what planet are you on?

You are right about the empty suit, I will grant. That is because we have so many failures to talk about.

How's the war in Afghanistan going? Obama's war plan, implemented last March, has turned this into an epic disaster-so bad that the general in charge, (the one he never bothers talking to) has broken military protocol and publicly denounced his commander in chief, along with members of the cabinet.

How's the economy doing? Seen a lot of job growth, other than temporary census jobs? The economy, which needs robust growth of at least 8 or 9 percent in order to get back to full employment, is limping along at just under 3 percent for the last three quarters.

How about ending Iran's and North Korea's nuclear ambitions? Seen a lot of progress there? I'm assuming that you haven't noticed, but the leaders of those rogue nations did not exactly swoon when under the sway of Obama's personality. When that fails, he has no plan 'b'.

Let's not talk about how immobilized he is by any crisis more complicated than not being able to get the tee time he wants.

Oh, yeah, Ron, he's a gem. That explains his approval ratings.

Ron,

Another great and insightful post. I am dying to see how the fall campaign will play out in many of the key contests. I can't wait to see how the Tea Baggers are going to try to sell their snake oil to the American Public. I want to hear the chinless wonder and Agent Orange explain and spin their way around NOT having taken control of either house...

Ron,

You are just as partisan as everyone in here. You attempt to play both sides but everyday the curtains are pulled back futher and further.

The only credit I will give you is that you do not disrespect "Tea Partiers" by calling them a derogatory Tea Bagger. Frankly I do not even know how Olbermann and the crowd get away with that word on T.V.

No Jo: I stand behind these comments as true. Healthcare passed, Financial Reform is in conference committee, BP will pay, Next on deck, clean energy. Tea Party constitutes between 20 to 30 percent of the population. So I must ask. What planet are you on, because I'm grounded here on planet earth.

Hey NJNB,

The war in Afghanistan? Yeah, I remember now. The one that Bush initiated for all the right reasons before shifting focus and diverting resources AWAY from the pursuit of those that WERE responsible for 9/11 in favor of the witch hunt in Iraq. It is coming back to me now... Iraq and Afghanistan, the two wars that Bush ran off the budget as emergency supplemental funding so he did not have to account for the money he was spending that we did not have. Remember the surplus Clinton handed him when he was sworn in? Obama inherited a mess so convoluted by Bush's incompetence that it is amazing we have not had more problems than we have.

The economy? Yes, I remember that too. You know, the same economy that, under Bush) was LOSING 750,000 a MONTH since 2007! Yeah, you know all those manufacturing jobs that we offer tax breaks to business for shipping the jobs overseas? Oh, and let's not forget that, just as Obama was taking the oath of office, Bush had to finally admit that the recession was NOT just a MENTAL recession and now required 700 billion dollars to bail out the Wall Street crooks that scuttled the economy with their UN-REGULATED derivatives and other assorted worthless financial "products." The stimulus was needed to attempt to stem the tide that your wonder boy foisted on the American people. It may not have done as much as hoped or expected to create new jobs, but last time I looked, the creation of 40,000 thousand new jobs is just a tad bit more positive than the LOSS of 750,000 in a month. Is it really that hard for a Republican to see the truth? Or have you all just gotten so used to being spoon fed your opinions that you have lost the ability to form an independent thought, read actual facts, study actual history, and engage in intelligent and reasoned debate?

Iran and North Korea? At least we are somewhat engaged and not playing Ostrich like you and JoAnna seem so likely to do. Bush sat in the corner with his hands over his ears humming for fear someone would expect him to actually do his job and engage in diplomacy. I think his handlers were afraid he might try to massage Kim Jong Il's shoulders or look into Ahmadinejad's eyes looking for his soul. No, I am not thrilled with the status of the nuclear proliferation talks, however, I feel a HELL of a lot better knowing we have an intelligent man in the White House that is capable of reading and DIGESTING a Presidential Daily briefing, reviewing differing opinions and recommendations, and making an intelligent decision based on what is known. Yes, I will take the ivory tower elite that you are all so afraid of any day over the CT born "Texan" that could not even read "My Pet Goat" without moving his lips and cannot even pronounce the word nuCLear!

no Jo- how the hell manytimes to you have to have it pointed out to you, that unelployment and economic crash was SO BAD that Obama, McCain nor anyone else could fix it in a few years?

What planet are YOU on??

Probally because the term "Tea Bagger" was coined by them first before somebody looked it up in the dictionary. Those trinkets hanging from their hats were not condoms.

no joe, no bo, nj

Still playing the immature game I see. All your posts are intended to irritate, rile and give yourself a false of importance or somehow make everyone think you are sooo politically aware. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Actually your posts gives yourself away. Why do you think the Afghan war started in 2009? Why do you think North Korea or Iran has only been in issue since 2009?

Why do you begruge any accomplishment Obama has achieved?

Because you are an immature, delusional and get a kick out of irking your parents. Is that them screaming at you to get off the computer?

ITM,

The term Tea Baggers was actually coined by a Tea Partier. I do not expect you to know this as I am sure Glenda and Lintball are not educating their listeners on the ways of conducting actual research, fact finding, or intelligent discourse. Go do the research and you will understand that the term was brought on them by their own efforts. The fact that it also happens to have another meaning that, frankly, is synonymous with those that ascribe to most Tea Party positions is a rather fortuitous coincidence dontcha think? You betcha!

InTheMiddle: I really don't attempt to be neutral because I am a Progressive. I do attempt to be reasonable and thoughtful. Now and then I slip into snarky. The Devil makes me do it. (Smile)

@no joe

Still playing that tired argument of "Obama doesn't talk to McChrystal"?

There's a chain of command in the Army. Last I checked, General McChrystal reports to General Casey who reports to President Obama.

Get over it.

Disgusted,

Right on. How soon they forget. They called themselves "Tea Baggers" before somebody looked it up in the dictionary. And I agree, there seems to be a lot of similarity between the definition and what these people are realy about. Does Freudian slip aplly here???

nj has two points and I am going to dare to bring them up again. Let me preface by saying I voted for our current president and I like the guy. I think he is doing much better than what our alternative was.

Now that that is out of the way, the president put a new general into play in Afghanistan with a new plan created by that general. That plan is apparently not working. That is not Bush's fault. The president and his general were presented with a situation and who created that situation is irrelevant. A plan, personnel and financing were put in place to fix the problem, so to speak, and get out. The former part of that plan doesn't seem to be working and that will rightfull roll back on the president. It remains to be seen what the final outcome of this war will be. There is a year left but that isn't very long.

The jobs situation is certainly better than it was during Bush's final years. However, again, the president was given a situation we all know what administration created that problem and how. President Obama and his advisors created a plan, put together people and financing to solve the problem but it hasn't delivered what he said it would. I hate to say it but that rolls back on the president.

My opinion is that, not only were things worse than anybody thought but he put too much emphasis on HC passage to the great neglect of the economy. He should have put the economy first and with successes in that area rolled that momentum into HC reform. He chose another route and here we are. I believe the economy would be 2 or 3 times better today had he made that his first priority and I base that on the fact that even though it wasn't his first priority we have a 3% growth rate.

I am ecstatic that we have an intelligent president in office who listens, does research, asks other great minds to weigh in, is concerned about the people of the US. I do not think he is perfect. He has made mistakes just like every president before him. The Bush administration was filled with greedy people who stood on the necks of the people of the United States to empower themselves. That also is an undeniable fact. I wonder how many of the Obama haters on here could admit to that.

BamaBoy

BamaBoy:

I really enjoyed post, however, I disagree with the choice of "economy" versus "healthcare", since they are both very much related and health care costs represents one of the largest chunks of our national economy.

The very first thing the President did was shephard throught the passage of the stimulus bill, which has had a positive impact on our economy.

There has also been an additional jobs package passed with tax credits for small businesses.

The President also gave emergency funding to GM and Chrysler, staving off the loss of more jobs and America's manufacturing base.

Given the constraints faced in the Congress, what more would you have suggested the President do?

Also, in terms of the War in Afghanistan, I think that much progress has been made. However, the only time when Afghanistan makes the news is when something goes wrong . . . otherwise our current media culture does not consider it news.

If you look at where the war was when the President was sworn in to now, there is no way that you could conclude that no progress has been made.

The President has already established the fact that our troops will be leaving Afghanistan sooner rather than later. That in itself is a tremendous step forward from the open ended quagmire that he inherited.

All any President can do is chart a couse of action and see how it turns out . . . less than two years into the economic and military strategies is not enough time to declare failure or success . . . but there can be no doubt that both areas are in a much better shape today than when President Obama took office.

Disgusted-in-PA, Da Noid, FrankH-1860605, drive-by-observer, US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Hey everybody, No, Jo, is a perfect example when you let hate cloud your better judgement, it does not make a difference to her, she hates president Obama, plain and simple. Now we can all say we did not like former president Bush, but i this hate she shows is disturbing. if president Obama was able to turn the god offal mess Bush left, around in 1 day, she would still show the same hate she shows now. i just ignore her kind of like i do Fox news!!!!

As I said yesterday no joe all blow, we look forward to your same old rants everyday keep'em coming.

To add to the teabagging, you nuts coined that phrase yourselves. If you would just think before you speak no joe you wouldn't sound so dumb.

Fisher,

I largely agree with you and wish this administration would act with greater celerity in adjusting or tweaking strategies that don't seem to be garnering immediate results. However, most on the right wing immediately lose me when they make proclamations like 'they took a bad economy and made it worse.'

Anyone who can look at the economic situation of the nation in July, 2010 and objectively say that it is worse than the economic situation of October or November, 2008 needs to slip and fall into a pile of sense.

That's just nonsense.

Jeff, are you kidding me! Talk about 'hate'. Go back and see how Democratic and Liberal groups attacked President Bush for most of his Presidency! I personally disagree and oppose Obama's policies; believe he has a radical agenda to do everything he can to bring down the US economy, so the 'so-call progressive movement' in the country' can move our Republic to 'socialized one-world order'. I know, you think I'm delusional, ect....heard it all before. All I ask is look at the economic policy decisions made by this President; who the most frequent visitor to the WH is; the 'political philosophy' of his posse of advisors; ect. The stimulus....how's that billions of dollars working for you! The union bailouts...how's that change working out for you. We can go on, but you see where I'm at. Finally, you liberals continue to forget that the crash we saw began with old 'billy boy Clinton' and his friends at ACORN to ensure that 'everyone who wanted a home could buy one'. The congress, with Dodd and Frank in charge did just that! So get off the 'mess bush left us with'. President Bush made a lot of mistakes, but to put the entire mess on his watch is not true! And, yes, your right! I think this President is the worst in the history of the country, including Carter.

NJDoucheJohn

The homes still exist. The "collateral" for the home loans didn't burn down. The CRA didn't force local banks to sell the debt upstream to wallstreet. Greed did that, and lack of oversight and regulation. This talking point of yours has been DEBUNKED a thousand times. False prosperity is a problem, it breeds in areas that go unregulated and then bites you in the ass at a later date when the bubble has to burst.

NJ John:

So basically, let me see if I understand your contention correctly:

1.) All of the president's economic policies are designed to destroy the United States economy.

2.) He is doing this to weaken the United States in order to make it susceptible to a takeover by a single world government - presumably administrated by the United Nations?

3.) All progressives in the United States congress are on board with the collapse of the United States because everyone with a (D) next to their name would prefer to be a citizen of the United Nations of the World, rather than the United States of America.

4.) The rest of us are too stupid and sheeplike to realize this.

I am just making sure I am understanding your argument correctly.

Does that about sum it up?

NJ John

i agree that the housing mess did start with clinton, but my problem with that is, no one twisted those bankers arms and made them lend money to people they should not have. yes you have government policys that were incourging lending for homes but please don't let the bankers off the hook.

they about Bush i never hated the guy, i just really wondered what the heck was he thinking when he invaded iraq when he was in a war in afgan, what was he thinking when he was at the whitehouse eating cake when hudreds were dying in New orleans, and it took days to get in there, he was able to get in iraq with out a problem, why take so long to get to american who needed help. what was he thinking when he did not arm the men properly in iraq, this soldiers had to arm there humveys there selves,.

Yes Obama had a mess the clean up. the russians, germans, french were pissed at us because of the wars he bumbled. that missle defense shield had alot of the middle east pissed at us.

Oha yes what a mess!!!!

Think of what might be accomplished if the republicans in congress did not adopt their treasonous "Waterloo strategy" they have not proposed any useful ideas or legislation that addresses the concerns of the average American. They complain about Obama not accomplishing anything, call him an empty suit, and a community organizer yet what have they done other than try to throw a wrench in the works every chance they get. The republicans in congress are useless, unless you are a multinational company looking for partners in the US government to legalize the fleecing of the US population. Hell the president just gave them the tort reform they whine about all the time, and they call it a shake down, a slush fund. Republicans contradict themselves daily now, no big government, where is the government when we need them, stop the oil, but don't stop the oil drilling, cut taxes for corporations, cut taxes everywhere, cut wages, but bring down the deficit, we don't like socialism, but we do like Social Security, medicare, medicaid, and the prescription drug plan. If the republicans have anybody with any credibility left, they are doing a good job at keeping that person a secret. The republican asylum is now being run by the inmates.

Ron--excellent post. I live on Planet Earth but apparently there's a planet out there named Denial.

What drives No Joe, In the Middle and friends crazy is one simple fact: an intelligent President who can and does run circles around EVERY GOPer out there plus the media and some democrats, one who has accomplished a great deal considering the mess left on the Oval Office desk. Despite the constant criticism and obstructionism from the right, Pres Obama just keeps working hard to solve our problems. It is easier for republicans to blame Pres Obama and democrats than it is to accept the fact that the republican ideology established by Reagan has been proven not just disastrous but catastrophic.

Afghanistan, we were there 7 years when Bush left office; he neglected that war to hustle off to the next one in the name of democracy and freedom in the middle east. Here we are 9 1/2 years, a nearly a trillion dollars later, thousands dead or wounded. President Obama based his decision on the best advice from the military and others; he forced the military to take an honest and realistic look. Republicans say, "listen to the generals".

Even republicans criticized Bush. Democrats rallied behind him after 9/11. Bush criticism from the left came with his ramp up to Iraq, his passing unfunded tax cuts for the richest 10% which John McCain voted against, and we criticized Bush for unfunding every bill he and the GOP Congress passed. Now republicans and Tea Partiers whine about the national debt as if it just appeared in Jan 2009--the GOP owns 90% of it and told us "deficits don't matter"--except of course, when it isn't their deficits. As for a one-world order, that little nugget has been in the far right John Birch and right-leaning militant groups Fear Books for decades. Democrats love this country and freedom as much as republicans do; they do not and will not ever be in favor of one-world order. Those who preach such drivel keep those who listen under their control through fear. As long as people are afraid, they do not ask the right questions of legislators nor do they vote for their own personal interests--they vote fear.

Add to the mix of home loan problems, Alan Greenspan who kept interest rates artificially low. Real estate brokers who convinced home buyers they could AFFORD more. People who did not understand balloon payments or were convinced by others that low interest rates would be around for years and it would work out because by then their wages would increase to cover it. People who believed housing prices would always increase and took out second and third mortgages for vacations, cars, remodeling, swimming pools, new furniture because interest rates were so low, they thought it made sense. Every banker, realtor, home buyer who threw aside budgetary common sense played a role in the housing crisis.

Well, since so many seem to be bringing it up.........

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html

Good Stuff, Gina; but prepare for the bashing you are about to receive for citing the NYT.

I appreciate your effort!

gold doesn't tarnish, feisty - he's more like cheap lead,...

You guys in here do not understand the military culture. It is a society within a society. Everything he said is a perspective many in uniform has.

Frankly, McChrystal is not interested in being a politician; he is a soldier.

Jones, Mullen, Gates, etc. are all Washington pundits now. They all are political in nature and will side with the politics over the warfighter.

McChrystal is a 4 star General, he doesn't need any civilian's approval as to what type of soldier he has been. He has earned his pension and I suspect with this political climate he will be enjoying it soon.

ITM,

Get over your pompous self. I have lived on several USMC Military Bases as a brat - so spare me. It is inconceivable that a high ranking officer in the US Military would disparage the President of the United States in any forum, public or private where unfriendlies might overhear.

Keep spinning, though.

Can you elucidate? Perhaps direct us to some past 'political climate' in which a general who was insubordinate to the commander in chief would not have faced repercussions?

If and when the general faces the music, it won't be because of the 'political climate.' It will be because he will have to be accountable for his behavior.

Time for McChrystal to go. Talk about petty and unnecessary. MacArthur comes readily to mind. It IS sad, though, how many generals have been ruined by these wars.

ITM@, the general cultivates a culture of disrespect and this should not be tolerated.

I am sure he and his staff punishe subordinate for less infractions His staff would not be so vocal if he did not sanction such behavior.

I am a vet with a sister (officer) in the Navy and a cousin in the Marines who must answer to these pompous and arrogant......

Clara,

Who cares where you have LIVED.....I LIVED THE LIFE!!!.......and I still train soldiers. I think I have a better perspective than you or anyone else in your small circle.

Mc was wrong by making these statements in the company of a reporter. Believe me when I say, He did it on purpose.

You are dangerously wrong, ITM, when you suggest that the Armed Forces are not subordinate to the civilian government. The president is the head of the Armed Forces for a reason. Do take a Civics class.

True, that. When you start thinking that way, it isn't far from SEVEN DAYS IN MAY.

Careful, Anna Molly-

You keep saying things like that, and Tweety will be doing a special program on you.

I agree--enough with the phony apologies whether it's repubs, dems, pundits, or generals. I was taught to THINK BEFORE I SPEAK; you'd think someone as supposedly intelligent as McChrystal would have been taught the same thing; you might also assume he'd have respect for others.

If as ITM claims he understands the military culture, what part of insubordination is excusable in that culture. Jones, Mullen are steeped in military culture regardless of their current positions; they are not pundits--Chris Matthews is a pundit as is Glenn Beck. My understanding is that the military personnel are like families, a cohesive unit where standing by each other is survival. McChrystal, on the other hand, seems more concerned with himself and definitely not his troops or he would NEVER have made his personal opinions public.

ITM, you don't say a lot that I agree with but this "Mc was wrong by making these statements in the company of a reporter. Believe me when I say, He did it on purpose." I believe completely. Career military officers are highly intelligent men who are used to playing chess with pieces that have live ammo and die for real when hit. They're always thinking ahead, everything they do is calculated. This wasn't a "mistake" or an "error", it was a deliberate attempt to get the Administration to take a more hawkish position.

The only way the President loses this one is by backing down and playing the Pentagon's game. The public is weary of the "long war" and I don't believe that people like the General realize that. I know this--if one of my employees were badmouthing me to the press he'd ALREADY be gone.

I agree with the premise of no more phony apologies.

If I was McCrystal, I would walk into that meeting tomorrow and tell the President "With all do respect sir, I have no faith in your leadership or your ability to finish this war. And it is with great regret that I formally resign my commission."

I would tell the President that I quit before he has the opportunity to force me to resign or make an example out of me.

IntheMiddle,

Every day I read your post and try to find out what issue you are in the middle on. You say you have lived it, so I need to ask a question. Are you a combat vet? I am not saying one vet is better than another but I don't like to hear folks yelling "I am Rambo listen to me I have been there." I was in the Navy and USMC so I can't speak as to how the army does business. The thing that sets military members apart is that we are constantly asked/ordered to do things no one else wants or will do without question. "Instant willing obedience to orders" is what is demanded of every good service member. Think long and hard about that statement and then tell us all how this Generals actions fall in line with what most service members think. Military service is about sacrifice and quiet resolve. God Bless America....

Tom,

Thank you for your post and your service.

Some of us think he's in the middle between a rock and a hard place. Or just in the middle of Texas, randomly, without a compass. Either way - he is OUT there,...

Tom,

I am a veteran of 22 yrs. I spent 17 of those in SF as a 18D. I am a combat veteran to the umpteenth. I said Mc never should have spoke in front of that reporter. You cannot accuse Mc of not following orders because obviously he would not ascend to the rank of four-star General. Most people in hear do not understand the accomplishment of becoming a four-star.

I worked for him when he was a Colonel and he is a straight shooter. The reason the soldiers like him is because he is hard but fair and he tells it like it is.

I said he was echoing the sentiment within the theatre. I work at the Hood and train soldiers prior to deployment everyday. I go back and forth to Benning and train some of the most elite and I can tell you there is not a lot of sympathy for hurt feelings.

Obama can fire him...and then WHAT? I guess he will put a Gates type in there.

As far as In the middle, I not in the middle of no issues, I stand on what I believe and thats it period. No flex.... You either push foward or retreat. I work IntheMiddle of Texas.

Clara,

I don't need a compass. It is called dead reckoning, cross checking terrain.

Disdain? No. Wariness? You bet your tush! Unless Pinochet's Chile is your idea of good government!

As usual, you just don't get it, do you?

Nobody cares if General McChrystal likes President Obama. They don't have to like each other.

What the Rolling Stone comments demonstrate is lack of respect. That dog won't hunt.

So, did Her Thighness, Hilary apologize to Petreus or not?

McCrystal was wrong PERIOD. There is no debate, he violated the UCMJ. THis has nothing to do with politics so stop trying to make that point, it just does not hunt. McCrysatal crossed the line and should not be returned to his command. There is no other solution acceptable.

CU ~ It doesn't matter. I don't think a US senator owes a general an apology -- OR the same loyalty that the general owes his commander in chief -- at least publicly. That's direct insubordination, and certainly a violation of McChrystal's military training. Your argument is a red herring. Surprise.

Anna,

What do you mean by a Senator should not apologize? If she was wrong she should have. This is the reason soldiers in general do not care for the Left of the political spectrum.

It's not the same thing. That was fair political comment. Clinton didn't report directly to Petraeus. By the way, have you checked the news from Iraq recently?

Wary is a perfect description of democrats and the military. Democrats respect the military and believe that wars should be fought only when necessary. Republicans believe the military is above reproach, should never be questioned because they could never be wrong. Military brass believe they can always win because that is what they are supposed to think. Too often, they fail to give honest assessments; they live in a world where winning at all costs colors their perception of reality.

My opinion is that President Obama is asking the military tough and realistic questions about the feasibility of Afghanistan; he is looking for an honorable way out and come 2011 whether the republicans and military brass like it or not, we will start bringing troops home. We must. We've been there over 9 years, at what point will the military finally tell the truth--Afghanistan is more like Vietnam than anyone cares to acknowledge. Sad to say but Afghanistan is a war we cannot win and a war without end; this war cannot be won militarily but we can make the country more viable and buy it some time.

Gods, I feel like I'm the only one who actually read the RS profile on McCrystal.....

He never once criticized the President. He and his staff criticized the Presidents staff, the Vice President, the envoy in Afghanistan, and several other diplomatic positions, but he never once said a disparaging remark about Obama.

The only remark about him was that the General felt he was unprepared for their first meeting. Every thing you guys have said is simply conjecture.....

Correction to some posts above:

The active duty military members I know do not like or care for politics period. They are busy making sure the capital doesn't get overrun by all the enemies our past policies have created. Left or right doesn't make much difference when you are away from your home, family and friends for more than a year, or when you don't make it home at all. (Rest in peace to the fallen) Just trying to put things in perspective.

Right on Pat: McChrystal can comment his displeasure privately, but not to Rolling Stones mag. He knew that when he spoke. This is not a crisis. President Obama will fire him and that will be the end of the story. There will be another general to take his place.

Of course, I am genuinely interested in whether or not McChrystal made the comments or whether he had some aides that wanted out of Afghanistan,...Let's see his response,...

PS. Once again, Morning Joke is 'making' news rather than reporting it - well, okay - they reported it; but then escalated it,...I am not under the impression that the whole article was 'leaked'?

The general and his staff lack any type of respect for authority. As a leader, how can you command respect when you have such disdain for your superiors.

The general's demeanor reflects his arrogance: Everyone is wrong and I am right. Me and only me...

Please.

If Bush were president, and this happened, you would all be agreeing with the General and saying Bush is incompetant. You can't stand anything negative to be said about your messiah. You've even turned on your lefty pundits (Olbermann, Mathews, Carville, etc...)!

Lynchmob,

Wrong----Folks who have served or are serving in the military know that an officer does not make disparaging remarks about the CIC, period. If he or she does, their career is over. Whether it was Bush or not, this kind of behavior, no matter how an individual feels about his or her CIC is unacceptable and even described in the UCMJ as a violation under an article called conduct unbecoming of an officer.

Ron ~ Although I agree wholeheartedly that McChrystal has to go, there have been WAY too many generals placed in this position over these wars. It might be helpful if there was a more coherent strategy -- or is a trillion dollars in minerals, but no Al Qaeda (at least according to General Petraeus) enough of a strategy?

Pat:

I agree with your assessment. I think the General wants out because Afghansitan is not going well even after the President gave the money and man-power he requested. So he figured he could make a few disrespectful comments and be sent home and not have to ride out this awful war.

I hope his strategy worked because he should be asked to retire when he meets wth the CIC tommorrow.

Write a book! Not so much. He is petty.

Terry,

I did not state, either way, my thoughts on his comments. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the left and I stand by my original post. There would be laughter towards Bush all throughout this blog, had this happened during his term. Perhaps you would be the only one defending Bush as CIC.

President Obama is responsible for this "arrogant", "total jerk" being in command in Afghanistan in the first place.

There's that word again..."responsible".

Once again, the buck stops with the President on this one, Eric.

Imagine how upset many will be when they actually (ever) read the article...Used to be that only the right shot first and asked questions later...sad

Eric, your commens continue to show your 'grossly partisian' progressive views of this fool of a President and his 'posse' of idiots. I would have a lot more respect for you if you and other supporters of Obama would at least have a 'open mind' regarding opposing views. Your support for this President is fine IF that's what you believe. However, your not the only one who has valid views in opposition to the administration.

Hey, Bag Boy ~ How many generals did Bush have to fire, after having been "responsible" for putting them in charge?

NJ John ~ Obviously, you haven't met ME.

So NJ your comments show your grossly partisan teabagging views for the teabagging fools and the other teabagging idiots.

BTW: your showing your lack of Open mindness with this post calling our President an idiot. So crawl back in your hole (as we all know is Fox).

NJ John

Yes, many of the posters here are DemLibPros. We have the right to be that, just as you are a dyed in the wool Republican who dislikes anything that this President does, and call him a fool. Perhaps you should have an "open mind" regarding actually using your own intelligence and research to find out what is fact and what is not rather than disparaging those who have a perfect right to support the duly elected President of the United States.

And if you have valid views in opposition to the administration, please put those out here, and then perhaps you can have a dialogue about those views, as opposed to just stating your dislike of progressive and President Obama.

Mixed Bag. General Petreus wanted McChrystal.

Who did Obama want, Jody?

Your comment implies that he did not want General McChrystal.

Are you really suggesting that?

I've not seen any evidence of that whatsoever.

You have a short memory, Mixed Bag. The Neocons put on a full court press for McChrystal, the Pentagon leaked confidential information to get not only him but the plan he presented, and the MSM as usual went along with the spin by parroting the talking point that not doing so would represent weakness. To his credit Pres. Obama put them in a box by giving them a limited time frame and insisting that forces not take ground that can't be secured and handed over to Afghan forces. Newsweek had a long article on that subject afterward, unfortunately I can't find it now.

Maybe I misread that, but did the retard in Selinas call a four star general ignorant?

If any of you believe that statement then you have no idea how far ahead of the game this man is. Seems like you are all falling into the trap of focusing on this maneuver instead of looking for what will come next, this is man who spent most of his life studing battlefield strategy, and anticipating the moves of his opponents, he doesn't do anything unless he a reasonable idea of how it will play out.

You're all focusing on the taking of knight and missing being put into checkmate.

John B, Des Moines, IA-

What you SHOULD have been able to say, John, is:

"To his credit, President Obama resisted those annoying neo-cons, and appointed the commander of HIS choice for Afghanistan."

Oops, John...that's right.

Actually...HE did appoint the commander of his choice.

MY memory's fine, John.

Nash:

You omitted the most egregious of the petty carping…”The President hates white people”. All in an effort to turn the white electorate against him.

After all that venom and vitriol he is still polling at around 50%. Amazing.

Excellent.

And the hyperventilating by press and pundits over whether Pres Obama was angry enough over the oil spill. I have been so disgusted with the analysts, pundits, reporters, and republicans for NEVER giving this President any credit. He prevented a second Great Depression, he gave GM and Chrysler a chance to save themselves, he passed a jobs bill WHICH IS WORKING, he passed HCR when no one including his own WH advisors thought he should try in year one, he is getting us out of Iraq and refocused on Afghanistan--his efforts have resulted in the deaths of more Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders in 8 months than Bush did in 8 years, and now he is dealing with the worse environmental disaster we have ever had.

Through all of this, President Obama remains calm, and diligently tackles every challenge. The behavior of republicans, some democrats, and the media's constant carping about irrelevant nonsense makes me think sometimes that WE do not deserve this intelligent, hard working man but I am so grateful that he is President. May God protect him because no one else will; if ever there was a time when this country needed an man like him, it is now.

Amen Jody. Amen.

Bless you Jody. Such truth in your words.

Fellow DAV---Absolutely correct. The military brass can not make disparaging remarks about their chain of command and he violated the UCMJ.

Another interesting point to discuss is the rank in file soldiers are questioning the leadership of Gen McCrystal and usually that means the soldiers have no confidence in the leadership abilities of that individual.

Clearly McCrystal needs to go, not only for the remarks but for the sake of the lives of the soldiers he commands. He has lost the leadership respect of some of his soldiers and that only means more soldiers lives are at risk due to the lack of respect.

Fellow DAV,

Very very good point. Our commrades in arms do not need this. They are fighting for the very lives every day to keep our great country safe. They do not need this demoralizing behavior from their commanders in the field. This man just has to go. Maybe he will do the honorable thing and retire now. My prayers go to our fighting men and woman. God bless them all and bring the back home safe and intact.

The majority of the comments, at least the ones quoted by other media sources, seem to be attributed to aides rather than by the general himself. In addition, it appears as though these comments did not occur in some sort of traditional interview type situation, but sort of bled out over the course of several months of this reporter being embedded with the command structure.

However, the problem that I see is that this phenomenon could only have occurred if the general either tacitly or overtly approved of the lapse in discipline. My grandfather was a colonel in the air force when I was growing up and insofar as he ever talked about politics with me, he let me know that he was not particularly fond of President Carter in the late '70's. However, he would never have made comments like these in a manner that could have been repeated by the press and he would have regarded it as an inexcusable breach in discipline to do so.

Terry,

Man you don't know that the rank and file are questioning Mc. I worked for this guy when he was a Colonel. He knows his sh!t. He is no amateur. He just expressed what others in uniform discuss daily. Soldiers have never had any confidence in Democrat administrations. I served under both political parties and I can tell you where those raises didn't come from.........I can tell you why the military is cut in half as compared to before Desert Storm......

You need to stop speaking for soldiers because evidently you're not in the know anymore. I train soldiers everyday and these are not Vietnam era individuals.

Vietnam was 40 yrs ago, you guys from that generation need to move on.

I'm looking in my UCMJ manual right now. Which article did he violate directly? Of course you can twist anything and make it insubordination, but which one directly?

When you're talking UCMJ, you had better know what you're talking about because it has to be able to stand on its own merits.

IMT,

I guess you did not read the article, there are quotes from other soldiers. As form the UCMJ, how about conduct unbecoming of an officer, dunce!!!! or how baout article 134 or do you even know what that one is? dunce!

Oh! THIS is gonna get GOOD! lol

Come on guys expose the fraud known as ITM once & for all will ya!

Nice touch there ITM telling Viet Nam vets to get over it - Not sure how any human being will ever be able to get over what they witnessed over there....

Boys, boys ... I don't think anyone disagrees that McChrystal has to go, even if you just call it insubordination. Keep your eyes on the prize and maybe think about demanding a coherent policy for both Iraq AND Afghanistan, so we can get the Hades out of there. And soon.

Good morning Feisty,

And this person claims to be training soliders. I wonder how they would feel about his Nam comment. Coming from that era and being stationed in San Diego I saw a lot of our young men and women coming in with horrendous wounds, body parts missing etc heading to what was Balboa Naval Hospital. This person just turns my stomach. What an insult to those who fought over there and to those families that lost loved ones. Should we get over WWII, Korean War, WWI. Think not.

US Navy Disabled Vet, Retired: We owe you a debt of gratitude that we can never repay for your service. The worst part of ITM is that he thinks he can speak for all military. What he is actually doing is assigning his own limited beliefs to others.

Good Morning to you Retired...

Agreed about ITM - for whatever reason he has to remind us daily that he was/is a 'soldier' - me thinks he suffers a severe case of 'LMS' (little man syndrome) but I digress...

As for his Nam comments my husband did (2) tours there in the Navy! And in all the years we've been together I can only think of a handful of times he's EVER talked to me or anyone else about it... and btw he wasn't drafted - he volunteered!

I would dare say... it's not something he's very proud of...

If in fact ITM is training soldiers... they have my sympathies!

You all have to remember, itm just makes this stuff up as he goes. He could get away with making stuff up over at Fox, he's finding it much harder to get a way with it here at FR. He doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

Maybe I'm completely missing the point here, but don't General McChrystal and his staff have more important things they could be doing than sitting down with a reporter from Rolling Stone in the first place?

This is Rolling Stone! What did they THINK was going to happen?

Excellent question JoAnne.

ITM I can speak for one Nam guy and tell you to unequivocally kiss my royal rusty crusty A$$. Why don't you take your alligator mouth somewhere where it won't keep overloading your hummingbird behind.

ITM

Didnt I see you a few years back with a rabid crowd burning Dixie Chicks CDs?? Guess that was worth condemnation but not this...

To the veterans posting here, it is good to hear from those who know the rules. Your comments are appreciated and so is your service.

As for ITM, I don't think he's military at all otherwise, he'd never make the remarks he does. My fiance went off to Vietnam never to return; anyone who says those who served there should get over it is a fraud or an insensitive jerkwad, maybe both.

Jody,

So often folks forget the real human costs that are paid by so many when these life or death decisions are made . . . sorry to hear about your loss.

The late Paul Brown used to tell players who displeased him that they'd be kept around only until someone better came along. Seems like the way to go here.

MB,

McKiernan was relieved of duty at the recommendation of Secy Gates and Admiral McMullen and at THEIR recommendation, MCCrystal was chosen. I think it would be fair to say, that a choice like that requires much input from those who have the most knowledge of the individual being considered.

You make it sound as if the President magically pulled McCrystal out of nowhere.

McChrystal was Obama's choice

And McArthur was Truman's choice. He named McArthur UN Commander to defend S. Korea. They didn't see eye to eye. So he was gone. It has nothing to do with bad judgment or anything of the sort when naming McArthur.

Sometimes these things just happen in the grown up old over time.

Gingerbread Mama

I could have said that President Obama chose General McChrystal in consultation with his hand-picked Secretary Of Defense, Bob Gates.

Is that preferrable?

Either way, General McChrystal would not have been appointed, nor for that matter, General McKiernan fired, had Obama disapproved...on the contrary.

President Obama was unhappy with the situation in Afghanistan, and he chose McChrystal to fix the problem.

Therefore, the President is directly responsible for McChrystal's performance...or lack thereof.

Sorry...that's the way this thing works, GM.

You're right, Bag Boy, and Obama's about to fix it. So what's your problem?

I could have said that President Obama chose General McChrystal in consultation with his hand-picked Secretary Of Defense, Bob Gates.

Gates hand picked by Obama??? Wow. Tell me, who was Bush's Secretary of Defense when he left office?

OK Steven-

Remind me...how exactly did Robert Gates become the Obama Administration's Secretary Of Defense?

Did he simply tell President Obama on January 20th 2009, "I'm not going anywhere...and you don't have anything to say about it?"

Really, Steven...

You make it sound like Gates is a liberal or something, when he was 'hand-picked by President Bush. I think it was President Bush who said something about not changing horses in the middle of a race, I believe President Obama thought he was the best man for the job. I don't think he 'hand-picked' Gates and I think it's presumptuous to say so.

"...President Obama thought he was the best man for the job."

I can't improve on that, Steven.

You're exactly right.

And that's why Gates is still around.

He's Obama's choice now...not Bush's.

Eric, eric, bo-derek, banana-fanna-fo ferrick, mi, mi mo merrick, Erick

Salinas, meanest, bo,beenus, banana fanna fo feenus, mi mi mo meenus, salinas...the name game...:)

Dude, the bad news is you're showing your age! The worse news is, we're probably contemporaries! Assuming that the first time that you heard that song was on a six transistor Japanese radio!

Diogenes-

You're getting colder in your quest whenever you get anywhere near one of Eric's posts.

The song "The Name Game" comes to mind every time I skim the young gentleman's posts, and one hopes that the humor won't be lost, lest someone goes trying to rhyme "Diogenes"...and yes I am of that classic issue...as Stuart Sumner sings (Boy, that guy could use a nickname) "...born in the 50's...")

wartime or peace time,...the break in COC is aggregious. Let's see his rebuttal; but having grown up a military brat and having many friends in various ranks including officer - it is simply not done. You remember what happened to the Dixie Chicks when they disparaged "W" on foreign soil. I am sure Rush Limbaugh and the other previously Poutraged will throw their full support behind ousting McChrystal - because afterall "NO ONE DISPARAGES THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES ON FOREIGN SOIL"

(not holding my breath,...just sending a gentle reminder of where this path has led before)

I suggest reading history, which has been said to repeat itself...understanding often is the product of study, reflection and contemplation, three processes in short supply in the blogosphere...and sorely needed...

Nash ~ I think it means that the comments wouldn't have been made if the war was going well and everyone was peacy-lovey happy with each other. There would be no cause for sniping in that case. And no story to print.

Gotcha Anna Molly . . . they are saying that McChrystal would not have made the comments . . . not that Rolling Stone would have reacted differently based on what was happening in the war . . . guess I read it a little too literally! lol

Seriously?! Did you sleep through 2001 to 2009? There has never been, nor will there EVER be, anything worse than that. And, ironically, we're still engaged in Afghanistan only because of President Bush's blunders. EVERYTHING pales by comparison to HIS blunders.

JoAnnaSmith-

You are touching on something I've been wondering about more and more with each passing day...

Why did Obama run for President? If not to lead, why?

In the long-running debate on health care reform, the Democratically-controlled House and Senate (with their large majorities) each passed two completely different, irreconcilable bills largely because of a lack of leadership from the White House. To the very end of the debate, progressive lawmakers did not know for sure whether or not the President would support a "public option". The President did not provide leadership in the form of a specific blueprint of what he wanted...and we ended up with the unpopular Obamacare.

Last summer, when General McChrystal presented his plan for going forward in Afghanistan, the President promptly packed the wife and kids off to Martha's Vineyard for a much-needed vacation. Despite the fact that Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates signed off on McChrystal's recommendations almost immediately, the President held meeting after meeting on Afghanistan...before finally, near the end of last year, he ended up largely concurring with McChrystal's plan.

The Administration's response to the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf has been punctuated with ongoing questions about who is actually in charge of decision making in the containment and clean-up efforts by the federal government...causing repeated outbursts of anger and frustration from local elected officials. The lack of focused leadership in addressing the crisis has been an ongoing topic of discussion here at First Read and elsewhere.

All of this brings me back to the beginning.

We all knew that President Obama and his cadre of close advisors regarded President Bush as an impetuous, shoot-from-the-hip cowboy in terms of his leadership style. I'm guessing most folks expected President Obama to be far more reflective and deliberative in his decision-making style.

However, what we've seen most from President Obama is an aversion to firm, decisive leadership...particularly when it's most desperately needed. And this odd phenomenon has been noted by every political pundit from Bill O'Reilly to Keith Olbermann.

Why did Obama run for President?

If not to lead...then to do what, exactly?

Mixed Bag

JoAnnaSmith-

You are touching on something I've been wondering about more and more with each passing day...

Why did Obama run for President?

I think he ran to implement his very leftest agenda. Little did he know though that he would have to deal with things that he did not anticipate. And it is those things that confuse Obama. He is very slow on his feet in a very dynamic world. He tends to over analyze the situation and he tends not to be fully engaged on issues that are outside his agenda. In short, Obama is a poor crisis manager. He's really not a day-to-day manager either. He likes to make speeches about "big ideas" and the theory part of his leftist beliefs. But he also seems annoyed about the implementation of those ideas. The man hates working the details, but it's those very details that make or break a presidents agenda. From all this, Obama looks weak, indecisive, and ineffective. The American people see this too, and that's why we see Obama losing support in the polls.

I think a better question is "Why did you type this comment?"

Doesn't seem like you really want an answer . . . you just repackage thinly veiled and easily debunked crticisms as "questions".

Ironically enough, each and every problem that you say the President hasn't led on was bequeathed to him by the previous Administration . . . interesting that President Obama is expected to do in less than two years what they couldn't accomplish in eight.

Oh well, like I said, you don't really have any questions . . . you already have all the answers . . . much as the previous Administration did.

Anna Molly

Seriously?! Did you sleep through 2001 to 2009? There has never been, nor will there EVER be, anything worse than that. And, ironically, we're still engaged in Afghanistan only because of President Bush's blunders. EVERYTHING pales by comparison to HIS blunders.

AM, if you want to discuss Obama and the subject matter at hand, then do so, and I'll be more then happy to have that conversation. If you want to be like Obama and continue to blame the past administration(s) for all of Obama's problems of today, then I bid you farewell.

JoAnna:

Perhaps if some others felt the need to "overanalyze things" we would not be victims of the simultaneous collapse of our economy and energy infrastructure, all while those who created the crisis glibly pretend that they played no part.

Once again another all knowing sideline reporter who would rather psychoanalyze the President rather than face the reality of the problems he is facing.

But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

At least SOMEBODY in the country is dealing with WHAT IS, and not just spouting out wild theories backed up by nothing more than hate and ignorance.

I dunno. To hear you tell it, it must have been because he liked the liberal vacation policy.

But seriously ... do I agree 100 percent with everything President Obama has done? Most CERTAINLY not. In fact, I disagree with many of the things he's done, including -- believe it or not -- his policy on Afghanistan AND his position on health care reform. AND I agree he should have made the decision on Afghanistan in a lot less time, especially if it was just going to be same-old. But to say he's on the road to being the worst president in 100 years just totally ignores the reality of the incompetent "leadership" we experienced under GWB, and are still suffering from today.

Or do you sincerely believe that George W. Bush was a "leader"? And if not to be a leader, then why did HE run for president ... to do what, exactly?

And, more interestingly ... did he do it? Think about THAT for a while.

Sorry JoAnn, but your boy Cheney/Bush hold that worst President in 100 years badge.

Your becoming just like no joe all blow same old rants every day, please come up with something new. I guess Fox and Limbaugh can't come up with any new lies for you can they.

Geez, Nashville...

First Feisty, and now you.

Here goes...

Dissent was not suddenly transformed into race-based hatred on Inauguration Day, January 20th, 2009.

You remember dissent, don't you Nashville?

That phenomenon that was so patriotic, even downright democratic (small "d"...don't get excited) during the last Administration?

Well...it still is!

I'll bet you even engaged in it yourself.

Mixed bag . . . I did not mention race in my comment . . . so I guess that came from the deep recesses of your mind . . . not mine.

Telling, no?

Anna Molly

Or do you sincerely believe that George W. Bush was a "leader"? And if not to be a leader, then why did HE run for president ... to do what, exactly?

And, more interestingly ... did he do it? Think about THAT for a while.

Bush successfully changed the context and the structure of the problems/solutions in the middle-east. He not only took out a major pillar that support world terrorism (Saddam/Iraq) he also implemented many, many laws that help protect the US from terrorists (the Patriot Act being one). Domestically, Bush was very liberal his spending though and did little to contain costs. He flagged the problems for the coming housing crisis in Fannie/Freddie, but did not follow up on reforming either of them. Congress had an even bigger in the collapse of the housing market, but I digress. Bush was much more of leader then Obama can ever dream to be. Bush may have had the military disagree with him, but unlike Obama, he was respected by the military.

Obama though has super sized Bush's spending with no end in sight. He has crossed lines the executive branch should not cross as with the purchase of GM without congressional approval, and with his strong arming of BP without having the courts involved. Obama has ignored the will of the people by passing a health care reform bill most people did not want. Obama also has shown a disdain from all private businesses as he keeps singling out certain companies and ranting about what they should and should not do. We see the results, a very tentative business environment that does not want add in new workers.

Mo--1852032

Sorry JoAnn, but your boy Cheney/Bush hold that worst President in 100 years badge.

Your becoming just like no joe all blow same old rants every day, please come up with something new. I guess Fox and Limbaugh can't come up with any new lies for you can they.

Mo, there is an adult conversation going on here. If you want to make inane comments, go find Feisty, the two of you would make a good pair.

Nashville-

"I did not mention race in my comment"

Sorry, Nashville...I just can't get Tweety's "New Right" special out of my mind. Haunting...wasn't it?

Anyway...glad to see you don't dispute my remark about dissent.

Joanna Smith, seems like Iran was less of a problem when they had Saddam to worry about!

Mixed Bag,

I agree that dissent is important. I just wish more of the dissent was based on facts and reality, that's all.

P.S. I didn't watch the Chris Matthews special, so can't really comment on it. The topic is haunting though, for sure.

Then do explain JoAnn, just where in your posts are the adults, your posts sound more like 3rd graders. And yes me and Feisty can have an adult conversation, unlike you and anybody else, but then again I haven't seen any of your conversation with the other teabaggers, as if any teabagger could be an adult.

You can take the stance that everything that Obama has been faced with was caused by the Bush admin. Fine that's your stance, then go ahead and run with it, but remember that Obama ran for office full well knowing what the situation was or wasn't, and he chose to pursue the office, telling the country that he knew the problems we faced and he could fix it. Now I don't think anyone expected that he would be able to fix everything wrong with the country in two years, but I think a lot of us were hoping to see a little progress, and we just haven't seen that.

And don't cite 3% job growth as progress, that is normal for any economy, with all of the money and initiatives the President has thrown at the current economic situation, we should be doing far better than that, and HCR was passed, but what was passed few people wanted. So yeah, you can claim the passage a success, but that wouldn't be telling the whole truth.

President Truman once put a sign on the desk in the Oval office that read "The Buck Stops Here" since when did that sign change to "It's not my fault!"

But Nashville-

Surely you're aware of the ongoing Matthews theme that opposition to President Obama's agenda is race-based? That race, not philosophical disagreement, is actually at the root of the dissent expressed with regard to the initiatives of the Obama Administration? Chris has really been quite consistent on this...wouldn't you agree?

Please don't plead ignorance of Matthews' views...you wouldn't stoop to that, would you?

Brutus,

"normal" for any economy - except Bush, Jr. Where there was a Net LOSS over the eight years. but do go on,...you were saying?

And there you go missing my point.

"The Buck Stops Here" Meaning all passing of blame or responsibility ceases withthe President. It not the president's job to say "We are in the situation we are in because the past admisitration were retards......" It is up to the President to say "We are in a bad situation, things are broken and heres what we have have to fix them...." and then he has to convince those that disagree with him that his solution is the right one and be willing to compromise on some things. No say that it's not his fault and nothing is getting done because his rivals wont work with him. It's his job to find that compromise and be willing to go toe to toe with his rivals.

How long are you going to say "It's Bush's fault" That s*** is fine for campaigns, but the campaign is long since over, now moving on.

See you missed the point that I wasn't defending Bush. Personally I didn't like Bush, but I disliked him a lot less than Obama.

I just wish people like you could step away from your party line and see that as long as we are mired in a two party system nothing will ever change. It will not be until we can all stand up and think for ourselves that anything will improve. Otherwise we are just stuck in the same treadmill of same party politics until you, I and everyone else here is long gone, and we are replaced by other who will be arguing these exact points with new names inserted...... It's F'n crazy, and it has to stop.

While changing the commander may or may not have an effect is not the point per se. You cannot have a field commander that displays this behavior holding his post. It is demoralizing to our troops in the field. They have enough to worry about. The need and should demand appropriate leadership that cannot be questioned. This man has broken that bond and needs to be discharged from his duties. THis does not mean all our troops just go blindly into the night. There are correct chains of command the need to be followed. One of them is not being disrespectful to our CIC. Right or wrong President Obama is the Commander in Chief and that demands respect. There is no grey area here and their cannot be. This is the United States Military not GM.

Good morning IR.

I think that the mission in Afghanistan is being revaluated daily based on the conditions on the ground and the outcomes of the many missions being run. The President, just as he did with Iraq War, has already established an date certain to begin drawing down troops in Afghanistan.

His decision to send more troops was warranted in my opinion, because of the time and resources that had already been invested in the region, and because of the instability in Pakistan and the fear that extremist elements left unchecked could topple the government and gain control of a nuclear weopon.

Through agressive drone attacts and stepped up effort by the government of Pakistan, their has been a noticeable hit taken by the terrorist elements in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Of course, the allied forces have taken alot of hits as well.

But in the final analysis, the overall mission has been progressed, and by using every military asset available, we are able to leave the country knowing we left no stone unturned and gave the best effort possible to secure our interests in the area.

So while the recent event with General McChrystal are disturbing, they in no way reflect negatively on the strategy in my opinion. It just reflects the fact that a man who is so disciplined in many areas of his life was unable to maintain discipline of his tongue.

I also find it ironic that anyone would accuse the President of being "unprepared" with regards to Afghanistan, when just a few montha ago the talking point was he was "dithering" and having too many meetings analyzing the situation.

I guess the real problem is that the President was not prepared to blindly follow dictates from the military, many of whom apparently are still loyal to outgoing President Cheney.

We are living in serious times my friend, and the one thing that saddens me the most is how our media culture immediately gravitates to the shallowest level, so often leaving meatier matters unexamined and largely invisible to those who depend on them for information.

Our society is in decline becaue we are suffering from a dual case if instantgratificationitis and massignorancia.

Navy I plead guilty to not being clear about what I was trying to get to. Yes the General needs to go most ricky-ticky no doubt for just cause. I just also think that given circumstances right now it would be a good time for the CIC to set down and review the mission that he assigned these guys which he obviously had a lot of input and assurances from them. What I am hearing is that either the General could not inspire the confidence and control needed to accomplish the mission or the advice and assurances were flawed from the start and we can no longer accomplish that mission within the parameters. If we can’t fulfil the mission then we need somebody to just say so we can quit wasting money and young people’s lives.

Nash Good morning Ace. I'm kind of struggling around this morning on this deal. I think what I'm trying to get out is being an old Nam guy I might just be being oversensitive to conditions in the field not matching up with the impressions that that are being passed up the line. As I say I agree that the direction that was given by the president was good and seems to be taking everybody in a positive direction. However if there is an indication that the leadership of Afghanistan or the system that we are trying to further are not going to happen then we will be left with either a failed mission or an open ended commitment and I think that either will be unacceptablein the future. I'm just not a great believer in wasting resources or people in pursuit of an unachievable ideal.

IR,

I feel you on that. No more letting good soldiers die because we have too much pride to admit that we cannot achieve our objective.

I could not agree with you more about that - and I do feel that has happened alot in our nation's history.

We've got to learn to fight smarter and not just harder.

Jump down to C.A."s post he's a whole lot clearer on where I'm trying to get to.

IR,

Thank you for your follow up. It was greatly appreciated. Keep on writing I enjoy reading your thoughts.

Yours in Service,

Navy

Eric,

I am a Christian who believes in your right not to have any belief, but I have a problem with you dissing others whose belief differs from you.

I am a moderate Democrat who prays for the President, the country and ALL our lawmakers, because their decision or lack of decision affects me.

Christians are not saints but people with flaws. Freewill allows everyone to make choices that benefits them. I respect yours, you respects mine.

Eric,

Seeing as Obama is a Christian, does that mean you consider him "the most immoral and irresponsible of all"? Or does that only apply to the Right?

I thought the pullout was dependent upon conditions.

I did not agree with the escalation and don't support the current policy, but I do see why an arbitrary deadline is a bad idea.

Agreed, Alan-

Imagine FDR announcing that he would pull out of Europe and the Pacific in July, 1944.

This is nearly as absurd as that.

President Obama should pull out now if the goals he's set in Afghanistan aren't going to be achieved by his arbitrary deadline, and he intends to pull out when the deadline passes anyway.

The President needs to decide which is more important...his goals in Afghanistan, or his deadline.

I have read that there are VAST mineral deposits in Afghanistan and there are some in the investment community here that are looking to take ownership or control of those deposits. From what I have read and seen with this action in Afghanistan, I do NOT see a 'clean' break from what is going on there. The majority of the troops MAY be leaving in 2011, but there will still be a military presence there. Of course my opinions are just those - opinions, as I have no intelligence to back up anything that I am saying.

Nicely done, CA. Coherent, comprehensive, and above all objective. Pietro added a good point, as well, as these mineral deposits are likely to be a complicating factor, especially as General Petraeus appears to have said recently that there now may be NO Al Qaeda left in Afghanistan. Whatever need for stability we think prompts us to stay there will only be re-inforced by the desire to control those minerals, and above all, the need -- at least perceived -- not to let them fall into unfriendly hands.

Pietro and Anna Molly:

I understand the need for a potential change of strategy regarding the possibility of maintaining a military presence in Afghanistan as a result of the recent minerals discovered there. But two thoughts come to mind. The minerals belong to the Afghan people, and I'm not so sure I would agree that one more American life is worth the protection of these minerals. On the otherhand I might be persuaded to stick around the area to protect these minerals from falling into t h wrong hands, but only if we stand down from attempting to provide security for the entire country and wasting millions upon millions to nation build in Afghanistan, and to establish one or two highly secured military bases somewhere near these minerals but away from populated areas for the sole purpose of protecting these rights for the Afgahn people.

Grimey you have no idea how much your voice of reason is missed! ;0)

Thanks for the update on what you saw from above - we may not like the news but it needs to be said!

Now run along & enjoy your time with the wife & kidlets!

Welcome back, Frank Grimey Grimes. We've missed that reasonable GOP voice and we certainly need it.

Agree on solving any problems but have one thought--maybe the problem that exists is actually between McChrystal and his direct bosses rather than the WH. The President relies on Gates, Mullen, Patreus and others to do the job; they report progress or problems to Obama. Or at least that's my concept of the power structure.

Jody...thanks. Good to be back in hot, sunny Florida.

Yeah...I agree with you...somewhere along the line there is a problem. It may be a problem between McChrystal and his superiors or it may be between McChrystal and the political operatives in the White House. Either way, it would be good to find out what caused him to feel the need to violate chain of command and air his problems to the press. If I have a problem with my boss' boss, I go to my boss, or maybe even go directly to his boss, but I certainly don't go to a newspaper to say what's wrong.

nojoe,

I am so happy that you have found fulfilling work pointing out things that you feel the Obama Administration is not doing well.

The world is a better place because of your tireless efforts to highlight the shortcomings of this Administration..

I mean, without your tireless efforts to undercut your President and point out deficiencies real and imagined, I am sure our country would grind to a halt.

Thank you for being a dark storm cloud in an already foggy world.

The OHMSETT facility has been shut down since May while they conduct repairs to the basin.

How in the world does this reflect on the federal government's response to the current oil spill?

Like at all?

Repairs to the basin? So, nj, if your bucket has a great big hole in it could you effectively use it to carry water? You may want to repair it first. I really don't see how this has anything to do with the president. Nor does it have anything to do with the removal of regulations on the oil industry by the Bush administration which led up to the disaster in the gulf. Nor, at the very least, does this have anything to do with BP being absolutely unreasonable in their greedy cost/time cutting decision at the particular well that killed 11 people and spawned the current gusher.

Nashville_fan

Love your comment !!!

And everything she posts is so very factual that we just can’t ignore any of it.

Michael-go back and read my post.

On June 9 of this year, Ken Salazar testified before a Senate committee, praising the important work being done at OHMSETT which would help with the spill. At almost the same time, Sharon Buffington, chief of engineering and research at MMS, was testifying before a House committee, also extolling the work being done at OHMSETT.

They either did not know, or deliberately withheld, the information that it was shut down.

Calling them incompetent is giving them the benefit of the doubt. If you chose to believe that it was willful-well, you're the democrat, not I.

You got my vote Nash!

Thanks for the kind words Dennis and Feisty . . . but really all praise should go to no joe . . . she makes it all possible! :o)

But it really was a brilliant response, Nash.

That's tantamount to saying that John Chang, the chief of R&D, a company that makes lithium-ion battery separators down here in Charlotte is lying when he says that 'Celgard is doing important research' if he happens to say it during one of those periods of time that the plant is undergoing a scheduled shutdown for maintenance.

OHMSETT's work is continuing. They just aren't actively doing any testing right now because they are conducting scheduled repairs to the basin. They were testing booms up until May 15th or so, then they started to drain the basin.

Everything that Salazar said is accurate. This facility is vitally important in the development of oil spill technology. However, this facility being operational or shut down at the current time is irrelevant to whatever happens regarding the current oil spill. OHMSETT's impact, just like the impact of any facility that is essentially R&D, is futuristic in scope.

You might have had a point if there was some government owned facility somewhere that was producing boom and it was shut down without the knowledge of the administration right now. You might even have a point if there was some company producing Costner's oil separation machine shut down right now and the administration didn't know about it, although I imagine every one of those machines probably takes a few weeks or months to build, so it being up and operational RIGHT NOW is also probably extraneous.

Shutting down and starting up any facility takes a lot more time than you might think. Shutting down CELGARD's production facility for expansion or repair usually took upwards of about 2 weeks from start to finish. Bringing the facility back online usually took about 2 weeks before quality material was being produced again.

Deepwater Horizon exploded on April 20th. OHMSETT was operational until May 15th. I suppose there was enough time in the intervening period for them to have pushed OHMSETT's repair schedule back if there was anything really pressing for them to do, but unless there was some really pressing research that would impact this current spill for them to do, I really don't see what the sense of pushing back repairs to the basin would have been.

No Joe ~ the sky is brown from wherever we sit, but Obama didn't paint it. Only BP did that.

Spin it though you will, Michael, the fact remains that in response to Salazar's testimony, the DEMOCRATIC senator Menendez sought to tour the facility, and was astonished to find that it had been shut down.

If this were as benign as you make it seem, neither Salazar nor Buffington would have omitted the shut down from their testimony. They either did not know, or deliberately withheld the information from the committees.

You choose-are they idiots, or weasels?

They are neither. Both knew that the facility existed in the abstract. Both knew the type of work that it did and the impact of the work in developing technologies to combat oil spills. However, just like a local legislator here in Charlotte would probably be 'astonished' to learn that CELGARD has been shut down for maintenance in the event that he or she tried to tour the plan during the wrong time on the schedule, I really wouldn't expect him or her to intimately know the scheduling details of a facility with which he or she has no daily practical experience.

OHMSETT IS working on developing oil spill technologies. They are NOT actively conducting tests at the current time. At this very moment, an engineer at the OHMSETT facility is at his desk preparing the operating conditions and hypothesis for the test he intends to run in September when the facility is brought back online.

You might have a point if OHMSETT was closed down for ALL TIME and Salazar and Menendez had no idea. But if work IS continuing and they ARE expecting to bring the facility back online in September and the work they are DOING is important, then all you are arguing is 100% semantics and you are LOOKING for things to complain about.

You occasionally bring up legitimate points. This is not one of them. Concentrate on the stuff that matters.

Real issues.

Fake issues.

Learn the difference.

Michael-this is not a battery factory. There is currently no crisis that might be mitigated with more research to build better batteries.

This is the one and only facility that simulates the ocean, and was created specifically for research into mitigating oil spills. To shut it down for maintenence during a crisis like this is bureaucracy at its best.

I engaged with you because I thought that you had missed the point of my post. I see now that you are merely trying to use hyperbole in order to, once again, excuse the incompetence of the Obama administration. So be it.

I will end with this-there is no point in having a discussion with someone who does not understand the difference between the energizer bunny and an oil spill.

No Jo says, "Blah blah blah...Irrelevent blah blah blah....Drivel blah blah...hate spewing yadda yadda...Blah blah...ni66er in the white house blah blah blah...drivel blah blah hatred.."

Posts like yours, nj, really betray a true hatred and contempt which takes away any substance to any of your other posts...even the ones that have good points in them.

NJNB,

Perhaps you need to research the meaning of the word RESEARCH. There is nothing currently known or in the pipeline that can stop the leak as it sits a mile below the surface of the ocean. BP lied and said that they ALREADY HAD the technology to address any disaster and the tools that Bush/Cheney installed at MMS believed the lies. As a result, the toxic spewage continues unabated and you are busy attempting to make this Obama's problem.

Face it NJNB, there is NOTHING that can stop this leak at this point short of the relief wells and THEY are speculative at best. The point of your post is another futile attempt to characterize ANYTHING you can find, no matter how trivial, in your desperate attempt to shed the light away from where it needs to be.

OHMSETT is doing RESEARCH. Their processes are not yet tested or ready for production. You people are amazing. Instead of supporting the President's efforts to gather the best minds and all resources, you are looking to exculpate those that caused the problem. If the research at OHMSETT was even remotely close to being a proven production ready technology, then MAYBE you have a point. Since they are not ready for prime time, your post is, like usual, totally useless and amounts to nothing but more bloviating from the already-debunked echo chamber.

What I do not understand is why you all insist on living here in America when you all clearly would be happier in a country like Russia where the truth is never uttered and history is literally re-written every day to support the thoughts and perspectives of those in power.

Again, your contention assumes that if OHMSETT was not shut down for basin repair, there would be something happening during the summer that would mitigate the current spill. So let's look at what OHMSETT's schedule of activities for the fall is:

8/21 - after completion of the basin repair, they are to set up the facility for coast guard training.

8/23-8/27 - A week of training coast guard personnel for oil spills.

I would assume that if there'd been no downtime for repair, this training would have been scheduled for late May. It probably would have been cancelled, since I imagine all coast guard personnel trained to handle oil spills would have been in the Gulf or on their way to the Gulf. They might have started training new personnel, but I seriously doubt any of those greenhorns would have been much use during the current disaster.

8/30 - They derig after the training. There is nothing scheduled for the remainder of the week.

9/7 - After Labor Day, they spend a week doing calibrations and tank maintenance.

9/11 - They set up for more coast guard testing.

9/13-9/29 - They spend the remainder of the month doing more coast guard training.

9/30-10/1 - They derig after the coast guard training.

10/4-10/8 - They perform a Tidal Energy Converter Test

So here we are, about 50 days after the startup after the basin repair. If there had been no basin repair, we would be at about what? June 10th or so? Roughly 3 weeks ago. So basically, what would have occurred if the facility had never have shut down that would have mitigated this disaster at all? We would have a few more coast guard guys with some training in how to handle oil spills and we would have a completed Tidal Energy Converter test.

Advances in knowledge do not occur in a matter of days. Advances in technology do not happen in 2 months. Advances in technology require years of development, followed by years of testing. It happens on a timetable. OHMSETT is not the Manhattan Project. There is nothing they could have done since May 15 that would have impacted this disaster AT ALL.

What OHMSETT is doing now is presumably going to impact the disaster that will occur in about 2015 or 2020.

The time for urgency is not when the disaster happens. The time for urgency is long before the disaster occurs so you can be PREPARED for it. That is what the right wing never gets. They presume that we can be reactive to every circumstance and that we can instantly develop a solution at the drop of a hat. That isn't the case.

The end result of this spill was set in stone the moment the rig blew up because we did NOT have the sense of urgency you are complaining we don't have right now back in 2000-2005. If we'd had that sense of urgency THEN, we could be solving this spill NOW. But since we didn't, the best we can do is try to solve the NEXT one.

And mocking the people who seem to realize how important the work of OHMSETT is for our future is not only counterintuitive, it's actually sort of malicious given the circumstances.

Michael,

Thank you so much for your excellent post. You brought my thoughts to the forefront in a way I could not have. You are spot on and the wing nuts will, no doubt, have a few choice words for you. You know how it is when they are confronted with facts that did not originate in the echo chamber? They will immediately devolve into hyperbole and then the epithets will fly.

nj nb nj

You really need to take a deep breathe, maybe get a cleansing ritual with feathers and sage, get a good massage (or something else) and lighten up!

I might also suggest a little of that for Eric, Salinas, however I DO SO LOVE his use of adjectives.

This gets my vote. Dump Chris M. also. Maybe Larry O will be an improvement. I have seen him a few times as a fill in and I kinda like his style - i think it is called journalism.

US Navy, it won't be long for MSNBC to pull the plug on Chris Matthews for his ratings if he doesn't quit trying to be like glen Beck.

Gossip queen Savannah, very accurate description. She detracts from a very informative news show.

David S. and Larry O. need to be activated.

Chris Matthews I believe wants a job at Fox and Freaks. Although his show last night was pretty good. I no longer even turn on anything but MSNBC in the evening. With Ed, Keith and Rachel. I used to watch some Fox and Freaks, but it just literally makes me sick. I don't know what happened with Matthews and Olbermann this past week, but it really was pitiful. All this President needs is more idiots frothing at the mouth. You don't have to like the President, but you should support whoever is President, and you should at least be able to refer to him as the President, something Chrissie does not ever do, nor Chuck Todd. And god help us with Mika and Joe. I don't know what I'm going to watch soon.

Now, since you wrote that, I had to run to another website to check. Nope, I don't think so!

McChrystal always struck me as little eccentric. Not a trait I would have associated with a General, but what do I know about the military?

I can't believe his aides OK'ed talking to the Rolling Stone. The Rolling Stone! That's like embedding a National Enquirer reporter with the Britany Spears tour.