Pentagon clears General McChrystal

Quote:A Pentagon inquiry into a Rolling Stone magazine article that led to the sacking of General Stanley McChrystal has cleared him of wrongdoing.

The investigation questioned the magazine's accuracy which quoted anonymous people around McChrystal, the then top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

Quote:At the time Mr Obama dismissed him, he accused the general of falling short of 'the standard that should be set by a commanding general.'

But the Defense Department inspector general's report said that available evidence did not support the conclusion that McChrystal had violated any applicable legal or ethics standard.

Read more:

Shoot first and ask questions later.

Rolling Stone has always had an agenda. While McChrystal may have been cleared about a lot, I do believe that he felt in his judgment that he screwed up enough that he needed to step down. He knows what actually happened, and I believe he would have fought back against RS if there were enough inaccuracies to be misleading the president's judgement. While this may provide a bit of clarity to the situation, ultimately I don't believe this will impact how history will remember the big picture.

(04-23-2011 02:47 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  Rolling Stone has always had an agenda. While McChrystal may have been cleared about a lot, I do believe that he felt in his judgment that he screwed up enough that he needed to step down. He knows what actually happened, and I believe he would have fought back against RS if there were enough inaccuracies to be misleading the president's judgement. While this may provide a bit of clarity to the situation, ultimately I don't believe this will impact how history will remember the big picture.

As the great leader he is he stepped down because he did not want to be a distraction, and he serves at the pleasure of the president who lost confidence in him. So, I think your assessment of him and the situation as well as how history will depict his is wrong.

So he'll get his job back with apologies for rushing to judgment like the dept of Ag woman who didn't want to help white farmers?

(04-23-2011 03:04 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  As the great leader he is he stepped down because he did not want to be a distraction, and he serves at the pleasure of the president who lost confidence in him. So, I think your assessment of him and the situation as well as how history will depict his is wrong.

Big picture history, I mean it will be remembered like McArthur being fired in Korea. Everyone knows it was a major marking point in time, but the details of why or to what extent it impacted the war, has pretty much been left to those who nit-pick the finer details of history. To history (say 50 years, possibly as early as 25 years, from now), McChrystal's resignation will neither be a defining point in the war nor the Obama administration. It will be remembered as just a marker in the timeline of a very long war filled with many more defining moments.

(04-23-2011 03:04 PM)Paul M Wrote:  So he'll get his job back with apologies for rushing to judgment like the dept of Ag woman who didn't want to help white farmers?

Beer summit?

(04-23-2011 03:32 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(04-23-2011 03:04 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  As the great leader he is he stepped down because he did not want to be a distraction, and he serves at the pleasure of the president who lost confidence in him. So, I think your assessment of him and the situation as well as how history will depict his is wrong.

Big picture history, I mean it will be remembered like McArthur being fired in Korea. Everyone knows it was a major marking point in time, but the details of why or to what extent it impacted the war, has pretty much been left to those who nit-pick the finer details of history. To history (say 50 years, possibly as early as 25 years, from now), McChrystal's resignation will neither be a defining point in the war nor the Obama administration. It will be remembered as just a marker in the timeline of a very long war filled with many more defining moments.

50 years from now Obama will be lost to history, unless made into a martyr.

The only thing McChrystal did that was questionable was grant a a series of interviews to a "Reporter" that wasn't properly vetted.

(04-23-2011 09:35 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  The only thing McChrystal did that was questionable was grant a series of interviews to a "Reporter" that wasn't properly vetted.

That's a pretty big "thing" to be questioned. I am still shocked any officer of the USAF would willingly allow an anti-USAF member of the press the power to edit and publish candid, off-the-cuff comments and observations made by him and closest aides.

(04-23-2011 03:51 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  50 years from now Obama will be lost to history

No matter what happens in the election next year, no matter what Obama does or does not do for the rest of his life, I think "first black president" is going to be remembered in history for a lot longer than just 50 years

Quote:unless made into a martyr.

God forbid.

(04-23-2011 09:52 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-23-2011 09:35 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  The only thing McChrystal did that was questionable was grant a series of interviews to a "Reporter" that wasn't properly vetted.

That's a pretty big "thing" to be questioned. I am still shocked any officer of the USAF would willingly allow an anti-USAF member of the press the power to edit and publish candid, off-the-cuff comments and observations made by him and closest aides.

Some in the Pentagon believe that many of the comments in the article are "not accurate"...ie Pentagon speak for "fabricated." Its interesting to note that no action has been taken against his Staff Officers that were parties to the alleged comments.

(04-23-2011 10:00 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

Quote:unless made into a martyr.

God forbid.

Not likely.

Two words: President Biden. *shudder*

(04-24-2011 09:20 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-23-2011 10:00 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

Quote:unless made into a martyr.

God forbid.

Not likely.

Two words: President Biden. *shudder*

I assumed he meant a political martyr. Definitely not wishing death upon him.

I would hope that none of us on here would wish actual physical harm upon anyone.

*cough* Bin Laden. *cough, cough* Ahmadinejad, Qaddafi. *cough*

my statement was

"50 years from now Obama will be lost to history, unless made into a martyr. "

How does that imply that I want him dead?

C'mon you guys know me better than that.

SOAF, speaking just for myself, I did not think AT ALL that you were wishing violence on Obama. I was just trying to give special emphasis to how terrible it would be if that did -- again: God forbid -- happen.

(04-24-2011 08:23 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Some in the Pentagon believe that many of the comments in the article are "not accurate"...ie Pentagon speak for "fabricated." Its interesting to note that no action has been taken against his Staff Officers that were parties to the alleged comments.

Just for the sake of argument, I'd be happy to stipulate that ALL of the comments in the article were fabricated. It still doesn't justify -- IMHO -- why an agent of that particular magazine would be given such proximity to an officer of his rank, and his closest aides and staff. It was asking -- no, begging -- for trouble.

(04-24-2011 10:23 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  my statement was

"50 years from now Obama will be lost to history, unless made into a martyr. "

How does that imply that I want him dead?

C'mon you guys know me better than that.

I didn't read it to say you wanted him dead, but that you were merely offering it as a possibility. And, as with all things, it's certainly possible.

My contribution to this thread was an attempt at levity, which clearly failed.