McChrystal v. Obama

[Hoss]

I know a lot of dooshbags, doesn't make me respect them. Careful about the crybaby crap you punk.

Ah yes...

"Return of the Ad Hominem".... you know Gweed can always be counted on for that.

[Townsend]

And the thread hits crap level with no help from any of the banned contributors.

Tadaaaaaa

[Conan71]

It's not disrespect for the military. I know a lot of Marines. It's disrespect for a chronic crybaby.

Yeah, just like the respect you showed in down-playing the sacrifice soldiers and their families make last week in another discussion.  Good stuff, I'm still getting a rollicking laugh out of it.

[rwarn17588]

Yeah, just like the respect you showed in down-playing the sacrifice soldiers and their families make last week in another discussion.  Good stuff, I'm still getting a rollicking laugh out of it.

Oh, puh-lease. 

I stated a fact that many people make sacrifices -- often deep ones -- during their lives, and not just soldiers. That is indisputable. Just because you don't like that fact doesn't mean you can change or ignore it.

[Conan71]

Oh, puh-lease. 

I stated a fact that many people make sacrifices -- often deep ones -- during their lives, and not just soldiers. That is indisputable. Just because you don't like that fact doesn't mean you can change or ignore it.

Go tell that pap you were spreading last week to your Marine buddies, I'm sure they'll be more receptive to it than I am.

[nathanm]

I get it. McChrystal is not a war hero, he "acted stupidly". He recklessly revealed classified information. Oh wait, that was Obama revealing long-classified information about our nuclear arsenal.

I guess you didn't know that, being the President, Obama gets to decide what needs to be classified. (within the rules set out by Congress, which generally specify things which may not be classified, not the other way around, otherwise it's just general suggestions that mostly aren't binding)

Aside from specific design elements, like how to make them fit in an artillery shell, as opposed to general information about the basic overall design, which has been public since essentially forever in the case of non thermonuclear warheads and targeting data, classifying information about nuclear weapons is stupid.

How exactly does disclosing an exact figure of active warheads and pits harm our national security?

[Conan71]

How exactly does disclosing an exact figure of active warheads and pits harm our national security?

It's about as relevant as outing Valerie Plame was to US Security, I'd guess.

[nathanm]

It's about as relevant as outing Valerie Plame was to US Security, I'd guess.

Well, one is against the law and the other isn't.

I never saw any definitive answer as to what Plame was doing that would require a false identity, so I can't make a value judgment on the issue.

[Conan71]

Well, one is against the law and the other isn't.

I never saw any definitive answer as to what Plame was doing that would require a false identity, so I can't make a value judgment on the issue.

IIRC, no one was ever prosecuted, least of all the person who actually did out her other than a White House aide for perjury because he was too stupid to say "I don't recall".

[nathanm]

IIRC, no one was ever prosecuted, least of all the person who actually did out her other than a White House aide for perjury because he was too stupid to say "I don't recall".

If I murder someone yet manage to avoid prosecution by whatever means, that doesn't make murder any less illegal.

[Conan71]

If I murder someone yet manage to avoid prosecution by whatever means, that doesn't make murder any less illegal.

Poor analogy. 

If there was a crime it would have been prosecuted...especially if it had a serious impact on national security.  The whole Plame issue was a circle jerk to "get" POTUS Bush or VPOTUS Cheney in the first place.

[rwarn17588]

Poor analogy. 

If there was a crime it would have been prosecuted...especially if it had a serious impact on national security.  The whole Plame issue was a circle jerk to "get" POTUS Bush or VPOTUS Cheney in the first place.

I disagree.

The thing was, Scooter Libby lied to investigators during depositions. That is indisputable. Scooter's no dummy; he knew the penalty for perjury.

The reason President Bush didn't pardon him before leaving office was because he believed Libby did indeed lie. Bush did a lot of consulting with varying parties behind the case before making his decision, and the strong belief that Libby lied was echoed by others. (The WashPost report about this came a few weeks after Bush left office.)

Because Libby showed no remorse, Bush essentially said: "Screw you ... you don't deserve a pardon."

So ... you have to ask yourself ... why did Libby lie? Who was he trying to protect?

It's hard to complete an investigation when one of the key figures isn't telling the truth. That's why we'll probably never know what really went on.

It pays to remember that the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, was a Republican appointee for U.S. attorney, and that Bush himself appointed Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame matter. And Fitzgerald has long made both Republican and Democratic politicians wet their pants when they find he's investigating them. So to simply chalk this up as a partisan witch hunt (or "circle jerk," as you put it) doesn't fly when you consider the facts.

[guido911]

Now its Gen. Conway v. Obama:

The top U.S. Marine general made a sharp departure from the White House's talking points on Afghanistan, saying President Barack Obama's promised July 2011 deadline to start withdrawing troops from the country had given "sustenance" to the Taliban.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/

IMO, this is worse than McChrystal

[Gaspar]

Now its Gen. Conway v. Obama:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/

IMO, this is worse than McChrystal

Yeah, but he is planning to retire anyway so he has nothing to fear.  The Taliban has basically thanked President Obama for the established pull out date.  It helps their strategic planning and financing efforts to have some firm closing dates.

However I think they will find it more of an impediment than an advantage.  When we "pull out" it's simply a political tool.  We leave a large number of strike troops, and just re-designate them with different terminology.
If the Taliban fails to produce an effective strike after the "Pull-out" date it presents them as weak to the people.  It's actually not a bad strategy, now that I understand how it works.

[we vs us]

Gassy is right on a couple different levels.  When we think "troops," we don't think of "drones," which is the force that's been doing a lot of the heavy anti-terror heavy lifting to date.