« Speaker Pelosi And The VAT: Cluelessness On Display | Main | Author Tryouts - Round Two »

McChrystal Clear

The under-carriage of Obama's bus is getting pretty crowded.


Looking at the above photo, one could get the impression of a deeply engaged President Obama talking strategery with his hand-picked Afghanistan-theater-leader, General Stanley A. McChrystal.

This meeting took place in Copenhagen, during Obama's Great Chicago Olympic Pimp show.

The President has the determination to conjure up five different Olympic proposal videos, shuttle off Queen Michelle to dazzle the IOC and the entire nation of Denmark, yet all he can muster up regarding a war of 8 years is to drag his commanding General onto an idle Air Force One for a 25 minute meeting?

This sit down was thrown together in response to General McChrystal's startling revelation that, since having been posted to the Afghanistan theater, he has spoken to the Commander in Chief (that would be Obama) just once.

Now, after General McChrystal's 66 page report has mysteriously been leaked, it has been found that he advocates an increase in strength of up to 40,000 more ground troops.

Obama's hand has just been called. With just a few words, a rabid narcissist got hammered for his complete lack of decisiveness by a man who has sworn his life to preserving this nation.

In contrast to that, it has been revealed that Obama's next move concerning Afghanistan is based upon a plan crafted by our ever humble Vice-Plagiarist Joe Biden, one which is heavily reliant on the use of drones and special forces. Time to put Plug's self-proclaimed abundance of foreign policy wonk-manship to work.

Not to be outdone in the department of shame, the abject hypocrisy displayed by Obama's lefty allies in Congress is just as embarrassing. Incompetent boobs like Pelosi and Reid vehemently proclaim that observations by military personnel should be discussed privately, through the "chain of command."

Contrast that with the early years of the Iraq War, lefty pundits and liberal weeds like Pelosi and Reid held up then Army Chief of Staff General Eric K. Shinseki as a hero when, during the Rumsfeld era, he openly declared the need for more ground troops, in spite of Rumsfeld's insistence on utilizing more special forces, less combat troops, and more air-power. Not to mention the endless "classified" information which conveniently leaked its way to the front page of the New York Times.

Now, just today, as if Obama has suddenly become aware that we are actually fighting a war, he chooses not to have a full scale meeting with his top commanding officers who would actually know what is needed and what the true conditions are on the ground. Instead, he has a PR pow-wow with 31 out-of-touch members of the most unpopular congress in the history of the nation. A clan of self-indulgent fools, blathering away in their ivory towers about something which days ago didn't even register on their calenders.

Obama and the left have no desire to win. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are just carbuncles on their political asses. They make no effort to hide their disdain for the military, or their indifference to its success.

Obama claimed that his administration would be one of transparency. Ironically, it is.

That's not a compliment.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (31)

JUST BRING THEM HOME ALREAD... (Below threshold)


I'm tired of waiting for a decision when we all know that what he really wants is to bring them home and possibly draw down the military to revolutionary war levels. Then he will implement his "civilian national force" that are "armed just as well" as the military.

Just give up and follow your gut man! If you don't want them there then get them the f**k out! Don't let them die for nothing!

I would prefer you remove the handcuffs and let our people kick ass the way they were trained but you can't have it both ways.

Anyone have authoritive inf... (Below threshold)

Anyone have authoritive info on how that 66 page report got mysteriously leaked? It seems to have been first leaked to the NYT, as usual.

I sure haven't found how. But I can't be an historian and spare much time to search so I would welcome any comment that gives a good lead.

As nearly as I know there were at least two leaks. One very early, Oct 2. that more or less told what was in the report. And one quite recently that published it with some redacting.

Today I see General McC is being accused of every except, or maybe including, barbecuing babies four years ago in Iraq. On the Daily Show with Jon Krakauer who has a book to sell.

I have no idea of what McC did in Iraq four years ago. But I doubt bringing it up now is coincidental. Expect the book guy to be all over the talk shows giving O more cover to fire McC.

Sounds like are really mess with McC/Gates/O coming up this week. I thought the General was foolish to be making those speeches and interviews. But others greatly disagree.

Obama is utterly clueless a... (Below threshold)

Obama is utterly clueless about leadership.
He has *no* idea what needs to be done in Afghanistan, or anywhere else and neither does "Three State" Biden.

That McC had the stones to throw that in Obama's face and Obama was so childish as to have that 25 min, 'Why did you do that to me' meeting shows his total situational unawareness.

This will not end well and many will suffer for the actions of an ignorant narcissistic voyager on the high sea's of foreign policy and national leadership.

Remember the last time a Vi... (Below threshold)

Remember the last time a Vice President advocated overuse of special forces instead of a troop increase? Remember how well that worked?

It's like Obama is trying to be a parody of a liberal president. Unless...

Unless he's the Francisco d'Anconia to Alan Greenspan's Henry Rearden! It all makes sense!

I love how you have to make... (Below threshold)

I love how you have to make things up about Obama. One thing you knew about Bush was that he was dumb. Bush lost that war by letting it drag on for eight years. There's no victory to be had, and you know it. You want to put half a million troops in there? That's what it would take. And then what would you have? Afgans are not governable. These people do nothing but fight. It's who they are. Al Qaeda has to be beaten with spies and drones. They will die off eventually. It's not a fun outlook, but it's the only one we've got. Sometimes the military is useless. Of course it's going to be Obama's fault. How long before you blame him for the weather? I know wingnuts love to blow things up. It's not real useful unless maybe blowing up Israel. It's the palestinean problem that introduced our age to arab terrorism that and our support for dictators.

craig: Quick, call the Whit... (Below threshold)

craig: Quick, call the White House. They need your help.

Does Obama really want us t... (Below threshold)

Does Obama really want us to win? I honestly doubt it.

One thing you knew... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
One thing you knew about Bush was that he was dumb. Bush lost that war by letting it drag on for eight years. . . There's no victory to be had. . . Afgans are not governable. . .

Maybe Bush is not a dumb as you think. If you believe your own statement that "Afgans are not governable", then Bush did what was needed to expel Al Qaeda from Afghanistan at minimal cost of life and treasure. We'll now see if Obama is as smart as Bush, or if he's just Acorn's empty suit.

We have a clown in the Whit... (Below threshold)

We have a clown in the White House....who is not funny.

Please explain what is so r... (Below threshold)

Please explain what is so revealing that Obama and McChrystal have only talked once? McChrystal isn't a direct report, there are others in the chain of command who presumably are talking with McChrystal and then Obama on a more regular basis and in any event, talking is not the only way of communicating effectively. McChrystal was given a job, he's being left to carry it out. When he needs something (as is the case), he is letting his superiors know. Sounds like a pretty good arrangement to me. If MacArthur and Eisenhower could win their respective fights without constantly flying to Washington to talk with Roosevelt, there is no reason McChrystal couldn't do the same in Afghanistan.

Complaining about this is ODS. And if it were different, with Obama talking to McChrystal once a day, you all would complain that Obama is too involved, that he ought to leave McChrystal alone to do the job he was sent there to do.

There's plenty to complain about Obama and his (mis)handling of just about everything he touches... but let's not elevate the immaterial and irrelevant... that is, unless you want to do the same to Obama what the liberals did to Bush... and which you didn't like.

-"And if it were different,... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

-"And if it were different, with Obama talking to McChrystal once a day, you all would complain that Obama is too involved..."-

No shit, sherlock. Hyperbole much?

There's a difference between 'once, ever; until you get called out on it' and 'every single day'.
Hell, once every few weeks would have been reasonable.

Remember, this is the war that Obama supposedly supported during his campaign. This is his chosen commander to handle this war.
As things continue to fall apart in A-stan, I expect the President to show at least a little intellectual curiosity about it.

And you know he's not showi... (Below threshold)

And you know he's not showing a little intellectual curiosity about Afghanistan on the basis of a single report that Obama and McChrystal have only 'talked' once? And you know for a fact that he hasn't shown curiosity about Afghanistan in any other way? That he hasn't, for example, asked any questions during the daily briefing every President gets? Or hasn't talked with Gates? Or Jones? Or Mullen.

And you know that 'every few weeks' is reasonable based on your deep knowledge of what it takes to be President or a general running a campaign? Or did you come to that precise interval on the basis of nothing more than the ramblings of Obama haters, none of which have any more experience than either of us?

And in any event, what ought to matter is not the process Obama goes through but the end result. Is McChrystal getting the job done? Are our guys killing far more of the terrorists than they are killing us? Are we safer here at home and abroad? If the answer is yes, then as far as I'm concerned Obama never has to talk with McChrystal. And if the answer is no, then it is irrelevant that they're talking every few weeks.

Ninja, please.You ... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Ninja, please.

You start off accusing ODS of those who legitimately question how Obama is handling A-stan.

Then you set up some false strawman 'meet every single day' argument.

Not a good way to start a conversation. Reap what you troll.

And yes, 'every few weeks' would have taken the sting out of very reasonable questions in the public mind about Obama's aloofness for 'The Good War'; especially compared to his omnipresence in the media. Feels like he's giving a televised campaign speech every other day, about matters great and small; but not much said about a deteriorating A-stan.

Maybe Obama could do a fly ... (Below threshold)

Maybe Obama could do a fly in to the "poppie zone" and show us all how committed He is to winning in "the real war". After all, He is so fond of flying off on a whim and a prayer to promote His oft baseless agenda, why not add poppy fields forever to the debacle.

3/27/2009Obama: "T... (Below threshold)


Obama: "Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review that I ordered as soon as I took office.

NY Times 10/7/2009:

"President Obama told Congressional leaders on Tuesday that he would not substantially reduce American forces in Afghanistan or shift the mission to just hunting terrorists there, but he indicated that he remained undecided about the major troop buildup proposed by his commanding general."

Voting "present" as usual.

I seriously doubt McChrysta... (Below threshold)

I seriously doubt McChrystal leaked anything to the NYT's. As for his comments in London, they were made in response to specific questions from the audience. That those comments 'ruffled feathers in Washington' goes more to the ego of the DC crowd than anything else. What was McChrystal supposed to say, "No Comment"?

As for Barry, he made a policy decision back in MARCH. McChrystal was hired and directed to implement that policy, being assured he'd receive the backing of the Obama Administration (with it's history of promises with expiration dates). In late AUGUST, McChrystal sent a report, indicating what he needed.

Barry's response has been ro 're-evaluate' his March plan. Well how long does it take to 're-valuate'? One month? Two months? Three months?

This is the same guy who espoused PASS IT NOW! People are dying! Suddenly, the guy worried about people DYING is dragging his feet.

So what's Barry's response been so far? As usual SHOOT THE MESSENGER!

Were I McChrystal, I'd recall the worst thing you can hear out of Barry's mouth;"Don't worry, I've got your back!"

Ms. Pelosi's "place" is in ... (Below threshold)
JC Hammer:

Ms. Pelosi's "place" is in the chain of command of the government of the United States, and part of her job, as the Speaker of the House, is to participate in the oversight of the military, not just listen to what the generals have to say and rubber-stamp it. Aside from the insulting and denigrating tone of the statement -- at least they left out "barefoot and pregnant" -- the GOP seems to forget that it wasn't that long ago that they felt it was their duty to question the wisdom of generals. Just ask Gen. Eric Shinseki, who ran into the buzz-saw of the GOP machine when he questioned the preparations for the war in Iraq.

So let me get this right, J... (Below threshold)

So let me get this right, JC Hammer, in your bemoaning of the GOP's criticism of Shisenki and your defense of Pelosi, are you implying it's okay for Pelosi to criticize McChrystal for his criticism and defend Shinseki for his criticism? Because that's exactly what's happened here. Pelosi has left a trail of remarks since Sept 11, 2001 and they're easily recounted through the use of the innertubes. I suggest you check it out. As a matter of fact, she has told a couple of whoppers about the whole situation in regard to Shinseki in the process of jumping up and down in from of a microphone saying, "Pick me! Pick me!"

You hate even an inkling of what you can call hypocrisy when it comes from those right of you, but are totally blind to it when it comes from your bretheren.

Furthermore, that "duty to question the wisdom of generals" was mostly scoffing at Shinseki's declaration that we'd need "several hundred thousand" troops at the onset of the Iraq war. Now, whether there were enough or too little is a valid question. But several hundred thousand was way off the mark.

I firmly believe that when the "surge" was implemented, the timing was right. I don't think it would have worked sooner and certainly not too much later. And it wasn't "several hundred thousand".

"jumping up and down in ... (Below threshold)

"jumping up and down in front of a microphone..."


Fighting plugged-in Apaches... (Below threshold)

Fighting plugged-in Apaches in the Himalayas is a losing propostion. Fighting for the municipality of Kabul on behalf of the drug-dealing Karzai family is a loser. Fighting for the southern lowlands/border region is indefensible on its face.

My solution (if securing the ineffable Caspian Sea pipeline is the REAL mission- which I believe it is- since ALL wars are commercial at heart):

1) grant Afghanistan entree into medical morphine cartel with Turkey, i.e. cut Karzai Brothers' legs off, because prohibition does not work. Except for the local mafia. Karzai. This will raise GDP and will invest Afghanis into any new regime at all levels of society. The Taliban will buy in. Or perhaps there will be a family fight over the daddy chair. Let 'em. The winner signs the new protocols. AND the winner gets pipeline rents and fees.

Conclusion: this war has always been about undermining Russian pipeline monopoly; running "our's" due south and parallel along Russia's southern border. The shadow war began in 1997 and was run by UNOCAL out of Houston, TX. Condi Rice and Dick Cheney were main actors representing Energy Concerns. They attempted to strongarm a Taliban delegation with threats of being branded as "terrorists". The Taliban went home without signing US commercial contracts, so the cruise missiles began.

Think: Oliver North, the Most Christian cocaine-runner operating in the name of "anti-communism".

Oyster, exactly correct on ... (Below threshold)
JC Hammer:

Oyster, exactly correct on your comments. Can you remember the comments made when the Demo's wanted to hear what Shineski had to say? How un American that was when the Demo's wanted to hear the information.

And I'm not defending Pelosi, I can't stand her, but she is 2nd in line (heaven forbid) to become President. And what breathern are you talking about? Why try to pin a label or name on me? I can't stand either party, as they aren't working for our country. Time you start to realize that. But like most con's you don't let facts stand in the way.

Oh, about McChrystal. He'll... (Below threshold)

Oh, about McChrystal. He'll do what he's told. Or he'll quit. Or get fired. Eisenhower faced a much larger services-wide Generals' Revolt, circa 1958. The right-wing Time-Life Corporation really built it up, and then...poof!

T-L also built up McArthur, then...poof!

The same interests (right-wing Vaticons) tried to overthrow FDR, but Gen. Butler told them to go to hell, and then told all about it.

I would put this latest though at the least level of seriousness. At Singlaub-Carter level.

The difference JC should be... (Below threshold)

The difference JC should be obvious but I will point it out. McCrystal is the commander on the ground not a general on the side lines offering an opinion. Cheesh!

As our soldiers die while their commander and chief looks for the best political move, the left is probably grateful for the delay.

GW Bush had some failings but his support of the troops and his listening to the generals on the ground showed how unwavering he was when it came to our troops safety. ww

Well WW, it sounds like in ... (Below threshold)
JC Hammer:

Well WW, it sounds like in your opinion being the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is being on the sidelines, especially at the time there were no troops in Iraq. But like I said, don't the the facts stand in your way. Spin it baby.

"But like most con's you... (Below threshold)

"But like most con's you don't let facts stand in the way."

What was that about pinning labels?

Oyster. Sounds like you are... (Below threshold)
JC Hammer:

Oyster. Sounds like you are starting to understand that the labels work both ways, and both ways are pure BS. Both parties love to put out pure BS, but the GOP is the worst when it comes to spin, ever ask yourself why both parties aren't telling the truth?

"ever ask yourself why bot... (Below threshold)

"ever ask yourself why both parties aren't telling the truth?"

What truth?

Damn, at least he is not ad... (Below threshold)

Damn, at least he is not adding troops

"Sounds like you are sta... (Below threshold)

"Sounds like you are starting to understand that the labels work both ways, and both ways are pure BS. Both parties love to put out pure BS, but the GOP is the worst when it comes to spin, ever ask yourself why both parties aren't telling the truth?"

JC, somehow you seem to be under the impression that you're schooling me here. And that I'm responding like a good pupil. Frankly, I find you more entertaining than anything. You often start with an appeal to another's sense of being had by those who've been elected to represent them, then qualifying it with "but the other guys are SO much worse", yet it's never backed up with anything more than generalities. And I always love it when someone complains about something another said then employs the same rhetoric they've just complained about and when called on it - pretends to have meant to do it as a teaching tool.

There's something that can be learned from everyone, JC. Unfortunately, so far, I haven't learned anything from you. Except this: "both parties suck, but the other one sucks soooo much worse!"

JC seems to think 'conserva... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

JC seems to think 'conservatives' and 'GOP' are the same thing.

Les,Until you apply ... (Below threshold)

Until you apply a Turing type test, many computer programs seem to think as well.
What you see with JC is reflex and regurgitation.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy