White House summons US general to explain himself

WASHINGTON (AP) - The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan has been summoned to Washington to explain derogatory comments about President Barack Obama and his colleagues, administration officials said Tuesday.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who publicly apologized Tuesday for using “poor judgment” in an interview in Rolling Stone magazine, has been ordered to attend the monthly White House meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan in person Wednesday rather than over a secure video teleconference, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. He’ll be expected to explain his comments to Obama and top Pentagon officials, these officials said.

Obama has the authority to fire McChrystal. His predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, was sacked on grounds that the military needed “new thinking and new approaches” in Afghanistan.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen has told McChrystal of his “deep disappointment” over the article, a spokesman said.

Full Story Here:
White House summons US general to explain himself

I remember, a while back, Amy Proctor, mil-blogger and ardent Bush Bot, a Bush Bot being a blind supporter of George W. Bush, one that accepted everything that Bush said or did as the gospel truth, was blasting any and everyone on the web that didn’t fully agree with each and every word that came from the mouth of her *champion* concerning the war in Iraq.

According to Amy, if I remember correctly, Generals that criticized Bush were traitors, they had all, if memory serves me, according to her, received their stars under the Clinton administration and weren’t worthy of any respect, all because they dared to question her husbands Commander in Chief and his ability to fight a war.

Now Obama is her husbands CiC, unless Johnny retired. I wondered what she would make of this little dust-up between Obama and McChrystal. So, I took a look at her blog.

The article in this week’s Rolling Stone depicts McChrystal as a lone wolf on the outs with many important figures in the Obama administration and unable to persuade even some of his own soldiers that his strategy can win the war.

Isn’t McChrystal the one that insists on our troops fighting in the most politically correct of ways? Insists that they take casualties if that’s what it takes to avoid collateral damage? Isn’t that his thing? Someone please correct me if I’m wrong on that.

Aren’t our troops being forced to adhere to a ridiculous set of ROE that are getting them killed? All because the U.S. government doesn’t want any *bad press* to come out of Afghanistan?

Maybe that’s why McChrystal can’t convince anyone that he has a winning strategy.

The interview describes McChrystal, 55, as “disappointed” in his first Oval Office meeting with Obama. The article says that although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama appointed McChrystal to lead the Afghan effort in May 2009. Last fall, though, Obama called McChrystal on the carpet for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops.

“I found that time painful,” McChrystal said in the article, on newsstands Friday. “I was selling an unsellable position.”

Hmmm… A *lovers spat* perhaps?

McChrystal voted FOR Obama! That little disclosure gives me great pause, and causes me to wonder about the foresight and leadership ability of one Stanley McChrystal. Soldiers are, by far, a Conservative bunch. They tend to vote for real leadership, yet McChrystal voted for Obama?

With the sales pitch remarks made by McChrystal, I have to wonder, is he now suffering buyers remorse? The same buyers remorse that so many in the Democratic party are feeling now that The Obamessiah has been shown to possess feet of clay?

From The Morning Bell:

By highlighting that the U.S. will begin withdrawing troops in July 2011, President Obama signals to Afghans and others that the U.S. is not truly committed to prevailing over the Taliban.

This weakens Afghan resolve to resist the Taliban now for fear they will be back in power in the near future. It also reinforces Pakistan’s inclination to hedge on its support for the Afghan Taliban leadership based on its territory. Time to Dump the Afghanistan Timeline

With so many Conservatives criticizing Barack Hussein Obama for his handling of the war, finance, the oil spill, and everything else that he has so far totally screwed up, are we ALL traitors now Amy? We were when we criticized Bush, so you said.

You told the world that I was anti-American and anti-military because I didn’t support Bush on ALL matters, yet every time I check your blog, you are blasting off on Obama and the way he handles everything.

Does that mean that YOU are anti-American now Amy? Surely not, not from a bastion of military and Presidential support, and Conservative Catholicism such as yourself?

It’s funny how some folks can pick and choose the things that offend them and the leaders they choose to criticize isn’t it?

GEN Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is being yanked from the field to the White House for a spanking because of public remarks he made in Rolling Stone magazine critical of the Obama administration.

How Stalinesque. SOURCE

Amy goes on to say that she is no big fan of McChrystal, and I have to say, neither am I.

I also have NO use for Barack Hussein Obama, and I am glad to see that Amy doesn’t either, but I have to ask Amy; don’t you feel just a wee bit hypocritical blasting Obama the way you do after you went off on everyone that didn’t support Bush? Anyone that criticized his handling of the war in Iraq?

As I said, Obama IS the CiC now, and that title seemed to really matter to you when it was Bush and he was CiC.

You see, personally, I don’t care who they are, if they aren’t doing their job in what I consider to be the right way, I’m going to have my say in the matter. That’s why I vote! I want to retain that right to gripe about the things I see as wrong, but the one thing I won’t be is a hypocrite. I’ll blast both sides if, and when necessary.

If Amy is convinced that Bush was so wonderfully awesome, I think that’s great, she has a right to her opinion. But so do I, and so do all the others that she castigated because we dared to question, and in many cases, condemn Bush. Isn’t her condemnation, criticism and castigation of Obama just as vile if based on the standards that she herself put in place when Bush was the target of criticism?

Yeah, I think there’s a tad bit of hypocrisy at play there…

Additionally: AP source: McChrystal has no sign he’ll be fired

He may NOT be fired, he openly admitted that he voted for Barack Hussein Obama, and Obama needs all the friends he can muster right now.