Was Canning General McCrystal A Mistake?

Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
16,594
Reaction score
2,309
Points
290
Location
Idaho


Firing General McCrystal was a rare point of agreement I had with the Obama administration after his off the cuff comments during a Rolling Stones Magazine interview. I thought he was right that it undermined the chain of command.

But fate is a funny thing. General Petraeus was appointed to replace McCrystal and even now the aftermath of his far from abstemious personal life is all over the news. He went from Chief of Joint Forces to head the CIA and leaked some very sensitive information in the throes of ecstacy with some mistress; all of this made possible by being appointed McCrystal's successor.

And I'm kicking myself, knowing I should have known better. Obama has the reverse Midas touch, everything he touches turning to crap. Even this.

General McCrystal was a bit of a hot head and he blew off some steam on a Left wing tabloid, Petraeus was careless with national top secret information, carried away by some temporary dalliance. McCrystal broke protocol, Petraeus broke the law.

So my question is, is it time we revisit our policy of how quickly we sack accomplished major generals? In retrospect, a little sassiness on the side could have been taken in stride.
 

NoTeaPartyPleez

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
11,826
Reaction score
1,912
Points
245


Firing General McCrystal was a rare point of agreement I had with the Obama administration after his off the cuff comments during a Rolling Stones Magazine interview. I thought he was right that it undermined the chain of command.

But fate is a funny thing. General Petraeus was appointed to replace McCrystal and even now the aftermath of his far from abstemious personal life is all over the news. He went from Chief of Joint Forces to head the CIA and leaked some very sensitive information in the throes of ecstacy with some mistress; all of this made possible by being appointed McCrystal's successor.

And I'm kicking myself, knowing I should have known better. Obama has the reverse Midas touch, everything he touches turning to crap. Even this.

General McCrystal was a bit of a hot head and he blew off some steam on a Left wing tabloid, Petraeus was careless with national top secret information, carried away by some temporary dalliance. McCrystal broke protocol, Petraeus broke the law.

So my question is, is it time we revisit our policy of how quickly we sack accomplished major generals?
Or presidents. Clinton didn't need to be impeached just because Monica Lewinsky wanted to be infamous.
 

NoTeaPartyPleez

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
11,826
Reaction score
1,912
Points
245
"All Clown Faces Automatically Placed On Ignore."

Bwahahahahaa...Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
 

Roadrunner

Roadrunner
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
14,126
Reaction score
2,754
Points
290
Location
USA


Firing General McCrystal was a rare point of agreement I had with the Obama administration after his off the cuff comments during a Rolling Stones Magazine interview. I thought he was right that it undermined the chain of command.

But fate is a funny thing. General Petraeus was appointed to replace McCrystal and even now the aftermath of his far from abstemious personal life is all over the news. He went from Chief of Joint Forces to head the CIA and leaked some very sensitive information in the throes of ecstacy with some mistress; all of this made possible by being appointed McCrystal's successor.

And I'm kicking myself, knowing I should have known better. Obama has the reverse Midas touch, everything he touches turning to crap. Even this.

General McCrystal was a bit of a hot head and he blew off some steam on a Left wing tabloid, Petraeus was careless with national top secret information, carried away by some temporary dalliance. McCrystal broke protocol, Petraeus broke the law.

So my question is, is it time we revisit our policy of how quickly we sack accomplished major generals? In retrospect, a little sassiness on the side could have been taken in stride.


We don't need the whole pack of Perfumed Princes.

We need some Terry Allens and Buckner Jrs. that get on the ground and root the motherfuckers out personally.

We no longer have that kind of military.

No going back to the mid-East, on the ground.

If it can't be handled with B-52's and dumb bombs we need to keep our noses out of it.
 
OP
saintmichaeldefendthem
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
16,594
Reaction score
2,309
Points
290
Location
Idaho


Firing General McCrystal was a rare point of agreement I had with the Obama administration after his off the cuff comments during a Rolling Stones Magazine interview. I thought he was right that it undermined the chain of command.

But fate is a funny thing. General Petraeus was appointed to replace McCrystal and even now the aftermath of his far from abstemious personal life is all over the news. He went from Chief of Joint Forces to head the CIA and leaked some very sensitive information in the throes of ecstacy with some mistress; all of this made possible by being appointed McCrystal's successor.

And I'm kicking myself, knowing I should have known better. Obama has the reverse Midas touch, everything he touches turning to crap. Even this.

General McCrystal was a bit of a hot head and he blew off some steam on a Left wing tabloid, Petraeus was careless with national top secret information, carried away by some temporary dalliance. McCrystal broke protocol, Petraeus broke the law.

So my question is, is it time we revisit our policy of how quickly we sack accomplished major generals? In retrospect, a little sassiness on the side could have been taken in stride.


We don't need the whole pack of Perfumed Princes.

We need some Terry Allens and Buckner Jrs. that get on the ground and root the motherfuckers out personally.

We no longer have that kind of military.

No going back to the mid-East, on the ground.

If it can't be handled with B-52's and dumb bombs we need to keep our noses out of it.
Forces under the leadership of General McCrystal did kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Generals don't decide the mission, they execute it. The mission comes from the White House and generals can only operate within the guidelines of that mission. General McCrystal performed his duties brilliantly. I don't know if his ill advised comment should have been the undoing of his superb leadership, but EVERYTHING is political with this president.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
McChrystal wanted it. He didnt want to be associated with Obama's failed surge in Afghanistan and invited dismissal. He had opportunity to retract the quotes and didnt.
 
OP
saintmichaeldefendthem
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
16,594
Reaction score
2,309
Points
290
Location
Idaho
McChrystal wanted it. He didnt want to be associated with Obama's failed surge in Afghanistan and invited dismissal. He had opportunity to retract the quotes and didnt.
I didn't know he was given the opportunity to retract the quotes in lieu of being dismissed from his post. Do you have a link for that?
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
McChrystal wanted it. He didnt want to be associated with Obama's failed surge in Afghanistan and invited dismissal. He had opportunity to retract the quotes and didnt.
I didn't know he was given the opportunity to retract the quotes in lieu of being dismissed from his post. Do you have a link for that?
RollinG Stone came back to him and asked "Do you really want us to quote you on some of this?" And he said yes.
 

NoTeaPartyPleez

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
11,826
Reaction score
1,912
Points
245
McChrystal wanted it. He didnt want to be associated with Obama's failed surge in Afghanistan and invited dismissal. He had opportunity to retract the quotes and didnt.
I didn't know he was given the opportunity to retract the quotes in lieu of being dismissed from his post. Do you have a link for that?

Bahahahaaaaaa.....You righties thrive on gossip. A general "wants" to be dismissed because he doesn't like the POTUS. If that were true Bush would have had an exodus of top brass.
 

1stRambo

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
6,221
Reaction score
1,018
Points
255
Yo, its "Politically Correctness" You can`t speak your mind in America anymore! Now for the good part? The prosecution of General Petraeus is cover for Hillary, plus payback to Petraeus for speaking his mind about sorry ass Obama and the war, and being a George Bush appointee!

This investigation into Benghazi has been going on for awhile now, and Hillary has been playing games about turning over her emails? So it was a way to show America that Hillary Clinton will not go directly to jail, period!

These Socialist running this Country need to cover their asses!!! These asses can`t stand True Americans! Their kind of people are the ones who can`t speak up for themselves, and have their hand out!!!

The way things are going in this Country, it reminds me of Hitler, when he became a Dictator?
The History Place - Rise of Hitler Hitler Becomes Dictator of Germany

"GTP"

"OBAMA HATES AMERICA"
Obama-Dictator-Racist-Opposition.jpg
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
McChrystal wanted it. He didnt want to be associated with Obama's failed surge in Afghanistan and invited dismissal. He had opportunity to retract the quotes and didnt.
I didn't know he was given the opportunity to retract the quotes in lieu of being dismissed from his post. Do you have a link for that?

Bahahahaaaaaa.....You righties thrive on gossip. A general "wants" to be dismissed because he doesn't like the POTUS. If that were true Bush would have had an exodus of top brass.
Its not gossip that he could have altered the quotes in the story. SO you have to ask why would he do that, knowing he'd probably be dismissed? McChrystal wasnt some career hack. He had a long stint with SF. He knew what he was doing.
He also knew that Obama's surge was going to be a failure, because Obama chose an option that everyone told him had little chance of succeeding. A nd they were right. His surge did fail.
 
OP
saintmichaeldefendthem
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
16,594
Reaction score
2,309
Points
290
Location
Idaho
McChrystal wanted it. He didnt want to be associated with Obama's failed surge in Afghanistan and invited dismissal. He had opportunity to retract the quotes and didnt.
I didn't know he was given the opportunity to retract the quotes in lieu of being dismissed from his post. Do you have a link for that?
RollinG Stone came back to him and asked "Do you really want us to quote you on some of this?" And he said yes.
That's not quite the same. He was frustrated at how the Obama administration was tying the hands of the military and hindering them from acting more effectively. His firing was only proof that the administration doesn't listen to their generals. I have no doubt that McCrystal voiced his concerns through the proper channels and was told over and over "TFB". But the point is, he wasn't given an opportunity to retract his comments by Obama, who we know bristles at any opposition to his lofty status as the annointed one. Obama seeths with white hot hatred for anyone who opposes him and there was no way this general was not getting fired. Not for a moment did this administration consider that he might have a point.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
McChrystal wanted it. He didnt want to be associated with Obama's failed surge in Afghanistan and invited dismissal. He had opportunity to retract the quotes and didnt.
I didn't know he was given the opportunity to retract the quotes in lieu of being dismissed from his post. Do you have a link for that?
RollinG Stone came back to him and asked "Do you really want us to quote you on some of this?" And he said yes.
That's not quite the same. He was frustrated at how the Obama administration was tying the hands of the military and hindering them from acting more effectively. His firing was only proof that the administration doesn't listen to their generals. I have no doubt that McCrystal voiced his concerns through the proper channels and was told over and over "TFB". But the point is, he wasn't given an opportunity to retract his comments by Obama, who we know bristles at any opposition to his lofty status as the annointed one. Obama seeths with white hot hatred for anyone who opposes him and there was no way this general was not getting fired. Not for a moment did this administration consider that he might have a point.
Thats my point. McChrystal knew the quotes would get him in trouble. He rolled with it anyway. So why? To me the inescapable answer is he wanted to be canned and avoid the failure the worthless surge would become.
 
OP
saintmichaeldefendthem
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
16,594
Reaction score
2,309
Points
290
Location
Idaho
McChrystal wanted it. He didnt want to be associated with Obama's failed surge in Afghanistan and invited dismissal. He had opportunity to retract the quotes and didnt.
I didn't know he was given the opportunity to retract the quotes in lieu of being dismissed from his post. Do you have a link for that?
RollinG Stone came back to him and asked "Do you really want us to quote you on some of this?" And he said yes.
That's not quite the same. He was frustrated at how the Obama administration was tying the hands of the military and hindering them from acting more effectively. His firing was only proof that the administration doesn't listen to their generals. I have no doubt that McCrystal voiced his concerns through the proper channels and was told over and over "TFB". But the point is, he wasn't given an opportunity to retract his comments by Obama, who we know bristles at any opposition to his lofty status as the annointed one. Obama seeths with white hot hatred for anyone who opposes him and there was no way this general was not getting fired. Not for a moment did this administration consider that he might have a point.
Thats my point. McChrystal knew the quotes would get him in trouble. He rolled with it anyway. So why? To me the inescapable answer is he wanted to be canned and avoid the failure the worthless surge would become.
That ultimately is an opinion based evaluation of his motives. It's just as plausible to suggest he was angry, frustrated, and just wanted to blow off some steam and didn't think about what he was doing until it was too late. You say that Rolling Stones asked him if he really wanted to be quoted on those items, but if that was asked right after the interview, he was still in the same state of mind.

The point is, our child president seeths at any criticism. He isn't a real man who can field challenges and use them effectively to re-examine what he's doing. Bush would have done that, the humble man he was. I don't think that McCrystal would have been fired in the Bush Administration, but then again, under Bush, there really was no cause for complaint to begin with. He actually listened to his generals.
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
46,627
Reaction score
10,418
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
It's difficult to understand the left's (democrat party) hatred of the Military. They purchased a $10,000 ad in the Times calling General Petreaus "betray-us" while he was in command of combat Troops. It didn't make any sense but the knee-jerk left accepted the liberal media's opinion. Same thing for McCrystal. If a Military leader wants to be invited to D.C. cocktail parties he better conform to the liberal democrat philosophy in every way or the media will dig up something to get him.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
McChrystal wanted it. He didnt want to be associated with Obama's failed surge in Afghanistan and invited dismissal. He had opportunity to retract the quotes and didnt.
I didn't know he was given the opportunity to retract the quotes in lieu of being dismissed from his post. Do you have a link for that?
RollinG Stone came back to him and asked "Do you really want us to quote you on some of this?" And he said yes.
That's not quite the same. He was frustrated at how the Obama administration was tying the hands of the military and hindering them from acting more effectively. His firing was only proof that the administration doesn't listen to their generals. I have no doubt that McCrystal voiced his concerns through the proper channels and was told over and over "TFB". But the point is, he wasn't given an opportunity to retract his comments by Obama, who we know bristles at any opposition to his lofty status as the annointed one. Obama seeths with white hot hatred for anyone who opposes him and there was no way this general was not getting fired. Not for a moment did this administration consider that he might have a point.
Thats my point. McChrystal knew the quotes would get him in trouble. He rolled with it anyway. So why? To me the inescapable answer is he wanted to be canned and avoid the failure the worthless surge would become.
That ultimately is an opinion based evaluation of his motives. It's just as plausible to suggest he was angry, frustrated, and just wanted to blow off some steam and didn't think about what he was doing until it was too late. You say that Rolling Stones asked him if he really wanted to be quoted on those items, but if that was asked right after the interview, he was still in the same state of mind.

The point is, our child president seeths at any criticism. He isn't a real man who can field challenges and use them effectively to re-examine what he's doing. Bush would have done that, the humble man he was. I don't think that McCrystal would have been fired in the Bush Administration, but then again, under Bush, there really was no cause for complaint to begin with. He actually listened to his generals.
They came back to him several days later. It is unreasonable to think of McChrystal as acting irrationally because of anger.
You are correct that Obama takes criticism personally and is petty in the extreme. Just look at his reaction to Netanyahu's speech.
 
OP
saintmichaeldefendthem
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
16,594
Reaction score
2,309
Points
290
Location
Idaho
It's difficult to understand the left's (democrat party) hatred of the Military. They purchased a $10,000 ad in the Times calling General Petreaus "betray-us" while he was in command of combat Troops. It didn't make any sense but the knee-jerk left accepted the liberal media's opinion. Same thing for McCrystal. If a Military leader wants to be invited to D.C. cocktail parties he better conform to the liberal democrat philosophy in every way or the media will dig up something to get him.
And the firing of McCrystal is an instructive example of what happens when anyone deviates even slightly from this regime that demands absolute obeisance from everyone.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top