Export thread

I did a quick search and didn't find anything..

Here is the Rolling Stone article
The Runaway General | Rolling Stone Politics

Here is the news Article
W.H. signals Stanley McChrystal's job on the line - Gordon Lubold and Laura Rozen - POLITICO.com

So far I'm about 50% of the Rolling Stone Article (reading at work) but I can't find anything yet during my first 50% of the read, maybe I gleam it and miss it (it is possible since I have to stop many time to do actual work )

I can use another pair of eyes to see what I miss since a General's job is on the line (must be pretty bad)

You insult your bosses publicly, you lose your job. Simple as that.

Soliloquy said:

You insult your bosses publicly, you lose your job. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

I knew that, but I can't find the insult in Rolling stone (again at 60% now more or less)

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.

"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?"

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

Part of the problem is structural: The Defense Department budget exceeds $600 billion a year, while the State Department receives only $50 billion. But part of the problem is personal: In private, Team McChrystal likes to talk shit about many of Obama's top people on the diplomatic side. One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a "clown" who remains "stuck in 1985." Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, "turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it's not very helpful."

Click to expand...

At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "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.

Click to expand...

That's just from the first half of the article. Not to mention that the article's summary is "Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House."

Calling them the Wimps in the White House... yeah, undermining the people in charge is a bad move, no matter what your job is.

If Obama wants to maintain control, he would have to remove him. McChrystal has left him no choice.

Troll said:

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.

"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?"

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

Part of the problem is structural: The Defense Department budget exceeds $600 billion a year, while the State Department receives only $50 billion. But part of the problem is personal: In private, Team McChrystal likes to talk shit about many of Obama's top people on the diplomatic side. One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a "clown" who remains "stuck in 1985." Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, "turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it's not very helpful."

Click to expand...

At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "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.

Click to expand...

That's just from the first half of the article. Not to mention that the article's summary is "Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House."

Click to expand...

I guess I have thicker skin cause I didn't think any of those are really bad.

now if the General went like "my effin command is a effin moron and doesn't know what he is doing" well... (change effin to whatever you want) that is different.

If someone said that to me, I wouldn't have been offended at all.

Sometimes I can't tell if you're naive or obtuse.

Krisken said:

Calling them the Wimps in the White House... yeah, undermining the people in charge is a bad move, no matter what your job is.

If Obama wants to maintain control, he would have to remove him. McChrystal has left him no choice.

Click to expand...

I see the article headline but where did McChrystal call them wimps?

Troll said:

Sometimes I can't tell if you're naive or obtuse.

Click to expand...

more clueless I guess. I have trouble reading sarcasm (and ID them in real life) my wife always pick on me on that stuff.
I guess I generally see people in a good light until they do something really really bad.

Plus it seems like his "aides" do an awful lot of the remarks in question. Not that he shouldn't run a tighter ship. When a reporter is around tell your aides to not insult the Veep, etc, etc.

Espy said:

Plus it seems like his "aides" do an awful lot of the remarks in question. Not that he shouldn't run a tighter ship. When a reporter is around tell your aides to not insult the Veep, etc, etc.

Click to expand...

No, you are right, he never said that. My mistake.

The general shouldn't have said what he said, but should Obama handicap the war by switching someone else in right now?

Finish the job and punish him later.

Krisken;403571][QUOTE=Espy said:

Plus it seems like his "aides" do an awful lot of the remarks in question. Not that he shouldn't run a tighter ship. When a reporter is around tell your aides to not insult the Veep, etc, etc.

Click to expand...

No, you are right, he never said that. My mistake.[/QUOTE]

I remember reading about drinking and being off their rockers. Drunk people tend to talk a lot.

Let's take a look at the "bad" stuff that is worth firing this guy over that Troll polled, because I don't want to be "obtuse", god forbid. I'll comment on, what I'm sure is the plethora of stuff McChrystal said that is worthy of getting fired from, but I'll probably avoid the stuff his staff say, because I'm sure it's not the bulk of the article or anything.

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"

Click to expand...

Out of line, sure, but I'm sure it's only the warm up for the bad stuff he's gonna say right?

"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"

Click to expand...

Advisor talking... not terribly bright.

McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass.

Click to expand...

An observation, this is worthy firing him for? If someone had said this about Bush you guys would be wanting to give him a medal and ask him why he held back.

"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."

Click to expand...

Ah, now that, oh... wait. No... this is an advisor talking.

One aide[/B] calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a "clown" who remains "stuck in 1985."

Click to expand...

Another damn aide... when is this guy gonna shoot his mouth off?

Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, "turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it's not very helpful."

Click to expand...

Come on McChrystal. Talk some shit son.

At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it."

Click to expand...

FINALLY. He doesn't read an email. He even groaned. Fire this mothersmurfer.

"Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg," an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail.

Click to expand...

Stupid aides, always talking again.

That's just from the first half of the article. Not to mention that the article's summary is "Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House."

Click to expand...

So one more thing never said by McChrystal or even his team in this case, just the reporter looking to get attention.
As I said before it seems that McChrystal clearly needs to clean house, but I'm struggling to find things that HE said that ought to get him fired. I'm open to the argument that he deserves it for letting his staff act like idiots in front of a reporter, but if it's for this kind of stuff... meh.
If he did call the president a wimp or made some really bad comments? Fire him in a heartbeat. But this stuff seems petty at best.

His aides said some things they really shouldn't have. He said some things he shouldn't have. I don't think the guy should be fired, but he deserves a good tongue lashing. The military cannot tolerate even the appearance of insubordination from a general to the president. That about sums up my position.

EDIT: Removed snark.

I think they are viewing it through the lens of " what does it say about a general's command ability if his aides are mouthing off?" I think that's how the media is focusing on it

B.T. said:

I think they are viewing it through the lens of " what does it say about a general's command ability if his aides are mouthing off?" I think that's how the media is focusing on it

Click to expand...

I dunno, everything I heard on NPR today and most of the news links I have read have referred to the aides but it's been pretty much "GENERAL SAYS WHITEHOUSE WIMPS!" etc, etc.
Either way, I agree with Troll that it reflects VERY poorly on the general and he should be reprimanded and hopefully he's learn his lesson about a)letting any douchebag from RollingStone near him and b)telling his aides to shut the hell up around reporters. And troll... why'd you take out the snark? I was hungry and it goes so well with a nice red wine...

I admit, Espy, I almost made a snarky comment on this-

Espy said:

An observation, this is worthy firing him for? If someone had said this about Bush you guys would be wanting to give him a medal and ask him why he held back.

Click to expand...

but decided there just wasn't a good response to it.

NPR also focused a bit on whether or not McChrystal is making progress in Afghanistan. If he is fired, I don't think it is because of the article but because the article brings forth the opportunity to really evaluate how he is doing and he is seen to come up short.

Espy;403652][QUOTE=B.T. said:

I think they are viewing it through the lens of " what does it say about a general's command ability if his aides are mouthing off?" I think that's how the media is focusing on it

Click to expand...

I dunno, everything I heard on NPR today and most of the news links I have read have referred to the aides but it's been pretty much "GENERAL SAYS WHITEHOUSE WIMPS!" etc, etc.
Either way, I agree with Troll that it reflects VERY poorly on the general and he should be reprimanded and hopefully he's learn his lesson about a)letting any douchebag from RollingStone near him and b)telling his aides to shut the hell up around reporters. And troll... why'd you take out the snark? I was hungry and it goes so well with a nice red wine... [/QUOTE]

which would be implication in the point I stated above?

Now with more snark:

How was that?

Publicized friction aside, I worry that the powers that be for both teams are losing focus of what the General's job is, and instead fabricating/hunting for talking points for the far-wing pundits.

Krisken said:

I admit, Espy, I almost made a snarky comment on this-

Espy said:

An observation, this is worthy firing him for? If someone had said this about Bush you guys would be wanting to give him a medal and ask him why he held back.

Click to expand...

but decided there just wasn't a good response to it.

Click to expand...

Hey, if I'm not allowed a little jab here and there whats the fun in it?

---------- Post added at 07:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 PM ----------

"B.T. said:

Espy;403652 said:

B.T. said:

I think they are viewing it through the lens of " what does it say about a general's command ability if his aides are mouthing off?" I think that's how the media is focusing on it

Click to expand...

I dunno, everything I heard on NPR today and most of the news links I have read have referred to the aides but it's been pretty much "GENERAL SAYS WHITEHOUSE WIMPS!" etc, etc.
Either way, I agree with Troll that it reflects VERY poorly on the general and he should be reprimanded and hopefully he's learn his lesson about a)letting any douchebag from RollingStone near him and b)telling his aides to shut the hell up around reporters. And troll... why'd you take out the snark? I was hungry and it goes so well with a nice red wine...

Click to expand...

which would be implication in the point I stated above?

Click to expand...

No, you said that they were talking about, and I quote: "what does it say about a general's command ability if his aides are mouthing off"
I said most of what I had heard was focused on the General and implying he had said all this horrible stuff, nothing about whether or not his aides had mouthed off. Sounds different to me. but maybe I'm just misunderstanding your point. Which is always possible.

B.T. said:

How was that?

Click to expand...

I've had better.

you said that they were talking about it I quote: "what does it say about a general's command ability if his aides are mouthing off"

Click to expand...

No I didn't. You inferred it. I said they were viewing it through that lens.

To clarify for you I implied that I thought that they were reporting on it from that perspective, not that they were outright stating this. Fucking emo-con.

Doh, alright, yeah, I get what you were saying.
Either way it will be interesting to see what Obama does here... I really don't see how he can win no matter what he does. He fires him and people will get pissed, he does't and people will... still get pissed. Guess thats part of the fun of being the president.

I almost wonder if the Tea Party will clamour for McChrystal as the Presidential Candidate in 2012.

Tell me again why Petraeus (sp?) wouldn't be an option? I mean, I get that he's Commander of the United States Central Command, but you think he could fill the role easily enough....

(Also, espy, in all fairness, I confuse the shit out of myself most days as well.)

I dunno why Petraeus wouldn't work... I hear it's McChrystals connections with the government over there that make him "indispensable".

He's apparently offered to resign.

McChrystal Offers to Resign After Disparaging Comments - Bloomberg

We really don't need this shit right now.

rereading the article I'm thinking that this feels like Stan's way of saying "Oh yeah? Fuck You Mr Prezidon't!" as diplomatically as he can ( so as to avoid that whole insubordination/treason thing.) Concentrated effort to make Obama seem like a lame duck commander maybe?

Hm. This might be a way to keep him in his job. If Obama can say 'lets let it go and get our shit done', he'll not only seem like someone who isn't full of himself, but will keep a valuable asset in the General.

Shrewd move, McChrystal! I hope it pays off. I take it back, McChrystal has left him another choice.

we could take a bet?

On whether or not Obama accepts his resignation offer?

Which side do you want? Go 300 Halbucks? You can choose which you want- Obama Accepts/Doesn't Accept.

441 Hal bucks on Obama doesnt accept.

Lol, ok. Want them all, eh?

Sure. I'll have to build up some to pay for the "Gift" part (it costs some Halbucks to give it to another person). I'm sure by the time we find out what he decides I'll have made that up. Sounds good.

This really seems to me like the fastest President Obama has ever reacted to something General McCrystal has said.

Covar said:

This really seems to me like the fastest President Obama has ever reacted to something General McCrystal has said.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Obama pretty much gives him carte blanche to run the war his way. And then gets repaid with sluggish movement at the front and insubordination.

ANYONE that breaks the military's duty of staying loyal to the Commander In Chief, deserves at least a reprimand.

I don't think the general will get dropped in the middle of a major offensive. Which is not getting much press coverage now because an single American Teenager was killed five years ago.

Certainly wouldn't be the first General he's dismissed during this war.

The small thing that jumped out at me is the fact they were drinking. General Order #1 forbids the consumption of alcohal while assigned to that theater of operations. That restriction follows you even if you get sent to Germany for a medical check. (I've personally seen this restriction). That means that the BOSS and his entire STAFF violated their own orders, an order that other soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen have been punished for breaking.

They are obviously cocky as shit and willing to play the mavericks...if if the article is to be believed, it AIN'T playing with the folks in the field...and THAT is the reason he should/might be removed.

Krisken said:

Lol, ok. Want them all, eh?

Sure. I'll have to build up some to pay for the "Gift" part (it costs some Halbucks to give it to another person). I'm sure by the time we find out what he decides I'll have made that up. Sounds good.

Click to expand...

looks like I lost, early cable wires are saying McChrystal has been relieved. I sent the money, I have no idea if I did it right.

---------- Post added at 11:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 AM ----------

NBC: Obama to relieve McChrystal of command - Military- msnbc.com

REAKING NEWS
NBC News and news services
updated 5 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama has decided to relieve Gen. Stanley McChrystal of his command over all U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, sources tell NBC News.

Obama is scheduled to make an official 1:30 p.m. EDT announcement about the general. Meantime, the Associated Press reported that Obama has chosen Gen. David Petraeus to replace McChrystal as top Afghan commander.

Earlier, McChrystal was seen leaving the West Wing and climbing into a van after his nearly half-hour private showdown with the president.

Summoned to Washington to explain himself, McChrystal arrived from Kabul in the early morning and met first at the Pentagon with Defense Secretary Robert Gates. After his next face-to-face, with Obama, the general was not seen returning to the White House for a scheduled Afghanistan strategy session, as had been expected. It was not known where he went, as he did not appear at his Pentagon office, either.

Even before their showdown, the White House's rebuke of the general suggested it would be hard for him to save his job.

Yup, went through just fine.

Hm, comments to come in a while.

I am a little shocked at the timing. I thought this would come after the offensive in the south was over.

Whether or not this was the right decisions, I think this is going to bite him in the butt big time, possibly for quite a variety of reasons unless Petraeus turns this war on it's head. Is the General totally out of the military or is he merely stepping off this post I wonder? I'm not sure how that works.

Wednesday that he has accepted Gen. Stanley McChrystal's resignation as the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan following a scathing article in which McChrystal and his aides were quoted criticizing the administration for its handling of the war.

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.

"This is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy," Obama said in the Rose Garden, Petraeus by his side and McChrystal nowhere to be seen.

The president praised McChrystal, saying he always showed "great courtesy" and carried out his orders "faithfully," and that they were on the same page in terms of war strategy. He said the decision to accept the general's resignation was not based on "personal insult," but a desire to ensure there is no "diversion" to the mission. Obama said the conduct described in the article "does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general," which led him to his decision.

"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" civilian control over the military 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."

McChrystal got his marching orders in Washington, where he met face-to-face with the president after meeting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the Pentagon.

The Wednesday meeting preceded a regular session of the administration's strategy team for Afghanistan, held in the White House Situation Room. Normally, McChrystal would have joined via teleconference, but he was summoned to Washington as he faced a private flogging over the article that appeared in Rolling Stone.

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.

The president won bipartisan support for his decision Wednesday. Republicans, while praising McChrystal for his service, said he had crossed a line.

"General McChrystal's recent comments were entirely inappropriate," Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said in a written statement.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai reportedly said through a spokesman that he hoped for a different outcome but respected the decision.

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.

In Kabul on Tuesday, McChrystal issued a statement saying: "I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened." He later fired his press aide.

In the Rolling Stone article, McChrystal and his staff described the president as unprepared for their first one-on-one encounter.

McChrystal also said he felt betrayed and blind-sided by his diplomatic partner, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry. Eikenberry remains in his post in Kabul, and although both men publicly say they are friends, their rift is on full display. McChrystal and Eikenberry, himself a retired Army general, stood as far apart as the speakers' platform would allow during a White House news conference last month.

The Rolling Stone story characterized the general as unable to convince some of his own soldiers that his strategy can win the nation's longest-running war, and dejected that the president didn't know about his commendable military record.

The article says that although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama called McChrystal on the carpet last fall for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops.

"I found that time painful," McChrystal said in the article, on newsstands Friday. "I was selling an unsellable position."

It quoted an adviser to McChrystal dismissing their early meeting last year as a "10-minute photo-op."

"Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. The boss was pretty disappointed," the adviser told the magazine.

Some of the strongest criticism was reserved for Richard Holbrooke, Obama's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"The boss says he's like a wounded animal," one of the general's aides was quoted as saying. "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous."

McChrystal also said he felt "betrayed" by Eikenberry for expressing doubts about his proposed troop buildup last year and accused the ambassador of giving himself cover.

"Here's one that covers his flank for the history books," McChrystal told the magazine. "Now, if we fail, they can say 'I told you so."'

Obama agreed to dispatch an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan only after months of study that many in the military found frustrating. The White House's troop commitment was coupled with a pledge to begin bringing troops home in July 2011, in what counterinsurgency strategists advising McChrystal regarded as an arbitrary deadline.

The profile, titled "The Runaway General," emerged from several weeks of interviews and travel with McChrystal's tight circle of aides this spring.

It includes a list of administration figures said to back McChrystal, including Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and puts Vice President Joe Biden at the top of a list of those who don't.

The article claims McChrystal has seized control of the war "by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

FOXNews.com - McChrystal Resigns Over Critical Remarks, Obama Names Petraeus as Replacement

100% agree with what went down.

Insult your boss and his methods in a way that promotes insubordination = fired from any and every company.

If nothing else, it shows incredibly poor judgement in a war that is as political as it is military. If the head general publicly insults his commander in chief, it looks bad for all parties. This isn't a matter of personal feelings - that kind of apparent division makes our resolve to finish the campaign look weak, and that is an advantage to our opponents.