"On the Cover of the Rolling Stone...."
 

Oopps, looks like O's hand picked general succumbed to a common ailment to those that do business in high levels in DC - foot in mouth disease.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100622/pl_nm/us_afghanistan

He broke one of the primary rules of military etiquette - you don't badmouth your boss, civilian or military, in public. If you feel things are really that screwed up, first talk to the boss in private and respectfully voice your concerns. If nothing happens after that, you have two choices - either shut up and get on with your job the best you can, or put your money where your mouth and morals are - resign your command and/or commission, then publicly voice your concerns.

Regardless of whether he has valid concerns or not, he screwed up by shooting off his mouth at the wrong time in the wrong place to the wrong people. Won't be surprised if he does get canned.

Hard to imagine that someone who's made it to his rank pulls a stunt this foolish.

Actually, he was Petraeus's hand picked general, Obama has never cared for the man, now we see why. The general's behavior, and this matters not who is the president, is disgraceful, dishonorable, and down right treasonous. It is detrimental to moral and unity of our troops. The man is simply, a bastard.

That general needs to be retired, fired, or replaced.

I'm curious to see what the article actually contains. The quotes by the general himself sound damning, but I'd like to hear them in context. Either way, it doesn't look good, and yes, he should know better. Like him or not, the POTUS is still boss and should certainly not be badmouthed in the press. Wait 'til you're retired. At the same time, I'm never terribly impressed with quotes attributed to anonymous aides.

I thought the article was excellent.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

It was to a reporter, he was on Scarbourogh this morning, and says he has tapes. There is no doubt here.

On the contrary, I see what could be construed as one misinterpretation by the AP report already:

"The article quotes a member of McChrystal's team making jokes about Biden, who was seen as critical of the general's efforts to escalate the conflict and who had favored a more limited counter-terrorism approach.

"Biden?" the aide was quoted as saying. "Did you say: Bite me?"

McChrystal himself quipped: "Are you asking about Vice President Biden?". "Who's that?," he asked."

I am reading the RS article now, and it reads to me that the general and his staff are guessing at what his latest gaffe might sound like:

"Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner."

Hardly the same as making those comments directly about the VP. There are plenty of other things to criticize, of course... that one's just a little misrepresented.

unfortunately, this is what happens when warriors are lead by soft, effette political thugs from Chicago...why wouldn't they hold them in contempt? It is not like General Mac released a statement about the administration. All I read was regular banter....too bad the reporter decided to quote him..

He should have bitten his tongue in the presence of a reporter. Many of the "meaty" quotes are attributed to anonymous aides, though; THOSE guys are the real stooges in this scenario. Not at all smart.

true, but they are doing a man's job and being hampered by political hacks. It would annoy anyone high speed and low drag enough to be on his staff...:cool:

I rarely ever watch the news anymore and only buy the paper for the crossword puzzle. I think my quality of life has actually improved as a result . . .

I agree. It wasn't a hatchet job, imo.
Dumb to be so forthright, and it'll cost him his job. He had enough rope. He hung himself.
I did find it interesting that they seemed to respect Hillary the most out of all the members of the administration.;)

And didn't some general in Europe pop off about Clinton and get sacked for it early on?

Oh, of course. Complaints about politicians are rampant in the military; you just have to be cognizant of those around you when you make complaints. Sorta like any workplace. You're right that this job is a particularly high-stress one, though, and filtering those thoughts/comments might not be the top priority of the folks we're talking about. It would sure save them a lot of misery of they did, though.

There's really not much that the general said firsthand (in the reporter's presence) that's objectionable... it's the aides who reveal past statements that get him in hot water. That's the irony. But yes, it's an ugly situation that should have been avoided. Not (politically) smart comments by his staff at all.