E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS"President Obama yesterday replaced General Stanley A. McChrystal following the four-star general’s disparaging remarks about the White House leadership. The president turned to General David H. Petraeus, architect of the Iraq war turnaround, to take over the US and NATO command in Afghanistan," the Boston Globe says.
The New York Times gives the behind-the-scenes recap of the McChrystal firing, including that the president consulted with Colin Powell. "Mr. Obama, aides say, consulted with advisers -- some, like Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who warned of the dangers of replacing General McChrystal, others, like his political advisers, who thought he had to go. He reached out for advice to a soldier-statesman, Colin L. Powell. He identified a possible successor to lead the war in Afghanistan. And then, finally, the president ended General McChrystal’s command in a meeting that lasted only 20 minutes. According to one aide, the general apologized, offered his resignation and did not lobby for his job. After a seesaw debate among White House officials, 'there was a basic meeting of the minds,' said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff and a major player in the deliberations. 'This was not good for the mission, the military and morale,' Mr. Emanuel said."
The AP notes Petraeus' prior health issues in a largely glowing article about his leadership style. "The post will mean another long stint overseas for a man who had three tours in Iraq. His return to the U.S. did not mean much more time with his wife, Holly, in Tampa, however. He spent more than 300 days on the road last year, even as he battled prostate cancer. He was later declared free of the disease after a course of chemotherapy."
The New York Daily News: "President Obama put a new face on America's longest war Wednesday, but the chances of victory in Afghanistan are grimmer than the odds Gen. David Petraeus faced in Iraq."
The Daily News' McAuliffe: "The explosion that flattened Gen. Stanley McChrystal began quietly enough Monday, with a subscriber to Rolling Stone magazine downloading a pdf from the latest issue a little before 5 p.m. That subscriber happened to work in the White House… "The awareness of the article and its explosive discussions spread quickly through the White House, with senior officials such as David Axelrod, Ben Rhodes, and Denis McDonough holding hasty discussions, and Rahm Emanuel and National Security Council Chief of Staff Denis McDonough being called back to work. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was the one to break the news to President Obama, a little before 8 p.m. Officials said Obama only needed to read a few paragraphs of the of-the-reservation opus before his anger was readily apparent to the press secretary, and Obama quickly called for a broader meeting in the Oval Office. It soon became apparent that the off-script Ranger may have to go, even though the President wanted to look McChrystal in the eye and talk over his published blunder before making a final decision to give him the boot, officials said."
The AP looks at Obama's words in firing McChrystal vs. Truman's words in firing Douglas MacArthur.
Leave a Comment:
I think that Obama showed class, leadership, and resolve in his handling of this matter. Of course, those of the Tea Party or Republican persuasion will have to jump in and search for something that can be manipulated and twisted to somehow show that the President does not have a clue. In the meantime, McLame, Graham Cracker, et. al. are on board praising the President's actions and decisions.
Will RushBall and Glenda now offer THEIR tacit support of the President or are McLame and company or will they need to walk back from the statements of support offered publicly?
Unfortunately, there will also be the MSM that will cast doubt on anything the President does as well. Ratings are more important than moments, history, lives and livelihood.
Sad but true Louis. The media is no longer about news or keeping America informed or facilitating an open and honest debate on the issues. It is all about ratings and entertainment and how much money can we make by sitting a vacuous (yet sexy and attractive) blonde in the anchor chair and letting the mindless cretins that are incapable of independent thought drool over them.
The media is no longer interested in exploring the issues or investigating anything. That takes too much effort, takes too much money, and if they did that, they might actually educate the American Public into just how big a part of the problem mega media is. When mega media is nothing more than the BP of the airwaves, do you really believe they would allow a reporter to investigate just how corrupt and influential they are in forming public opinion and maintaining those in power?
Wake up America. We should be "mad as hell and not willing to take it any longer!"
I've also had it with the media pundits who weigh in on every issue, regardless of their lack of expertise in the field - people who have never served in the military, never worked on an oil rig, never managed a bigger staff than the family pets, telling us what Obama shoulda done, what he shoulda said, how he shoulda emoted differently, and on and on...geez, if I needed an uninformed opinion, I'd just ask myself.
Amy:
You can make the same judgement about Obama as far as experience. He is getting OJT. Some of those pundits may not be experts but they know just as much as he does on certain issues. I have no problem with you guys liking Obama but damn sometimes (not directed at you in particular) it is taken overboard with the worship. Some love the man's dirty drawers and will swear his sh!t don't stink.
He is a MAN and POLITICIAN, he is no the savior'.
This is why there have been very minimal Senators holding the office. They are orators and all they do is talk in the Senate. When it comes to governing it is a whole different ballgame. The country is just about 50-50, so when you go into it half of the country is already against anything you propose.
There is maybe 2% of the population that is truly independent. Most people that say they are independent, you can blow right through that smoke screen with just a 2 minute conversation. They have their mind made up just like the rest of us.
People in this room in particular throw the word "UNinformed" around a lot. That is code word for you don't agree with me so your stupid, ignorant, ill-informed, biggot, racist, teabagger, Limphead, etc.
Now what did that achieve? Nothing.......they will still vote the same way....no one is convincing anyone to move to the other side.
This is a fact of life and it will be this way at least for the rest of our lives.
ITM,
I will ignore the portion of your post as far as Senators being able to govern and all. I will also leave you to your appreciation of the President's "dirty drawers". I do not share your fascination with this issues.
On the other hand, you have raised an excellent point I am not sure you realize is rather ironic coming from someone that has posted some of the things I have seen you post here. You state that "People in this room in particular throw the word "UNinformed" around a lot. That is code word for you don't agree with me so your stupid, ignorant, ill-informed, biggot, racist, teabagger, Limphead, etc." and "Now what did that achieve? Nothing.......they will still vote the same way....no one is convincing anyone to move to the other side." I have to take a little bit of issue with this. Yes, I will be the first to state that I have indeed engaged in some of these descriptors or made somewhat disparaging remarks. I start from a position of mutual respect and, as long as that is maintained on BOTH sides, the conversation remains civil and not confrontational (at least on a personal level). When the other side lowers itself to the gutter, I have no problem lowering the discussion to the level they choose to engage me at.
Now, let's address your statement that "no one is convincing anyone to move to the other side." Why do you think that is ITM? Do you think that it is possible that, when confronted with a valid argument and supporting facts that are not what they believe, that there are those that shut out anything further and simply resort to the ad-hominem attacks that are so common here? Do you think that, if these people spewing these hateful words and positions were willing and able to intelligently and cogently make their argument, provide supportive documentation, and be willing to actually listen to the other side and allow for a reasoned debate, that we would not be able to change some opinions and get at least a few to "move to the other side?"
When one side of every argument prefers to listen to only one side of the argument, will not tolerate or stomach listening to opposing opinions or justifications, resorts to lies, attacks, and manipulations of facts, how do you expect to move forward in anything resembling a positive manner.
Regarding your conclusion, I vehemently disagree. It is not a fact of life (and was not for the ENTIRE history of this great nation) but for the last 20-30 years as the partisanship of DC has become prevalent and deeply rooted. It does not and SHOULD not be this way for the rest of our lives. If we simply wake up from the contented slumber of the last couple of decades and see the peril if we continue on such bitterly divided paths, there is little hope for America. If, on the other hand, we can pull together (as we have historically ALWAYS managed to do), set aside our more petty differences, agree to disagree where needed, and most importantly, work to find COMMON GROUND that we can ALL benefit from, and get back to governing this country in a less hostile manner to each other and continue to move America forward.
"People in this room in particular throw the word "UNinformed" around a lot."
I was speaking of myself as uninformed Mr. Middle. And by pundits I mean the Peggy Noonans, the George Wills, the David Brooks, the Kathleen Parkers. Those people who are inexperienced in running anything, but get paid to blather on and on.
It seems to me its the conservatives who think Obama has God-like powers. I never expected magic from this guy, just that he be one of the smartest ones in the room, ethical, hardworking and not a drunk. (You know women, we are pretty realistic.)
Amy:
If you don't like what they say, don't watch. I don't watch MSNBC except for Lock-Up. I do not care to hear what Shultz, Matthews, Olbermann or Maddow has to say. I don't watch Fox either. I know what each and every one of them are going to say about any issue.
Conservatives are not running around saying how brilliant Obama is, How oh so smart he is, how he is the greatest POTUS ever, how he saved us all, so I don't know what Conservatives you are around.
You saying Bush is a drunk is like saying Obama is a pot-head. They both did things when they were younger. Just like you, I bet you have some skeletons too. (You know men, we call it like we see it)
In the middle,
I agree some people are too partisan in here but I wonder what an independent's core values are. With the two parties so different in their ideas concerning social programs, taxes, role of government, environmental issues, health care, civil liberties etc.
If a person is independent to look at each candidate's postions and ideas before they vote rather than voting the party line, then I guess thats good. After all the democratic party doesn't have every solution or are they right on every issue. Neither do I fawn over Obama. His track record from this progressive's point of view has been dismal. He is too willing to concede what is correct to the right.
By the way all of you saying that Obama's policies have not fixed the unemployment problem in his sixteen months in office. The so called great Ron Reagan had over 10% unemployment through most of his first two to three terms in office. Despite the fact that he cut government spending and gave out tax credits. I know you will blame Carter right. That's your right. But not even Reagan could turn around unemployment in his first years in office. In addition, Reagan wasn't involved in an illegal war in Iraq, a failing war in Afganistan and trying to deal with a evil corporation that caussed the largest US oil spill in history either.
On another point all of you saying that Obama is planning amnesty as an answer for immigration, I guess he should ask Ronnie how to do it.
Progressives chins up, Give Obama time, hopefully he will improve.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande06.html
President Obama acted correctly in the McChrystal situation and selected the best possible successor to take over the war effort in Afghanistan.
It's somewhat ironic that President Obama, too, has turned to General David Petraeus to save the day, and he'll have a wide latitude and the best chance of getting the job done.
Those who are unhappy with Iraq now have forgotten what it was like when Petraeus arrived on scene...and then-Senator Barack Obama was one of the harshest critics of the Iraq surge.
Nice to see Obama and Petraeus finally , completely, on the same page.
Good luck, Mr. President.
I was also satisfied with the President's actions. Cheney can't claim Obama "dithered" over sacking McChrystal, that's for sure.
President Obama showed deft and swift leadership as he turned what could have been a bad news cycle about General BetrayUs McChrystal's disgusting lack of discipline. His picking of General Petraeus and trotting him out as he announced the sacking of General BetrayUs McChrystal was sheer political genius as he was able to deflect any criticism about there being a hole in the chain of command in Afghanistan and avoided the LameStream Media's excessive guessing about who he would pick. Besides Petraeus is very polpular with the repugnant ones so he preempted their whining with this sage choice.
President Obama did the right thing firing the General Disarray and getting someone in Afghanistan who will spend more time trying to win the war than coming up with disses against Obama and the White House. It's bad enough to hear Corrupt Karzai whining constantly against our help, just goes too far when our own generals are moaning about things there. No we've already lost our chance to stabilize Afghanistan and as long as Corrupt Karzai is the president of Afghanistan we will never prevail. Blame War Criminals Bush and Cheney for losing Afghanistan when they took their eye off the real Central Front in the war against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and decided to start their phony war to steal Iraqi oil.
Eric,
You realize that the "General Betray Us" label was the Democrat's label for General Petraeus when he was originally assigned to Iraq right? Having said that, for a change, I agree with your first paragraph in the firing of General McChrystal. President Obama had absolutely no choice, he had to fire McChrystal, and Petraeus is a very good choice as a replacement.
"General Petraus, Betray Don't Us" for a slogan from MoveOn.org. It was a ham handed attempt to get Petraus to tell Bush "No." MoveOn lost my membership over that slogan, and I am a life long Democrat.
You guys sure seem to have a lot of money to jack off. Liberals talk of rich Republicans. The way some of you throw your money away on political BS, I would think most of you are not hurting.
ITM, I think it is time for your nap. That 'money' comment made no sense.
A couple of observations:
1. There definitely is a cultural disconnect between the Military and civilian leadership, but it would be wrong to assume this is because "liberals don't like to fight" or "Pres. Obama never served in the military previously." The Military had a similar (mocking) attitude toward chicken-hawks like Rummy, Cheney and Wolfie. They've always griped about "people who don't know what they're talking about making decisions in the rear that get combat soldiers killed."
Gen. McChrystal and many of his staffers were special ops "snake-eaters", and there's something refreshing about being independent, ass in the grass", "take the fight to the enemy" dudes. Part of that culture includes towel-snapping comments like "VP Bite Me" or "French soldiers are all 'gay'." But while "being badass" is a necessary attribute among a warrior society; and the military, for obvious reasons, deserves a seat at the table, this doesn't necessarily mean that our military leaders are equipped to make wise, mature policy decisions that influence nations.
2. What's missing in our Afgh/Pak policy is that, in order to get all stakeholders - including our allies, Congress, US population and Afghan/Paki governments/people - to buy into our program, we need to (a) visualize what things will be like when we're successful and (b) offer them reasonable expectation that - if they support us, good things will happen.
Without this, we will continue to chase our tail. The change in leadership does offer the Obama administration the opportunity to quietly and subtly reshape our policy over there.
Jeff,
You said some things that make sense. Most in the civilian community do not understand the military culture. I was in Special Ops for 17yrs and yes there is a bit of chest thumping that goes on but Special Ops ass is on the line constantly.
I consider a lot of people that frequent this room (REMF's). Rear echelon MF in the fact they all want to throw their so-called informed intellectual often never debated opinion out there; and everyone else is suppose to accept it just because it was written by an English teacher; or written as if everyone is trying out for the high school debate team.
The problem with the Middle East is that those people hated us before Bush and will hate us long after Obama no matter what anyone does. I don't have a problem with getting the hell out of there. I have a problem with the politicization of it from both sides. Point is those people will never take stake in their own country as long as we are pouring money in there. This is what they like about America (The Dollar Bill).
You say offer them reasonable expectations from America? Those countries will never trust us; they see all of the fighting that goes on in America and they know half of the country is going to go against whatever support is promised. With a new POTUS from a different party all it does is switch the no's to yes and yes to no; just a different side of the same coin.
while reading a review on the latest "tocqueville" book, i came across this sentence which i think applies also to our much maligned, much criticized president: There could be no better description of Aristotle's "megalopsychos" (the man of practical wisdom, following the middle path through situations of moral dilemma)"
once again, with our president fighting wars on many fronts - from iraq and afghanistan to our economy and environment - the question must be asked: when for true patriots do we stop criticizing and get behind this constitutionally elected president? for truly, whether you voted for him or not, whether you like him or not, if he fails, we all fail!
... and we should all prance around in the meadow tossing pixie dust around.
No, actually, if this man's policies fail, then America succeeds. His policies are dangerous. Since when does your future hinge on one man?
What a low class PUNK !! He needed to go long ago !
... meanwhile, 2000 miles away in Chicago, Obama knew of Blago's plan to trade his Seat for a Cabinet position,
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/2427402,CST-NWS-BLAGO24.article
And obviously, MSNBC is NO PLACE to hear about the "sexploits" of Al Gore,
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0624101gore1.html
Strange how Keith likes to spend days on end discussing any Republican sex scandal yet he is MIA on the Al Gore sex scandal. Actually the whole network is. (And it's disturbing how much glee Keith takes from sex scandals. Makes me wonder what Keith does in his off-time.)
Actually, MSNBC as a network, is in complete denial of many of the political realities going on right now. The Tea Parties are dismissed as a joke. Yes, right now there is lots of flux within the movement. Yet, it will take one or two leaders to grasp what is going on within the movement, harness it, and give it credibility. After experimenting with "compassionate conservativism" since 1997, my hope is that the Tea Party will help usher in a new libertarian and classically liberal wave over the GOP. There has historically been a "libertarian wing" of the Republican Party; hopefully the Tea Party will water it, fertilize it and cultivate it to yield vibrant fruit.
When I watch MSNBC at night I can't help but become overcome with the feeling that MSNBC has their collective (thought you would like that word) hands covering their ears yelling, "la la la la la la!". And their audience does not like hearing bad news, so MSNBC collectively feeds them what they "want to hear". I love it!
I'm heartened by the fact that, in this potential crisis, our elected leaders demonsrated their understanding that there are instances when there is no place or time for partisanship.
Oh Rob...
Do you really not understand the reason why right wing politicians are slammed for their sexual escapades yet the Democrats get a free pass? Democrats don't run for office telling others how to live their lives.Democrats don't campaign on a platform of Family Values.
It's not the act itself that maintains the attention, it is the hypocrisy of the actor. If you vote against Gay Rights because of your morals and then get caught having an homosexual affair, people will pay more attention to it than they will the antics of a supposed actions of a former VP - otherwise known as a private citizen.
Quit allowing fox to do your thinking for you.
Don't prejudge me. I don't watch Fox. I watch MSNBC after work (to see what the other side thinks) and CNN. At least until I get fed up and tired of it, and turn on Discovery. I also read. I do not listen to Rush as much anymore, but he has said in the past that he is conservative from the hip up.
And don't feel holier-than-thou. There is planty of hypocrisy on the other side as well. Such as taking money from oil companies. Of course, you wouldn't know about that from watching MSNBC.
"otherwise known as a private citizen". Ahh, so do you condone attacks on "Joe the Plumber", or Rush, or Glenn Beck? Or even citiizens attending Tea Party rally's? Private citizens.
Rick,
Democrats don't tell others how to live their lives? What about Obama Care? Cap and Trade? Amnesty for law breakers? Need I say more?
If Rahm Israel Emanuel said there was "a meeting of the minds" in the Obama Administration, then why did it take 20 minutes? Combining all of their minds I would guess it should not have taken more than one or two minutes.