Not necessarily arguing with you, JMO; I don't think it should be a test. If the president's only job were CIC, then I would think military credentials would be necessary. But since the president does so much else in addition to CIC, then he doesn't have to be from the military. All he needs to do is surround himself with the best military officials. Like Gen. Petraeus, who seems to be universally respected and seems to get results.
You are right that Bush was raked across the coals for his service, and you are right it was likely b/c the media was very left leaning even a few years ago. In recent years though, several right leaning media outlets have been growing. This is a good thing; to have separate outlets that look at all things from both perspectives. After all, there are always at least two sides to every story.
The questioning of Bush's military service is little different to me than questioning whether Obama was a Muslim. It is fine to ask these questions and ask whether they will affect the job he does as president, but the problem comes in (and both sides' media outlets are guilty) when the media outlets run stories as fact on evidence that is either very circumstantial, or outright wrong. In the case of Bush, it was missing records from an era when the records are an absolute mess. The media spun this as something malicious. For Obama, it was that his dad was a Muslim at some point in his life. Both non-stories IMO.
And even if both stories were true, that Bush went AWOL for a small bit of time (that wasn't enough to warrant a dishonorable discharge) and Obama is a Muslim, I don't see how either of those things would affect the jobs each do as president.
willie...YEP... Gen. McChrystal planned the eruption of a volcano in Iceland so a Rolling Stone reporter would be stranded with the General and his aides for a month..rather than the planned 2 days.
...YEP..Gen McChrystal planned the whole thing...
Quote: and completely knew the consequences
Willie...YEP...McChrystal knew his insubordination would get him fired...it's obvious to you that the Gen. was doing what was best for the country...
...making the volcano erupt...that stranded the reporter...that allowed the Gen. enough time to deliver enough insubordinate comments to insure he would be fired...
Quote: He is too smart, too tactical, and too experienced to have "let his tongue slip".
willie...YEP...McChrystal sure was smart, planning the whole thing like he did and making sure the reporter knew his comments were not just a "slip of the tongue"
willie...you and the gang are the first people I have seen that believes what McChrystal did, was "smart"....
Quote: He knew what needed to be done...he "fell on his sword"...
willie...YEP...no doubt, Gen. McChrystal fell on his sword...the Gen. planned this entire event so he could "fall on his sword".
From the volcano erupting in Iceland to falling on his sword...the Gen. planned the entire event.
Quote: "...people aren't generally paying enough attention to understand the magnitude of a guy like this/him dissing the Cic in this manner.
willie...we are so fortunate to have you on this board to point out the "magnitude" of Gen. McChrystal's plan...
...that the Gen. planned to have the volcano erupt...so the reporter could be stranded with the Gen. and his aides for a month...which would allow the Gen and aides time to make the damaging comments that would get Gen McChrystal fired...all so Gen. McChrystal could "diss" his commander in chief.
Quote: We have a problem and at least one, now-retired, General with the stones to let it be known.
willie...YEP...we do have a problem...it's called a WAR.
YEP...McChrystal sure had the "stones" to plan this entire event, from the volcano erupting to falling on his sword to dissing the CIC...
...that sure took a lot of "stones", didn't it?
...BTW...Gen McChrystal did not retire and I hate to be the one to break this to you...the Gen. did not plan this entire event so he could "diss" his CIC.
Only someone who is temporarily insane could or would believe your account of McChrystal's actions and agree with you...
Quote: We have a problem and at least one, now-retired, General with the stones to let it be known.
It's not at all clear to me from the part of article posted here that McChrystal ever wanted these quotes to get out. They are all posed as from sources within McChrystal's camp, not from McChrystal himself.
And even if he did want them out, is it really that gutsy to leak your feelings via your aides through a Rolling Stone reporter? Wouldn't it have been more beneficial to go to the White House and say, man to man, "I don't agree with how things are being done?" Then if no one is listening, you can resign and say what you want after you are retired. Rather than expressing it through Rolling Stone? If he did indeed mean for this to leak, it strikes me as a rather childish way of handling it.
For Gods sake the man never meant for this to get out . That is the single dumbest thing I thimg I have ever read on this board . He got too comfortable around the enemy ( the press) and said some things that were off color and now he has paid the price . Why does every damn thing that happens in the world have to be broken down along poitical lines ? Sometimes people just mess up . Obama had to fire him , absolutely had to ! Like many have said on here that the military has lines that you just do not cross and insulting the CIC is one of those lines no matter what your personal feelings are.
Quote: Maybe he did try to talk to him before and felt like he was talking to
Very possible, but is it really professional and productive to air dirty laundry in Rolling Stone? And if you think everyone around you is so incompetent that you can't succeed, then why not retire quietly, and say what you want after? This way, he looks childish.
Also, in my experience, when someone is complaining that everyone around them is stupid and incompetent, it's usually not the case. I find it hard to believe that the State Dept, the French, the White House, etc. are all incompetent and that they are holding back one single man's brilliance from winning the whole war against Afghanistan. It's more likely that everyone is frustrated b/c Afghanistan is a very tough situation, much tougher than Iraq. There is little governmental structure to build upon.
Quote: For Gods sake the man never meant for this to get out .
I agree. I was responding to a post by WSU Willie that said this was calculated. While I didn't explicitly state that I think this was unintentional, I was merely providing a line of reasoning that said if he did intend for it to get out, it makes no sense, i.e., it is likely he didn't want this out. You'll notice that my second paragraph is qualified as a highly unlikely hypothetical situation in which McChrystal wanted this out.
This is probably like many of the things Patton said around the wrong media members, born out of frustration.
I think McC knew exactly what he was doing...and completely knew the consequences...and determined that the best thing for his country and the soldiers laying their lives on the line, was to let the world know about our Cic.
He is too smart, too tactical, and too experienced to have "let his tongue slip".
He knew what needed to be done...he "fell on his sword"...people aren't generally paying enough attention to understand the magnitude of a guy like this/him dissing the Cic in this manner.
We have a problem and at least one, now-retired, General with the stones to let it be known.
Hey Willie,, for all I know, you may be right.. McCrystal may have wanted to let slip the mess that is the war in Afganistan.. it wouldn't be the first time a General put his career on the line in such a manner. Perhaps he wants to lay blame for failures or perhaps not so much failure but less success than anticpated on the door of the adminstration... I honestly don't know, not good at reading minds....
But what bothers me is that the Adminstration asked for and got a strategy from the Joint Chiefs and from McChrystal.. from what I can tell, the stategy was designed by the Joint Chiefs and McChrystal and Petraius (sp) or at least thier underlings and approved by the Joint Chiefs.
So really, the plan was not so much Obamas and his adminstration, but that of the military minds..
So in effect, if McChrystal was speaking out against the people in the adminstration as well as the President, wasn't he in fact beating the hell out of a stategy he helped develop? Which I might add, included the additional 30,000 troops that were requested by the military and approved by the President?
I admit to not being completely up to date on the minute details of military planning (actually, I'm not up to date on even the really BIG details at all) But it appears that what you are saying can't be accurate simply by virtue of McChrystals involvement in the planning process. Just a thought.
Also, and I'll stick by this no matter what else is said.. McChrystal made a serious breach by speaking in that manner to the press.. Shouldn't have done it no matter what his motivations were.
He should have said it to the President face to face and if he hadn't gotten the results he wanted, he should have resigned and gone to the press after he was out the military..
That's just my opininon.. \
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Why are you so fixated on the volcano? Was McC being held hostage by the reporter? The way you connect the dotes shows you need to be medicated.
No wonder you cannot follow a point or answer a simple yes or no question.
McC knew exactly what he was doing...and knew it had to be done for the sake of the men and women fighting the King's war. Period.
All the other excuses are BS.
Sorry to break it to you mac...but guys like McC calculate every move they make. He doesn't go to the toilet without having a plan.
He knows the King is a joke as Cic and that something had to be done...people who know the King's "extensive" background as a "Community Organizer" aren't the least bit surprised.
Quote: McC knew exactly what he was doing...and knew it had to be done for the sake of the men and women fighting the King's war. Period
Quote: Why do YOU think McC said what he said?
The man has 4 , count em , 4 stars on his shoulder and that in military terms equates to the closest you come to being God from a military standpoint . Along with thoses stars comes a hint of arrogance but he forgot though one little point and that is that in this case even God has a boss even if only in title alone . Throw in the fact that this reporter made everyone involved feel relaxed enough to let down the guard they have concerning the press ( that or they were just plain stupid ) and you have a recipe for the end of your career .
Arrogance and Bravado. The dude has an ego that could hold Texas & Alaska at the same time. When relaxed, an ego can get you to say some pretty stupid things that you might be more reserved about in a different setting.
However:
Quote: a reporter for Rolling Stone broke down the defenses of a 4 star General?
Very probable. All it takes is the reporter to win the trust of those men. Also very probable that this reporter won the trust of the underlings that gabbed.
I think folks are reading WAY too far into this one.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Quote: I think folks are reading WAY too far into this one.
Very well could be.
However...it is not often you see a 4-Star General speak out like this...or be relieved of their duties...especially a guy running a war.
McC could hold a press conference tomorrow stating that he "slipped of the tongue"...and I would still say he knew exactly what he was doing.
I've met/worked-with several retired military leaders - no 4-star Generals though - and those guys are all machines in their efficiency, discipline and ability to cut to the chase.
Obama was knocked for his lack of military service -- as was Bush -- during the same time when all presidents are criticized for their lack of military service -- during an election.
McCain had the military chip to use against Obama, as Kerry had his little chip against Bush. Military service tends to be one of those election time deals.
I could care less about McChrystal ... just let me know when these two failed wars are going to end.
Quote: Obama was knocked for his lack of military service -- as was Bush -- during the same time when all presidents are criticized for their lack of military service -- during an election.
McCain had the military chip to use against Obama, as Kerry had his little chip against Bush. Military service tends to be one of those election time deals.
I could care less about McChrystal ... just let me know when these two failed wars are going to end.
I don't remember Eisenhower or Kennedy ever getting that treatment,...or for that matter Nixon or Ford. Or Carter. You could care less about McChrystal ? My money says he does the same thing, irrespective of who The President is.
I ask again, who would you follow next given a choice,...Stanley or Barack ?
You are always questioning the "why" of the war -- I do too. The important thing is the HOW, and getting the job done. Politics has always been in "its" way, regardless of who the "guilty" party is/was.
Quote: I think folks are reading WAY too far into this one.
Very well could be.
However...it is not often you see a 4-Star General speak out like this...or be relieved of their duties...especially a guy running a war.
McC could hold a press conference tomorrow stating that he "slipped of the tongue"...and I would still say he knew exactly what he was doing.
I've met/worked-with several retired military leaders - no 4-star Generals though - and those guys are all machines in their efficiency, discipline and ability to cut to the chase.
Willie...you want everyone to believe that Gen. McChrystal, was "like a well oiled machine" and planned this entire event?
Willie, tell us...can you sight any sources that support your claim?
I've worked for General officers too and I can tell you, "they are not well oiled machines"...even the best of the best screw up as McChrystal did.
I saw a 4 star blow a chance to become Chairman of the JCS after the General's pet project was exposed, which also led to his unplanned retirement.
Sometimes, those at the top ranks believe they are above the military rules, code and laws that the rest of the military lives by everyday they serve in our armed forces.
willie...you seem to be of the opinion that Gen. McChrystal was just too disciplined to screw up like this...but he did!
How many times do we see examples of people who are incredibly smart, do stupid things?...
Yet you believe McChrystal was above such conduct...
You are either incredibly "naive" or so "blinded by your political bias", you can't face the facts.
I have already stated the basis for my opinion on this matter several times in this thread. Unlike you, I do not need a link to form my opinion or in making a point.
If you don't like it, too bad for you.
I think McC knew EXACTLY what he was doing.
You make a perfect subject for the King. Anyone who disagrees with you or the King must either be , naive, or "blinded by a political bias".
Hey...while we are here...did Cheney offer Pawlenty a job in exchange for Pawlenty NOT running for political office?
FWIW, I think anyone using undue influenece to get someone to NOT run for office should be a crime. Arguably...it is based on the law as I understand it.
Cheney "likely" broke the law...but we do not know for sure and cannot prove it.
In the short time the King has been in office, we have had TWO CONFIRMED cases where undue influence was used to persuade someone NOT to run.
Quote: I have already stated the basis for my opinion on this matter several times in this thread. Unlike you, I do not need a link to form my opinion or in making a point.
If you don't like it, too bad for you.
I think McC knew EXACTLY what he was doing.
So you're argument is that you don't get to 4 stars w/o knowing exactly what you are doing. And that these statements somehow had to be made for the benefit of the troops. And McChrystal had the guts to do it.
What I don't get with this line of reasoning is that what is the great benefit to the troops of trashing the president, the state department, the French, etc? How does this make their day to day life any better?
Quote: I ask again, who would you follow next given a choice,...Stanley or Barack ?
I don't know very much about one, and I think the other is an utter failure.
I don't think it's an either/or situation here, really ... the guy lost his job because he mouthed off to Rolling Stone. Those who dislike the target of his barbs will like it, and those who like the target will be miffed.
And, no, I don't care about McC ... he is a cog in a bureaucracy IMO.
What I don't get with this line of reasoning is that what is the great benefit to the troops of trashing the president, the state department, the French, etc? How does this make their day to day life any better?
Nothing in the day to day life, but it could be just to bring this issue to the front. As we don't hear much about Afghanistan or the war much anymore, it has fallen out of favor with the media, especially with the oil crisis taking top billing.
I'm sure the Administration thinks it is great to get the war off the front page, but I'm not sure they like what they have there instead.
If we don't hear about the war, then most peoples natural assumption is that everything is going along as planned there, and we are "winning", which couldn't be further from the truth.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: Nothing in the day to day life, but it could be just to bring this issue to the front.
Exactly, over the last year or so, the news about how miserably the fight is going has tapered off. Now thanks to the general its out there, on the front page, making headlines, making people think. Or maybe the General has future political ambitions himself.
Quote: I ask again, who would you follow next given a choice,...Stanley or Barack ?
Those who dislike the target of his barbs will like it, and those who like the target will be miffed.
Easy generalization...which is untrue. Not everyone is the simpleton you believe most people to be. I don't like the target and I think the General made a fool of himself. It may be indicative of a huge disconnect between the military and Obama, but this man acted in an extremely foolish manner.
General may have had good reason to be angry Friday, June 25, 2010 02:52 AM By Gwynne Dyer
Gen. Stanley McChrystal deserved to be fired as the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, because he and his staff were openly contemptuous of their civilian superiors. Contempt is a popular attitude among the dimmer sort of military officers, but for a theater commander to tolerate and even encourage it among his own senior officers and advisers is reckless and stupid. Such a man is not fit for command.
But why was McChrystal in a state of perpetual rage against President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry and practically every other civilian authority he had contact with? Could it be because they don't believe that the United States can win a decisive military victory in Afghanistan?
Eikenberry almost certainly doesn't. Late last year, when McChrystal was pressing for more U.S. troops to be sent to Afghanistan, the ambassador wrote to the White House (in a cable later leaked to The New York Times) saying that "Sending additional forces will delay the day when Afghans will take over, and make it difficult, if not impossible, to bring our people home on a reasonable timetable."
McChrystal's "proposed counterinsurgency strategy assumes an Afghan political leadership that is both able to take responsibility and to exert sovereignty in the furtherance of our goal," Eikenberry wrote. "Yet (Afghan President Hamid) Karzai continues to shun responsibility for any sovereign burden, whether defense, governance or development."
"(Karzai) and much of his circle do not want the U.S. to leave and are only too happy to see us invest further," Eikenberry continued. "They assume we covet their territory for a never-ending 'war on terror' and for military bases to use against surrounding powers." So don't send any more U.S. troops, he concluded.
There have been no similar leaks giving us the personal views of Biden, but he has publicly supported Obama's target of beginning the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan in July 2011. McChrystal, like any general who believes his task is to win the war, saw that deadline as a terrible mistake.
Arizona Sen. John McCain, still the senior statesman in the grown-up wing of the Republican Party, shares McChrystal's view on this. "We can't tell the enemy when we're leaving," said McCain - because if they know when we're leaving, they'll just wait for us to go. No doubt Gen. David Petraeus, who has been abruptly pulled out of his (more senior) job to replace McChrystal, thinks the same.
But what if Obama, Biden and Eikenberry really think (a) that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable, and (b) that it isn't important for the United States to win it anyway? What if they privately hope that the July 2011 date for the start of the withdrawal will persuade the Taliban to hold back for the next year, which would make it look like the United States was winning the war?
Then the American troops could go home with the appearance of victory, leaving the Afghans to sort themselves out. No matter who is running Afghanistan two or three years later - and it wouldn't necessarily be the Taliban - it's highly unlikely that hordes of Afghans would follow the Americans home and blow them up.
If Obama and friends understand this, then they will have realized that the best way to end the Afghan war is simply (as they used to say about Vietnam) to "declare a victory and leave." But they cannot say this out loud in the United States, where most of the population believes that the "war on terror" must be won in the hills of Afghanistan.
It would take more time and political capital than Obama has to persuade the U.S. public that this is nonsense. So if he really wants to extract American troops from an unwinnable and unnecessary war, then he is condemned to do so by subterfuge. He must engineer an apparent but temporary military success in Afghanistan, do a quick hand-over to Karzai & Co., and get out while the going's good.
Obama's best hope of creating an apparent military success is to announce the withdrawal of U.S. troops in the near future. If the Taliban understand his implicit message to them, they let him have a temporary "victory" in order to get him out.
But if that's what Obama's up to, then it's understandable that McChrystal was deeply frustrated (though that doesn't excuse his behavior). Petraeus will be equally frustrated.
Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.
McChrystal's shouldn't be only head rolling Friday, June 25, 2010 02:52 AM By Michael Barone
We didn't need this. By "we," I mean the large majority of citizens who want America to succeed in Afghanistan. By "this," I mean the Rolling Stone article that quoted Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his aides saying uncomplimentary things about Barack Obama, Joe Biden and other civilian officials.
It's true that most of the negative remarks were attributed to staffers rather than to McChrystal himself. And it's true that none of them amounts to insubordination or refusal to carry out orders, the offense for which Gens. George McClellan and Douglas MacArthur were appropriately fired.
But a commander has the responsibility of setting the tone of his subordinates. And it is astonishing that a general would give such ready access to a writer from Rolling Stone, especially one who is, as the article makes clear, a skeptic about the general's strategy.
Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman correctly noted that McChrystal's comments "are inappropriate and inconsistent with the traditional relationship between the commander in chief and the military." And that "the decision concerning Gen. McChrystal's future is a decision to be made by the president of the United States."
It surely must have been an excruciating decision for President Obama. He installed McChrystal in his post after removing his predecessor, and he largely agreed to his strategy last December after a three-month review - though he added a July 2011 deadline for the start of troop withdrawals.
Like most American presidents, and like all presidents during the past 50 years, Obama came to office with little preparation for being commander in chief.
Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and both Bushes had served in the military, but not at a level that gave them much insight in evaluating military commanders. Presidents Carter, Reagan, Clinton and the younger Bush as governors commanded state National Guard units, but that's nothing like commanding the world's largest military forces.
Unfortunately, there's not much correlation between the skill set needed to win the Iowa caucuses and the Super Tuesday primaries and that needed to decide on military strategies and to select the appropriate commanders for different military operations.
Obama's decision-making on Afghanistan so far could be characterized as splitting the difference. He added troops early on and opted for McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy while propitiating his party's left with something in the nature of a deadline for withdrawal.
While backing McChrystal, he also appointed as our civilian leader in Afghanistan retired Gen. Karl Eikenberry, who disagreed with McChrystal's strategy. By all accounts, including Rolling Stone's, they have not had the cooperative relationship that Gen. David Petraeus and civilian honcho Ryan Crocker had in Iraq in 2007-08.
A president is entitled to take political factors into consideration in making military decisions. Franklin Roosevelt, who of all our presidents showed the greatest gift for selecting the right general or admiral for particular assignments, ordered the invasion of North Africa in 1942 against the unanimous advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He believed that Americans and our allies needed to see America taking decisive action in the European Theater, even in a peripheral location.
Obama leads a political party that before his election argued that Afghanistan was the good war (and Iraq the bad one) but which is now divided on whether we should persevere there. He faces an opposition party that mostly supports our course in Afghanistan but is worried about our prospects there and fears a premature withdrawal.
He is not the first president to head a national security establishment that is divided and distrustful, as the Rolling Stone article confirms. And he is surely not the first president to be the subject of disparaging remarks by his military subordinates.
But unfortunately those remarks have come out into the open in a way that makes it very hard to go on splitting the difference. With McChrystal gone, it may be time to consider other personnel changes.
And it may be time for Obama to embrace a word he has been reluctant to utter: victory. His duty is to set a course that will produce success, to install the people who can achieve that goal and to give them the backing they need.
We didn't need this, and Barack Obama didn't, either. But he wanted the job, and now he must command.
Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner.
I think Dwyer is way off base. The taliban aren't going to just sit back and wait for us to leave. Cripe, they're launching offensives now. If we start a withdrawal, I'm pretty sure they will escalate their attacks while we're still there. They'd love to see us even more vulnerable with fewer troops while knowing Obama's not going to renege and replenish once a withdrawal has begun. Announcing a timetable for withdrawal is foolish.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
The only thing I want to add is that it has been reported that he had signed off on the article. I'm waiting to see if this is verified.
it has also been mentioned that these comments were said over beers. Geraldo is mad as hell for the reporter writing what was said in this setting. it's his opinion that these type of conversations are typically off the record.
These two things don't really seem to jive with each other.
We lost a great soldier but he deserved to be removed. We have also demoted another one to take over Afghanistan. Let's just hope we can find away to remove ourselves from this war without losing the country back to the Taliban.
Quote: I ask again, who would you follow next given a choice,...Stanley or Barack ?
Those who dislike the target of his barbs will like it, and those who like the target will be miffed.
Easy generalization...which is untrue. Not everyone is the simpleton you believe most people to be. I don't like the target and I think the General made a fool of himself. It may be indicative of a huge disconnect between the military and Obama, but this man acted in an extremely foolish manner.
This is pure conjecture on my part, but consider the possibility that Obama is a one-term president, whether by his own choice or by a challenge from inside the Democrat party. In which case, if it happened, a Clinton-McChrystal ticket for 2012 would be pretty formidable. Hillary Clinton polled ahead of all other known candidates in both parties (which is like being the tallest midget in the circus), in a recent nationwide poll. McChrystal gives her instant military and national security cred.
If Clinton distances herself from Obama any time soon, resigning her post as Sec State, and proceeds to make public her disagreements with current foreign policy, you will know (a) she's running, and (b) the whole McChrystal brew-ha was engineered and designed to give him distance from Obama's Afghanistan policy.
Two influential senators suggested Sunday that President Obama clean house on the civilian side of his Afghanistan war team if Gen. David Petraeus cannot get along with the same diplomats who may have sparred with outgoing Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also said the withdrawal timetable needs to be flexible, though the president has set July 2011 as the deadline to get out.
The senators spoke just days after McChrystal resigned over a Rolling Stone article in which he and his aides were quoted mocking the Obama administration, particularly Amb. Karl Eikenberry and Special Representative Richard Holbrooke. The article reflected deep divisions between the military and civilian side of the war effort.
While lawmakers were nearly unanimous in saying Obama had to change generals after the article, Feinstein said those diplomats should not get a free pass with Petraeus. Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," the senator said Petraeus must be a "command presence" on the team.
"(Petraeus) should make the calls. If he can't work with the ambassador, the ambassador should change. If he can't work with Holbrooke, that should change," Feinstein said. "I think we put all of our eggs in the Petraeus basket."
Graham said it's up to the president whether to make any more changes, but he described the relationship between the military and civilian sides as "dysfunctional."
"This is a chance to start over completely, and the military-civilian relationship is very important," Graham said. "But I'm very concerned if nothing changes on the civilian side."
Eikenberry threw a curveball into negotiations last year over military strategy in Afghanistan after he sent cables questioning the troop buildup advocated by McChrystal. In the Rolling Stone piece, McChrystal said he felt "betrayed" by the ambassador and suggested Eikenberry was just trying to look good for posterity.
"I like Karl, I've known him for years, but they'd never said anything like that to us before," he said. "Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, 'I told you so.' "
Graham also said the ambassador's working relationship with Afghan President Hamid Karzai is "poor."
Meanwhile, with Petraeus' confirmation hearing set to be held this week, Graham said he wants the administration to clarify how hard-and-fast the withdrawal deadline is.
Feinstein said that if Petraeus asks for more time, "I would say give it to him."
This is pure conjecture on my part, but consider the possibility that Obama is a one-term president, whether by his own choice or by a challenge from inside the Democrat party. In which case, if it happened, a Clinton-McChrystal ticket for 2012 would be pretty formidable. Hillary Clinton polled ahead of all other known candidates in both parties (which is like being the tallest midget in the circus), in a recent nationwide poll. McChrystal gives her instant military and national security cred.
If Clinton distances herself from Obama any time soon, resigning her post as Sec State, and proceeds to make public her disagreements with current foreign policy, you will know (a) she's running, and (b) the whole McChrystal brew-ha was engineered and designed to give him distance from Obama's Afghanistan policy.
Or not.
Then this would mean that McChrystal used his position as a military general and devised this ruse only for his own political gain. Good enough reason for me not to vote that ticket either then.
Willie, why do you call it the "Kings War"... I mean,, he didn't start it, he voted against it.. why is it now the Kings war and not Bushs war? Just wondering
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Quote: Willie, why do you call it the "Kings War"... I mean,, he didn't start it, he voted against it.. why is it now the Kings war and not Bushs war? Just wondering
He said he was going to end it - while campaigning before getting elected.
Now...while still campaigning - yet after being elected - he ramped-up the Afghan war.
Quote: He said he was going to end it - while campaigning before getting elected.
Now...while still campaigning - yet after being elected - he ramped-up the Afghan war.
He has made it his war.
...and if our troops win their objectives and get brought home during the current presiden't tenure, will you give him props where you now give barbs?
If so, then you're an honorable man. If not, then you're pretty much like every other partisan hack with a keyboard, an internet connection, and a biased point of view.
I guess only time will tell about this one. But you are on record now, considering your views of the current POTUS....
I know your latest comments were directly aimed at Willie but I want to chime in.
I'm not sure if I am reading Willie right so I don't want to say that I agree with him. I can say I am not happy with a lot of what this administration has done and said. It is now their war so to speak since they control the policies. If their policies bring out a successful conclusion i will definitely give them all the credit for it.
I would like to note that I had many issues with the Bush administration on how they ran Iraq. in the end they had changed course and did a great job at running it.
You are always questioning the "why" of the war -- I do too. The important thing is the HOW, and getting the job done. Politics has always been in "its" way, regardless of who the "guilty" party is/was.
