run terribly, and has no end-goal. I thought that when Bush abandoned Afghanistan for Iraq and I think it now when I see how little progress is being made in "America's longest war".
It is about time the media got back to the wars. Yes the gulf and economy are important but the wars have been almost forgotten. The "Bite me" isn't a small thing, it's an indicator of how poorly the wars are going and we at home just don't give a s**t. We bitch about the economy and can't figure out how many billions of dollars are being wasted in Iraq and Iran that could instead be used for recovery here.
enantiodromiaJun 23, 2010
You failed by sentence #2. Sorry.
propethicJun 23, 2010
You don't have to hit enter 10 times before you click the submit button
etubruteJun 23, 2010
It's only treason and anti-American when their party is in office.
jayjaylolJun 23, 2010
This guy was an outlet for the far right anyways. His resignation is sure to save thousands of lives.
zsaviorJun 23, 2010
Let me get this straight: The man who talked Obama into Afghanistan, now resigns and gets to leave Afghanistan while Obama, the troops, and the Country are now all stuck in the war? Hmm I wonder if all the people saying Obama, is weak if he didn't go in there, are now going to attack Chrystal for Just leaving. Just wow, Do people see what he is doing.
How the Hell can he draw up the plan and then just leave when it doesn't go the way you want. This guy is the worse man ever, this is what happens when you turn somebody who is a simple weapon into a leader. This man should have never been in charge of troops.He even covered his ass, by insulting Obama, if Obama keeps Chrystal, he won't be able to wipe his ass with out his TP giving him back talk. This situation is truly screwed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fordsvt1Jun 23, 2010
Americans and the members of the Senate and Congress are not prepared for the time and monetary investment that the military would require in order to make things work there. This is how the General chose to voice that opinion, as stupid as possible for him to do. I've been a long-time supporter of my country's (Canada) investment in Afghanistan, I was calling for more troops there instead of Iraq after 9/11. But now? s**t or get off the pot, if you're going to fix it, do so, otherwise just get the hell out and let it revert to the s**t-hole it has been for a thousand years.
Everyone wants to blame Obama for the Afghanistan situation, but I'm not sure what exactly he can do when most of the country wants the soldiers out. They really need to scale back and redefine the mission ASAP instead of trying to keep pretending they're going to stick it out when they're really not going to.
And yes, it's basically the fault of a good chunk of Americans on both sides of the aisle that the situation is as it is. Your politics are asinine.
shellshock11Jun 23, 2010
Good. Completely inappropriate behavior by the General.
If there isn't respect for command then military order breaks down; he should be resigning.
admiral202Jun 23, 2010
A tale of two stories:
hates his job and resigns = coward
hates his job, tells off the f_ing dems first, flies first class outta the desert, visits the Pentagon, makes front page of digg.com, resigns = GOP 2012 Presidential Nominee War Hero, book deal, TV deal (ooooh faux will love him), military retirement on big fat paycheck, and some unlimited access to the Commissarie for some tax free bud light
guy's a damn genius
theoptimatorJun 23, 2010
There are only two quotes in the Rolling Stone article made by McChrystal that are even remotely negative.
"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"
&
"Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it."
All the soundbites people are reacting to were made by advisors and aids. This is a non-story.
slipperyottterJun 23, 2010
to be fair, the aide seems to suggest that the interviewer made the word "biden" sound like "bite me".
here is the full quote with both the general and the aid being qouted:
"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?"
i dugg you up, seeing as how you are in negative diggs and honestly misread something
theoptimatorJun 23, 2010
I didnt misread it. I also addressed the fact that all the juicy soundbites (Bite me....) were made by aids, not McChrystal. If people think a wartime General should be fired for having loudmouth aids, thats fine with me. I made the post because people dont seem to understand that McChrystal himself said nothing bad about the Obama admin.