Obama's full remarks on McChrystal

McChrystal doesn't respect chain of command. You follow orders in the United States Military, or you get the heck out, one or the other, people's lives are at stake. This isn't some sort of game or a Faux News phony tough guy blabber fest here, these are real lives we're talking about here.

McChrystal had to be fired.

"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."
- UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

Don't let the door hit ya on the backside on the way out, Stanley.

Republican critics of President Obama long have derided him as weak. Intellectual, reserved, unemotional. When the BP oil gusher exploded, they criticized him for not taking aggressive enough action. Despite otherwise being critics of federal government. And then when he took decisive action by shutting down deepwater drilling and forcing BP to set aside $20 billion as a beginning of their debt repayment, they criticized him for overreaching and being a thug.

With the removal of General Stanley McChrystal from command of Afghan military operations, you can be certain that we will hear more fringe right wing criticism. No matter what the President does, the radical right will criticize him. But those like McChrystal and his supporters who might have thought the President was weak now have their answer. He's the Commander-in-Chief, in a government that has civilian rule over the military. There is a chain of command. He knows it, and they that dared flout it now know it.

Bring it on, Wingnut "critics". Who looks weak, now?

Sack Obama, not McChrystal.

Worst President Ever!!!

Anyone else think the embedding of journalists with the military will be a practice that will end soon?

It is sad the McChrystal had to go, but his opinions need to be kept to himself about his Commander-In-Chief.

With that sadi, Petraeus is a great choice for the job. He is a proven winner from his days in Iraq carrying out the surge that turned that front on the war on terror into a victory.

I just wonder how all the Code-Pinko Lefties feel about "General BeTrayUs" being BO's choice to lead Afghanistan.

The Rethuglicans claim that Pres Obama is a hardball partisan operator, who doesn't believe in compromise. They can almost imagine Obama in the Oval Office, polishing his brass knuckles.

Except, they're also simultaneously claiming that Pres Obama has adopted the exact opposite persona: he's a professorial pushover. The conservative line includes phrases like "limp and weak" to describe the president. He's not tough enough. He bows too much. He doesn't instill enough fear.

Hey Wingnuts, Pick One BS Anti-Obama Meme and Stick With It, Would Ya?

The President gave him everything he asked for.

That still wasn't enough.

The President gave him everything he asked for.

That still wasn't enough.

The President gave him everything he asked for.

That still wasn't enough.

President Obama's decision to replace General McChrystal as ISAF/USFOR-A Commander is sound and his decision to appoint General Petraeus as a replacement is sound as well. However, the US Leadership should stick to the original strategy (The Surge of Forces Strategy) which is the same strategy they employed in Iraq to be applied in Afghanistan as well because I believe this strategy will enable the US Leadership to achieve the same positive results that they acquire in Iraq. Iraq and Afghanistan is facing the same problems, and since the "Surge" strategy proved successfull in Iraq, I believe it will be the same with Afghanistan.

"But the reasons that led me to this decision are the same principles that have supported the strength of our military and our nation since the founding."

Unbelievable. Obama, has NOTHING in common with any principles of our military or the the founding of the United States. He is, as he stated out to "fundamentally change" the United States. Maybe he should have quoted Marx instead.

If he thinks that firing this General is going to boost his poll numbers, he's mistaken. And, that's really why he took this road. McCrystal, maybe he wanted out...or, he was let down by his staff, or he's an idiot. I don't believe that he is.

I hope President Obama will soon, show that same determination and decisiveness, he showed in removing an insubordinate General, in considering the questionable conduct of British Petroleum in offshore Alaska!! We should stop British Petroleum, dead in its oily tracks !! They are at it again, but this time, a more risky project, in which they provided all of the paperwork, that should have been done by, then, MMS, now known as, BEO (Bureau of Ocean Energy). This scheme was hatched in 2007. British Petroleum wrote its own ticket on this one, environmental impact studies, safety plans, probably the same approach that I am sure they followed that resulted in the Gulf of Mexico criminal disaster.
British Petroleum wants to drill for oil, 3 miles off the coast of Alaska, in Beaufort Sea. In order for them to be able to call the project, known as Liberty," onshore " drilling, they built a makeshift " island ", out of gravel. They intend to drill 2 miles under the sea and then 6-8 miles horizontally to reach what is believed to be a 100 Million barrel reserve of oil under federal waters. Where are the Alaskans on this one? Caught on that " Bridge to Nowhere! "? Wake up, Alaska, or you'll be saying good-bye to livelihoods, cultures and pristine landscapes, but what are they, when compare to barrels and barrels of bucks !! Reopen the permit process and have BEO do what it was supposed to do in 2007, have independent impact studies and examine and evaluate emergency plans. That is just for starters !! In any case, the moratorium should be enforced on this ill-advised project, given the criminal behavior of British Petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe, not to mention lives lost and environments destroyed !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Civilian or not civilian and whether you like him or not, the President is the Commander in Chief. McChrystal's entire staff should also be dismissed. As for McChrystal himself, he should be stripped of his rank and dishonorably discharged. Make an example out of the moron.

We all know that Fox News is not news, but when did Rolling Stone become a serious news publication? This would seem to Not have the same flavor as MacArthur challenging Truman. Mustapha has to show that community organizing toughness though.

Mustapha used two of his favorite phrases ~ “make no mistake” and an altered version of “let me be clear”. So, one has to listen / read with a tuned ear to see what ominous message may be embedded within. Mustapha did not slip into ‘Cap and Tax’ or a new round of Obama-Care, so maybe Amerikans will be safe through the end of the week. This deed only un-employs one guy.

Mustapha made some reference to “democracy depending upon institutions that are stronger than individuals”. That phrase could mean a lot of things but at least Mustapha did use the word “democracy”. Good to know that the concept is still around. In any form.

The Republican Wind Machine is curiously silent so far.

Not even any "telePrompTer" comments.

Sort of hard to find fault with the President's remarks.

When Stanley Met Barry, Part One

We’ll never know exactly what went down when President Barack Hussein Obama met with General Stanley Allen McChrystal on Wednesday in the White House. All we do know is that the president was “furious” over the general’s comments in the article to be published this week in Rolling Stone, “The Runaway General.”

We do know that it wasn’t a beer summit comparable to the one the president hosted last year to heal the damage he caused in the Crowley-Gates-Cambridge brouhaha. This-sit down ended up with the abstemious general submitting his resignation which is code for being threatened with a sacking unless he faded away quietly.

I have to concede that Obama was between that proverbial rock and hard place over the situation in which McChrystal bad mouthed the president and members of the administration. He was sort of damned if he did fire him and damned if he didn’t.

If he didn’t fire him, aka accept his resignation, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1751)

Let's be clear, make no mistake, no matter what or president does or says, it will be the wrong thing. At least he does not thiink another ten years over there is acceptable.

Make no mistake, let's be perfectly clear, I think he'll look great on the speaking curcuit, on his book tour, on Fox "News" Channel as an analyst, all the while collecting a nice military pension.

Fat, Drunk and Not Republican,

Django, here, Wingnut.

Is Mustapha tough or is Mustapha Not tough? Mustapha is tough when dealing with those that he clearly does not have any use for ~ the Insurance Industry, Big Awl, auto executives, Darth Vader, the Brits, Israel, etc. The problem is, none of these entities are a threat to him. They are American corporations, American citizens, and until he came along, ex-allies of the U.S. How tough is it to throw your weight around against them?

When you said “professorial pushover” Is that like a real academic Harvard Elitist who is also a pushover? Or did you mean “professional pushover”? Sorry, but this guy is NO leader. Those of us that can see, can recognize bluster and petulance.

I, Django, have a small circle of associates that runs tangential to a small circle of Harvard elites. Their abilities and their intelligence, like Mustapha’s, is xtremely, highly over-rated. Jimmy carter redux. Jes sayn’.

"Suicide by President" one caller on Washington Journal this a.m. called it.

After "Suicide by Cop".

Signals McC's deep instinct that Afgh. is close to being a lost cause and that he was inadequate to change things....

Reading a little more about Gen. McC, perhaps put out there by an official biographer or valet, I read he only sleeps 4 hours a night and is able to run 6 miles every day.

Eats one meal per day.

Maybe this regimen impaired his judgment?

Dj, you are one of my favorites.

Must disagree with you about Obama and leadership.

I don't think you start in the Illinois Senate and end up in the White House 4 years later, after defeating the Clinton Machine and the Reps., with out a little bit of leadership skill.

I just don't think that's possible. Unless you believe there was divine intervention of some sort.

And I doubt you believe that.

Ornery, you present an argument that I don’t dismiss out of hand, but I honestly do NOT see Obama’s leadership skills. He reminds me of any number of middle managers and supervisors that I have had in my working career. They were far more ambitious than me, they would never object, or hesitate, to putting a boot up someone’s a&&, etc., but they were weak on the technical in an industry that relies heavily on the technical. They would say things like “you need to fix that” (as in “fix the damn leak”). Please don’t relay to me the obvious. Statements like this do not advance any aspect of the complex problems that need to be resolved.

The Harvard-ites that I tangentially know can ramble on forever on Goethe, Kant, Hagel, Nietzsche, and the like, but pray that you are never lost in the woods without food and water but are stuck with any one of them and a bunch of indigenous, irritated, bears.

Consider also the presidency from a historical perspective. Consider those that did not make it ~ Hamilton, Daniel Webster, Douglas, Blaine, Lodge, Bryan, Muskie, Rockefeller, another Kennedy. Not saying that they deserved it, but only that some unknown upstart took their spot. Fate is a fickle mistress.

Yes, you are right, Obama would never have been the answer to any of my prayers. Any attempt to divine the will of The Lord is invariably doomed for failure. There’s a Randy Newman song in there somewhere. Yet, somehow, the Republic survives. I won’t be placing any bets on tomorrow though. Regards.

Wait a second here, 2 years ago you nut jobs were calling General Petraeus "Betray Us" and now you think this is a brilliant move? youre all nutty as squirrel turds!!!!

When Stanley Met Barry, Part Two

Part One of this very mini miniseries dealt with the firing of General Stanley McChrystal, America’s head honcho in the Afghanistan War, and the contention that his and his aides’ remarks in a Rolling Stone article reflected immaturity and poor judgement.

Okay. . . a general 8 years Obama’s senior on the field of battle made immature comments that reflected poor judgement on a president whose chief pre-political experience was serving as a neighborhood organizer on the Chicago front.

Whatevah!

But the general was summoned to an audience with the president, a meeting that promised to be a dressing down for his impertinence, a summons from the boss he could not ignore.

We are privileged to be the only source privy to the stream of consciousness thoughts of General McChrystal as he winged the miles from Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan to Obama’s air base in D.C.

We are also privy, via sources that cannot be revealed, to the dialogue between McChrystal and Obama in the White House on Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010.

WARNING: Some of what follows is not suitable for the eyes or ears of children. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1753)

* * * * *
Posted by: Libtard | June 23, 2010 4:21 PM
.
You may be right. He may be the worst President ever, although he is running in the middle of the pack right now. I'm even beginning to hear pseudo-liberals voice their dismay at his lack of leadership.
.
All the same, he was right to axe McChrystal, and his reasoning was correct. McChrystal’s brand of expressed contempt has no place in a military chain of command. It was inimical to the founding principle that civilians control the government, including the armed forces.
.
So, worst President or no worst President, Obama was right this time. Remember: Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

O, now you're making me defend Harvard in addition to Barack.

From what I know, since the time of Conant (ca WW II) Harvard aggressively recruited students from all states, from , as the social scientists like to say today, the "lower socioeconomic status" ("ses") students.

A lot of the undergrads are going there completely on scholarship.

The "elite" part comes in because they either have 800s on their test scores, were valedictorian, were class president, were captain of the football team, and in a lot of the above instances, several of the above.

Yes a certain percentage are "legacy" children, but not that many these days, according to a recent book whose name I can't remember.

Anyway, I think the most important part of Obama's past is not the time at Harvard Law, but the years before that, on the South Side of Chicago, in that project for unemployed steel workers etc.

The current troubles started when Bush decided to start 2 wars but not to raise the taxes to pay for them. Trillions were added to deficit.

Then, the 2008 Crash. The perfect storm.

None of which was Obama's doing.

I'm not surprised McC was dispatched so quickly this time. Obama has far more difficult issues to deal with.

To the critics, my question is: what's your solution?

The General forgot his rank is one below US civilian.

When Stanley Met Barry, Part Three

. . . Part Three presents an insider’s objective if speculative outline of what went down when Stanley had his sitdown with Barry. I can attest to its accuracy although, admittedly, it’s based on the testimony of that fly in the White House that has bedeviled the president and that finally came to rest on the Oval Office wall:

(By the way, “B” = the president, Barry, as he was once known, and “S” = General Stanley McChrystal, as he is still known.)

B: Welcome to the White House, General. Have a seat.

S: Thank you, Mr. President. I’m flattered to be here.

B: May I call you Stanley?

S: Well, no. unless I should address you as Barry.

B: Umm, then let’s stick with general and Mr. President.

S: Fine by me, sir. As you wish.

B: Care for a beer or anything?

S: No thanks, Mr. President. I don’t drink.

B: Oh, that’s right, I heard that. You also run 8 miles a day, eat one meal a day, and sleep 4 hours a night, right?

S: Yes, sir.

B: Don’t smoke either I’m sure. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1758)

The General forgot his rank is one below US civilian.

Posted by: C.Morris | June 25, 2010 2:36 PM

Good one and so is Obama's.

Gen. Mc Chrystal has allowed poor judgment to rule over him and what he had done has made its impact. He has to face the consequence now. Whether his remarks in the article are out of his personal opinion or desperation, we do not know. But there's one thing that's clear, whoever makes a move against Obama has to go out. Well, he's the Commande-in-Chief anyway.

Rolling Stone and the Sacking of Stanley McChrystal

Jeffrey Carl Simpson, the somewhat acclaimed writer for Canada’s The Globe and Mail, wrote a nasty, slanted Fourth of July article sarcastically titled, “Happy Fourth of July–America Needs It.”

It was nasty because it adopts the typical Canadian superciliousness borne of Canada’s inferiority complex toward America; it was slanted because it starts from the premise of an idealized, gushing view of our president as the best thing to happen to America since the advent of Canadian bacon.

Simpson’s twisted gushing could cause the average American in the summer of 2010 to gag over his idolatrous praise of Obama and his skewed perspective of political life in the land of his birth.

He writes, “The United States gave itself the most gifted President in several generations, handed his party a majority in both houses of Congress, only to watch his presidency be swamped . . ."
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1772)

Rolling Stone and the Sacking of Stan McChrystal Part Two

The oddest thing about President Obama canning General McChrystal as commander of United States forces in Afghanistan is that the general didn’t do anything grievously wrong.

When Lincoln dumped 5 generals (McLellan twice) during the Civil War, it was largely due to general incompetence.

When Truman sacked MacArthur in the midst of the Korean War, it was the last straw in the brilliant yet haughty and insubordinate general’s rocky relationship with his civilian bosses in Washington, and especially with Harry.

The fact MacArthur wanted to invade China and use nuclear weapons to subdue that Communist nation which had intervened and turned the tide in Korea by sheer force of numbers was another factor as was the fear it could ignite a Third World War.

In retrospect, MacArthur’s plan was viable, would not have started a new world war, and would have removed the threat that China poses for the United States in the twenty first century. But that’s another story.

Stanley McChrystal’s chief offense was neither incompetence nor gross insubordination. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1774)