 sj |
||
|
||
BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being honest
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Jeri Date: 24 Jun 10 - 05:50 PM I'm used to the sniping and can ignore it. I think if we eliminate it, we're going to ruin the intent of the thread originator. I don't think it's fun, though. I am not good at a lot of things. One thing I'm REALLY good at is finding boundaries of behavior (shit--I had to edit an accidental 'u' out of that!) and dancing along the safe side of the edge. You can disagree with your superiors forever, or until your superior tells you to 'zip it', at which time, further bitching may not actually be a actionable as a violation of a direct order, but can get a person put on the superior's 'shit list', which is never a good thing. 'Disagreement' sounds like "I don't agree with the president's policy on..." and not like "I don't agree with that idiot dickwad's policy on..." The later, I believe, shows contempt, whereas the former does not. If you say it to a reporter 'on the record' for a widely read publication, and your boss is the President of the United States, it's 1)career suicide, 2)great publicity for a schedule of talk show appearances and your forthcoming book, 3)a good way to make your former boss look prettydamngood. (Chris Matthews on MSNBC said just few minutes ago he thought it may have been the best thing that could have happened for Obama.) Contempt is never just disagreement, and it's never just mouthing off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Paco O'Barmy Date: 24 Jun 10 - 05:20 PM Hi there, just thought I'd pop in and see how things were going... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Jun 10 - 05:12 PM ""It makes me think that a few of y'all are still pissed off about 1776."" Not to mention a few husbands who had their suspicions during 1942 - 1944, when the major difference between New York and London, was that there were more GIs in London. Strictly with tongue in cheek....LOL Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Jun 10 - 05:07 PM ""It's pretty clear from the article that he doesn't have high respect or a good relationship with Biden. Biden is not, as far as I know, in McChrystal's chain of command. And I don't think there were any actual derogatory comments about Biden in the article. I do recall some reference to Biden's "non-job" as vice-president."" Perhaps he just forgot that the man he dismissed so disdainfully would automatically become his Commander-in-Chief, if some redneck republican managed to waste Obama. It doesn't matter what he thought of the administration, he didn't have the right to allow it to be ridiculed in a media rag. That is not the same as querying a superior directly, which would be standard operating procedure. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Jun 10 - 04:56 PM ""If the above is indeed the charge then General Stanley McChrystal is innocent of all charges, because General McChrystal did not say a single word against any of those parties - MEMBERS OF HIS STAFF DID. McChrystal got the sack for it. Now go off and read all about it and then come back and discuss it."" Even if you are right, he had an obligation, as does any commander, to put a stop to that kind of insubordination, and he did the opposite, tacitly encouraging unacceptable behaviour. Any officer worth his salt would stamp on theat sort of indiscipline instantly. He had to go, or the military efficiency of his command would have been seriously compromised. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jun 10 - 04:41 PM Didn't mean to slight casualties from other countries, Snail. Just typing fast. I'm fully aware of the international participation. But thanks for linking to the stats. But I still say it should have not have been handled like a war between nations (especially a nation that wasn't involved, Iraq), it should have been treated as an attack by a gang of criminals, which is what it really was. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: TheSnail Date: 24 Jun 10 - 03:50 PM Don Firth it would have saved a lot of lives, American soldiers plus an egregious number of innocent Iraqi and Afghan civilians. Coalition casualties in Afghanistan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Wesley S Date: 24 Jun 10 - 03:23 PM From the "Urban Dictonary" : 1. dickwad George W. Bush George W. Bush is a dickwad. 2. dickwad Also known as a wad-of-dick. 3. dickwad More powerfully insulting than its predecessor 'dickhead' girl 1 - did that guy ever call? girl 2 - no, what a dickwad! 4. dickwad The tissue (kleenex) used to catch and mop up the ejaculate after masturbating. The tissue is then wadded into a ball and disposed of. Popular australian usage amongst teens 5. dickwad Your basic insult, vague but still mean. Used to insult males usually. Someone who doesn't disserve your time jerk, asshole, moron, stupid Insulter: Wow, you're dumb Insultie: Shutup Dickwad! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: artbrooks Date: 24 Jun 10 - 03:22 PM Well, I suppose that Gen. McChrystal could have been dismissed as the US commander and left in place as the NATO commander. Sounds reasonable to me. Come to think of it, Gen. MacArthur was the UN commander in Korea as well as the US commander. I guess that Truman should have asked the Security Council for prior approval. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Teribus Date: 24 Jun 10 - 03:16 PM Trouble with you Spaw is that you dont read. Go back down through this thread and see if anyone has said that HE SHOULD BE COURT MARTIALED you Dickwad (whatever that is?) That is what I have objected to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jun 10 - 02:23 PM The MacArthur-Truman head-butt has been mentioned a couple of times up-thread. And aptly so. Harry Truman got a lot of flak when he relieved Gen. Douglas MacArthur of command in the Korean And this is the man who counseled, "Never get involved in a land war in Asia!" MacArthur did a masterful job in WW II against Japan, but he was a megalomaniac, and he would have started World War III if Truman hadn't fired him. Many people gave Truman a lot of crap for that, but Truman was right! Among other things, Obama said, "I've given McChystall everything he wanted except an open-ended timeline." This whole "War on Terrorism" has been handled wrong right from the start, and some folks tend to conveniently forget that Obama inherited that f**k-up from the previous administration. Wars are between nation-states. Al Qaeda is a criminal mob and should have been treated as such from the very beginning. If it had been, it would have saved a lot of lives, American soldiers plus an egregious number of innocent Iraqi and Afghan civilians. Lots of "collateral damage," with damned few genuine terrorists actually being dealt with. We're running a great recruiting program for anti-American terrorist groups!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: TheSnail Date: 24 Jun 10 - 02:15 PM Charmion, take a look at this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: TheSnail Date: 24 Jun 10 - 02:10 PM You still don't seem to be getting it, Wesley, so I'll spell it out - 1) Paco O'Bonkers no more speaks for Britain than ichMael speaks for the USA. 2) It IS our business. McCrystal was sacked as NATO commander. The NATO forces include soldiers from Germany, Canada, The Netherlands and France. Read the article. Try telling the relatives of the 300+ British dead and 40+ French dead that it is not their affair. (Not to mention the many more injured, maimed and traumatised.) It makes me think that a few of y'all are still pissed off about 1776. . . . Please don't take it personally. That's not my intent. Er, right. Just because you are the most powerful nation on Earth doesn't mean you are above criticism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: GUEST,999 Date: 24 Jun 10 - 01:40 PM There are two issues on the table here. 1) The right of a person to criticize his or her government`s policy regarding stuff. 2) the right of a military commander to criticize his or her government`s policy regarding stuff. Some folks who`ve posted seem to know that there is a difference. Some don`t. I wish the people who don`t would get their fuckin` facts in order. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Charmion Date: 24 Jun 10 - 01:38 PM I'm gonna do the Canadian thing here and ask you Yanks and Brits to retire to your respective corners and stop sniping at each other. It tends to derail an otherwise interesting discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: mousethief Date: 24 Jun 10 - 01:37 PM I believe my previous posts were appropriate to the situation as I've heard/seen it reported or commented on in the media. But it doesn't appear to me, solely from reading the Rolling Stone article, that all that powerful a case is to be made for insubordination. All the UCMJ requires is "contemptuous words." He's damned lucky he didn't face court-martial. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Wesley S Date: 24 Jun 10 - 01:14 PM Snail - I hope you don't think I was being dismissive of all English people. It's just that in the 11 or 12 years I've been here at the Mudcat my perception has been that a lot of threads critical of the USA have been started by Brits. It makes me think that a few of y'all are still pissed off about 1776. There are several things that I could critize about England but it's simply none of my business. So I wouldn't dream of starting a thread about your royality or the occupation of Northern Ireland. My irritation has been directed at the thread starter. Please don't take it personally. That's not my intent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Riginslinger Date: 24 Jun 10 - 12:23 PM He was sacked for being a stupe! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 24 Jun 10 - 12:23 PM I just finally read the article. Excuse my tardiness, please. This is strange. I didn't see all that much in it that was objectionable. I'm having to reevaluate my take on the situation. The article reports that he's not on a good footing with the Ambassador. So? Ditto as to some other relatively high officials. So? I don't recall any disparaging remarks about the Secretary of Defense. I recall only one sort of slighting reference to the President, about how he ought not to be a clown. Oh, yes, and that at an early meeting (perhaps even before election) Obama had seemed intimidated. Two quibbles there: "before election", and "seemed", which is McChrystal's personal take, if he actually said it. I personally don't find any of that so egregious. It's pretty clear from the article that he doesn't have high respect or a good relationship with Biden. Biden is not, as far as I know, in McChrystal's chain of command. And I don't think there were any actual derogatory comments about Biden in the article. I do recall some reference to Biden's "non-job" as vice-president. And that's true enough: the vice-presidency as the Constitution sets it out doesn't give the VP more than a token function, as president of the Senate. Many vice-presidents have been conspicuous by their frequent and prolonged absence from the actual exercise of their one constitutionally prescribed duty, and the republic has rolled on very nicely despite the absence, thank you. Which leaves a VP as a sort of utility man, for whatever job the President deigns to assign to him (if any), which is usually ceremonial. In any case, the VP has no actual power. I've seen or read something about McChrystal being loose-lipped with the journalist while laid over at an airport bar. I didn't see anything like that in the article. So maybe there are other things out there of which I'm unaware which might be much more objectionable. I believe my previous posts were appropriate to the situation as I've heard/seen it reported or commented on in the media. But it doesn't appear to me, solely from reading the Rolling Stone article, that all that powerful a case is to be made for insubordination. All water over the dam, of course. The President made a decision he's entitled to make, and we move on. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: TheSnail Date: 24 Jun 10 - 12:06 PM Fair enough, Ebbie, but I hope you get the Paco/ichMael comparison and taken in conjunction with Wesley S's dismissive - "If he's a Brit why is he sticking his nose in our affairs?", perhaps you understand my irritation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: GUEST,kendall Date: 24 Jun 10 - 11:49 AM There will always be disagreement on how something should be done. That's why we have bosses. In this case, Obama is the boss, get used to it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Ebbie Date: 24 Jun 10 - 11:35 AM The Snail, my tweak was meant to be facetious. Sorry for the bruise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: catspaw49 Date: 24 Jun 10 - 11:21 AM Once again, he is NOT being Court Martialed, A President has once again had enough of a commanding general and has canned his ass. Goodbye Dickwad and enjoy your retirement or whatever....... Next case........... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Teribus Date: 24 Jun 10 - 11:16 AM I couldn't care two hoots whether or not McChrystal knew what his staff were up to, or said. My objection relates to the usual suspects on this forum and their usual knee-jerk reactions calling for Courts Martial; Loss of Pension; etc; etc. When in reality there is absolutely no fuckin' case to answer. As to your Vice-President Joe "Wrong Again" Biden - What's the problem he is a joke and a joke who holds down the greatest "non-job" in the world. Previously McChrystal was perfectly within his remit to state where and how he thought the Vice-President of the United States proposed policies and strategies to be wrong, that is all part and parcel of his job. Respect is a two-way street, Biden showed exactly what respect he had for the military back in September 2007 - He was "Wrong Again" on that occasion too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Emma B Date: 24 Jun 10 - 11:00 AM 'Interesting' opening paragraph by freelancer Michael Hastings "He's in France to sell his new war strategy to our NATO allies – to keep up the fiction, in essence, that we actually have allies. Since McChrystal took over a year ago, the Afghan war has become the exclusive property of the United States" So, no mention of the 9000 UK troops or the 307 fatalities to date? Actually it was Barack Obama who declared last year that America has "shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" towards its allies. Pity Hastings doesn't seem to have read that |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: artbrooks Date: 24 Jun 10 - 08:38 AM No contemptuous words about the civilian command structure, Terebus? Did you notice the VP in there? How about this quote? "Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?" "Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?" The entire Rolling Stones article is here, if anyone wants to actually read it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: GUEST,Riginslinger Date: 24 Jun 10 - 08:05 AM Obama had no choice on this one. The fact that McChrystall was the NATO commander might account for why he went to Petraeus as a replacement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Emma B Date: 24 Jun 10 - 07:08 AM To echo the Snail and bankley - McChrystall was the NATO Commander in Afghanistan and so this affects all the different countries on the ground there. the view from BBC World Affairs Editor John Simpson who reports "The problem is that the reasons for Gen McChrystal's irritation with Washington have not gone away. There is a clear lack of decision about the way the war should be fought, and about whether and how there should be negotiations with the Taliban. On Monday, this indecision cost the job of the most senior British diplomat in charge of Afghanistan" From Jon Boone who elected to remain in Afghanistan as a freelance journalist after the FR withdrew it's journalists on safety grounds - 'Britain's special envoy to Afghanistan, known for his scepticism about the western war effort and his support for peace talks with the Taliban, has stepped down just a month before a critical international conference in Kabul. Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles has taken "extended leave", a spokesman for the British high commission in Islamabad said on Monday Cowper-Coles, who also had Pakistan in his remit as special envoy, clashed in recent months with senior Nato and US officials over his insistence that the military-driven counter-insurgency effort was headed for failure, and that talks with the Taliban should be prioritised' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: catspaw49 Date: 24 Jun 10 - 06:52 AM Please note Teribus that he is NOT being Court Martialed........So what's your point? Any President is free to dismiss any field commander as was the case with Truman and MacArthur,McClelland and Lincoln, etc. Nothing to discuss. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: GUEST,kendall Date: 24 Jun 10 - 06:43 AM Teribus, are we to believe that the general didn't know what his staff was up to, or that he didn't approve? Pull the other one! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: TheSnail Date: 24 Jun 10 - 06:25 AM Ebbie Paco Barmy is a Brit, Wesley. You know how they are. (rolling eyes) Hmmm, we can all play that game - "ichMael is a Yank, Ebbie. You know how they are. (rolling eyes) Wesley S Ebbie - If he's a Brit why is he sticking his nose in our affairs? It's not like you and I have been calling for the Queen to be replaced...... Over the last few days, the number of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan has passed 300. I think Brits are entitled to an opinion on the matter even if, like Paco, they are totally Barmy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Teribus Date: 24 Jun 10 - 05:18 AM From the Uniform Code Of Military Justice, Section 888, Article 88: "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." One unmentioned fact conspicuous by its absence has astounded me in reading through all these comments. If the above is indeed the charge then General Stanley McChrystal is innocent of all charges, because General McChrystal did not say a single word against any of those parties - MEMBERS OF HIS STAFF DID. McChrystal got the sack for it. Now go off and read all about it and then come back and discuss it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Genie Date: 24 Jun 10 - 02:46 AM GfS, you're straying more than a bit from the thread topic, but even at that, you've got some facts wrong and you're putting an unwarranted slant on most of the others. 1. Obama did not wait 57 days - or anywhere near that long - to respond to the disaster in the Gulf. He has been working with BP and in communication with state and local officials in the Gulf states and even visiting the gulf personally since early on after the initial explosion. Please do some serious, honest fact-checking. 2. As for Rahm Emmanuel, I wish he had tendered his resignation many months ago. He represents the ineffectual DLC, which is not only in bed with the big corporations but is also totally inept when it comes to both legislative and election strategy. He has been pulling Obama toward the "center" (read: the Right) in the vain attempt to garner a modicum of support from the Republicans, who do not want this President or the Dems to have any achievements at all, while thumbing his nose at the progressive/liberals who worked so hard to elect Obama and are likely to stay home in Nov. and in 2010 if Obama keeps kissing the ass of the Republicans and the multinational corporations. 3. The judge who overturened the "offshore drilling moratorium" (which applies only to newly developing wells and some deep shore opeartions, not to all oil drilling in the Gulf), should have recused himself, because he owns major stock in the oil companies. 4. "Everyone he campaigned for, lost." -- Not so. I'm sorry to say that Blanche Lincoln, whom both Bill Clinton and Obama campaigned for, beat Bill Halter in the Dem. runoff in Arkansas. (Lincoln will lose in Nov., where Halter had a better shot at winning. But her primary victory is attributable partly to her support from Obama and Clinton.) Arlen Specter, whom Obama supported, lost, because he only became a Democrat when it was clear he would not be re-elected as a Republican. I am very sorry that Obama supported him, because he was not only a true Democrat but a losing candidate at that. But he would have lost in November whether Obama supported him or not. I suspect that Obama supported him because of some sort of deal they made when Specter switched to the Democratic party a couple years ago. 5. "His approval rating is plummeting." Presidents' approval ratings go up and down like Johns' zippers. The Republican Party's current ratings are far lower than Obama's. And the ratings of Bush and Cheney in the last couple years of that administration were below 30%, sometimes in the teens. The relevant question -- which way too few "new" agencies bother to ask -- is whom or which party people would prefer, and what rating they would give to the alternative parties and candidates. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Jun 10 - 02:03 AM The President did the right thing. He had really no choice. That being said, he really should consider not being a clown! Rahm Emmanuel tendered his resignation, a couple of days before, effective in a few months, for being dissatisfied with the President, the offshore drilling moratorium, was overturned by a Federal Court, and now this...all within the last 72 hours. Everyone he campaigned for, lost, the oil spill took 57 days before he responded, and that was minimal. His approval rating is plummeting....perhaps he needs to hop aboard the 'clue train'! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Charley Noble Date: 23 Jun 10 - 10:37 PM I do hate troll threads which start out like this one did. In addition to denigrating the President, the Vice President, the Security Council and the American Ambassador to Afghanistan (only the Secretary of State escaped the denigration), McChrystall also denigrated the other national forces (including the British troops) under the UN command. I'm happy with Obama's new choice, General Petraeus. He's an experienced military man and highly intelligent. I thinks he's the rare general that the troops respect as do the civilian leadership, and most likely do the vast majority of the American public. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Rapparee Date: 23 Jun 10 - 10:10 PM In the US, military officers who resigned or were sacked and who had political ambitions have had a very poor track record. MacArthur and McClelland both come to mind immediately. Washington, Jackson, Harrison, Grant, Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower were elected AFTER honorable retirement or resignation of commission. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Skivee Date: 23 Jun 10 - 09:26 PM I note that Paco hasn't rejoined the conversation. Perhaps the discourse is more reasoned than he had hoped. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 23 Jun 10 - 09:19 PM An unspecified GUEST asked whether I had been a military officer. The answer is no, unless you want to dip down as low as a corporal. As we would say in those days, "Don't call me no 'sir'! I work for a living!" I turned them down twice when they attempted to get me to go to OCS, and also when I was contacted for recruitment to the counterintelligence corps. That said, over the years I've had a number of ex-military officer friends, and I've been a student of civics for years. And I paid attention to the military ethos when I was in there. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Leadfingers Date: 23 Jun 10 - 09:05 PM As an Ex Regular Serviceman (Fourteen years R A F) I would like to apologise to our American friends for the Bloody Stupid comments of Paco O'Barmy , who MAY be a Good Musician , but obviously has NO idea of how a Professional Soldier should behave . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Bobert Date: 23 Jun 10 - 08:53 PM What Kendall saud reminds me of my days in military school... We had this real prick, Sgt. Haney, teaching MST (Militart Science Training" and he oncfe said, "If I was ordered to kill my mother, my sister and my brother, I'd do it without a second thought..." That say it purdy well... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Lonesome EJ Date: 23 Jun 10 - 08:52 PM McChrystal is a smart man and knew he would be forcing Obama's hand in this matter. Yes, I believe he has political aspirations, and I believe this was done to enhance his fortunes with the republican voter base. I highly respect his tactics and strategy in Afghanistan, think he was a tremendous asset as a military commander, and also believe the disengenuousness of this approach reveals him to be a calculating individual who may see American Politics as another theater of war. Which makes him a very dangerous man indeed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Arkie Date: 23 Jun 10 - 08:35 PM I worked for state government for 30 years. I did not need to be told certain unwritten guidelines. When you disagreed with a person of higher rank you discussed it face to face with the good ones and you did not pursue the issue with the jackasses. It did not take long to tell which was which. You might bitch in the breakroom or to a close co-worker but you did not bitch in Wal-Mart, in front of a TV camera or to a Rolling Stone reporter. Anyone who believes McCrystal was let go because of his honesty is either extremely naive or trying to be ugly. The fact that McChrystal's name was misspelled might suggest something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: artbrooks Date: 23 Jun 10 - 08:13 PM Retired officers (and enlisted people) are normally subject to the UCMJ. However, they may not be recalled for the sole reason of bringing them under courts martial jurisdiction, EXCEPT for acts committed while still on active duty. However, they can be recalled for post-retirement acts that involve "crimes of national security" as defined by the Hiss Act. Or, to be more direct, you forfeit your retired pay (after due process) if you reveal military secrets (and that is subject to a whole bunch of 'howevers'), but you may trash the military to your heart's content. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: GUEST,kendall Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:45 PM There are rules in the military. One is, if he outranks you, you do as you are told and you keep your pie hole shut. Obama had no choice. One little show of weakness and the sharks would be all over him. McLellan had political ambitions too but they went nowhere. MacArthur was blinded by the light he cast on himself. A real Prima Donna.His own political ambitions went south too. General Eisenhower once said that he had studied drama under MacArthur. Anyway, we now have in my opinion a better General. And I say Obama did the right thing. This is not a banana republic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Bobert Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:43 PM Like I said, we're probably better off without this man running the Afgan war if he thinks that *he* is above defending the Constitution and above following military law... Obama did the right thing is accepting McC's resignation... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Genie Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:20 PM From the Uniform Code Of Military Justice, Section 888, Article 88: "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: Genie Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:19 PM @ hg (Moreover, he should have been told that if he tries to make his case in the national media once he is out, he will be stripped of his pension. Kind of like a "no compete" clause.) Maybe one of you ex-military people can answer this: If you retire from the miliatary, are you then totally free of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice? Can you keep your medals, your pension, etc., even if you, say, reveal military secrets or openly trash the active US military? I would assume you can't be imprisoned or executed by the military for something you did after you retired, but what about the retiree benefits? (Of course, an ex-general could make a helluva lot more as a lobbyist or executive for a big defense contractor that as a military pensioner.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystal sacked for being honest From: Genie Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:10 PM To reiterate and highlight some key points made by previous posters: 1. McChrystal was relieved of his command for insubordination, not for "honesty." 2. "Sounding off in public, publicly attacking the policies or persons of the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense, etc., is in contravention of the military virtue of carrying out orders; it attacks the very constitutional structure of civilian-directed military procedure and discipline." AND IT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE MILITARY CODE OF JUSTICE. McChrystal could have been COURT-MARTIALED and perhaps should have been. 3. "Freedom Of Speech" means you cannot be prosecuted for expressing your opinions. It does not mean you can "speak" anywhere and at any time without consequences. And it does not apply within the US military, especially in the context of military operations. The military does not operate by "reasoned debate" between superior officers and their underlings. --- McChrystal may have been deliberately seeking to be relieved of his command so he could retire and become a high-paid lobbyist or commentator. But apparently he had initially agreed to a 30-minute interview with the Rolling Stone reporter, and it was because of Skarpi's volcano (I know you don't control it, Skarpi, but it's in your back yard) that they were both stranded for several days. They ended up hanging around with each other for quite some time, drinking and trying to pass the lengthy delay time. It appears that the extended "leisure" and alcohol consumption in the company of the RS reporter may have loosened McChrystal's lips and overruled his judgment. He well might not have mouthed off so freely to someone he knew to be a reporter under other circumstances. Of course, if this account is true, it begs the question of what other things might have slipped from his lips to who-knows-who-else under other circumstances of boredom, conviviality and strong drink. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: mousethief Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:07 PM Don't we have to be in a state of declared war for a charge of treason to be made? I remember something about that from civics class. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest From: bobad Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:52 PM Rolling Stone flushes another one down - remember Earl Butz? |
