June 23, 2010

Gods and Generals

You aren't going to see this very often so I think you may want to write this down.

I completely, 100% agree with how Obama has handled the General McChrystal with the added bonus that he picked basically the most excellent possible general to replace him.

Bottom line is, as much as I love the military and those who serve in it, they work for the President.  He is their boss.  An honorable person makes every possible effort to discuss his concerns/disagreements with his boss before he goes around/over him and that's only when the disagreement is about something absolutely critical. 

Instead, McChrystal spouted a bunch of shit-talk to a Communist rag and completely sucker-punched the administration.  That's straight up bullshit and just like Bush shouldn't have tolerated this (to the degree he did) Obama has no reason to.  Even if McChrystal is correct on the merits (and I can't think of a bigger dipshit than Biden) he went way outside the proper channels for dealing with whatever issues he had and essentially placed his boss in a position where his options were very limited.  No organization can function effectively when its leadership (such as it is) is constantly undermined by its own members. 

But, of course, there is a higher cause here than honor and politics and that is bringing the war in Afghanistan to as swift and successful a completion as possible.  Were Obama asked to choose between firing him for the reasons I've listed above or winning the war, the choice would be clear (to most, anyway) but luckily Patraeus stepped up and broadened the options. 

So, we have a solid result that I believe will enhance the chances of success in the war along with the appropriate response to an outrageous example of insubordination. 


Posted by: Moron Pundit at 03:32 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Thank you, for a minute I thought I was going crazy.

Posted by: B.B. at June 23, 2010 04:07 PM (GxhuY)

2 only flaw I see in this action, is that he only held his military subordinates accountable, and letting his civilian associates off for their part in helping to creat this situation.

Posted by: Douglas at June 23, 2010 04:20 PM (uU+Ss)

3 Yeah, well, the number of problems with the way Obama runs things forced me to narrow the scope of my statements to this ONE SPECIFIC action alone. 

His merry band of fucknuts seriously needs to stay out of the man business.

Posted by: Moron Pundit at June 23, 2010 04:29 PM (GC5S2)

4 McCrystal should have been fired for his asinine and dangerous ROE, not this interview.

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at June 23, 2010 05:10 PM (G5qLy)

5 Um.  Where did McChrystal go around/over Obama or Patraeus?  Rhetorical question, Netterman, take a lap.

McChrystal didn't "spout a bunch of shit talk."  His staff was drunk, at a bar in Paris, and said shit they shouldn't have said.  McChrystal's 2 mistakes were in letting the staff talk with the Rolling Stone reporter and slamming Eikendouche.  And from all accounts Eikendouche is a douche.

I disagree completely with your assessment of his conduct.

Posted by: tangonine at June 23, 2010 06:04 PM (C8Pcc)

6 You mean "not learned"

Posted by: tangonine at June 23, 2010 07:34 PM (C8Pcc)

7 Bad political move by Obama. There is a long and rich tradition of military leaders mocking Presidents. Lincoln had his McClellan and Hooker. He even pulled Hooker aside and told him “point blank” to concentrate on winning battles and he (Lincoln) would suffer the insults. FDR took insults for years from Patton but gave him command of the 3rd Army for the final push into Germany. Truman endured 7 years in Japan and Korea from MacArthur until he did become insubordinate. Why, because he was successful. Point is, Obama could have put his arm around McCrystal and said what Lincoln did……win one for us and I will suffer the insult. And any any paper pusher who mentioned military code 88 for an off the cuff insult to the VP, would have been laughed out of the Oval Office. It’s not like McCrystal wasn’t an excellent General. This President is such a glamor queen.

But what do you expect from someone’s conception of leadership comes from “The Apprentice”.

Posted by: spike at June 23, 2010 08:32 PM (oRmZx)

8 I'd so very much like to agree, but the way in which Mr. Obama has deliberately destroyed the dignity and maliciously massacred the mystique of the Office of the President, makes it seem almost protocol to call him out in a national sub-culture magazine. Yeah, it's dumb to open yourself to a reporter who has the obvious agenda of inventing "the Runaway General" but it is not, A, insubordination if it is not insubordinate (he said stupid things, not insubordinate ones), and B, it is the stinkin' "Presidents: They're just like us!" Gossip Mag attitude emanating from the Oval Office that makes it fathomable to a general that such back-and-forth is excusable.

Posted by: Chaim at June 23, 2010 10:54 PM (aGvu6)

9 Maybe the newly-instituted "world president" rules of engagement (that get men killed) don't sit well with the military.

McChrystal is responsible for lives and success, the current president is responsible for bailing out this and that, "shovel ready" projects, and trying to hit par.

Meanwhile, the Norks and AAAHHHCKmadeedeenejihad do. not. give. a. fuck.

Weak guys like TOTUS are fodder for jakals.

Bad news for the good ol' USA

Posted by: the botnet at June 23, 2010 10:58 PM (3/GnL)

10 The President's a douche, and we all know it.  However, McChrystal was in the wrong.  On two counts.  One... who the fuck gives interviews to Rolling Stone, or allows them access to your staff.  That thing is a partisan rag of the first water, and deserves neither attention nor time of day.  And Freedom of the Press doesn't mean they have any right to an interview.  Fuck Rolling Stone.  McChrystal was a fool for agreeing to let the interview happen at all.

Secondly, and more importantly, McChrystal violated UCMJ with his comments.  Pretty it up how you like, he spoke negatively of his civilian chain of command.  That's a huge damned no no.  Article 88 is pretty clear.  And defend the truthfulness of the statements all you want (no seriously, please do so, I agree with them) but truth is no defense.  Pluggy Joe might be a slack-jawed, mouth-breathing, pompous, self-righteous, all-singing, all-dancing, crap-of-the-world, Grade A Prime shitbird... but a Commissioned Officer cannot use contemptuous words in regards to the Vice President.  And if he does, he speaks them into his beer where no one else may hear.

Sorry guys, you're used to the world where you can smack-talk about your boss, and he's got to put up with a certain amount as long as you do good work in the office.  But when McChrystal did it, it was a violation of Federal law.  He was right to offer his resignation, the President COULD have been a bigger man and refused to take it, but since when did anyone think ole paper-skinned Barack was capable of being the bigger man to anyone over 1 foot tall?

Posted by: MikeD at June 24, 2010 08:16 AM (FkL60)

11 What McChrystal's staff (NOT FUCKING MCCHRYSTAL!) said didn't violate Article 88.  It is clear, and nothing they said violated it.

Posted by: tangonine at June 24, 2010 02:04 PM (C8Pcc)

12 Actually, the one comment made by A STAFF MEMBER was contemptuous toward Biden, I'd forgotten about the bite me comment.  But other than that... nope.

“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.”

Do you see "ambassador" in there?  "National Security Council member?"  Nope.  In fact, the accepted interpretation of "congress" is congress as a whole, so you can even say bad stuff about an individual member and not be punished under this article.

Posted by: tangonine at June 24, 2010 02:10 PM (C8Pcc)

13 And it's worth noting that "Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged."  And that's exactly what happened here.

Posted by: tangonine at June 24, 2010 02:12 PM (C8Pcc)

14 Except for the little fact that they said it in front of a member of the fucking press.  What kind of "private conversation" are you having if it's in front of a "journalist" (using the term loosely)?  Was it "off the record"?  Do you, or anyone else, honestly believe that anything is "off the record" with these jackals?  "Off the record" to a journalist simply means that they MIGHT not use your name when they go to print.  MAYBE.

And that goes back to point one... why would you give a "reporter" for Rolling Fucking Stone the time of day, much less permission to speak with anyone?  You're under no obligation to do so.  In fact, you CAN tell him to piss up a rope.  I understand that the extended exposure was that let these guys see this shitbird as a human being was caused by the Iceland volcano (sorry, I can't spell Hjaklrrrghgfjord), but he shouldn't have been allowed to get within 50 feet of McChrystal or his staff.

Posted by: MikeD at June 25, 2010 09:21 AM (FkL60)

15 yeah, that's why I said in my first comment that their first mistake was letting a rolling stoned reporter within rifle range. 

Everyone bitches about their boss.  Hell, when my boss and I were discussing this at work I told him he wouldn't want to hear the shit I said about him to my wife and he said I wouldn't want to hear the shit he said about me to his.

It's human nature.

That rolling stoned reporter still needs a good, solid ass kicking.  On principle.

Posted by: tangonine at June 26, 2010 12:01 PM (C8Pcc)

16 en kalitelisi burası porno gel bak
kanlı canlı bir platform porno izle keyfine bak
sikiselim diyenler burası sikiş en güzeli
dedik ne bir bakınz vipdilber kaliteliyer

Posted by: kacmak geldi at January 12, 2011 10:58 AM (i5Tel)

17 there should be more than enough sound bites to put together some really nice ads in 2010 and 2012.  Assuming the GOP doesn't blow off the technology to get the message out, anyway.party dresses party dresses uk cheap party dresses prom dresses uk Maxi Dresses cheap dresses occasion dresses

Posted by: fuirt at March 08, 2011 08:58 AM (CoKj6)

18 great article

Posted by: redskins jerseys at July 27, 2011 09:11 PM (TYrXu)

19

cheap oakley sunglassesare sold here for all age groups and come in a complete array of shades, models and styles.At our oakley outlet, you can buy discount oakley sunglasses with high quality, save up to 70%, and these are some colorful oakley sunglasses cheap styles you can choose. Now get top quality fashion oakley sunglasses discountthat suit your mood.If you are searching for oakley sunglasses outletonline.

Posted by: the north face outlet at December 23, 2011 12:47 AM (Au+4C)

20

The blog article very surprised to me! Your writing is good. In this I learned a lot! Thank you!Victor Cruz JerseyEli Manning JerseyHakeem Nicks JerseyMichael Strahan JerseySteve Smith Jersey

Posted by: Plaxico Burress Jersey at March 05, 2012 05:07 AM (MzeRN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment






32kb generated in 0.0494 seconds; 68 queries returned 179 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.