Agreed, but it's such a disrespectful, puzzling, and illogical move... Yep: just right for a Fox expert.
----- Original Message ----- From: "L Freeman" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 8:16:11 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Way OT: Obama 'angry' after reading McChrystal's remarks Just weighing in with my 2 cents - McCrystal knew that the strategy he pretty much planned was not working and was not going to ever work. This was his way of quitting. Expect to see him on Faux News soon. --- On Thu, 6/24/10, Martin Baxter <[email protected]> wrote: From: Martin Baxter <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Way OT: Obama 'angry' after reading McChrystal's remarks To: [email protected] Date: Thursday, June 24, 2010, 4:28 AM Keith, he'll reportedly have the time to do it. Word is that, now that he's been relieved of his command, he's retiring. On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Keith Johnson < KeithBJohnson@ 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" < martinbaxter7@ gmail.com > To: scifino...@yahoogro ups.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 < KeithBJohnson@ 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 -- "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
