McChrystal fired.....Obama picks Petraeus for Afghanistan

[sirs]

So... mom knows you're on here, RIGHT? 

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, .

I don't dare try to guess what that acronym might stand for

[Stray Pup]

So... mom knows you're on here, RIGHT? 

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, .

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. 

[Kramer]

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 ?

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.

[Stray Pooch]

Well when I was a kid it stood for Major Allowance Denial. 

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!  

[Stray Pooch]

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).

[Stray Pup]

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.

[Henny]

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?  

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!

[Stray Pup]

Thanks for the welcome!   

[Stray Pooch]

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!

[Kramer]

"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.

[sirs]

Maybe it was the after-sermon milk and cookie socials

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

D'oh       

[Michael Tee]

<<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.