PDA

View Full Version : Obama Spoke to General McChrystal Once in 70 Days


Lyle
09-28-2009, 07:29 PM
This is what General McChrystal said in his 60 minutes interview. President Obama spoke to him once in 70 days. Thoughts?

Kind of astonishing, in my opinion.

nikkibong
09-28-2009, 07:36 PM
I trust that Obama is speaking to a range of experts regarding Afghanistan; McChrystal is just one among many. Despite what the GOP likes to claim, it's not up to generals to set policy- we have this thing called 'civilian control' over the military.

Personally, I hope that Obama goes more in the Bidenesque direction, rathr than down the McChrystal TOTAL WAR macho primose path.

Lyle
09-28-2009, 07:57 PM
What does civilian control have to do with President Obama communicating frequently with General McChrystal? There's a war going on in Afghanistan and it is the war the President and the Democrats have pressed as an important issue... yet the Commander in Chief has only spoken to the commanding general there once in 70 days?

nikkibong, do you know how much Abrahm Lincoln talked to his generals? Practically every day. Abraham Lincoln sat in telegram offices for hours just waiting to hear from some of his generals. He and his cabinet even sat in General McClellan's waiting room for a couple hours waiting to speak to him, only to be told McClellan was sick and wouldn't see the President. Times have changed, and Afghanistan isn't the American Civil War, but talking to the commanding officer in charge of Afghanistan once in 70 days is not leadership.

This speaks volumes about President Obama.

Wonderment
09-28-2009, 08:06 PM
I'm organizing a public screening of this film (http://rethinkafghanistan.com/)at our library next month. Screening are going on all over the country.

I'm also hoping that Obama makes the right decision not to escalate before it's too late and we sink deeper into the quagmire.

I would like to think that Biden really learned a valuable "Never Again" lesson when he got played by Bush to support the war on Iraq. But I have my doubts.

Also worrisome is the fact that high-tech warists have learned to shift to a game plan that reduces US casualties while maximizing pain for others. I would hate to see Obama accept a mass hi-tech killing program based on the principle that as long as there are relatively few US soldiers coming home in body bags, it's all good.

We need to end the Afghanistan War, not just tweak it.

Baltimoron
09-28-2009, 09:48 PM
Kind of astonishing, in my opinion.

Not really. it's called a chain of command, and there's also the doctrine of civilian control of the military. The chain of command is one of the military's most irksome protocols - I tested it once. The colonel exited out a back door. I got a lecture. Many soldiers have a hard time accepting it, which is why we all have to memorize chains of command, and buildings are lined with the same rows and columns of portraits. COs report to the civilian SecDef, who reports to the President. Spencer Ackerman has written of SecDef Gates' influence over policy. I believe Donald Rumsfeld also faced criticism for blocking COs access to President Bush. There is also congressional oversight of this, so if there is a controversy, Congress will respond. Of course, IF President Obama is acting as President Bush did, with Gates as his gatekeeper as Rumsfeld was Bush's, it only proves the protocol is correct, even if one is sympathetic to what the CO is saying.

Whatfur
09-28-2009, 11:10 PM
Not really. it's called a chain of command, and there's also the doctrine of civilian control of the military. The chain of command is one of the military's most irksome protocols - I tested it once. The colonel exited out a back door. I got a lecture. Many soldiers have a hard time accepting it, which is why we all have to memorize chains of command, and buildings are lined with the same rows and columns of portraits. COs report to the civilian SecDef, who reports to the President. Spencer Ackerman has written of SecDef Gates' influence over policy. I believe Donald Rumsfeld also faced criticism for blocking COs access to President Bush. There is also congressional oversight of this, so if there is a controversy, Congress will respond. Of course, IF President Obama is acting as President Bush did, with Gates as his gatekeeper as Rumsfeld was Bush's, it only proves the protocol is correct, even if one is sympathetic to what the CO is saying.

So, the colonel would have been breaking the chain of command by requesting to speak with you? Your chain has a weak link. The President can get his information in any way he chooses and probably (hopefully) has done so here.

Whatfur
09-28-2009, 11:15 PM
I'm organizing a public screening of this film (http://rethinkafghanistan.com/)at our library next month. Screening are going on all over the country.

I'm also hoping that Obama makes the right decision not to escalate before it's too late and we sink deeper into the quagmire.

I would like to think that Biden really learned a valuable "Never Again" lesson when he got played by Bush to support the war on Iraq. But I have my doubts.

Also worrisome is the fact that high-tech warists have learned to shift to a game plan that reduces US casualties while maximizing pain for others. I would hate to see Obama accept a mass hi-tech killing program based on the principle that as long as there are relatively few US soldiers coming home in body bags, it's all good.

We need to end the Afghanistan War, not just tweak it.

And give it back to the Taliban?

[added] Ummm just did a search on your link and, funny, the word "taliban" could not be found. Please tell me its not a "the Taliban are no better or worse than the status quo" type argument.

Whatfur
09-28-2009, 11:30 PM
... TOTAL WAR macho ...

Lets call it mach-O... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZRspJg1VYA)

Wonderment
09-28-2009, 11:38 PM
Are you willing to die to defeat the Taliban, Whatfur? If not, you have no business supporting this war.

Whatfur
09-28-2009, 11:44 PM
Are you willing to die to defeat the Taliban, Whatfur? If not, you have no business supporting this war.

Oh, so it is what I suspected. I realize it is a bit simplistic, but have you read "The Kite Runner"? Please find out who the Taliban are.

Wonderment
09-29-2009, 12:33 AM
You didn't answer the question.

Lyle
09-29-2009, 02:08 AM
I don't disagree with your points about civilian control or the chain of command. All that is obvious. However, Afghanistan is the conflict President Obama has personally identified his administration to and is a conflict that has become more problematic or serious since he has taken office. Presidents can talk to whomever they want to, whenever. And past Presidents have had close working relationships with their commanders in the field.

Personally, it bothers me that it appears Obama isn't taking Afghanistan more seriously, as in the combat and nation building that is going on every day there. I think it is a worrying sign about his ability to lead and not just be a facade or a Salesman in Chief.

Lyle
09-29-2009, 02:10 AM
You weren't willing to die to save the Tamils in Sri Lanka so you shouldn't be making shallow points like this.

Baltimoron
09-29-2009, 02:35 AM
Just because President Obama doesn't regularly speak to General McChrystal doesn't mean he doesn't speak to SecDef Gates, the JCS, or Ambassador Holbrooke everyday.

Lyle
09-29-2009, 02:52 AM
True, but 60 Minutes and General McChrystal seem to think it is odd. The show emphasized the point at least. Perhaps you're right though and it's nothing, but it strikes me as a problem (from my perspective).

Abraham Lincoln, for example, was up his generals' butts.

Baltimoron
09-29-2009, 06:28 AM
Lincoln is a complicated topic. And, Jefferson Davis was the definition of the worst kind of micro-manager, too, who perhaps should have been a general and not a president. Lincoln should only have been a politician. Lincoln made mistakes, and his style of politicking, based on his constant need to juggle powerful factions conspiring against him, was perhaps not fit for the military establishment. There are too many theories to consider, and I'm no expert, just a hobbyist. But, U.S, Grant, who was always successful - and that's the salient point, not Lincoln's role - had to put Lincoln at arms length when he got his third star. Strategy for the US was hard, and easy for the Confederacy, and perhaps the talent was better south of the Potomac.

Actually, I think there's too much buildup on McChrystal. I'm surprised a soldier would take the center stage and go on TV. I'm sure he got permission to go on TV, so I have to wonder what the administration thought he could do on TV. Perhaps his performance was just a distraction, and the administration is trying to create a celebrity, like Generals Petraeus or Schwartzkopf. President Obama has shown for good or ill, that he is confident about sharing his limelight.

Lyle
09-29-2009, 07:34 AM
One might could quibble with the idea that U.S. Grant "was always successful" as a general. I know what you're saying though. And I generally agree with your points about Lincoln and Davis. Too much politics caused a host of problems for both sides militarily.

TwinSwords
09-29-2009, 07:49 AM
True, but ... General McChrystal seem to think it is odd.
Isn't this a lie, Lyle? McChrystal said nothing and gave no indication that he thought it is odd in the 60 Minutes interview. Perhaps you heard McChrystal indicate it is odd somewhere else?

McChrystal was extremely blunt in his criticism during his appearance on 60 Minutes, but not of President Obama. I don't suppose you could characterize for us the things that McChrystal did criticize during the interview?

Did you actually watch the program, or did you just pick out the sentence or two that was blaring across the top of The Drudge Report or other favored wingnut/lunatic/dipshit outposts?

Your comparison to the Civil War seems a little strained as well, given that there was an invading army within miles of Washington DC threatening to decaptiate the US government. But you don't care about fair comparisons. You care about any point that can be used to damage Obama.

nikkibong
09-29-2009, 09:01 AM
Is a lie, Lyle? McChrystal said nothing and gave no indication that he thought it is odd in the 60 Minutes interview. Perhaps you heard McChrystal indicate it is odd somewhere else?

McChrystal was extremely blunt in his criticism during his appearance on 60 Minutes, but not of President Obama. I don't suppose you could characterize for us the things that McChrystal did criticize during the interview?

Did you actually watch the program, or did you just pick out the sentence or two that was blaring across the top of The Drudge Report or other favored wingnut/lunatic/dipshit outposts?

Your comparison to the Civil War seems a little strained as well, given that there was an invading army within miles of Washington DC threatening to decaptiate the US government. But you don't care about fair comparisons. You care about any point that can be used to damage Obama.

I agree with you, Twin, at least on the merits of your case against Lyle here. (P.S. I think Lyle got the story for his other thread about gang violence from Drudge. As of 5:01 am PST, this (http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/video_derrion_albert) is Drudge's top story.)

But, still: how do you think that an anymous commenter in an irrelevant outpost of the internet such as the Bloggingheads.tv forum, is any way capable of "damaging" Obama? This seems slightly hyperbolic.

Lyle
09-29-2009, 09:35 AM
Yes, I watched the program. That's why I started a thread on the subject. The show cut out right after the question was asked and answered to ram it home to the audience. McChrystal knew what he was saying. He's not stupid.

Whatfur
09-29-2009, 09:36 AM
You didn't answer the question.

Ahhh, from someone so forthcoming with answers to questions.

Do you have a school age daughter? After you and those like you give Afghanistan back to the Taliban, how about you send her there for a little education.

Only an idiot would consider this an acceptable fall back position. Are you an idiot?

Lyle
09-29-2009, 09:37 AM
Actually, I posted the story without ever seeing Matt Drudge's morning lead of it. In fact I posted my story before Drudge posted his apparently (I posted it around midnight cst --- so go do some of that reporting you do and find out who posted first). I'm just that good nikkibong.

JonIrenicus
09-29-2009, 04:58 PM
I'm organizing a public screening of this film (http://rethinkafghanistan.com/)at our library next month. Screening are going on all over the country.

I'm also hoping that Obama makes the right decision not to escalate before it's too late and we sink deeper into the quagmire.

I would like to think that Biden really learned a valuable "Never Again" lesson when he got played by Bush to support the war on Iraq. But I have my doubts.

Also worrisome is the fact that high-tech warists have learned to shift to a game plan that reduces US casualties while maximizing pain for others. I would hate to see Obama accept a mass hi-tech killing program based on the principle that as long as there are relatively few US soldiers coming home in body bags, it's all good.

We need to end the Afghanistan War, not just tweak it.


I want to end the Afghanistan war. I'd also like to stop paying bills, saving money instead of spending it, and having to shave every few days.


There are costs to staying and costs to leaving. If you want to convince people like me and others we need to get out of there, you have to convince us that the costs of staying are greater than the costs of the fallout of leaving.


This is not an easy task, for any of us unfortunately. Mainly because we place different weights on the importance of different things.


I remember people talking about getting out of Iraq, asap, no matter what. Things get better, worse, whatever, not our problem. Aren't you just a little glad we did not go with the Biden plan of splitting up the country or drawing forces down earlier like your own instincts wanted?

Tired Reflex: We should not have gone in in the first place !!!!

Obvious Response by Analogy: And X company's previous CEO should not have made that bad acquisition of Y company costing Z dollars, that does not mean the new CEO gets to just not pay down previous debts and say, eff it, I thought it was a bad move so I have no responsibility for it.

YES! YOU! DO!


For the record I am more sympathetic to being daunted about Afghanistan, more so than Iraq because at least Iraq was not a gutter level country in terms of infrastructure and wealth. I think it would be easier to convince me to lower the expectations there.


All I want at the moment is to minimize the likelihood of another Al'Qaeda style build up seeking to lash out at us. That was the original point was it not? My problem with just getting out immediately there, is that I do not have the same capacity of the left to be completely feckless. Consequences simply matter to me alot more. Sorry, it's true. Anyone who advocated a sort of not our problem approach forfeits the ability to claim they care about the consequences. It's the same impulse that gives honest, non indifferent liberals the same pause.

Wonderment
09-29-2009, 06:18 PM
All I want at the moment is to minimize the likelihood of another Al'Qaeda style build up seeking to lash out at us. That was the original point was it not? My problem with just getting out immediately there, is that I do not have the same capacity of the left to be completely feckless. Consequences simply matter to me alot more. Sorry, it's true. Anyone who advocated a sort of not our problem approach forfeits the ability to claim they care about the consequences. It's the same impulse that gives honest, non indifferent liberals the same pause.

I am not saying it's not our problem. I am saying that war is not the solution.

I only ask warists like Whatfur whether they would send their children or themselves to die in Afghanistan because I really despise armchair warriors.

But that doesn't make me a fan of the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

TwinSwords
09-29-2009, 09:21 PM
But, still: how do you think that an anymous commenter in an irrelevant outpost of the internet such as the Bloggingheads.tv forum, is any way capable of "damaging" Obama? This seems slightly hyperbolic.
I don't remember saying that Lyle was capable of damaging Obama.

TwinSwords
09-29-2009, 09:30 PM
Yes, I watched the program.
Doubtful.



The show cut out right after the question was asked and answered to ram it home to the audience. McChrystal knew what he was saying. He's not stupid.
Let's be clear. I asked you if you maybe heard McChrystal criticize Obama somewhere besides 60 Minutes, since he never criticized him at any point during the 60 Minutes broadcast. Based on your response, you evidently did not hear McChrystal criticize Obama somewhere besides 60 Minutes. Which means you just made up your contention that McChrystal "seem[s] to think it is odd" that Obama spoke to him once in 70 days. Because, again, to be clear: Nowhere at any time during the broadcast did McChrystal criticize the president or suggest there was anything odd about the frequency of their contact.

McChystal was quite blunt in his criticism. But he was not critical of Obama, as you are well aware.

Would you care to characterize the criticisms that McChyrstal actually did make, and not the ones you are making up?


.

nikkibong
09-29-2009, 09:38 PM
I don't remember saying that Lyle was capable of damaging Obama.

You said that in the post I was responding to!

It's still there!

TwinSwords
09-29-2009, 09:42 PM
You said that in the post I was responding to!

It's still there!

What someone wants to do and is capable of doing are quite different. As anyone who has spent time in a bar should be aware. I described Lyle's motivation, not his capability. I'm under no illusion about what Lyle can achieve. But I'm pretty sure that a big part of his motivation is to undermine, weaken, and damage the president.

Whatfur
09-29-2009, 10:21 PM
I am not saying it's not our problem. I am saying that war is not the solution.

I only ask warists like Whatfur whether they would send their children or themselves to die in Afghanistan because I really despise armchair warriors.

But that doesn't make me a fan of the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

Not a warist, and yes if the current volunteer military suddenly changed and needed my services, they would have them.

Unfortunately, and as usual, Wonderment and his film have nothing to offer in the way of solution except for do nothing and see what happens. Here, instead of addressing my sincere question about the film, he has chosen to dodge the question. Does that sound like someone promoting? What it does sound like is the hammer once again hitting the nail. So unless Wonderment wishes to expound a little and provide the answer to my original question, I think we will have to assume that Wonderment's attempt at propaganda gives Afghanistan back to the Taliban. The Taliban who when not throwing acid in the faces of young girls walking to school, they are making sure all women are treated like something less than dogs. Even before the war, groups of Taliban thugs regularily terrorized and murdered. To enrich themselves, not for any religiosity. That is a lark.

Afghanistan is not even theirs, they walked in like a street gang in 1996 and ran it like one until we arrived.

I want out of Afghanistan, but not with Taliban leadership the trade off. More innocent blood will be on the pacifists hands than mine.

Lyle
09-29-2009, 10:32 PM
... came on right after NFL football and I was stuck on the couch, pooped, and half inebriated.

And General McChrystal didn't criticize the President directly, however, the criticism was implied. He knew what his comments would mean to 60 minutes and to the American citizenry once broadcast to the nation.

The man is not stupid. What do you not understand about that?

TwinSwords
09-29-2009, 10:44 PM
... came on right after NFL football and I was stuck on the couch, pooped, and half inebriated.

And General McChrystal didn't criticize the President directly, however, the criticism was implied. He knew what his comments would mean to 60 minutes and to the American citizenry once broadcast to the nation.

The man is not stupid. What do you not understand about that?

What I understand is twofold: (1) McChrystal never said anything that could even remotely be construed as criticism of Obama, or an assertion that there was anything "odd" about the frequency of their interaction. (2) You are either a liar, think you can read minds, or are unable to differentiate between the thoughts you are having in your head and the thoughts you assume other people are having in theirs.

One other thing, Lyle: While McChrystal never criticized Obama or suggested there was anything odd about the frequency of their contact (as you know), he was very blunt making other criticisms.

I wonder, Lyle. Can you characterize for us what those criticisms were?

Are you able to do that?

Lyle
09-29-2009, 10:58 PM
People all over the internet are taking it as a criticism. Here's an African-American commentator on the issue at http://www.bookerrising.net/ (Booker Rising may be quoting from an article on this... but their response is the last sentence of the second block quote)

The military general credited with capturing Saddam Hussein and killing the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, says he has spoken with U.S. President Obama only once since taking command in Afghanistan (hat tip: Drudge Report). "Iíve talked to the president, since Iíve been here, once on a VTC [video teleconference]," Gen. Stanley McChrystal told CBS reporter David Martin in a television interview. "Youíve talked to him once in 70 days?" Mr. Martin followed up. "That is correct," the general replied. This revelation comes amid the explosive publication of an classified report written by the general that said the war in Afghanistan "will likely result in failure" if more troops are not added next year. On Monday, the White House announced President Obama would travel to Denmark to lobby the International Olympic Committee to select his hometown of Chicago for the 2012 summer games. Former U.S. Ambassador for the United Nations John Bolton said the lack of communication with the general was indicative of President Obamaís misplaced priorities.

Some more from Booker Rising:

Booker Rising response: I feel like I'm the only center-right blogger who is supporting the president on this one. Of course, I'm a Chicagoan. We Chicagoans have faith in our relay anchorman to win the Games race down the straight. I think our biggest competitor is Rio de Janeiro, because Europe and Asia have held recent Olympics and Europe will be hosting in 2012. But Barry, you do need to meet with General McChrystal. One meeting in 70 days?

So no lying about it Twinswords, people all over the place are criticizing Obama now for having only spoken to General McChyrstal once in 70 days.

AemJeff
09-29-2009, 11:06 PM
People all over the internet are taking it as a criticism. Here's an African-American commentator on the issue at http://www.bookerrising.net/ (Booker Rising may be quoting from an article on this... but their response is the last sentence of the second block quote)



Some more from Booker Rising:



So no lying about Twinswords, people all over the place are criticizing Obama now for having only spoken to General McChyrstal once in 70 days.

Did you really just quote from the same source twice and use that as evidence that a point of view is widespread? And cite a source's race to bolster your point?

Really?

graz
09-29-2009, 11:10 PM
Did you really just quote from the same source twice and use that as evidence that a point of view is widespread? And cite a source's race to bolster your point?

Really?

Nor did he answer the twice asked question:

I wonder, Lyle. Can you characterize for us what those criticisms were?

Are you able to do that?


Maybe the half that isn't inebriated is in no better stead than the other.

Lyle
09-29-2009, 11:11 PM
No, but I assume Twinswords and everyone else is literate enough to realize how widespread the criticism is about Obama not talking more with Gen. McChrystal. I know you guys know how to read and do read.

kezboard
09-29-2009, 11:38 PM
The criticism about Michelle Obama's arms was pretty widespread, too, but that doesn't mean that anyone should care. Do you have any idea how often Bush or Clinton met with their generals? Do you know how many times McChrystal wanted to meet with Obama, or vice versa? Do you know how many times Obama met with people who had met with McChrystal, or vice versa? I don't. Only once in 70 days doesn't sound like very often to me either, but how am I supposed to make a judgement about Obama's priorities without having any other information on his schedule or other presidents' schedules?

Also, the point about Obama going to Denmark is dumb. I would rather have Obama doing anything at all, whether it's meeting with McChrystal, taking a nap, or cutting brush, than going to Denmark to lobby for Chicago to get the Olympics, because I think he might succeed in getting it for us and I don't want it. But come on, it isn't as if he's doing this instead of meeting with the generals, or as if he's the only president ever to waste his time (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/03/04/BL2008030401392.html).

Lyle
09-29-2009, 11:45 PM
I don't think I brought up Denmark, others have though (perhaps I linked to someone who made reference to be Obama being in Denmark and not in Chicago or Washington dealing with other issues, problems in fact)... however, I tell you people again, 60 minutes emphasized McChrystal's comment about not having spoken to Obama in 70 days. The CBS reporter thought it pertinent. Why? Because Afghanistan is supposed to be important to President Obama and the Democrats, and the Democrat commander in chief has only spoken to the commanding general in Afghanistan once in 70 days. Seems like a lack of leadership to me. If you guys disagree, you disagree... but to me, the 60 minutes reporter, Gen. McChrystal, and lots of other people it seems odd and poor leadership on Obama's part.

edit: Just for the record I think if Obama needs to go to Denmark to seal the deal on the Olympics he needs to be there. Hopefully, he and America don't get dissed though.

Whatfur
10-03-2009, 06:51 PM
Shocking. (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/10/code-pink-marxists-shocked-to-find.html)

bjkeefe
10-03-2009, 07:22 PM
Happened across this during unrelated surfing earlier today: "McChrystal's Pat Tillman Connection (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090525/zirin2)."

(h/t: John Cole (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=27741))

Whatfur
10-03-2009, 08:43 PM
Shocking. (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/10/code-pink-marxists-shocked-to-find.html)


Oh I see rape of children is a hot button. (http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1113)

AemJeff
10-03-2009, 09:42 PM
...

I seriously suggest not clicking the link in this post unless you're interested in graphic violence presented as porn on a youtube-like site run by racists. (Example thread titles in the associated forum: "Europe United Against Islam!," "Kosovo IS Serbia!," "TruthTube.Tv Supporting Geert Wilders," and "Geert Widers Europes Finest Politician." [sic]

The site is a collection of graphic videos of beheadings, rapes, beatings, etc... provided for the purpose of inciting against Islam, among other things.

bjkeefe
10-03-2009, 09:45 PM
I seriously suggest not clicking the link in this post unless you're interested in graphically violence presented as porn on a youtube-like site run by racists. (Example thread titles in the associated forum: "Europe United Against Islam!," "Kosovo IS Serbia!," "TruthTube.Tv Supporting Geert Wilders.," and "Geert Widers Europes Finest Politician." [sic]

The site is a collection of graphic viseos of beheadings, rapes, beatings, etc... provided for the purpose of inciting against Islam, among other things.

No One Could Have Predictedô ... Whatfur would recommend a site like that.

USA! UFC! (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=131650#post131650) USA! UFC! USA! UFC!

Whatfur
10-03-2009, 11:48 PM
I seriously suggest not clicking the link in this post unless you're interested in graphic violence presented as porn on a youtube-like site run by racists. (Example thread titles in the associated forum: "Europe United Against Islam!," "Kosovo IS Serbia!," "TruthTube.Tv Supporting Geert Wilders," and "Geert Widers Europes Finest Politician." [sic]

The site is a collection of graphic videos of beheadings, rapes, beatings, etc... provided for the purpose of inciting against Islam, among other things.

I googled on Taliban and rape for reasons that may be obvious to a few here and in the multitude of links I chose a link playing a CNN video on something called TruthTube.Tv. I personally have never heard of TruthTube nor did I look past the CNN video that Google and then I suggested. Now I have... and at least on the front page (the page linked to) nothing remotely resembles the type of site Jeff is describing ...not sure how deep Jeff needed to dig. But from Jeff''s reaction (he seems really "askared") I suggest just watching the CNN video and exiting...unless CNN is part of this white supremacist conspiracy...and in that case pull YOUR dress up over your head, cover your ears, say Lalalalalalalala, and run on by. Jeff can demonstrate.

However, if you wish to not watch the video then I will give you the highlights. Taliban invades house that supposedly they wish to make a headquarters (which is generally an excuse to invade a house) , husband/father complains and he is halled away, wife/mother complains she is shot and killed...CNN reporter being told this by still stunned grandfather and she then interviews the 3 daughters all under 13 who were allegedly raped by the Taliban who left after two days and moved onto their next headquarters.

Don't want my highlights or my video...well YOU TOO can Google on Taliban and Rape.

Wow, we even got Brendan dressed up in his cheerleader uniform...sorry you lost the game.

bjkeefe
10-04-2009, 12:35 AM
Shorter (debabble-ized) Whatfur (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=132474#post132474):

Sorry for any offense.

And no, don't ask me why I'm Googling "rape," or I'll talk about your dress some more.

Whatfur
10-04-2009, 12:54 AM
You and Jeff engage in a smear. Jeff proves to be hysterical. You prove to be hysterically pathetic. Don't like my dress analogies...quick wearing them.

Peace and Love

AemJeff
10-04-2009, 12:58 AM
You and Jeff engage in a smear. Jeff proves to be hysterical. You prove to be hysterically pathetic. Don't like my dress analogies...quick wearing them.

Peace and Love

Smear? Do tell...

bjkeefe
10-04-2009, 01:03 AM
You and Jeff engage in a smear. Jeff proves to be hysterical. You prove to be hysterically pathetic. Don't like my dress analogies...quick wearing them.

Your Freudian slip is showing, darling.

Do you fantasize about anything else besides me and Jeff these days? (I mean, besides violence-porn, of course.)

graz
10-04-2009, 01:12 AM
Your Freudian slip is showing, darling.

Do you fantasize about anything else besides me and Jeff these days? (I mean, besides violence-porn, of course.)

Well he is fixated on a part of my anatomy too:
You missed...

Brendan replied to Fur with multiple paragraphs and examples and Fur responded in kind...and not an insult was uttered by either. (except at the end where Fur called graz an asshole to go 3for3!!)

Whatfur
10-04-2009, 01:20 AM
Graz too! Its officially a party.

Little clarification...not part of your anatomy...when utilizing "asshole" to describe you it refers to your whole being not just the part you store your head in (along with various vegetables).

bjkeefe
10-04-2009, 01:22 AM
Graz too! Its officially a party.

Little clarification...not part of your anatomy...when utilizing "asshole" to describe you it refers to your whole being not just the part you store your head in (along with various vegetables).

Looks like you spend a lot of time fantasizing about the specific anatomical location, not just the metaphor.

Point to graz.

Whatfur
10-04-2009, 01:29 AM
Looks like you spend a lot of time fantasizing about the specific anatomical location, not just the metaphor.

Point to graz.

Looks like you had trouble with the development of a witty retort.

bjkeefe
10-04-2009, 01:30 AM
Looks like you had trouble with the development of a witty retort.

Given your canon, I hardly think you're fit to judge.

Whatfur
10-04-2009, 01:32 AM
Given your canon, I hardly think you're fit to judge.

Hahaha ...and I repeat.

bjkeefe
10-04-2009, 01:36 AM
Hahaha ...and I repeat.

Of course you do. You almost never have anything new to say.

PreppyMcPrepperson
10-04-2009, 02:46 AM
As others have already noted, Lyle, the arguments and evidence you're mustering here are pretty flawed:

-- firstly, while you may be right that there's an implicit critique of Obama in McChrystal's comments, he didn't explicitly say it, so there's no way for us to know if that's what he meant
-- secondly, if there is a political fallout from his comments, based on other people imputing motives to his comments, citing just one blog isn't enough to demonstrate that fallout

However, I do think you are correct that there are people concerned about this. The NYT had something on it this morning (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/world/asia/03mcchrystal.html?scp=1&sq=obama%20general&st=cse). Their piece suggested that the reason Obama has been hands-off is because he's trying to repair some damage done to morale in the the armed forces, by restoring their sense of confidence in the workings of the system, the hierarchy etc and he's doing that by being very process-oriented in respecting the chain of command, relying on his joint chiefs instead of speaking to ground commanders directly. That may be bad military policy, it may be good military policy, but we should debate that question with some knowledge of why he's doing it.

Secondly, to those who are responding that other presidents did the same, the answer is yes and no. Bush was pretty out of touch with his commanders in Iraq during the first part of the war, and that was disastrous, but I seem to remember much more direct President-to-Petraeus contact during the second part of the war, around the time the military side of things changed for the better.

On which model is more "normal," I think we need a more recent example than Abe Lincoln. Does anyone know what the communication structure between Clinton and commanders in Bosnia was? Because a. that seems to be last modern (ie post Cold War) conflict that we won and b. was, like Afghanistan, a NATO effort.

Lyle
10-04-2009, 06:36 AM
I think it is fair to say that Gen. McChrystal knew how his comment would be taken. He could have obfuscated more than he already did. Was he expressly critical of President Obama? No, no he wasn't, but I've not been arguing that. And yes, I cannot say for a fact that he meant to criticize President Obama, but I think Gen. McChrystal is smart enough to realize what a 60 minutes reporter might do with his answers.

You also know, like everyone else knows, that plenty of blogs, newspapers, and weeklies have said what I've said. There's no need to cite more references. Everyone's lucky I cited the African-American blog Booker Rising to begin with.

Your point about Bosnia and Clinton's relationship with Gen. Wesley Clark or whomever is a good point, but with regards to Bosnia and Kosovo, the U.S. had very few boots on the ground, if any. Bosnia was also less of an American responsibility since it was a internal European conflict. Afghanistan, on the other hand, is directly related to 9/11 and Osama bin Laden. So, arguably, Afghanistan is more important to American interests than Bosnia and Kosovo were. I agree though that Abraham Lincoln is too antiquated to be bringing up as a reference, but for the fact that Obama is often compared to the Republican. Obviously our military has gone through many experiences and changes since then, and operates differently. It was also the American Civil War. I just think with modern technology what it is today, there might would be more communication going on between Obama and Gen. McChyrstal. I mean aren't you surprised Gen. McChrystal doesn't just tweet Obama? (just kidding).

bjkeefe
10-04-2009, 09:47 AM
Everyone's lucky I cited the African-American blog Booker Rising to begin with.

I can't begin to tell you how fortunate I feel.

Whatfur
10-04-2009, 10:02 AM
I can't begin to tell you how fortunate I feel.

"Of course you do. You almost never have anything new to say."

bjkeefe
10-04-2009, 11:41 AM
"Of course you do. You almost never have anything new to say."

If you're down to trying to use my own words against me, it would probably be more effective to wait until you find a relevant place to play that card.

Whatfur
10-04-2009, 11:45 AM
If you're down to trying to use my own words against me, it would probably be more effective to wait until you find a relevant place to play that card.

Actually your words, that I utilized above, could be effectively applied to pretty much every one of your posts.

bjkeefe
10-04-2009, 11:50 AM
Actually your words, that I utilized above, could be effectively applied to pretty much every one of your posts.

This from a "man" who has called me "Perez (http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=site%3Abloggingheads.tv+perez&btnG=Google+Search)" how many times?

By the way, prefer used to utilized. You'll sound like less of a tool. A small step, in your case especially, but hey, every little bit helps.

Whatfur
10-04-2009, 12:00 PM
...
By the way, prefer used ...

"Of course you do. You almost never have anything new to say."

Lyle
10-04-2009, 01:34 PM
I'm anathema to you, what can I say. :)

bjkeefe
10-04-2009, 01:42 PM
I'm anathema to you, what can I say. :)

You could say, "I'll try to stop pointlessly injecting race into discussions from now on."

Or, you could say, "Yeah, stephanie and kez are right: I'm really not doing much in this thread and that other one I started but trying to piss people off by being mindlessly obnoxious, and I'm going to stop doing that."

Lyle
10-04-2009, 02:07 PM
The thread about Derrion Albert's brutal murder by black guys is totally about race. If people got angry, people got angry. I don't expect there to be a nice, soft discussion on black murder problems in America. The problem is disgusting and elicits a whole range of emotions. It also opens up left-of-center politics to criticism since Democrats run America's slums.

PreppyMcPrepperson
10-04-2009, 03:27 PM
I think it is fair to say that Gen. McChrystal knew how his comment would be taken. He could have obfuscated more than he already did. Was he expressly critical of President Obama? No, no he wasn't, but I've not been arguing that. And yes, I cannot say for a fact that he meant to criticize President Obama, but I think Gen. McChrystal is smart enough to realize what a 60 minutes reporter might do with his answers.

You also know, like everyone else knows, that plenty of blogs, newspapers, and weeklies have said what I've said. There's no need to cite more references. Everyone's lucky I cited the African-American blog Booker Rising to begin with.

Your point about Bosnia and Clinton's relationship with Gen. Wesley Clark or whomever is a good point, but with regards to Bosnia and Kosovo, the U.S. had very few boots on the ground, if any. Bosnia was also less of an American responsibility since it was a internal European conflict. Afghanistan, on the other hand, is directly related to 9/11 and Osama bin Laden. So, arguably, Afghanistan is more important to American interests than Bosnia and Kosovo were. I agree though that Abraham Lincoln is too antiquated to be bringing up as a reference, but for the fact that Obama is often compared to the Republican. Obviously our military has gone through many experiences and changes since then, and operates differently. It was also the American Civil War. I just think with modern technology what it is today, there might would be more communication going on between Obama and Gen. McChyrstal. I mean aren't you surprised Gen. McChrystal doesn't just tweet Obama? (just kidding).

Lyle, I think you have a valid hypothesis, and one I might hold myself, that Obama's hands-off approach is problematic. But I think you're better off making the argument on the basis of your own opinions/beliefs about how a command structure should work and marshalling evidence on that basis--do some research on Bosnia, or other modern wars--, than trying to prove what others think, simply because it's hard to prove.

Lyle
10-05-2009, 09:37 AM
Of course you're right Preppy, but that's a little too much work for me just to make an argument in this forum, I think. If some journalist or academic decides to report on the matter, I'll of course throw that information out there.

Whatfur
10-08-2009, 10:26 PM
Interesting perspective from CBS. (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5371892n&tag=api)