E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe New York Times’ front page: President Obama will confront the fate of his top commander in Afghanistan Wednesday after a firestorm over remarks the general and members of his staff made that were contemptuous of senior administration officials. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal has prepared a letter of resignation, though President Obama had not made up his mind whether to accept it when they meet Wednesday morning.”
“Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's belittling critique of some of the Obama administration's top officials left the president with a stark choice on Tuesday: overlook comments that border on insubordination, or fire his top commander at a critical moment in Afghanistan,” the Washington Post adds.
The Boston Globe's editorial page argues against firing McChrystal: "There MAY yet be reasons for President Obama to dismiss his commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, but allowing a Rolling Stone reporter to tag along for a boozy mission to France isn’t one of them… none of this bears on his job as commander. And the civilian control of the military is in no danger, unless making doo-doo jokes about uber-envoy Richard Holbrooke is a threat to the Constitution. There’s nothing in the article that is a firing offense." But because of "his vaguely insubordinate suggestion that he couldn’t back Biden’s plan ... McChrystal is probably overdue for another dressing-down."
The AP: "Gen. Stanley McChrystal was put in charge of a drifting war in Afghanistan in part because he wasn't afraid to speak up. That quality may prove to be his downfall as President Barack Obama decides whether to fire him."
The New York Post goes nuts on its cover: "CIVIL WAR! The general vs. Obama: Oval Office showdown over insults."
The Post dubs McChrystal "Gen. Bigmouth."
The New York Daily News: "General Chaos: McBigmouth and Bam in showdown."
More Daily News: "In America, generals with runaway egos and mouths tend to become gone-away generals. ... McChrystal might even survive the latest firestorm if he could point to success in the war, but the most damning quote in the magazine article put his future in doubt. It came from a sergeant who put it to McChrystal straight up: 'Sir, some of the guys here, sir, think we're losing, sir.'"
Jon Stewart on the whole controversy: "I may be a four-star general and you may be a reporter for some hippie magazine, but I feel like I can trust you."
Should the President fire Gen. McChrystal? You can vote here. So far with almost 400 votes on the First Read poll, voters are split 54%-46%.
Leave a Comment:
To protect the military for the next Republican president, this General should be court-marshaled. I wonder if Obama has the spine to do that.
We're barely under way here today and you've hit bottom for senselessness already! Congratulations!
You mean like how President George W. Bush had "the spine" to turn over regulation of the oil industry to the oil industry?
And the regulation of the financial industry to the financial industry?
And the adminsitration of the war to private, for-profit contractors?
Yep, we need a President with "spine".
You betcha.
*winky, wink*
P.S. When is oil expert Sarah Palin going to enlighten us with the solution to cap that pipe? Do we have to pay her a speaking fee before she shares her voluminous wisdoms?
Now there is a woman with "spine".
She'g got a solution. Now, I just hope that we don't have to pay her to pray!
Auntie, the republicans come here every day being senseless, it's what they do.
Will McChrystal stay or go?... There are downsides for Obama with either scenario… - First Read
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, if we agree on nothing else, we can agree that no matter what happens, there are "downsides" for "Obama".
I mean, basically every problem that this country has been ignoring for the past 30 years are now officially "Obama's" fault.
And even though the political opposition was in power for 8 years, 6 of them with total control of the Congress and the White House . . . the current PRESIDENT (love how that word gets left out so often) is expected to have it ALL FIGURED OUT in 17 months.
Whatever.
P.S. I hope "Obama" shows General McChrystal the door. Not because of what he said but because of who he was dumb enough to say it to. The comment about "Obama" not knowing "who he was" when they first met tells me all I need to know - the good General has lost his narcissistic mind.
It depends on how mission critical General McChrystal is to the forthcoming offensive. Completing the mission and minimizing casualties are more important than a clash of egos. One way or the other, 2011 should find us with a new commander in Afghanistan.
Thoughtful analysis there, Auntie-
I'm shocked.
What you say is true, but I'm guessing McChrystal gets the axe anyway.
Although, I'm certain the President doesn't relish the prospect of having to find a replacement that he has confidence in...particularly with everything else he has on his plate at the moment.
If the President fires McChrystal, he puts in jeopardy the coming offensive in Kandahar. If the President doesn't fire McChrystal (or acccept his resignation) he puts in jeopardy the dignity of the Office of the President. On balance, I'm afraid that I go with the firing of McChrystal, the President has to have the respect of the armed forces, or (and I hesitate to go this far) you have the potential for something like Pakistan, where the military is consistently vying for power with the civil authorities. We aren't there, and I doubt that this issue would put us there, but it is yet another lose-lose situation for President Obama to deal with.
I don't see how the president can afford NOT to fire the general. It would brand the president as "spineless" indeed. If you think the president gets treated disrespectfully now by the pub's and others then wait until after he slaps McChrystal on the wrist for flaming him to the world in the RS magazine. I hope he fires him into the stone age. Afghanistan is going badly anyway. Save some face, Mr. President. Put a new general in and let him do the best he can until a year from now.
You're shocked, Bag? Would that that were true!
The President's agenda has been under fire for over 1 year and yet he has accomplished more than Bush could wish. We, the people, are aware that the President is answerable to us and we (those that are realists) believe that he has the peoples' best interests at heart.
The media can attempt to usurp President Obama's authority by dictating what it is he is supposed to do, but there are people that see through the smokescreen of them trying to do so.
Fire him! His ego has become bigger than his talent.