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

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by piddles

 

What kind of an idiot gives an interview while they are drinking?!

[edit on 22-6-2010 by antonia]

Good point

chit hammered with the finger on the button!

[edit on 22-6-2010 by Janky Red]

The video and sound is slowed down to make him appear more drunk than he was.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by john124]

Sorry, not this one...

now this one is





Glad the rest of our marble clad clan can consider levity, Prunes may help.

reply to post by john124


Obama didn't make the strategy. That would be McChrystal. Go back and read it again. If you should be screaming at anyone it should be the General. As for the issue of the drugs, Do you seriously think McChrystal had issues with that?

No, you are looking at the Tea Party's newest doll.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by antonia]

reply to post by antonia


I think that the Boss should have shown a little more interest in the war, or at least pretended to have shown as much.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
reply to post by antonia

 

I think that the Boss should have shown a little more interest in the war, or at least pretended to have show as much.

I didn't say Obama was handling the war right. I think picking McChrystal over objections from many was a huge mistake. This does not change the fact the General lodged his foot squarely in his mouth. It's not a political issue.

reply to post by antonia

Originally posted by antonia

I didn't say Obama was handling the war right. I think picking McChrystal over objections from many was a huge mistake. This does not change the fact the General lodged his foot squarely in his mouth. It's not a political issue.

Let's just hope that the President will make the right decisions.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


To me this shows a few things.

1. Politicians are trying to drag the war out for unknown reasons.. patrolling areas where there won't be combat will show the war not being "violent" showing we are winning at home because our boys are not in fire fights everyday. However it also means the largest drug producing areas of the country are not being patrolled by NATO or US forces (they would obviously be guarded).

2. It shows the Administration and top decision makers hesitant or reluctant to show a hand of force and blocking routine movement by the military in conducting every day affairs (such as blowing up an obviously booby-trapped house). Why? One can only imagine.. again I'd say the less the military does the more it looks like we've won .. if we engaged them head on, the battles would be more intense and the public's war weariness would continue to rise. Not good for a President who got elected swearing to end the war.....

3. The military sees and understands everything the politicians are doing.. and are not happy, but grudgingly following the commands from up high.

4. Moral is extremely low.. the war is being lost, but lost of purpose.. and again, note that they see and understand they are being forced to loose, not to engage.. and in the process loosing their own men.

5. A huge disconnect between politicians and military brass has occurred.. we saw the beginnings of this under Bush, but this new insider look shows it's worse than expected..

I'd say the military is growing weary from the war it's self.. their allegiance is not with the Politicians, I think that much is certain, and they follow commands without agreeing with them. I'd say it's also shown the Administration is casting ALL blame onto the military, taking no responsibility... so not only do the fighting boys have to sit in the sand with their heads buried while they are slowly picked off.. they get blamed for the catastrophes, for not winning the war, for dragging it out.. for the war it's self.

I don't know about you .. but if the military were to revolt and refuse commands from the Administration .. I'd be behind the Military, not the Politicians.

I only wonder if there is a internal fight in the military branches.. a faction that supports the Politician (and the money) .. and a faction that opposes Washington, regardless of consequences.

Also remember in the past every democratic-Republic collapsed due to a struggle between the Military and the Politicians. Even Greece had a period where the military took over, and Rome had the army walk on their own capital more than once. Military coups are not rare, more common in fact, and the US is not immune.

McChrystal was accepted as the best person by everyone. Probably still is the best person to be there if we want to win and bring the Soldiers home faster.

After Obama picked him with massive support, he treated him as though he, Obama were the expert and McChrystal was the amateur. Narcissism at it worst. Obama likely delayed the end of the war with his waffling and refusing to take advice from his expert adviser. Exactly what we have come to expect from a leader without leadership experience suffering from an extreme case of Narcissism.

Remember by the way. This is the Rolling Stone. No lies, but you can be sure it was written without regard to anything other than sensationalism. Presented in a way to do the most harm. That is the Rolling Stone way of doing things. Extend the war, cost lives, the Rolling Stone could care less if it creates a stir and sells more magazines.

It seems to me the General has the balls to stand up and say what is right and aint afraid of the politicians running this war. If he ever runs for president he's got my vote! i'm a vet and we should let the generals run the war! If we did we wouldnt be there that long. there's money to be made(espcially after they found all of the natural resouces) by politicians and that is why we're still there and in Iraq.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
McChrystal was accepted as the best person by everyone. Probably still is the best person to be there if we want to win and bring the Soldiers home faster.

After Obama picked him with massive support, he treated him as though he, Obama were the expert and McChrystal was the amateur. Narcissism at it worst. Obama likely delayed the end of the war with his waffling and refusing to take advice from his expert adviser. Exactly what we have come to expect from a leader without leadership experience suffering from an extreme case of Narcissism.

Remember by the way. This is the Rolling Stone. No lies, but you can be sure it was written without regard to anything other than sensationalism. Presented in a way to do the most harm. That is the Rolling Stone way of doing things. Extend the war, cost lives, the Rolling Stone could care less if it creates a stir and sells more magazines.

So you are talking about winning a???

What is that Blaine???

what does that look like, I reckon the only way to win is to nuke the place.

That any of you reckon that place can become a mini America is just as bad as the war,
remove your support Foxers and no one will support it, relieve your socialist, over taxation pains, that's your money Blaine, wouldn't know it...



[edit on 22-6-2010 by Janky Red]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


I have read the article about General McChrystal and what he and his staff said about the administration. I know talking out of class in a No-No at the General level. That goes for his staff too even if they were just calling it like they see or like it really is. There is a lot of Political BS a Military Commander has to navigate. With that being said, there was nothing horrible. That Karzi is clueless, where is the news in that?

But...

If the administration does not like the Military letting the public know what is really going on versus the official fairy tale, tough s***. It is about time. Now the press is cheer leading all over this because the Anointed One is butt hurt.

So...

This is nothing more than setting up the Military for yet another Political failure and General McChrystal knows it. It is distraction from the real challenges in A'stan but your average American SFB will figure the whole problem stemmed from one man. It makes me sick to see these piece of garbage MSM types all over this with no clue what they are talking about. Perhaps they should go hang out in a cave with some of these s*** heads and then decide how bad an apple General McChrystal is.



OK...

Next time I won't hold back from how I really feel

Originally posted by antonia
I'm just gonna copy and paste what I put in the other thread. McChrystal was completely out of line. Nor is this Vietnam, the brass there did not publicly run their mouths without consequence either.

Originally posted by theability


Ahh do I smell dissent among the High echelon of the ranks?

No, you smell insubordination.

Seriously, this is the beginning of a much larger issue, if the Generals are being snooty they the troops will follow and then?

This is not the beginning of anything. One is allowed their own personal opinions. However, when one is in the military expressing those opinions can land you in hot water. It has always been that way.
en.wikipedia.org...
If he got sacked he would be one of several who have been sacked for such behavior. You don't talk crap about your boss in earshot. That's common sense. I personally think the guy should have been fired back in fall when he started running his mouth about the surge. He does not know how to conduct himself. Unlike Patton, who actually had winning strategy and vast intelligence, McChrystal is just a wannabe. Even Patton didn't get away with running his mouth. Believe me, a lot of the troops don't like the general. I hear it all the time.

There is a certain standard of behavior expected out of officers in the military. This guy is not living up to it. I'm an Army brat, my daddy was is, my sister was in, my brother is in, even my husband is in it. Trust me, I know the standards. Don't run your mouth on camera or in print if you want to keep your job. It's been that way since the service began.

Edit cause I want to make something very clear: This guy should fax his papers in before the plane hits the runway. He demands respect from his subordinates (which he should) yet his disrespects his superior officer? He shows a complete lack of respect for the UCMJ, the chain of command and basic military bearing. He ought to be sorry and he should go retire. Don't even get started on the Tillman affair. It just pisses me off that our Army has a leader who apparently can't get above frat-boy behavior.


[edit on 22-6-2010 by antonia]

Frat boy behavior? Have you looked at the clueless one in the oval office? Totally inept except for the puppetmasters that are using him to destroy (almost wrote destory...freudian..) our nation?

Army brat. I thank you for your families service. This man has earned the right to say his mind and (possibly) save his mens butts. If you have a fool at the helm and your headed to the rocks, you should pipe up! You have not served so your critique isnt quite valid. This guy is an actual "battle field" general in the same vein as Patton and MacArthur.

Both were ran out because of their greatness.

If I had to trust our troops to follow a fool and a commie or a great man that is a patriot and a warrior of the highest order, the General would win hands down.

Your defending the wrong side friend.

If this guy lives long enough, he may make president. We can only hope.

reply to post by Janky Red

To me a win is to take the Taliban out of power and give them a government where the citizens have chance. Remember, Afghanistan was not even a country. It was a no-mans land ruled by War Lords and Terrorist Groups. This is not Iraq. There is no Afghanistan to side with or against and never has been.

The true travesty here is world apathy and the fact so many other countries are not heavily involved in helping those people who were hostages of these fanatical groups that had taken control. People pretend to care. But that's all in many cases. Just pretending to care because it is popular.

There are many places like Afghanistan in this world. Where are all the people who pretend to care? Let the Americans carry the load. Let the Americans fill the body bags. Sit back and criticize and pretend to care about the peoples of this world while doing not a damn thing. Then have the nerve to criticize those who are trying. Those who are dying. Those who volunteered.

Sometimes I think we should just pull out and sit back and watch the suffering and let the bad guys grow in power and numbers like so much of the world has chosen to do. But then I remember, our future generations have to live here too.

If we pull out without finishing, there will be a slaughter as the monsters pour in to enslave those left behind. Some are so lacking in humanity they actually want to see that. Some are as sick as those who we are fighting there and actually side with them. They see women denied humanity and they don't give a damn as they sport about in their Che T-Shirts. They see women stoned to death for being raped and they don't care about that either. They defend it in fact. It's a sad world we live in.

reply to post by redhorse


Redhorse,

you might want to check this out, because while it's not exactly a death threat to this president, I'd be worried a bit about this cadet I were a West Point commander:

"In one tale, a fictional officer complains about the difficulty of training foreign troops to fight; in another a 19-year-old soldier kills a boy he mistakes for a terrorist. In "Brinkman's Note," a piece of suspense fiction, the unnamed narrator appears to be trying to stop a plot to assassinate the president. It turns out, however, that the narrator himself is the assassin, and he's able to infiltrate the White House: "The President strode in smiling. From the right coat pocket of the raincoat I carried, I slowly drew forth my 32-caliber pistol. In Brinkman's failure, I had succeeded."

Here's a link about McChrystal's short stories when he edited The Pointer at West Point.

www.observer.com...

Not trying to make any overall statements about Obama or his commander-in-chief performance, but McChrystal's criticism that the brass seemed to make Obama uncomfortable in his first meeting with them might be a little understandable?

Originally posted by felonius
This man has earned the right to say his mind and (possibly) save his mens butts. If you have a fool at the helm and your headed to the rocks, you should pipe up! You have not served so your critique isnt quite valid.

And your critique is somehow the most valid one here? He is not allowed to speak his mind while in uniform. It's called the UCMJ. If he had an issue he should have brought it up through the chain of command like every other solider has to.

Both were ran out because of their greatness.

They were run out because they had huge mouths and didn't know when to shut them.

If this guy lives long enough, he may make president. We can only hope.

Oh yeah considering the General is the "genius" who wrote the losing strategy I'm sure the body politic will lock right on to that one.

If a person didnt know better,one would think McCrystle was being hung out to dry because he is winning the war.(I know ,he did say these things).

Obama and his bootlickers are all iliterates,you don't think Obama would surround himself with people smarter then he is,could you imagine how lame he would look then.

We all talk and complain and watch as our country is being systematicaly destroyed,where are the impeachment proceedings??????????????????

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


I love the video and watched the other three parts. Great stuff. This is a man you want running the show. From the article, it do not take away sedition and treason. I take a way talking out of class. I take away not talking the fairy tail.

Here is what happens when he gets the ax: There is no shortage of sycophantic loser political type Generals hanging around the Pentagon wanting a Combat Command. One will be found. All news now coming from A'stan will be glitter coated so we can justifiably pull out just before the 2012 elections. Mark. My. Words.

Check this out. The military leaders like McChrystal are expects in doing their job. At the same time, there are other factors which must be considered than the military point of view. There are just a few things you guys don't understand.

For example, somebody brought up comment made by a soldier which stated that they were not supposed to patrol areas where they would take fire. There is a reason that somebody in the chain of command put this message out. A serious mistake that people are making is to assume that this came from Obama. Obama is the highest in the chain of command and the soldier who made that comment most likely took orders from the lowest. That message could have come from anybody in between. To the inexperienced, it's Obama's fault!

Everybody has a boss. Sometimes you don't agree with the way things are done. To go out and publicly criticize your boss will get you fired. In the military, the truth to this statement increases 10 fold; however, we have to replace fired with punished.

CNN

In the profile, writer Michael Hastings writes that McChrystal and his staff had imagined ways of dismissing Vice President Joe Biden with a one-liner as they prepared for a question-and-answer session in Paris, France, in April. The general had grown tired of questions about Biden since earlier dismissing a counterterrorism strategy the vice president had offered.

"'Are you asking about Vice President Biden,' McChrystal says with a laugh. 'Who's that?'"

"'Biden?' suggests a top adviser. 'Did you say: Bite Me?'"

Sounds like some mature criticism there. The type of criticism that only the most righteous individuals present to stand up to overbearing leaders... Actually, I have been in the military and it sounds like the type of talk some do to stroke their egos.

From the outside you see the General. From my knowledge of the inside I see "The man, the myth, the legend". A man who is followed around by a posse of officers who has potentially overstepped his boundaries this time. Does anyone who has served or have any knowledge of the military disagree? If so then please let me know.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by Styki]

reply to post by Blaine91555


Actually, I think it's a lot simpler than "we care" they don't in this war. We went into Afghanistan for a pipeline. Two actually: 1) a natural gas pipeline from Russia across the "stans" to the sea and 2) a new drug smuggling pipeline for the CIA to boost their black budget. We got the second anyway, and now heroin is pouring into Russia.

www.globalresearch.ca...

www.atimes.com...

www.alternativeright.com...

I could fill up a page with links to this subject, but there's a few for a start. You might consider that the brother-in-law of Karzai was the biggest middle man in the opium trade in Afghanistan at the time of our invasion. He was appointed minister of the interior and charge with Drug control/eradication. That the CIA established its Afghan HQ at this man's estate should have been a clue as to what THEY thought we were there for.

I like what he had to say, I think it took balls, I wish someone would stand up to our crooked politicians, who send men out to die,

Pin a medal on McChrystal.

Having said that, McChrystal will now cower and apologize, where are the real men?
I guess she runs Arizona lol

reply to post by Battleline


Winning the war? Where exactly do you get that idea from? Look, I'm po'ed at Obama over a lot of things. I don't know enough about his interactions with the Pentagon how he's been doing as Commander-in-Chief, so I won't comment on that, but as far as winning wars in either Iraq or Afghanistan, I need you define what that might look like? I don't see it much at all in either country. I see the end point of both as a repeat of Vietnam where Kissinger advised Nixon to "declare victory and go home." Oil in Iraq can't be secured in the long run and a pipeline in Afghanistan is a non-starter. Democracies in both countries are sham Kabuki theaters. So how are we winning?