Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,327 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40731
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno3314
I don't understand what that has to do with Eisenhower or Petraeus or why the remark was made when viewing their pictures.
Nothing directly but it is an interesting visual contrast between Ike and Petraeus and their apparent needs to advertise their accomplishments, real or imagined. Personally, I'll take Eisenhower any day.
McCrystal reflects directly on Obama. Don't like McCrystal? look up one level to see the problem.
Just as in business, a bad manager is enabled by the person above them in the org chart. To fix the problem seek the solution one level up.
McCrystal was already a general in Iraq when Obama came into office. Democrats and Republican alike were in favor of McCrystal.
The president and the commander do not know each other well. It was Mr. Gates who decided to change commanders and picked General McChrystal. Aides said Mr. Obama relied on Mr. Gates’s recommendation and did not interview General McChrystal before approving the appointment, but he did meet with him in the Oval Office over the summer.
This is old news. McCrystal's involvement with the Tillman thing has been known since day one.
NOT an issue considering Barak Obama hand picked this guy.
HOWEVER.... now that the left precieves they need to get Barry out of some hot water for having a General with a different view than the president, they do what they always do...
Character assassination. It is standard liberal politics 101.
Nothing directly but it is an interesting visual contrast between Ike and Petraeus and their apparent needs to advertise their accomplishments, real or imagined. Personally, I'll take Eisenhower any day.
I might be wrong but, I believe it was Eisenhower's Pacific counterpart, MacArthur that was outspoken and released from command by President Truman during the Korean War.
This is old news. McCrystal's involvement with the Tillman thing has been known since day one.
NOT an issue considering Barak Obama hand picked this guy.
HOWEVER.... now that the left precieves they need to get Barry out of some hot water for having a General with a different view than the president, they do what they always do...
Character assassination. It is standard liberal politics 101.
My take--many who openly hate President Obama are suddenly hailing McChrystal as a hero for no other reason than they believe Obama is "furious" with McChrystal; i.e., "Any enemy of Obama is a friend of mine." It's obvious that some people on this forum have never even heard of McChrystal prior to his recent statements, so why are you so bothered with someone else sharing factual information about the man? It's also obvious that some on the right believe McChrystal's advice should be followed for no other reason than because he expressed "disagreement" with the president.
I think it's shameful that McChrystal has usurped the President's authority and politicized the strategy in Afghanistan. He may be a brilliant general, and I certainly wish him success in the war. But I agree with Defense Secretary that it's best for military leaders to "provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately;" and National Security Adviser Gen. Jim Jones, who said McChrystal's comments were only one opinion and that "the president should be presented with options, not just one fait accompli."
Since you're so concerned with the timeliness of the information, I wanted to remind you that the link I shared (Jon Stewart's interview with Jon Krakauer) was from last week's Daily Show, and it was about a book released three weeks ago. That is NEW news, plus McChrystal himself recently thrust himself into the media spotlight.
And I wouldn't say McChrystal's involvement with the Tillman/friendly fire incident was known from day one, since the military spent a month trying to cover up the facts about Tillman's death. Army Secretary Pete Geren concluded there was no conspiracy, just a "perfect storm of mistakes, misjudgments and a failure of leadership." Doesn't that reflect on McChrystal, who approved the Silver Star despite suspecting that Tillman was killed by friendly fire?
Presentation of facts is a far cry from character assassination, a tactic which neocons wrote the book on.
My take--many who openly hate President Obama are suddenly hailing McChrystal as a hero for no other reason than they believe Obama is "furious" with McChrystal; i.e., "Any enemy of Obama is a friend of mine." It's obvious that some people on this forum have never even heard of McChrystal prior to his recent statements, so why are you so bothered with someone else sharing factual information about the man? It's also obvious that some on the right believe McChrystal's advice should be followed for no other reason than because he expressed "disagreement" with the president.
I think it's shameful that McChrystal has usurped the President's authority and politicized the strategy in Afghanistan. He may be a brilliant general, and I certainly wish him success in the war. But I agree with Defense Secretary that it's best for military leaders to "provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately;" and National Security Adviser Gen. Jim Jones, who said McChrystal's comments were only one opinion and that "the president should be presented with options, not just one fait accompli."
Since you're so concerned with the timeliness of the information, I wanted to remind you that the link I shared (Jon Stewart's interview with Jon Krakauer) was from last week's Daily Show, and it was about a book released three weeks ago. That is NEW news, plus McChrystal himself recently thrust himself into the media spotlight.
And I wouldn't say McChrystal's involvement with the Tillman/friendly fire incident was known from day one, since the military spent a month trying to cover up the facts about Tillman's death. Army Secretary Pete Geren concluded there was no conspiracy, just a "perfect storm of mistakes, misjudgments and a failure of leadership." Doesn't that reflect on McChrystal, who approved the Silver Star despite suspecting that Tillman was killed by friendly fire?
Presentation of facts is a far cry from character assassination, a tactic which neocons wrote the book on.
Wasn't able to rep you again yet. Isn't it shameful that as long as Obama is for it, they are against it and vice versa? No rationale behind it, just downright hate and disrespect for the POTUS and any of his policies. It was blatantly clear when there were people here actually hoping that the USA would not get the Olympics. I do not believe that has ever been the case with any country throughout Olympic history. Shameful! The say Obama's public option is being rushed, but they want to rush 40,000 more troops to their possible demise just because Obama is taking his time on the side of common sense and what is in the best interest of this country. Could they be more obvious?
My take--many who openly hate President Obama are suddenly hailing McChrystal as a hero for no other reason than they believe Obama is "furious" with McChrystal; i.e., "Any enemy of Obama is a friend of mine." It's obvious that some people on this forum have never even heard of McChrystal prior to his recent statements, so why are you so bothered with someone else sharing factual information about the man? It's also obvious that some on the right believe McChrystal's advice should be followed for no other reason than because he expressed "disagreement" with the president.
I think it's shameful that McChrystal has usurped the President's authority and politicized the strategy in Afghanistan. He may be a brilliant general, and I certainly wish him success in the war. But I agree with Defense Secretary that it's best for military leaders to "provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately;" and National Security Adviser Gen. Jim Jones, who said McChrystal's comments were only one opinion and that "the president should be presented with options, not just one fait accompli."
Since you're so concerned with the timeliness of the information, I wanted to remind you that the link I shared (Jon Stewart's interview with Jon Krakauer) was from last week's Daily Show, and it was about a book released three weeks ago. That is NEW news, plus McChrystal himself recently thrust himself into the media spotlight.
And I wouldn't say McChrystal's involvement with the Tillman/friendly fire incident was known from day one, since the military spent a month trying to cover up the facts about Tillman's death. Army Secretary Pete Geren concluded there was no conspiracy, just a "perfect storm of mistakes, misjudgments and a failure of leadership." Doesn't that reflect on McChrystal, who approved the Silver Star despite suspecting that Tillman was killed by friendly fire?
Presentation of facts is a far cry from character assassination, a tactic which neocons wrote the book on.
hmmm. I must be Magic because I've known of the McCrystal/Tillman connection for almost as long as McCrystal has been Obama's pick to run the Afghan war.
Thanks for pointing that out to me. For my next trick I will levitate and fly home after work.
On a serious note, if you want to talk about the general speaking out of turn, concerning policy in the last two weeks that's fine we can have that discussion.
But we are talking instead about old news in an attempt to smear the general.... because the left no longer likes him.
Here is a little bit for you. If Obama doesn’t like the Generals recommendations. If Obama doesn’t like the way the General has spoken. Then by all means fire the guy and get a new guy. That is the job of the President.
On the other hand if he likes the plan, cut the general loose and give him what he wants.
I’m not real concerned with how Obama decides to handle it. It will be debated no doubt. But what appears to be the reality is that the President IS NOT MAKING A DECISION OF ANY KIND
You don’t waffle of war. When you waffle on war, people die. McCrystal’s connection to Pat Tillman is a distraction and a pretext to firing the guy. The sad thing is Obama doesn’t need a pretext. Lincoln went thru general after general before he got to Grant. Presidents fire Generals. GWB did it with little fanfare.
All I am saying is, let’s get about the business of dealing with reality and stop wasting time hand wringing about what role McCrystal played in the Tillman affair. Fire the guy. Find a new guy. Don’t fire the guy and give him what he wants. JUST MAKE A DECISION ALREADY.
Oh and Neo-Cons didnt write the book Saul Alinsky wrote the book. They may have read the book.... even followed some of the rules....but they did not write the book....
Speaking of books... I believe the current president is a huge proponent of Mr. Alinsky.
hmmm. I must be Magic because I've known of the McCrystal/Tillman connection for almost as long as McCrystal has been Obama's pick to run the Afghan war.
Thanks for pointing that out to me. For my next trick I will levitate and fly home after work.
On a serious note, if you want to talk about the general speaking out of turn, concerning policy in the last two weeks that's fine we can have that discussion.
But we are talking instead about old news in an attempt to smear the general.... because the left no longer likes him.
Here is a little bit for you. If Obama doesn’t like the Generals recommendations. If Obama doesn’t like the way the General has spoken. Then by all means fire the guy and get a new guy. That is the job of the President.
On the other hand if he likes the plan, cut the general loose and give him what he wants.
I’m not real concerned with how Obama decides to handle it. It will be debated no doubt. But what appears to be the reality is that the President IS NOT MAKING A DECISION OF ANY KIND
You don’t waffle of war. When you waffle on war, people die. McCrystal’s connection to Pat Tillman is a distraction and a pretext to firing the guy. The sad thing is Obama doesn’t need a pretext. Lincoln went thru general after general before he got to Grant. Presidents fire Generals. GWB did it with little fanfare.
All I am saying is, let’s get about the business of dealing with reality and stop wasting time hand wringing about what role McCrystal played in the Tillman affair. Fire the guy. Find a new guy. Don’t fire the guy and give him what he wants. JUST MAKE A DECISION ALREADY.
Oh and Neo-Cons didnt write the book Saul Alinsky wrote the book. They may have read the book.... even followed some of the rules....but they did not write the book....
Speaking of books... I believe the current president is a huge proponent of Mr. Alinsky.
...and the nonsensical smear campaign accusations have already been covered in this thread if you had bothered to read. Obama does not have to fire the general and he still does not have to make a hasty and irresponsible decision that puts more troop's lives at risk. Slow down the health insurance public option so that more American's perish but speed up sending more troops to their deaths. Have I got that right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so what your saying.....
