<<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