Posted on 06/23/2010 11:49:01 AM PDT by DBCJR
Obama announced he has accepted Gen. Stanley McChrystal's resignation as the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan ...
In doing so, Obama nominated Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command and the former commanding general in Iraq, to replace him. The president stressed that while the decision was a difficult one, it does not represent a change in the course of the war.
...
"I did so with considerable regret, but also with certainty that it is the right thing for our mission in Afghanistan, for our military and for our country," Obama said. "War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general or a president."
Obama said the commentary in the article "undermines" the civilian chain of command. "It erodes the trust that is necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan," he said, adding: "Now is the time for all of us to come together."
...
If not insubordination, the remarks in the Rolling Stone magazine article were at least an indirect challenge to civilian management of the war in Washington by its top military commander.
Military leaders rarely challenge their commander in chief publicly, and when they do, consequences tend to be more severe than a scolding.
"I think it's clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed a poor -- showed poor judgment," the president said Tuesday, surrounded by members of his Cabinet. "But I also want to make sure that I talk to him directly before I make any final decisions."
Gates hand-picked McChrystal to take over the war last year, calling him a driven visionary with the fortitude and intelligence to turn the war around. Obama fired the previous commander at Gates' recommendation.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
>> Gates hand-picked McChrystal to take over the war last year, calling him a driven visionary with the fortitude and intelligence to turn the war around.
Thus branding Gates as an equally ignorant chump. But then, we already knew that.
I predict a mass exodus of our military volunteers.
McChrystal Resigns Over Critical Remarks, Obama Names Petraeus as Replacement
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2540269/posts
Will those behind the “General Betray Us” ad do it again?
Do not ever speak to the media. No interviews, do not even acknowledge they are there. Walk on by, tell your troops to walk on by. If one is dying on the roadside, leave them because if you stop to help them they will stab you in the back. It's not that they are a$$holes because at least a$$holes at least perform a function, the media does not.
Oh yeah, and if you are smart you will apply the same tactic to politicans because they are cut from the same cloth.
Petraeus also has the problem that Obama has telegraphed our exit date-July of 2011, so the enemy will be far more difficult to discourage. More of our kids will die because of that too.
Here's hoping Petraeus will persuade Obama to allow us to win by changing the ROE's and rescinding the drop-dead withdrawal date.
zero proves once again what a complete and total idiot he is . . . . unqualified to get out of bed by himself, much LESS be the TOTUS!!!
American and the world are, again, less safe now than they were 48 hours ago.
So, who’s going to get Gen. Petraeus job now that he’s been demoted?
It was such a short time ago when the left villified general “betray us”.
military leaders rarely criticize the cif....Dem military general came out of the woodwork to criticize Bush.
What was this moron thinking???? His 'general staff' chipped in with comments!!!! They should all be fired! We had him playing golf while the Gulf Coast burned! He was being held responsible!! Then this idiot and his moronic minions give an interview! You were supposed to be fighting a war, not gabbing with a leftist ragsheet out to make you look like an idiot!!
Jesus! It just keeps getting worse! If this mulatto marxist isn't destroying the country right in front of our eyes, we're screwing up to make him look good!
“If not insubordination, the remarks in the Rolling Stone magazine article were at least an indirect challenge to civilian management of the war in Washington by its top military commander.”
What? Where the hell do people come up with this crap? A commander (lightly) disparaging the president is no more challenging the long-held tradition of civilian management of the military than Obama criticizing the GOP strikes at the heart of our two-party system or criticizing Congress threatens the doctrine of seperation of powers.
“Everytime I think we’ve got this marxist pantywaist on the ropes bleeding and down for the count some Jackass gives an interview to Rolling Stone and makes this asshole look Presidential in the Oval Office!”
If the Rolling Stone interview generated sympathy for Obama, his little speech today should’ve quelched it. Bad enough he pretended he was firing the guy, when all he did was accept a resignation. That talk about the threat to civilian control of the military was utterly preposterous. Plus, a really great politician—Lincoln, for instance—would’ve ignored it as the minor mistake it is.
Having spent a significant portion of my life as either a military brat or an active duty serviceman, I'm well aware of the protocol. Thanks for letting me know.
DBCJr, I have a different take on this sitch: The left has got to be sick at their stomachs today. They just got served a heapin’ helpin’ of crow on a silver platter with a Tiffany’s sliverware setting.
They were the ones who opposed Petraeus and his military advice to the point of calling him a traitor and a liar. Remember the NYT’s headline “General Betray Us”? The very Senator in 2007 who uttered the infamous remark against his sworn testimony (that it required “a willing suspension of disbelief”) is now the Secretary of State.
Progressives have been roiled by their own heroes.
Can you believe it? The left must be boiling mad right now and unable to say anything substantive about it.
DBCJr, I have a different take on this sitch: The left has got to be sick at their stomachs today. They just got served a heapin’ helpin’ of crow on a silver platter with a Tiffany’s sliverware setting.
They were the ones who opposed Petraeus and his military advice to the point of calling him a traitor and a liar. Remember the NYT’s headline “General Betray Us”? The very Senator in 2007 who uttered the infamous remark against his sworn testimony (that it required “a willing suspension of disbelief”) is now the Secretary of State.
Progressives have been roiled by their own heroes.
Can you believe it? The left must be boiling mad right now and unable to say anything substantive about it.
Unbelievable really considering the following:
The same Petraeus that on Sep 10, 2007, New York Times permitted Moveon.org in a large ad: “General Betray Us” and the democratic demogogues blasted Petraeus & the surge like the Human Events article below:
Liberal Demagogues Blast Petraeus and Surge
by Human Events (more by this author)
Posted 09/17/2007 ET
Before Gen. David Petraeus entered the House hearing room September 10 to testify on the progress of the U.S. troop surge in Iraq, the American left had already decided how they were going to react to his report: Castigate Petraeus as a dishonest toady of the Bush Administration and traitor to the country and declare the surge a failure.
The liberal 527 group MoveOn.org bought a full-page ad (at right) in the September 10 New York Times accusing Petraeus of “cooking the books” on the Iraq surge and accusing the general of betraying America. (The Times gave MoveOn a $102,000 discount.) As of press time, not one of the Democrats running for President has denounced the MoveOn ad.
What follows are quotes from liberals who decided that sliming Gen. Petraeus and the surge was more important than allowing the truth to be told. Of course, this was to be expected, considering House Democratic Whip James Clyburn (S.C.) admitted that a positive report from Petraeus would pose “a real big problem” for the Democratic Party.
MoveOn.org: “General Petraeus or General Betray Us? Cooking the books for the White House
“General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. . . . Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us” (Full-page ad in the New York Times, Sept. 10, 2007).
Anonymous Democratic Senator: “No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV. The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us” (“Between Iraq Report and a Hard Place,” Politico, Sept. 10, 2007).
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.): “I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything” (Press conference, April 19, 2007).
DANA BASH, CNN: “Gen. Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?”
SEN. REID: “No, I don’t believe him, because it’s not happening. All you have to do is look at the facts” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” April 23, 2007).
SEN. REID: “I’m waiting to see if Gen. Petraeus can be a little more candid with this. . . . For someone, whether it’s Gen. Petraeus or anyone else, to say things are great in Baghdad isn’t in touch with what’s going on in Baghdad, even though he’s there and I’m not” (Press conference, June 14, 2007).
SEN. REID: “He’s made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual. I have every belief that this good man, Gen. Petraeus, will give us what he feels is the right thing to do in this report—that is now not his report, it’s President Bush’s report” (Press conference, Sept. 07, 2007).
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.): “Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes: We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here—it was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here, and that is because there was no one else there protecting them” (Senate floor, Sept. 5, 2007).
House Foreign Affairs Chairman Tom Lantos (D.-Calif.): “Our witnesses have been sent here this morning to restore credibility to a discredited policy. . . .
“We cannot take any of this administration’s assertions on Iraq at face value anymore, and no amount of charts or statistics will improve its credibility. . . .
“The administration has sent you here today to convince the members of these two committees and the Congress that victory is at hand. With all due respect to you, I must say I don’t buy it” (Opening statement, Joint hearing of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, Sept. 10, 2007).
Rep. Robert Wexler (D.-Fla.): “Cherry- picking statistics or selectively massaging information will not change the basic truth. . . .
“This testimony today is eerily similar to the testimony the American people heard on April 28, 1967, from Gen. William Westmoreland, when he told the American people America was making progress in Vietnam. . . .
“We’ve heard a lot today about America’s credibility. President Bush recently stated we should not have withdrawn our troops from Vietnam, because of the great damage to America’s credibility. General, there are 58,195 names etched into the Vietnam War Memorial. Twenty years from now, when we build the Iraq war memorial on the National Mall, how many more men and women will have been sacrificed to protect our so-called credibility? How many more names will be added to the wall before we admit it is time to leave? How many more names, General?” (Joint hearing of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, Sept. 10, 2007).
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D.-Ill.): “He is presenting the same cherry-picked numbers that we’ve all heard before. . . . 4 1/2 years later, and we are still hearing how, despite their deficiencies, Iraqi security forces are expanding their capacities” (Blackberry text messages sent during Petraeus’s testimony, reported by the Washington Post, Sept. 11, 2007).
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.): “I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief” (Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Sept. 11, 2007).
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.): “I don’t consider the surge a nuanced policy. It’s killing our soldiers at a great rate. … Sen. [Joe] Biden [D.-Del.] talked to you about what the comptroller general said, and you’re going to argue about it? I think the comptroller general ought to be listened to. He says you’re cherry-picking your numbers in terms of the overall violence. . . . I ask you to take off your rosy glasses. You had them on in ’05” (Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Sept. 11, 2007).
Sen. Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.): “By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing, and thus the surge is working. Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong” (Speech to the Center for National Policy, Sept. 7, 2007).
New York Times: “We hope Congress is not fooled by the silver stars, charts and rhetoric of yesterday’s hearing. Even if the so-called surge has created breathing room, Iraq’s sectarian leaders show neither the ability nor the intent to take advantage of it. . . . The American people deserve more than what the general and the diplomat offered them yesterday” (Editorial, “Empty Calories,” Sept. 11, 2007).
Code Pink Protestors: “Tell the truth, General! Generals lie, soldiers die. War criminal!” (Ryan Grim, “A Room With Two Views,” Politico, Sept. 10, 2007).
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D.-Ill.): “We don’t need a report that wins the Nobel Prize for creative statistics or the Pulitzer for fiction” (Matthew Jaffe, “Democrats Already Discrediting Upcoming Petraeus Report,” ABC News, Sept. 8, 2007).
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D.-Calif.): “I don’t think Gen. Petraeus has an independent view in that sense. Gen. Petraeus is there to succeed. He may say the progress is uneven. He may say it’s substantial. . . . But I don’t think he’s an independent evaluator” (“Fox News Sunday,” Sept. 9, 2007).
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=22412
If Holbrooke and Eikenwhatever stay on, then Karzai will go out and be replaced by one more favorable to whatever back deal State is cutting with the Taliban.
If those two go, Karzai will stay on and maybe something good will come out of this doggone mess.
Really wish we weren’t there.
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.