Obama Angry at Gen. McChrystal

#26
#26
volinbham said:
Fire him? He's BO's handpicked choice. He replaced the previous guy with McChrystal. The Washington Post piece showed the administration taking shots at McChrystal.

The upshot is that Team Obama is not one the same page internally or with it's primary commander in the field.

Regardless of being pro or anti-Obama; you have to agree that him simply doesn't appear to place a high priority on Afghanistan despite all his high-minded talk about it's importance.
Click to expand...

Obama is finding it more difficult to vote "present" from his current chair.
 
#27
#27
BigPapaVol said:
Bull shiz. Wrong or no, he clearly had a reason for doing something that he damn well knew was beyond his pay grade. He made a decision that the troops are more important than his position and sacrificed his career, a very distinguished one at that, for it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

how dare you challenge the all knowing LG....he has YEARS of military experience....what the heck do you have
 
#28
#28
TennTradition said:
I heard the point made by one of the Sunday morning panel commentators, but I can't remember which. Although, I think that he may have suggested that he learned this from (now, get ready for the "surprise"...) General James Jones.
Click to expand...
shocking
 
#30
#30
lawgator1 said:
Even if all of that were true (which it isn't), that does not justify the general stepping out of line like that.

I say fire him.

If he doesn't do that, now, he will find others politicizing the military as they see fit down the line. Got to nip this in the bud.
Click to expand...

What part isn't true? Just curious to what I missed
 
#37
#37
I'll have to dig up the Washington Post article but a senior WH official on condition of annoymity made comments that some of the assumptions made by McChrystal (that the source likened to "myths about the situation" were debunked).

I understand that the general shouldn't be speaking publicly but in turn, the WH shouldn't be taking shots at the general publicly either - especially likening his assumption to near myth-like.

The whole thing reeks.
 
Last edited:
#38
#38
volinbham said:
I'll have to dig up the Washington Post article but a senior WH official on condition of annoymity made comments that some of the assumptions made by McChrystal (that the source likened to "myths about the situation" were debunked).

I understand that the general shouldn't be speaking publicly but in turn, the WH shouldn't be taking shots at the general publicly either - especially likening his assumption to near myth-like.

The whole thing reeks.
Click to expand...

it's politics
 
#40
#40
volinbham said:
I'll have to dig up the Washington Post article but a senior WH official on condition of annoymity made comments that some of the assumptions made by McChrystal (that the source likened to "myths about the situation" were debunked).

I understand that the general shouldn't be speaking publicly but in turn, the WH shouldn't be taking shots at the general publicly either - especially likening his assumption to near myth-like.

The whole thing reeks.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but it sounds to me as if the decision has already been made. It appears that Obama does not want to put more boots on the ground. Right or wrong it appears to me that he doesn't see the need to fight it out in Afghanistan. We know with relative certainty that Bin Laden is in Pakistan but we cannot touch him there. The locals governments do not want to cooperate. The big question is does having military power next door give us leverage in Pakistan? I believe it does.

Obama has had this recommendation for some time, plenty of time to develop a strategy. He is either planning a radical change or he is stretching this out to lessen the backlash he might get from the doves.
 
#42
#42
At least the General is making a stand for the men and women who are putting their lives on the line over there so the terrorists can't regroup and attack us over here. That's one of the biggest reasons we are over there. All that Obama wants to do is play partisan politics, which makes him no better than any other president in the past 20 years. Where is this big change that he promised?? The transparency?? The libs just need to STFU and go ahead to do what they are going to do and see where it takes them. It's like pouring gasoline on a fire while you are standing 3 feet from it, and then realizing 5 minutes later that it wasn't a good idea.
 
#44
#44
g8terh8ter_eric said:
It's like pouring gasoline on a fire while you are standing 3 feet from it, and then realizing 5 minutes later that it wasn't a good idea.
Click to expand...

lol!! been there. back in middle school, me and a buddy were burning leaves on the curb in front of his house. they weren't burning like we expected them to so we doused them with gas and the fire leaped from the leaves up to the hose on the gas can. nearly caught his house on fire. not good times.
 
#45
#45
kev20 said:
lol!! been there. back in middle school, me and a buddy were burning leaves on the curb in front of his house. they weren't burning like we expected them to so we doused them with gas and the fire leaped from the leaves up to the hose on the gas can. nearly caught his house on fire. not good times.
Click to expand...

It gets to the can faster than you can ever imagine...
 
#46
#46
volinbham said:
It gets to the can faster than you can ever imagine...
Click to expand...

Ha. Couldn't get some wet pallets to light at a bonfire party in high school, so we soaked them down with gas. I promise the ignition happened while the match was in mid-air getting tossed onto the pile. It was like a mini-explosion.
 
#47
#47
Vol Mania 21 said:
any takers?
Click to expand...

onion_news494.article.jpg


Clinton Declares Self President For Life | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top