Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5555

President Obama said Tuesday he wants to speak directly to Gen. Stanley McChrystal before deciding whether to fire the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan for mocking and disparaging the president and his national security team in a Rolling Stone interview.

Obama will meet with McChrystal on Wednesday at the White House.

"I think it's clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed a poor -- showed poor judgment," the president said in his first comments on the matter, surrounded by members of his Cabinet at the close of their meeting. "But I also want to make sure that I talk to him directly before I make any final decisions."

As the media were being ushered out quickly by press aides, Obama stopped them to make more comments and try to put the focus on the troops.

"I want everybody to keep in mind what our central focus is -- and that is success in making sure that Al Qaeda and its affiliates cannot attack the United States and its allies," Obama said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06 … -strategy/
The top US and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has been recalled to Washington to explain controversial remarks he made about leading Obama administration figures. But those on the front lines of the war say that the political squabble and inevitable fallout to come means little for them or the mission ahead.

In a Rolling Stone profile titled “The Runaway General” that appeared online on Tuesday morning and will hit news stands on Friday, McChrystal and his aides are quoted making sarcastic or unfavorable remarks about Vice President Joe Biden, US Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl W. Eikenberry, and others.

The piece opens with McChrystal complaining about having to meet with a French minister -- the kind of care and feeding of allies crucial for holding together an increasingly shaky international coalition. As casualities increase in Afghanistan, NATO allies such as Canada and the Netherlands are preparing to withdraw their troops in a year.

But Canadian soldiers stationed in Kandahar Province, the birthplace of the Taliban and currently home to the war’s most intense fighting, mostly shrugged off the political firestorm.

“Whatever happens, we just keep doing our job,” says Canadian Army Master Cpl. Mathieu Jacob of Cap-Pelé, Canada. “Our job is our job.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Sou … ront-lines
So not such a big deal why is Obama even bothering with this? or He should have kept his fucking mouth shout!
I, for one, will have to read the article before I make a decision.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6499|Global Command
I read the whole 6 page RS article.

What a sad pathetic excuse for a diversion.


He didn't even say anything really bad. Just that there are political hacks in the WH and Afghanistan is a shithole not worth fighting for.

I loved " stopping terrorism in Afghan by building schools and power lines is like stopping illegal immigration by building a hispanic cultural center in Des Moines..."

or something to that effect.


They don't want you to notice that there is no recovery and that the BP disaster is out of control so they trot out this phony drama.

FUCK 'EM
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6100|North Tonawanda, NY
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6619

Whilst I don't agree with him being fired over it - and I don't know specifically what was said - Obama is Commander in Chief of the armed forces; ie his boss, so to say things against Obama would be highly unprofessional and certainly something you'd be at risk of getting fired for in the private sector.
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6492|...

ghettoperson wrote:

Whilst I don't agree with him being fired over it - and I don't know specifically what was said - Obama is Commander in Chief of the armed forces; ie his boss, so to say things against Obama would be highly unprofessional and certainly something you'd be at risk of getting fired for in the private sector.
this
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6499|Global Command
May be that he is a patriot that puts the good of his country over his own career?
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|6538|Mountains of NC

what a waste of time and effort for this but of course the mighty O will probably fire him




for all this shit that O has done and not done, shame we can't fire him




with everything else that a person has to meet requirements for to be President, serving 4 years honorably in the military should be one of them
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
mikkel
Member
+383|6571

ATG wrote:

He didn't even say anything really bad. Just that there are political hacks in the WH and Afghanistan is a shithole not worth fighting for.

I loved " stopping terrorism in Afghan by building schools and power lines is like stopping illegal immigration by building a hispanic cultural center in Des Moines..."
That seems pretty bad to me. Why should the top commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan be a person who doesn't believe that what he's tasked with doing is actually worth doing?
mikkel
Member
+383|6571

SEREMAKER wrote:

with everything else that a person has to meet requirements for to be President, serving 4 years honorably in the military should be one of them
Why, exactly?
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6499|Global Command

mikkel wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

with everything else that a person has to meet requirements for to be President, serving 4 years honorably in the military should be one of them
Why, exactly?
Because you should know what its like to risk your own life before you send other peoples kids off to die for bullshit political aims and/or money.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6518|San Diego, CA, USA
Gen. Stanley McChrystal 2012
Canin
Conservative Roman Catholic
+280|6445|Foothills of S. Carolina

Pretty good article, seems like a hell of a man and leader. Based on the article alone, if O does fire him, shits going to get alot worse in Afghanistan.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

Canin wrote:

Pretty good article, seems like a hell of a man and leader. Based on the article alone, if O does fire him, shits going to get alot worse in Afghanistan.
Doesn't matter. When you are in the military you are not allowed to express your political views. You don't have to like the President but you do have to respect the office. If he is on record bashing the Presidents administration then he should be relieved of duty.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Canin
Conservative Roman Catholic
+280|6445|Foothills of S. Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Canin wrote:

Pretty good article, seems like a hell of a man and leader. Based on the article alone, if O does fire him, shits going to get alot worse in Afghanistan.
Doesn't matter. When you are in the military you are not allowed to express your political views. You don't have to like the President but you do have to respect the office. If he is on record bashing the Presidents administration then he should be relieved of duty.
Ahh, never said I agreed with what he said, or that he shouldn't be relieved of duty if he did say it. I agree with you on that.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6741|PNW

jsnipy wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Whilst I don't agree with him being fired over it - and I don't know specifically what was said - Obama is Commander in Chief of the armed forces; ie his boss, so to say things against Obama would be highly unprofessional and certainly something you'd be at risk of getting fired for in the private sector.
this
And it wouldn't be the first time in the history of the US military, either. It was his choice, at any rate.
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6550|the dank(super) side of Oregon

ATG wrote:

They don't want you to notice that there is no recovery and that the BP disaster is out of control so they trot out this phony drama.

FUCK 'EM
...and there's the crazy.

Galt wrote:

Doesn't matter. When you are in the military you are not allowed to express your political views. You don't have to like the President but you do have to respect the office. If he is on record bashing the Presidents administration then he should be relieved of duty.
yep. McChrystal is the President's subordinate.  Anything else is unacceptable.

Last edited by Reciprocity (2010-06-22 19:59:09)

mikkel
Member
+383|6571

ATG wrote:

mikkel wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

with everything else that a person has to meet requirements for to be President, serving 4 years honorably in the military should be one of them
Why, exactly?
Because you should know what its like to risk your own life before you send other peoples kids off to die for bullshit political aims and/or money.
In a dream world, a president is always intimate with the consequences of every decision that he makes. In the real world, it's recognised that this isn't possible, and thankfully the prerequisites for holding the presidency don't include inanities that would exclude candidates based on their professional careers. Requiring military service to hold the presidency is an absolutely atrocious idea that goes against the founding principles of the nation. This is an odd opinion to hold for anyone who speaks out against any unconstitutional legislation.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

mikkel wrote:

ATG wrote:

mikkel wrote:


Why, exactly?
Because you should know what its like to risk your own life before you send other peoples kids off to die for bullshit political aims and/or money.
In a dream world, a president is always intimate with the consequences of every decision that he makes. In the real world, it's recognised that this isn't possible, and thankfully the prerequisites for holding the presidency don't include inanities that would exclude candidates based on their professional careers. Requiring military service to hold the presidency is an absolutely atrocious idea that goes against the founding principles of the nation. This is an odd opinion to hold for anyone who speaks out against any unconstitutional legislation.
While it shouldn't be a requirement, it should be something that voters take into serious consideration before casting their ballot. Personally, I will only vote for a veteran (preferably a war vet) because they are the least likely to start a war.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
mikkel
Member
+383|6571

JohnG@lt wrote:

mikkel wrote:

ATG wrote:


Because you should know what its like to risk your own life before you send other peoples kids off to die for bullshit political aims and/or money.
In a dream world, a president is always intimate with the consequences of every decision that he makes. In the real world, it's recognised that this isn't possible, and thankfully the prerequisites for holding the presidency don't include inanities that would exclude candidates based on their professional careers. Requiring military service to hold the presidency is an absolutely atrocious idea that goes against the founding principles of the nation. This is an odd opinion to hold for anyone who speaks out against any unconstitutional legislation.
While it shouldn't be a requirement, it should be something that voters take into serious consideration before casting their ballot. Personally, I will only vote for a veteran (preferably a war vet) because they are the least likely to start a war.
They seem to have at best equally poor track records on that front in recent times.
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6550|the dank(super) side of Oregon

JohnG@lt wrote:

Personally, I will only vote for a veteran (preferably a war vet) because they are the least likely to start a war.
says who?
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6507|Long Island, New York

JohnG@lt wrote:

mikkel wrote:

ATG wrote:


Because you should know what its like to risk your own life before you send other peoples kids off to die for bullshit political aims and/or money.
In a dream world, a president is always intimate with the consequences of every decision that he makes. In the real world, it's recognised that this isn't possible, and thankfully the prerequisites for holding the presidency don't include inanities that would exclude candidates based on their professional careers. Requiring military service to hold the presidency is an absolutely atrocious idea that goes against the founding principles of the nation. This is an odd opinion to hold for anyone who speaks out against any unconstitutional legislation.
While it shouldn't be a requirement, it should be something that voters take into serious consideration before casting their ballot. Personally, I will only vote for a veteran (preferably a war vet) because they are the least likely to start a war.
Bush started 2 (albeit one was necessary) and McCain had a very hardline stance on continuing the war in Iraq and possibly even going into Iran.

I don't feel like that's true at all. Atleast anymore.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

Reciprocity wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Personally, I will only vote for a veteran (preferably a war vet) because they are the least likely to start a war.
says who?
History. Those who have actually experienced war are far more reluctant to send troops into harms way. The only exception to this rule that I can think of in American history is Kennedy (Bush Jr wasn't a vet).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

Poseidon wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

mikkel wrote:


In a dream world, a president is always intimate with the consequences of every decision that he makes. In the real world, it's recognised that this isn't possible, and thankfully the prerequisites for holding the presidency don't include inanities that would exclude candidates based on their professional careers. Requiring military service to hold the presidency is an absolutely atrocious idea that goes against the founding principles of the nation. This is an odd opinion to hold for anyone who speaks out against any unconstitutional legislation.
While it shouldn't be a requirement, it should be something that voters take into serious consideration before casting their ballot. Personally, I will only vote for a veteran (preferably a war vet) because they are the least likely to start a war.
Bush started 2 (albeit one was necessary) and McCain had a very hardline stance on continuing the war in Iraq and possibly even going into Iran.

I don't feel like that's true at all. Atleast anymore.
McCain just wanted the job done right so we wouldn't leave the place a complete disaster. His push for the surge in Iraq has proven to be the correct call. Not only has it stabilized Iraq, it has cut down tremendously on American casualties since it concluded.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England
I mean just look at the difference in the way troops were committed under the last three Presidents. Bush Sr invaded Panama with little loss of life, and took on Saddam in Desert Storm with next to no casualties. In both cases he used overwhelming force (with much help from the coalition for DS). In comparison, both Clinton and Bush Jr half-assed every single conflict they took on. Casualties were important to HW, not so for the other two who only thought of them in terms of political fallout, not real people.

Edit - Going back even further, Reagan, who had no military experience, fucked up in Grenada. Carter, who had no experience outside of the peace time submarine force fucked up the hostage rescue in Iran.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-06-22 20:17:11)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
13rin
Member
+977|6449

JohnG@lt wrote:

Doesn't matter. When you are in the military you are not allowed to express your political views. You don't have to like the President but you do have to respect the office. If he is on record bashing the Presidents administration then he should be relieved of duty.
Unfortunately this...  However, it was high time for discourse at this level.  For the most part OB has done jack shit for the military and foreign affairs.   I feel for our guys over there as he's neutered them with his current ROE police.  GG McChrystal.

*G@lt.

Regean took out the Soviets.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2010-06-22 20:18:31)

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard