Politics and religion.

**RICHARD** · 10-04-2009, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by blue

Obama chose McChrystal to be in charge of the war in Afghanistan, he could do more to back the man.

SCAPE GOAT. Every politician needs a scapegoat.

Check it out,

I can still see Rio de Janiero from my porch.

**blue** · 10-04-2009, 01:12 AM

Originally Posted by RICHARD

SCAPE GOAT. Every politician needs a scapegoat.

Y o owe me a keyboard. I spit my drink all over it. The ewe no longer works.

**Edwina's Secretary** · 10-04-2009, 01:29 AM

How do we get rid of this guy????...he is a disgrace to the red, white and blue....

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090525/zirin2

**blue** · 10-04-2009, 01:42 AM

Originally Posted by Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell

We feel terrible for what the Tillman family went through, but this matter has been investigated thoroughly by the Pentagon, by the Congress, by outside experts, and all of them have come to the same conclusion: that there was no wrongdoing by Gen. McChrystal.

...

**RICHARD** · 10-04-2009, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by blue

Y o owe me a keyboard. I spit my drink all over it. The ewe no longer works.

I swear, I have wrecked so many KBs that I should have stock in the company.
DUDE, I am sorry!

BO has handed off the HC reform issue to Pelosi-lol, let her take all the flack- Put McChrystal in charge of the war, when the Gen comes back with his assessment, he is brushed off. How many other people have been delegated 'CHANGE"?

LOLOLOLOLOL,
Mr. Cool goes to pitch the Olympics - seriously, I watched the presentation LIVE on Thursday/Friday morning. The athletes were dry-and BO's pitch was all about him and his election.

Seems like his, "America bad, We Sorry" talks were taken to heart.

Who really wants to come to a Olympics being held in a country that just elected a black man to office? Or has bombed and killed millions of people across the planet? Or maybe someone in the IOC saw the film of the kid being killed by being beaten with boards on the street in Chi Town??

BO wanted to walk out his door and go do a lap at the World's Biggest Party-
He said something like "I want to walk out my back door......"

It's all about you now?

I can see Rio de Janiero from my front porch.

**Edwina's Secretary** · 10-04-2009, 02:01 AM

When NFL player-turned-Army Ranger Pat Tillman died at the hands of US troops in a case of "friendly fire," the spin machine at the Pentagon went into overdrive. Rumsfeld and company couldn't have their most high-profile soldier dying in such an inelegant fashion, especially with the release of those pesky photos from Abu Ghraib hitting the airwaves. So an obscene lie was told to Tillman's family, his friends and the American public.

The chickenhawks in charge, whose only exposure to war was watching John Wayne movies, claimed that he died charging a hill and was cut down by the radical Islamic enemies of freedom. In the weeks preceding his death, Tillman was beginning to question what exactly he was fighting for, telling friends that he believed the war in Iraq was " [expletive] illegal."

He may not have known what he was fighting for, but it's now clear what he died for: public relations. Today, after five years, six investigations and two Congressional hearings, questions still linger about how Tillman died and why it was covered up.

Now the man who greased the chain of command that orchestrated this great deception is prepared to assume total control of US operations in Afghanistan: Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

It was McChrystal who approved Tillman's posthumous Silver Star, a medal given explicitly for combat, even though he later testified that he "suspected" friendly fire.

**blue** · 10-04-2009, 02:05 AM

Im going to watch Iron Maiden Rock In Rio in their honor, they deserve the Olympics.

Chicago did not need a new soccer stadium anyway.

**blue** · 10-04-2009, 02:16 AM

Originally Posted by Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrel

We feel terrible for what the Tillman family went through, but this matter has been investigated thoroughly by the Pentagon, by the Congress, by outside experts, and all of them have come to the same conclusion: that there was no wrongdoing by Gen. McChrystal.

Source, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090525/zirin2

**Edwina's Secretary** · 10-04-2009, 02:01 PM

And now the Tillman family, amidst bipartisan praise for Obama's new general, must once again raise the inconvenient truth.

Pat's father, Pat Tillman Sr., told the Associated Press, "I do believe that guy participated in a falsified homicide investigation."

Mary Tillman, who excoriated McChrystal in her book, Boots on the Ground by Dusk: My Tribute to Pat Tillman, said, "It is imperative that Lt. Gen. McChrystal be scrutinized carefully during the Senate hearings."

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said in response:

We feel terrible for what the Tillman family went through, but this matter has been investigated thoroughly by the Pentagon, by the Congress, by outside experts, and all of them have come to the same conclusion: that there was no wrongdoing by Gen. McChrystal.

Morrell's statement has more spin than a washing machine powered by a V-8 engine. McChrystal has never explained why the early reports of Tillman's death were covered up, why his clothes and field journal were burned and destroyed on the scene or why Pat's brother Kevin, serving alongside him in the Rangers, was lied to on the spot. Even the cover-up was covered up. This should be a cause for dismissal--or indictment--not promotion.

Ibid

**Grace** · 10-04-2009, 06:43 PM

From the Washington Post -

A General's Public Pressure

By Bruce Ackerman
Saturday, October 3, 2009

The president, the Constitution tells us, is the commander in chief. But is it true?

In a speech in London on Thursday, Gen. Stanley McChrystal publicly intervened in the debate over Afghanistan. Vice President Biden has suggested that we focus on fighting al-Qaeda and refrain from using our troops to prop up the government of President Hamid Karzai. But when this strategic option was raised at his presentation, McChrystal said it was a formula for "Chaos-istan." When asked whether he would support it, he said, "The short answer is: No."

As commanding general in Afghanistan, McChrystal has no business making such public pronouncements. Under law, he doesn't have the right to attend the National Security Council as it decides our strategy. To the contrary, the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 explicitly names the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the National Security Council's exclusive military adviser. If the president wanted McChrystal's advice, he was perfectly free to ask him to accompany Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, when the council held its first meeting on Afghanistan this week.

But Obama did not extend the invitation, even though McChrystal was leaving Kabul and could have gone to Washington easily. Instead, Obama asked the general to report to the council via a brief teleconference.

News of McChrystal's position had been leaked to Bob Woodward and was published in The Post early last week. But it is one thing for some nameless Washington insider to engage in a characteristic power play; quite another for McChrystal to pressure the president in public to adopt his strategy. This is a plain violation of the principle of civilian control.

McChrystal seemed curiously blind to this point. He emphasized that the president had "encouraged" him to be blunt when making his grim report on Afghanistan. But future presidents won't be so encouraging if they know that their commanders might create political problems if they think that their recommendations will be overruled. Instead, they will insist that their commanders tell them only what they want to hear. Confidentiality is a condition for candid communications between commanders and the commander in chief.

McChrystal was almost cavalier in dismissing this point. After praising his superiors for encouraging straight talk, he laughingly suggested that "they may change their minds and crush me some day." This is precisely backward: Generals shouldn't need to be told that it is wrong to lecture their presidents in public. Perhaps McChrystal was misled by the precedent set by Gen. David Petraeus, who strongly supported President Bush's military surge in Iraq in 2007. Though Petraeus publicly endorsed the surge, this happened only after Bush made his decision. Petraeus was backing up his commander in chief, not trying to preempt him.

Nevertheless, precedents have the habit of adding up. Unless McChrystal publicly recognizes that he has crossed the line, future generals will become even more aggressive in their efforts to browbeat presidents.

We have no need for a repeat of the showdown between President Harry Truman and Gen. Douglas MacArthur over Korea. Truman faced down his general the last time around, but it was a bruising experience.

Though McChrystal may feel "crushed," he should show more self-restraint. Indeed, his breach should provoke a broader discussion of the meaning of civilian control in the 21st century. It may well make sense for the Pentagon, or a special commission, to frame more concrete guidelines so that we may avoid future breaches.

The writer is a professor at Yale Law School.