Politics and religion.

[blue]

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]

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]

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.

[lizbud]

McChrystal should be chastized by the President. (in private if necessary)
Obama wiill not be lead around by the nose the way GWB did. At least I hope
not.

[RICHARD]

From the Washington Post -

EFF YOU Ackerman.

You dimwitted wanker....

Of course Mc Chrystal will make public pronouncements when it concerns HIS CHARGES!

That is what I mean about scape goats.

The reality of the war has edged it's way into the reality of the current presidency.

Close down Gitmo and bring the troops back home, you dope.

----------------------------------


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."

LOLOLOL,

Just like every situation where the "BOSS" makes you THINK you opinion counts?

When you go against what they believe they distance themselces from your sorry rear and leave you out to dry.

SCAPE goat's head soup.

Imagine that,

A soldier who is literally in charge with thousands of lives having an opinion about how to keep his men alive.

Boy, does he have some nerve.

[Edwina's Secretary]

As I was reading the article posted by Grace -- all I could think of was Truman and McArthur. Sure enough...

What gets into these guys...think because someone calls them "Sir" and puts some ribbons on their chest they don't have to follow the clearly established rules?

And I thought the military was all about "chain of command."

As if covering up, lying and spinning the death of a hero wasn't enough for McChrystal...

There is a new sheriff in town. I think he had better learn that.

[blue]

If Obama is serious about Afghanistan, Iraq, and possibly Iran, he should be led by the nose by his military advisors. Obama has never run anything!

Congress, a Democrat dominated Congress, cleared McChrystal of any wrong doing in the Tillman case. If McChystal gets chastised by the POTUS, Congress should also be chastised by the POTUS. The POTUS should be publicly chastised by all of us for appointing McChrystal if he is indeed guilty of wrong doing in the TIllman coverup!

[Edwina's Secretary]

Was McChrystal involved in the Jessica Lynch scam in addition to the Tillman scam?

Or did someone else make all that stuff up? She was captured while firing her weapon! She was mistreated and was rescued from the horror...

Honestly...or should I say...dishonestly...

Or is it just too many John Wayne movies???