2 Next
Topic: Patraeus to take over for McChrystal
Lpdon's photo
Thu 06/24/10 07:17 PM

I still say the insubordinate bast@rd should have walked in with four stars, left with two and a new posting in Greenland or Antartica.


If it'd of been a Sgt. popping off to a Capt., he'd of lost some stripes and been assigned to some very sh1tty detail. Officers should get the same punishment.


Very doubtful. There would be an *** chewing and restrictions and maybe a dock in pay but rarely is there a loss of rank or command.

Just look at the General that gave an interview receiently about the don't ask don't tell and he was pretty vocal agaist the administrations position. That could be considered insubordination but nope.

Obama is a coward and was exposed as one by SEVERAL in the top miliraty brass and that hurt his massive ego. So McChrystal a very decorated Special Forces operative and commander who gave a lifetime of service had to go. Not to mention he is alienating top government officials in Afganistan who completely trust McChrystal and didn't want to see him go.

He also is VERY lucky he has a real hero like General Patraeus to go in there and save his ***.

willing2's photo
Thu 06/24/10 07:25 PM
As long as that Afghan war is predicted to last, we might see a few changes of Generals.

Old age and retirement.

Lpdon's photo
Thu 06/24/10 07:42 PM
This war can be won and in a timly manner. Unfortunately this President doesn't have the brais or experience to make that happen.

JustAGuy2112's photo
Thu 06/24/10 09:20 PM

Patraeus got picked because of his experience with this "military action".

Obama is still going to do what he wants to do so it doesn't matter his association with Bush.


Which, of course, makes the Democrat party intellectually dishonest.

If they do confirm Patreus, then the hypocrisy will once again shine through in VERY LOUD tones.

Just a couple of years ago, the Democrats and Liberal media were calling him General 'Betray'us because he didn't go along with the Liberal argument that the war was " unwinnable ".

He was vilified in the media AND on Capitol Hill.

Yet, now, they are lauding Obama's choice.

Talk about a bunch of people that speak from both sides of their mouths.

Sheesh.

Dragoness's photo
Thu 06/24/10 09:57 PM


Patraeus got picked because of his experience with this "military action".

Obama is still going to do what he wants to do so it doesn't matter his association with Bush.


Which, of course, makes the Democrat party intellectually dishonest.

If they do confirm Patreus, then the hypocrisy will once again shine through in VERY LOUD tones.

Just a couple of years ago, the Democrats and Liberal media were calling him General 'Betray'us because he didn't go along with the Liberal argument that the war was " unwinnable ".

He was vilified in the media AND on Capitol Hill.

Yet, now, they are lauding Obama's choice.

Talk about a bunch of people that speak from both sides of their mouths.

Sheesh.


Considering that he is the one with most experience with this "war", he would be the right choice regardless to past associations.

It doesn't make anyone a hypocrit.

He will be answering to a different president this time. New rules.

Thomas3474's photo
Thu 06/24/10 11:03 PM



No active duty officer has any business doing an interview with "Rolling Stone".



Why not?I was in the military and what you do on your own time is your business.Your right to free speech doesn't end when you enter the military.Your opinion is just that.Funny how when Bush was running the show every media outlet in the world was doing interviews with every officer they could drag into the network.How many countless interviews did we hear from Generals running the War criticizing Bush.Anyone remember Tony snow writing a book and just pulverizing Bush into oblivion?

I think Obama is a jerk for what he has done.If you would have read the interview 90% of what was said was from various people around him.He did nothing wrong and he has ever right to criticize his commander as long as it is not treason,or insubordination.He also did not say what he said to Obamas face he said it to a reporter.There is not rules in the military that say you have to like who is commanding you.You only have to do what they tell you to do.This General has been doing just that.

What is Obama going to do now?Start firing every Government official in the United states because they disagree with his ideas?Obama is just showing his Communist agenda by silencing anyone who disagrees with him.George Bush would have never done that.

Before you start blaming the right wing crowd related to this firing know that McCrystal voted for Obama and that Obama is firing one of it's own.




No disrespect intended here Mr Thomas.

When I enlisted, we were told, we were now Gov. property and soldiers 24/7.

We also were enlightened about the chain of command.

If we broke that chain, we could get a warning, an article 15, or face a court martial.

If you had any personal thoughts about presidents, it was best to keep them to yourselves.



I have to disagree with both you and Knight concerning this issue.Don't get me wrong.I believe you have to show respect,and do what your superiors tell you to do with out question.But this idea that you have no right to your own opinion is not only unconstitutional it's also a recipe for Communism.It is true that when you are wearing a military uniform you can not say what ever you feel concerning the President and others in the Military.Doing so could get you into big trouble.

Out of uniform and off of the base is a whole other story.You and your buddies can criticize Obama and call him names from dusk to dawn.Both active and former veterans know there is a base newspaper that is printed every week that discusses these issues.Usually on the last page they have a photos of active military personal and ask them their opinions on these issues.Nobody ever agrees.Half of the people they interview say we are going in the wrong direction the other half say we are going in the right direction.

Even on the official US Army website they have a blog section and a link to their official facebook page which has a discussion section much like Mingle does

http://www.facebook.com/USarmy?v=app_2373072738#!/USarmy?v=app_2373072738

Of course not every single person discussing these issues is active military but a large number are.I know from my previous experiences from living on the base there was lots of times we had meetings with the highest officers including the top commanders where we had a question and answer sessions and we were free to critsize the leaders who were commanding us if it was constructive.

I said earlier that there is no rules in the military that says you have to like who is commanding you.The rules only say you have to do what they say and show respect towards them.Having a difference of opinion concerning the President is not a crime.You can not take every active military member in a room and tell them they have to like everything Obama does because that is not reality.You only have to do what he tells you and do it with out making problems.

McChrystal was not in uniform or was he on the air making these comments.He made them privately and it was his own opinion.He has a right to his opinion.He was not breaking any rules in the military because he was not saying these things directly to those who he was criticizing or was he saying them to a large or small number of active military personal.He said them in private.

This President needs to learn that what active military members say in private is their own business.He may not like it but this is America and not Communist China.You don't fire everyone who doesn't like your ideas,and don't fire them because they didn't vote for you.As long as we have a military you can bet people serving will disagree with your views right or wrong.If I was the President I would be upset with what he said but he didn't say them to my face and he didn't say them on some major media station.He may not like me as a person but he is doing the job he is supposed to do and that is what is most important.




JustAGuy2112's photo
Fri 06/25/10 12:16 AM



Patraeus got picked because of his experience with this "military action".

Obama is still going to do what he wants to do so it doesn't matter his association with Bush.


Which, of course, makes the Democrat party intellectually dishonest.

If they do confirm Patreus, then the hypocrisy will once again shine through in VERY LOUD tones.

Just a couple of years ago, the Democrats and Liberal media were calling him General 'Betray'us because he didn't go along with the Liberal argument that the war was " unwinnable ".

He was vilified in the media AND on Capitol Hill.

Yet, now, they are lauding Obama's choice.

Talk about a bunch of people that speak from both sides of their mouths.

Sheesh.


Considering that he is the one with most experience with this "war", he would be the right choice regardless to past associations.

It doesn't make anyone a hypocrit.

He will be answering to a different president this time. New rules.


You obviously weren't paying attention to the demonizing of Patreus that went on BECAUSE of his association with Bush.

Of course, now that the Chosen One has decided to put him in charge, the Libs are all for him.

That does, indeed, make them hypocrites.

msharmony's photo
Fri 06/25/10 01:42 AM




No active duty officer has any business doing an interview with "Rolling Stone".



Why not?I was in the military and what you do on your own time is your business.Your right to free speech doesn't end when you enter the military.Your opinion is just that.Funny how when Bush was running the show every media outlet in the world was doing interviews with every officer they could drag into the network.How many countless interviews did we hear from Generals running the War criticizing Bush.Anyone remember Tony snow writing a book and just pulverizing Bush into oblivion?

I think Obama is a jerk for what he has done.If you would have read the interview 90% of what was said was from various people around him.He did nothing wrong and he has ever right to criticize his commander as long as it is not treason,or insubordination.He also did not say what he said to Obamas face he said it to a reporter.There is not rules in the military that say you have to like who is commanding you.You only have to do what they tell you to do.This General has been doing just that.

What is Obama going to do now?Start firing every Government official in the United states because they disagree with his ideas?Obama is just showing his Communist agenda by silencing anyone who disagrees with him.George Bush would have never done that.

Before you start blaming the right wing crowd related to this firing know that McCrystal voted for Obama and that Obama is firing one of it's own.




No disrespect intended here Mr Thomas.

When I enlisted, we were told, we were now Gov. property and soldiers 24/7.

We also were enlightened about the chain of command.

If we broke that chain, we could get a warning, an article 15, or face a court martial.

If you had any personal thoughts about presidents, it was best to keep them to yourselves.



I have to disagree with both you and Knight concerning this issue.Don't get me wrong.I believe you have to show respect,and do what your superiors tell you to do with out question.But this idea that you have no right to your own opinion is not only unconstitutional it's also a recipe for Communism.It is true that when you are wearing a military uniform you can not say what ever you feel concerning the President and others in the Military.Doing so could get you into big trouble.

Out of uniform and off of the base is a whole other story.You and your buddies can criticize Obama and call him names from dusk to dawn.Both active and former veterans know there is a base newspaper that is printed every week that discusses these issues.Usually on the last page they have a photos of active military personal and ask them their opinions on these issues.Nobody ever agrees.Half of the people they interview say we are going in the wrong direction the other half say we are going in the right direction.

Even on the official US Army website they have a blog section and a link to their official facebook page which has a discussion section much like Mingle does

http://www.facebook.com/USarmy?v=app_2373072738#!/USarmy?v=app_2373072738

Of course not every single person discussing these issues is active military but a large number are.I know from my previous experiences from living on the base there was lots of times we had meetings with the highest officers including the top commanders where we had a question and answer sessions and we were free to critsize the leaders who were commanding us if it was constructive.

I said earlier that there is no rules in the military that says you have to like who is commanding you.The rules only say you have to do what they say and show respect towards them.Having a difference of opinion concerning the President is not a crime.You can not take every active military member in a room and tell them they have to like everything Obama does because that is not reality.You only have to do what he tells you and do it with out making problems.

McChrystal was not in uniform or was he on the air making these comments.He made them privately and it was his own opinion.He has a right to his opinion.He was not breaking any rules in the military because he was not saying these things directly to those who he was criticizing or was he saying them to a large or small number of active military personal.He said them in private.

This President needs to learn that what active military members say in private is their own business.He may not like it but this is America and not Communist China.You don't fire everyone who doesn't like your ideas,and don't fire them because they didn't vote for you.As long as we have a military you can bet people serving will disagree with your views right or wrong.If I was the President I would be upset with what he said but he didn't say them to my face and he didn't say them on some major media station.He may not like me as a person but he is doing the job he is supposed to do and that is what is most important.






how is a rolling stone interview private? especially a title like runaway general,,,,the military is supposed to give the IMAGE of a united front,, its part of what makes them seem strong,,,, they seem like a much easier target if their own COMMANDERS are divided ,,,

Lpdon's photo
Sat 06/26/10 12:21 PM



Patraeus got picked because of his experience with this "military action".

Obama is still going to do what he wants to do so it doesn't matter his association with Bush.


Which, of course, makes the Democrat party intellectually dishonest.

If they do confirm Patreus, then the hypocrisy will once again shine through in VERY LOUD tones.

Just a couple of years ago, the Democrats and Liberal media were calling him General 'Betray'us because he didn't go along with the Liberal argument that the war was " unwinnable ".

He was vilified in the media AND on Capitol Hill.

Yet, now, they are lauding Obama's choice.

Talk about a bunch of people that speak from both sides of their mouths.

Sheesh.


Considering that he is the one with most experience with this "war", he would be the right choice regardless to past associations.

It doesn't make anyone a hypocrit.

He will be answering to a different president this time. New rules.


He is probably has more war or combat experience then any other General. Remember Patraues has been known to quite often go into battle with his troops, which is rare for any General.

The only thing that sucks is that is is a demotion in a way :(

And your right, new rules. Patraeus plans on changing the rules of engagement to make our toroops safer.

Lpdon's photo
Sat 06/26/10 12:27 PM




Patraeus got picked because of his experience with this "military action".

Obama is still going to do what he wants to do so it doesn't matter his association with Bush.


Which, of course, makes the Democrat party intellectually dishonest.

If they do confirm Patreus, then the hypocrisy will once again shine through in VERY LOUD tones.

Just a couple of years ago, the Democrats and Liberal media were calling him General 'Betray'us because he didn't go along with the Liberal argument that the war was " unwinnable ".

He was vilified in the media AND on Capitol Hill.

Yet, now, they are lauding Obama's choice.

Talk about a bunch of people that speak from both sides of their mouths.

Sheesh.


Considering that he is the one with most experience with this "war", he would be the right choice regardless to past associations.

It doesn't make anyone a hypocrit.

He will be answering to a different president this time. New rules.


You obviously weren't paying attention to the demonizing of Patreus that went on BECAUSE of his association with Bush.

Of course, now that the Chosen One has decided to put him in charge, the Libs are all for him.

That does, indeed, make them hypocrites.


It's also because Patraeus is a Republican. Hopefully he runs in 2012 as anticipated and takes Obama out of the game.

Lpdon's photo
Sat 06/26/10 07:08 PM
The General Betrayus ad was removed the day this week that Obama nominated the HONORABLE General Petraeus to save his *** in Afganistan.

It had been on there for over three years.......

Lpdon's photo
Sat 06/26/10 07:18 PM
My family is a bunch of diehard Philadelphia Eagles fans. They’re also all dog lovers. So, when Michael Vick joined the team in 2009, they were stuck in the awkward position of cheering on a man they’d been calling evil for years. Why am I bringing this up? Because the progressive advocacy group MoveOn.org had a similar problem a couple days ago when they were forced to quietly remove any mention of an anti-Gen. Petraeus ad that had been running on their site for years after President Obama appointed the general to replace the departing Gen. McCrystal.
The ad originally made headlines in 2007 after MoveOn printed a full page version of it in the New York Times. Entitled “General Petraeus of General Betray Us?” the ad charged the general with “cooking the books” for the Bush White House in his ‘ Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq. The site then hosted the ad as well as a lengthy article with their reasoning behind it up until yesterday when it and every mention of it were scrubbed from the site. Political blog Weasel Zippers were the ones to catch the change.

Since MoveOn is an advocacy group with no claims to unbiased content, there’s nothing unethical about scrubbing the site. However, it is pretty darn funny imagining them hastily running to their computers in the aftermath of Obama’s announcement.

Below is a screen capture of the no-longer-available post taken from the cached version of the site (which also no longer exists) by the team at Weasel Zippers.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/moveon-org-removes-general-betray-us-ad-in-response-to-petraeus-appointment/

no photo
Sun 06/27/10 06:19 AM
Edited by crickstergo on Sun 06/27/10 06:22 AM

Insane Hussein named Bush's General, General Petraeus as the new General in charge, of the war efforts in Afghanistan.

This is the same General the left, Harry we can't win the war Reid, John they swift boated me Kerry, Billary, the pant suit queen Clinton, Joe O Bite me the blabber mouth, Henry wax this Man, and the Liberal Messiah himself who all said we couldn't win the war and Petraeus was incompetent to conduct the war effort.

Suddenly, he has become their Hero replacing Insane Hussein's first pick.

The drive by media blasted Petraeus calling him General Be-tray-us, is now their new Hero, a Bush General.
rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl


U nailed that one....Gates is from the Bush administration too ....no wonder Chenny is in the hospital...Chenny is splitting his sides from laughing at Obama. I wonder how many times Chenny has said "I told em so".....

no photo
Sun 06/27/10 06:35 AM
Edited by Kings_Knight on Sun 06/27/10 06:36 AM
How come all the talk we hear is about how we can 'END' the war in the 'stan and not a word about how we can WIN the war in the 'stan ... ? Misplaced priorities, methinks ... Introduce the 7th Century assshats to the technique of making glass from sand at elevated temperature and pressure ... then come home.

Lpdon's photo
Sun 06/27/10 09:13 AM


Insane Hussein named Bush's General, General Petraeus as the new General in charge, of the war efforts in Afghanistan.

This is the same General the left, Harry we can't win the war Reid, John they swift boated me Kerry, Billary, the pant suit queen Clinton, Joe O Bite me the blabber mouth, Henry wax this Man, and the Liberal Messiah himself who all said we couldn't win the war and Petraeus was incompetent to conduct the war effort.

Suddenly, he has become their Hero replacing Insane Hussein's first pick.

The drive by media blasted Petraeus calling him General Be-tray-us, is now their new Hero, a Bush General.
rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl


U nailed that one....Gates is from the Bush administration too ....no wonder Chenny is in the hospital...Chenny is splitting his sides from laughing at Obama. I wonder how many times Chenny has said "I told em so".....


Patraeus is not a new hero, he has been one for many years. He is also not a Bush General. He is a Military General. He loyalty is to the United States of America, not it's polititians. He has made a career of keeping out of the political side of it and avoids it at all costs.

2 Next