So this general with the background in intelligence who is supposed to conquer Afghanistan can't even figure out what Rolling Stone is? We're not talking Guns
Maureen DowdTags: magazines hippies generals rolling-stone 2010 antiwar guns-ammo stanley-mcchrystal war-in-afghanistan-2001
Military guys are rarely as smart as they think they are, and they've never gotten over the fact that civilians run the military.
Maureen DowdTags: intelligence jealousy military soldiers 2010 stanley-mcchrystal
McChrystal's defenders at the Pentagon were making the case Tuesday that the president and his men—(the McChrystal snipers spared Hillary)—must put aside their hurt feelings about being painted as weak sisters. Obama should not fire the serially insubordinate general, they reasoned, because that would undermine the mission in Afghanistan, and if that happens, then Obama would be further weakened.
So the commander in chief can be bad-mouthed as weak by the military but then he can't punish the military because that would make him weak? It's the same sort of pass-the-Advil vicious circle reasoning the military always uses.
Tags: strength weakness military 2010 stanley-mcchrystal backstabbers fuzzy-logic hillary-clinton hurt-feelings united-states-presidents vicious-circle
McChrystal never should have been hired for this job given the outrageous cover-up he participated in after the friendly fire death of Pat Tillman. He was lucky to keep the job after his 'Seven Days in May' stunt in London last year when he openly lobbied and undercut the president on the surge.
But with the latest sassing, and the continued Sisyphean nature of the surge he urged, McChrystal should offer his resignation. He should try subordination for a change.
Tags: london speeches obama stanley-mcchrystal war-in-afghanistan-2001 coverups friendly-fire insubordination pat-tillman sassing
Page 1 of 1.
Data privacy
Imprint
Contact
Diese Website verwendet Cookies, um Ihnen die bestmögliche Funktionalität bieten zu können.