DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on June 23, 2010, 03:33:59 PM
-
probably a good thing....
we need a Patton, Norman Schwarzkopf, Tommy Franks, Petraeus type
fighting the IslamoNazis that gave shelter to Bin Laden!
(http://mypublicspeakingstory.com/yahooNewsLogo.png)
McChrystal out; Petraeus picked for Afghanistan
Associated Press Writers Jennifer Loven And Anne Gearan - 10 mins ago
WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama ousted Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan on Wednesday, saying that his scathing published remarks about administration officials undermine civilian control of the military and erode the needed trust on the president's war team.
Obama named McChrystal's direct boss Gen. David Petraeus to take over the troubled 9-year-old war in Afghanistan. He asked the Senate to confirm Petraeus for the new post "as swiftly as possible."
The president said he did not make the decision to accept McChrystal's resignation over any disagreement in policy or "out of any sense of personal insult." Flanked by Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the Rose Garden, he said: "I believe it is the right decision for our national security."
Obama hit several gracious notes about McChrystal and his service, saying that he made the decision to sack him "with considerable regret." And yet, said he said that the job in Afghanistan cannot be done now under McChrystal's leadership, asserting that the critical remarks from the general and his inner circle in the Rolling Stone magazine article displayed conduct that doesn't live up to the necessary standards for a command-level officer.
Obama seemed to suggest that McChrystal's military career is over, including in his praise of the general that the nation should be grateful "for his remarkable career in uniform."
McChrystal left the White House following his Oval Office call to accounts, and returned to his military quarters at Washington's Fort McNair. A senior military official said there is no immediate decision about whether he would retire from the Army, which has been his entire career. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100623/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_mcchrystal (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100623/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_mcchrystal)
-
oh yes the liberals favorite general
http://lh4.google.com/ivan1087/RuXapZ21gnI/AAAAAAAAAgI/baPlvVvWkqw/General%20Betray%20Us.jpg (http://lh4.google.com/ivan1087/RuXapZ21gnI/AAAAAAAAAgI/baPlvVvWkqw/General%20Betray%20Us.jpg)
http://tadbarker.com/General_Betray_Us.gif (http://tadbarker.com/General_Betray_Us.gif)
-
Obama made an excellent choice...and yes he may take heat
from the Left that called the General "Be-Tray-Us"...but Obama
went with the best....there really shouldn't be hardly any drop-off
or learning curve because Petraeus has been very involved
with Afghanistan since he was McChrystal's boss. Petraeus
knows the region and power-players in the region. With the
Afghan offensive about to really ramp up there was no time
for someone to be on a learning curve....with Petraeus
there will be almost no learning curve. Good call Obama!
-
when the Senate voted to condemn that despicable ad by Moveon.org guess who didn't vote? Your president.
-
interesting video of then Senator Obama questioning
General Petraeus back in 2007 about the surge
IRAQ HEARINGS: Sen. Obama Questions Gen. Petraeus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9wtAqXq7Sg#)
-
You mean about the "failure" of Iraq and the surge specifically? I wonder whatever happened with that? ;)
-
I guess this means obama was wrong about the surge
not to mention wrong about the stimulus
wrong about health care
wrong about bank bale-outs
wrong about the Cambridge cop
wrong about everything he does
-
naaaaaaaaaaa (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=9940.0), that can't be true
-
naaaaaaaaaaa, that can't be true (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=9940.0)
then I was wrong to oppose them all
-
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs036.snc4/34142_127602063946516_100000901681524_145328_4797310_n.jpg)
-
like I said he isn't qualified to shine the generals shoes.
-
<<like I said he isn't qualified to shine the generals shoes.>>
Who gives a shit? From now on, McChrystal can shine his own fucking shoes. Though he won't really need to, cuz my common sense tells me that insubordinate little prick won't be in the military much longer. Here's the bottom line: the general was way out of line and Obama canned his ass. Looks like there's hope for Obama yet, he seems to be growing a pair on the job.
Looking further down the road, when Petraeus comes up empty-handed after two more years of this shit and the Taliban appear to be stronger than ever both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Obama may actually have the balls to tell Petraeus, "OK, Big Fella, yer time's up. No more extensions and no more men, we've heard enough of yer bullshit and now it's time to pull the plug on this fiasco which we woulda done two years ago if we hadn't listened to yer fuckin bullshit."
-
LOL....and where does that buck stop again??
-
There was one other comment I meant to make about the McChrystal firing.
I was really disgusted when Obama had said that no final decision would be made before he had first spoken to McChrystal personally. There was no need to speak to the guy, since insubordination by a seasoned veteran of mature years is not the same thing as insubordination by a spirited young student who might need nothing more than a good talking-to to straighten him out.
The insubordination was so gross that there was nothing that McChrystal could possibly have said that would have excused or mitigated the offence. Therefore I had feared that the "talking-to" that Obama was about to give was just something to provide him with an excuse for not firing the guy, a way of looking stern and tough while actually caving in to the military.
While I still think it was very stupid and weak of Obama not to have fired McChrystal outright, and even more so to announce that no decision would be made before he had spoken with McChrystal personally, he did not disappoint as I had feared in his final decision. At the end of the day, Obama "manned up" and took the only step that could have been taken in the circumstances consistent with the dignity of his office.
-
<<like I said he isn't qualified to shine the generals shoes.>>
Who gives a shit? From now on, McChrystal can shine his own fucking shoes. Though he won't really need to, cuz my common sense tells me that insubordinate little prick won't be in the military much longer. Here's the bottom line: the general was way out of line and Obama canned his ass. Looks like there's hope for Obama yet, he seems to be growing a pair on the job.
Looking further down the road, when Petraeus comes up empty-handed after two more years of this shit and the Taliban appear to be stronger than ever both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Obama may actually have the balls to tell Petraeus, "OK, Big Fella, yer time's up. No more extensions and no more men, we've heard enough of yer bullshit and now it's time to pull the plug on this fiasco which we woulda done two years ago if we hadn't listened to yer fuckin bullshit."
you talk like a tough man -- look at the mans credentials and then tell him that to his face.
-
Notice how Tee is trying to give Obama credit for supposedly being "consistent with the dignity of his office", in response to his slip-up, by demonstrating his opinion of the continuing failure of Afghanistan as a failure of his military, and not a failure of Obama as CnC. A buck-stopping tactic he'd be portraying 24/7 if this were a Republican President.
-
<<you talk like a tough man -- look at the mans credentials and then tell him that to his face. >>
So you think that the President should be intimidated by the credentials of one of his officers?
-
<<you talk like a tough man -- look at the mans credentials and then tell him that to his face. >>
So you think that the President should be intimidated by the credentials of one of his officers?
I think obama should be intimidated by the vast majority of American people and his counterparts all over the world. Prior to being elected president he was a Community Organizer and got where he got because he's black and had Affirmative Action help. Plus he's a shitty golfer and improving his game seems to be his highest priority behind ruining this country.
-
I'll try again, Kramer.
Here's what you said: <<you talk like a tough man -- look at the mans credentials and then tell him that to his face. >>
And here's what I asked you in response: <<So you think that the President should be intimidated by the credentials of one of his officers?>>
Can you answer my question or not?
-
I think Obama over reacted and seemed petty.
But ...
The general was speaking truth to power , not a generals job.
-
I'll try again, Kramer.
Here's what you said: <<you talk like a tough man -- look at the mans credentials and then tell him that to his face. >>
And here's what I asked you in response: <<So you think that the President should be intimidated by the credentials of one of his officers?>>
Can you answer my question or not?
yes because he knows he's in way over his head and he knows the general knows it too.
-
I think this is REALLY simple. McChrystal overstepped big time. NO Commander in Chief should take it. And I don't care who the Commander in Chief is - Bush, Obama, or other. There are also bigger ramifications of the kind of attitude that McChrystal displayed other than wounded "dignity" - there is the morale of the troops and the attitude of the soldiers out there doing their jobs. These things do trickle down.
-
<<yes [the President of the U.S.A. should be intimidated by the credentials of one of his officers] because he knows he's in way over his head and he knows the general knows it too.>>
Wrong answer, Kramer. Goes against a fundamental principle: civilian control of the military. NO military man, however impressive his credentials, can ever get away with what McChrystal did. Douglas MacArthur, a five-star General of the Army, had credentials that would make McChrystal look like a punk in comparison, but even he could not and did not get away with insubordination to the President.
It's really a shame that you don't understand why.
-
I'll try again, Kramer.
Here's what you said: <<you talk like a tough man -- look at the mans credentials and then tell him that to his face. >>
And here's what I asked you in response: <<So you think that the President should be intimidated by the credentials of one of his officers?>>
Can you answer my question or not?
Oh, the absurd hypocrisy of such a demand (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=9973.msg104611#msg104611)
-
I think this is REALLY simple. McChrystal overstepped big time. NO Commander in Chief should take it. And I don't care who the Commander in Chief is - Bush, Obama, or other. There are also bigger ramifications of the kind of attitude that McChrystal displayed other than wounded "dignity" - there is the morale of the troops and the attitude of the soldiers out there doing their jobs. These things do trickle down.
once again obama's instincts are wrong. He should have left the general in place. his poll numbers will go further down. he's an idiot.
-
The President was elected to run this country by a majority of its voting citizens. The general is a hireling. This country has a civilian government. If the general is permitted to mock his leaders (a court martial offense, by the way) then his subordinates can, by the same justification, mock him, and so on and so on, right down to the lowliest private.
"Dig the damn latrine yourself, Sarge!"
McChrystal should know this by now, and he DID apologize. This demonstrates that he is more aware of how it all works than Kramer (not a difficult chore). But that was too late. McChrystal has been McChrystallized. Now he can go and write his book. Thanks to Palin, the bar has been lowered for rightwing ratbag claptrap. He can easily outdo her.
If Kramer has any employees, I really hope the moon him in unison. I really doubt this, because I suspect that Kramer is typing all this nonsense from 4th period detention, where he was sent for doing something stupid, ie acting like Kramer.
-
The President was elected to run this country by a majority of its voting citizens. The general is a hireling. This country has a civilian government. If the general is permitted to mock his leaders (a court martial offense, by the way) then his subordinates can, by the same justification, mock him, and so on and so on, right down to the lowliest private.
Except Gates recommended that McCrystal stay on.
Obama and his team deserved to be mocked and it should be looked into the reason they cannot get along with the military.
Obama was not prepared for his meeting with McCrystal and he did not have a grasp of the situation in Afghanistan. It took him forever to decide what to do there. He dithered while our boys were dying.
And he fired McCrystal simply because he has thin skin.
-
No one elected Gates. Gates is a hireling, and I have nort read where Gates recommended this, so I will consider the possibility that you made this up.
McChrystal was useless as a commander once he mouthed off. Bush canned an Admiral for the same reasons.
-
McCrystal never mouthed off. His aides did. Rather than firing McCrystal, his concerns need to be looked into. Why wasn't Obama prepared for his meeting with McCrystal? Why did he treat it as a photo op when our boys are dying? Why does Obama seem intimidated in front of our military leaders?
-
Defense Secretary Robert Gates backed keeping Gen. Stanley McChrystal on the job because he was vital to the war effort in Afghanistan, but he was overruled, a senior Pentagon official told CNN?s Barbara Starr.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/24/pentagon-official-gates-wanted-to-keep-mcchrystal/ (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/24/pentagon-official-gates-wanted-to-keep-mcchrystal/)
---------
It was just a quote to Rolling Stone magazine, which I have never read in my life. Obama fired him simply because he has thin skin.
-
it happens.....I'm just glad Obama picked a great replacement...to me really the whole
episode is a plus and bad news for the Taliban to be facing Petraeus instead of McChrystal
In 1977, President Jimmy Carter fired General John Singlaub who was chief of staff of U.S.
forces in South Korea. General Singluab publicly criticized President Jimmy Carter's decision
to withdraw U.S. troops from the Korean peninsula. On March 21, 1977, Carter relieved him
of duty for overstepping his bounds and failing to respect the President's authority as
Commander-in-Chief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_K._Singlaub (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_K._Singlaub)
-
Petraeus is a great general. But will he continue his duties as cent com commander and take over the operations of Afghanstan? If so, he is being stretched too thin and Obama is asking too much from this great man. Petraus really is bailing out the thin skinned Obama from disaster, and I hope Obama is very thankful. Obama has bad mouthed him before.
-
I think this is REALLY simple. McChrystal overstepped big time. NO Commander in Chief should take it. And I don't care who the Commander in Chief is - Bush, Obama, or other. There are also bigger ramifications of the kind of attitude that McChrystal displayed other than wounded "dignity" - there is the morale of the troops and the attitude of the soldiers out there doing their jobs. These things do trickle down.
once again obama's instincts are wrong. He should have left the general in place. his poll numbers will go further down. he's an idiot.
Now that's interesting - what IS more important here: Obama's poll numbers or the good of the mission?
-
I think this is REALLY simple. McChrystal overstepped big time. NO Commander in Chief should take it. And I don't care who the Commander in Chief is - Bush, Obama, or other. There are also bigger ramifications of the kind of attitude that McChrystal displayed other than wounded "dignity" - there is the morale of the troops and the attitude of the soldiers out there doing their jobs. These things do trickle down.
once again obama's instincts are wrong. He should have left the general in place. his poll numbers will go further down. he's an idiot.
Now that's interesting - what IS more important here: Obama's poll numbers or the good of the mission?
to him his poll numbers. you have to remember he always does the opposite of what he should do. his dropping poll numbers are just the result of another bad decision. The general really didn't do anything wrong. tell me, what did he say that was so wrong? The mission is most important, that is why he should have left the general in place!
-
I'm going to have to side with Miss Henny on this one. McChrystal is a far superior gent and man than Obama, but Obama is his CnC. McCrystal is to either abide by his commanders decisions, or request a transfer, or resign if he truely doesn't support them. Criticising the CnC, while still in charge, undermines both morale and objectives
I fully support and would believe McChrsytal's assessment and criticisms of Obama, Biden, etc. But he needed to vent those words in another venue/format, outside of his roll as head of military operations, in Afghanistan.
-
I'm going to have to side with Miss Henny on this one. McChrystal is a far superior gent and man than Obama, but Obama is his CnC. McCrystal is to either abide by his commanders decisions, or request a transfer, or resign if he truely doesn't support them. Criticising the CnC, while still in charge, undermines both morale and objectives
I fully support and would believe McChrsytal's assessment and criticisms of Obama, Biden, etc. But he needed to vent those words in another venue/format, outside of his roll as head of military operations, in Afghanistan.
you just have the hots for henny. That's OK.
-
Yea, that has to be it ::)
-
<<Petraeus is a great general. But will he continue his duties as cent com commander and take over the operations of Afghanstan? If so, he is being stretched too thin and Obama is asking too much from this great man. Petraus really is bailing out the thin skinned Obama from disaster, and I hope Obama is very thankful. Obama has bad mouthed him before. >>
The comment that I read (I'm sorry I can't find the reference) is that this is actually a demotion for Petraeus because he will have to step down as commander of the overall area and just take charge of one part of the area, Afghanistan.
-
Obama has problems with this mission in addition to his generals. He needs to reign in all the various departments that seem to be pulling in different directions, including State, his VP and his NSA.
-
this is actually a demotion for Petraeus because he will have to step down as commander of the overall area and just take charge of one part of the area, Afghanistan.
who cares?...he doesn't strike me as an ego-maniac.
"It's surprising how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit."
Abraham Lincoln
-
<<who cares?...he doesn't strike me as an ego-maniac.>>
That's good, cuz after the Afghans finish whipping his ass, at least he won't need to cry to his shrink about it.
-
Not-so-surprising where that buck seems to stop with Tee, when its a Democrat President
-
Hypocrisy of the Left - A General Crisis
MICHAEL REAGAN
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who until today was the leader of U.S, and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has resigned in the wake of derogatory comments made by the general and his staff during an interview with Rolling Stone magazine.
One can only guess at this point why the general chose to publicly disclose his feelings on an array of topics in an on-the-record capacity to a journalist associated with this particular magazine, not one generally associated with thought-provoking foreign policy pieces. The president chose wisely in quickly replacing Gen. McChrystal with someone with impeccable credentials and a record of accomplishing military objectives that at first glance may seem to be unobtainable.
You may remember this man as Gen. David Petraeus, the former commander of forces in Iraq who crafted, implemented and led the famous surge that ultimately saved countless American and Iraqi lives. Interestingly, this is the same David Petraeus who faced the wrath of the uber-progressive MoveOn.org during that same timeframe. MoveOn launched a controversial ad entitled "Petraeus Betray Us," which drew the wrath of a majority of Americans who felt it wholly inappropriate to attack a United States general who was in the field leading American personnel into battle. At the time, 72 sitting United States senators agreed.
On September 20, 2007, Senator John Cornyn of Texas (R) offered Senate Amendment 2934, which set out to: "express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces." The measure passed overwhelmingly with 72 "yeas" to 25 "nays" and 3 not voting.
It will not surprise many of you to see the likes of Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer or Harry Reid voting against a measure that supported the leader of our armed forces engaged in battle in favor of a progressive grassroots organization. But what should concern many of us is that then-Sen. Obama decided to seek political refuge by not casting a vote. Then-Sen. Joe Biden did the same.
Gen. McChrystal, despite his proud military record, exercised extremely poor judgment in allowing such dismissing comments about the Obama administration to be aired in a public forum. The president's choice to replace him is an understandable decision.
Less understandable is how President Obama can demand a respect he has been inconsistent in offering to others. In 2007, he was unwilling to stand up to the liberal elements of his party in defense of Gen. Petraeus. As he now calls on that same general to rescue him from the political firestorm flowing today and continue the surge in Afghanistan, I express only the greatest admiration for the honor and integrity of David Petraeus.
The war in Afghanistan stands at a crucial point as more American forces pour into the region. While I have nothing but confidence in Gen. Petraeus, the resignation of Gen. McChrystal is an unfortunate loss, and one symptomatic of the tension between the civilian and military dimensions of this effort. As President Obama and Gen. Petraeus move foward in this conflict, I hope the president will begin to take proactive steps to reconcile this divide, listen to the counsel of generals in the field, and increase coordination between all aspects of the fight in Afghanistan. That country, and ours, can afford no less.
Article (http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelReagan/2010/06/24/hypocrisy_of_the_left_-_a_general_crisis)
-
I'm going to have to side with Miss Henny on this one. McChrystal is a far superior gent and man than Obama, but Obama is his CnC. McCrystal is to either abide by his commanders decisions, or request a transfer, or resign if he truely doesn't support them. Criticising the CnC, while still in charge, undermines both morale and objectives
I fully support and would believe McChrsytal's assessment and criticisms of Obama, Biden, etc. But he needed to vent those words in another venue/format, outside of his roll as head of military operations, in Afghanistan.
Sirs, I think you hit the nail exactly on the head.
It is unfathomable to me how a person of Gen McChrystal's rank, experience and position could be foolish enough to lose his military bearing in this manner. There is a danger in becoming too familiar with subordinates or superiors that all soldiers are taught to understand. It is human nature to become lax in dsicipline around those you work with on a regular basis. I used to call my company commander by his first name off-duty by his insistence, but I wasn't comfortable with it. I knew that someday, in a careless moment, I might actually say, "Good Morning, Steve" in front of some visiting general. In such a case, I wouldn't be the one in trouble - Steve would be.
General McChrystal forgot that the Commander-in-Chief is not his buddy, his co-worker or even his boss. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of all of the armed forces not by election, congressional approval or appointment but by Constitutional mandate. The position of a General Officer is a temporary one, affected by military contingencies, realignment of forces, changes in strategies, shifts in history or politics, and many other factors. In the time of President George Washington there was no war in Afghanistan, no CENTCOM, no NATO, nor any number of positions filled by General Officers today. Similarly, there are several commands that existed even during my military career that are no longer there. But from Washington to Obama, the Commander-in-Chief has always been there - the civilian authority placed over the military. Bad-mouthing your immediate supervisor is a bad idea. Bad-mouthing the very top level of all chains-of-command is inexcusable. When you, yourself, are very near that top, it becomes far more serious.
McChrystal's impressive credentials and accomplishments do not mitigate his insubordination - they exacerbate it. No officer of his calibre has any business doing what he would rightly court-martial any subordinate of his for doing. It wasn't just poor judgement. It was outright arrogance and incredible foolishness.
MT is wrong to suggest that Obama should have fired him on the spot instead of speaking to him first. Such a reaction would have been petty, undignified and decidely unpresidential. When faced with such an insult on the world stage, reacting in a rash manner would have appeared sulking, petulant and whiny. It would have been a sign of weakness, not strength. Rather, summoning the general to him - as a subordinate should report to his superior - giving him an opportunity to explain himself and then rendering a decision is the more reasoned, more rational and more mature decision. President Obama was probably seething, but controlling his actions and dealing with the general in private before taking measures is consistent with the proper way military people do business. There was no doubt in my mind, nor in the General's, that his career was finished at the point these comments got out. The White House in this case was nothing more than the woodshed. But the proper procedures, consistent not only with the dignity of the general but more importantly the dignity of the President, needed to be followed.
Obama's actions in this situation were correct, his choice of a predecessor well-considered and executed, and the nation and military can move on now. It was well done.
-
That's good, cuz after the Afghans finish whipping his ass, at least he won't need to cry to his shrink about it.
Michael I wouldn't count on any quick US withdrawl from Afghanistan!
(ps: how's that promise to close Gitmo workin out for ya?...lol)
(http://www.beermat.biz/images/ft-logo-large.gif)
Obama's choice suggests longer troop presence
By Daniel Dombey in Washington
June 24 2010
Barack Obama's decision to put David Petraeus, America's most celebrated serving general, in charge of
the war in Afghanistan lays groundwork for a longer troop presence in the country, a senior military figure
told the Financial Times.
The comments by retired General Jack Keane, a leading figure behind the 2007-2008 surge in Iraq who remains
in contact with General Petraeus and General Stanley McChrystal, the previous Afghan commander, highlight
the complicated relationship between the US president and the generals running the war with which he is ever
more identified.
They also come at a time when there is increasing scrutiny of other divisions within Mr Obama's Afghan team,
which includes officials such as Karl Eikenberry, ambassador to Kabul, and Richard Holbrooke, the administration's
envoy to the region, both of whom experienced tensions with Gen McChrystal.
Speaking in the context of Mr Obama's promise to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in July next year,
Gen Keane said: "If we are going to be successful, we will have to extend the political clock in Washington DC
and I don't know anyone who will be better able to do that than Petraeus, if indeed he is able to make the
progress we think he can make."
In congressional testimony last week, when he spoke in his outgoing capacity as head of US central command,
Gen Petraeus warned against rigid timelines. Asked whether the July 2011 date reflected his best personal,
professional judgment, he gave only what he described as a "qualified yes". A day later, after consternation
in the White House, he gave more full-throated support for the president's strategy.
The irony of Mr Obama's decision to replace Gen McChrystal with Gen Petraeus the second time he has dismissed
the commander in Afghanistan in 12 months is that although the president did so to safeguard "strict adherence
to the military chain of command and respect for civilian control", Gen Petraeus's own clout has become much greater
as a result.
"Petraeus was the most celebrated general we had since world war two before he stepped up and took this mission on
Afghanistan," said Gen Keane."Clearly it will enhance his reputation significantly and his ability to influence "that's the
positive aspect of it . . . it gives him influence in the conference room back in Washington DC and the halls of the Congress
of the US and I would also hope in the governments of our allies."
Officials hastened to dismiss any talk of a civilian-military divide. On Thursday, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint
chiefs of staff, said he was "very supportive" of Mr Obama's decision on Gen McChrystal and described Gen Petraeus as
"fully in support" of Mr Obama's Afghanistan strategy. As head of US central command, Gen Petraeus helped shape that policy.
Nevertheless, Gen McChrystal's departure follows a series of incidents involving civilian-military tensions in recent years.
They include doubts within the military establishment about the relatively small force used for the Iraq war in 2003;
reservations in the Pentagon about the surge strategy championed by Gen Petraeus and George W. Bush, then president;
and a difference over policy on Iran, which led to the departure of Adm William Fallon, the previous head of CentCom, in 2008.
In this instance, however, there was no clear policy difference between Gen McChrystal and the administration; instead, the
magazine profile that forced his departure on Wednesday laid bare the tensions between Gen McChrystal's entourage and
figures such as Mr Holbrooke and Mr Eikenberry, as well as including disparaging comments about senior administration officials.
Many past and present military officials have described those remarks as insubordination and called for Gen McChrystal to go.
But there is now a renewed focus on the other, civilian members of the feuding Afghanistan team. "Those locker-room comments
that McChrystal and his staff were making are an indication that we don't have that unity of effort," said Gen Keane.
"The undercurrent was the cynicism about others who are part of this team who are maybe not making the same contribution."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/132b9fd0-7fb9-11df-91b4-00144feabdc0.html (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/132b9fd0-7fb9-11df-91b4-00144feabdc0.html)
-
Yes , the more I think about it the less I see any good alternative for President Obama.
You have it right SP the president did the right thing the right way and with the best grace as could be.
-
<<MT is wrong to suggest that Obama should have fired him on the spot instead of speaking to him first. Such a reaction would have been petty, undignified and decidely unpresidential. When faced with such an insult on the world stage, reacting in a rash manner would have appeared sulking, petulant and whiny. It would have been a sign of weakness, not strength. Rather, summoning the general to him - as a subordinate should report to his superior - giving him an opportunity to explain himself and then rendering a decision is the more reasoned, more rational and more mature decision. President Obama was probably seething, but controlling his actions and dealing with the general in private before taking measures is consistent with the proper way military people do business. There was no doubt in my mind, nor in the General's, that his career was finished at the point these comments got out. The White House in this case was nothing more than the woodshed. But the proper procedures, consistent not only with the dignity of the general but more importantly the dignity of the President, needed to be followed.>>
I yield to your better judgment, Pooch. When Obama announced that no decision would be made before he had spoken to McChrystal, my interpretation was that he was looking for a face-saving way to appease his right-wing critics and save McChrystal, so a lot of my anger was just sublimated disappointment in a sell-out position that (based on Obama's overall performance to date) I was certain was already a done deal. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Obama in fact did not back down on this most crucial issuel
-
I yield to your better judgment, Pooch.
Well, it's about damn time! :D
Now if I could only convince my kids!
When Obama announced that no decision would be made before he had spoken to McChrystal, my interpretation was that he was looking for a face-saving way to appease his right-wing critics and save McChrystal, so a lot of my anger was just sublimated disappointment in a sell-out position that (based on Obama's overall performance to date) I was certain was already a done deal. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Obama in fact did not back down on this most crucial issuel
No, I didn't think he had much of a choice. The issue had legs and was fast moving into crisis territory, and with the situation as hot as it is over there (not to mention the political situation here) there was no percentage in trying to finesse it. McChrystal came to the White House with a resignation in one hand and travel brochures in the other. Maybe he can join Barak on the golf course, 'cuz he's gonna have plenty of time on his hands from here on out.
-
I'm going to have to side with Miss Henny on this one. McChrystal is a far superior gent and man than Obama, but Obama is his CnC. McCrystal is to either abide by his commanders decisions, or request a transfer, or resign if he truely doesn't support them. Criticising the CnC, while still in charge, undermines both morale and objectives
I fully support and would believe McChrsytal's assessment and criticisms of Obama, Biden, etc. But he needed to vent those words in another venue/format, outside of his roll as head of military operations, in Afghanistan.
Sirs, I think you hit the nail exactly on the head.
It is unfathomable to me how a person of Gen McChrystal's rank, experience and position could be foolish enough to lose his military bearing in this manner. There is a danger in becoming too familiar with subordinates or superiors that all soldiers are taught to understand. It is human nature to become lax in dsicipline around those you work with on a regular basis. I used to call my company commander by his first name off-duty by his insistence, but I wasn't comfortable with it. I knew that someday, in a careless moment, I might actually say, "Good Morning, Steve" in front of some visiting general. In such a case, I wouldn't be the one in trouble - Steve would be.
General McChrystal forgot that the Commander-in-Chief is not his buddy, his co-worker or even his boss. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of all of the armed forces not by election, congressional approval or appointment but by Constitutional mandate. The position of a General Officer is a temporary one, affected by military contingencies, realignment of forces, changes in strategies, shifts in history or politics, and many other factors. In the time of President George Washington there was no war in Afghanistan, no CENTCOM, no NATO, nor any number of positions filled by General Officers today. Similarly, there are several commands that existed even during my military career that are no longer there. But from Washington to Obama, the Commander-in-Chief has always been there - the civilian authority placed over the military. Bad-mouthing your immediate supervisor is a bad idea. Bad-mouthing the very top level of all chains-of-command is inexcusable. When you, yourself, are very near that top, it becomes far more serious.
McChrystal's impressive credentials and accomplishments do not mitigate his insubordination - they exacerbate it. No officer of his calibre has any business doing what he would rightly court-martial any subordinate of his for doing. It wasn't just poor judgement. It was outright arrogance and incredible foolishness.
MT is wrong to suggest that Obama should have fired him on the spot instead of speaking to him first. Such a reaction would have been petty, undignified and decidely unpresidential. When faced with such an insult on the world stage, reacting in a rash manner would have appeared sulking, petulant and whiny. It would have been a sign of weakness, not strength. Rather, summoning the general to him - as a subordinate should report to his superior - giving him an opportunity to explain himself and then rendering a decision is the more reasoned, more rational and more mature decision. President Obama was probably seething, but controlling his actions and dealing with the general in private before taking measures is consistent with the proper way military people do business. There was no doubt in my mind, nor in the General's, that his career was finished at the point these comments got out. The White House in this case was nothing more than the woodshed. But the proper procedures, consistent not only with the dignity of the general but more importantly the dignity of the President, needed to be followed.
Obama's actions in this situation were correct, his choice of a predecessor well-considered and executed, and the nation and military can move on now. It was well done.
If Obama had any class he'd turn in his resignation too. At least the General has a good excuse. He's been fighting wars for 9 years straight and only been with his wife for a a total of 30 days over that time period.
-
I'm going to have to side with Miss Henny on this one. McChrystal is a far superior gent and man than Obama, but Obama is his CnC. McCrystal is to either abide by his commanders decisions, or request a transfer, or resign if he truely doesn't support them. Criticising the CnC, while still in charge, undermines both morale and objectives
I fully support and would believe McChrsytal's assessment and criticisms of Obama, Biden, etc. But he needed to vent those words in another venue/format, outside of his roll as head of military operations, in Afghanistan.
Sirs, I think you hit the nail exactly on the head.
Well, obviously you must have the hots for Miss Henny then ;)
-
I think this is REALLY simple. McChrystal overstepped big time. NO Commander in Chief should take it. And I don't care who the Commander in Chief is - Bush, Obama, or other. There are also bigger ramifications of the kind of attitude that McChrystal displayed other than wounded "dignity" - there is the morale of the troops and the attitude of the soldiers out there doing their jobs. These things do trickle down.
once again obama's instincts are wrong. He should have left the general in place. his poll numbers will go further down. he's an idiot.
Now that's interesting - what IS more important here: Obama's poll numbers or the good of the mission?
to him his poll numbers. you have to remember he always does the opposite of what he should do. his dropping poll numbers are just the result of another bad decision. The general really didn't do anything wrong. tell me, what did he say that was so wrong? The mission is most important, that is why he should have left the general in place!
Here's the thing - bad attitudes are contagious. In the history of this country, there have been plenty of times where the military brass has not agreed with or even liked their Commanders-in-Chief, BUT when they start venting publicly, their entire team will feel it.
Let's look at it on a smaller scale. You work for a business - any business - and your immediate manager goes on and on about how the CEO of the company is wrong, doesn't have the right strategy, doesn't know what he's doing. Said manager's employees WILL be affected by that attitude. It causes bad morale. Bad morale results in poorer work.
Bring it back to Afghanistan. Bad morale could potentially result in sloppy work, and in Afghanistan that means potential death for young soldiers.
And there is the simple fundamental issue: Obama IS Commander in Chief. And I will state on record again, I don't care which president is in office, it doesn't matter if I like or agree with a certain president, this situation was absolutely intolerable for any CiC. McChrystal spouted off his big mouth without think, spoke ill about his boss to the media, to the American public and the world, and he deserved whatever he got.
-
I'm going to have to side with Miss Henny on this one. McChrystal is a far superior gent and man than Obama, but Obama is his CnC. McCrystal is to either abide by his commanders decisions, or request a transfer, or resign if he truely doesn't support them. Criticising the CnC, while still in charge, undermines both morale and objectives
I fully support and would believe McChrsytal's assessment and criticisms of Obama, Biden, etc. But he needed to vent those words in another venue/format, outside of his roll as head of military operations, in Afghanistan.
you just have the hots for henny. That's OK.
Funny, Kramer. Sirs has never been shy to respectfully disagree with me on anything before; I don't know why he would start now.
-
Barring an Introductions forum I'll go ahead an introduce myself on the debate that led me to DebateGate.
Hi. I'm Stray Pup: Stray Pooch's son. I'm 22, work at a hotel, if I had to choose a party I'd say Republican, although I don't necessarily bow to every policy the party puts forth. In other words I have a mind of my own.
Regarding this debate, I agree with my father word for word. I realize this is a dangerous precedent to set, but it seems fairly straightforward to me. This is not a debate where we need to be concerned about who is the "better man", whose side is more valid or anything like that.
This is simple "word of law". The man was a military official, it was his duty to uphold these customs and instead he completely ignored them. I'm not without sympathy for him, I'm certainly not a fan of Obama, but still he is (whether we like it or not) the Commander-In-Chief and must be shown the proper respect.
FYI: My dad has little room to talk. Remember when that MP busted you for having the "Stupid Is As Clinton Does" Bumper Sticker, lol :P?
-
Welcome Pup Master
-
Barring an Introductions forum I'll go ahead an introduce myself on the debate that led me to DebateGate.
Hi. I'm Stray Pup: Stray Pooch's son. I'm 22, work at a hotel, if I had to choose a party I'd say Republican, although I don't necessarily bow to every policy the party puts forth. In other words I have a mind of my own.
Regarding this debate, I agree with my father word for word. I realize this is a dangerous precedent to set, but it seems fairly straightforward to me. This is not a debate where we need to be concerned about who is the "better man", whose side is more valid or anything like that.
This is simple "word of law". The man was a military official, it was his duty to uphold these customs and instead he completely ignored them. I'm not without sympathy for him, I'm certainly not a fan of Obama, but still he is (whether we like it or not) the Commander-In-Chief and must be shown the proper respect.
FYI: My dad has little room to talk. Remember when that MP busted you for having the "Stupid Is As Clinton Does" Bumper Sticker, lol :P?
That must have been some other father . . . :P
Welcome to the fray!
-
I'm going to have to side with Miss Henny on this one. McChrystal is a far superior gent and man than Obama, but Obama is his CnC. McCrystal is to either abide by his commanders decisions, or request a transfer, or resign if he truely doesn't support them. Criticising the CnC, while still in charge, undermines both morale and objectives
I fully support and would believe McChrsytal's assessment and criticisms of Obama, Biden, etc. But he needed to vent those words in another venue/format, outside of his roll as head of military operations, in Afghanistan.
Sirs, I think you hit the nail exactly on the head.
Well, obviously you must have the hots for Miss Henny then ;)
Well, geez, who WOULDN'T? ;)
-
I'm going to have to side with Miss Henny on this one. McChrystal is a far superior gent and man than Obama, but Obama is his CnC. McCrystal is to either abide by his commanders decisions, or request a transfer, or resign if he truely doesn't support them. Criticising the CnC, while still in charge, undermines both morale and objectives
I fully support and would believe McChrsytal's assessment and criticisms of Obama, Biden, etc. But he needed to vent those words in another venue/format, outside of his roll as head of military operations, in Afghanistan.
Sirs, I think you hit the nail exactly on the head.
Well, obviously you must have the hots for Miss Henny then ;)
Well, geez, who WOULDN'T? ;)
So... mom knows you're on here, RIGHT? :D
-
So... mom knows you're on here, RIGHT? :D
Don't make me whack your nose with a newspaper, Pup!
-
So... mom knows you're on here, RIGHT? :D
Don't make me whack your nose with a newspaper, Pup!
Lol. We're off to a promising start already. Don't worry, we're protected by M.A.D. when it comes to telling secrets, :P.
-
So... mom knows you're on here, RIGHT? :D
Don't make me whack your nose with a newspaper, Pup!
Lol. We're off to a promising start already. Don't worry, we're protected by M.A.D. when it comes to telling secrets, :P.
Ooh, cold war reference. Must be an army brat - lol!
-
So... mom knows you're on here, RIGHT? :D
Don't make me whack your nose with a newspaper, Pup!
Lol. We're off to a promising start already. Don't worry, we're protected by M.A.D. when it comes to telling secrets, :P.
I don't dare try to guess what that acronym might stand for
-
So... mom knows you're on here, RIGHT? :D
Don't make me whack your nose with a newspaper, Pup!
Lol. We're off to a promising start already. Don't worry, we're protected by M.A.D. when it comes to telling secrets, :P.
I don't dare try to guess what that acronym might stand for
Well when I was a kid it stood for Major Allowance Denial. :D
-
Barring an Introductions forum I'll go ahead an introduce myself on the debate that led me to DebateGate.
Hi. I'm Stray Pup: Stray Pooch's son. I'm 22, work at a hotel, if I had to choose a party I'd say Republican, although I don't necessarily bow to every policy the party puts forth. In other words I have a mind of my own.
Regarding this debate, I agree with my father word for word. I realize this is a dangerous precedent to set, but it seems fairly straightforward to me. This is not a debate where we need to be concerned about who is the "better man", whose side is more valid or anything like that.
This is simple "word of law". The man was a military official, it was his duty to uphold these customs and instead he completely ignored them. I'm not without sympathy for him, I'm certainly not a fan of Obama, but still he is (whether we like it or not) the Commander-In-Chief and must be shown the proper respect.
FYI: My dad has little room to talk. Remember when that MP busted you for having the "Stupid Is As Clinton Does" Bumper Sticker, lol :P?
welcome aboard
In the greater scheme of things this does not bode well for Obama, not at all. In the back of all Americans minds we wonder why did this happen? Why would a high ranking general do such a thing? I think there is something going on here that isn't obvious but will become clearer over time. Clearly many people in the military don't respect Obama. Clearly Obama treats our enemies better than he treats our nations allies. Maybe Obama looks at our nations friends as his enemies and our nations enemy as his friends. Just look at Israel.
Clearly Obama sees his opposition, like Conservatives, as his TRUE enemy, yet in this case Obama isn't nice to them. Obama uses derogatory terms like Tea Bagger to describe people in a movement that apposes his policies. It's personal to him, where is with the Tea Party it's about policy and keeping our country safe & free. We all know what Tea Bagging means, now, although most of us did not know until Obama started regularly using that nasty term to describe people that oppose his policies and ideological views. In the end, a good general is replaced by another good general and life goes on.
But for Obama more doubts than ever exist about his maturity and qualifications to be president. More people are disrespecting Obama these days and it has became glaringly evident that not only is Obama inept but the people surrounding him are inept as well. So there are two schools of thought, 1. keep the general in place and move on or 2. replace the general. My view is most people think Obama let the general go because he had to in order to maintain the civilian control of the military and hs authority over them. I think he let the general go because he is thin-skinned and needs to look like a tough guy that kicks ass. This situation was a losing proposition altogether for Obama, anyway you slice it. And his poll numbers reflect that.
I hope this general comes forward and becomes a candidate in 2012 and runs against Obama. I hope this is the bigger picture here that we aren't seeing now. Jimmy Carter celebrates Obama because he knows that Obama makes him look good. Bad for the nation but good for Jimmy.
Don't ever forget that the one and only reason Obama was elected POTUS boils down to he looks black and talks white.
-
Well when I was a kid it stood for Major Allowance Denial. :D
Ah yes, the glory days of absolute parentall power. Gawd, I miss the screamin' . . .
Sirs, remember "Mutually Assured Destruction?" It kept the commies at bay long enough for them to self-destruct.
Except MT. You can't kill Canadian commies! :D
-
I wasn't aware that Obama himself wasusing the "teabagger" epithet. Even for him that is truly disappointing.
I guess he should "plug his damn (pie)hole" before someone "kicks his ass" (the voters, specifically).
-
In the greater scheme of things this does not bode well for Obama, not at all. In the back of all Americans minds we wonder why did this happen? Why would a high ranking general do such a thing? I think there is something going on here that isn't obvious but will become clearer over time. Clearly many people in the military don't respect Obama. Clearly Obama treats our enemies better than he treats our nations allies. Maybe Obama looks at our nations friends as his enemies and our nations enemy as his friends. Just look at Israel.
You won't get any argument from me that Obama doesn't know how to run a military. In the great scheme of things he will definitely get political backlash from this, but hasn't ever man who ever took the office and made any kind of political decision.
It's true it might have been better for his image to forgive the General, but that would set a dangerous precedent. And frankly I am more concerned with a breakdown in military discipline than I am with a single man's reputation.
Clearly Obama sees his opposition, like Conservatives, as his TRUE enemy, yet in this case Obama isn't nice to them. Obama uses derogatory terms like Tea Bagger to describe people in a movement that apposes his policies. It's personal to him, where is with the Tea Party it's about policy and keeping our country safe & free. We all know what Tea Bagging means, now, although most of us did not know until Obama started regularly using that nasty term to describe people that oppose his policies and ideological views. In the end, a good general is replaced by another good general and life goes on.
But that is a right that he has as a civilian. Soldiers do not have this same right... or at least it is severely limited.
But for Obama more doubts than ever exist about his maturity and qualifications to be president. More people are disrespecting Obama these days and it has became glaringly evident that not only is Obama inept but the people surrounding him are inept as well. So there are two schools of thought, 1. keep the general in place and move on or 2. replace the general. My view is most people think Obama let the general go because he had to in order to maintain the civilian control of the military and hs authority over them. I think he let the general go because he is thin-skinned and needs to look like a tough guy that kicks ass. This situation was a losing proposition altogether for Obama, anyway you slice it. And his poll numbers reflect that.
Again, no arguments here.
I hope this general comes forward and becomes a candidate in 2012 and runs against Obama. I hope this is the bigger picture here that we aren't seeing now. Jimmy Carter celebrates Obama because he knows that Obama makes him look good. Bad for the nation but good for Jimmy.
If so he wouldn't get my vote. His actions were just as petty and foolish. If he shows such a blatant disregard for military protocol, then can we trust him with the laws of the land?
Don't ever forget that the one and only reason Obama was elected POTUS boils down to he looks black and talks white.
I think this is a little oversimplified, but I think that the people who are saying that race had no bearing on the election are wrong for the same reason. Race definitely played a role. How many people were quoted as saying they would vote for Obama on the sole basis that he was black? I remember hearing at least 20 different people saying that on local news channels.
But to assume that the man did not have other traits that the Democrats were looking for would be just as wrong.
-
I'm going to have to side with Miss Henny on this one. McChrystal is a far superior gent and man than Obama, but Obama is his CnC. McCrystal is to either abide by his commanders decisions, or request a transfer, or resign if he truely doesn't support them. Criticising the CnC, while still in charge, undermines both morale and objectives
I fully support and would believe McChrsytal's assessment and criticisms of Obama, Biden, etc. But he needed to vent those words in another venue/format, outside of his roll as head of military operations, in Afghanistan.
Sirs, I think you hit the nail exactly on the head.
Well, obviously you must have the hots for Miss Henny then ;)
Well, geez, who WOULDN'T? ;)
So... mom knows you're on here, RIGHT? :D
OK, I just had a "LOL" that caused people in my house to stop and ask why I was laughing by myself. Thus, I found myself explaining the entire thing, which doesn't sound quite as funny - this is more of a "you had to be there" kind of situation.
Welcome Stray Pup! I've "known" your father for years in this group, and he is the best of the best!
-
Thanks for the welcome! :)
-
Welcome Stray Pup! I've "known" your father for years in this group, and he is the best of the best!
High praise indeed from you, Henny. The admiration is mutual. Thanks!
-
"I think this is a little oversimplified, but I think that the people who are saying that race had no bearing on the election are wrong for the same reason. Race definitely played a role. How many people were quoted as saying they would vote for Obama on the sole basis that he was black? I remember hearing at least 20 different people saying that on local news channels.
But to assume that the man did not have other traits that the Democrats were looking for would be just as wrong."
Yes that was an oversimplified answer but it is the bottom line and the truth. 98% of blacks voted for him. I've seen interviews and talked with blacks and know that the vast majority had no idea nor cared about his qualifications other than being BLACK. Many whites voted for him out of white guilt. His resume consists of nothing that makes a leader let alone the proper credentials to be POTUS. He was a Community Organizer and not a very good one at that. Show me where he's been a leader, run a business, taken a risk, done something great that makes him presidential? Show me where he has made wise decisions as POTUS and learned from the bad ones? Hey this guy hasn't learned yet that the Stimulus(s) was/is a failure and he's going for more Stimulus right now. When he was a state senator he mostly voted present, didn't sponsor any significant legislation. When he had a chance in the US Senate to show confidence in Gen Betrayus, I mean Petraeus, he refused to vote to vote in favor -- what a coward. I will take it a step further and say that not only looking black and talking white got him elected I'll also say I think he's racist too. He sat in Rev Wrights racist church for 20 years listening to hate speech and apparently liked the message.
-
Maybe it was the after-sermon milk and cookie socials
-
<<Many whites voted for him out of white guilt.>>
Is that so? How many whites who stayed home or voted against him did so because he was black?
<<His resume consists of nothing that makes a leader let alone the proper credentials to be POTUS. >>
Yeah right. Anybody can graduate magna cum laude from Harvard Law. Anybody can edit the Harvard Law Review. Anybody can teach Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years. Why don't you apply for the position, Kramer? You're way smarter than he is.
<<He was a Community Organizer and not a very good one at that. >>
Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor.
<<Show me where he's been a leader, run a business, taken a risk, done something great that makes him presidential? >>
What makes him Presidential is his ability to analyze issues carefully and accurately, to see both sides of any issue, to discriminate between valid and invalid claims, to reconcile competing interests, to calculate appropriate penalties. All of that and more is the result of careful training at one of the best law schools in the world, where, competing against some of the sharpest minds in the country, he excelled in the discipline of the profession. As not only his grades but his later teaching appointment show, he has what it takes to do all of the above. As his campaigns for the nomination and the Presidency show, he has the ability and the discrimination to attract and retain competent advisers who are obviously better than the other side's advisers, and to learn from them and steer the right course to a win over them.
<<Show me where he has made wise decisions as POTUS . . . >>
Well, canning McChrystal's ass was a wise decision. I'm not happy with his other decisions but I believe he's really learned the folly of "bipartisanship" and is growing a pair at last, maybe too late, but will stop trying to kiss Republican ass for bipartisan support that will never arrive unless and until he has sold out every liberal principle that he has left.
<< . . . and learned from the bad ones? >>
Hopefully he learned from the health care fiasco that the next time he gets a 51% majority he'll push through the kind of legislation the country needs even if he doesn't get a single Republican vote behind it. Hopefully he'll learn how to neutralize or purge the DINOs out of his party before any more big votes come up/
<<Hey this guy hasn't learned yet that the Stimulus(s) was/is a failure and he's going for more Stimulus right now.>>
Obviously that is because the stimulus was NOT a failure and more stimulus must be needed.
<<When he was a state senator he mostly voted present, didn't sponsor any significant legislation. >>
Was that not also when he spoke out against the criminal invasion of Iraq?
<<When he had a chance in the US Senate to show confidence in Gen Betrayus, I mean Petraeus, he refused to vote to vote in favor -- what a coward. >>
You have to be a coward to say you DON'T have confidence in General Petraeus? Why, what would the General have done to him if he DID show confidence in him?
<<I will take it a step further and say that not only looking black and talking white got him elected . . . >>
Bullshit. He got elected because he ran against a Republican.
<<I'll also say I think he's racist too. He sat in Rev Wrights racist church for 20 years listening to hate speech and apparently liked the message. >>
Like any other politician, he probably went to the church because he felt those were the people who could do his career the most good at that time. What on earth do you mean, "he apparently liked the message?" Do you have inside information that every time the Rev blasted Whitey or damned America, Obama leaped to his feet waving, stomping and hollering? Nobody likes the message you hear in any church or synagogue today, it's just a bunch of fucking bullshit that everyone has to listen to as the price of being there so you can see your friends and supporters afterward and press the flesh.
-
What makes him Presidential is his ability to analyze issues carefully and accurately, to see both sides of any issue, to discriminate between valid and invalid claims, to reconcile competing interests, to calculate appropriate penalties. All of that and more is the result of careful training at one of the best law schools in the world, where, competing against some of the sharpest minds in the country, he excelled in the discipline of the profession. As not only his grades but his later teaching appointment show, he has what it takes to do all of the above. As his campaigns for the nomination and the Presidency show, he has the ability and the discrimination to attract and retain competent advisers who are obviously better than the other side's advisers, and to learn from them and steer the right course to a win over them.
I would think that with the amount of brainpower innate in this man and the quality of advisors around him being unsurpassed, I'm not sure why when he finally decides upon an issue, that decision disappoints you. Perhaps his decision is the correct one, and it is your position that is wrongheaded.
-
D'oh ;)
-
<<I would think that with the amount of brainpower innate in this man and the quality of advisors around him being unsurpassed, I'm not sure why when he finally decides upon an issue, that decision disappoints you.>>
The issue, you may recall, was whether or not Obama was Presidential. I was showing why he is Presidential, not why I like what he's doing. Being Presidential is not a synonym for being in agreement with me.
<<Perhaps his decision is the correct one, and it is your position that is wrongheaded. >>
Or perhaps he already sold out to the real rulers of the country and he disappointed me because I thought he'd stand up to them.
-
Obama has immense charisma, but no significant political experience. The Dems ultimately wanted him, in my opinion mostly because of this charisma. He speaks well (perhaps this is what you meant when you said he talks white) is a fantastic orator and is overall a much more likeable, personable guy than McCain... at least to the undecided voter.
I really can't say that they didn't push the race card to its absolute limit, but i'd say it's about 50-50. If the Hildebeast had been elected they would have played the sex card. 2008 was all about changing the formula. It made the voters who were undecided excited about playing some minor part in that change.
The idealistic opinion that our votes actually in some way matter in the grand scheme of things; the concept that if "our guy" doesn't get the office all hell will break loose and if he does it will reign in a new golden age.
Obama won because he was black, was a good speaker, was basically a celebrity, and because Bush was so unpopular. Not one thing mentioned here makes him fit to lead the free world. And with the party lines getting so extreme, that's not what it's about anymore. It's about having a face who can win the elections so that the party can be in power.
[Edit: And incidentally, Kramer, I love your avatar. :D]
-
Obama has immense charisma, but no significant political experience. The Dems ultimately wanted him, in my opinion mostly because of this charisma. He speaks well (perhaps this is what you meant when you said he talks white) is a fantastic orator and is overall a much more likeable, personable guy than McCain... at least to the undecided voter.
I really can't say that they didn't push the race card to its absolute limit, but i'd say it's about 50-50. If the Hildebeast had been elected they would have played the sex card. 2008 was all about changing the formula. It made the voters who were undecided excited about playing some minor part in that change.
The idealistic opinion that our votes actually in some way matter in the grand scheme of things; the concept that if "our guy" doesn't get the office all hell will break loose and if he does it will reign in a new golden age.
Obama won because he was black, was a good speaker, was basically a celebrity, and because Bush was so unpopular. Not one thing mentioned here makes him fit to lead the free world. And with the party lines getting so extreme, that's not what it's about anymore. It's about having a face who can win the elections so that the party can be in power.
[Edit: And incidentally, Kramer, I love your avatar. :D]
Well said
-
<<Many whites voted for him out of white guilt.>>
Is that so? How many whites who stayed home or voted against him did so because he was black?
Who might you be thinking of?
Republicans were unlikely to vote for him even if he looked like John Edwards.
Soooo....
Are you calling up the possibility that he would have gotten many more votes if only the Democrats were not such racists?
I can't see you demonstrating that his being black cost him so much as 3% of the vote , which is all the more I am willing to admit as possible , even though I am speaking exclusively of (bleagh) Democrats.
-
<<Many whites voted for him out of white guilt.>>
Is that so? How many whites who stayed home or voted against him did so because he was black?
Who might you be thinking of?
Republicans were unlikely to vote for him even if he looked like John Edwards.
Soooo....
Are you calling up the possibility that he would have gotten many more votes if only the Democrats were not such racists?
I can't see you demonstrating that his being black cost him so much as 3% of the vote , which is all the more I am willing to admit as possible , even though I am speaking exclusively of (bleagh) Democrats.
Oh no Plane because he is black Repubs should have voted for him, and since they voted for McCain then they must be racist and hate black people. That also goes for Michael Steel. That's what you call Mikey logic.
-
Pretty much, yea ;)
-
Or perhaps he already sold out to the real rulers of the country and he disappointed me because I thought he'd stand up to them.
Guess you were wrong.
-
<<Who might you be thinking of [that stayed home or voted against Obama because he was black?]>>
Moderate Republicans and independents, many of whom were turned off the GOP because of Bush and his appalling record. Kramer seems to think he got votes for being black, I think he probably lost more votes for being black than he gained for being black.
<<Republicans were unlikely to vote for him even if he looked like John Edwards.>>
That's ridiculous. Utter nonsense. A lot of Republicans were fed up to the gills over the economy. They were scared of losing jobs and homes if they still had them, and bitter if they had lost them. Listening to McCain, who couldn't even tell a reporter how many homes he had, tell the country that the fundamentals of the economy were sound was NOT a sure-fire way to lock in the Republican vote. Plenty of Republicans would have voted for any white Democrat in the Nov. 08 elections, the question is, how many of the racist bastards didn't, because of the colour of his skin.
<<Are you calling up the possibility that he would have gotten many more votes if only the Democrats were not such racists?>>
That's absurd. 2008 was not a year for Democrats to vote GOP, but a year for moderate Republicans and independants to vote Democratic. You can assume that Obama received a much bigger chunk of the Democratic vote than McCain got of the Republican.
<<I can't see you demonstrating that his being black cost him so much as 3% of the vote . . . >>
I did not "demonstrate" anything. Kramer alleged that Obama got votes for being black, I wondered how many he lost for the same reason.
-
<<Who might you be thinking of [that stayed home or voted against Obama because he was black?]>>
Moderate Republicans and independents, many of whom were turned off the GOP because of Bush and his appalling record. Kramer seems to think he got votes for being black, I think he probably lost more votes for being black than he gained for being black.
Considering the massive amount of public demonstration by the "black community", voting for "one of their own" (what was that % again?) and constant references to this "historic event of the 1st U.S. Black President", while next to nil examples of those not voting for him, based solely on his skin color, I think your thought process is, dare I say, obviously, broken
But oh....that's right....lack of evidence is proof postive in Tee leaf land. Sorry, my bad
<<Republicans were unlikely to vote for him even if he looked like John Edwards.>>
That's ridiculous. Utter nonsense....APlenty of Republicans would have voted for any white Democrat in the Nov. 08 elections
NOT if they had the same liberal ideology that most all conservatives knew he had. And news flash, that ideology has squat to do with skin color
-
<<I can't see you demonstrating that his being black cost him so much as 3% of the vote . . . >>
I did not "demonstrate" anything. Kramer alleged that Obama got votes for being black, I wondered how many he lost for the same reason.
It is documented that 90%+ of black voters voted for Obama.
That is a pretty big result even if you posit that a lot of them would have voted Dem without the Melanin.
Where was any loss nearly so large?