Barack Obama furious at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan

Telegraph UK ^ | 05 Oct 2009 | Alex Spillius

[opentalk]

According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.

The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bid.

[rabidralph]

An adviser to the administration said: "People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly."

I'm speechless. Who's the naive one in this episode?

[omega4179]

Hope.

[Jeff Chandler]

Bruce Ackerman, an expert on constitutional law at Yale University, said in the Washington Post: "As commanding general, McChrystal has no business making such public pronouncements."

[omega4179]

and if 0 sends reinforcements he looks Bushlike. He cannot win.

[tx_eggman]

People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly."

There's only one person in the equation that's a naive upstart ... and it isn't the good General.

[aimhigh]

Telegraph UK = Media Free America, to counter the US government media censorship.

[NonValueAdded]

Suppose the general and his boss Petraeus resign in protest of the O policies?

Enter Wesley Clark and neither general wants to have that happen. Clark is Obama's checkmate to their resignation threat.

[Grams A]

I know a lot of people do not like the draft but in the U.S. not only do we no longer stress the concept of winning with our children in any arena, most of the people in the U.S. have never been in the military and haven’t a clue. Either we elect a President who understands military engagement and the rules of this game or they must rely on their field commanders. BO has neither attribute nor does anyone around him. This is not lawn tennis at the local club on Sunday afternoon!

[carumba]

Why do modern day Democrat President’s make lousy Commander in Chiefs?

Because their true calling is to be on Saturday Night Live or some other appropriate entertainment venue.

[clee1]

WAAAAAAAAAHHHH!

Truth hurts, don’t it, Zero?

[xrmusn]

OB is just confrused.
He is in his HST mode.

MacArthur, McChrystal not much difference-name almost the same.

Just waiting to see where the A Bomb will be dropped.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

1951 all over again

[Freedom56v2]

To my mind he doesn’t seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly.”

---

In “Washington Hard-Ball”-Speak,
Speaking mind too plainly = TELLING THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!

[radar101]

I’d tell BO: “Kiss this !”

[o_zarkman44]

If looks could kill, it isn’t good for our troops.

[shalom aleichem]

Also no person should be elected President who could not rate a security clearance

[laconic]

I’d much rather listen to the battle sense of the commander of troops on the ground instead of some nincompoop Yale law professor quoted in this article and pontificating about issues in the abstract that he undoubtedly knows nothing about in practice.

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[o_zarkman44]

“Why do modern day Democrat President’s make lousy Commander in Chiefs?”

Because they primarily lead liberated women and sissy men rather than warriors.

[I am Richard Brandon]

1. Because they are pacifists.
2. Because they are utopians
3. Because they do not trust the military
4. Because they have no military experience
5. Because they secretly sympathise with the enemy
6. Because they are academics with little real world experience

Fill your other answers here