Pelosi Rips McChrystal For Publicly Airing His Views On Afghanistan
This one should stir up Nancy Pelosi’s critics on the right: Towards the end of an interview with Charlie Rose that ran late last night, Pelosi took a surprisingly hard shot at General Stanley McChrystal for publicly airing his views on Afghanistan, and called on him to stop.
“Let me say this about about General McChrystal, with all due respect,” Pelosi said, according to a transcript sent my way by a Pelosi aide. “His recommendations to the president should go up the line of command. They shouldn’t be in press conferences.”
McChrystal warned in a speech last week that pursuing a narrower mission in Afghanistan than the one he outlined in a recent assessment envisioning a broad counterinsurgency strategy would be “shortsighted.”
In the interview last night, Pelosi hit McChrystal for his public declaration. “I think that that’s not where this debate takes place,” she said. “The president gets the recommendations of the military.”
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and National Security James Jones have generally said the debate over Afghaninstan should remain private, but have not directly criticized McChrystal. So Pelosi is going even further than top military officials did in demanding that McCrystal keep his views to himself.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Well, she is a favorite target. Powerful women are always a threat to the good ol’ boy network down in the south. Just ask Bob McDonnel.
Of course, by her taking this stating the obvious, she’s kept this story alive one more day for the media that is thirsty for conflict. Nothing like a rabid right, powerful lefty slug fest to drive up ratings.
We all know what really happened: McChrystal requested more troops (through the chain of command), the Obama Administration dragged their feet, and McChrystal decided to stand up for his troops and what he believes in. That’s called LEADERSHIP.
@Jim White: No, it’s called not honoring the command structure, and is potentially grounds for dismissal, demotion or reassignment, though I doubt that anyone would push it that far. The military stresses order, and McChrystal was out of order.
It’s not a soldier’s place, even if he is a general, to dictate policy; McChrystal is not the Commander-in-Chief.
These leftist have so much contempt for the military. This is the same woman who said dissent is patriotic. Of course freedom of speech only applies to views agreed to by the left. Gen. McChrystal is a true leader and stands up for his troops. This is something the left have no conception of. Unfortunately our Panderer-in-Chief is not a leader and is still in the campaign mode.
OT – but: We made have lost the Olympics, but we’re cleaning up at the Nobels – 3 more Americans won the physics Nobel.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/charles-kao-willard-boyle_n_310750.html
Makes me smile.
I still don’t trust McChrystal – he shouldn’t be talking out of school like that.
our Panderer-in-Chief is not a leader and is still in the
Dude, that Panderer in Chief is the “Commander in Chief” of the US Military.
Some respect you’re showing Chris.
Obama is the CIC – let’s see some respect for him.
McCrystal is out of line. We lefties have just as much respect for the military as the warmongers on the right. The problem with Generals is that if you ask them anything, they always say they need more troops. They don’t understand that there are other options and the president will not be rushed just because they say so. Remember that they work for Obama, not the other way around. Bush was a yes man for these grunts and look how that turned out. Did one General stand up and say that we shouldn’t go into Iraq? It’s very easy for them to send other peoples sons and daughters into combat. They think they’re playing army man but, they’re putting American lives at stake and don’t seem to care. Also remember that McCyrstal took the lead on covering up the Pat Tillman murder by his own fellow soldiers. I’d say he’s on thin ice right now. As for Pelosi, once again she proves that she has bigger nads than any of the clowns in the GOP. This is why they hate her. Because she’s more powerful and does not take any **** from these warmongers. You go Nancy! You’ll notice that the women in the GOP are just how they like um. Loud and stupid. See Palin and Bachmann!
@Tena: You’re making a futile argument… Don’t you know that for Republicans, the CIC only deserves respect if he’s also a Republican? If the CIC is a Democrat, then it’s considered “patriotic” to break rank and put forth your own plans for the war or even bash him.
@Chris Carlin: Some have said, jokingly or not, that freedom of speech doesn’t exist in the military. There are consequences, often severe, for speaking one’s mind when you are in the military. Deference to rank is strongly emphasized, because the order of the military breaks down without that crucial deference to rank.
Additionally, if McChrystal wanted to speak his mind, why did he need to do it at a public event? He was out of line, and as I noted above, if he were of lesser rank and not in such a crucial position, he would likely have faced severe repercussions for his actions.
“. The problem with Generals is that if you ask them anything, they always say they need more troops.”
Always. More troops, more money constantly.
Someone brought up a point yesterday..I can’t remember who.
Have the Generals began to grow a conscious now after failing to vocally oppose the previous President and the SecDef after years of failed policy in Iraq by sending too few and now feel they have some sort of obligation to speak out?
“@Tena: You’re making a futile argument… Don’t you know that for Republicans, the CIC only deserves respect if he’s also a Republican? If the CIC is a Democrat, then it’s considered “patriotic” to break rank and put forth your own plans for the war or even bash him”
Goes without saying, really, but it doesn’t hurt to point it out once in awhile.
McCrystal said it himself in his report that we need the Afghan government to assist and that they are not seen as legitimate. So why the hell would we send in more troops. It would seem that Bieden’s idea is much more plausible. If the General want to affect policy, he should run for office. Of course, we liberals would never vote for a warmongering general. Military people don’t make good presidents which is just one reason why we didn’t vote for John McMorewar! That and his idiot running mate!
“Military people don’t make good presidents which is just one reason why we didn’t vote for John McMorewar! That and his idiot running mate!”
And noises are being made abougt a Petraeus run for the office – no thank you. No generals. Eisenhower was an exception. I don’t like the idea of the military running the executive.
>>>but we’re cleaning up at the Nobels – 3 more Americans won the physics Nobel.<<<
Tena, not only that, but one of the women was FIRED from the Bush Administration because she opposed limiting lines of stem cell to non-embryonic.
Sweet revenge no doubt.
Re: Afghanistan,
I agree with comments that McCrystal went outside the chain of command. Big no-no. And that if John “Neocon Grandpa” McShame is FOR a troop increase, I am against it.
We are in this war now for 9 YEARS. The Afghanis HATE us. The Afghan government is corrupt. Taliban are coming across the Af/Pak border to attack us. We need to whip NATO and get more international boots on the ground to maintain stability and put more emphasis on the as-of-yet successful campaign to go after Taliban/AQ leadership with aerial drones.
Ethan – yeah, I know.
It’s so good to know that we still have some brainpower and it’s still operational. It’s been a hard damn decade on anyone here who values learning over superstition.
“We need to whip NATO and get more international boots on the ground to maintain stability and put more emphasis on the as-of-yet successful campaign to go after Taliban/AQ leadership with aerial drones.”
Totally agree – let’s put you in charge.
Here is a link to Charlie Rose’s interview of Speaker Pelosi.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10646
Click on the word “here”, beneath the picture of Speaker Pelosi, to play the video.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10646
Since there still is no preview feature on this Flintstones Era comment box, you will have to let me know if the link works for you. If it does not, I will look for another way for you to view the interview.
It is my understanding that McChrystal’s prepared remarks for the speech were pre-approved by the White House. Not only that:
“McChrystal said that he has had “the opportunity to speak my mind absolutely” and that his senior leadership “not only encouraged that, they’ve demanded that.” He went on, “There may be a limit to it, and they [may] crush me someday,” but he quickly added: “But no, I’m just kidding. They absolutely demanded that. That is very healthy, so I feel very good about it.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100503792.html?hpid=topnews
“We need to whip NATO and get more international boots on the ground to maintain stability.”
yes, Obama said he was going to do that – he hasn’t done it yet.
“Put more emphasis on the as-of-yet successful campaign to go after Taliban/AQ leadership with aerial drones.”
Successful if you don’t mind a few dozen innocent civilians killed.
sbj, this is for you:
A string of successful operations recently killing or capturing high-level figures from Al Qaeda, particularly in the tribal areas of Pakistan, has fueled the argument inside the Obama administration about the necessity of a substantial troop buildup in Afghanistan, officials said.
Administration officials said the United States had eliminated more than half of its top targets over the last year, severely constricted Al Qaeda’s capacity to operate and choked off a lot of its financing. The sense of progress against Al Qaeda and its allies has helped shape the internal debate over the best way to fight in Afghanistan as President Obama explores alternatives to a large escalation.
The White House has begun promoting the missile strikes and raids that have killed Qaeda operatives in Pakistan, Somalia and elsewhere. Mr. Obama will visit the National Counterterrorism Center on Tuesday to call attention to the operations. While aides said the public focus was not related to the Afghanistan review, it could give Mr. Obama political room if he rejected or pared back the request for 40,000 more troops from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/world/asia/06prexy.html
Obviously, every war has collateral damage. I was for Bush using drones and would have been the first person to congratulate him on success in killing high-level Taliban/AQ people.
I’m sorry if you hate Obama more than you love the USA.
But that is your loss.
I’d disagree with the assertion that the military only comprehends hard power. Senior military members are vastly more aware of the necessity for using all instruments of national power – diplomatic, informational, military and economic – than most outsiders will ever understand. CENTCOM’s plan is a broad-based counterinsurgency strategy that includes all of those elements. To some extend, they are interdependent, and McC’s opinion (which I find to be sound) is that having a strong troop presence dramatically reduces the probability of failure. It’s not as simple as more troops=victory. Rather, it’s that more troops to stabalize the situation on the ground makes it vastly easier for the economic, diplomatic and informational aspects of the strategy to work.
(and yes, I know I spelled “extent” incorrectly. sorry)
McChrystal used Neo-Con Consultants/War Mongers, Fred and Kimberly Kagan to conduct his Afghanistan review.
“Beware Of The Military Industrial Complex”. Ike
We have 150,000 Mercenaries/Contractors still in Iraq, in addition to over 140,000 Troops. As the Iraq draw down gets underway, those Mercenary Operators are looking for their next fat contracts. That would be Afghanistan. That is probably why you are seeing the big push for escalation in Afghanistan now.
John McCain is suddenly very concerned about conditions in Afghanistan, after he ignored it, mostly, after Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, switched almost all resources to Iraq.
McCain is running around now, with his hair on fire, telling all who will listen, about the danger that a Taliban/Al Qaeda nexus poses.
We know that McCain. We knew it since 9/12/2001. Where the hell have you been, for the past seven years, while Bush/Cheney were ignoring that nexus, and letting it fester, and grow stronger, as the people of Afghanistan grew tired of our empty promises to improve their lives, and get rid of the Taliban, and the Corrupt Drug Lords, and Government Officials.
Where were you McCain?. I will tell you where you were; you were being President Bush’s Iraq Lapdog, that is where you were. You ignored Afghanistan, while Bush was letting it go to hell in a hand-basket, and letting it become too far gone to reverse.
McCain, you pathetic fraud, STFU. You had over seven years to put the heat on Bush to stop letting Afghanistan slide into the Abyss, and you said nothing. Again; STFU now, you miserable fraud.
@ethan: “Obviously, every war has collateral damage.”
Yes, and our predator strikes are resulting in approximately 10% innocent civilians killed. Not only that, but they tend to turn the civilian population against us in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. There are many arguments against their use – it has nothing to do with my patriotism – get a grip.
everyone’s entitled to their opinion, no one’s entitled to their own facts. For instance, Tena, generals always want more troops, more money, more, more, more! Really? General Casey in 2004-2006 consistently reported to the CINC personally in video link and in person meetings that more troops would not help the fight against the insurgency in Iraq. In 1967-1970 General Clayton Abrams wanted to withdraw most ‘heavy’ US troops from Vietnam and implement a smaller (and less costly) COIN strategy that focused on training ARVN ground forces with FEWER US Troops and supplying US air support. In these 2 cases generals wanted ‘less’; Casey was wrong in Iraq and it took Patreaus’s surge and COIN strategy to complete the mission succesfully in 2007-2008 and Abrams was right and his COIN strategy defeated the Viet Cong in the south and in 1973 the ARVN WITH US air support defeated a Nortn Vietnamese Army invasion across the DMZ (of course it all came to tears when the Congress betrayed the South by blocking US air power from the ARVN in 1975, and the North’s military agression against the South was sucessful). So Tena, your facts are wrong and your opinions are useless nonsense. Cheers.
Or for pity’s sake – make a general statement like the military would spend more money if left to their own devices than they do now and some damn troll jumps in with a specific instance that belies the general statement.
As a general rule, you cannot argue that the military isn’t constantly asking for more money. They are our biggest single expense. And you’ve outlines two different strategies that were suggested that would draw down troops in two different wars – ok.
You win – on those two instances. I win overall – I do not recall one time in my life that the military offered to cut their costs for anything.
SBJ,
How did you feel about those missile strikes, in Iraq, before the invasion, that targeted Saddam. Remember how they killed 1,000 civilians, and did not get Saddam.
Look at the 100,000 or more civilians that the invasion caused the deaths of in Iraq.
It is a little late for you to suddenly become so concerned about civilian casualties . I know that you really are not, but are just using that as an excuse to push for more and more troops.
Still want us to believe that you are a Libertarian, you lying War Mongering creep!
When General Casey said that he did not want more Troops, he was quickly replaced by someone who wanted more Troops. We know how the Military Industrial Complex functions.
Actually, the military is about 4% of GDP. Entitlement programs such as social security and medical programs eat up the vast majority of federal budget. Discretionary spending (of which the military budget is a part) is a small slice of the federal budget (around 16% now), and is decreasing over time due to demographic/tax base issues and the growth of entitlement spending. That’s not a slam on social security (et al); it’s just a fiscal reality.
Isn’t it funny that when Generals were asking Bush for more troops (before he provided them) they were “speaking truth to power.” Now when the same occurs but Obama is in charge they are traitors.
And Liam – you have no idea how I felt about innocent deaths before Obama.
“Isn’t it funny that when Generals were asking Bush for more troops (before he provided them) they were “speaking truth to power.” Now when the same occurs but Obama is in charge they are traitors.”
What in the world are you talking about? If you insist on equating Bush and Obama, you will talk nonsense just like this.
I’m not sure I ever saw anyone among progressives saying the military was talking truth to power to Bush – they were generally in agreement. The military wasn’t happy with Rumsfeld for the reason I got jumped for posting – the military wanted more people in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Rumsfeld was convinced they could do it with less.
But the comparison you keep making is totall inapt because there is no comparison between Bush and Obama. Bush was the Worst President Ever. Therefore, if the military was telling him something he didn’t want to hear, they were probably correct because he was Never Right.
I don’t read Pelosi’s remarks as being a surprisingly hard shot, just as a direct statement of fact.
Did anybody read Eugene Robinson’s column yesterday on this topic? The comment thread would curl your hair. Why am I surprised that wingers think communication through the chain-of-command should be thrown out the window now that a Democrat is President?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100502241.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
SBJ,
You are a total fraud. You ducked saying how you felt about the 1,000 civilians that Bush killed with missiles, on the eve of the invasion.
Libertarians are against Military adventures abroad. You are all for them. You claim to be a Libertarian. That makes you a fraud, and a habitual lying weasel. You are just a spawn of Tur@d Blossom.
>>>Yes, and our predator strikes are resulting in approximately 10% innocent civilians killed.<<<
Yes and doing "the math" that means that 90% of those killed were Taliban or AQ.
Are you implying that you are AGAINST a tactic that kills terrorists at a 90% success rate?
I wish it were 100% Taliban and Al Qaeda that we were killing, but Bush/Cheney got a higher percentage of civilians killed in Iraq, than actual insurgents and terrorists.
SBJ, is very selective about when he trots out his concern for civilian deaths. He is a complete fraud. He just wants a military escalation, and he is willing to use civilian casualties as an excuse to see more useless war, and death.
Troops dying in the stupid mess, that Bush created, is just as immoral as the deaths of civilians.
SJB will not be happy until the death toll of troops in Afghanistan exceeds what it was in Iraq. Of course he did not care either, that Bush would not even let the nation see the returning coffins of the fallen soldiers.
SBJ is one cynical, sick, war mongering creep.
It’s always amazing to see such learned and decent people continually acting out their foolish behaviors and beliefs. Let the military do their jobs–they are the experts, not politicians/bureaucrats. The General is free to speak his mind and give an honest assessment of the military situation. I guess the only reason pundits/politicians/bureaucrats objected because it wasn’t putting a “good light” on their incompetencies and lack of leadership and newspeak. Too damn bad for them! Perhaps someone should change their soiled diapers…
Tena– sign of good character to admit you were wrong in making an erroneous across the board mistatement. Then you blow it by making another erroneous overbroad misstatement. in YOUR lifetime, the uniformed/civilian military did not want MORE of a weapon? How about 2001-2005, the Joint Chiefs wanted to drop the Crusader 155mm self-propelled artilary, it took 4 years to overcome Congressional PORK resistance and some neanderthal Cold War central plains of Europe battlefield doctrine Army holdouts including General Shinseki, whom you probably admire, I’m sure that’s in your lifetime. Not to be presumptuous but if you were alive 1977-1979, the USAF wanted to discontinue the B-1 bomber and replace that supersonic penetrating bird with cheaper cruise missiles on board B-52s, again Congressional PORK kept the B-1 going, and in 1981-1982 morphed it into the B-1B the most expensive cruise missle ferry imaginable. Two quick examples to rebut your new error. It is a given that as a vast bureaucracy the Pentagon wants as many resources as possible, and that leads to waste, but my opinion is the military is the least bad buraucracy in America in that regard. Weinberger’s/Powell’s lesson from Vietnam that was successfullly applied 1981-1992 was an overwhelming force doctrine, but that was expensive and not permanently sustainable in light of the explosion of Medicre entitlement costs. Starting in 2001, Rumsfeld/Gates/Mullin/Patraus have been adopting a smaller, lighter, smarter force, risky but can be done right if it’s done smart. Tena, you have potential to think for yourself based on facts, keep at it. Liam, you on the other hand are on just a moron. Casey was never ‘quickly replaced’. His tour as Iraq theater commander started in April 2004, in 2006 it was extended until his successor was appointed. It was extended, because Fall 2006 was the reappraisal of COIN startegy by the Bush Administration. Ultimately, rumsfeld resigned because he was wrong about no new troops and Bush took personal command and appointed the Petraeus/Ordierno team and their ’surge’ COIN strategy, Casey by the way was promoted by Bush to Army Chief of Staff and he appointed Gates as SecDef. Interestingly, both Casey and Gates were not supportive of Petreaus’s strategy, there was no single military opinion. Bush decided, and he was right. So Liam you don’t “know” how the ‘Military Industrial Complex functions”, in fact you probably don’t ‘know’ much of anything. Cheers
“Are you implying that you are AGAINST a tactic that kills terrorists at a 90% success rate?”
Why yes, yes I am. If those 90% were all leaders then perhaps I might support the tactic, but very few of the total al qaeda killed are actual leadership kills. There are laws of war and the force used must be appropriate. We are not at war with Pakistan and yet we are using drones that inadvertently kill civilians in that country; those people had rights.
The Annual Defense Expenditures of the USA, is greater than the combined expenditures of the next 49 countries. Think about that for a moment. Of the top fifty defense budgets in the entire world, the USA spends more, each year, than the remaining 49 budgets, combined.
A somewhat meaningless statistic, given that 1) we don’t know exactly how much many countries spend on their armed forces and 2) economies of scale are vastly different in different nations. How much does $1M buy in terms of US defense expenditure versus the same amount in China? Nobody really knows. Plus, we actually pay our military members a living wage, unlike many countries (you’d be surprised what percentage of the DoD budget is personnel costs – salary, medical and retirement). How much does it cost to make peroxide-based bombs? How much did 9/11 cost?
Ultimately, we spend a massive amount of money on the DoD budget (and the somewhat related intelligence budget), but I’m not convinced that the statistic about what we spend verus what other countries are alleged to spend directly correlates to anything in terms of security or threat.
And, Liam, my apologies if I came across as snide or arrogant. Trying to have a civil conversation. Even though you and I are likely to disagree on many points, I figure there’s no reason we can’t disagree politely. So again, my apologies if my tone in the last post came off as confrontational.
sbj. which one of these do you not understand:
“A string of successful operations recently killing or capturing high-level figures from Al Qaeda”
“the United States had eliminated more than half of its top targets over the last year”
You are a disgusting pig. Arguing against an effective tactic on AL QAEDA. Unbelievable. Shameless and disgusting. You truly are the worst most despicable piece of human trash.
@ethan: You understand that many humanitarian organizations are opposed to the use of unmanned drones? Are they also the worst most despicable piece of human trash? (BTW, it is possible to kill high-level figures and eliminate top targets while also killing far more low level targets as well as an unacceptably large number of innocent civilians. Note also that unmanned drone strikes do not “capture” high-level figures.)
Such hypocrisy. Here is Pelosi citing critical comments of General Casey to reporters in 2006 for purposes of partisan attack on George Bush.
http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0539
Democrats were only too happy with military officers criticizing Bush. Pelosi is a repulsively unprincipled hack.
Tena said:
“I’m not sure I ever saw anyone among progressives saying the military was talking truth to power to Bush – they were generally in agreement. The military wasn’t happy with Rumsfeld for the reason I got jumped for posting – the military wanted more people in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Rumsfeld was convinced they could do it with less.
But the comparison you keep making is totall inapt because there is no comparison between Bush and Obama. Bush was the Worst President Ever. Therefore, if the military was telling him something he didn’t want to hear, they were probably correct because he was Never Right.”
Guess you were wrong yet again, Tena. See above.
As for your backup argument that it was fine for officers to criticize Bush, because he, unlike Obama, deserved it, hypocrisy is nothing new for you either.
ODO,
I have no problems with how you word your comments. I have a thick skin, and give as good as I get.
You lost the debate when you said it was a meaningless statistic, and when you said that we have no way of knowing what other nations spend. Well, we sure are wasting many many billions of dollars each year on our Intelligence services, if we still have no way of knowing, as you put it.
Of course where you really lost, was when you closed with the cost of peroxide.
A rational person would conclude that preventing attacks with peroxide, means that we should concentrate on more police work, and prevention. All the high flying military gadgets in the world will not prevent peroxide attacks.
And yes we know that you can find the exception, as you pointed out to Tena, but that exception only proves the rule.
quarterback | October 6th, 2009 at 01:33 pm
Such hypocrisy. /pressreleases?id=0539
Democrats were only too happy with military officers criticizing Bush. Pelosi is a repulsively unprincipled hack.
…………………………
Such hypocrisy indeed, on your part.
You are the guy who complains when someone says something critical about Quiter Palin, and you call them women haters,etc.
Now you call Speaker Pelosi Repulsive.
By your own standards, that makes you a “misogynist”, and a hypocrite.
Liam:
Fact is, we don’t even understand our own economy (hence why any two economists will present three different opinions of how to get out of the current recession); analyzing somebody else’s economy is infinitely harder (particularly when their defense budgets and governmental processes aren’t transparent). Economic intelligence is an extraordinarily challenging discipline.
A nation with local or regional aspirations/interests will naturally spend less on their military; one with larger interests will spend more. Rather than an absolute dollar value, a better measure of things is to ask what percentage of GDP is a given nation spending. Even then, the lack of transparency and differences of opinion about economies of scale make getting a hard and fast answer challenging at best.
That being said, I do agree with you entirely about the need for law enforcement and intelligence being a key portion of counter-terrorism and anti-terrorism measures. The military arm has a place (you can’t treat all terrorism as a law-enforcement problem). A strong military is a necessary but grossly insufficient solution for many international problems. Obviously, diplomatic efforts to defuse those international problems that can be defused and deter those who are deterrable is utterly critical for long term security.
In the air combat business, we have a saying: “you will never win the war with one bomb in the right place, but you can lose the war with one bomb in the wrong place.”
(Actually, that was NK rather than me who was countering Tena)
“How Soon Liberals Forget: Is McChrystal the New Shinseki?
“Jones suggested that military advice should “come up through the chain of command,” while Gates chastised that it is “imperative” that military and civilian leaders “provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately.” How quickly we forget: That was the rationale used to muzzle General Eric Shinseki during the run up to the Iraq war. Wouldn’t we have been better off to have had a no-holds-barred debate involving senior military officials prior to the invasion about the number of troops it would take to stabilize Iraq after the invasion? Wouldn’t we have had the kind of public discussion that the American people deserved but did not get?
“Does McChrystal’s speech put pressure on the president, as some have charged? Sure, and what’s wrong with that? The general is saying that the mission the president articulated back in March after a thorough policy review requires more troops than are now on the ground in Afghanistan. If he’s right about that, the president owes the country one of two things: send the troops or redefine the mission. McChrystal’s intervention makes it more difficult to fudge the decision. In my book, that’s a good thing. And people who don’t want more troops sent should agree.”
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/how-soon-liberals-forget-mcchrystal-the-new-shinseki
Maybe the troops can all come home soon.
Liam,
No, I noted that your continual slurs against Palin reflect misogyny because of the sexist language and vulgar comments you make about her. Which is not subject to dispute.
Pelosi would be the same repulsively unprincipled hack if she were male.
But I won’t let you distract from the point so easily. Her indignation now against General McChrystal is comically hypocritical. You don’t and can’t dispute that, either, and you and all your fellow liberals here who are waxing indignant are equally hypocritical unless you denounced Pelosi two years ago and denounced the officers who were publicly critical of civilian authority under Bush.
>>>You understand that many humanitarian organizations are opposed to the use of unmanned drones<<<
Oh yes, those un-named humanitarian orgs! I forgot. You are SUCH the humanitarian!
So, oh brave defender of humanity, do you support every single assertion by a "humanitarian group" or just the ones that support your crooked, disgusting, pathetic anti-American ideology?
Should we close Guantanimo?
Should we stop the use of torture techniques?
Should we allow prolonged detention without trial?
Should we use military tribunals?
Should we use unilateral use of force?
Should we use chemical/nuclear weapons?
How about using civilian contractors like Blackwater/Xe?
Please…………….
Unless you are against those violations of human rights, your whole argument is a disingenuous load of ****.
>>>Is McChrystal the New Shinseki?<<<
HAHAHAHAHA!
Shinseki called for 400k troops BEFORE THE IRAQ WAR STARTED.
Jeez. So ludicrous.
…your whole argument is a disingenuous load of ****.
And not only that, but you have done nothing to distract from the FACT that you OPPOSE a military technique that has a 90% success rate on killing Al Qaeda/Taliban.
Another massive piece of evidence that you HATE Barack Obama more than you LOVE the United States of America.
Greg,
Perhaps you could ask Pelosi to explain her remarks in light of her 2/20/2009 press release seizing on Army Chief of Staff Casey’s remarks critical of the Bush Administration? Or her 2006 address citing public testimony of Generals Casey and Abigail critical of the conduct of the war?
And if her office won’t respond, that would be worth knowing.
quarterback | October 6th, 2009 at 01:33 pm
Such hypocrisy. /pressreleases?id=0539
Democrats were only too happy with military officers criticizing Bush. Pelosi is a repulsively unprincipled hack.
…………………………
Such hypocrisy indeed, on your part.
You are the guy who complains when someone says something critical about Quiter Palin, and you call them women haters,etc.
Now you call Speaker Pelosi Repulsive.
By your own standards, that makes you a “misogynist”, and a hypocrite.
So let me get this straight. The military does NOT in ALMOST every situation, try to expand its power and funding? Really? You really believe that there is no military industrial complex that thrives on massive outlays for weapons and then rewards retired military officers for supporting starting or expanding wars. Really?
Also, is there no difference between a general reporting to Congress on operations versus commenting to the public about overall war strategy? I would think there is a huge difference. McCrystal (and Petraus) were talking about overall war strategy. Casey was reporting to Congress about operational problems and lack of progress on stated Congressional and Presidential policy.
Case in point for both. During the Bush Administration, the Pentagon set up a program where they trained retired generals what to say and then arranged with the MSM for these “expert” “impartial” generals to go on CNN, ABC, Fox etc. They always ended up talking about war strategy, NOT operations. For those of you who looove the military, what that means is, they were shilling for more war. Bigger war. More weapons. Biggers weapons. Many, if not all of these “impartial” ex generals were on the payroll of military contractors.
Why are right wingers hate inefficiency in government but so in love with military industrial corruption?
“Military people don’t make good presidents…”
Ever heard of George Washington?
Respect is for the position of POTUS, not the person or personality who happens to fill it.
Our current POTUS is all over the contradiction map on his public vs private promises, statements, and actions.
Complete lack of credibility & integrity.
The last time a government did not listen to their Generals was hitler in ww 2 this caused him too lose the war. I don’t feel Pelosi should be playing politics with our troops lives.
I am going to quote scripture, and all of you on the left can think I’m a clinging to my God and my guns, but this very thing has happened in history before.
“And now behold, I say unto you, I fear exceedingly that the judgments of God will come upon this people, because of their exceeding slothfulness, yea even the slothfulness of our government, and their exceedingly great neglect towards their brethren, yea towards those who have been slain.” … “because of the great wickedness of those who are seeking for power and authority.. but why should I say much concerning this matter? For we know not but what ye yourselves are seeking for authority. We know not but what ye are also traitors to your country. Or is it that ye have neglected us because ye are in the heart of our country and ye are surrounded by security, that ye do not cause food to be sent unto us, and also men to strengthen our armies?”
The “brethren” this scripture refers to was their army. Do we have a president that is neglecting to care for his army, as they are slain and requesting additional troops? This was a frightening scripture to read. All I could think of was Obama taking his sweet time to answer the call from his military personal for help.
I am disgusted that anyone that writes on here would take the side of Nancy Pelosi or Obama. They aren’t in danger, General McChrystal and his men are. HE IS A LEADER and he is showing he is not afraid to circumvent the chain of command, when that chain of command breaks down or shows little intent on helping. CONGRATS ON BEING A HERO Mr. McCHRYSTAL
Yes yes… chain of command… must not break… respect the president…. hrrruuumppphh hrrruuumppphh…
Comments here about these things are a smokescreen.
The fact is that the liberals are mad that we won in Iraq and are desperately trying to lose in Afghanistan. They are rejecting the best military advice from competent professionals like McChrystal and listening to… “Generals” Biden and Pelosi.
Note that both have gotten everything wrong about foreign policy and military affairs in their careers. Biden’s plan to split Iraq into three countries had the dubious distinction of being opposed by every single Iraqi faction. Pelosi has lied repeatedly about what she was told in CIA briefings.
And the president? Like liberals, he took a tough line on Afghanistan during the campaign. He told us repeatedly that Iraq was “the wrong war,” but boy oh boy did he want to fight in Afghanistan. Yessiree, he was raring to go get bin Laden. Leftie bloggers dutifully repeated the party line.
Now that they’re in power the chickens are coming home to roost. Suddenly their war ardor has cooled and they’re looking for a way to bring the troops home and give up the fight.
@Tom
“liberals are mad that we won in Iraq”
How many things are wrong with this?
Here’s a question for you: is it OK to rob a bank as long as you get away with it?
“Winning” in Iraq consisted of destroying the Iraqi army under false pretenses and then sitting back and waiting for all the various factions to kill each other and sort themselves out.
So..how about those WMDs, Tom? How about those ties to terrorists?
Do the pretenses matter to you at all?
General Mac Arthur did the same thing! Pres. Truman fired him. If however; our Generals are not being listened to, and it is their job to know war, and if foot dragging is going on, how else can they get the help they need in war? We sent them there to fight and win. Now, our leader is dragging his “perhaps” Muslim feet on the request for help. Men are dying under this General’s watch. Where and how does he get the help he desperately needs? How does he get their liberal, NWO attention? Do they even care?
It’s a pity that Nobama needs to be schooled by the General on the ground, but when the Resident ignores the people who KNOW the situation, (one meeting in 70 days), something needs to be said.
And as for respect to our Liar in Chief, he has to earn it as far as I am concerned, and he hasn’t even begun to do this.
As we say in Texas, he’s all hat and no cattle.
@Travis: General McChrystal did not go outside the chain of command and I am sure that of all the people involved in this, General McChrystal knows the chain of command better than all of those non-military types that are giving him a hard time.The only thing that the General did was to answer a few questions concerning his recommendation which has been done over and over again in the past. The reason that it is a big deal in this case is because the Obama administration wants to keep the American public in the dark as to what is going on so that they can do what they want without any backlash. Contrary to what you said, McChrystal was not dictating policy, he was simply answering questions concerning his recommendations. Coming from a long line of military veterans (and one myself), I do know military rules, etiquet and chain-of-command. It seams funny that the politicians can speak freely but the Generals are supposed to keep their mouths shut. IF you want to live in a country where the politicians keep you in the dark, move to Russia or China.
peliso is a total liberal wing nut her bug eyed appearances lend us to believe that she is on some type of drug,,,,,she is dangerous for america just like the dear leader obongo…………. be afraid
she couldnt hold mccrystals jock strap she is just a puppet of the left a real crazy wingnut
noboma is a wold affairs neophyte a true *** clown
impeach pelosi now
another liberal against america just like the dear socialist leader …sad
Two things Pelosi needs to remember; 1) It’s called the “chain” of command, and 2) The Speaker of the House is not in it.
Wally Sandaver-
Your probably the same person who disagrees with torturing the enemy to gain vital information the would save lives. And you’re also probably the same left winging puke that agrees with killing babies by abortion. What wrong with that picture?
The Generals on the ground know what the best way to win. President Obama does not have a clue what’s going on in Afghanistan. He sits behind a desk all day thinking of ways to ruin this country (Fundamentally Changing America). He should listen to his Generals and by not; Obama is telling the world that he wants to loose this war.
Every word that comes out of Pelosi mouth shows her ignorance.
Pelosi and OBanigger is def not becoming butt buddies after Good ol shoes goes on the ground and put s a foot up all ur lefities asses u jackasses think that we cant win a war with just washington, try WW2 it was won by the general’s not the CIC asses, also history IQer’s if you can’t spell it’s OShama, lol, ur a Waste of DNA my friends, the DEMOCRAT part will be outlawed and Ill be sure we screw them everyway they screw us, bring it hores.