My point is that for him to pull a stunt like this goes a long way to cutting the legs out from any argument he might otherwise have been able to make.
Not for me.
But then I learned a long time ago to see stunts and sideshows for what they are and to avoid getting distracted from the main event.
He "put his career on the line?" or is he as kallipolis intimates perhaps positioning himself as a political candidate?
I don't care at this point (I'll care if he runs for something). Right now I think there's a chance to learn something about what's happening in Afghanistan and the Obama administration.
There are elections in a few months. There'll be more elections in 2012. Things aren't going well in this country, we have chances to direct what happens and to do so as informed citizens, yet time and again so many Americans are more eager to dismiss the chance to know something than to use it in decision making. And that's how we end up with the Congress we have and people like Bush and Obama in the White House with people like Cheney and Biden next door.
Again, him saying the president is an empty suit carries far greater weight if he was above board about the whole thing.
He was above board enough. He was relieved of his duties because he was so publicly above board.
I'll remind you that, stunningly, nobody has disclaimed anything reported in that article.
A top General was removed from a vital position, during a war that's not going well and many believe he was the best qualified to see through, as a result of revealing what he did and yet nobody has discredited the substance of what he and others said that was so damning it resulted in his being fired. There's more than sideshow there, there's information in there.
But the way he went about it, whatever he says about Obama now, my first response is "Consider the source." Look at this jackass, he doesn't have much to say worth listening to.
Like some others you've decided he doesn't have much worth listening to, and I bet you haven't even read the article or done any homework into figuring out the context and what it means. You're merely distracted by superficial nonsense, which, again, is how people like Bush and Obama get elected.
Informed people my arse! You seem prepared to give him great leeway because of his rank, yet you give no quarter to another man who made it all the way to commander in chief of your military.
I'm giving him no leeway. I'm saying it's smart to figure out what he's saying and I've noted that nothing he said has been disclaimed or discredited, which lends credibility to what's reported in the article.
He and the others quoted ARE informed about what's happening in Afghanistan and the way Obama and his administration have behaved. I, we, anybody, may or may not ultimately agree with their conclusions, but they DO have information you and I do not, what they've said is explosive and important, and it's smarter to try to figure out what they're saying than to dismiss it as some are doing.
Some people are more interested in collecting information than others are; some people are, therefore, much better informed than others, their analysis has more to draw from. Better informed conclusions have a better chance of being on the mark. Some other people just keep voting for and defending incompetent public servants.
If McChrystal is entitled to a presumption of competence because of his station, so is Obama. So far, McChrystal took a dump on his own track record for competence. Oh well.
I don't presume he's competent. I know he's been in a position of high authority, I know he's been privy to important information about what's happening in Afghanistan, I know he's highly diciplined and decorated and up to this moment been highly respected by peers for his competence. All of that leads me to listen to what he says when he says something unexpected and career threatening.
