Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 He was ordered to mouth off? I guess it's in the realm of possible...just like it's possible that atoms will randomly join to form a pair of size 12 Air Jordan 11s. Or a strand of DNA?
John Adams Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 Or a strand of DNA? Are you saying Jesus made McChrystal question who Biden was?
John Adams Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 Adios McChrystal. Petraeus will replace him. Part of me thinks this is a bad result but if the guy was willing to say what he said and promote an atmosphere where insulting the president was tolerated, he should not be in charge. Not clear what, if anything, McChrystal's next assignment will be. Future talking head on FOX for sure.
Rob's House Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 Not that I fault Obama for giving him the boot, and I don't care to defend G-dub, but I do find it interesting that any General, military official, soldier, or guy who never was a soldier but claimed to be who had anything negative to say about Bush was held up by the media as a courageous hero, but this guy is just tossed out with no fanfare whatsoever.
DC Tom Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 Adios McChrystal. Petraeus will replace him. Part of me thinks this is a bad result but if the guy was willing to say what he said and promote an atmosphere where insulting the president was tolerated, he should not be in charge. Not clear what, if anything, McChrystal's next assignment will be. Future talking head on FOX for sure. Heard a talking head on the radio; they made the point that there's an unwritten rule between the military and the regular reporters that cover them that "jokes" (snarky side comments, cynical remarks, etc.) are always off the record, and the writer for Rolling Stone, it being Rolling Stone, was either unaware or just didn't give a ****, because it's not like he had to maintain an ongoing relationship with his sources. And, conversely, McChrystal and his staff were unaware that the writer was ignorant or apathetic. CNN's already reporting he was "relieved", even though AP broke the story as "his resignation was accepted". McChrystal's going to get his ass dragged through the mud.
John Adams Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 Heard a talking head on the radio; they made the point that there's an unwritten rule between the military and the regular reporters that cover them that "jokes" (snarky side comments, cynical remarks, etc.) are always off the record, and the writer for Rolling Stone, it being Rolling Stone, was either unaware or just didn't give a ****, because it's not like he had to maintain an ongoing relationship with his sources. And, conversely, McChrystal and his staff were unaware that the writer was ignorant or apathetic. CNN's already reporting he was "relieved", even though AP broke the story as "his resignation was accepted". McChrystal's going to get his ass dragged through the mud. Yeah. Something was amiss. Either that writer went off the unwritten rules or McChrystal didn't give a ****. Sounds like the former. If true, I feel sorry for him that he got caught up in it but the result (relieved of duty) is 100% right. We're all human: We know people question and bash their bosses all the time. But the general in charge of Afghanistan needs to be a lot smarter than that...and also shouldn't create an atmosphere that encourages it. It's one thing to complain about lack of support. It's one thing to B word with your fellow generals over some beers. It's another to insult the president in front of your subordinates and a reporter.
IDBillzFan Posted June 23, 2010 Author Posted June 23, 2010 Future talking head on FOX for sure. He's no Megyn Kelly, but I bet he'd make a cool contributor. "Let's bring in General McCrystal for his comments. General, what do you make of the Vice President's comments?" "Well, I think there were a couple of interesting words from Bite Me...I mean Biden..."
IDBillzFan Posted June 23, 2010 Author Posted June 23, 2010 Yeah. Something was amiss. Either that writer went off the unwritten rules or McChrystal didn't give a ****. Sounds like the former. If true, I feel sorry for him that he got caught up in it but the result (relieved of duty) is 100% right. Rolling Stone editor said McCrystal was asked to fact check the quotes in the article, so if true, he knew what was coming. Now, just because he saw it doesn't mean he could get the reporter to take things out, but he could have given his bosses a heads up.
John Adams Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 Rolling Stone editor said McCrystal was asked to fact check the quotes in the article, so if true, he knew what was coming. Now, just because he saw it doesn't mean he could get the reporter to take things out, but he could have given his bosses a heads up. Good detail to note. As I said before, a guy as politically shrewd as McChrystal should know better...or knew exactly what he was doing. Either way, fire him. And get out of Afghanistan and Iraq ASAP. How's the troop drawdown going?
IDBillzFan Posted June 23, 2010 Author Posted June 23, 2010 Good detail to note. As I said before, a guy as politically shrewd as McChrystal should know better...or knew exactly what he was doing. Either way, fire him. And get out of Afghanistan and Iraq ASAP. How's the troop drawdown going? So far so good. According to our president, we're supposed to be out by July 2011. One year away. This is great because it reduces any fighting right now as the enemy sits back and waits for us to leave. Petraeus in charge. A year away from pulling eveyrone out. There's no way this plan can fail now.
John Adams Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 So far so good. According to our president, we're supposed to be out by July 2011. One year away. This is great because it reduces any fighting right now as the enemy sits back and waits for us to leave. I'm not OK with us leaving Iraq/Afghan after !@#$ing it all up and at the same time, I'm fine with it. The lesser of two evils is to get our money and people back. We don't have the money to be spending a trillion dollars every 7-8 years on this unwinnable expedition unless we just start taking the oil for ourselves. Petraeus in charge. A year away from pulling eveyrone out. There's no way this plan can fail now. Plan? Hasn't been one since we started.
IDBillzFan Posted June 23, 2010 Author Posted June 23, 2010 Plan? Hasn't been one since we started. Exactly.
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 So far so good. According to our president, we're supposed to be out by July 2011. One year away. This is great because it reduces any fighting right now as the enemy sits back and waits for us to leave. Petraeus in charge. A year away from pulling eveyrone out. There's no way this plan can fail now. I recall in the Jan 2010 state of the union address he said all combat troops out by August 2010. Same speech he announced his support for off shore drilling in. Looks like the great helmsman is having trouble with his rudder.
....lybob Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 Afghanistan has been making military geniuses frustrated and cranky for thousands of years- maybe China will take a crack at it next, they have about 40 million excess males who have no chance at getting married and raising a family.
DC Tom Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 Afghanistan has been making military geniuses frustrated and cranky for thousands of years- maybe China will take a crack at it next, they have about 40 million excess males who have no chance at getting married and raising a family. Except for Genghis Khan and his "kill everything" approach to peaceful coexistence.
IDBillzFan Posted June 23, 2010 Author Posted June 23, 2010 I recall in the Jan 2010 state of the union address he said all combat troops out by August 2010. Same speech he announced his support for off shore drilling in.Looks like the great helmsman is having trouble with his rudder. He's definitely got his challenges in front of him. In reality, this McCrystal thing is a softball issue. It's Page 12 news tomorrow. Which is good. Because, y'know, there's this oil leak in the Gulf...
DC Tom Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 Yeah. Something was amiss. Either that writer went off the unwritten rules or McChrystal didn't give a ****. Sounds like the former. If true, I feel sorry for him that he got caught up in it but the result (relieved of duty) is 100% right. Yes it is. Although bitching about your CO and above is a cherished tradition in any military, getting caught doing it isn't. We're all human: We know people question and bash their bosses all the time. But the general in charge of Afghanistan needs to be a lot smarter than that...and also shouldn't create an atmosphere that encourages it. It's one thing to complain about lack of support. It's one thing to B word with your fellow generals over some beers. It's another to insult the president in front of your subordinates and a reporter. Biggest surprise in my eyes is that he let his aides say such things to a reporter. THAT was a terribly stupid omission on his part. I don't doubt such banter goes on all the time in most in-theater HQs, but usually everyone has enough sense to keep it within the clique (so to speak), and those that don't deserve a "knock it off, dumbass". That that doesn't seem to have happened shows a surprising lack of discipline within that HQ. I also want to add: insulting the ambassador? Don't give a ****. At all. Ambassador's not in the chain of command. McChrystal could have punched him in the face, for all I care.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 Except for Genghis Khan and his "kill everything" approach to peaceful coexistence. Truly effective. Genghis Khan.....one bad mother-shut-your-mouth!
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 He's definitely got his challenges in front of him. In reality, this McCrystal thing is a softball issue. It's Page 12 news tomorrow. Which is good. Because, y'know, there's this oil leak in the Gulf... This oil leak is driving the media crazy. So many missed days of leading off the "news" with his golf game, how cute his daughters are, or a poll taken in France that shows 20% more frogs now consider the US "more civilized" with BO as president. You know, the big stuff.
OCinBuffalo Posted June 24, 2010 Posted June 24, 2010 Yes,largest army,but couldn't fight? Whatever. Talk about nonsense, they won the war by killing the enemy of freedom. Couldn't march? Sherman's glorious march? They marched pretty well through Georgia Listen to it!! What a great song Couldn't resupply? That's completely wrong, the Union army was VERY well supplied by rail, by wagon and by steamboat Everything you are talking about happened AFTER Gettysburg/Vicksburg. Before that, the Union couldn't win a major battle to save it's life. Lincoln kept demanding that his generals attack, even when it was militarily stupid, and, the incompetent generals he picked had no hope of carrying out those attacks. Sherman? You mean Grant's Western Commander? You mean the guy who didn't fight his way East until 1864? 3+ years after the war started? Same as above. Ever hear of J.E.B Stuart? Yes, there's nothing like supplying your army so well, that you are supplying the enemy too! What a fine example of logistical expertise. Bah, historians agree, Lincoln was simply a bad Commander in Chief. He appointed Grant Lieutenant General because he had no other choice. Meade was a dead stick who got lucky because of Chamberlain and Buford, and he had to kick him upstairs. He would never have appointed Grant otherwise. Here: Grant was #8.(can't believe they left out Vicksburg) This is America, usually you get 3 strikes, not 8. But, all that wasted time in the field did give us baseball...
Recommended Posts