Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Life, the Universe and Everything (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   Adios McCrystal (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=5436)

Wonderment 06-22-2010 03:57 PM

Adios McCrystal
 
May the departure of McCrystal mark the beginning of the end of Obama's surge in Afghanistan. It's time to reevaluate the whole mission, call off the drones in the region, dump Karzai and get out.

On the other hand, debacles like this often make warlords dig in their heels.

Thoughts?

bjkeefe 06-22-2010 05:01 PM

Re: Adios McCrystal (or McChrystal)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 166317)
May the departure of McCrystal mark the beginning of the end of Obama's surge in Afghanistan. It's time to reevaluate the whole mission, call off the drones in the region, dump Karzai and get out.

On the other hand, debacles like this often make warlords dig in their heels.

Thoughts?

I hadn't heard about this, so thanks for the heads up.

For those in a similar boat, here is a news story from Dexter Filkins. [Update: this link now points to what appears to be an updated report. Two different reporters now have the byline, and Filkins is credited as a contributor in the footnote. Developing ..., to coin a term.]

Also, here is a short, interesting post from Jon Taplin, which came up first when I Googled departure of McCrystal. (Possible skewing in these search results should be noted, as I am reminded that our General Stanley A. spells his last name McChrystal.)

More news links here, using the latter spelling. Here is the current top Google News result from Fox.

[Added] I probably should have said "news" links, as it appears that almost everything returned at this point is pure speculation or at best, reaction quotes to the news that McChrystal had been summoned to the White House.

[Added2] Here is the Rolling Stone article that apparently started the kerfuffle.

Wonderment 06-22-2010 07:44 PM

Re: Adios Mchrystal (or McChrystal)
 
Sorry about the spelling error on the general's surname.

I will be shocked if Obama doesn't fire him tomorrow.

In hindsight, Obama should have dumped him a year ago when McCh tried to play commander in chief by ranting about how the war would be lost without a surge.

In any case, what will be interesting is how the Repubs. play this and, for progressives, how can McChrystal's departure help the peace movement.

My sense is that it doesn't really help progressives because McCh will be seen as an ultra-hawk who challenged the administration's "humanitarian" rules for zapping civilians and its unwillingness to "get the job done" (whatever on Earth that could mean).

If McCh is turned into a right-wing folk hero it hurts (paradoxically) both Obama and the peace movement. Obama loses because he looks like a wimp, and the peace movement loses because the right will claim that warrior McCh knows more than civilian Obama i.e, we need less concern about civilians, more troops and more firepower.

Unfortunately, Obama may be susceptible to that line of lunacy and sink deeper into the Afghan quagmire. I don't see how this gives him any de-escalation opportunities.

pampl 06-22-2010 08:10 PM

Re: Adios McCrystal
 
I don't think McChrystal will be dumped. He's viewed as too valuable to the war in Afghanistan, and that Rolling Stone article didn't attribute any very bad quotations to him. He's going to be forced to dump some of his staffers, though. It's sort of amazing how far you can rise in the military hierarchy without having the slightest clue about what you can say in front of a reporter.

Wonderment 06-22-2010 09:09 PM

Re: Adios McCrystal
 
The article will also remind people that McChrystal has a long rap sheet that includes the Pat Tillman lies and torture in the Bush years.

AemJeff 06-22-2010 09:47 PM

Re: Adios McCrystal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 166364)
The article will also remind people that McChrystal has a long rap sheet that includes the Pat Tillman lies and torture in the Bush years.

The Tillman thing is what should have gotten him fired.

bjkeefe 06-22-2010 10:36 PM

Re: Adios Mchrystal (or McChrystal)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 166353)
Sorry about the spelling error on the general's surname.

No prob. I didn't realize it was one until after Google Did you mean ...ed me.

Quote:

I will be shocked if Obama doesn't fire him tomorrow.
You mean, you would like him to, and you will be annoyed if he doesn't, I think. As far as I can tell, McChrystal himself did not go that out of bounds (although the suggestion that his attitude is less than optimal is clear), and Obama is also known for not getting that excited about transient things. I expect that if McChrystal is able to be convincing, face to face, that he is basically on the same page as Obama, and clearly gets who is the Commander-in-Chief and who is (supposed to be) taking orders from the Commander-in-Chief, Obama will wave it off.

NB: this has nothing to do with my views about McChrystal, which aren't that well-formed, but which do skew a little towards the feeling that he might not be the best person for his current role. And it is also true that I think we should be concentrating on wrapping up the major parts of our occupation in Afghanistan, in accordance with the schedule Obama gave, what, a year or so ago.

Quote:

In hindsight, Obama should have dumped him a year ago when McCh tried to play commander in chief by ranting about how the war would be lost without a surge.
Possibly, but Obama does always talk about how he wants to hear from well-informed people who don't always agree with him, so it's easy to see that as an example of Obama walking the walk.

Quote:

In any case, what will be interesting is how the Repubs. play this and, for progressives, how can McChrystal's departure help the peace movement.
I suspect it will be interesting only for the comedy, concerning the Republicans. This is going to be like the Joe Barton Kinsley-gaffe -- the noisemakers on the right are likely to oscillate wildly among a few contradictory talking points. (I hope!)

As for the peace effort, well, yeah, I hope, too. But I am not going to bet on it at this point.

Quote:

My sense is that it doesn't really help progressives because McCh will be seen as an ultra-hawk who challenged the administration's "humanitarian" rules for zapping civilians and its unwillingness to "get the job done" (whatever on Earth that could mean).

If McCh is turned into a right-wing folk hero it hurts (paradoxically) both Obama and the peace movement. Obama loses because he looks like a wimp, and the peace movement loses because the right will claim that warrior McCh knows more than civilian Obama i.e, we need less concern about civilians, more troops and more firepower.
The perennial dilemma for Democratic presidents since Vietnam at least, isn't it?

Quote:

Unfortunately, Obama may be susceptible to that line of lunacy and sink deeper into the Afghan quagmire. I don't see how this gives him any de-escalation opportunities.
I don't think Obama is susceptible to lines of lunacy, although I acknowledge he sometimes makes political calculations that cause him to do things other than I would prefer.

As for the de-escalation, I dunno if I agree with you. Seems to me this could be seen as a completely separate thing. Once it gets off the top of the news cycle, I mean. As I mentioned above, I'm counting on Obama to stick to the timetable he laid out a while ago, when the only issue on the table is "What are we going to do, and for how long are we going to try that?" So, he has cover for a draw-down, if he needs it, in that he can point to this promise he already made.

Ultimately, it seems like too many things are up in the air, so it's really hard for me to do any kind of analysis of the McChrystal situation and give reasoned predictions. It's mostly just gut feelings at the moment. And, in any case, it'll all be moot soon enough.

bjkeefe 06-22-2010 10:40 PM

Re: Adios McCrystal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 166373)
The Tillman thing is what should have gotten him fired.

Forgot about that part. Yeah, to the extent that I understand his role in that, I agree.

Wonderment 06-22-2010 11:59 PM

Re: Adios Mchrystal (or McChrystal)
 
Quote:

You mean, you would like him to, and you will be annoyed if he doesn't, I think.
No, I mean my political intuition tells me he's a goner. But we'll see. I may be eating crow come the morrow.

I mostly agree with the rest of your post. You're right that the McChrystal affaire (like the e?) should be decoupled from the Big Questions of the war.

bjkeefe 06-23-2010 01:21 AM

Re: Adios Mchrystal (or McChrystal)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 166399)
No, I mean my political intuition tells me he's a goner. But we'll see. I may be eating crow come the morrow.

Hmmm. Okay. My intuition bets against intuition.

Quote:

I mostly agree with the rest of your post. You're right that the McChrystal affaire (like the e?) should be decoupled from the Big Questions of the war.
It'd be nice if this didn't remain THE story for too much longer, too. Might as well wish for the moon, though, I suppose.

Wonderment 06-23-2010 01:32 AM

Re: Adios Mchrystal (or McChrystal)
 
Quote:

It'd be nice if this didn't remain THE story for too much longer, too. Might as well wish for the moon, though, I suppose.
Well, fired or not, the story tomorrow will be about Obama, not McChrystal. Nobody is wondering how McChrystal will handle Obama.

bjkeefe 06-23-2010 01:39 AM

Re: Adios Mchrystal (or McChrystal)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 166405)
Well, fired or not, the story tomorrow will be about Obama, not McChrystal. Nobody is wondering how McChrystal will handle Obama.

Yep, true dat. We should create two bingo cards, one for fired, and one for not fired, and have the squares be the predicted responses.

For example, on the Not Fired card, one square could be "MoDo writes a column with multiple uses of Obambi."

The Fired card will have to be at least 10 x 10, if not 30 x 30, though, because just thinking of everything the wingnuts will howl in this case is causing my brain to issue a Low Virtual Memory warning.

listener 06-23-2010 02:15 AM

McChrystal Ball?
 
I've been following this conversation with interest, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness and circumspection of all participants.

Though I don't think I can add anything original to the conversation, I did come across this piece of speculation which I found thought provoking (though, as both Wonderman & Brendel have acknowledged, may be moot by some time tomorrow):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908...63298#37863298

bjkeefe 06-23-2010 02:20 AM

Re: McChrystal Ball?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by listener (Post 166417)
... as both Wonderman & Brendel have acknowledged, ...

Have you been dipping into the Beowulf again?

TwinSwords 06-23-2010 02:21 AM

Re: Adios McCrystal
 
Steve Clemons gets it right:

Quote:

Runaway General Stanley McChrystal has to Go

Barack Obama has an easy choice to make: fire a general who has established a culture of insubordination and indifference toward civilian leaders and partners in government or defer yet again to a general who acquires power like medals every time he outwits or outmaneuvers the White House.

General Stanley McChrystal went over clear lines in the debate about the surge into Afghanistan with freelance comments he made in London. Recently, McChrystal stated that the move into Kandahar would slow and threw into doubt confidence in a July 2011 drawdown start date. He didn't consult with anyone before a public redesign of US strategy.

And now in this Rolling Stone report, "The Runaway General" (pdf), McChrystal and his team are reported ridiculing Joe Biden, Richard Holbrooke, Jim Jones, just about everyone not in their groove on strategy.

McChrystal has gone over too many lines.

Obama needs to fire him. If he doesn't, McChrystal's brand will be validated and the environment of insubordination and unprofessional conduct will be reinforced.

If McChrystal survives his White House encounter, then Obama will be diminished.

That is what this has come to.
Elsewhere today, Clemons stated that Gen. McChrystal "and his command staff have undermined the very foundation of public trust in the White House's legitimacy and leadership." Even if the consequences to Obama are politically damaging, and they clearly would be, he has to fire the (reckless and irresponsible) general to establish that gross insubordination and violation of chain of command cannot and will not be tolerated in the US armed forces.

Clemons concludes "Barack Obama has to use this mistake by McChrystal as a learning moment -- reminding the nation that the President is the Commander in Chief and reminding the US military that pugnacious disdain for diplomats, civil society builders, for strategists, Vice Presidents, and ISAF allies with whom they may have differences is something that they must learn to deal with responsibly and respectably."

bjkeefe 06-23-2010 02:32 AM

Re: Adios McCrystal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 166423)
[...]

Excellent points. I don't know enough of the details about McChrystal over the past several months to comment meaningfully on this, but I do want to say, the general (no pun intended) principle is spot-on -- we already have enough of a problem with media-savvy military brass forgetting who's in charge in our country. If McChrystal really has been as insubordinate and disparaging as Clemons portrays him, and he can't completely convince Obama that he's going to change his ways, he should go.

Civilians are the HMFIC in the USA. No exceptions.

listener 06-23-2010 02:32 AM

Re: McChrystal Ball?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 166422)
Have you been dipping into the Beowulf again?

Yes, I confess to being monstrously guilty as charged.

Florian 06-23-2010 02:34 AM

Re: Adios McCrystal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 166423)
Steve Clemons gets it right:



Elsewhere today, Clemons stated that Gen. McChrystal "and his command staff have undermined the very foundation of public trust in the White House's legitimacy and leadership." Even if the consequences to Obama are politically damaging, and they clearly would be, he has to fire the (reckless and irresponsible) general to establish that gross insubordination and violation of chain of command cannot and will not be tolerated in the US armed forces.

Clemons concludes "Barack Obama has to use this mistake by McChrystal as a learning moment -- reminding the nation that the President is the Commander in Chief and reminding the US military that pugnacious disdain for diplomats, civil society builders, for strategists, Vice Presidents, and ISAF allies with whom they may have differences is something that they must learn to deal with responsibly and respectably."

I agree! Obama needs to stand tall à la De Gaulle and throw the rascal out (as De Gaulle threw out some insubordinate generals during the Algerian War).

Obama has begun to look like a wimp in the eyes of the American public. This is no doubt an illusion woven by "savvy" journalists who can do nothing but repeat the same memes every day, but in politics appearances matter more than reality.

Wonderment 06-23-2010 02:42 AM

Re: McChrystal Ball?
 
Quote:

as both Wonderman & Brendel have acknowledged
Where's my cape?

TwinSwords 06-23-2010 02:45 AM

Re: Adios McCrystal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 166424)
Excellent points. I don't know enough of the details about McChrystal over the past several months to comment meaningfully on this, but I do want to say, the general (no pun intended) principle is spot-on -- we already have enough of a problem with media-savvy military brass forgetting who's in charge in our country. If McChrystal really has been as insubordinate and disparaging as Clemons portrays him, and he can't completely convince Obama that he's going to change his ways, he should go.

Civilians are the HMFIC in the USA. No exceptions.

Robert Gibbs today was pretty clear that Obama, too, took McChrystal's remarks very seriously.

Don't know how reliable this news is, but: "A senior Capitol Hill source tells me that General Stanley McChrystal had tendered his resignation to President Barack Obama and that the White House is actively discussing a replacement who could be quickly confirmed by the Senate."

I'll honestly be amazed if Obama fires him, but believe that Obama would gain significant respect from his foes in the Republican Party (even if they never showed it), because they (who fetishize the military) recognize more than anyone that McChrystal crossed a sacrosanct line. If this was a rogue liberal general criticizing Cheney and Bolton in similar language while GW was president, there would be no debate about the proper recourse.

bjkeefe 06-23-2010 02:46 AM

Re: McChrystal Ball?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by listener (Post 166425)
Yes, I confess to being monstrously guilty as charged.

You're a better man than I. Still haven't made it through that one. Not even close.

On the video you linked to: Thanks. That was helpful for me in providing context and reminding me of details I probably should have retained.

Minor gripe (and not your fault, obvs.): If I were Dictator of Teevee, I would have cut the part with all the clips of past news shows talking about the past people Gates has fired. The summary with the scrolling list that Rachel gave conveyed all the information in what felt like 1/100th the time. Plus, I wouldn't have had to listen to those newsreaders talking in that edge-of-hysteria tone of voice they all seem to affect. Man, that drives me batty.

Wonderment 06-23-2010 02:52 AM

Re: Adios McCrystal
 
Quote:

I'll honestly be amazed if Obama fires him...
Wow. We sure have different reads on this. I will honestly be amazed if Obama DOESN'T fire him.

TwinSwords 06-23-2010 02:55 AM

Re: Adios McCrystal
 
Indeed. If this was only the first time McChrystal made a show of his disdain for the president and the chain of command, it would still warrant a severe response. But this is something like the 3rd or 4th big public show of contempt from the general. As sometime-Blogginghead Jonathan Alter said today, "[t]he reason McChrystal must go is that this isn't his first time in trouble for talking out of school in a way that can fairly be described as insubordinate. Last fall, McChrystal gave a speech in London and afterward was asked if he could support the Biden Plan: fewer troops for Afghanistan, with a stepped-up use of Predator drones. He said "no." In other words, the commanding general in the region was saying that if the president sided with the vice president, he couldn't support the policy. Many in the White House last year viewed this as insubordination. ... Having been burned once by Stanley McChrystal, the president probably will not allow himself to be burned again. The military code—and American democratic traditions—all but demand that he accept the general's resignation of his command."

bjkeefe 06-23-2010 02:59 AM

Re: Adios McCrystal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 166428)
Robert Gibbs today was pretty clear that Obama, too, took McChrystal's remarks very seriously.

He Tweets about it or it didn't happen!!!1!

;)

Quote:

Don't know how reliable this news is, ...
Uh, you seen that commercial where the guy is on the plane, ready to skydive, and he turns to the stoner behind him and says, "Are you sure this 'chute was packed right?"

(Pause) "PROBABLY!!!"

The Telegraph? Iffy, at best. I'd never trust anything from them as a sole source.

That said ...

Quote:

... but: "A senior Capitol Hill source tells me that General Stanley McChrystal had tendered his resignation to President Barack Obama and that the White House is actively discussing a replacement who could be quickly confirmed by the Senate."
That seems possible, at least. The NYT article seemed very confident in saying McChrystal had already written his letter of resignation yesterday.

Quote:

I'll honestly be amazed if Obama fires him, ...
Really? Why? You think he's cowed by the military or the thoughts of political fallout or something? Or is it something else that makes you think it would be amazing?

Quote:

... but believe that Obama would gain significant respect from his foes in the Republican Party (even if they never showed it), because they (who fetishize the military) recognize more than anyone that McChrystal crossed a sacrosanct line.
Eh. If they never show it, it didn't happen, and this time no winkie. I suppose I take your point, but ... well, maybe. I suppose a truly changed mindset could affect something down the road. Okay, fingers crossed.

Quote:

If this was a rogue liberal general criticizing Cheney and Bolton in similar language while GW was president, there would be no debate about the proper recourse.
You're right about that. While watching that Maddow clip listener linked to, I noticed a still shot of McChrystal talking to Obama in the White House. McChrystal was wearing cammies, or whatever the proper term is, not a dress uniform.

Think back to the time ZOMG MICHELLE TOUCHED THE QUEEN, and then think about McChrystal being a general who had criticized BushCheney's strategy, who then went to the White House looking like that. The Internet would probably explode from the fauxtrage.

TwinSwords 06-23-2010 03:06 AM

Re: Adios McCrystal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 166430)
Wow. We sure have different reads on this. I will honestly be amazed if Obama DOESN'T fire him.

I just got home a short while ago, so I'm still catching up on the reaction from pundits left and right, but if what I've seen in the last 30 minutes are any indication, I'm increasingly tempted to agree with you that Obama probably will fire McChrystal. Why? Because even on the right there seems to be recognition that McChrystal should be canned. Even the morally depraved William Kristol has acknowledged that McChrystal "probably does" have to be fired.

If the consensus left and right form around the idea that McChrystal should be fired, then Obama will probably go ahead and do it - and so far that's how the consensus seems* to be shaping up.

* based on my limited exposure to pundit reaction.

listener 06-23-2010 03:08 AM

Re: McChrystal Ball?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 166427)
Where's my cape?

Sorry, no cape, but you do get some incredibly ripped muscles.

Wonderment 06-23-2010 03:14 AM

Re: McChrystal Ball?
 
All right, who blew my cover? These guys again?

listener 06-23-2010 03:15 AM

Re: McChrystal Ball?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 166429)
You're a better man than I. Still haven't made it through that one. Not even close.

On the video you linked to: Thanks. That was helpful for me in providing context and reminding me of details I probably should have retained.

Minor gripe (and not your fault, obvs.): If I were Dictator of Teevee, I would have cut the part with all the clips of past news shows talking about the past people Gates has fired. The summary with the scrolling list that Rachel gave conveyed all the information in what felt like 1/100th the time. Plus, I wouldn't have had to listen to those newsreaders talking in that edge-of-hysteria tone of voice they all seem to affect. Man, that drives me batty.

In all honesty, the closest I've come to Beowulf is being in the same library where it sits. So if I am a better man than you (to which I make no claim), it would have to be for other reasons.

As to the edge-of-hysteria tone, I sympathize with your reaction. But keep in mind that without it, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would probably be out of business by now. :)

bjkeefe 06-23-2010 03:21 AM

Re: McChrystal Ball?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by listener (Post 166437)
In all honesty, the closest I've come to Beowulf is being in the same library where it sits. So if I am a better man than you (to which I make no claim), it would have to be for other reasons.

It's conceivable there are some.

Quote:

As to the edge-of-hysteria tone, I sympathize with your reaction. But keep in mind that without it, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would probably be out of business by now. :)
Eh, much as like those two guys, it's kind of like asking me to be thankful that there is cancer, because I once met these really nice oncologists.

Wonderment 06-23-2010 03:23 AM

Re: Adios McCrystal
 
Yeah, punditry will go crazy on this one. But I don't think the basic narrative is too complicated: Macho general thinks he and his crew can outsmart and diss the civilian command with impunity. Terminate immediately.

Florian 06-23-2010 03:26 AM

Re: Adios McCrystal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 166431)
The military code—and American democratic traditions—all but demand that he accept the general's resignation of his command."

To be sure. But I wonder: Is insubordination only the foreground issue? The general and his buddies seem to think that they know better than anyone how the war in Afghanistan can be won. Do they? Perhaps Obama is more wary than he lets on and would like to change directions before McCrystal becomes the indispensable man of the hour.

TwinSwords 06-23-2010 03:28 AM

Re: Adios McCrystal
 
Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings (the author of the piece that kicked off this whole controversy) was on Rachel Maddow's show tonight.

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow: Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings on McChrystal - 'The Runaway General'

listener 06-23-2010 03:36 AM

Re: McChrystal Ball?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 166438)
Eh, much as like those two guys, it's kind of like asking me to be thankful that there is cancer, because I once met these really nice oncologists.

I understand. When I wrote that, I was just thinking of this Lenny Bruce quote:

Quote:

People should be taught what is, not what should be. All my humor is based on destruction and despair. If the world were tranquil, without disease and violence, I'd be standing in the breadline, right back of J Edgar Hoover.

bjkeefe 06-23-2010 03:41 AM

Re: Adios McCrystal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 166441)
Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings (the author of the piece that kicked off this whole controversy) was on Rachel Maddow's show tonight.

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow: Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings on McChrystal - 'The Runaway General'

Thanks for that. An interesting take.

In case that YouTube version gets yanked, here's the same clip on MSNBC.

listener 06-23-2010 03:47 AM

Re: Adios McCrystal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 166441)
Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings (the author of the piece that kicked off this whole controversy) was on Rachel Maddow's show tonight.

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow: Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings on McChrystal - 'The Runaway General'

Yes, I found that interview to be very instructive, despite the unfortunately poor sound quality. In contrast to the overall press coverage, it was helpful to hear Hastings flesh out his point of view in a nuanced way that went beyond the sound bites that I'd been hearing. Hastings seemed fundamentally sympathetic to McChrystal as a person, and his views well-considered and nuanced. He seemed genuinely surprised at the brouhaha that his article had stirred up.

bjkeefe 06-23-2010 03:47 AM

Re: McChrystal Ball?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by listener (Post 166442)
I understand. When I wrote that, I was just thinking of this Lenny Bruce quote:

Yes. I should have been more explicit that I consider the likelihood that teevee news will ever be non-annoying to me smaller than the likelihood that we'll completely get rid of cancer. So, given reality, I sure am grateful for Jon and Stephen and crews, not to mention a bunch of my favorite bloggers. Laugh, because it hurts too much to cry.

listener 06-23-2010 04:14 AM

Re: McChrystal Ball?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 166435)
All right, who blew my cover? These guys again?

Yup. You got it.

And moreover, speaking of superheroes, Jay Rosin is onto something, but what he doesn't realize is that the "undisclosed location" of wikileaks is actually the Fortress of Solitude (which, "coincidentally," is protected by very special "chrystals.")

(And btw, kudos to Julian for the best shirt worn on BHTV ever.)

[?]

pampl 06-23-2010 04:17 AM

Re: Adios McCrystal
 
InTrade gives 70% chance of McChrystal being dumped. I'd take those odds, if I had money and registering for it wasn't such a complete hassle (and, from the impression I got, borderline illegal). I still think Obama views McChrystal as too valuable to the war in Afghanistan and so ultimately his presidency, and is too willing to forgive and forget, to accept the letter of resignation. I'm only like 60% sure now though, compared to maybe 80% confidence earlier today.

edit- Oh, I should add that 70% looks to be a starting price, not set by the market yet.

bjkeefe 06-23-2010 05:05 AM

Re: Adios Mchrystal (or McChrystal)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 166407)
Yep, true dat. We should create two bingo cards, one for fired, and one for not fired, and have the squares be the predicted responses.

For example, on the Not Fired card, one square could be "MoDo writes a column with multiple uses of Obambi."

Something I still wouldn't bet against. However, before he gets Not Fired, this column by MoDo is actually pretty good.

listener 06-23-2010 05:18 AM

Re: Adios Mchrystal (or McChrystal)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 166449)
Something I still wouldn't bet against. However, before he gets Not Fired, this column by MoDo is actually pretty good.

Much as I usually despise the Queen of Snark, I must admit that Ms. Dowd (MoDo? Must we JLo and A-Rod everyone?) makes some good points in this column. And I also must admit that she does have a towel-snapping way with words.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.