Should obama fire McChrystal?

Should obama fire General McChrystal?

  • Yes because what he said was treasonous.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No but he should

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I dont really give a rip! American idol is far more important.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    3
So right Pandy. A real leader would have excused the comments and moved on. But, BO is not a real leader or a real man.

The General said nothing against BO. The guys were letting off steam and RS caught them off guard. These guys were in a f-ing war zone. Sh*t happens and real people know this. BO aint real.

McC is a real leader. He is not a desk jockey like Petraeus. He would often be in the action unannounced and by himself. He also was not going along with BO on changing don't ask don't tell like Petraeus is. McC knows gays in the military will hurt unit cohesion.

Blago claimed the other day that BO is hen pecked by Michelle. That is as good a reason for his weakness I have yet heard.

Plus...why is BO using Bush's general??? I thought Bush was a dunce.

Hen pecked by Michelle :) if that were true about anyone, its true about him.

Not only is he using President Bush's General, he is using the surge idea too, except I don't think that is going to work in Afghanistan. Especially when you add in the miranda rights crap and the don't shoot even if you know its a bad guy till he shoots you first junk. I thank God my son is not in the service under obama and I feel very sad for anyone who is.
 
Werbung:
Hen pecked by Michelle :) if that were true about anyone, its true about him.

Not only is he using President Bush's General, he is using the surge idea too, except I don't think that is going to work in Afghanistan. Especially when you add in the miranda rights crap and the don't shoot even if you know its a bad guy till he shoots you first junk. I thank God my son is not in the service under obama and I feel very sad for anyone who is.

Generals are Generals...they are not Bush or Obama's Generals...if you understood basic concepts like that, you would be better off in this thread. They Serve the US , and the Commander and Chef...regardless of party.
 
.....nicely put.

Oh please Scotty.

General are generals??? BS I say.

Bush put Petraeus in charge and he masterminded the surge which worked. BO could have put any number of generals in charge when he took office, but he decided to stay with Petraeus even though he criticized him when he was a senator (just another example of hypocrisy from the left). BO did not condemn the "betray us" ad either. BO has no clue and probably could care less about the war.
 
Generals are Generals...they are not Bush or Obama's Generals...if you understood basic concepts like that, you would be better off in this thread. They Serve the US , and the Commander and Chef...regardless of party.

The left called General Petraeus General Betray-us
Pelosi said he was a liar, obama (in the 17 seconds he was a senator) said much the same.

The left wing websites have taken their slander about Petraeus off their websites since now he is good in their eyes, but till now he was Bush's General and not a very good one at that....

But if it helps you to think otherwise, its no surprise to me.
 
Oh please Scotty.

General are generals??? BS I say.

Bush put Petraeus in charge and he masterminded the surge which worked. BO could have put any number of generals in charge when he took office, but he decided to stay with Petraeus even though he criticized him when he was a senator (just another example of hypocrisy from the left). BO did not condemn the "betray us" ad either. BO has no clue and probably could care less about the war.

you said jack about the war till Obama took over, so just shut up already. At least you make it clear Poltics is more important then the war, the Miltary and our troops. Anything for cheap points for you. By the way should not be busy crying with your tail between your legs to pull out and lose the war like you have been? After all its not like they attacked us and killed 3000 people on Sept 11 right?
 
The left called General Petraeus General Betray-us
Pelosi said he was a liar, obama (in the 17 seconds he was a senator) said much the same.

The left wing websites have taken their slander about Petraeus off their websites since now he is good in their eyes, but till now he was Bush's General and not a very good one at that....

But if it helps you to think otherwise, its no surprise to me.

Fine you play politics with the Military Command have fun. Some of us actually take it Seriously.
 
Fine you play politics with the Military Command have fun. Some of us actually take it Seriously.

I think playing politics would be more on the lines of calling the General Betrayus instead of his real name, mocking him, calling him a liar but since that was done by your left leaning buddies I can see why you feel the way you do. I think moveon.org took it as seriously as you are. But i am the bad guy for pointing out what was said and done by the left.

very typical!
 
I think playing politics would be more on the lines of calling the General Betrayus instead of his real name, mocking him, calling him a liar but since that was done by your left leaning buddies I can see why you feel the way you do. I think moveon.org took it as seriously as you are. But i am the bad guy for pointing out what was said and done by the left.

very typical!

and when they did I attacked them, I actually supported him, I supported the surge, because I thought it was the right call. And had I not agreed, It would not matter as Bush set Policy, not Him, his job is and was to Do what Bush said to do. But you can hide behind the past and others all you want, but fact is, your playing politics with the military I am not.
 
you said jack about the war till Obama took over, so just shut up already. At least you make it clear Poltics is more important then the war, the Miltary and our troops. Anything for cheap points for you. By the way should not be busy crying with your tail between your legs to pull out and lose the war like you have been? After all its not like they attacked us and killed 3000 people on Sept 11 right?

Once again you are absurd. You state generals are generals. I refute that statement and then you change the subject of our debate.

I have no problem with BO keeping General P in charge. But, he is W's general and generals are NOT generals.

In all our wars presidents had to chose generals they thought most competent for the job. You might educate yourself on the Civil War, WWII, Vietnam, etc. Those presidents had to choose and the generals they chose were THEIR generals.

Your hatred of Bush and love of BO blinds you from seeing reality.
 
and when they did I attacked them, I actually supported him, I supported the surge, because I thought it was the right call. And had I not agreed, It would not matter as Bush set Policy, not Him, his job is and was to Do what Bush said to do. But you can hide behind the past and others all you want, but fact is, your playing politics with the military I am not.

I guess I am playing politics with the military because I point out what the left including obama did to General P and how now they all act like they love him. fair enough.


I do not remember you saying anything to support general P and I sure dont remember you saying anything against the left but i suppose its possible.

Do you think its healthy to pretend the left did not treat him like trash since they love him now? Its better left unsaid?
 
Ultimately, McChrystal left Obama no choice whatsoever.

Lobbying for a troop increase publicly following the leak of his formal request last Fall, McChrystal placed Obama in the uncomfortable position of choosing between the recommendation of the man he personally selected to prosecute and ultimately conclude the war in Afghanistan and his political base that clamored for an end to America’s seemingly fruitless and open-ended occupation of Hell’s half acre. While some charitably characterized McChrystal as merely being a step ahead of Obama’s ultimate decision, others saw a political gambit that undermined the principal of civilian control of the military and a challenge to the President’s national command authority.

In light of the remarks covered in the Rolling Stone piece, the position of those who believe the latter was significantly strengthened by what appears to be a culture of open contempt of the administration and key members of the National Security Council among McChrystal’s command staff. Accordingly, the President had to save face as well as firmly reassert the principal of civilian control of the military.

Beyond the realm of constitutional principals, there is also the very real world concern of presidential perception and America’s national security. Currently, though personally popular among adoring throngs the planet over, there is considerable doubt among his peers – as well as America’s antagonists – about Obama’s resolve. Indeed, the perception of Obama among world leaders belies the image one normally associates with a veteran of the rough and tumble, cut-throat Chicago political scene. To retain McChrystal with little more than a hearty serving of humble pie as his punishment would have reinforced the perception of an irresolute and weak-willed president. The implications for America’s national security are potentially significant as her adversaries and antagonists would be further emboldened and increasingly believe they can challenge or disregard her with impunity.

All in all, it's an abrupt and disappointing end to what appears to be an otherwise exemplary military career. I do, though, believe there are a number of lessons that can be gleaned from this unfortunate turn of events.

1) Once a star appears on your shoulders, everything you do and say will be subjected to the harsh and unforgiving light of bureaucratic and public scrutiny.

That scrutiny exponentially increases with each additional star.

This multiplies astronomically when one becomes the field commander of a lingering, multi-year war that many regard as a hopeless, festering wound.

Act accordingly, 24/7/365.

2) Soldiers are human, too.

Off-duty, they drink, use course language, act sophomoric and immature, have issues with authority, believe they're smarter than their superiors, are disdainful of self-important politicians, have strong political views and share them with their peers and friends in discussions that often include the aforementioned course language.

3) The President's perception problem permeates the military as thoroughly as it does the international arena.

4) Loose lips sink ships. And decades-long military careers. Take the Go-Go's admonition to heart and keep your lips sealed.

5) Unlike Dr. Hook, generals should never, ever long to appear on the cover of the Rolling Stone.
 
Oh please Scotty.

General are generals??? BS I say

Gipper this will probably work out to your advantage as McChrystal is one of them liberal democrats that you so hate - now he's disgraced he'll probably turn into one of those sad Bitter and twisted ex-generals scratching around the media scene huffing and puffing at how politics and Obama lost you the war!
 
Werbung:
I guess I am playing politics with the military because I point out what the left including obama did to General P and how now they all act like they love him. fair enough.


I do not remember you saying anything to support general P and I sure dont remember you saying anything against the left but i suppose its possible.

Do you think its healthy to pretend the left did not treat him like trash since they love him now? Its better left unsaid?

I did, so deal with it. You however can't say the same...you cower in the corner saying well so and so did X, so I can do it...a childs game. Fact is you want to play politics with the Military, and if 1 or 100,000 others did it before, does not change the fact your guilty. Next time some of our troops get killed in Afghanistan, you can rest happy to know you put Politics first.
 
Back
Top