Posted on 06/22/2010 4:07:18 AM PDT by kristinn
NBC News' Savannah Guthrie reports this morning that Gen. Stanley McChrystal is being called to Washington for a meeting at the White House tomorrow in the wake of a Rolling Stone article that has exposed McChrystal and his staff as mockingly disrespectful of their civilian overseers, including their commander-in-chief President Barack Obama.
Guthrie posted at Twitter:
McChrystal has been ordered to the Sit Rom tomorrow to explain his stmts criticizing admin officials to Rolling Stone to POTUS in person 15 minutes ago via UberTwitter
Guthrie added: "McChrystal has been calling around town apologizing to officials."
The Atlantic reported late last night that McChrystal had been called by numerous top officials last night:
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.
The Atlantic also notes that McChrystal never completely had the trust of the Obama administration:
Even though McChrystal voted for Obama and told him so during their first meeting, he sensed that a number of senior White House aides didn't really believe that the former commander of the military's special missions unit during the Bush-Cheney years was suddenly on their side. National Security Adviser James Jones, who is a bit of cipher to McChrystal's team, may or may not have been one of these aides. No one in the West Wing bought all that liberal internet chatter about JSOC's alleged crimes -- but no one really didn't buy it, either.
Sorry about that comment: I was posting without first drinking my morning coffee.
The General is a fine gentleman and patriot who couldn’t take the crap any longer from the Obama Clown, then made some honest statements.
The trouble with the Obama quotation you post is that it is only half right. Yes, he wants to create a large civililian force but he has hardly put the military on a diet. In fact, he has increased active duty forces on his watch. What many conservatives don’t understand is that Obama is an advocate of BOTH the welfare and warfare states.
This "gentleman" is the same guy who covered up the Pat Tillman killing and was properly criticized here for that action. Please note that your "gentleman" hero also voted for Obama.
It is somewhat amusing to read this here. I remember not so long when many of us were criticizing Bush’s top generals for disagreeing with his Iraq policy. Perhaps the problem here is not one of personality but policy e.g our failed effort to police the world.
We both agree totally.
Be well.
WH position: “What was he thinking!?!?!??!”
Answer: “You’re about to find out!”
Yes Obama didn’t remove all the troops from Afghanistan and Iraq but he wants to. Only kept them to look like he is doing something. Obama is misguiding the public.
Wrong because you say it's wrong? Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Yeah, he voted for the Jackass-in-Chief, but like many other voters, suffered almost immediate Buyer’s Remorse:
Even though he had voted for Obama,
McChrystal and his new commander in
chief failed from the outset to connect.
The general first encountered Obama
a week after he took office, when the
president met with a dozen senior military
officials in a room at the Pentagon
known as the Tank. According to sources
familiar with the meeting, McChrystal
thought Obama looked “uncomfortable
and intimidated” by the roomful of
military brass. Their first one-on-one
meeting took place in the Oval Office four
months later, after McChrystal got the
Afghanistan job, and it didn’t go much
better. “It was a 10-minute photo op,”
says an adviser to McChrystal. “Obama
clearly didn’t know anything about him,
who he was. Here’s the guy who’s going
to run his fucking war, but he didn’t
seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty
disappointed.
~~ RS article
How about this? There is so much we don’t know. McChrystal is not a stupid man. He had to have known this would be explosive.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2539055/posts
EDITORIAL: Obama’s Vietnam moment—Democrats plan to cut and run in Afghanistan
The Washington Times ^ | June 21, 2010 | Editorial
Posted on Monday, June 21, 2010 8:14:15 PM by jazusamo
The White House is clinging to President Obama’s ill-conceived pledge to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan in July 2011, regardless of how the war is going at the time. In dogmatically standing by that pledge, Mr. Obama is virtually guaranteeing he will preside over America’s second lost war.
The issue arose last week during congressional testimony when Central Command commander Gen. David H. Petraeus said that withdrawing from Afghanistan would be “based on conditions” and that “July 2011 is not the date where we race for the exits.” Au contraire, according to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. “The July [2011] date, as stated by the president, that’s not moving, that’s not changing,” he said Sunday. “Everybody agreed on that date.”
The scope of the withdrawal is yet to be decided, but according to Mr. Emanuel, the start date is necessary because it has “created a sense of urgency” among the allies to get the job done. Another thing creating a sense of urgency is the significantly degraded security situation in Afghanistan since Mr. Obama set this deadline. Insurgent attacks and coalition casualties are up; the areas of the country in which the Taliban are active have increased; and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai is watching the United States with increasing wariness, knowing that soon he will have to face the Taliban alone.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Where is McChrystal right now?
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." [Kaiser Soze]
Exactly...Late getting logged on this morning but read about McCrystal's and others remarks last night. Knew it would hit the fan today and it looks like it has. Before reading anything else it almost looks like he wanted to go out swinging, he had to have known it would be the end when speaking out like that if in fact it's all true.
Thanks for the ping.
Not true - you are taught to respect the office, if not the man ...
If you disagree with policy, you resign your commission - and then you are free to make any statement you want or to stand for election to oppose him ...
McChrystal was unquestionably right in his opinion - and unquestionably wrong to give the interview before resigning his commission ...
He voted for barry? hmmmmm That changes my opinion of him for sure.
I agree, but maybe he just said that he voted for him but didn’t.
Not true. Obama has not only increased the size of active duty forces in the world but put MORE troops in Afghanistan than were called for even by John McCain. You mistake him for a peacenik. A better comparison is to a Woodrow Wilson or FDR who wants to maximize his power both at home and overseas. You seem to view Obama as someone who wants to abrogate his power in one area and maximize it in another. That is a contradiction. IMHO, he wants to maximize his power across the board.
You make good points.
The article states that this is the the first time the author has been published in Rolling Stone. From his description of how and when he was with McChrystal, it almost seems like he was ‘embedded.’ I wonder if he portrayed himself as a free lancer, pro-military troops, and then shopped the article to Rolling Stone?
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.