Barack Obama furious at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan

Telegraph ^ | Oct. 5, 2009 | Alex Spillius

[peggybac]

The relationship between President Barack Obama and the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan has been put under severe strain by Gen Stanley McChrystal's comments on strategy for the war.

According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.

The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bi

[tdscpa]

Obama is very bored. He is busy counting on his fingers all the ways he and his homeys can steal money from the Chicago Olympics.

[The Anti-One]

"Bruce Ackerman, an expert on constitutional law at Yale University, said in the Washington Post: "As commanding general, McChrystal has no business making such public pronouncements." "

Not much of an expert if you ask me. Our (the citizens of the United States') Generals serve US and take an oath to protect and defend the "Constitution of the United State from enemies both foreign and abroad" which includes rough Presidents.

Hooray for Gen. McChrystal for remembering his oath

(I, Stanley McChrystal, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.)

and to hell with Bruce Ackerman and his ilk!

Let's hope the General's meeting with Baraq O Bamah hasn't dissuade him from keeping that oath.

Just for the record.... Baraq O Bamah is NOT God.

[The Anti-One]

"The POS does not even have the decency to reach his hand out to the General."

Of course not. The General is a lowly servant.
What do you expect? After all Gen. McChrystal is NOT the Saudi King now is he; silly rabbit?

[Kansas58]

And where, exactly, was any order broken?

[GI Joe Fan]

I caught that as well.

I recall a few years ago, when General Eric Shinseki, General Wesley Clark, General John Batiste and many other registered democrats were attacking President Bush over strategy. The media then called these guys a bunch of "patriots."

These days, any General Officer who questions the strategy of the President is written off by our communist media as "treasonous."

It's total bullsh!t.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I recall a few years ago, when General Eric Shinseki, General Wesley Clark, General John Batiste and many other registered democrats were attacking President Bush over strategy. The media then called these guys a bunch of patriots."

Yes, and I had no problem with any of these guys critiquing our strategy in Iraq. It just so happens that time has proven them wrong. I'm sure they can come up with all kinds of excuses. My favorite one is that Al Queada had already left Iraq by the time the surge started. Another good one is that the Sunni awakening had already started before the surge. Anything to discredit General Petraeus's counter insurgency strategy and Bush's courageous decision to go with it. At least General Zinni (who I like a lot) has seemed to backtrack on his earlier assessments on Iraq and is now supporting the surge strategy in Afghanistan. I don't know if he has actually admitted he was wrong.

A good robust debate on our goals in a war and the strategy to achieve those goals is healthy and productive. The problem with this administration is that they want no debate and to quash any dissent. Just like on every other issue. They also would rather that Afghanistan just go away as an issue. Look how little attention was paid to it until McChrystal and his people started raising the attention to this. Thank you General for putting your kneck out on the line to call attention to a real problem we have and forcing the administration to act upon it.

[GI Joe Fan]

Precisely!

I suppose the critical thing that I get from all these latest revelations is this:

If you are a General, it is appropriate to attack Republicans and other pro-American people because the communist media, democrat party and islamic terrorists will support such a cause.

If you are a General, and you dare question the current administration on ANYTHING, you are instantly branded as "treasonous," and instantly discredited by the communist media, democrat party and islamic terrorist organizations.

The aforementioned three groups all have one thing in common:

They hate the United States of America, and consistently seek our destruction on a daily basis.

General Shinseki, General Batiste, General Clark and the rest of these democrats pro-actively support the destruction of the United States because they attack pro-American people, while simultaneously REMAINING SILENT as General McCrystal makes his points.

[xkaydet65]

If McChrystal was directed NOT to issue a request for troops and either leaked the memo or alluded to it in his presentation in London then he violated an order of, I believe, SecDef.

A question we should ask ourselves is how we would have reacted if a General, say Anthony Zinni, had been in active service in Iraq and publicly criticized the surge as unworkable and ineffective. I think we'd have called for his resignation.

[Munz]

Obama can’t handle the truth...He has been >humiliated...AGAIN!<

If Obama’s brain were only the size of his ego ...

[Tailback]

I’m curious whether you saw this thread or not?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2363029/posts