Military General Bashes Obama Administration

[Foxfyre]

Hey, um, you guys just remember you are talking about LTC Ollie and not SFC Ollie.

Right. For sure. I'm thinking SFC Ollie wasn't mixed up in Iran Contra, or Mena, or any of those national scandalish mystique kinds of things.

 

[Immanuel]

Hey, um, you guys just remember you are talking about LTC Ollie and not SFC Ollie.

Oh right! I had confused you two.

Glad you reminded me of that. I was beginning to think you were evil incarnate.

Immie

 

[SFC Ollie]

Good thing i said something. Besides i had the name before I ever heard of LTC Ollie.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hey, um, you guys just remember you are talking about LTC Ollie and not SFC Ollie.

You, my friend, are a Great American.

psst: I mean that. I admire your unequivocal patriotism.

 

[MaggieMae]

Hey, um, you guys just remember you are talking about LTC Ollie and not SFC Ollie.

You, my friend, are a Great American.

psst: I mean that. I admire your unequivocal patriotism.

Me too. Making any connection at all didn't even occur to me.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I didn't expect anyone to take that seriously. But you would be surprised how many times in the past 10 years or so I have been accused of taking his name. Not on this board thankfully.

 

[Intense]

Ollie is unforgivable politically and culturally until he admits he was not only wrong but criminally wrong, that he put his ideology above an officer's oath to the Constitution. But he lied because he was scared not because he was defending the Constitution. Poor pitiful Ollie.

Just because Ollie wouldn't share a shower with you, you should not hold a grudge Jake.

Ollie won't hold it against you, so I won't. Get over it Son. Some people you just can't have.

Ollie betrayed his commission, Intense, and never has even apologized, so, no, he does not get a break. That's why I am on Stephanie here like white on rice: she admitted lying and acted like it was no big deal. I have no use for such people.

Ollie paid his dues many times over Jake. Neither you or I have all the pieces to the puzzle, rendering your conclusions lame.

 

[Intense]

Ollie is doing great though. Since he retired from the Marines, he wrote a best seller, he has a documentary style history program on Fox News that he dearly loves, and has all kinds of free time to pursue other interests.

His situation and McChrystal's situations were entirely different, however. Ollie was betrayed by people he trusted, falsely accused of crimes he did not commit, convicted on flimsy evidence during testimony for which he had been given immunity, and subsequently had that conviction overturned by a judge who knew it. He absolutely shredded the Congress who tried to hang him in those hearings.

Did Ollie ever run for public office? I don't recall that he did.

You are so completely, positively, absolutely WRONG in your assessment of Iran-Contra, I can't even go there. Please refresh your history. Even strong supporters of that awful deal at the time wouldn't go as far as your glowing comments.

I didn't mention Iran Contra because it did not apply to the comments I made. Nor at any time in my participation on USMB have I EVER made any assessment of any kind re Iran Contra. While I agree we can't even go there in this discussion, it's pretty hard to be wrong about it when I have never expressed an opinion about it, glowing or otherwise.

I did, however, watch virtually ever minute of the Congressional hearings with Ollie North and I have read all his books plus some other people's books related to that era. So I think I have a pretty good grasp of the situation and am capable of seeing it without partisan blinders or ideological tunnel vision being involved.

Ollie was NOT convicted of participation in Iran Contra or any other of the controversial issues in which he was involved. He was convicted for accepting a security fence judged to be an illegal gift (plus he changed the date on the receipt for the fence), shredding classified douments, and lying to Congress (or that was effectively what they got him for) all of which were freely admitted by him and all of which were overturned by a federal judge because all were admitted with full immunity granted to him by Congress.

And he does have a a regular history program on Fox every week and he has written several best sellers and he is doing just fine.

Quarrel with that if you think you have a case.

Jake may very well suffering from penis envy.

 

[Foxfyre]

You are so completely, positively, absolutely WRONG in your assessment of Iran-Contra, I can't even go there. Please refresh your history. Even strong supporters of that awful deal at the time wouldn't go as far as your glowing comments.

I didn't mention Iran Contra because it did not apply to the comments I made. Nor at any time in my participation on USMB have I EVER made any assessment of any kind re Iran Contra. While I agree we can't even go there in this discussion, it's pretty hard to be wrong about it when I have never expressed an opinion about it, glowing or otherwise.

I did, however, watch virtually ever minute of the Congressional hearings with Ollie North and I have read all his books plus some other people's books related to that era. So I think I have a pretty good grasp of the situation and am capable of seeing it without partisan blinders or ideological tunnel vision being involved.

Ollie was NOT convicted of participation in Iran Contra or any other of the controversial issues in which he was involved. He was convicted for accepting a security fence judged to be an illegal gift (plus he changed the date on the receipt for the fence), shredding classified douments, and lying to Congress (or that was effectively what they got him for) all of which were freely admitted by him and all of which were overturned by a federal judge because all were admitted with full immunity granted to him by Congress.

And he does have a a regular history program on Fox every week and he has written several best sellers and he is doing just fine.

Quarrel with that if you think you have a case.

Jake may very well suffering from penis envy.

I'm not sure what some of these folks are suffering when they can't seem to see the forest for the trees. With all the HUGE amount of stuff that has been researched and written and speculated about and contemplated and theorized about etc. etc. etc. re all the tangled web of Iran Contra and related issues, to boil it down to "Oliver North is bad" with no give or take allowed in that is just mind boggling to me.

And these same people almost invariably will argue that we should be cutting the current players in the White House and Congress some slack and should be seeing more good than bad.

It just leaves a lot of us shaking our heads in amazement.

 

[Intense]

I didn't mention Iran Contra because it did not apply to the comments I made. Nor at any time in my participation on USMB have I EVER made any assessment of any kind re Iran Contra. While I agree we can't even go there in this discussion, it's pretty hard to be wrong about it when I have never expressed an opinion about it, glowing or otherwise.

I did, however, watch virtually ever minute of the Congressional hearings with Ollie North and I have read all his books plus some other people's books related to that era. So I think I have a pretty good grasp of the situation and am capable of seeing it without partisan blinders or ideological tunnel vision being involved.

Ollie was NOT convicted of participation in Iran Contra or any other of the controversial issues in which he was involved. He was convicted for accepting a security fence judged to be an illegal gift (plus he changed the date on the receipt for the fence), shredding classified douments, and lying to Congress (or that was effectively what they got him for) all of which were freely admitted by him and all of which were overturned by a federal judge because all were admitted with full immunity granted to him by Congress.

And he does have a a regular history program on Fox every week and he has written several best sellers and he is doing just fine.

Quarrel with that if you think you have a case.

Jake may very well suffering from penis envy.

I'm not sure what some of these folks are suffering when they can't seem to see the forest for the trees. With all the HUGE amount of stuff that has been researched and written and speculated about and contemplated and theorized about etc. etc. etc. re all the tangled web of Iran Contra and related issues, to boil it down to "Oliver North is bad" with no give or take allowed in that is just mind boggling to me.

And these same people almost invariably will argue that we should be cutting the current players in the White House and Congress some slack and should be seeing more good than bad.

It just leaves a lot of us shaking our heads in amazement.

There should be a medical term for the ailment, well anyway, I hope the nurse takes good care of them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I didn't mention Iran Contra because it did not apply to the comments I made. Nor at any time in my participation on USMB have I EVER made any assessment of any kind re Iran Contra. While I agree we can't even go there in this discussion, it's pretty hard to be wrong about it when I have never expressed an opinion about it, glowing or otherwise.

I did, however, watch virtually ever minute of the Congressional hearings with Ollie North and I have read all his books plus some other people's books related to that era. So I think I have a pretty good grasp of the situation and am capable of seeing it without partisan blinders or ideological tunnel vision being involved.

Ollie was NOT convicted of participation in Iran Contra or any other of the controversial issues in which he was involved. He was convicted for accepting a security fence judged to be an illegal gift (plus he changed the date on the receipt for the fence), shredding classified douments, and lying to Congress (or that was effectively what they got him for) all of which were freely admitted by him and all of which were overturned by a federal judge because all were admitted with full immunity granted to him by Congress.

And he does have a a regular history program on Fox every week and he has written several best sellers and he is doing just fine.

Quarrel with that if you think you have a case.

Jake may very well suffering from penis envy.

I'm not sure what some of these folks are suffering when they can't seem to see the forest for the trees. With all the HUGE amount of stuff that has been researched and written and speculated about and contemplated and theorized about etc. etc. etc. re all the tangled web of Iran Contra and related issues, to boil it down to "Oliver North is bad" with no give or take allowed in that is just mind boggling to me.

And these same people almost invariably will argue that we should be cutting the current players in the White House and Congress some slack and should be seeing more good than bad.

It just leaves a lot of us shaking our heads in amazement.

The renditions of the lame reactionary right defending the indefensible leaves well informed Americans shaking their heads. Ollie was a criminal, not a hero.

 

[Toome]

I was finally able to read the article.

First things first: McChrystal fucked up. It is appropriate that he resign; any commander who cannot support the Boss should resign.

Having said that, I'm still not sure if McChrystal did this deliberately as a way out of a no-win situation or if he simply forgot that he had imbedded media and just got careless with his remarks.

Looking at the remarks, comments and other anecdotes, I will tell you that this is really nothing new. These are the sort of things said behind closed doors, and I've heard them in many a conference room, staff meeting, tactical operations center or just out in the boonies. The big difference is that he had imbedded media, so a lot of these comments were captured, quoted and attributed. There's no such thing as a casual conversation, and this applies more to the news media than anyone else. As I said, the General either forgot this, or it's quite possible that he was aware of this and used it to press his agenda. Either way, the General fucked up.

McChrystal is the type of officer who gets results. He is the type of commander troops would follow to Hell. There's no doubt in my mind that he was the right man for the job. Problem is that his blunt results-oriented approach that attains victory on the battlefield is NOT the way to deal with politicians, diplomats and the White House. That's the ugly reality of being the top commander: being diplomatic. This does not mean that commanders need to be politically correct. They can be firm. It's all in how it's said.

I've been there, done that but obviously on a much smaller scale (although pissing off an ambassador was as "high" as it went for me). And in this regard, I empathize with McChrystal. Soldiers speak very bluntly. "What's your fucking problem?" is a toned-down, diplomatic version of "Hey, Shithead! Pull your head out of your ass and tell me why you're a fucking retard!" But in the civilian world, it still comes across as offensive, disrespectful and insubordinate. Remember, in the military, "son-of-a-bitch" is a term of endearment. The General forgot to tone it down and translate it into civilian terminology.

My fear is that the substance of McChrystal's criticisms will be lost because so much focus is on the Rolling Stone article. We can't overlook that one of the top experts on counterterrorism/counterinsurgencies in the world had issue with how DC politics was interfering with battlefield success. If that's ignored, then General Petraeus is going to experience the same level of frustration, inaction and ineffectiveness.

One last point: I still think that President Obama is too sensitive to any sort of criticism. Look, this guy essentially waged war against Fox News. How dumb is that. Still, he's the President of the United States, and whether or not he has his head up his ass, General McChrystal is still obligated to be respectful of the Commander in Chief when it comes to public statements or making statements that will make their way to the public.

McChrystal fucked up.

 

[Mini 14]

I was finally able to read the article.

First things first: McChrystal fucked up. It is appropriate that he resign; any commander who cannot support the Boss should resign.

Having said that, I'm still not sure if McChrystal did this deliberately as a way out of a no-win situation or if he simply forgot that he had imbedded media and just got careless with his remarks.

Looking at the remarks, comments and other anecdotes, I will tell you that this is really nothing new. These are the sort of things said behind closed doors, and I've heard them in many a conference room, staff meeting, tactical operations center or just out in the boonies. The big difference is that he had imbedded media, so a lot of these comments were captured, quoted and attributed. There's no such thing as a casual conversation, and this applies more to the news media than anyone else. As I said, the General either forgot this, or it's quite possible that he was aware of this and used it to press his agenda. Either way, the General fucked up.

McChrystal is the type of officer who gets results. He is the type of commander troops would follow to Hell. There's no doubt in my mind that he was the right man for the job. Problem is that his blunt results-oriented approach that attains victory on the battlefield is NOT the way to deal with politicians, diplomats and the White House. That's the ugly reality of being the top commander: being diplomatic. This does not mean that commanders need to be politically correct. They can be firm. It's all in how it's said.

I've been there, done that but obviously on a much smaller scale (although pissing off an ambassador was as "high" as it went for me). And in this regard, I empathize with McChrystal. Soldiers speak very bluntly. "What's your fucking problem?" is a toned-down, diplomatic version of "Hey, Shithead! Pull your head out of your ass and tell me why you're a fucking retard!" But in the civilian world, it still comes across as offensive, disrespectful and insubordinate. Remember, in the military, "son-of-a-bitch" is a term of endearment. The General forgot to tone it down and translate it into civilian terminology.

My fear is that the substance of McChrystal's criticisms will be lost because so much focus is on the Rolling Stone article. We can't overlook that one of the top experts on counterterrorism/counterinsurgencies in the world had issue with how DC politics was interfering with battlefield success. If that's ignored, then General Petraeus is going to experience the same level of frustration, inaction and ineffectiveness.

One last point: I still think that President Obama is too sensitive to any sort of criticism. Look, this guy essentially waged war against Fox News. How dumb is that. Still, he's the President of the United States, and whether or not he has his head up his ass, General McChrystal is still obligated to be respectful of the Commander in Chief when it comes to public statements or making statements that will make their way to the public.

McChrystal fucked up.

Spot-on. And while I've also noted it is possible that the General got careless with his remarks, I highly doubt that was the case. The more probable scenario is he knew that what he was saying would push the buttons, and he was looking for a reaction which would dictate his response.

You're right, he fucked up.

But you're even more right in that the real issue is politics interfering with battlefield strategy. I suspect Petraeus will encounter the same frustration, because I believe his boss isn't qualified, able, or ready to allow the experts to do their jobs.

 

[Immanuel]

I was finally able to read the article.

First things first: McChrystal fucked up. It is appropriate that he resign; any commander who cannot support the Boss should resign.

Having said that, I'm still not sure if McChrystal did this deliberately as a way out of a no-win situation or if he simply forgot that he had imbedded media and just got careless with his remarks.

Looking at the remarks, comments and other anecdotes, I will tell you that this is really nothing new. These are the sort of things said behind closed doors, and I've heard them in many a conference room, staff meeting, tactical operations center or just out in the boonies. The big difference is that he had imbedded media, so a lot of these comments were captured, quoted and attributed. There's no such thing as a casual conversation, and this applies more to the news media than anyone else. As I said, the General either forgot this, or it's quite possible that he was aware of this and used it to press his agenda. Either way, the General fucked up.

McChrystal is the type of officer who gets results. He is the type of commander troops would follow to Hell. There's no doubt in my mind that he was the right man for the job. Problem is that his blunt results-oriented approach that attains victory on the battlefield is NOT the way to deal with politicians, diplomats and the White House. That's the ugly reality of being the top commander: being diplomatic. This does not mean that commanders need to be politically correct. They can be firm. It's all in how it's said.

I've been there, done that but obviously on a much smaller scale (although pissing off an ambassador was as "high" as it went for me). And in this regard, I empathize with McChrystal. Soldiers speak very bluntly. "What's your fucking problem?" is a toned-down, diplomatic version of "Hey, Shithead! Pull your head out of your ass and tell me why you're a fucking retard!" But in the civilian world, it still comes across as offensive, disrespectful and insubordinate. Remember, in the military, "son-of-a-bitch" is a term of endearment. The General forgot to tone it down and translate it into civilian terminology.

My fear is that the substance of McChrystal's criticisms will be lost because so much focus is on the Rolling Stone article. We can't overlook that one of the top experts on counterterrorism/counterinsurgencies in the world had issue with how DC politics was interfering with battlefield success. If that's ignored, then General Petraeus is going to experience the same level of frustration, inaction and ineffectiveness.

One last point: I still think that President Obama is too sensitive to any sort of criticism. Look, this guy essentially waged war against Fox News. How dumb is that. Still, he's the President of the United States, and whether or not he has his head up his ass, General McChrystal is still obligated to be respectful of the Commander in Chief when it comes to public statements or making statements that will make their way to the public.

McChrystal fucked up.

I must say, I am totally lost on how you can come to this conclusion. I read the article. None of the "horrible" criticisms even came from him and there is a reason that horrible is in quotes and that is that there weren't any.

The only impression I get out of this entire controversy is that the President has very thin skin.

Immie

 

[Intense]

Jake may very well suffering from penis envy.

I'm not sure what some of these folks are suffering when they can't seem to see the forest for the trees. With all the HUGE amount of stuff that has been researched and written and speculated about and contemplated and theorized about etc. etc. etc. re all the tangled web of Iran Contra and related issues, to boil it down to "Oliver North is bad" with no give or take allowed in that is just mind boggling to me.

And these same people almost invariably will argue that we should be cutting the current players in the White House and Congress some slack and should be seeing more good than bad.

It just leaves a lot of us shaking our heads in amazement.

The renditions of the lame reactionary right defending the indefensible leaves well informed Americans shaking their heads. Ollie was a criminal, not a hero.

Jake, you are a criminal, not a hero.

 

[MaggieMae]

I was finally able to read the article.

First things first: McChrystal fucked up. It is appropriate that he resign; any commander who cannot support the Boss should resign.

Having said that, I'm still not sure if McChrystal did this deliberately as a way out of a no-win situation or if he simply forgot that he had imbedded media and just got careless with his remarks.

Looking at the remarks, comments and other anecdotes, I will tell you that this is really nothing new. These are the sort of things said behind closed doors, and I've heard them in many a conference room, staff meeting, tactical operations center or just out in the boonies. The big difference is that he had imbedded media, so a lot of these comments were captured, quoted and attributed. There's no such thing as a casual conversation, and this applies more to the news media than anyone else. As I said, the General either forgot this, or it's quite possible that he was aware of this and used it to press his agenda. Either way, the General fucked up.

McChrystal is the type of officer who gets results. He is the type of commander troops would follow to Hell. There's no doubt in my mind that he was the right man for the job. Problem is that his blunt results-oriented approach that attains victory on the battlefield is NOT the way to deal with politicians, diplomats and the White House. That's the ugly reality of being the top commander: being diplomatic. This does not mean that commanders need to be politically correct. They can be firm. It's all in how it's said.

I've been there, done that but obviously on a much smaller scale (although pissing off an ambassador was as "high" as it went for me). And in this regard, I empathize with McChrystal. Soldiers speak very bluntly. "What's your fucking problem?" is a toned-down, diplomatic version of "Hey, Shithead! Pull your head out of your ass and tell me why you're a fucking retard!" But in the civilian world, it still comes across as offensive, disrespectful and insubordinate. Remember, in the military, "son-of-a-bitch" is a term of endearment. The General forgot to tone it down and translate it into civilian terminology.

My fear is that the substance of McChrystal's criticisms will be lost because so much focus is on the Rolling Stone article. We can't overlook that one of the top experts on counterterrorism/counterinsurgencies in the world had issue with how DC politics was interfering with battlefield success. If that's ignored, then General Petraeus is going to experience the same level of frustration, inaction and ineffectiveness.

One last point: I still think that President Obama is too sensitive to any sort of criticism. Look, this guy essentially waged war against Fox News. How dumb is that. Still, he's the President of the United States, and whether or not he has his head up his ass, General McChrystal is still obligated to be respectful of the Commander in Chief when it comes to public statements or making statements that will make their way to the public.

McChrystal fucked up.

I pretty much agree with all you said. In fact, I just posted a new thread saying much the same thing. I should have returned here first.

 

[MaggieMae]

I was finally able to read the article.

First things first: McChrystal fucked up. It is appropriate that he resign; any commander who cannot support the Boss should resign.

Having said that, I'm still not sure if McChrystal did this deliberately as a way out of a no-win situation or if he simply forgot that he had imbedded media and just got careless with his remarks.

Looking at the remarks, comments and other anecdotes, I will tell you that this is really nothing new. These are the sort of things said behind closed doors, and I've heard them in many a conference room, staff meeting, tactical operations center or just out in the boonies. The big difference is that he had imbedded media, so a lot of these comments were captured, quoted and attributed. There's no such thing as a casual conversation, and this applies more to the news media than anyone else. As I said, the General either forgot this, or it's quite possible that he was aware of this and used it to press his agenda. Either way, the General fucked up.

McChrystal is the type of officer who gets results. He is the type of commander troops would follow to Hell. There's no doubt in my mind that he was the right man for the job. Problem is that his blunt results-oriented approach that attains victory on the battlefield is NOT the way to deal with politicians, diplomats and the White House. That's the ugly reality of being the top commander: being diplomatic. This does not mean that commanders need to be politically correct. They can be firm. It's all in how it's said.

I've been there, done that but obviously on a much smaller scale (although pissing off an ambassador was as "high" as it went for me). And in this regard, I empathize with McChrystal. Soldiers speak very bluntly. "What's your fucking problem?" is a toned-down, diplomatic version of "Hey, Shithead! Pull your head out of your ass and tell me why you're a fucking retard!" But in the civilian world, it still comes across as offensive, disrespectful and insubordinate. Remember, in the military, "son-of-a-bitch" is a term of endearment. The General forgot to tone it down and translate it into civilian terminology.

My fear is that the substance of McChrystal's criticisms will be lost because so much focus is on the Rolling Stone article. We can't overlook that one of the top experts on counterterrorism/counterinsurgencies in the world had issue with how DC politics was interfering with battlefield success. If that's ignored, then General Petraeus is going to experience the same level of frustration, inaction and ineffectiveness.

One last point: I still think that President Obama is too sensitive to any sort of criticism. Look, this guy essentially waged war against Fox News. How dumb is that. Still, he's the President of the United States, and whether or not he has his head up his ass, General McChrystal is still obligated to be respectful of the Commander in Chief when it comes to public statements or making statements that will make their way to the public.

McChrystal fucked up.

Spot-on. And while I've also noted it is possible that the General got careless with his remarks, I highly doubt that was the case. The more probable scenario is he knew that what he was saying would push the buttons, and he was looking for a reaction which would dictate his response.

You're right, he fucked up.

But you're even more right in that the real issue is politics interfering with battlefield strategy. I suspect Petraeus will encounter the same frustration, because I believe his boss isn't qualified, able, or ready to allow the experts to do their jobs.

The battlefield strategy is counterinsurgency, which both McChrystal and Patreaus promoted, which involves taking a target, holding, and securing, as opposed to standard warfare of take and leave. It worked much better in Iraq because there the military wasn't dealing with home-grown tribal warlords, but non-Iraqi outside insurgents.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm not sure what some of these folks are suffering when they can't seem to see the forest for the trees. With all the HUGE amount of stuff that has been researched and written and speculated about and contemplated and theorized about etc. etc. etc. re all the tangled web of Iran Contra and related issues, to boil it down to "Oliver North is bad" with no give or take allowed in that is just mind boggling to me.

And these same people almost invariably will argue that we should be cutting the current players in the White House and Congress some slack and should be seeing more good than bad.

It just leaves a lot of us shaking our heads in amazement.

The renditions of the lame reactionary right defending the indefensible leaves well informed Americans shaking their heads. Ollie was a criminal, not a hero.

Jake, you are a criminal, not a hero.

Ah, Intense, I like you despite your silliness.

 

[Intense]

I was finally able to read the article.

First things first: McChrystal fucked up. It is appropriate that he resign; any commander who cannot support the Boss should resign.

Having said that, I'm still not sure if McChrystal did this deliberately as a way out of a no-win situation or if he simply forgot that he had imbedded media and just got careless with his remarks.

Looking at the remarks, comments and other anecdotes, I will tell you that this is really nothing new. These are the sort of things said behind closed doors, and I've heard them in many a conference room, staff meeting, tactical operations center or just out in the boonies. The big difference is that he had imbedded media, so a lot of these comments were captured, quoted and attributed. There's no such thing as a casual conversation, and this applies more to the news media than anyone else. As I said, the General either forgot this, or it's quite possible that he was aware of this and used it to press his agenda. Either way, the General fucked up.

McChrystal is the type of officer who gets results. He is the type of commander troops would follow to Hell. There's no doubt in my mind that he was the right man for the job. Problem is that his blunt results-oriented approach that attains victory on the battlefield is NOT the way to deal with politicians, diplomats and the White House. That's the ugly reality of being the top commander: being diplomatic. This does not mean that commanders need to be politically correct. They can be firm. It's all in how it's said.

I've been there, done that but obviously on a much smaller scale (although pissing off an ambassador was as "high" as it went for me). And in this regard, I empathize with McChrystal. Soldiers speak very bluntly. "What's your fucking problem?" is a toned-down, diplomatic version of "Hey, Shithead! Pull your head out of your ass and tell me why you're a fucking retard!" But in the civilian world, it still comes across as offensive, disrespectful and insubordinate. Remember, in the military, "son-of-a-bitch" is a term of endearment. The General forgot to tone it down and translate it into civilian terminology.

My fear is that the substance of McChrystal's criticisms will be lost because so much focus is on the Rolling Stone article. We can't overlook that one of the top experts on counterterrorism/counterinsurgencies in the world had issue with how DC politics was interfering with battlefield success. If that's ignored, then General Petraeus is going to experience the same level of frustration, inaction and ineffectiveness.

One last point: I still think that President Obama is too sensitive to any sort of criticism. Look, this guy essentially waged war against Fox News. How dumb is that. Still, he's the President of the United States, and whether or not he has his head up his ass, General McChrystal is still obligated to be respectful of the Commander in Chief when it comes to public statements or making statements that will make their way to the public.

McChrystal fucked up.

I pretty much agree with all you said. In fact, I just posted a new thread saying much the same thing. I should have returned here first.

Well stated.

 

[Intense]

The renditions of the lame reactionary right defending the indefensible leaves well informed Americans shaking their heads. Ollie was a criminal, not a hero.

Jake, you are a criminal, not a hero.

Ah, Intense, I like you despite your silliness.

I like you too Jake.

Figure o Ollie being the Master mind... Ah....

Ollie being in on logistics and planning... Yeah....

Ollie being the designated Scape Goat... Hell Yeah....

Ollie being just a pawn.... nope.

I'm just finishing up on "Executive Power" by Vince Flynn. He's written a pretty good series of books, you might like him.