June 23rd, 2010 09:09 AM
Dave is right. Article 88 of the UCMJ prohibits his comments.
While I think he pulled punches, and I wholly agree that this administration are handling most of their issues like monkeys ******* footballs, he took an oath and he violated it.
Shame that the country is going to have to pay for it by placing someone less capable in that slot.
"Life's tough......It's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
June 23rd, 2010 09:14 AM
He made a lot of disparaging comments about Joe Biden. Heck, one reason I'm glad I stayed enlisted was so I could make disparaging comments about Joe Biden.
And it's not like the civilian administration, either in Afghanistan or in D.C., hasn't been giving MacChrystal good cause to *****... but then, I hear the reverse is also true.
Regardless of the quality of people he is now reporting to, it was a clear UCMJ violation, and a violation of every shred of good sense to give such an interview to Rolling Stone, see the interview before it was published, and not maintain any decorum.
Of course, it was also a violation of every shred of good sense for the general to vote for President Obama... much less admit he did so at this point in time.
June 23rd, 2010 09:38 AM
- know the difference
is a fancy name for crappy fighter
You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know
June 23rd, 2010 09:40 AM
I would have said no, but then he appologized.
June 23rd, 2010 09:47 AM
He's already been "scolded."
The good general should study his history more; McArthur got canned for virtually the same thing.
Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid...
"For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield
June 23rd, 2010 11:20 AM
Having now read the whole article, it seems that there was very little actual "contempt" shown for officials. It's obvious there are fundamental differences of opinion on how that war should be managed (or not), but I don't see anything that reaches UCMJ levels.
Now, should he be fired simply because he doesn't represent the ideology and ideals (intent?) of the Commander in Chief? That's another train of thought entirely...
A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.
June 23rd, 2010 11:34 AM
I think he'll be asked to retire or fired. Either way, he's gone.
Don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see!
June 23rd, 2010 12:07 PM
This is a real head-slapper. Any general, in charge of any war effort, who doesn't think every word he utters isn't going to be politically scrutinized, either had a massive brain fart or is too stupid to be in the job in the first place. He has already been tried and found guilty by the liberal press. His actual firing will be just a detail. Obama needs to appoint a military czar as his replacement. Another no-brainer for a no-win war. What a waste.
June 23rd, 2010 12:21 PM
There is one way to fix this whole problem. STOP imbedding all these damn "newsies" with the troops. That will be part of our downfall, and it seems like the bulk of what they report shouldn't be any of the publics business anyhow!
EOD - Initial success or total failure
June 23rd, 2010 01:47 PM
Just like any other poor slob that makes a bad judgement after the fact when in the service,You pay the consequences! Reduction in pay and rank and Let him go!
Lets face it,Reporter,when he heard that word he should have had him escorted off base,or directed the guy to a junior officer in a department that handles those affairs,He knows how to delegate authority!
June 23rd, 2010 01:52 PM
Hot off the wire
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama ousted Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan on Wednesday, choosing the embattled general's direct boss -- Gen. David Petraeus -- to take over the troubled 9-year-old war, a source told The Associated Press.
McChrystal was summoned to Washington from Kabul to explain scathing, mocking remarks about administration officials, including Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, by him and his team in a magazine article. But the morning showdown with Obama in the Oval Office was not enough to save his job.
McChrystal offered his resignation and Obama accepted it, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the president's decision was not yet made public.
Obama planned to speak at 1:30 p.m. EDT from the Rose Garden, accompanied by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the controversy.
Petraeus, who attended a formal Afghanistan war meeting at the White House Wednesday, now oversees the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq as head of U.S. Central Command.
By pairing the decision on McChrystal's departure with the name of his replacement, Obama is seeking to move on as quickly as possible from the firestorm surrounding the Rolling Stone magazine story and the renewed debate over his Afghanistan policy that it provoked.
With Washington abuzz about this controversy, there was an almost complete lockdown on information about the morning's developments. It was not even known where McChrystal went after his half-hour meeting with Obama at the White House, which came not long after his early morning arrival from Afghanistan.
Petraeus is the nation's best-known military man, having risen to prominence as the commander who turned around the Iraq war in 2007. The Afghanistan job is actually a step down from his current post.
Petraeus has a reputation for rigorous discipline and careful attention to his image. He keeps a punishing pace -- spending more than 300 days on the road last year.
Petraeus briefly collapsed during Senate testimony last week, apparently from dehydration. It was a rare glimpse of weakness for a man known as among the military's most driven.
He is also among the brightest, and rose to command through a mix of brains and now has been adapted for Afghanistan.
Petraeus has repeatedly denied that he plans to run for president in 2012, and is said to want only one job: chairman of the joint Chiefs of Staff.
In the hearing last week, Petraeus told Congress he would recommend delaying the pullout of U.S. forces from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011 if need be, saying security and political conditions in Afghanistan must be ready to handle a U.S. drawdown.
That does not mean Petraeus is opposed to bringing some troops home, and he said repeatedly that he supports the new Afghanistan strategy that Obama announced in December. Petraeus' caution is rooted in the fact that the uniformed military -- and counterinsurgency specialists in particular -- have always been uncomfortable with fixed parameters.
June 23rd, 2010 02:34 PM
Petraeus is a workhorse....... whatever position in 2012 (Joint Chief) he wants, he should get.
June 23rd, 2010 02:58 PM
True, he should never have given the interview or for that matter talked off the cuff with the left wing rag Rolling Stone. He could just as well have submitted to an interview with National Inquirer. How the general entered into that moment of insanity, I will never understand.
Originally Posted by SIXTO
He should tender his resignation to the CIC, and leave it up to the CIC to see if he wants to accept it. Maybe with the proper apologies and reassurances, they can make ammends.
Dang! I never thought that I would ever say anything that goes along with Obama. But Geez!
Live every day so that you can, with a clear conscience, look all men in their eyes and tell them to go to hell.
June 23rd, 2010 03:23 PM
The word on that is that the general and his staff were on a bus because of the volcano grounding air traffic, and that a great deal of beer was consumed on the long trip.
How the general entered into that moment of insanity, I will never understand.
Very tough situation for the President, because if he fired McChrystal he's risks being labeled a prima donna, or anti-military. If he let McChrystal stay onboard, then he gets labeled a softie. So there wasn't an easy choice for him here. Glad he did the tough thing. Can't let that kind of insubordination go unchecked.
"It may seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first."
June 23rd, 2010 03:24 PM
Personally,the idea of calling a politico with zero military experience Commander in Chief, is a bit silly, but that's what we've stuck with.
He should have known that when Rahm Emanuel and his puppets gets mad, they get even.
McChrystal broke the Uniform Code of Military Justice more than once. Whether what he said is right or wrong, by the rules, he's out.
Maybe he needs to try getting more sleep, lose the tough guy act, stay away from the media, and start acting like a modern day general should.
Doing interviews with Rolling Stone magazine? C'mon.... You're a 4 star General in The United States Army, not an American Idol pop tart. Duh!
I know what you're thinking: "Did he fire six shots or only five?" "Is that a Smith & Wesson 686+ 7 shot or 627 8 shot?" "Does he have a concealed Sig P226 SCT and two spare mags?" You've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?
By TN_Mike in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: May 25th, 2010, 09:46 AM
By ecorrigan in forum Member Buy, Sell & Trade
Last Post: May 12th, 2009, 07:56 PM
By DMan in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: May 19th, 2008, 08:52 PM
By Miggy in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: July 23rd, 2007, 02:03 AM
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors