McChrystal, Petraeus, Petraeus, McChrystal
LaserWolf
Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0623/In-replacing-McChrystal-with-Gen.-David-Petraeus-Obama-reasserts-authority
Does it make a difference?
Does any one care?
Did the president need to assert his authority?
Was McChrystal more important to victory and should have been left alone?
I don't understand the hubbub. McChrystal and aides got caught telling a journalist the things they say in frustration. If the president seemed intimidated and uninformed to McChrystal, I think that is a good thing for us to know. It was already well known that the pres, and the VP differed on Afghanistan, so that is not news. That the general's staff has a nickname for the vp is not that big of a deal. In my way of thinking.
I think it is all out of proportion. I don't think what was reported was that bad, and I don't think that firing McChrystal is the correct response.
But that's just me.
Does it make a difference?
Does any one care?
Did the president need to assert his authority?
Was McChrystal more important to victory and should have been left alone?
I don't understand the hubbub. McChrystal and aides got caught telling a journalist the things they say in frustration. If the president seemed intimidated and uninformed to McChrystal, I think that is a good thing for us to know. It was already well known that the pres, and the VP differed on Afghanistan, so that is not news. That the general's staff has a nickname for the vp is not that big of a deal. In my way of thinking.
I think it is all out of proportion. I don't think what was reported was that bad, and I don't think that firing McChrystal is the correct response.
But that's just me.
Comments
Obama was reportedly "furious" ....
who's been running the White House PR lately? :eyeroll:
From a man who, because of his position, should define discipline it was a shocking lapse, and definitely fair to relieve him of his duty.
the general serves at the pleasure of the president and not the other way around.
if he had some critical remarks he had to get off his chest he should have waited until e had retired.
debatable.
i never said it was a good publication but when you can pick up a copy at any 7-11 next to the beef jerky jar and lottery tickets at the counter then you get called a major publication.
McChrystal gave Barack no choice in the matter. At all. He had to go.
Just funnin', dog- it's a music snob site.
Agree on McC, as we've seen. Fuck him, and that silly mag.
That magazine is aimed at the idealistic, impressionable and well intended 15-25 year old ....and I can appreciate their youthful naivete on lessons yet to be learned.
It's the folks over 30 that subscribe to their viewpoint(s) that are concerning.
McDoofus gave Obama no choice.
isn;t that more like the spin magazine demographic?
its hard to believe now that rolling stone magazine was once one of the premier underground publications in north america,
Rolling Stone has become a political magazine that dabbles in music.
And Obama clearly had no choice, I don't understand how anybody could fail to see that.
His choice of Petraeus and the rationale he gave were spot on also.
My kids have subscribed for 5-6 years and I read them regularly....if it's truly aimed at Baby Boomers I'm embarrassed for an entire generation.
I didn't say it was aimed well.
I always say that Rolling Stone is aimed at teeny boppers and baby boomers. No middle ground. Dylan. Gaga. That's it.
The issue wasn't with McC having a disdain for leadership but his expressing it to any reporter, much less one who would make the story about him, not the war or his war strategy. What makes it even worse is that it seems that the whole story was set up by his public relations staff -- some of whom have already and rightfully resigned.
POAST OF THE YEAR!!