Barack Obama furious at General Stanley McChrystal..... (Congress, Kennedy, carry)
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.
Obama almost as bad as Bush....kind of crazy rationalisation but if that is all you have I guess you go with it.
I think that you are the one not being rational if you think anyone can ever come close to being as bad as Bush. Over four thousand soldiers dead, countless disabled, not to mention the ones that are dealing with PTSD for a war waged on lies and deceit and you think that is something to make light of?
Obama is upset that McChrystal has forced him to make a potentially unpopular decision. Why is he upset? Because he has niether the experience nor the stones to do something that he can't allocate to one of his czars (which are the real decision-makers in this country).
SO you supported Bush firing a General for daring to speak out against him?
I support any presdients right to change generals for any reason.
history has shown us Lincoln changed generals, FDR truman, kennedy, nixon,
this is the reason we have civilian authority and not military dictatorship.
I do not care why a president want to change it is his right to do so.
It is a general's job to salute and carry out the mission he has responsibility for. Generals do not make policy or are they allowed to influence policy. All generals work for the president whether it is Bush or Obama. There is a list of generals who are on early retirement for not understanding this basic fact of our government.
If a General is asked for an HONEST assessment "Permission to speak freely, sir ?" and he gives his factual opinion/ reply, should he have LIED, instead ? If two Generals disagree, on strategy, should the one who advocates MORE aggression, more violence, more troops, more money down the tubes, more weapons be the "winner ?" Obama will get flak no matter what he does. If he balks at sending troops, the armchair warriors will blow a gasket, if he sends more troops, and two years later, the war still rages, the warmongs will still complain. Let them get off the couch and go die over there if they think this is such a good idea.
This is typical liberal fare...don't listen to the military commanders..let's leave the decision to the guy with no experience..like putting the mail room clerk in charge of the multi-national corporation... (if you see my point)...
If I were a general in charge of UN troops in Afghanistan and felt deeply that ignoring my advice would cost lives, then I would welcome being replaced. A decision regarding fighting a war should not take over a month, so Obama should not be so upset. After all, he could have made the military decision instead of globetrotting and appearing on numerous televised shows during the month+ since the request. IMO, there should be NOTHING more important than trying to save military lives and fighting those bent on our destruction.
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.
