I agree w/ Olberman RE: McChrystal

[Jarhead]

They will deflect the blame when Obama is ultimately responsible.

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

Pathetic. A thread about Obama and McChrystal den you bring up Bush.

Let it go.

 

[CurveLight]

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.

I didn't say for the military to encourage stances against anything. Why is it so difficult to respond to what I'm posting without these strawmen?

The Military has a duty bound Oath to question the legality of every single order given by the Civilian command. That is part of the Checks and Balances System that was created within our Republic. I don't think many of you realize the Culture of Silence has been promoted so deeply within our military that even questioning illegal orders has become cause for punishment.

You're missing the point. Since our military has been blindly obeying illegal orders our Republic is already at risk. If our Generals had obeyed their Oath we would not have invaded Afhganistan or Iraq. Both invasions were illegal and anyone who has half-heartedly researched knows why.

 

[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?

Pathetic. A thread about Obama and McChrystal den you bring up Bush.

Let it go.

So you give him a pass as well. Interesting.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

You need to think before presuming to tell me to think.

To answer your question: Obama is responsible for the military and he just made a move to address a fault within his command climate.

What is your point?

 

[Jarhead]

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.

I didn't say for the military to encourage stances against anything. Why is it so difficult to respond to what I'm posting without these strawmen?

The Military has a duty bound Oath to question the legality of every single order given by the Civilian command. That is part of the Checks and Balances System that was created within our Republic. I don't think many of you realize the Culture of Silence has been promoted so deeply within our military that even questioning illegal orders has become cause for punishment.

You're missing the point. Since our military has been blindly obeying illegal orders our Republic is already at risk. If our Generals had obeyed their Oath we would not have invaded Afhganistan or Iraq. Both invasions were illegal and anyone who has half-heartedly researched knows why.

Excuse me, but their oath is not to question the act of war. Their oath is to question the credibility of certain orders as it pertains to the well being of the men and women under his or her command.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

You need to think before presuming to tell me to think.

To answer your question: Obama is responsible for the military and he just made a move to address a fault within his command climate.

What is your point?

He is responsible for every move all those under his command make. Just as McChrystal is responsible for those underneath him, so is Obama. So it was not McChrystal who put him in that catch -22....it was Obama who did by choosing McChrystal. But based on your posts, you are of liberal thinking and you have no idea of what "personal responsibility" is all about.

 

[CurveLight]

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.

I didn't say for the military to encourage stances against anything. Why is it so difficult to respond to what I'm posting without these strawmen?

The Military has a duty bound Oath to question the legality of every single order given by the Civilian command. That is part of the Checks and Balances System that was created within our Republic. I don't think many of you realize the Culture of Silence has been promoted so deeply within our military that even questioning illegal orders has become cause for punishment.

You're missing the point. Since our military has been blindly obeying illegal orders our Republic is already at risk. If our Generals had obeyed their Oath we would not have invaded Afhganistan or Iraq. Both invasions were illegal and anyone who has half-heartedly researched knows why.

Excuse me, but their oath is not to question the act of war. Their oath is to question the credibility of certain orders as it pertains to the well being of the men and women under his or her command.

Yes. Their Oath requires them to question the legality of every single order. Do you really need me to quote the UCMJ on this and embarrass the hell out of you for not knowing Military 101?

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

Create sufficient economic and governmental structure and stability to allow us to withdrawl and prevent the Taliban from coming back into power.

Whether we can do that will remain to be seen.

As the Taliban says:

"You have all the watched, but we have all the time."

 

[CurveLight]

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

You need to think beofre you speak.

You need to think before presuming to tell me to think.

To answer your question: Obama is responsible for the military and he just made a move to address a fault within his command climate.

What is your point?

He is responsible for every move all those under his command make. Just as McChrystal is responsible for those underneath him, so is Obama. So it was not McChrystal who put him in that catch -22....it was Obama who did by choosing McChrystal. But based on your posts, you are of liberal thinking and you have no idea of what "personal responsibility" is all about.

So when you can't debate you try to run by the "Liberal" card? What a ******* joke. Grow up or go back to Freeperville.

 

[geauxtohell]

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

You need to think beofre you speak.

You need to think before presuming to tell me to think.

To answer your question: Obama is responsible for the military and he just made a move to address a fault within his command climate.

What is your point?

He is responsible for every move all those under his command make. Just as McChrystal is responsible for those underneath him, so is Obama. So it was not McChrystal who put him in that catch -22....it was Obama who did by choosing McChrystal. But based on your posts, you are of liberal thinking and you have no idea of what "personal responsibility" is all about.

Officers serve at the pleasure of the President. Presidents serve at the pleasure of the people. That's the difference.

And you know it.

And STFU with you conservative "personal responsibility" claptrap.

If conservatives walked their own "personal responsibility" talk then the country wouldn't have been such a ******* mess and McCain would have two stepped to the White House.

You guys act like the last eight years never happened or that we weren't paying attention.

BTW, it is not disputable that McChrystal was responsible for the command climate. It's in the job description and one of those facets of officership and command that is drilled into your head for the totality of your career.

 

[The T]

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.

No it's Transparent Logic. Meaning the Statist mind is so predicatable they're transparent. It doesn't take much to know they're next move based on their history...their objectives, their intent.

How's it feel to be predictable? heck even Obama told us what he was going to do to the economy in his books, and during his campaign. He hasn't disappointed.

History is a great teacher if one pays attention.

 

[CurveLight]

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.

Create sufficient economic and governmental structure and stability to allow us to withdrawl and prevent the Taliban from coming back into power.

Whether we can do that will remain to be seen.

As the Taliban says:

"You have all the watched, but we have all the time."

What is a sufficient economic and governmental structure? What if they hold nationwide elections and the people elect the Taliban back in power? You have not defined victory at all. What you've done is thrown out ambiguous talking points. Why are our Troops dying to build other nations when our own Nation needs schools and roads and hospitals?

 

[Jarhead]

You need to think before presuming to tell me to think.

To answer your question: Obama is responsible for the military and he just made a move to address a fault within his command climate.

What is your point?

He is responsible for every move all those under his command make. Just as McChrystal is responsible for those underneath him, so is Obama. So it was not McChrystal who put him in that catch -22....it was Obama who did by choosing McChrystal. But based on your posts, you are of liberal thinking and you have no idea of what "personal responsibility" is all about.

So when you can't debate you try to run by the "Liberal" card? What a ******* joke. Grow up or go back to Freeperville.

huh? I truly believe that what McChrystals people said was McChrystals responsibility and McChrystal is Obamas responsibility. Obama set himself up by taking on a General with little public exposure. It was Obamas responsibility.

And I will take you and your foul mouth on in any debate and I will win when you can not refute what I say and I will learn when you can.

You have an issue with that?

 

[Jarhead]

You need to think before presuming to tell me to think.

To answer your question: Obama is responsible for the military and he just made a move to address a fault within his command climate.

What is your point?

He is responsible for every move all those under his command make. Just as McChrystal is responsible for those underneath him, so is Obama. So it was not McChrystal who put him in that catch -22....it was Obama who did by choosing McChrystal. But based on your posts, you are of liberal thinking and you have no idea of what "personal responsibility" is all about.

Officers serve at the pleasure of the President. Presidents serve at the pleasure of the people. That's the difference.

And you know it.

And STFU with you conservative "personal responsibility" claptrap.

If conservatives walked their own "personal responsibility" talk then the country wouldn't have been such a ******* mess and McCain would have two stepped to the White House.

You guys act like the last eight years never happened or that we weren't paying attention.

BTW, it is not disputable that McChrystal was responsible for the command climate. It's in the job description and one of those facets of officership and command that is drilled into your head for the totality of your career.

Learn about politics then see me.

Conservatives did not have anything to do with the last 8 years. Yes, the first 4. Then we learned that he was a charleton just as you are learning that Obama is a charleton.

 

[B. Kidd]

Keith Olbermann couldn't even collect a bill as an errand boy, sent by a grocery clerk, to collect a bill. Col. Kurtz would have had his decapitated, rotting head, on a bamboo stake in a millisecond.
Olbermann should have stuck to sports broadcasting, which he semi-sucked at anyway.

Just my take.

 

[CurveLight]

He is responsible for every move all those under his command make. Just as McChrystal is responsible for those underneath him, so is Obama. So it was not McChrystal who put him in that catch -22....it was Obama who did by choosing McChrystal. But based on your posts, you are of liberal thinking and you have no idea of what "personal responsibility" is all about.

So when you can't debate you try to run by the "Liberal" card? What a ******* joke. Grow up or go back to Freeperville.

huh? I truly believe that what McChrystals people said was McChrystals responsibility and McChrystal is Obamas responsibility. Obama set himself up by taking on a General with little public exposure. It was Obamas responsibility.

And I will take you and your foul mouth on in any debate and I will win when you can not refute what I say and I will learn when you can.

You have an issue with that?

You tried to dismiss Geaux's post based on:

"But based on your posts, you are of liberal thinking and you have no idea of what "personal responsibility" is all about."

That is what I was responding to Mr. Lightspeed. If you don't like my choice of words......tough shit. Change your tampon and stop crying like a little *****.

 

[geauxtohell]

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

Create sufficient economic and governmental structure and stability to allow us to withdrawl and prevent the Taliban from coming back into power.

Whether we can do that will remain to be seen.

As the Taliban says:

"You have all the watched, but we have all the time."

What is a sufficient economic and governmental structure? What if they hold nationwide elections and the people elect the Taliban back in power? You have not defined victory at all. What you've done is thrown out ambiguous talking points. Why are our Troops dying to build other nations when our own Nation needs schools and roads and hospitals?

Enough to keep the Taliban from coming back into power. I also have never thought the traditional notion of "victory" was possible in Afghanistan. I didn't think it in 2001, I didn't think it after being there for a year in 2005, and I don't think it now.

The best we can do is stabilize it.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

In this idiotic thread finally someone sclices through the heaping pile of bullshit and asks the only question that matters. And if it is not answered in a clear and understandable way the only option that makes any sense is to withdraw and make ready for whatever country harbors Al Quiada and allows them a base to attack us again. There are terrorists all over the planet. I think we have had a big enough hissy fit in Afgahnistan. Hpefully the next time a rag tag group of social missfits does something to us inside our borders we send only the force neccesary to destroy their bases. This "war" ont error is no more winnable than the war on drugs. At best we can only extract a modest slice of revenge on those who do us harm. I have no problem with that.

 

[geauxtohell]

He is responsible for every move all those under his command make. Just as McChrystal is responsible for those underneath him, so is Obama. So it was not McChrystal who put him in that catch -22....it was Obama who did by choosing McChrystal. But based on your posts, you are of liberal thinking and you have no idea of what "personal responsibility" is all about.

Officers serve at the pleasure of the President. Presidents serve at the pleasure of the people. That's the difference.

And you know it.

And STFU with you conservative "personal responsibility" claptrap.

If conservatives walked their own "personal responsibility" talk then the country wouldn't have been such a ******* mess and McCain would have two stepped to the White House.

You guys act like the last eight years never happened or that we weren't paying attention.

BTW, it is not disputable that McChrystal was responsible for the command climate. It's in the job description and one of those facets of officership and command that is drilled into your head for the totality of your career.

Learn about politics then see me.

Conservatives did not have anything to do with the last 8 years. Yes, the first 4. Then we learned that he was a charleton just as you are learning that Obama is a charleton.

Oh the famous "moving goalpost"/"no true scotsman" argument.

The irony is you refuse to own the eight years of the Bush Administration while lecturing me on "responsibility".

How fast is your head spinning right now?

BTW, I supported Obama. I voted for him. I am not going to try and act like I didn't after the fact, even if it becomes embarrassing.

How's that for personal responsibility?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

What in heck does George Bush have to do with this? Please enlighten me. Or was it merely a gratuitous slap to deflect attention.
Obama selected McChrystal, presumably for his expertise. While Obama is CnC and ultimately can make decisions, it shows bad judgment to overturn your hand picked expert's opinion. I am 100% certain that McChrystal has forgotten tons more about warfare than Obama ever knew.