Posted on 06/22/2010 4:07:18 AM PDT by kristinn
President Commodus: “How dare you show your back to me!”
Not sure I understand what you're asking. Do you mean, what did he say in the article?
He doesn't; he is malleable as a wet noodle statist and the reason Obama kept him as SecDef.
This is a special case. What we have here is a PINO (President In Name Only).
Obama hesitates on everything.
Both Quantico and Centcom have been trying to hack the Post & Email news website for some time now. That’s how apolitical the military leadership is. They know who their enemy is, and it’s not necessarily Al Qaeda.
I’m really, really worried for our military if they DON’T stand up against Obama, because he may be literally making them into his banana-republic storm-troopers.
Ditto. As a former military officer, we know that we must keep our opinions to ourselves and carry out the orders in a professional manner and to the best of our abilities. Otherwise be prepare to resign after making public dissenting remarks. That is the price for keeping our military out of politics, otherwise you end up with military coups and clashes that happened in Europe, Asia, Africa and South/Latin America. Obama should be voted out, and November is our chance to do it at the ballot box.
The Pentagon may not be the decision maker in this.
Update: Like I said — major fallout. Marc Ambinder relays the administration’s reaction.
What in the heck was Gen. Stanley McChrystal thinking? I mean, I know what he was thinking: he was tired of being the victim of what he believes is a concerted effort on behalf of Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry and others to undermine everything he was given 18 months to do. He was tired of being perceived in the press as a neoconservative killer, Dick Cheney’s hired assassin, or disloyal to President Obama and his staff. He was angry at being blamed for leaking the draft of his report to the President to Bob Woodward. (He did NOT leak the document). He was miffed that a large number of mid-ranking soldiers and battalion commanders and enlisted guys didn’t support his strategy…
I don’t think McChrystal intended to do this. Nevertheless, he did. And as for whether there was some miscommunication about attribution, or whether McChrystal thought no one would really notice, or whether he thought a tick-tock like this would help his cause … those questions are unanswerable right now…
Within hours after today’s Rolling Stone story broke, McChrystal was called by the White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They were not happy.
LOL! He called them “The Wimps in the Whitehouse”! Boy is he in trouble with the thin skinned, man child impostor POTUS.
snip~
Apparently, that piece didn’t turn out how McChrystal and his guys envisioned it would. McChrystal is apologizing for the article before it’s even come out. He says in a statement: “I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened. Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard. I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome.”
(http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/06/mcchrystal-apologies-for-incendiary-article/#ixzz0ra7SGmUM)
... Have the mainstream media mandarins alerted you to our military atrophy? Have you seen it on ABC, NBC, CBS or the Clinton News Network (CNN)?
The Clinton department of propaganda has succeeded (kinda) in suppressing a significant protest, which has gone virtually unreported. Some of us have been complaining about the "perfumed princes" (Colonel Hackworth's phrase) in the Pentagon. The complaint has been "... why don't you military types DO or SAY something about the serial absurdities of the administration's foreign policy?"
Well, in fairness, we know the military can't itch and moan about their civilian leaders. However, they can, and have done something. According to what I consider reliable sources, in 1997 24 -- count 'em, twenty-four -- generals retired early. I am still in the process of confirming names, dates and replacements (if any). On July 7, 1997, in what is being called a mass protest over the conditions in the military (primarily because of administration policy) 24 generals quit. They reportedly had fought a losing battle to correct, modify, or mitigate the politically correct, operational tempo, and repeated "hey you" deployments. They tried to address the problems with readiness (or lack of) and pay. They tried, and they failed to compel the administration to fix what is wrong. Then, in a final act of courage and commitment (two concepts alien to this administration), they ALL went to see Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen, and RESIGNED. Twenty-four general officers representing 600 years of combined military experience tendered their resignations. THAT is a big deal. ... So why haven't we heard about it?
The White House and Cohen reportedly told them, what they (the generals) were trying to do, would not be allowed. Those twenty-four generals were not going to be allowed the publicity that the mass resignations were intended to achieve. According to multiple sources, the generals, who had committed their lives to serving their country, were threatened with court martial. However, that wasn't apparently a big enough stick for the illegitimate spawn of maximum spin control. The non-disclosure statements (of the generals) were changed in order to include a NEW requirement. The amended (ex post facto) non-disclosure statements compel the generals not to discuss their resignations. Failure to comply would result in punishment and loss of retirement benefits. If that sounds like blackmail ... it is.
So how could the office of propaganda cover up the mass resignations of 24 generals? Allegedly, Cohen informed them they would not be replaced. Their positions would be streamlined and their previous duties would be spread out among remaining generals. The "spin" was a tongue in cheek: "Thanks for helping us consolidate general officer slots in the wake of reductions in force."
So how DO you hide the resignations of 24 generals? Well, you don't announce the resignations en masse; you spread them out over several months. Which is just what happened. Less than a half dozen of the vacated positions were refilled.
If or when the Department of Defense provides us with a list of all resignations by general officers since July of 1997 including names, rank, last duty assignment and date of separation, we will post it here on WorldNetDaily.
Meanwhile, this Kosovo absurdity hangs like another millstone around the neck of career military strategists. The Pentagon reportedly warned the president that joining NATO in an offensive "created more problems than it solves."
Clinton reportedly has become the personification of my cliché that "Some people just don't want to be confused with FACTS which contradict their preconceived opinions." Bill-Jeff was/is determined to send bombers, and doesn't give Jack-spit about the professional opinions or insights of military planners. According to a source quoted in Capital Hill Blue, "This campaign is a White House operation, not a military action. ..." Tell that to the U.S. servicemen who have and will bleed and die. One professional planner warned the "Commander in Grief," "... there could be sizable and unnecessary U.S. casualties."
In what must have been déjà vu all over again for Defense honcho Bill Cohen, the disagreement between the military and the White House got SO heated that Cohen warned the Joint Chiefs to "keep their troops in line on this one." Remember: this administration has a history of ignoring the advice of military and intelligence experts, preferring to listen to appointees who won't let facts get in the way of their blowing smoke up the skirts of their patrons.
Capital Hill Blue reported "The tension here is incredible," says one military source. "We have officers who talk privately of defying orders, but no one is willing to risk their career to stand up to the president of the United States. It just isn't done."
Well, in July of 1997 24 generals DID stand up to the president of the United States. They were willing, and in fact, DID risk their careers. Who are these men? Where are these men?
He will resign. There may be others right behind him.
That the President in question is an incompetent boob with delusions of godhood is irrelevant.
That the President in question is going to seriously compromise the war effort is irrelevant.
Criticism of the President and his policies must come from outside the military, never within.
Precisely and absolutely correct, I'm surprised to read so many here who either don't know this or don't think it matters as much as it does. One may hold whatever opinion he cares to while in the military, however, he may not express it this way -- you wanna spout off, you take your uniform off, as you say, you resign your commission first.
I don't read RS, and from the link above, I'm not getting specific quote from McChrystal, I'm not clear on exactly what he said. But from the sound of it, hearsay though it may be, it does seem to be insubordinate. I wasn't around back when, but from what my mother has told me, MacArthur may well have been correct in his military assessment but he was not correct in his public comments, Truman did what was right and proper in the circumstance, regardless how the people of the country felt.
There can be no exceptions to this rule.
Retirement?
Retirement?
But probably not the Ambassador to Afghanistan, Eikenberry. He seems to be mucking things up big time....which is reason for promotion in this administration.
This was true with all powerful and popular Gen Douglas McArthur vs pipsqueek Truman. Maybe Obama is pulling for a repeat of that, beat down a General to look tough.
Ringy dingy. It took to post 58 for it to be mentioned of the political fallout that will hit the POS in the White House if he fires McChrystal for telling about Obama's incompetence. Does the thin skin Kenyan want to go there?
Concur with you 100%.”They” are also either a mad person or a simple wimp commie fool. Those who voted for klintoon in 92 are gulity as well.
Molon Labe,
NSNR
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.