I am sure that he is connected to Palin. This was a calculated move to
undermine Obama. No doubt about it.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Keith Johnson
<keithbjohn...@comcast.net>wrote:
> The whole thing is puzzling. Why would anyone on his staff be this
> irresponsible? The reporter says he thinks it was their way of getting their
> feelings out without going to Obama directly. Why was that needed? He's made
> it clear that he'll listen openly to his generals. And no one can ever
> expect that criticizing one's boss in public is going to get either a warm
> reception or a receptive ear from that boss. If I didn't know any better I'd
> have sworn these guys were high or something. And if this is a calculated
> move to discuss policy, then the combination of personal disdain for Obama
> and others ("He was intimidated"?) and for the role of military taking
> orders from the civilians is simply not supportable.
> I hear as of a few minutes ago he's out.
>
> Wonder if, as some say, the general will end up writing a book, lecturing,
> and being a talking head for Fox News?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Baxter" <martinbaxt...@gmail.com>
> To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 7:47:46 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Way OT: Obama 'angry' after reading McChrystal's
> remarks
>
>
>
> Keith, again -- we'll stop you when you're wrong.
>
> As for the generals... I know a lot of people in the military, from both
> enlisted and officer ranks, and one consensus among the two is this -- the
> higher the grade, the lower the common sense.
>
> As for folks like Garofalo, even though they have their right to speak
> their piece (indeed, someone once said something to the effect of "I may not
> agree with what you say, but I am willing to fight to the death to defend
> your right to say it), I've been reminded, in the face of all of this
> protest, something a fellow supervisor at my last job once told me.
>
> "You can walk around, handing out $100 bills, and someone will still
> complain." (Your "angry children" analogy is spot on.)
>
> And McChrystal has to go, as you put it. Obama has to show the military
> that he's in charge. McChrystal was probably afraid to say what he said to
> Obama's face because of the politicized climate within the military. That,
> IMO, also needs to go. The military needs to realize that it isn't in the
> policy-making business, but the policy-ENFORCEMENT business. (They don't
> make the rules -- they kill of die to enforce them.)
>
> Overall, a standing ovation to you, Keith. I might have more into this
> later, but it;'s early, and I haven't had my tea.
>
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Keith Johnson <keithbjohn...@comcast.net
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Warning: Long, late night, sleepiness-induced rant coming...
>>
>> Oh, he's got to go---and maybe some of these loose-lip top aides as well.
>> I am not at all understanding why generals who sat silent while Bush,
>> Rumsfeld, and Cheney ran a bad Iraqi invasion are suddenly acting like this.
>> Since when do generals have the right to go to the press publicly and
>> criticize policy, even if that policy is wrong? And how ironic that most of
>> the top brass--even those who supported Bush's invasion of Iraq--were upset
>> at the end at how he and his cronies didn't listen to their opinions. Yet,
>> Obama has made a big deal of listening to the generals, and they do this?
>> Over on Fox News, they were positively salivating at the turn of events,
>> using it to bolster their charges all along that Obama--like all Dems--is
>> just incapable of prosecuting an armed conflict, and by extension, keeping
>> America safe. Like ever-emboldened jackals they were, yipping and growling
>> as if they were going in for a kill.
>>
>> And then...
>>
>> Last night on Joy Behar's show on CNN, Jeneane Garofalo strongly
>> criticized Obama for saying we needed to pray for the Gulf Coast residents.
>> She dismissed a reference to prayer as pandering to the Right, disingenuous,
>> and anti-intellectual. She's entitled to her opinion, of course, but what
>> struck me was the vehemence of comments about him mentioning prayer, and the
>> ease with which she was attacking the man. Love him? Of course not. Has he
>> disappointed the left (of which I'm a very proud member?) At times,
>> definitely. But are we to the point now where, like the right, we need to
>> attack and publicly, strongly criticize everything he does or says? Well, if
>> we want him to lose whatever effectiveness and influence he has left, then I
>> guess it's a good strategy. I am not calling for blind loyalty to the man. I
>> am not saying don't criticize him. The support for offshore drilling, for
>> example, made me groan when he first expressed it. But I do say that we who
>> supported him might want to step back and get a clear understanding of what
>> our strategy and tactics should be. To criticize for constructive reasons,
>> with support but frankness? or to start bellyaching and attacking like the
>> right, and in time, helping them drag him down even more, until basically he
>> can't do anything to please anyone about any issue?
>>
>> It seems that for a lot of reasons, people from all sides and quarters are
>> feeling justified, even obligated to go after Obama in ever-stronger ways.
>> From the right and the left, he's encountering not just disagreement, but
>> outright disrespect. The reasons may be many: a broken economy that has
>> people angry and fearful...two armed conflicts that now has the fools who
>> supported them weary, and those who opposed them livid...increasing
>> polarization between right and left that has it all but impossible to have
>> civil discussions nowadays...a media culture that promotes and showcases the
>> most strident and offensive language in order to get rantings and stay
>> "relevant"...bitter disappointment from those on the left who saw in Obama
>> all their hopes to reverse years of Bush's abuse...bitter fear and anger
>> from right-leaning whites who fear a country where the Prez is black and
>> more and more of their neighbors are brown--and on and on and on.
>>
>> I have no issue with criticism of the Prez. Indeed, that's what a
>> democracy is all about. But the intensity, frequency, and nastiness of it is
>> becoming problematic and worrying. For the right, he can do no right, and
>> they've long ago decided to harry and obstruct and impede him, putting the
>> good of all at risk just so they can win. From the left, we get increasing
>> disappointment that, while understandable, is at times only serving to
>> bolster the right's feeling's that he's just weak, and doesn't do much
>> beyond helping pull him down more. While I get and share the criticisms, I
>> am also reminded that we perhaps put too much in one man to fix problems
>> that we all helped create in some way over many years, and maybe it's our
>> fault in part for seeing in him a Savior that he never really was. gone are
>> the days when a nation could naively, trustingly, simplistically look to a
>> man in the White House to make us feel better. Here are the days of 24/7
>> news attacks, senators shouting "you lie!" and a populace so angry,
>> frightened and cynical that they wouldn't even trust Jesus Christ to get the
>> job done. In some ways, I feel that we're like ungrateful children, crying
>> for our bottle or pacifier or toy, then angrily throwing it to the ground
>> when our parents produce it. Maybe it's time we stopped crying, dried our
>> eyes, and actually did something to help ourselves?
>>
>> I remember seeing an ep of the series "Planet Earth" where a group of
>> lions attacked a herd of elephants at night. Normally a suicide move, but
>> the lions were desperate and starving. They managed to make one elephant
>> panic and run off alone, separated from the rest. As they pursued this blind
>> and increasingly frantic elephant, the lions kept inflicting more and more
>> wounds on it: clawing, biting, lunging in and out, growing more emboldened
>> with each attack. In time, impossibly, these lions brought down an animal
>> several times their size in the pitch dark, and then proceeded to feast on
>> its body.
>>
>> I thought of that scenario tonight as I absorbed the incredible disrespect
>> and contempt the general showed Obama, and as i contemplated what seems to
>> be an increasingly strident attack on him for reasons that have to be about
>> more than more policy differences. Again, the exact reasons are many and
>> varied, but like that elephant, the reasons don't matter as much as
>> surviving. Obama has to fire McChrystal, and do it with an attitude that
>> brooks no misinterpretation that he's in charge. To do any less will be to
>> let the military gain some control over policy and the civilian authority,
>> but more, it would be to show a weakness that he can't afford. Like those
>> lions in that nature show, there are more and more people taking swipes and
>> bites at the Prez, and he can't afford to start looking weak and vulnerable.
>> So, military push coming up or not, Karzi saying "keep him"
>> notwithstanding, if you don't want to be dragged down by the increasingly
>> hungry predators, Mr. President, dump this fool. Then look around and see
>> what else you have to do to remind people who actually won the election.
>>
>> And perhaps the rest of us need to decide what we want from you, what we
>> wanted you to be, and whether we will try to help you be that person, or sit
>> back and take swipes that do nothing more than leave you bloody and
>> battered. After all, it worked for those lions. But unlike them, the only
>> people we will hurt by bringing down the elephant is ourselves, for the
>> carcass we feed on will be our own.
>>
>> *********************************************************************
>>
>> *(CNN)* -- The fate of the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan
>> hinges on his meeting Wednesday with President Barack Obama, who was "angry"
>> after reading the general's remarks about colleagues in a magazine profile
>> to be published Friday.
>>
>> Gen. Stanley McChrystal will likely resign, a Pentagon source who has
>> ongoing contacts with the general said.
>>
>> The "magnitude and graveness" of McChrystal's mistake in conducting the
>> interview for the article were "profound," White House press secretary
>> Robert Gibbs said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said McChrystal had "made
>> a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment."
>>
>> McChrystal apologized Tuesday for the profile, in which he and his staff
>> appear to mock top civilian officials, including the vice president. Two
>> defense officials said the general fired a press aide over the article, set
>> to appear in Friday's edition of Rolling Stone.
>>
>>
>> "I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake
>> reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened," McChrystal said in
>> a Pentagon statement. "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.
>>
>> McChrystal has been recalled to Washington to explain his actions to the
>> president. He is expected to meet with Obama in the Oval Office on
>> Wednesday, Gibbs said. Gibbs refused to speculate about McChrystal's fate,
>> but told reporters "all options are on the table."
>>
>> Obama, questioned about McChrystal before a Cabinet meeting Tuesday
>> afternoon, said he had not made a decision.
>>
>> "I think it's clear that the article in which he and his team appeared
>> showed poor judgment, but I also want to make sure that I talk to him
>> directly before I make that final decision," he said.
>>
>> McChrystal is prepared to resign if the president has lost confidence in
>> him, a national security official told CNN. Most of the Pentagon brass, the
>> ofrficial said, hopes he will be upbraided by the commander-in-chief but
>> sent back to continue the mission.
>>
>> The White House will have more to say after Wednesday's meeting, Gibbs
>> said. He noted, however, that McChrystal did not take part in a
>> teleconference Obama had with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and other top
>> officials on Tuesday.
>>
>> Several elected officials have strongly criticized McChrystal but deferred
>> to the president on the politically sensitive question of whether the
>> general should keep his position. A couple of key congressmen, however, have
>> openly called for McChrystal's removal.
>>
>> In the profile, writer Michael Hastings writes that McChrystal and his
>> staff had imagined ways of dismissing Vice President Joe Biden with a
>> one-liner as they prepared for a question-and-answer session in Paris,
>> France, in April. The general had grown tired of questions about Biden since
>> earlier dismissing a counterterrorism strategy the vice president had
>> offered.
>>
>> "'Are you asking about Vice President Biden,' McChrystal says with a
>> laugh. 'Who's that?'"
>>
>> "'Biden?' suggests a top adviser. 'Did you say: Bite Me?'"
>>
>> McChrystal does not directly criticize Obama in the article, but Hastings
>> writes that the general and Obama "failed to connect" from the outset.
>> Sources familiar with the meeting said McChrystal thought Obama looked
>> "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the room full of top military officials,
>> according to the article.
>>
>> Later, McChrystal's first one-on-one meeting with Obama "was a 10-minute
>> photo op," Hastings writes, quoting 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 f---ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss (McChrystal)
>> was disappointed."
>>
>> The article goes on to paint McChrystal as a man who "has managed to piss
>> off almost everyone with a stake in the conflict," including U.S. Ambassador
>> Karl Eikenberry, special representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke and
>> national security adviser Jim Jones. Obama is not named as one of
>> McChrystal's "team of rivals."
>>
>> Of Eikenberry, who railed against McChrystal's strategy in Afghanistan in
>> a cable leaked to The New York Times in January, the general is quoted as
>> saying, "'Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we
>> fail, they can say, "I told you so.'"
>>
>> Hastings writes in the profile that McChrystal has a "special skepticism"
>> for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating Taliban members into
>> Afghan society and the administration's point man for Afghanistan and
>> Pakistan.
>>
>> "At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry,
>> according to the article. 'Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke,' he
>> groans. 'I don't even want to open it.' He clicks on the message and reads
>> the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not
>> bothering to conceal his annoyance.
>>
>> "'Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg,' an aide jokes,
>> referring to the e-mail."
>>
>> Both Democrats and Republicans have been strongly critical of McChrystal
>> in the wake of the story. House Appropriations Committee chairman David
>> Obey, D-Wisconsin, called McChrystal the latest in a "long list of reckless,
>> renegade generals who haven't seemed to understand that their role is to
>> implement policy, not design it."
>>
>> McChrystal is "contemptuous" of civilian authority and has demonstrated "a
>> bull-headed refusal to take other people's judgments into consideration."
>>
>> Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, became the first member of the Senate
>> Democratic leadership to call for McChrystal to step down, telling CNN that
>> the remarks were "unbelievably inappropriate and just can't be allowed to
>> stand."
>>
>> Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin, D-Michigan, deferred
>> to Obama on the question of a possible McChrystal resignation. He said the
>> controversy was sending a message of "confusion" to troops in the field. I
>> think it has "a negative effect" on the war effort, he said.
>>
>> Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-Massachusetts,
>> urged a cooling off period before a final decision is rendered on the
>> general. My "impression is that all of us would be best served by just
>> backing off and staying cool and calm and not sort of succumbing to the
>> normal Washington twitter about this for the next 24 hours."
>>
>> Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Joe
>> Lieberman of Connecticut and Jim Webb of Virginia -- also key senators on
>> defense and foreign policy issues -- were each strongly critical of
>> McChrystal's remarks, but noted that the general's future is a decision for
>> Obama to make.
>>
>> Karzai weighed in from abroad, urging Obama to keep McChrystal as the U.S.
>> commander in Afghanistan. The government in Kabul believes McChrystal is a
>> man of strong integrity who has a strong understanding of the Afghan people
>> and their culture, Karzai spokesman Waheed Omar said.
>>
>> A U.S. military official said Tuesday that McChrystal has spoken to Biden,
>> Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike
>> Mullen and other officials referenced in the story, including Holbrooke,
>> Eikenberry and Jones.
>>
>> An official at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul said Eikenberry and McChrystal
>> "are both fully committed" to Obama's Afghan strategy and are working
>> together to implement the plan. "We have seen the article and General
>> McChrystal has already spoken to it," according to a statement from an
>> embassy official, making reference to McChrystal's apology.
>>
>> "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,"
>> McChrystal said in the closing to his apology.
>>
>> Rolling Stone executive editor Eric Bates, however, struck a less
>> optimistic tone during an interview with CNN on Tuesday.
>>
>> The comments made by McChrystal and other top military aides during the
>> interview were "not off-the-cuff remarks," he said. They "knew what they
>> were doing when they granted the access." The story shows "a deep division"
>> and "war within the administration" over strategy in Afghanistan, he
>> contended.
>>
>> McChrystal and his staff "became aware" that the Rolling Stone article
>> would be controversial before it was published, Hastings told CNN Tuesday.
>> He said he "got word from (McChrystal's) staff ... that there was some
>> concern" about possible fallout from the story.
>>
>> Obama tapped McChrystal to head the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan in
>> the spring of 2009 shortly after dismissing Gen. David McKiernan.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "If all the world's a stage and we are merely players, who the bloody hell
> wrote the script?" -- Charles E Grant
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik
>
>
--
Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity!
Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/
