Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

HarryCarysGhost (99.70)

Fly on the wall at the Obama McChystal meeting

Recs

17

June 24, 2010 – Comments (8) | RELATED TICKERS: BA , LMT , GE

Obama: " Dude, what were you thinking, you totally made me out to be a total d-bag? And in Rolling Stones of all places, I'm totally going to lose the stoner crowd."

McChrystal: "Son, my existence,while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it."

and the fly flew off...

8 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 24, 2010 at 11:21 PM, simplemts (< 20) wrote:

I do the same for my company, make my boss millions of dollars while collecting under $100k.  I'm still smart enough not to say anything bad enough about her that she would EVER hear because I too, would be fired.  Very, very stupid move by McChrystal.

Report this comment
#2) On June 25, 2010 at 2:06 AM, ralphmachio (24.78) wrote:

The real question, funny nobody is asking, is what would make a man who has gone through the ranks try and scuttle his own career? Was he trying to accomplish something? Did he feel like it was worth a try, despite knowing the result? Is anyone really stupid enough to assume a guy that could make general would not know he would be fired? You think it was a surprise? The question is what is going on over there that would make a career military man, a general no less, question his commander in chief. Logically, he must have had a reason.  

Report this comment
#3) On June 25, 2010 at 7:11 AM, cthomas1017 (95.59) wrote:

The strange thing is that, to the best of my knowledge, the guys that said most of the stuff that was in the article didn't get canned.  There's little hiding the disdain that Obama has for the military leadership.  What's even more strange to a superficial observer is how O could promote a man that he has openly ridiculed and demeaned in the past, General Petraeus.

But when one understands that O is mostly about appearance to the public and Chicago-bred politics in private, the entire scenario makes all the sense in the world.

Report this comment
#4) On June 25, 2010 at 8:39 AM, russiangambit (29.27) wrote:

> The real question, funny nobody is asking, is what would make a man who has gone through the ranks try and scuttle his own career? Was he trying to accomplish something? Did he feel like it was worth a try, despite knowing the result?

I was thinking the same and I came to a conclusion that it was just pent-up resenment.It is hard to keep it bottled-up for a long time if you see nothing changes, eventually it comes out. Normally, you would hope that whatever is disagreement get resolved through normal command channels, but if not, some people have more capacity and some less to deal with it. As a general I am pretty sure he has seen enough BS through his career and has  a thick skin. So, I am guessing his disagreements are very strong and he simply couldn't keep mum anymore even though he probably knew  that it was a wrong thing to do.

Report this comment
#5) On June 25, 2010 at 8:58 AM, A6Bogie (< 20) wrote:

One thing you have to take into account is the fact the senior officers commanding men and women in combat carry a unimaginable responsibility to do everything they can to bring all their soldiers home safe.  Anyone who thinks these leaders carelessly or callously expend the lives of our best and bravest shows themselves as ignorant and uninformed.  Also understand that the administration and Pentagon generals have placed rules of engagement (ROE) that make it nearly impossible to properly carry out military operations designed to "kill" the enemy.  As William Tecumseh Sherman said, "War is cruelty, you cannot refine it."  We have grown fat, dumb and happy and tend to forget this terrible truth.

That being said, having 26+ years of military service myself, Gen McChrystal is responsible for this mess.  He knows darn well how to control the public "message".  This seems much like a public suicide designed to bring illumination to the differences between the administration and the "fighting" military and a clumsy way to relieve himself of responsibility to carry on what he believes is a losing strategy.  The General is a warrior and a patriotic American, but handled this poorly.

Report this comment
#6) On June 25, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Melaschasm (54.71) wrote:

My guess is that McChrystal has been increasingly critical of Obama's policies and military leadership for at least several months.  Then McChrystal let his guard down when talking to a Rolling Stones reporter, who ran a few critical remarks as the main story, rather than whatever was the originally planned piece.

If this had been a deliberate decision by McChrystal, I do not think he would have apologized for the remarks and backed off his statements once they became public knowledge.  If this had been intentional, I think McChrystal would have said "I should not have said those things to a reporter, even though they are true and Obama is not doing a good job as Commander in Chief".  That is the type of statement that would have truely highlighted his disagreements with Obama, since he would have been figuratively falling upon his sword to stand up against Obama's misguided decisions (in McChrystal's opinion).

Report this comment
#7) On June 25, 2010 at 2:04 PM, djshagggyd (73.15) wrote:

Rolling Stone got lucky. All that buzz... all that publicity... all for free. Cha-ching!!

The whole situation is very interesting. 

Report this comment
#8) On June 25, 2010 at 7:47 PM, HarryCarysGhost (99.70) wrote:

Thank you all for your replys.

I tend to think that McCrystal was well aware of his actions, and the fallout from them, So yes the real question is motive.

Kind of dissapointed no one came back with "Obama can't HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!"

YouTube - A Few Good Man "You Can't Handle the Truth" 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement