The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Not At My Table - Political Discussions => National & International Politics => Topic started by: guido911 on June 22, 2010, 04:24:37 PM

Title: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: guido911 on June 22, 2010, 04:24:37 PM
I am surprised no one has posted about this messy situation that is unfolding over Gen. McChrystal's Rolling Stone interview. Yowza.

Get a load of the title of this article:

http://dougpowers.com/2010/06/22/have-you-plugged/

Edited to correct a spelling error
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Conan71 on June 22, 2010, 04:28:52 PM
I heard some excerpts, they sounded pretty undisciplined over there.  Unfortunately much of what I heard was attributed to "aides" of the General.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Gaspar on June 22, 2010, 04:37:35 PM
I read the story today.  Reminds me of a modern day General Patton.

He has no use for politicians or a$$ clowns.

I'm torn.  On one hand, I think he was out of line.  On the other I can help but laugh.

Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Townsend on June 22, 2010, 04:47:25 PM
Per a CNN source, he resigned.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/22/latest-mcchrystal-developments/ (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/22/latest-mcchrystal-developments/)

Quote[Updated at 4:41 p.m.] Gen. Stanley McChrystal has submitted his resignation, Time magazine's Joe Klein told CNN, citing an unnamed source. CNN is working to confirm Klein's information

(edited to add that Obama has not accepted yet.)
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Gaspar on June 22, 2010, 04:51:40 PM
He was the Afghanistan US strategist.  No other general knows the ground or has a better relationship with Hamid Karzai.  They have become very good friends.

We just took a huge hit, but I understand President Obama's actions.

What a shame.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: we vs us on June 22, 2010, 04:54:10 PM
It's the MacArthur lesson:  no matter how good you are you can't dis your commanding officer and keep your job.  
 

Yay for civilian control.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: nathanm on June 22, 2010, 04:55:01 PM
Yeah, it doesn't seem like there is any other likely outcome. If McChrystal isn't fired/asked to resign/whatever it would undermine Obama's command authority.

Some people are wondering if McChrystal didn't let the smile fly so he'd get his butt thrown out before his Afghanistan plan was proven to be the failure it appears to have been so far. I don't know about all that, but it does make for fun conversation.

I've long maintained there's no hope for Afghanistan anyway. If the Soviets couldn't pummel them into submission when they had absolutely no qualms about killing civilians, how can we possibly get the place in shape?

Edited to add: Not that I had any problem with going in and opening up a can of whoop donkey on the Taliban after 9/11, nor would I shed a single tear if we kept using Special Forces on them and bombing them with drones.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: sgrizzle on June 23, 2010, 07:41:04 AM
Quote from: Gaspar on June 22, 2010, 04:37:35 PM
I read the story today.  Reminds me of a modern day General Patton.

He has no use for politicians or a$$ clowns.

I'm torn.  On one hand, I think he was out of line.  On the other I can help but laugh.



McChrystal 2012
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 07:57:11 AM
Quote from: sgrizzle on June 23, 2010, 07:41:04 AM
McChrystal 2012

That's what I was thinking.  I'd love to see a knife fight break out at the first debate.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Townsend on June 23, 2010, 09:21:52 AM
Quote from: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 07:57:11 AM
That's what I was thinking.  I'd love to see a knife fight break out at the first debate.

The teaparty candidate will freak and club him like a baby seal.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 09:23:56 AM
Quote from: Townsend on June 23, 2010, 09:21:52 AM
The teaparty candidate will freak and club him like a baby seal.

What makes you think he won't be the Tea Party Candidate?
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Townsend on June 23, 2010, 09:25:51 AM
Quote from: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 09:23:56 AM
What makes you think he won't be the Tea Party Candidate?

He hates tea.

But okay, she'll rip him to shreds like a leopard seal for supreme dominance over the whole of the lollipop guild.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Conan71 on June 23, 2010, 09:33:29 AM
Quote from: Townsend on June 23, 2010, 09:21:52 AM
The teaparty candidate will freak and club him like a baby seal.

Who needs a club? Tea Partiers carry gats in fanny packs, don't they?
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 09:39:48 AM
Quote from: Conan71 on June 23, 2010, 09:33:29 AM
Who needs a club? Tea Partiers carry gats in fanny packs, don't they?

And can kill with a silent poison dart.
(http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/fannypack.jpg)
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Townsend on June 23, 2010, 09:58:23 AM
Quote from: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 09:39:48 AM
And can kill with a silent poison dart.


No more party pics from the Gaspar household please.

Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: Townsend on June 23, 2010, 09:58:23 AM
No more party pics from the Gaspar household please.



You should see the one of me wearing nothing but a six-pack hat!
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Townsend on June 23, 2010, 10:36:40 AM
Quote from: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 10:36:01 AM
You should see the one of me wearing nothing but a six-pack hat!

I disagree

unlike unlike unlike
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: rwarn17588 on June 23, 2010, 11:57:22 AM
McChrystal showed very poor judgment. The fact he chugs a wuss beer like Bud Light Lime is proof.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Conan71 on June 23, 2010, 12:12:20 PM
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 23, 2010, 11:57:22 AM
McChrystal showed very poor judgment. The fact he chugs a wuss beer like Bud Light Lime is proof.

It's a wuss beer, but it sure tastes good after 3 to 4 hours on the bike in this weather.  That is until the 3.2 headache starts mid-way through the third one  8)
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: nathanm on June 23, 2010, 12:16:58 PM
Quote from: Conan71 on June 23, 2010, 12:12:20 PM
It's a wuss beer, but it sure tastes good after 3 to 4 hours on the bike in this weather.  That is until the 3.2 headache starts mid-way through the third one  8)
Is it better than Miller Chill? I had one of those a couple years back and it was utterly disgusting. It wasn't even 3.2, since I was in another state at the time. And it was fresh off the truck from the brewery (literally).
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Townsend on June 23, 2010, 12:21:27 PM
He's done
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Conan71 on June 23, 2010, 12:24:48 PM
Quote from: nathanm on June 23, 2010, 12:16:58 PM
Is it better than Miller Chill? I had one of those a couple years back and it was utterly disgusting. It wasn't even 3.2, since I was in another state at the time. And it was fresh off the truck from the brewery (literally).

I think it's better, but it's kind of like saying: "Is lamp kerosene tastier than 87 octane unleaded?"

They all taste great after about 12 or 15 anyhow.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 12:24:54 PM
Report is that President Obama has fired McChrystal, as he should, for insubordination.  Petraeus to take over.

However, I think many will view McChrystal's firing by Obama as his highest honor.  The idea of McChrystal showing up on a Tea Party ticket may be more than just conjecture.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Conan71 on June 23, 2010, 12:25:53 PM
Quote from: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 12:24:54 PM
Report is that President Obama has fired McChrystal, as he should, for insubordination.  

However, I think many will view McChrystal's firing by Obama as his highest honor.  The idea of McChrystal showing up on a Tea Party ticket may be more than just conjecture.


Well, we can turn off the suspense music soundtrack now.  Like anyone didn't see this coming.  There's been speculation he didn't want the assignment in the first place and that he welcomed being fired.  How else could you explain the comments?  Those aren't what you'd expect from someone who cared about keeping his job.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: we vs us on June 23, 2010, 12:37:08 PM
Quote from: Conan71 on June 23, 2010, 12:25:53 PM
Well, we can turn off the suspense music soundtrack now.  Like anyone didn't see this coming.  There's been speculation he didn't want the assignment in the first place and that he welcomed being fired.  How else could you explain the comments?  Those aren't what you'd expect from someone who cared about keeping his job.

It's funny.  The whole thing was so stupendously stupid that you have no choice but to look for an ulterior motive.  How can a guy make it so far up the chain and be that naive?
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 12:47:17 PM
Quote from: we vs us on June 23, 2010, 12:37:08 PM
It's funny.  The whole thing was so stupendously stupid that you have no choice but to look for an ulterior motive.  How can a guy make it so far up the chain and be that naive?

I agree, but then again, what happened was that he was interviewed over a few days by the reporter, then due to the Volcano (that no one on the planet can pronounce the name of) they were stranded together for a month.

It seems he relaxed his sphincter.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: rwarn17588 on June 23, 2010, 06:11:15 PM
Quote from: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 12:24:54 PM

However, I think many will view McChrystal's firing by Obama as his highest honor.  The idea of McChrystal showing up on a Tea Party ticket may be more than just conjecture.


So the leading contenders are a governor who quit halfway through her term, and a general who was such a blabbermouth that he couldn't hold his job.

Sounds like an ideal ticket to me (((sarcasm)))
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Hoss on June 23, 2010, 06:13:32 PM
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 23, 2010, 06:11:15 PM
So the leading contenders are a governor who quit halfway through her term, and a general who was such a blabbermouth that he couldn't hold his job.

Sounds like an ideal ticket to me (((sarcasm off)))

Smells a little of the Lincoln vs McLellan presidential election in 1864.  Lincoln fires McClellan.  McClellan talks serious smack about Lincoln.  McLellan enters Presidential race.  Lincoln starts winning the war.  McLellan defeated.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: guido911 on June 23, 2010, 08:29:16 PM
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 23, 2010, 06:11:15 PM
So the leading contenders are a governor who quit halfway through her term, and a general who was such a blabbermouth that he couldn't hold his job.

Sounds like an ideal ticket to me (((sarcasm)))

Blabbermouth?  I'll stack McChrystal's resume against Obama's (and yours by the way) any day.  Here are his military decorations:

US DECORATIONS AND BADGES
Defense Distinguished Service Medal
Defense Superior Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
Legion of Merit (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Bronze Star Medal
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Meritorious Service Medal (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Army Commendation Medal
Army Achievement Medal
Expert Infantryman Badge
Master Parachutist Badge
Ranger Tab
Special Forces Tab
Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge

Here is his biography:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/19396/biography_of_general_stanley_mcchrystal.html

Tells us about your accomplishments.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Hoss on June 23, 2010, 08:35:45 PM
Quote from: guido911 on June 23, 2010, 08:29:16 PM
Blabbermouth?  I'll stack McChrystal's resume against Obama's (and yours by the way) any day.  Here are his military decorations:

US DECORATIONS AND BADGES
Defense Distinguished Service Medal
Defense Superior Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
Legion of Merit (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Bronze Star Medal
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Meritorious Service Medal (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Army Commendation Medal
Army Achievement Medal
Expert Infantryman Badge
Master Parachutist Badge
Ranger Tab
Special Forces Tab
Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge

Here is his biography:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/19396/biography_of_general_stanley_mcchrystal.html

Tells us about your accomplishments.

::)

Here comes the self-righteous indignation.

You can't come up with anything better than that?  To deflect using his military resume?

Are you denying he wasn't a blabbermouth?  In such a manner that it got him relieved of his duties by his COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF?
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: nathanm on June 23, 2010, 08:59:09 PM
Quote from: Hoss on June 23, 2010, 08:35:45 PM
::)

Here comes the self-righteous indignation.

You can't come up with anything better than that?  To deflect using his military resume?

Are you denying he wasn't a blabbermouth?  In such a manner that it got him relieved of his duties by his COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF?

In Guido's world, a dishonorably discharged private, much less a general, is superior to any civilian.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Hoss on June 23, 2010, 09:08:44 PM
Quote from: nathanm on June 23, 2010, 08:59:09 PM
In Guido's world, a dishonorably discharged private, much less a general, is superior to any civilian.

It won't matter Nathan.  He no longer acknowledges my existence and hasn't for some time.  Not like I give a squirt anyway.  He's like our own resident Glenn Beck.

I admit I take a certain pleasure in responding to him just to see if he'll respond back.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: custosnox on June 23, 2010, 09:10:10 PM
Quote from: guido911 on June 23, 2010, 08:29:16 PM
Blabbermouth?  I'll stack McChrystal's resume against Obama's (and yours by the way) any day.  Here are his military decorations:

US DECORATIONS AND BADGES
Defense Distinguished Service Medal
Defense Superior Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
Legion of Merit (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Bronze Star Medal
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Meritorious Service Medal (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Army Commendation Medal
Army Achievement Medal
Expert Infantryman Badge
Master Parachutist Badge
Ranger Tab
Special Forces Tab
Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge

Here is his biography:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/19396/biography_of_general_stanley_mcchrystal.html

Tells us about your accomplishments.

I hear he also voted for Obama...
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: rwarn17588 on June 23, 2010, 10:57:37 PM
Quote from: Hoss on June 23, 2010, 08:35:45 PM
::)

Here comes the self-righteous indignation.


I call it bleating.  ::)

Sounds like guido needs to sit down and drink a few Bud Light Limes or some other wussy beer.  ::)
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: rwarn17588 on June 23, 2010, 11:00:23 PM
Quote from: guido911 on June 23, 2010, 08:29:16 PM

Tells us about your accomplishments.

For one, I've never gotten likkered up on wimpy beer and shot my mouth off so much that I lost my job.  ;D
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: guido911 on June 24, 2010, 08:04:33 AM
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 23, 2010, 10:57:37 PM
I call it bleating.  ::)

Sounds like guido needs to sit down and drink a few Bud Light Limes or some other wussy beer.  ::)

I get it. McChrystal is not a war hero, he "acted stupidly". He recklessly revealed classified information. Oh wait, that was Obama revealing long-classified information about our nuclear arsenal. I'll research TNF for all the "blabbermouth" accusers for their indignation over that disclosure.

As for wussy, sounds like you are projecting a bit given that you epitomize the definition of wuss/coward.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: guido911 on June 24, 2010, 08:25:36 AM
Interesting take on this entire issue from Rolling Stone reporter:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Xd2G6Unznz
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Cats Cats Cats on June 24, 2010, 08:46:01 AM
Kinda crazy to think that war has been going on for so long and just now somebody goes, hey, we need 150k troops.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Conan71 on June 24, 2010, 08:50:19 AM
I'm curious how the "Moveon.org" crowd is with General Betrayus being selected to run Afghanistan now.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: guido911 on June 24, 2010, 09:10:08 AM
Quote from: Conan71 on June 24, 2010, 08:50:19 AM
I'm curious how the "Moveon.org" crowd is with General Betrayus being selected to run Afghanistan now.

I'm curious about Obama and Hillary's take on Betrayus several years later after essentially saying that the surge failed or that the general lied about the improvements in Iraq.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/obama_website_softens_surgebas.html

Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Conan71 on June 24, 2010, 09:12:18 AM
Yep pretty funny now how Petraeus is being characterized as successful in Iraq by the same people who were saying the war was lost.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: rwarn17588 on June 24, 2010, 09:14:04 AM
Quote from: guido911 on June 24, 2010, 08:04:33 AM
I get it. McChrystal is not a war hero, he "acted stupidly". He recklessly revealed classified information. Oh wait, that was Obama revealing long-classified information about our nuclear arsenal. I'll research TNF for all the "blabbermouth" accusers for their indignation over that disclosure.

As for wussy, sounds like you are projecting a bit given that you epitomize the definition of wuss/coward.

And for a person who supposedly was in the military, you sure do a lot of whining.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Conan71 on June 24, 2010, 09:17:05 AM
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 24, 2010, 09:14:04 AM
And for a person who supposedly was in the military, you sure do a lot of whining.

Honestly Rwarn, your disrespect for the military is growing really old.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: rwarn17588 on June 24, 2010, 09:21:51 AM
Quote from: Conan71 on June 24, 2010, 09:17:05 AM
Honestly Rwarn, your disrespect for the military is growing really old.

It's not disrespect for the military. I know a lot of Marines. It's disrespect for a chronic crybaby.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: guido911 on June 24, 2010, 09:24:35 AM
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 24, 2010, 09:21:51 AM
It's not disrespect for the military. I know a lot of Marines. It's disrespect for a chronic crybaby.

I know a lot of dooshbags, doesn't make me respect them. Careful about the crybaby crap you punk.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Hoss on June 24, 2010, 09:26:18 AM
Quote from: guido911 on June 24, 2010, 09:24:35 AM
I know a lot of dooshbags, doesn't make me respect them. Careful about the crybaby crap you punk.

Ah yes...

"Return of the Ad Hominem".... you know Gweed can always be counted on for that.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Townsend on June 24, 2010, 09:28:35 AM
And the thread hits crap level with no help from any of the banned contributors.

Tadaaaaaa
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Conan71 on June 24, 2010, 09:36:44 AM
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 24, 2010, 09:21:51 AM
It's not disrespect for the military. I know a lot of Marines. It's disrespect for a chronic crybaby.

Yeah, just like the respect you showed in down-playing the sacrifice soldiers and their families make last week in another discussion.  Good stuff, I'm still getting a rollicking laugh out of it.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: rwarn17588 on June 24, 2010, 09:40:45 AM
Quote from: Conan71 on June 24, 2010, 09:36:44 AM
Yeah, just like the respect you showed in down-playing the sacrifice soldiers and their families make last week in another discussion.  Good stuff, I'm still getting a rollicking laugh out of it.

Oh, puh-lease.  ::)

I stated a fact that many people make sacrifices -- often deep ones -- during their lives, and not just soldiers. That is indisputable. Just because you don't like that fact doesn't mean you can change or ignore it.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Conan71 on June 24, 2010, 10:25:01 AM
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 24, 2010, 09:40:45 AM
Oh, puh-lease.  ::)

I stated a fact that many people make sacrifices -- often deep ones -- during their lives, and not just soldiers. That is indisputable. Just because you don't like that fact doesn't mean you can change or ignore it.

Go tell that pap you were spreading last week to your Marine buddies, I'm sure they'll be more receptive to it than I am.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: nathanm on June 24, 2010, 01:20:27 PM
Quote from: guido911 on June 24, 2010, 08:04:33 AM
I get it. McChrystal is not a war hero, he "acted stupidly". He recklessly revealed classified information. Oh wait, that was Obama revealing long-classified information about our nuclear arsenal.
I guess you didn't know that, being the President, Obama gets to decide what needs to be classified. (within the rules set out by Congress, which generally specify things which may not be classified, not the other way around, otherwise it's just general suggestions that mostly aren't binding)

Aside from specific design elements, like how to make them fit in an artillery shell, as opposed to general information about the basic overall design, which has been public since essentially forever in the case of non thermonuclear warheads and targeting data, classifying information about nuclear weapons is stupid.

How exactly does disclosing an exact figure of active warheads and pits harm our national security?
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Conan71 on June 24, 2010, 01:25:08 PM
Quote from: nathanm on June 24, 2010, 01:20:27 PM


How exactly does disclosing an exact figure of active warheads and pits harm our national security?


It's about as relevant as outing Valerie Plame was to US Security, I'd guess.

Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: nathanm on June 24, 2010, 01:27:21 PM
Quote from: Conan71 on June 24, 2010, 01:25:08 PM
It's about as relevant as outing Valerie Plame was to US Security, I'd guess.
Well, one is against the law and the other isn't.

I never saw any definitive answer as to what Plame was doing that would require a false identity, so I can't make a value judgment on the issue.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Conan71 on June 24, 2010, 01:41:33 PM
Quote from: nathanm on June 24, 2010, 01:27:21 PM
Well, one is against the law and the other isn't.

I never saw any definitive answer as to what Plame was doing that would require a false identity, so I can't make a value judgment on the issue.

IIRC, no one was ever prosecuted, least of all the person who actually did out her other than a White House aide for perjury because he was too stupid to say "I don't recall".
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: nathanm on June 24, 2010, 03:30:54 PM
Quote from: Conan71 on June 24, 2010, 01:41:33 PM
IIRC, no one was ever prosecuted, least of all the person who actually did out her other than a White House aide for perjury because he was too stupid to say "I don't recall".
If I murder someone yet manage to avoid prosecution by whatever means, that doesn't make murder any less illegal.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Conan71 on June 24, 2010, 04:03:18 PM
Quote from: nathanm on June 24, 2010, 03:30:54 PM
If I murder someone yet manage to avoid prosecution by whatever means, that doesn't make murder any less illegal.

Poor analogy. 

If there was a crime it would have been prosecuted...especially if it had a serious impact on national security.  The whole Plame issue was a circle jerk to "get" POTUS Bush or VPOTUS Cheney in the first place.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: rwarn17588 on June 24, 2010, 04:52:38 PM
Quote from: Conan71 on June 24, 2010, 04:03:18 PM
Poor analogy. 

If there was a crime it would have been prosecuted...especially if it had a serious impact on national security.  The whole Plame issue was a circle jerk to "get" POTUS Bush or VPOTUS Cheney in the first place.

I disagree.

The thing was, Scooter Libby lied to investigators during depositions. That is indisputable. Scooter's no dummy; he knew the penalty for perjury.

The reason President Bush didn't pardon him before leaving office was because he believed Libby did indeed lie. Bush did a lot of consulting with varying parties behind the case before making his decision, and the strong belief that Libby lied was echoed by others. (The WashPost report about this came a few weeks after Bush left office.)

Because Libby showed no remorse, Bush essentially said: "Screw you ... you don't deserve a pardon."

So ... you have to ask yourself ... why did Libby lie? Who was he trying to protect?

It's hard to complete an investigation when one of the key figures isn't telling the truth. That's why we'll probably never know what really went on.

It pays to remember that the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, was a Republican appointee for U.S. attorney, and that Bush himself appointed Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame matter. And Fitzgerald has long made both Republican and Democratic politicians wet their pants when they find he's investigating them. So to simply chalk this up as a partisan witch hunt (or "circle jerk," as you put it) doesn't fly when you consider the facts.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: guido911 on August 24, 2010, 05:05:25 PM
Now its Gen. Conway v. Obama:

QuoteThe top U.S. Marine general made a sharp departure from the White House's talking points on Afghanistan, saying President Barack Obama's promised July 2011 deadline to start withdrawing troops from the country had given "sustenance" to the Taliban.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/

IMO, this is worse than McChrystal

Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Gaspar on August 25, 2010, 07:53:42 AM
Quote from: guido911 on August 24, 2010, 05:05:25 PM
Now its Gen. Conway v. Obama:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/

IMO, this is worse than McChrystal



Yeah, but he is planning to retire anyway so he has nothing to fear.  The Taliban has basically thanked President Obama for the established pull out date.  It helps their strategic planning and financing efforts to have some firm closing dates.

However I think they will find it more of an impediment than an advantage.  When we "pull out" it's simply a political tool.  We leave a large number of strike troops, and just re-designate them with different terminology.
If the Taliban fails to produce an effective strike after the "Pull-out" date it presents them as weak to the people.  It's actually not a bad strategy, now that I understand how it works.
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: we vs us on August 25, 2010, 09:11:56 AM
Gassy is right on a couple different levels.  When we think "troops," we don't think of "drones," which is the force that's been doing a lot of the heavy anti-terror heavy lifting to date. 
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: guido911 on August 25, 2010, 12:11:44 PM
Quote from: we vs us on August 25, 2010, 09:11:56 AM
Gassy is right on a couple different levels.  When we think "troops," we don't think of "drones," which is the force that's been doing a lot of the heavy anti-terror heavy lifting to date. 

Tell that to the families of the four U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan three days ago. fail

http://tolonews.com/en/afghanistan/346-4-us-soldiers-killed-in-afghan-violence-
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: Hoss on August 25, 2010, 12:22:47 PM
Quote from: guido911 on August 25, 2010, 12:11:44 PM
Tell that to the families of the four U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan three days ago. fail

http://tolonews.com/en/afghanistan/346-4-us-soldiers-killed-in-afghan-violence-

Gweed reading-comprehension FAIL.

Quotewhich is the force that's been doing a lot of the heavy anti-terror heavy lifting to date

Note, he didn't say all.

Love the way you try and put words onto peoples' fingers...

I'm sure a retort about girls making fun of my junk are upcoming...
Title: Re: McChrystal v. Obama
Post by: we vs us on August 25, 2010, 01:38:31 PM
Quote from: guido911 on August 25, 2010, 12:11:44 PM
Tell that to the families of the four U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan three days ago. fail

http://tolonews.com/en/afghanistan/346-4-us-soldiers-killed-in-afghan-violence-

Yeah, sorry, that's silly.  Not even remotely my point.  Drone use has been on the upswing during Obama's time as CiC, though was a standard option in the last part of the Bush admin, too.  They're used for surveillance but also for surgical strikes in places that US troops can't go (read: tribal areas of Pakistan, Waziristan, Yemen, etc). Our troops are primarily fighting the Taliban, which is -- in case you were unaware -- not al Qaeda, and is more of a standardized army.

If you think I was making some sort of statement about the efficacy or ability of our troops in Afghanistan, you're flat wrong.