PDA

View Full Version : General McChrystal Will Resign... Slander's Commander-In-Chief's Administration



SteelerEmpire
06-23-2010, 04:40 AM
This guy is history...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/23/general.mcchrystal.obama.apology/index.html?hpt=T1

Washington (CNN) -- America's top military commander in Afghanistan is unlikely to survive the fallout from remarks he made about colleagues in a magazine profile to be published Friday, according to a Pentagon source who has ongoing contacts with the general.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal will likely resign Wednesday, the source said. McChrystal's fate is expected to hinge on a meeting scheduled Wednesday with President Obama, who was "angry" after reading the general's remarks in Rolling Stone.

The "magnitude and graveness" of McChrystal's mistake in conducting the interview for the article were "profound," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said McChrystal had "made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment."

McChrystal apologized Tuesday for the profile, in which he and his staff appear to mock top civilian officials, including the vice president. Two defense officials said the general fired a press aide over the article, set to appear in Friday's edition of Rolling Stone.

"I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened," McChrystal said in a Pentagon statement. "Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard."

McChrystal has been recalled to Washington to explain his actions to the president. He is expected to meet with Obama in the Oval Office on Wednesday, Gibbs said. Gibbs refused to speculate about McChrystal's fate, but told reporters "all options are on the table."

Obama, questioned about McChrystal before a Cabinet meeting Tuesday afternoon, said he had not made a decision.

"I think it's clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed poor judgment, but I also want to make sure that I talk to him directly before I make that final decision," he said.

McChrystal is prepared to resign if the president has lost confidence in him, a national security official told CNN. Most of the Pentagon brass, the official said, hopes he will be upbraided by the commander-in-chief but sent back to continue the mission.

The White House will have more to say after Wednesday's meeting, Gibbs said. He noted, however, that McChrystal did not take part in a teleconference Obama had with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and other top officials on Tuesday.

Several elected officials have strongly criticized McChrystal but deferred to the president on the politically sensitive question of whether the general should keep his position. A couple of key congressmen, however, have openly called for McChrystal's removal.

In the profile, writer Michael Hastings writes that McChrystal and his staff had imagined ways of dismissing Vice President Joe Biden with a one-liner as they prepared for a question-and-answer session in Paris, France, in April. The general had grown tired of questions about Biden since earlier dismissing a counterterrorism strategy the vice president had offered.

"'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?'"

McChrystal does not directly criticize Obama in the article, but Hastings writes that the general and Obama "failed to connect" from the outset. Sources familiar with the meeting said McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the room full of top military officials, according to the article.

Later, McChrystal's first one-on-one meeting with Obama "was a 10-minute photo op," Hastings writes, quoting an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his f---ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss (McChrystal) was disappointed."

The article goes on to paint McChrystal as a man who "has managed to piss off almost everyone with a stake in the conflict," including U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, special representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke and national security adviser Jim Jones.

Of Eikenberry, who railed against McChrystal's strategy in Afghanistan in a cable leaked to The New York Times in January, the general is quoted as saying, "'Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, "I told you so.'"

Hastings writes in the profile that McChrystal has a "special skepticism" for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating Taliban members into Afghan society and the administration's point man for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry, according to the article. 'Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke,' he groans. 'I don't even want to open it.' He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.

"'Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg,' an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail."

Both Democrats and Republicans have been strongly critical of McChrystal in the wake of the story. House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, D-Wisconsin, called McChrystal the latest in a "long list of reckless, renegade generals who haven't seemed to understand that their role is to implement policy, not design it."

McChrystal is "contemptuous" of civilian authority and has demonstrated "a bullheaded refusal to take other people's judgments into consideration."

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, became the first member of the Senate Democratic leadership to call for McChrystal to step down, saying that the remarks were "unbelievably inappropriate and just can't be allowed to stand."

Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin, D-Michigan, deferred to Obama on the question of a possible McChrystal resignation. He said the controversy was sending a message of "confusion" to troops in the field. I think it has "a negative effect" on the war effort, he said.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, urged a cooling off period before a final decision is rendered on the general. My "impression is that all of us would be best served by just backing off and staying cool and calm and not sort of succumbing to the normal Washington twitter about this for the next 24 hours."

Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Jim Webb of Virginia -- also key senators on defense and foreign policy issues -- were each strongly critical of McChrystal's remarks, but noted that the general's future is a decision for Obama to make.

Karzai weighed in from abroad,urging Obama to keep McChrystal as the U.S. commander in Afghanistan. The government in Kabul believes McChrystal is a man of strong integrity who has a strong understanding of the Afghan people and their culture, Karzai spokesman Waheed Omar said.

A U.S. military official said Tuesday that McChrystal has spoken to Biden, Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and other officials referenced in the story, including Holbrooke, Eikenberry and Jones.

An official at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul said Eikenberry and McChrystal "are both fully committed" to Obama's Afghan strategy and are working together to implement the plan. "We have seen the article and General McChrystal has already spoken to it," according to a statement from an embassy official, making reference to McChrystal's apology.

"I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war, and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome," McChrystal said in the closing to his apology.

Rolling Stone executive editor Eric Bates, however, struck a less optimistic tone during an interview with CNN on Tuesday.

The comments made by McChrystal and other top military aides during the interview were "not off-the-cuff remarks," he said. They "knew what they were doing when they granted the access." The story shows "a deep division" and "war within the administration" over strategy in Afghanistan, he contended.

McChrystal and his staff "became aware" that the Rolling Stone article would be controversial before it was published, Hastings said Tuesday. He said he "got word from (McChrystal's) staff ... that there was some concern" about possible fallout from the story.

Obama tapped McChrystal to head the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan in the spring of 2009 shortly after dismissing Gen. David McKiernan.

Killer
06-23-2010, 06:33 AM
Another one under the bus.

You don't talk back to the community organizer.

HometownGal
06-23-2010, 07:26 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE

The Patriot
06-23-2010, 12:05 PM
McChrystal, you're a professional. If a Lieutenant of yours went to Rolling Stone Magazine and called you a clown, do you think you'd keep him around? :hmm:

venom
06-23-2010, 12:31 PM
The Patriot is right . Even if what the General says is true , you cant go to a magazine and say that .

steeldawg
06-23-2010, 12:34 PM
I agree the general was out of line in his interview with rolling stone.

NJarhead
06-23-2010, 01:53 PM
McChrystal, you're a professional. If a Lieutenant of yours went to Rolling Stone Magazine and called you a clown, do you think you'd keep him around? :hmm:

At least he told the truth. Love how Obama went with ever-popular "party x acted stupidly" comment.

Maybe Obama should have resigned instead.

suitanim
06-23-2010, 03:55 PM
There are a lot of interesting aspects to this. First off, Michael Hastings (the guy that wrote this), was supposed to have access to McChrystal for one day. He ended up trapped when the Icelandic volcano erupted and ended up staying in close contact for a month. I absolutely guarantee the General and his staff let their guard down and thought they could trust this reporter. I believe most of these remarks were made over drinks at an Irish Pub. That doesn't excuse it, but does explain how guys who are usually the MOST protective of secrets let their guard down.

This really does knock down the 5th wall about how these guys feel about Barry as CiC. And it's no surprise. Petraeus was the architect of the original policy change and surge strategy in Afghanistan, but McChrystal realized that while the mission was sound, the retardedly short time-line he was given by Obama made this a fool's errand. I'm surprised he showed as much restraint...he could have REALLY hammered Barry on this one. This could perhaps have some upshot, though...if Petraeus can somehow use this change to extend the time-line a bit, it creates a real opportunity for the plan to work in Afghanistan. But not in only one more year. That's ridiculous.

Finally, the speech Obama gave today was a joke. He tried to have it both ways as usual. On one hand, he talked about what a great soldier McChrystal was, and how he was really the best man to get the job done, then tried to say that his firing had nothing to do with the insult in the article. It had EVERYTHING to do with him insulting Hopey McChange.

NJarhead
06-23-2010, 04:12 PM
There are a lot of interesting aspects to this. First off, Michael Hastings (the guy that wrote this), was supposed to have access to McChrystal for one day. He ended up trapped when the Icelandic volcano erupted and ended up staying in close contact for a month. I absolutely guarantee the General and his staff let their guard down and thought they could trust this reporter. I believe most of these remarks were made over drinks at an Irish Pub. That doesn't excuse it, but does explain how guys who are usually the MOST protective of secrets let their guard down.

This really does knock down the 5th wall about how these guys feel about Barry as CiC. And it's no surprise. Petraeus was the architect of the original policy change and surge strategy in Afghanistan, but McChrystal realized that while the mission was sound, the retardedly short time-line he was given by Obama made this a fool's errand. I'm surprised he showed as much restraint...he could have REALLY hammered Barry on this one. This could perhaps have some upshot, though...if Petraeus can somehow use this change to extend the time-line a bit, it creates a real opportunity for the plan to work in Afghanistan. But not in only one more year. That's ridiculous.

Finally, the speech Obama gave today was a joke. He tried to have it both ways as usual. On one hand, he talked about what a great soldier McChrystal was, and how he was really the best man to get the job done, then tried to say that his firing had nothing to do with the insult in the article. It had EVERYTHING to do with him insulting Hopey McChange.

Exactly, but I doubt anyone is surprised.

stillers4me
06-23-2010, 04:19 PM
General McChrystal, in my eyes, you are a true American hero. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/sueincinci/Smileys/th_Pat7.gif?t=1277327889
It's too bad you had to answer to this bunch. :smileystooges:

Mach1
06-23-2010, 04:37 PM
General McChrystal, in my eyes, you a true American hero. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/sueincinci/Smileys/th_Pat7.gif?t=1277327889
It's too bad you had to answer to this bunch. :smileystooges:

Exactly!

The WH
06-23-2010, 05:09 PM
It had EVERYTHING to do with him insulting Hopey McChange.
Is that Steely McBeam's black cousin?

Killer
06-23-2010, 06:07 PM
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama put the fate of the Afghanistan war into the hands of Gen. David Petraeus Wednesday, trying to advance the centerpiece of his foreign policy by turning to the same commander who rescued George W. Bush's Iraq war.

The president made the change of command in Afghanistan after firing Commanding Gen. Stanley McChrystal over disparaging comments the general and his staff made about the White House national security team.

The sword fell less than 48 hours after Mr. Obama read the remarks in an article in Rolling Stone magazine. The general and commander-in-chief held a 30-minute meeting in the White House, where the president accepted his resignation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325211588735010.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

------------------

The doves won't like this.

Petraeus will kick ass and doesn't believe in any timetable to leave.

Godfather
06-23-2010, 06:13 PM
Why doesn't O just say it was because of the Rolling Stone article?

You DO NOT call out your chain of command in public. Everyone knows that.

7SteelGal43
06-23-2010, 06:16 PM
Now the 'leftnuts' have to deal with Petraeus again :couch2::pop2: Time to enjoy the meltdown.

tony hipchest
06-23-2010, 06:24 PM
Why doesn't O just say it was because of the Rolling Stone article?

You DO NOT call out your chain of command in public. Everyone knows that.

why say what is already understood? it was corporate coachspeak at its finest.



Now the 'leftnuts' have to deal with Petraeus again :couch2::pop2: Time to enjoy the meltdown.



be sure to hold your breath while waiting. :wink02:

7SteelGal43
06-23-2010, 07:48 PM
be sure to hold your breath while waiting. :wink02:

Well you know, the way moveon.org nicknamed him General Betrayus and other uber leftnut groups latched on to that nickname and trashed him every chance they got, I'm sure they'll have something to say soon enough. :wink02:

7SteelGal43
06-23-2010, 07:50 PM
General McChrystal, in my eyes, you are a true American hero. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/sueincinci/Smileys/th_Pat7.gif?t=1277327889
It's too bad you had to answer to this bunch. :smileystooges:

I concur :nod:

HometownGal
06-23-2010, 08:27 PM
Well you know, the way moveon.org nicknamed him General Betrayus and other uber leftnut groups latched on to that nickname and trashed him every chance they got, I'm sure they'll have something to say soon enough. :wink02:

Damned straight they will. :drink:

Another copycat move by the Doofus-In-Chief. If I didn't know better, I'd swear Bush was still in office and stayed in the tanning bed way too long. :heh:

tony hipchest
06-23-2010, 08:44 PM
If I didn't know better, I'd swear Bush was still in office and stayed in the tanning bed way too long. :heh:then you should be happy.

as far as what moveon.org will say... bung and brown fans will be calling ben rapistberger. people shouldnt let it get to them.

suitanim
06-23-2010, 10:12 PM
When I read a thread like this, I seriously question the ability of many posters on this board to even actually grasp what this issue is all about.

The Patriot
06-23-2010, 11:32 PM
When I read a thread like this, I seriously question the ability of many posters on this board to even actually grasp what this issue is all about.

...

Another conspiracy?

7SteelGal43
06-24-2010, 09:40 AM
then you should be happy.

as far as what moveon.org will say... bung and brown fans will be calling ben rapistberger. people shouldnt let it get to them.

What they say isn't gonna bother me in the least. In fact, I think it's funny as hell to think of them seething knowing that Obama put Petraeus in charge of Afghanastan.

Mach1
06-24-2010, 10:42 AM
What they say isn't gonna bother me in the least. In fact, I think it's funny as hell to think of them seething knowing that Obama put Petraeus in charge of Afghanastan.

Especially after "I vote present" sen. obaaama blasted him in 2007 about how the surge didn't work.

suitanim
06-24-2010, 11:11 AM
Word is, Petraeus thinks Obama's time-line for troop drawdowns sucks monkey balls, and he ain't doin' it. McChrystal was one thing, but Petraeus is another. Obama tries to sack him, and he's going to have problems.

Hindes204
06-24-2010, 11:31 AM
Word is, Petraeus thinks Obama's time-line for troop drawdowns sucks monkey balls, and he ain't doin' it. McChrystal was one thing, but Petraeus is another. Obama tries to sack him, and he's going to have problems.

I agree.

politically, this was ingenius. Appoint a guy that everyone knows, a guy that knows what needs to be done to win. I'm confused a little though, because Obama and all his cronies hate this guy and have opposite views on how this war should go. It'll be interestin to see what happens when Gen. Petraeus wants to do things his way.

First and foremost is the troops on the ground, and i actually agree with President Obama (for once) with this appointment. Gen. Petraeus is the best at what he does

suitanim
06-24-2010, 11:37 AM
Yes, that's true...this is hands down the single best decision he has made to date.

Petraeus is also a political general...he'll be able to handle Karzai...I think McChrystal was too cozy with him.

tony hipchest
06-25-2010, 05:36 PM
I'm confused a little though, because Obama and all his cronies hate this guy and have opposite views on how this war should go. It'll be interestin to see what happens when Gen. Petraeus wants to do things his way.



meh. more propoganda. i posted the following over a year ago. of course it went ignored because less than 3 months into his administration was too soon for the sheepublicans to admit that he might do anything right.

anyways, as of may last year, he was already making efforts to give the generals what they needed and desired.

http://blog.taragana.com/n/obama-adm...ith-pak-48841/ (http://blog.taragana.com/n/obama-administration-seeks-wartime-authority-for-military-commanders-in-dealing-with-pak-48841/)

Obama Administration seeks wartime authority for military commanders in dealing with Pakistan


Quote:
Ani May 2nd, 2009
WASHINGTON -The Obama administration is pushing for a new proposal which would give the US Central Command (CENTCOM) a wartime authority to deal with Pakistan.


The new proposal, if accepted by the US Congress, would give the military commanders the same total authority that they enjoy in Iraq and Afghanistan’s war zones.

It would also enable the CENTCOM to surpass the State Department and other US Departments while taking decisions about the providing any military assistance to Pakistan.

According to the Dawn, US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates recently revealed the blueprint of the new strategy during a congressional hearing, and asked the Senators to approve the proposed military aid to Pakistan with a sense of wartime urgency.

The programme would also enable CENTCOM chief General David Petraeus to control all the military funds for Pakistan that the US has earmarked for counterinsurgency training and for providing sophisticated equipments.

The United States is planning to provide 400 million dollars to Pakistan in the current fiscal year itself. The Obama Administration is seeking to provide Islamabad a total of three billion dollars over the next five years in aid. (ANI)

suitanim
06-25-2010, 11:15 PM
So...um....why did he then give McChrystal the reigns in the first place? He didn't get along with the ambassador to Pakistan, nor the ambassador to Afghanistan, and he can't STAND Joe Biden.

In fact, even though it was a good decision to hand things back to David Petraeus, some things don't ring true about Obama's speech. If McChrystal was the guy to win the War, then why sack him if the most important thing is winning the war? He had already splashed egg on Obama's face by leaking a CIA report stating that unless as many as 60,000 more troops were assigned to Afghanistan the War would fail, which ultimately pressured Obama (who really wanted to withdraw completely and concede) into agreeing to another surge, albeit smaller than what the original assessment called for.

Petraeus was already overseeing the total war effort, so the above article really isn't relevant other than as a minor policy shift. And Petraeus was also an advocate of increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, an idea Obama hated and still hates.

By the way, the above was probably NOT approved, as the State Dept. kind of needs to stay in the loop because A) We have a civilian component checking the military and B) The State Dept. is in charge of Foreign policy with countries we aren't technically at war with, not the military, and for good reason. The State Dept. is in charge of making sure the military (and every other component of our government dealing with out governments) complies with the overall US foreign policy.

So the above article is largely irrelevant in pretty much all respects...as it was when it was first supposedly posted....

tony hipchest
06-25-2010, 11:31 PM
mods, you may want to step in now, because my point was absolutely relevant in countering the assertion that obama and all his cronies absolutely hated petraeus, and when asked what would happen when he would want to do thing "his way" i gave a perfect example how obama has always been willing to listen to the needs of the experts in the field.

this is how it works in a civil and logical debate. what the post above offers is not.

suitanim
06-25-2010, 11:40 PM
Mods?

Wow...same ole same ole...

Petraeus and McChrystal were both part of a collection of Generals and personal that were GUARANTEED to be left in place from the Bush administration with the sole intent of making sure that the Wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq were not "undone" by a know-nothing idealistic Utopian like Obama. Obama giving them a marginal gain of this or that here and there (which never happened anyway) does nothing other than illustrate that, once again, you are in a conversation WAY over your head.

How can the mods fix that? How can they make you more informed? I don''t get it...

ricardisimo
06-26-2010, 03:01 AM
I would have thought that certain members of this board would automatically reject Petraeus for his supposed anti-Semitism... You know, for claiming that unchecked Israeli hawkishness is putting American lives at risk.

Vincent
06-26-2010, 08:43 AM
I would have thought that certain members of this board would automatically reject Petraeus for his supposed anti-Semitism... You know, for claiming that unchecked Israeli hawkishness is putting American lives at risk.

That isn't "anti-Semitism". That is legitimate concern of a theater commander.

ricardisimo
06-26-2010, 05:11 PM
That isn't "anti-Semitism". That is legitimate concern of a theater commander.

Which is exactly my point. Thank you.

7SteelGal43
06-26-2010, 05:47 PM
Israeli "hawkishness"...yeah, if that's what you want to call fighting for your nations survival.

Vincent
06-26-2010, 06:04 PM
Israeli "hawkishness"...yeah, if that's what you want to call fighting for your nations survival.

If you're surrounded by people that repeatedly attack you and proclaim their intent to eradicate you and your memory from the face of the Earth, it is necessary to affect an aggressive defense posture if you are to have any hope of survival. Those ingredients would be at best a wild card to a theater commander, and more realistically, a headache.

If only we could get those furry little muslims to behave themselves. And then we wouldn't need a theater commander.

Vincent
06-26-2010, 06:08 PM
When I read a thread like this, I seriously question the ability of many posters on this board to even actually grasp what this issue is all about.

We're spouting our opinions on an Internet board. Thats our job. Thats what we do.

Texasteel
06-27-2010, 07:08 AM
From what I've see they deserved it. This is not the place for personal feuds.

Killer
06-27-2010, 07:21 AM
That is the way of the innernets - there are a trillion opinions, get over it.

stillers4me
06-27-2010, 07:35 AM
That is the way of the innernets - there are a trillion opinions, get over it.

It's not the opinions that caused the problem. Nor is it the mods job to determine the winner of a debate. The flaming, baiting and personal attacks have got to stop, NOW. It will not be tolerated by anyone. Get over it.

Killer
06-27-2010, 07:57 AM
Get over it.

I was talking about THEM, you didn't have to delete my response.

They were crusin' for a brusin'

HometownGal
06-27-2010, 08:18 AM
I was talking about THEM, you didn't have to delete my response.

They were crusin' for a brusin'

Killer - I agree with the deletion. No need to pour gasoline on the fire - it really doesn't serve any worthwhile purpose. :drink: Plus - you KNOW how I hate hijacks. :buttkick: ;)

Now - back to the topic of the thread, please.

Vincent
06-27-2010, 08:44 AM
Now - back to the topic of the thread, please.

Yeah! Obama's Kenyan.

That is all.

Killer
06-27-2010, 10:21 PM
Killer - I agree with the deletion. No need to pour gasoline on the fire - it really doesn't serve any worthwhile purpose..

Yes - it does - it gives us something juicy to talk about.

We all demand entertainment.

Shea
06-27-2010, 10:54 PM
Plus - you KNOW how I hate hijacks. :buttkick: ;)

I kind of like how some threads stray, but then they often come back around.

Even if they don't, it still adds to the conversation and makes the topic wider and more interesting.

Mini-hijacks sometimes make for some of the best threads.

Just my two little cents ....