top u..s commander in hot water

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Looking back to the election in November 2008 and the primaries before it, I am not ashamed to admit that I now feel Hillary Clinton was the best choice for President.

Couldn't agree more. She was my early choice for the Dems before the real primary season began because I'd liked her for yeaaaaaaaars, but I got sucked into Obama fever throughout the campaign, and wasn't going to vote for anyone who brought Sarah Palin along on the ticket in a million years (especially when the Prez is 70 years old, no way I'm taking ANY chance on that idiot landing herself in the White House by accident), so naturally I supported Obama. But he's been a pretty significant letdown to me so far.

But I'd take Clinton any day and have always liked her.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-96873364.html

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-96873364.html

Vietnam all over again.....

[Danzig]

Often these civilian aides have a loose portfolio and are brought along in part because they aren't as constrained by the military's chain of command


and therein lies the rub...much as anyone might enjoy having a general badmouth his commander in chief, it can and will only land said general in hot water. it's not the military way, to do things like what may well have happened here...guess we'll see once the rolling stone article appears. but we most likely will be looking for a new commander in afganistan, and soon.

[Riot]

The question is why would he sacrifice his career over this - his chosen methodology doesn't by default force the administration to change anything about the current approach to Afghanistan, unless it's keyed somehow to the next in line to be there.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

The question is why would he sacrifice his career over this - his chosen methodology doesn't by default force the administration to change anything about the current approach to Afghanistan, unless it's keyed somehow to the next in line to be there.

really the only answer I can come up with is he wanted to be fired and he didnt want to lead this war the way the President does. Maybe he felt if he made a stink and got fired, there would be a better chance of things changing (on how we are fighting in Afghanistan) than if he just resigned.

Its not a respectable thing for the general to do (this article) but it sure doesnt look good for your man Obama and his abilities.

I guess I'll be buying the Rolling Stones mag this week.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Maybe he felt if he made a stink and got fired, there would be a better chance of things changing (on how we are fighting in Afghanistan) than if he just resigned.

I guess I'll be buying the Rolling Stones mag this week.

Maybe, but the damage to the United States and the office of the President is greater than to Obama the man. I can't see McC. doing a suicide mission to the US, just to stick it to Obama.

Don't purchase RS, excerpts will be all over the internet for free by the end of the day

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

The question is why would he sacrifice his career over this - his chosen methodology doesn't by default force the administration to change anything about the current approach to Afghanistan, unless it's keyed somehow to the next in line to be there.

Because he cares about his troops more than his personal career? And when he has to follow orders from a clown calls it a day?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Because he cares about his troops more than his personal career? And when he has to follow orders from a clown calls it a day?

I'd think if the man's primary concern was indeed concern for his troops, he wouldn't call it a day, he'd stay to help protect them from decisions he didn't agree with. Or he'd tell his Commander in Chief he couldn't carry out his orders and suffer removal. Or he'd retire with class.

Sad way to end a distinguished military career. I'll bet Obama doesn't have the balls to fire him. And yes, I think he must be fired. It doesn't matter who the President is, or if you agree with the politics or not, you don't publically eff the Commander in Chief.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Often these civilian aides have a loose portfolio and are brought along in part because they aren't as constrained by the military's chain of command


and therein lies the rub...much as anyone might enjoy having a general badmouth his commander in chief, it can and will only land said general in hot water. it's not the military way, to do things like what may well have happened here...guess we'll see once the rolling stone article appears. but we most likely will be looking for a new commander in afganistan, and soon.

even if I'm Obama and I like the job he's doing in Afghanistan.. he would still get demoted / fired. you can talk **** about your boss underneath your back or to your friends, but not to a rolling stones reporter.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

even if I'm Obama and I like the job he's doing in Afghanistan.. he would still get demoted / fired. you can talk **** about your boss underneath your back or to your friends, but not to a rolling stones reporter.

exactly. and if the boss doesn't like you, you're history. just ask mcarthur.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Couldn't agree more. She was my early choice for the Dems before the real primary season began because I'd liked her for yeaaaaaaaars, but I got sucked into Obama fever throughout the campaign, and wasn't going to vote for anyone who brought Sarah Palin along on the ticket in a million years (especially when the Prez is 70 years old, no way I'm taking ANY chance on that idiot landing herself in the White House by accident), so naturally I supported Obama. But he's been a pretty significant letdown to me so far.

But I'd take Clinton any day and have always liked her.

What exactly do you think would be better at this point with Hillary as president?
I worked hard for the Obama campaign, and I'm still glad I did. Does the administration disappoint me quite frequently? Of course. They all do. But I am still damn sure that a McCain administration would disappoint me a whole lot more often than the Obama administration ever does.
As for Hillary, I think she would pretty much have made most of the same decisions on key issues that the Obama administration has done, so I don't think much would be different. The only thing that might be different would be on health care. Once the polls came out showing that the majority of Americans disapproved of the reform proposal she probably would have dumped it and moved on to something else. In my opinion she has relatively few actual convictions other than to do whatever polls tell her is the most popular (at least that is how she - and her husband - typically campaigned) and I seriously doubt she would have slugged it out for a year while her approval ratings were dropping weekly like Obama did. Especially after the '93 push and what followed in '94, I just can't see her doing that. But, of course, all of this is just pure conjecture.