Pentagon clears McChrystal of reported wrongdoing

[CaféAuLait]

Pentagon clears McChrystal of reported wrongdoing

WASHINGTON, April 18 (Xinhua) -- The Pentagon announced Monday that there was no sufficient proof of reported wrongdoing by Stanley McChrystal that has forced him to quit the job as top U.S. commander in Afghanistan...

"Not all of the events at issue occurred as reported in the article. In some instances, we found no witness who acknowledged making or hearing the comments as reported," the Pentagon concluded after investigation.




Pentagon clears McChrystal of reported wrongdoing

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... dey should never have fired him inna first place...

... he was just tellin' it like it is...

... now dey oughta `poligize to him...

... an' re-instate him...

... an' let him get back to doin' what he does best...

... whuppin' up onna terrorists."

 

[washamericom]

obama clears rolling stone

 

[Mr. H.]

Oops.

 

[geauxtohell]

McChrystal didn't violate the UCMJ personally, but he did something wrong: he allowed his command team and climate to be openly contemptuous of the civilian leadership in Washington.

In doing so, he undermined the authority of the larger mission and it was clear that he had to go. That might not seem fair, but those are the stakes when you are a four star general. He could no longer effectively lead troops when there was the perception that his command team did not respect the president.

By reading the article, it was obvious that McChrystal never personally was openly contemptuous towards the White House, however, his subordinates were and McChrystal is responsible for his command climate. I feel General McChrystal was poorly served by his subordinates and I hope those men and women pay for what they did to their boss in their own little ways, it's irrelevant though. The mission is larger than the man.

This is barring any instance of Rolling Stone making up lies, in which case a slander suit should be filed. However, I don't think that is the case.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

McChrystal didn't violate the UCMJ personally, but he did something wrong: he allowed his command team and climate to be openly contemptuous of the civilian leadership in Washington.

In doing so, he undermined the authority of the larger mission and it was clear that he had to go. That might not seem fair, but those are the stakes when you are a four star general. He could no longer effectively lead troops when there was the perception that his command team did not respect the president.

By reading the article, it was obvious that McChrystal never personally was openly contemptuous towards the White House, however, his subordinates were and McChrystal is responsible for his command climate. I feel General McChrystal was poorly served by his subordinates and I hope those men and women pay for what they did to their boss in their own little ways, it's irrelevant though. The mission is larger than the man.

This is barring any instance of Rolling Stone making up lies, in which case a slander suit should be filed. However, I don't think that is the case.

Actually, he didn't, that is the point of the article that the OP linked to. The so called facts in the Rolling Stone article are completely bogus, and there is absolutely no evidence one of the parties that was cited in the original article even happened.

Want to try again?

 

[geauxtohell]

Actually, he didn't, that is the point of the article that the OP linked to. The so called facts in the Rolling Stone article are completely bogus, and there is absolutely no evidence one of the parties that was cited in the original article even happened.

Want to try again?

Not quite. This was the conclusion of the investigation:

1 . The evidence was insufficient to substantiate a violation of applicable DoD standards with respect to any of the incidents on which we focused,

2. Not all of the events at issue occurred as reported in the article. In some instances, we found no witness who acknowledged making or hearing the comments as reported. In other instances, we confirmed that the general substance of an incident at issue occurred, but not in the exact context described in the article.

In regards to point 2, that's not exactly a absolute vindication of General McChrystal.

It's all irrelevant. The truth is that the article painted a rift between the commander in Afghanistan and the civilian chain of command in Washington. A General Officer simply can't allow that to happen. That might seem unfair, but the stakes are much higher when you are the senior commander on the ground in a combat zone.

Perception is reality. McChrystal knew it, and that is why he resigned and went quietly into the night. He knew he got screwed on the deal, he also knew it was irrelevant. The mission is larger than McChrystal. You'll notice he hasn't become the right wing media darling that everyone expected him to be after the event.

I am sorry his career ended that way. I think he was poorly served by his staff. However, I respect the way he's conducted himself after leaving active duty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, he didn't, that is the point of the article that the OP linked to. The so called facts in the Rolling Stone article are completely bogus, and there is absolutely no evidence one of the parties that was cited in the original article even happened.

Want to try again?

Not quite. This was the conclusion of the investigation:

1 . The evidence was insufficient to substantiate a violation of applicable DoD standards with respect to any of the incidents on which we focused,

2. Not all of the events at issue occurred as reported in the article. In some instances, we found no witness who acknowledged making or hearing the comments as reported. In other instances, we confirmed that the general substance of an incident at issue occurred, but not in the exact context described in the article.

In regards to point 2, that's not exactly a absolute vindication of General McChrystal.

Maybe you should read deeper into the IG report.

The article also described a drunken dinner party in Paris involving McChrystal, his aides and their wives, but the inspector general concluded it was "celebratory" - it was McChrystal's wedding anniversary - but not drunken or disorderly.

The reporter changed some of the facts, which, in my opinion, makes the whole story suspect. I am obviously not the only one that thinks that way since the White House has hired McChrystal as part of its inititiative to help military families.

Stanley McChrystal to lead WH initiative to help military families - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Would they do that if they thought he tolerated the insubordination? They were right to accept his resignation when the story came out because the political climate made it impossible for him to do his job, and now that the facts are coming out they are doing the right thing and letting the world know they believe he is still on the president's side.

It's all irrelevant. The truth is that the article painted a rift between the commander in Afghanistan and the civilian chain of command in Washington. A General Officer simply can't allow that to happen. That might seem unfair, but the stakes are much higher when you are the senior commander on the ground in a combat zone.

Perception is reality. McChrystal knew it, and that is why he resigned and went quietly into the night. He knew he got screwed on the deal, he also knew it was irrelevant. The mission is larger than McChrystal. You'll notice he hasn't become the right wing media darling that everyone expected him to be after the event.

I am sorry his career ended that way. I think he was poorly served by his staff. However, I respect the way he's conducted himself after leaving active duty.

Here we agree, except in your insistence in blaming his staff. The reporter was the one who didn't care about ethics.

 

[Two Thumbs]

A good man doing a tuff job got shit on by same crack head liberals with an ax to grind.

Any odd on rs posting an apology?