Gen. McChrystal Called In to Explain His Anti-Administration Comments

Originally posted by justadood
What i think is interesting about this is the General's comments are being taken grossly out of context by the media. Yes, he said these things, but he said them in passing, as part of a larger context. The media is isolating small bits of quotes and making it look as if they were direct comments meant to be taken a specific way. They werent.

This is much ado about nothing by those who have ill will towards the administration.

I don't think they were taken out of context at all. They were taken quite literally IN context, with quite a bit of butthurt and very little lube.

Whatever thick skin our current administration likes to think it has, it has a massive soft white underbelly. McChrystal poked it in all the wrong soft and white places. I firmly believe If they can't take a little good-natured ribbing and smack talk from their own team, they're not going to be able to cut it when the fit really hits the shan. This really says something about our Administration, and it's a pretty sad day for this country when they make life and death decisions using the "You're a big poopy meany-head and I don't want to play with you anymore!" playground mentality.

Originally posted by YJLTG
..He wanted out without loosing face and saying he has failed as a General and his strategy COIN is failed as well. What better way to go out than saying derogatory and insulting remarks about his boss so he can be fired thus skipping over his own failures...

yes i think he wanted to check out early. maybe he thought that if he stuck it out till the end, the entire failure of the afghan war effort will be on his hands...

and so he invented an exit strategy for himself

McChrystal has a new job now !!!

He will be leading the new American Revolution!!!!

reply to post by boondock-saint


Did you let him know?

Cause, I'm not so sure that he would want to lead an American revolution just because he has different opinions than the current administration. That's kinda taking it to the extreme I think.

reply to post by airspoon


Even if the general gave his opinion when it wasn't due to a rolling stone's reporter, he appologised as well. Sure Obama made a tough decision, but still removing his top man for a few remarks leaves most of us saying, "Is that really wise?"

Unless Obama has an agenda he wants done, expidited by general mcchrystal's removal. Why else would he remove him? All this hocus pocus could be cleared up by, "I've spoken with Mc Chrystal, and let me make this crystal clear... I have spoken with him personally and heard his pros and cons, I have confidence that he will continue the task set before him."

Originally posted by TC Mike
reply to post by airspoon

 

Even if the general gave his opinion when it wasn't due to a rolling stone's reporter, he appologised as well. Sure Obama made a tough decision, but still removing his top man for a few remarks leaves most of us saying, "Is that really wise?"

Is leaving someone with obvious disdain for his Chain of Command wise? What message does that send to the entire military?

[edit on 24-6-2010 by antonia]

The President should have stood by his manager.

The general is DIRECTLY responsible for the lives of his troops. Thats why he was chosen..because he is capable...without question. A man of impeceable integrity. Read the Generals PIF. The president listened when the man requested 30,000 additional US lives to gamble. So why not now? I am an American and I stand behind our President 110% on his decision, but I do not like it.

Maybe its all a set-up to turn the General into a MSM celebrity like Colonel North.

Even so , I think if theres any show of dominance that needs to happen right now it should happen TO the MSM, cable companies, advertisers etc. A switch in management like this , even a perpetrated one, never has good long-term results.

The General was probably ordered to do that interview as well as how to respond to questions asked.

I DO NOT like a REAL role models record even being looked at sideways. This is not good.

Im positive the Generals personal life wont be affected in the least and for this Im thankful, and would like to express my gratitude to him for his years of dedication and service to his country.

Does anyone believe that all of the sudden he became unqualified, or not the best person for the job?

This has to be a false flag. If its not then we all need to pay very close attention to everything the General said.

I think everyone at rolling stoned magazine should be held to the same standards as the General and a PUBLIC restructuring of thier organization, if not a complete takedown should happen.

For all the people saying "This was intentional on McChrystal's part so he can challenge Obama in 2012 as a Republican," may I say this:

EPIC FAIL.

www.thepoliticalcarnival.net...

Even more about McChrystal: now it can be told. The story about him voting for Obama is not contrived. He is a political liberal. He is a social liberal. He banned Fox News from the television sets in his headquarters. Yes, really. This puts to rest another false rumor: that McChrystal deliberately precipitated his firing because he wants to run for President.

Nothing better than people making flat-out guesses based on no evidence (and possibly just regurgitated Fox News ignorance).

And to think this site is dedicated to denying ignorance...

Originally posted by psyko45
This has to be a false flag. If its not then we all need to pay very close attention to everything the General said.

Has the term "false flag" completely lost all meaning? Is it like "ironic" now - just thrown around because it sounds good?

Or are you claiming that someone pretending to be Gen. McChrystal (along with with a fake staff) made the comments?

Originally posted by mothershipzeta


Nothing better than people making flat-out guesses based on no evidence (and possibly just regurgitated Fox News ignorance).

And to think this site is dedicated to denying ignorance...

Hey a guess is a guess. There's been a lot worse said on these boards regarding the whole thing. It would seem the General is working without all his cylinders apparently.

I think there's a larger conspiracy to be found here. Think about it.

General Petraeus is quoted in the New York Times talking about what a great opportunity we have to mine all this Lithium that we just happened to come across in Afghanistan. (Lithium, by the way, is needed by massive corporations like Apple and Google to keep is distracted with the next wave of 'smartphones' or other entertainment garbage).

Then two days later he completely passes out in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Before the end of the month he is the commander of all troops in Afghanistan. Found a good link here:
porkprincess.blogspot.com...

reply to post by antonia


Indeed he was in the 101st in 03' in OIF I. However he will be working someways above whichever BDE is rotating in. I cannot see how he would have asked for the position since in effect it is a demotion for him. On this point I have to stand down from earlier conviction I had stated regarding another fill in the slot. This caught me off guard but I am not politically attuned. Patraeus is not overly chummy with Obama either and comes from the same school as McChrystal. The avalanche of talking heads seem to think all is well now but not much will change other than no more magazine reporters roaming free at HQ.

Obama gave McChrystal some of what he wanted but not all and only after some time to deliberate. I remember at that time thinking long and hard over what had to be done in A'stan. I recognize he would have only looked at the political ramifications of any strategy and (hopefully) trusted professionals on the military side.

So we got one firing, one demotion, and little change in strategy. Oh, and now it looks like the administration actually has a set of stones. Hopefully they reach for them next time they have to deal with Wall Street, BP, Israel, etc but don't bet on it.

Psyko45, kudos for you clever views, I have come to believe that McChrystal was indeed set up for a fall just based upon why no Army Press officer was with him when Rolling Stone was authorized to interview him.

Consider it this way, the CIA wanted McChrystal silenced.

Originally posted by Skydancer
Consider it this way, the CIA wanted McChrystal silenced.

if not silenced, then at least discredited.
I would believe that as it plays into
the money made from the poppy
and oil and now minerals.

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by psyko45
This has to be a false flag. If its not then we all need to pay very close attention to everything the General said.

Has the term "false flag" completely lost all meaning? Is it like "ironic" now - just thrown around because it sounds good?



Or are you claiming that someone pretending to be Gen. McChrystal (along with with a fake staff) made the comments?

Didnt the Israelis come up with a sarcasm detection software recently? Had like a 75% accuracy rate?

And no Im not claiming anything actually. Simply a creative brainstorming sessions with a few colleagues of mine....who happen to reside in my head.

Originally posted by Skydancer
Psyko45, kudos for you clever views, I have come to believe that McChrystal was indeed set up for a fall just based upon why no Army Press officer was with him when Rolling Stone was authorized to interview him.

Consider it this way, the CIA wanted McChrystal silenced.

I highly doubt it was the CIA. The General has worked close with Special Activities Division at least since Iraq. The General is a god in the world of Black Ops.

I have a feeling those responsible are amateurs who are way out of their league.

Originally posted by Zipzinger
I think there's a larger conspiracy to be found here. Think about it.

I think ur right
I went hunting and found
some disturbing info.

It seems to me this isn't about his
comments to Rolling Stone.

This is about the Gen. cover-up of
the murder of Tilman in Afgh.
According to a film-maker ...
well you can read just as well
as I can type. Here's the link

www.foxnews.com...

On April 22, 2004, while serving in the mountains of Afghanistan,
Tillman was shot dead in what the U.S. government initially said was a
result of enemy fire from a hostile ambush near the border with Pakistan.
But it ultimately emerged that Tillman was, in fact, shot by his fellow
soldiers, and details surrounding the motives and circumstances behind his
death remain a source of great controversy.

In his new documentary, “The Tillman Story,” filmmaker Amir Bar-Lev
explores these controversies and the roles numerous high-powered political
and military figures played in falsely reporting how Tillman died and turning
his killing into what his mother, Dannie Tillman, called a “recruiting” tool
for the U.S Army.

One of the high-powered figures highlighted in the film for his alleged
deception is Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was relieved of his military
duties in Afghanistan on Wednesday.

Now on top of that add the wikileaks cables that haven't
been released yet as they may prove beyond a shadow
of a doubt the Gen. was covering it up. Maybe Obama
was using the Stone article as a pre-text to get rid of
McChrystal to further limit scrutiny since there was
the Iraq murder video just released a few months ago.
It seems they're trying to tie up the loose ends BEFORE
the cables hit the airwaves.

reply to post by boondock-saint


Tilman was just a man, nothing more. This is far greater than any man, especially one who idolized Noam Chomsky.

There are always consequences and that door swings both ways.

Originally posted by ABNARTY
reply to post by antonia

 

Indeed he was in the 101st in 03' in OIF I. However he will be working someways above whichever BDE is rotating in. I cannot see how he would have asked for the position since in effect it is a demotion for him.

It is not a demotion. He still has the same rank and the same pay, it's just a different position.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Gen. McChrystal Called In to Explain His Anti-Administration Comments

Does this not make you SICK to your stomach?

at this point i think more than just peoples' stomachs are sick.

if the current situation in Afghanistan and other "theaters" of war aren't intolerable now, then what does intolerable really mean to us?

i caught a bit of the Steven Colbert show last night.

he threw out a well investigated and i suppose verifiable statistic:

with this year being the deadliest year thus far for the war on terror (and we are only half way into the year) ...

Mainstream News agencies only have had 2.8% of their "news hole" aka "news whole" actually reporting on the war on terror, until this incident with the Gen.

So, you see....

The General was just doing his job. since the news agencies only fill their airtime with less than 3% covering what he and his subordinates have put their lives on the line for more than once, while being forced into subserviance to corporations and their subsidiaries, he opted to take the delicate route of letting himself say what he wanted to say to a Rolling Stone reporter.

mainstream news coverage of the war in the mainstream press to date this year on the war on terror = less than 3%, less than 3% coverage of WWIII's deadliest year thus far.

what is the news on FOX, MSNBC, and CNN?

i bet the majority of ATSers who depend on "Mainstream Media" for the majority of their information can't name one person who died in that war this year. it would hurt their ratings, and thus their profits.

i bet the majority of ATSers who depend on "Mainstream Media" for the majority of their information can name who Sandra Bullock's husband put his penis into during one extra-marital affair.

news coverage of war = Less than 3%
news coverage of Sandra Bullock's husband's penis's activities = Greater than 3%.

we get what we pay for.

priorities seem .... to be promoting ... ignorance.... and people are paying for it more than one way...

just some thoughts,
ET