I agree w/ Olberman RE: McChrystal

[geauxtohell]

You mean the guy the Left excoriated as "Betray Us"?? Him?

Isn't he senior to McChrystal and thus this would be just an interim appointment?

you are wrong. the fact that Petraeus has more stars in no way makes this an interim appointment. He is MORE than qualified to run the show in Afghanistan. McChrystal was damaged goods. Petraeus has a solid track record of success.

You're not making much sense here. Petraeus took a lesser appointment. It wasn't a promotion and it must be because he is helping out the administration and in return will get a better job down the road. No argument he is qualified for the job.

Rank wise, it's not different but job wise you are correct.

I think Petraeus is the heir apparent to Chief of Staff of the Army and Joint Chiefs job regardless.

He got this job, because they believe he can get the job done.

 

[The Rabbi]

Petraeus wqill pick up the ball and run with it. He is a good man and doesn't have the infinite ego that McCurser had.

McChrystal was an excellent general who did miracles in Iraq. He is in no way inferior to Petraeus. Petraeus will not do a better job because the problem is not generalship but overall strategy. And Obama's is a loser. It is inherently an unwinnable strategy. I suspect McChrystal realzied this and engineered his own withdrawl from the scene.

 

[geauxtohell]

Petraeus wqill pick up the ball and run with it. He is a good man and doesn't have the infinite ego that McCurser had.

McChrystal was an excellent general who did miracles in Iraq. He is in no way inferior to Petraeus. Petraeus will not do a better job because the problem is not generalship but overall strategy. And Obama's is a loser. It is inherently an unwinnable strategy. I suspect McChrystal realzied this and engineered his own withdrawl from the scene.

I doubt McChrystal would act so cowardly. If the strategy is unwinnable than both the President and McChrystal will shoulder the blame.

This was McChrystal strategy, after all.

 

[The Rabbi]

Petraeus wqill pick up the ball and run with it. He is a good man and doesn't have the infinite ego that McCurser had.

McChrystal was an excellent general who did miracles in Iraq. He is in no way inferior to Petraeus. Petraeus will not do a better job because the problem is not generalship but overall strategy. And Obama's is a loser. It is inherently an unwinnable strategy. I suspect McChrystal realzied this and engineered his own withdrawl from the scene.

I doubt McChrystal would act so cowardly. If the strategy is unwinnable than both the President and McChrystal will shoulder the blame.

This was McChrystal strategy, after all.

Yes and no. He proposed three strategies to Obama. Obama picked one and then modified it. He of course picked the one McChrystal gave the least change of working, and then made it worse.
With McChrystal gone he can't be the scapegoat when it all goes to hell, which is coming in the next 9 months.

 

[CurveLight]

clueless? You're full of shit. People in the military have NEARLY unlimited freedom of speech. There are very few things they can't do that the rest of society can. They cannot refuse to do what their bosses tell them to do without severe penalty. They cannot even publicly question the wisdom or prudence of any of those directions from their boss ans long as the order is lawful. They cannot publicly denigrate or criticize or otherwise disrespect their chain of command, which includes their direct superior, and their direct superior's superior and on up all the way to and including the president of the united states. They cannot divulge information that they have if such information has been given a security classification. Other than that, they are pretty much equal in their free speech rights with the rest of society. To remove those restrictions would allow members of the military to routinely damage the good order and discipline of the military... something I am sure that you would NOT advocate if you were anything other than a purposely contrary prick.

You're a dishonest fuckwad because active duty have no where near the same freedoms as civilians. Who do you hope to fool you whiny *****? They can and by order of the UCMJ must refuse illegal orders dumbass. To say they have to do "whatever their bosses tell them" is simply not true. While off duty they cannot join a march against a US military policy. They cannot criticize their COC even in private barracks you dumbfuck. If they have a complaint they have to use the COC. I'm simply saying it is bullshit to not let our Soldiers exercise freedom of speech. I guess I have much more faith in them than you and others do. Apparently, you gutless wonders do not think our Soldiers could remained disciplined if they were allowed to voice their opinions. Why do you think so little of our Troops?

 

[geauxtohell]

McChrystal was an excellent general who did miracles in Iraq. He is in no way inferior to Petraeus. Petraeus will not do a better job because the problem is not generalship but overall strategy. And Obama's is a loser. It is inherently an unwinnable strategy. I suspect McChrystal realzied this and engineered his own withdrawl from the scene.

I doubt McChrystal would act so cowardly. If the strategy is unwinnable than both the President and McChrystal will shoulder the blame.

This was McChrystal strategy, after all.

Yes and no. He proposed three strategies to Obama. Obama picked one and then modified it. He of course picked the one McChrystal gave the least change of working, and then made it worse.
With McChrystal gone he can't be the scapegoat when it all goes to hell, which is coming in the next 9 months.

Welcome to concept of "Civilian Control of the Military". At least Obama had a good reason to fire McChrystal as opposed to Rumsfeld/Bush who fired all the Generals for simply trying to help them shape a strategy that would work in Iraq and telling them that their notions were ******* fairy tales.

Please refer to General Shinseki's firing and then the double insult of Rumsfeld not attending his retirement ceremony.

 

[maineman]

clueless? You're full of shit. People in the military have NEARLY unlimited freedom of speech. There are very few things they can't do that the rest of society can. They cannot refuse to do what their bosses tell them to do without severe penalty. They cannot even publicly question the wisdom or prudence of any of those directions from their boss as long as the order is lawful. They cannot publicly denigrate or criticize or otherwise disrespect their chain of command, which includes their direct superior, and their direct superior's superior and on up all the way to and including the president of the united states. They cannot divulge information that they have if such information has been given a security classification. Other than that, they are pretty much equal in their free speech rights with the rest of society. To remove those restrictions would allow members of the military to routinely damage the good order and discipline of the military... something I am sure that you would NOT advocate if you were anything other than a purposely contrary prick.

You're a dishonest fuckwad because active duty have no where near the same freedoms as civilians. Who do you hope to fool you whiny *****? They can and by order of the UCMJ must refuse illegal orders dumbass. To say they have to do "whatever their bosses tell them" is simply not true. While off duty they cannot join a march against a US military policy. They cannot criticize their COC even in private barracks you dumbfuck. If they have a complaint they have to use the COC. I'm simply saying it is bullshit to not let our Soldiers exercise freedom of speech. I guess I have much more faith in them than you and others do. Apparently, you gutless wonders do not think our Soldiers could remained disciplined if they were allowed to voice their opinions. Why do you think so little of our Troops?

miss the bolded part, I see. as I said, if you allowed our soldiers exercise "freedom of speech" by refusing to follow their chain of command or by criticizing or otherwise undermining that chain, it would, undoubtedly damage good order and discipline...something that is absolutely necessary in a military organization. But clearly, you know that and are being, as I said, just a purposely contrary prick.

 

[Immanuel]

I doubt McChrystal would act so cowardly. If the strategy is unwinnable than both the President and McChrystal will shoulder the blame.

This was McChrystal strategy, after all.

Yes and no. He proposed three strategies to Obama. Obama picked one and then modified it. He of course picked the one McChrystal gave the least change of working, and then made it worse.
With McChrystal gone he can't be the scapegoat when it all goes to hell, which is coming in the next 9 months.

Welcome to concept of "Civilian Control of the Military". At least Obama had a good reason to fire McChrystal as opposed to Rumsfeld/Bush who fired all the Generals for simply trying to help them shape a strategy that would work in Iraq and telling them that their notions were ******* fairy tales.

Please refer to General Shinseki's firing and then the double insult of Rumsfeld not attending his retirement ceremony.

Who in the heck would want Rumsfeld at their retirement ceremony in the first place?

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

Yes and no. He proposed three strategies to Obama. Obama picked one and then modified it. He of course picked the one McChrystal gave the least change of working, and then made it worse.
With McChrystal gone he can't be the scapegoat when it all goes to hell, which is coming in the next 9 months.

Welcome to concept of "Civilian Control of the Military". At least Obama had a good reason to fire McChrystal as opposed to Rumsfeld/Bush who fired all the Generals for simply trying to help them shape a strategy that would work in Iraq and telling them that their notions were ******* fairy tales.

Please refer to General Shinseki's firing and then the double insult of Rumsfeld not attending his retirement ceremony.

Who in the heck would want Rumsfeld at their retirement ceremony in the first place?

Immie

Not I, but he was the SECDEF and the insult did not go un-noticed by the Army. Nor was the fact that they brought General Schoomaker out of retirement to run the Army and passed over every active duty General in the Army.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Petraeus wqill pick up the ball and run with it. He is a good man and doesn't have the infinite ego that McCurser had.

McChrystal was an excellent general who did miracles in Iraq. He is in no way inferior to Petraeus. Petraeus will not do a better job because the problem is not generalship but overall strategy. And Obama's is a loser. It is inherently an unwinnable strategy. I suspect McChrystal realzied this and engineered his own withdrawl from the scene.

I doubt McChrystal would act so cowardly. If the strategy is unwinnable than both the President and McChrystal will shoulder the blame.

This was McChrystal strategy, after all.

McChrystal made a big powerplay earlier to get his way in Afghanistan. One that should have got him fired then when his office started leaking memos to the press. Good riddance.

 

[The T]

McChrystal was an excellent general who did miracles in Iraq. He is in no way inferior to Petraeus. Petraeus will not do a better job because the problem is not generalship but overall strategy. And Obama's is a loser. It is inherently an unwinnable strategy. I suspect McChrystal realzied this and engineered his own withdrawl from the scene.

I doubt McChrystal would act so cowardly. If the strategy is unwinnable than both the President and McChrystal will shoulder the blame.

This was McChrystal strategy, after all.

Yes and no. He proposed three strategies to Obama. Obama picked one and then modified it. He of course picked the one McChrystal gave the least change of working, and then made it worse.
With McChrystal gone he can't be the scapegoat when it all goes to hell, which is coming in the next 9 months.

Yep. And General Patreus will bear the brunt of the blame...and then the Obama and the Statists will have their revenge on 'Betrayus' whose strategy worked in Iraq...

They will deflect the blame when Obama is ultimately responsible.

Our enemies are no doubt laughing their asses off at this whole turn of events.

 

[CurveLight]

clueless? You're full of shit. People in the military have NEARLY unlimited freedom of speech. There are very few things they can't do that the rest of society can. They cannot refuse to do what their bosses tell them to do without severe penalty. They cannot even publicly question the wisdom or prudence of any of those directions from their boss as long as the order is lawful. They cannot publicly denigrate or criticize or otherwise disrespect their chain of command, which includes their direct superior, and their direct superior's superior and on up all the way to and including the president of the united states. They cannot divulge information that they have if such information has been given a security classification. Other than that, they are pretty much equal in their free speech rights with the rest of society. To remove those restrictions would allow members of the military to routinely damage the good order and discipline of the military... something I am sure that you would NOT advocate if you were anything other than a purposely contrary prick.

You're a dishonest fuckwad because active duty have no where near the same freedoms as civilians. Who do you hope to fool you whiny *****? They can and by order of the UCMJ must refuse illegal orders dumbass. To say they have to do "whatever their bosses tell them" is simply not true. While off duty they cannot join a march against a US military policy. They cannot criticize their COC even in private barracks you dumbfuck. If they have a complaint they have to use the COC. I'm simply saying it is bullshit to not let our Soldiers exercise freedom of speech. I guess I have much more faith in them than you and others do. Apparently, you gutless wonders do not think our Soldiers could remained disciplined if they were allowed to voice their opinions. Why do you think so little of our Troops?

miss the bolded part, I see. as I said, if you allowed our soldiers exercise "freedom of speech" by refusing to follow their chain of command or by criticizing or otherwise undermining that chain, it would, undoubtedly damage good order and discipline...something that is absolutely necessary in a military organization. But clearly, you know that and are being, as I said, just a purposely contrary prick.

I didn't miss any part you champion crybaby. Thank God a spineless ****** like you is retired. I never said anything about refusing lawful orders based on exercising freedom of speech. That is one of those strawmen you keep reaching for. Try again. This time respond to what I actually say.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Why do you think so little of our Troops?

Encouraging the Military to take stances against the Civilian government is a bad *beeping* idea. That's how tin pot dictatorships form. The Founders in their wisdom put a civilian at the head of the military, and as such the military needs to respect the Office, regardless of their opinion of the man.

The Military gets to vote every 4 years for President. They get to pass complaints up the Chain of Command. The military top brass get access to the President. That's enough. Any further and you put the future of the Republic at risk.

It would have been a bad idea for the military to publicly speak out against Bush and his administration, its a bad idea now too. This transcends Democrats and Republicans and goes right to the heart of the survival of the nation.

 

[Ravi]

They will deflect the blame when Obama is ultimately responsible.

You mean like how you pretend that Bush did a good job in Afghanistan?

 

[CurveLight]

you are wrong. the fact that Petraeus has more stars in no way makes this an interim appointment. He is MORE than qualified to run the show in Afghanistan. McChrystal was damaged goods. Petraeus has a solid track record of success.

You're not making much sense here. Petraeus took a lesser appointment. It wasn't a promotion and it must be because he is helping out the administration and in return will get a better job down the road. No argument he is qualified for the job.

Rank wise, it's not different but job wise you are correct.

I think Petraeus is the heir apparent to Chief of Staff of the Army and Joint Chiefs job regardless.

He got this job, because they believe he can get the job done.

Get what "job done" in Afghanistan? Please define victory in clear terms.

 

[geauxtohell]

McChrystal was an excellent general who did miracles in Iraq. He is in no way inferior to Petraeus. Petraeus will not do a better job because the problem is not generalship but overall strategy. And Obama's is a loser. It is inherently an unwinnable strategy. I suspect McChrystal realzied this and engineered his own withdrawl from the scene.

I doubt McChrystal would act so cowardly. If the strategy is unwinnable than both the President and McChrystal will shoulder the blame.

This was McChrystal strategy, after all.

McChrystal made a big powerplay earlier to get his way in Afghanistan. One that should have got him fired then when his office started leaking memos to the press. Good riddance.

I certainly agree this was strike number three.

Still, it's kind of a damn shame. McChrystal put Obama in an untenable catch-22 and most of the major problems were from his ******* staff.

He is responsible for his command climate, but I bet those dumbasses on his staff feel sufficiently stupid now. They are all about to lose their ******* jobs too.

 

[Jarhead]

I doubt McChrystal would act so cowardly. If the strategy is unwinnable than both the President and McChrystal will shoulder the blame.

This was McChrystal strategy, after all.

McChrystal made a big powerplay earlier to get his way in Afghanistan. One that should have got him fired then when his office started leaking memos to the press. Good riddance.

I certainly agree this was strike number three.

Still, it's kind of a damn shame. McChrystal put Obama in an untenable catch-22 and most of the major problems were from his ******* staff.

He is responsible for his command climate, but I bet those dumbasses on his staff feel sufficiently stupid now. They are all about to lose their ******* jobs too.

If McChrystal is responsible for his command climate, I am curious where the CiC falls into that?

You need to think beofre you speak.

 

[Immanuel]

Two years from now, they will come back to General McChrystal, tell us all what a great general he was and install him as commander of the combined forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and say that they never wanted his retirement in the first place.

And our response will be WTF?

Immie

 

[Jarhead]

You're not making much sense here. Petraeus took a lesser appointment. It wasn't a promotion and it must be because he is helping out the administration and in return will get a better job down the road. No argument he is qualified for the job.

Rank wise, it's not different but job wise you are correct.

I think Petraeus is the heir apparent to Chief of Staff of the Army and Joint Chiefs job regardless.

He got this job, because they believe he can get the job done.

Get what "job done" in Afghanistan? Please define victory in clear terms.

Victory?

I have yet to hear our CiC use the word as it pertains to the war.

 

[geauxtohell]

I doubt McChrystal would act so cowardly. If the strategy is unwinnable than both the President and McChrystal will shoulder the blame.

This was McChrystal strategy, after all.

Yes and no. He proposed three strategies to Obama. Obama picked one and then modified it. He of course picked the one McChrystal gave the least change of working, and then made it worse.
With McChrystal gone he can't be the scapegoat when it all goes to hell, which is coming in the next 9 months.

Yep. And General Patreus will bear the brunt of the blame...and then the Obama and the Statists will have their revenge on 'Betrayus' whose strategy worked in Iraq...

They will deflect the blame when Obama is ultimately responsible.

Our enemies are no doubt laughing their asses off at this whole turn of events.

You are right Tank-Engine. The administration engineered this whole thing. They made General McChrystal and his staff say those bad things and then had their liberal media spy write it up in Rolling Stone so they could trick David Petraeus into taking a job simply to have their revenge on him and fire him.

Brilliant logic, there.