PDA

View Full Version : General called to Carpet for speaking ill of Obama


Neezar
06-22-2010, 03:37 PM
http://www.whnt.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-mcchrystal-enemies,0,621436.story


WASHINGTON (AP) The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan has been summoned to Washington to explain derogatory comments about President Barack Obama and his colleagues, administration officials said Tuesday.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who publicly apologized Tuesday for using "poor judgment" in an interview in Rolling Stone magazine, has been ordered to attend the monthly White House meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan in person Wednesday rather than over a secure video teleconference, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. He'll be expected to explain his comments to Obama and top Pentagon officials, these officials said.



Obama has the authority to fire McChrystal. His predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, was sacked on grounds that the military needed "new thinking and new approaches" in Afghanistan.

McChrystal spent Tuesday calling those mentioned in the article to apologize, officials said. Among those was Richard Holbrooke, U.S. special envoy to Pakistan. It was not clear whether the general had spoken directly to Obama.

Holbrooke's office said in a terse two-line statement that McCrystal had called him in Kabul "to apologize for this story and accept full responsibility for it." It said Holbrooke "values his close and productive relationship with General McChrystal."

In Kabul, President Hamid Karzai issued a statement calling McChrystal the "best commander" of the war. Karzai spokesman Waheed Omar said Karzai hopes that Obama doesn't decide to replace him.

A spokesman said Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen told McChrystal of his "deep disappointment" over the article.

The article in this week's Rolling Stone depicts McChrystal as a lone wolf on the outs with many important figures in the Obama administration and unable to persuade even some of his own soldiers that his strategy can win the war.

The interview describes McChrystal, 55, as "disappointed" in his first Oval Office meeting with Obama. The article says that although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama appointed McChrystal to lead the Afghan effort in May 2009. Last fall, though, Obama called McChrystal on the carpet for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops.

"I found that time painful," McChrystal said in the article, on newsstands Friday. "I was selling an unsellable position."

Obama agreed to dispatch an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan only after months of study that many in the military found frustrating. And the White House's troop commitment was coupled with a pledge to begin bringing them home in July 2011, in what counterinsurgency strategists advising McChrystal regarded as an arbitrary deadline.

In Kabul on Tuesday, McChrystal issued a statement saying: "I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome."

"I extend my sincerest apology for this profile," the statement said. "It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened."

Mullen talked with McChrystal about the article Monday night, Capt. John Kirby, Mullen's spokesman said. In a 10-minute conversation, the chairman "expressed his deep disappointment in the piece and the comments" in it, Kirby said.

The White House said it planned to release a full list of attendees at Wednesday's meeting. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates are among those who regularly attend the Situation Room meetings in person, with McChrystal and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry participating via secure video teleconference.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called for all involved to "stay cool and calm" and not the let situation interfere with the mission in Afghanistan.

He said he had "enormous respect" for the general and had spoken to McChrystal on Tuesday morning and "emphasized to him that I think, obviously, those are comments that he is going to have to deal with with respect to the commander in chief, the vice president and his national security staff."

The Rolling Stone profile, titled "The Runaway General," emerged from several weeks of interviews and travel with McChrystal's tight circle of aides this spring.

Duncan Boothby, a special assistant to McChrystal, who set up Rolling Stone's interviews with the commander, submitted his resignation on Tuesday to his superiors in the public affairs office at NATO headquarters in Kabul, a U.S. official said on condition of anonymity because it involved a personnel matter.

The official said that Boothby was a civilian who was contracted to work in the public affairs section.

In the interview, McChrystal he said he felt betrayed by Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, the man the White House chose to be his diplomatic partner. If Eikenberry had the same doubts, McChrystal said he never expressed them until a leaked internal document threw a wild card into the debate over whether to add more troops last November. In the document, Eikenberry said Afghan President Hamid Karzai was not a reliable partner for the counterinsurgency strategy McChrystal was hired to execute.


McChrystal accused the ambassador of giving himself cover.

"Here's one that covers his flank for the history books," McChrystal told the magazine. "Now, if we fail, they can say 'I told you so.'"

Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the U.S. embassy in Kabul, said Eikenberry and McChrystal "are fully committed to the president's strategy and to working together as one civilian-military team."

McChrystal has a history of drawing criticism, despite his military achievements.

In June 2006 President George W. Bush congratulated McChrystal for his role in the operation that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. As head of the special operations command, McChrystal's forces included the Army's clandestine counterterrorism unit, Delta Force.

He drew criticism for his role in the military's handling of the friendly fire shooting of Army Ranger Pat Tillman a former NFL star in Afghanistan. An investigation at the time found that McChrystal was "accountable for the inaccurate and misleading assertions" contained in papers recommending that Tillman get a Silver Star award.

McChrystal acknowledged he had suspected several days before approving the Silver Star citation that Tillman might have died by fratricide, rather than enemy fire. He sent a memo to military leaders warning them of that, even as they were approving Tillman's Silver Star. Still, he told investigators he believed Tillman deserved the award.

This week's development comes as criminal investigators are said to be examining allegations that Afghan security firms have been extorting as much as $4 million a week from contractors paid with U.S. tax dollars and then funneling the spoils to warlords and the Taliban, according to a U.S. military document. The payments are intended to ensure safe passage through dangerous areas they control.

The payments reportedly end up in insurgent hands through a $2.1 billion Pentagon contract to transport food, water, fuel and ammunition to American troops stationed at bases across Afghanistan.

__

Associated Press Writers Pauline Jelinek and Matthew Lee in Washington, and Deb Riechmann in Kabul contributed to this report.

flo
06-22-2010, 04:29 PM
Word from the beltway is that there are already specific names being discussed by the admininistration for his replacement.

TexasRN
06-22-2010, 04:33 PM
Word from the beltway is that there are already specific names being discussed by the admininistration for his replacement.

He can't publicly make any negative comments about Obama. It's in the rules. Sucks and unfortunately, it will probably cost him his career.


~Amy

flo
06-22-2010, 04:36 PM
I haven't heard enough details of the actual article yet but I have no doubt as to the veracity of McChrystal's statements. This is a CiC that must be EXTREMELY difficult to serve under.

But all military know that although they may have critical political and strategic opinions, they aren't to offer them in a public forum while serving.

flo
06-22-2010, 04:38 PM
Yes, more an unspoken "rule" of service.

flo
06-22-2010, 05:32 PM
He can't publicly make any negative comments about Obama. It's in the rules. Sucks and unfortunately, it will probably cost him his career.


~Amy

Amy, isn't it just so surprising? I mean, this is a smart guy so I figure for him to make these statements he either had huge problems dealing with Eikenberry in particular and the admin. in general or he was looking for a way out of his command post (which was a possibility a military spokesman brought into the discussion). McChrystal had to KNOW it was a career-killer...

Even though talking to the press is a no-no, it's not like he said much of anything, it's more the fact that he talked to Rolling Stone in the first place!

TexasRN
06-22-2010, 05:43 PM
Amy, isn't it just so surprising? I mean, this is a smart guy so I figure for him to make these statements he either had huge problems dealing with Eikenberry in particular and the admin. in general or he was looking for a way out of his command post (which was a possibility a military spokesman brought into the discussion). McChrystal had to KNOW it was a career-killer...

Even though talking to the press is a no-no, it's not like he said much of anything, it's more the fact that he talked to Rolling Stone in the first place!

Oh he knew all right. I just wonder if he wanted to make a point in public even if it cost him his career for a reason we don't know yet. He must have some sort of agenda. He just has to. If he is let go from his command then he may be able to speak more freely and let people know what he really wants us to know. ??

Or he's an idiot who just committed career suicide without thinking. :laugh:


~Amy

flo
06-22-2010, 06:02 PM
Oh he knew all right. I just wonder if he wanted to make a point in public even if it cost him his career for a reason we don't know yet. He must have some sort of agenda. He just has to. If he is let go from his command then he may be able to speak more freely and let people know what he really wants us to know. ??

Or he's an idiot who just committed career suicide without thinking. :laugh:


~Amy

I'm hoping it's your first point as I really admire him and thought he was doing the best in Afghanistan that he was allowed to do.

TexasRN
06-22-2010, 06:04 PM
I'm hoping it's your first point as I really admire him and thought he was doing the best in Afghanistan that he was allowed to do.

I agree.


~Amy

Tyburn
06-22-2010, 09:54 PM
:sad: Things have to be really bad for an American Military Authority to speak out publically against The President



...they do it all the time in England....though not against the Queen :laugh:

Bonnie
06-23-2010, 05:06 AM
Shawn Hannity: "You know how the 'annointed' one doesn't like to be criticized." :laugh:

In all seriousness, I hate to see his career end like this. I don't know what him and his crew were thinking to be talking around a reporter.

adamt
06-23-2010, 10:22 AM
Shawn Hannity: "You know how the 'annointed' one doesn't like to be criticized." :laugh:

In all seriousness, I hate to see his career end like this. I don't know what him and his crew were thinking to be talking around a reporter.

career end?!?!?!?!:laugh: you kidding me lol

McChrystal 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tyburn
06-23-2010, 11:20 AM
career end?!?!?!?!:laugh: you kidding me lol

McChrystal 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:w00t: what a good idea! :laugh:

Bonnie
06-23-2010, 04:08 PM
career end?!?!?!?!:laugh: you kidding me lol

McChrystal 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The end of his military career. I highly doubt he will be seeking a "political" spot. If he couldn't stomach the civilian politicos as a four-star general, I don't think he would willingly put himself in close quarters with them as a civilian. It's true what they say, "Loose lips sink ships". He's not the first high-ranking commander (and I'm sure won't be the last) to run afoul of a president and admin.

Someone said something on FOX News earlier: "Something must be going on on the ground with the "civilian" heads to make the general and his staff feel so frustrated to show such open contempt for them." I tend to agree. However, they should have never allowed that kind of access to a reporter.

NateR
06-23-2010, 06:30 PM
Well, no matter how much of an incompetent fool the President is, he's still the CINC (Commander in Chief), so no high ranking military official should be publicly speaking out against him without expecting some kind of negative consequences. People join the US military to defend democracy and freedom, not to practice it.

That being said, the general would have known this, so Barack Obama must be a bigger incompetent fool than any of us ever imagined for this seasoned veteran officer to be putting his career on the line like that. But I guess that's what happens when people are stupid enough to vote for a civilian, with no military experience whatsoever, to be in charge of our military in the middle of a war.

Bonnie
06-23-2010, 06:41 PM
Well, General Mcchrystal is out and General Petraeus is in.

Why isn't the President getting rid of Ambassador Eikenberry for his comments that came out in that leaked memo, "If we fail, we can say, 'I told you so.'. Gen. Mcchrystal's comment about Eikenberry "covering his flank" was the truth. Apparently, something Eikenberry was known for (covering 'his' butt) while he was in the military. Why doesn't the President get rid of him. It doesn't sound like Eikenberry is being supportive and cohesive for the "team".

Bonnie
06-23-2010, 07:03 PM
Well, no matter how much of an incompetent fool the President is, he's still the CINC (Commander in Chief), so no high ranking military official should be publicly speaking out against him without expecting some kind of negative consequences. People join the US military to defend democracy and freedom, not to practice it.

That being said, the general would have known this, so Barack Obama must be a bigger incompetent fool than any of us ever imagined for this seasoned veteran officer to be putting his career on the line like that. But I guess that's what happens when people are stupid enough to vote for a civilian, with no military experience whatsoever, to be in charge of our military in the middle of a war.

I do understand that you can't have this type of discord that can undermine the chain of command and the military operation. But I do think the President needs to look "behind" what was said in the article (especially about Eikenberry) that is causing such frustration.

You know, it would be nice if these reporters (I use that term loosely :rolleyes:) would stop and consider if what they are reporting is really going to benefit anyone especially when it comes to this war and our troops that are serving over there. That saying, "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should", comes to mind. :wink:

The only thing I see coming from this article is the loss of a general who's done some great things over there during this war.

Bonnie
06-23-2010, 07:33 PM
Hey, Dave, Fox News just reported some British general will be "temporarily" taking over the NATO forces in Afghanistan until General Petraeus can be confirmed. They didn't give a name or anything yet.

Tyburn
06-23-2010, 08:34 PM
Well, General Mcchrystal is out and General Petraeus is in.

Why isn't the President getting rid of Ambassador Eikenberry for his comments that came out in that leaked memo, "If we fail, we can say, 'I told you so.'. Gen. Mcchrystal's comment about Eikenberry "covering his flank" was the truth. Apparently, something Eikenberry was known for (covering 'his' butt) while he was in the military. Why doesn't the President get rid of him. It doesn't sound like Eikenberry is being supportive and cohesive for the "team".

:blink: what..again...Petraeus is in and out of this and that like a yoyo...I know because the name rings a bell to me

What was Petraeus before...coz I have SO heard of him :ninja:

BamaGrits84
06-23-2010, 09:03 PM
If I went on the news and spoke out about my company I would expect a visit from HR the next day. McChrystal knew what he was going on some level I'm sure. I still don't know why RollingStone was given access to such a high lever office though. I've been to busy to catch the news at night.

Miss Foxy
06-23-2010, 09:34 PM
]Well, no matter how much of an incompetent fool the President is, he's still the CINC (Commander in Chief), so no high ranking military official should be publicly speaking out against him without expecting some kind of negative consequences. People join the US military to defend democracy and freedom, not to practice it.[/SIZE]

That being said, the general would have known this, so Barack Obama must be a bigger incompetent fool than any of us ever imagined for this seasoned veteran officer to be putting his career on the line like that. But I guess that's what happens when people are stupid enough to vote for a civilian, with no military experience whatsoever, to be in charge of our military in the middle of a war.

Totally agree!!!

adamt
06-23-2010, 10:29 PM
is it just me or did bonnie get bit by the "quotation" bug :laugh:

flo
06-23-2010, 11:18 PM
Well, General Mcchrystal is out and General Petraeus is in.

Why isn't the President getting rid of Ambassador Eikenberry for his comments that came out in that leaked memo, "If we fail, we can say, 'I told you so.'. Gen. Mcchrystal's comment about Eikenberry "covering his flank" was the truth. Apparently, something Eikenberry was known for (covering 'his' butt) while he was in the military. Why doesn't the President get rid of him. It doesn't sound like Eikenberry is being supportive and cohesive for the "team".

Great question, Bonnie. Our state department is full of fools and egotistical back-stabbers who make a career of staying on the govt. dole. Sadly, I think it would take murder to get rid of some of those schmucks.

I have a friend that used to work for the state dept. and he has mentioned several times that this behavior is common there, he couldn't wait to get out.

flo
06-23-2010, 11:23 PM
is it just me or did bonnie get bit by the "quotation" bug :laugh:

I "think" it's just you, Adam...hopefully, Bonnie will be by later to "clarify".















":)"

flo
06-23-2010, 11:26 PM
Er, and speaking of clarity, when I said it would take murder to get rid of the state dept. eejits, I meant they would have to commit a serious crime (such as murder) in order to be let go.

Don't want anyone to get the wrong idea there...

Bonnie
06-24-2010, 12:32 AM
is it just me or did bonnie get bit by the "quotation" bug :laugh:

:laugh:

I knooowwww. I guess I'll just have to start abusing the "italics" instead. :laugh:

Bonnie
06-24-2010, 02:08 AM
I "think" it's just you, Adam...hopefully, Bonnie will be by later to "clarify".


":)"


Darn, I didn't see this 'til AFTER I replied to adamt! :wink:

Can I "re-clarify" and say, "It is just you, Adam"? :laugh:

Neezar
06-24-2010, 03:51 AM
Well, General Mcchrystal is out and General Petraeus is in.



Is that pronounced "Pe-tray-us"? as in rhymes with Be-tray-us? lol

adamt
06-24-2010, 10:27 AM
what exactly are you implying by saying "abusing" the italics :unsure-1:











:laugh: LOL