General Stanley McChrystal Recalled to Washington Over Remarks in 'Runaway General' Rolling Stone Article June 22, 2010 08:46 AM EDT (Updated: June 22, 2010 08:52 AM EDT)
Stanley McCrystal is the lead U.S. commander of the war in Afghanistan. He let down his guard in front of Rolling Stone reporters, mocking, criticizing, disrespecting and attacking many of his bosses and advisers, including Vice President Joe Biden, Richard Holbrooke (a special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan), Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and even his Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama.
i wonder how he would react to his enlisted ranks behaving this way?
and to do this with Rolling Stone? too friggin weird...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Gen. David Petraeus’s momentary faint got all the attention at the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning. But before the faint came the pause -- a hesitation by the general in answering a question that spoke volumes about the Obama administration’s troubles in Afghanistan.
The moment came when Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the committee chairman, asked Petraeus about the July 2011 date President Obama set last December for beginning U.S. troop withdrawals. “When you say that you continue to support the president’s policy both in terms of the additional troops but also the setting of that date to begin the reduction,” Levin pressed, “... does that represent your best personal professional judgment?”
The silence in the chamber was ringing as Petraeus hesitated. Probably something between five and 10 seconds passed, but it seemed much longer. At last, the four-star chief of Central Command spoke: “In a perfect world, Mr. Chairman, we have to be very careful with timelines.”
Petraeus went on to describe how he had managed U.S. troop withdrawals during the surge in Iraq. He reiterated that he supports “the policy of the president.” But, he added, “There was a nuance to what the president said that was very important, that did not imply a race for the exits.”
Implicit in those comments was a recognition of the problem that has haunted the U.S. mission ever since Obama laid out his strategy -- and that continues to divide his military and civilian aides. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) bluntly described the trouble at the hearing, saying the deadline is “convincing the key actors inside and outside of Afghanistan that the United States is more interested in leaving than succeeding in this conflict. And as a result, they’re all making the necessary accommodations for a post-American Afghanistan.”
That seems to be true of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has been moving toward negotiations with the Taliban despite the reservations of U.S. commanders, and who last week fired two of the three members of his cabinet who have been closest to the United States. McCain cited an interview that one of those dismissed, intelligence chief Amrullah Saleh, gave last week to the New York Times, in which he suggested, as the senator put it, “that President Karzai no longer believes the United States will succeed and that he is shifting, as a result, to a policy of accommodation with the Taliban and the Pakistani military.”
Before he briefly took ill and the hearing was suspended, Petraeus said he disagreed with that description of Karzai. But McCain also drew a telling contrast between Petraeus’s account of the July 2011 withdrawal date and that of Vice President Biden, who is known to be the leader in the White House of a faction opposed to the counterinsurgency strategy Petraeus and Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, are trying to implement.
Petraeus, quoting Obama’s December speech at West Point, said, “what happens in July 2011 is a beginning of a process for transition that is conditions-based, and the beginning of a ... responsible drawdown of U.S. forces.”
McCain then read Biden’s version, as quoted by Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter in a recently released book: “In July of 2011, you are going to see a whole lot of people moving out,” the vice president told Alter. “Bet on it.”
That sounds a lot like a un-nuanced race for the exits.
posted
Still in Iraq, gitmo still open, and afghan is crazy intense right now.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
McChrystal should go and fast not good for the war effort to keep him around. War is something that all have to be focused on the same plan and objectives
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i don't question that, i question what's going on...
this was totally unprofessional... not the kind of thing that is acceptable from the military...
if we can't count on them then we are in a world of chit. these guys are supposed to be above politics.
You are right! What are we going to do? I think a lot of Generals are sick of the Obama admin already and just dont care like they used to. Lets read miranda rights to taliban on the battlefields of Afghanistan....yeah thats great.
Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only two possibilites that I can come up with...
One: He let down his guard and didn't understand exactly who was conducting the interview. (less likely)
Two: He fully intended the interview to get out and is using this as the podium to voice his dissatisfaction with the admin. Not professional and will most likely end his career, but makes the point. (more likely imo)
posted
seriously? reading this it sounds as tho the General doesn't want to be a General...
'How'd I get screwed into going to this dinner?" demands Gen. Stanley McChrystal. It's a Thursday night in mid-April, and the commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan is sitting in a four-star suite at the Hôtel Westminster in Paris. He's in France to sell his new war strategy to our NATO allies – to keep up the fiction, in essence, that we actually have allies.
"The dinner comes with the position, sir," says his chief of staff, Col. Charlie Flynn.
McChrystal turns sharply in his chair.
"Hey, Charlie," he asks, "does this come with the position?"
McChrystal gives him the middle finger. I'd rather have my ass kicked by a roomful of people than go out to this dinner," McChrystal says.
He pauses a beat.
"Unfortunately," he adds, "no one in this room could do it."
With that, he's out the door.
"Who's he going to dinner with?" I ask one of his aides.
"Some French minister," the aide tells me. "It's ****ing gay."
Before President Obama put him in charge of the war in Afghanistan, he spent five years running the Pentagon's most secretive black ops.
Obama fired Mchrystals predecessor: It was the first time a top general had been relieved from duty during wartime in more than 50 years, since Harry Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur at the height of the Korean War.
and replaced him with a guy who had voted for him.
one expects these guys, real killers who are there to to do job few can or even want to do, to be irreverent and even insolent, only amongst one another tho ,not in the public eye...
it sure sounds like the General and his staff "forgot" who they were giving interviews too.. this is boot camp grabass talk, not what you expect from top brass...
if one of his staff had done this to him? Nutcrystal would have his balls on his desk in a jar...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He did it he knew what he was doing Just read about Truman and what he had to do with the big M god and he was better off for sacking him IMHO Ridgeway did a much better job.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
He (the general) also set a manic pace for his staff, becoming legendary for sleeping four hours a night, running seven miles each morning, and eating one meal a day. (In the month I spend around the general, I witness him eating only once.) It's a kind of superhuman narrative that has built up around him, a staple in almost every media profile, as if the ability to go without sleep and food translates into the possibility of a man single-handedly winning the war.
this sounds vaguely familiar....
'Go pills' routine for U.S. pilots
In-Depth Coverage For 30 years Dexedrine has boosted alertness for astronauts and soldiers: PROBING 'FRIENDLY FIRE' BOMBING
By Jim Farrell
On the seventh and final day of their aborted mission to the moon in 1970, the astronauts of Apollo XIII were cold, exhausted and short of sleep.
Mission commander Jim Lovell had just made a mistake that could have killed him and his crew, punching up the wrong computer program for the final course correction.
Minutes later, the astronauts' boss, Deke Slayton, was on the mike, telling the crew that they must break open their medical kit and take Dexedrine tablets -- stimulants to sharpen up their reactions. Until then, they'd all refused to take even an Aspirin. They complied. The astronauts had resorted to the same drug that is implicated in the April 17 "friendly fire" bombing in Afghanistan.
A lawyer for one of the U.S. pilots involved in the "friendly fire" bombing told the Montreal Gazette they were forced to take amphetamine pills that clouded their judgment. Now they face a military panel Jan. 13 to determine if they are to face manslaughter charges for dropping a laser-guided bomb on a battalion of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry troops outside Kandahar during a nighttime live-fire exercise.
But there's no rule that states pilots must take the drugs, says Capt. Kelly Thibodeau, public affairs officer for the U.S. 391st squadron. It's up to them.
The son of a general, McChrystal was also a ringleader of the campus dissidents – a dual role that taught him how to thrive in a rigid, top-down environment while thumbing his nose at authority every chance he got. He accumulated more than 100 hours of demerits for drinking, partying and insubordination – a record that his classmates boasted made him a "century man." One classmate, who asked not to be named, recalls finding McChrystal passed out in the shower after downing a case of beer he had hidden under the sink.
McChrystal wound up ranking 298 out of a class of 850.
As managing editor of The Pointer, the West Point literary magazine, McChrystal wrote seven short stories that eerily foreshadow many of the issues he would confront in his career.
In one tale, a fictional officer complains about the difficulty of training foreign troops to fight; in another, a 19-year-old soldier kills a boy he mistakes for a terrorist. In "Brinkman's Note," a piece of suspense fiction, the unnamed narrator appears to be trying to stop a plot to assassinate the president. It turns out, however, that the narrator himself is the assassin, and he's able to infiltrate the White House: "The President strode in smiling. From the right coat pocket of the raincoat I carried, I slowly drew forth my 32-caliber pistol. In Brinkman's failure, I had succeeded." http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=2
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
the article is a must read.... it seems pretty clear that Obama made a mistake hiring this guy...
he was deeply involved in the Pat Tillman fiasco-coverup..
"The false narrative, which McChrystal clearly helped construct, diminished Pat's true actions," wrote Tillman's mother, Mary, in her book Boots on the Ground by Dusk. McChrystal got away with it, she added, because he was the "golden boy" of Rumsfeld and Bush, who loved his willingness to get things done, even if it included bending the rules or skipping the chain of command. Nine days after Tillman's death, McChrystal was promoted to major general.
posted
A little partisan...but interesting take on the McChrystal deal.
Democrats and the McChrystal Fiasco
By JOHN YOO Stanley McChrystal is no Douglas MacArthur or George McClellan. But President Barack Obama has treated him like one.
Harry Truman sacked Gen. MacArthur, commander of American forces in the Korean War, for publicly attacking his acceptance of a divided peninsula. Abraham Lincoln fired Gen. McClellan, commander of the Union Army, for a lack of aggression against the Confederate forces. McClellan didn't help his case by avoiding the president, refusing to disclose his campaign plans, and privately referring to Lincoln as "nothing more than a well-meaning baboon," a "gorilla," and "ever unworthy" of the presidency.
By all accounts, Gen. McChrystal, who commanded the American forces in Afghanistan until yesterday, agrees with Mr. Obama on wartime strategy and goals. His sin? He harbors a low opinion of his commander in chief.
According to an unnamed aide quoted in a Rolling Stone interview, Gen. McChrystal said that Mr. Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass in his first Pentagon meeting as president. Their first face-to-face meeting after Mr. Obama had appointed Gen. McChrystal to take charge of the Afghanistan war went worse. "It was a 10-minute photo op," an aide was quoted. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his [expletive deleted] war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."
For these anonymous, second-hand remarks, the president summoned his commander to Washington yesterday for an explanation and then fired him. According to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, "the magnitude and greatness of the mistake here are profound."
Mr. Obama has now put Gen. David Petraeus in charge of the war in Afghanistan. It's an excellent choice, but taking over at this point is dicey. American forces are waging a fierce counterinsurgency effort against a resurgent Taliban, with fewer troops and resources than needed for victory, while keeping to an utterly unrealistic deadline of July 2011, when the president has announced his intention to begin troop withdrawals. Replacing commanders right before the summer's main push into Kandahar and other Taliban strongholds could prove disruptive to American success.
Nevertheless, Mr. Obama may have had little choice but to fire the general to restore civilian control over the military. And for this no-win situation, he has only his partisan allies in Congress to blame. It directly and predictably arose not from the war in Afghanistan, but from congressional efforts to undermine the Iraq war and the war on terrorism during the Bush years.
The U.S. Constitution makes the president "Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." Civilian control keeps the government free from threats of a military dictatorship, focuses the military on fighting the nation's wars, and promotes decisive, energetic government during crisis by concentrating authority in the president. "Of all the cares or concerns of government," as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 74, "the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand."
Congressional Democrats spent the Bush years undermining this fundamental principle of constitutional government. True, civilian-military relations had already been on the wane. Generals overtly fought President Bill Clinton's effort to integrate gays in the military. Colin Powell, as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, published a 1992 editorial opposing intervention in Bosnia. Other military officers successfully resisted a large intervention in Haiti in 1994 to stop human rights abuses and blamed civilian leaders for the humiliating 1994 withdrawal from Somalia after the deaths of 18 American soldiers.
Military resistance reached a crescendo under President George W. Bush. Fueled by Democrats eager to add kindling, generals openly feuded with Defense Department officials over the number of troops needed for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. In 2006, in what has come to be known in the American military as the "revolt of the generals," dozens of senior retired officers publicly called for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Military lawyers publicly opposed the administration over the use of military commissions to try al Qaeda leaders and whether the Geneva Conventions governed counterterrorism operations.
Liberals in the media and Congress eagerly joined the chorus for Mr. Rumsfeld's head. They manipulated the generals' revolt to support their opposition to the administration's Iraq and terrorism policies. They undermined the president's ability to receive forthright, confidential military advice. Presidents won't trust generals who may run to Congress or the press at the first sign of disagreement with the military's consensus advice. They traded short-term political gains against Mr. Bush for the Constitution's promise of long-term political stability.
Now the bill is coming due, and it will cost Democrats more dearly than Republicans. Scholars have observed that the officer corps has become increasingly conservative in the last few decades, the result of self-selection and the end of the draft, Republican Party outreach, and the disappearance of the national security wing of the Democratic Party. Soldiers who have risked their lives for their nation on the fields of Afghanistan and Iraq do not like to hear elected politicians calling their wars unjust or devising the fastest way to withdraw.
The nation, of course, is nowhere near a military coup. But it has witnessed the growing independence of the military from political control, accelerated by a Congress and media opposed to an unpopular president. His party's political myopia has forced Mr. Obama to choose between battlefield progress and the constitutional authority of the commander in chief.
posted
incredibly partisan. it's so partisan that it ignores the most important points, like maintaining miltiary discipline. Mchrysatl would have fired others for doing what he did.
this is one persons fault, Mchrystal himself. he didn't want the job, he may have thought he did, but Generals should know the job before they take it...
going on patrol with the troops is great, heck when i was 20? i would have loved it if he showed up,
BUT!
who would have been in an azz-sling if he had been killed? what would the enemy make of that? i mean seriously, this ain't a football game, the guy is a spec-ops type and that's what he wants to do, IMO he'll be lucky to keep his rank....
don't forget that Obama's choice to add troops was incredibly unpopular in the liberal world, and he did it because he thought it needed to be done, not for political points.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:don't forget that Obama's choice to add troops was incredibly unpopular in the liberal world, and he did it because he thought it needed to be done, not for political points.
Horse****, Glass. Obama knew he had no choice BUT to send troops. He was already seen as anti-war which translated to anti-defense. He HAD to send the troops to keep what centrist supporters he still had at the time.
As to the article? Yes, McChrystal is the one to blame here for his actions. Noone but him. But...is he alone or a symptom of more discontent in the ranks?
posted
Why is everyone all over peoples rear ends for poking at Obama when Obama failed to get everyone out of Iraq like he promised to get elected...I knew it was a lie from the get go he just fleeced everyone with what they wanted to hear.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If McChristal felt the way about Obama that you folks said he did. Why did he take command? it has done nothing but weaken our position,give a mental advantage to our enemies. And make things in the ranks very depressing.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Ray...take a look at the last few Obama appointees that have been 'let go'. See the running theme?
no, i don't see the running theme. why don't you show us? While you do it? Don't forget who appointed Gates.
i'd like to follow up some more on the moronic behaviour of Mchrystal.
if (at twenty) i were to have a General (any General not to mention a gung-ho spec-ops hero) show up on patrol next to me? i woulda gone insane. I woulda wanted to impress his azz, and i woulda done anything to protect him if we came under fire, including risk the life of every other member of the unit to protect him.
you get what this guy is really about. that's NOT miltiary leadership.
i know why he he did it. he likes to get blood on his knife.
and i have several nephews rotating out of his (ex)theatre on a regular basis right now.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand are we talking about McChristal? I don't know about the others,but I do know about McChristal and what he did as a commander was wrong and against all American military leadership standards and we have a long history of actions in the past to show us how it is normaly handled. Some countries that type of crime would be handles by a firing squad.
On the otherside just think of the lives of the soldiers and marines that the moron put at risk. Say what your wimp mind wants to if it were me I would have horse whipped him with his own crop in public.
As far as your question did he do his job properly the answer is no! Like all the others who have done the same thing the war effort was better off without them. And this will be no different.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anita Dunn? she was let go because she went out of her way and picked a fight with FOX and elevated them to a status they didn't deserve. I watched Glen Beck play misquotes of her (about?) 30 times.. It was creepy how he cut two sentences out of a speech of hers and just kept playing them over and over again.. FOX (and Beck) is really anti-education. they want you to get all of your "knowledge" from them and nobody else... Beck stands up there and lies thru his face all show long and then tells you everybody else you have learned form but him is a liar. he's sick.
Desiree Rogers? gatecrashers. no more no less... LOL.. that was ah, dumb.
Van Jones- another Glen beck hatchet job... however i think the end really came for him when he called the GOP a bunch of azzholes in public... even if he was correct? it didn't represent Obamas political aspirations....
thinking outside the box is one thing, it's what we reward artists to do--- ACTING outside the box? not a good idea if you are the leader of the Free World... the Prez(and all national leaders) is elected by the middle.. you have to have a base, but a President/candidate that doesn't appeal to the middle will lose... Even Bush as creepy as he was tried to appeal to the middle. the way Rove did it? he actually drove the public opinion to a place it didn't really want to be... remebr that Bush got elected by the braoder Evangelistic community, he promised federal Funding to Faith based organistaions and then spit on them. (literally)
thinking outside the box confuses the general populace, that's just a bad idea unless there is specific strategic objective to be obtained...
going off the reservation is another term for thinking outside the box in this context
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:thinking outside the box confuses the general populace, that's just a bad idea unless there is specific strategic objective to be obtained...
going off the reservation is another term for thinking outside the box in this context
(applause)
There is the point I wanted to make. If you look at all four of those people mentioned, all of them were picked for the job because they had both the qualifications AND a mindset that was 'anti status quo' for lack of a better term. This was what got them the job over other well qualified individuals. They agreed with Obama on certain important issues.
As you mentioned, Glass, the middle makes the rules (for the most part). They choose who actually leads. When Obama appointed people that strayed from that middle view too far...see my list above...they embarassed Obama. That was their crime in a nutshell.
They were all far left...and the middle didn't like them acting that way.
posted
They were all far left? compared to? FOX? i am far left compared to FOX, do you watch Fox? I watch everybody including Fox and NPT/R on sort of rotating basis.. I've stopped watchng MSNBC since they became the anti-Fox network cuz i beleive they are making a mistake...
i am not a lefty no matter how many people want to paint me one. Esp in economics and immigration and strict constitutional interpretation issues...
the Anita Dunn issue is a good case in point. I belevie Obama dumped her because she was in fact repsonding to Fox's game JUST LIKE MSNBC has been... not because she screwed up inpolicy or anything else reasonable... She still works for Obama, just no in that job anymore. Her hubbie is Obama's personal attorney.
Beck stated that the speech revealed Dunn as a Maoist, while Dunn stated that her reference was meant to be ironic, and was a quote borrowed from Republican strategist Lee Atwater.
do you understand that Fox in particular has become a news station for morons? I mean that in very literal sense, if you listen to them for only a few minutes any time of th ebusiness day you can hear them flat out destroying the truth. It's not just Glen, it on during the regular hours too...
and if my neighbors who ONLY watch Fox had any clues that the Prince of Saudi Arabia was amnipulating their news they'd be freaked out... well guess what? the Prince is the second largest shareholder behind the Murdochs....
the murdochs are not Americans in any real sense of the wrod either. Rupert naturalised for business reasons. you have all these so-called Patriotic Conservatives being propagandised by some very Unsavory people. it's wrong, and it's very sad.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thinking outside the box does not confuse Americans. Lets get that very straight. We entire nation of people that think outside the box.
Sounds to me like you are sour grapping get over it you lost the election and it don't look good for you the next time around.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glass, it's not a 'more left' or 'left of X' question. As I've said many times, perception is reality. If they are perceived as left of 'norm' then they are. Obama is seen by many (possibly most) Americans as 'left' leaning. Those he appoints are mainly people that agree with his policies and by implication are 'left' themselves.
When they act outside the traditionally accepted social norms (bastion of conservatism), they are acting outside of the middle's perception of acceptability. Put those two perceptions together and you get a situation where Obama HAS to get rid of them to stay in the center's good graces.
On a side note, this isn't about FOX's spin, and yes I agree they have one. It is about the generally held perception. To lay this at FOX's feet is to grant them the same position that Dunn did. It gives them more credance that they may or may not deserve.
posted
sounds like the line was something you would say
Don't hold your breath about november
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I've said many times, perception is reality.
no, it isn't. this is the major part of the problem America is facing today and the more people beleive that the more trouble we are in...
as long as the hard right continues to beleive this? the less they DESERVE any power. i can spend days upon days showing how perspective and or lack thereof only simulates reality and only Fools beleive they know facts after looking at something from one perspective.
in fact? simulation of reality is the FOX project. they sprinkle in just enough truth to begin to appear to have journalistic skills...
the first three of those appointees were earned by campaigning for Obama. that's SOP in politics.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: As I've said many times, perception is reality.
no, it isn't. this is the major part of the problem America is facing today and the more people beleive that the more trouble we are in...
as long as the hard right continues to beleive this? the less they DESERVE any power. i can spend days upon days showing how perspective and or lack thereof only simulates reality and only Fools beleive they know facts after looking at something from one perspective.
in fact? simulation of reality is the FOX project. they sprinkle in just enough truth to begin to appear to have journalistic skills...
the first three of those appointees were earned by campaigning for Obama. that's SOP in politics.
posted
as to left and right? i think it's all a pile of crap.
the lefties want bigger govt (more power) and the righties want bigger govt (more power)
until you and the rest of the the so-called conservative movement accept that? you are just blind followers of, of who? exaclty? who leads the GOP? Rush? LOL... what a joke...
who is buying the most lies in the last 30 years or so? the right wingers by far. What was the "Contract with America" again? Did ANY of that last even two years? LOL i don't think so.. what a line of crap...
Reagan's MYTHOLOGY is also a perfect example. I left college and enlisted to go kick some Iranian azz months before Reagan got elected.. Reagan not only backed off on that when he should have INVADED them the day our hostages were back home? He pulled our Marines out of Lebanon after the barracks bomb. His filthy henchmen like Ollie North, Rumsfled and yes even Cheney too, were all over the map playing "make-a-buck" while trying to effect some sort of FAILED foreign policy that if you really look carefully at it appears to be modeled after the Mafia more than anything else...
know why we were so sure Sadam had WMD? cuz Rumsfeld sold them to him to use on Iran.... that's why... sheesh... and Beck likes to go on about "crime inc" under Obama wooohhooo!?
IF all that had worked? i would not even bother to bring it up cuz it's just politics in a messy situaion, but it not only did not work? It led US to this mess.... Bush? he didn't even know there were two kinds of Muslims.. sheeshh... we ahave been way better off under the Dems, cuz at leas they base alot of (not nearly all) of their hiring decisions on Merit, not who their daddy was... i am looking forward to our country being run in a bipartisan manner again.. I am sure i will never see it in my lifetime tho.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL Tex, that is funny- the Emporer is nekked? sheeshh how cn you tell?
Apparently, he was under the deeply misguided impression that rubbing one’s face with lemon juice rendered it invisible to video cameras.
“Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties of Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-assessments,” was published in 1999
is saw that paper when it was published.. it's so true.. and then there's the guys who think that because they get paid the big bucks, they are more competent than they are...
the drilling ban is a great curent events example.. before the well blew? we didn't KNOW that we don't know how to cope with a blown well at that depth... we do now tho, don't we? YET EVEN THO IT'S NO LONGER AN UNKNOWN UNKOWN, people still want to drill in the same places... ooooppppsie
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
