McChrystal stripped of command

[CloudStrife]

How would he be defending the Constititution and US if he quit?

 

[gbundersea]

Then he should have quit and then opened his mouth.

You forget that TOTUS is among the enemies McChrystal was sworn to defend us against. Having the balls to speak out against him while on duty was a frontal assault. If McChrystal "quit then opened his mouth" the state-run media would have gone into full damage-control mode and blown him off as just another disgruntled ex-employee. Now this is front-page news, and 0sama has been damaged even further, coming across as a panty-waist who can't handle criticism.

In addition, his appointment of Petraeus has the libs' heads exploding, as Petraeus was Bush's leader of the successful Iraqi surge, and was very loudly chastised by MoveOn.org as "General Betray Us." Now 0sama has put him in charge! It's a no-win situation for 0sama, thus a win for the USA.

 

[oleheat]

Michael Savage perhaps said it best:

"The man who has spent most of his life defending America has been fired by the man who spent most of his life stapling fliers to telephone poles in Chicago."


How true.

 

[Hardballing]

Elections have consequences and this is one of them. Among the MANY others we are seeing daily.

To those who are applauding the general for "speaking his mind" to Rolling Stoned, think about where those comments lead. Do you really want a military that is not firmly under civilian control? NOT answerable to Commander in Chief (no matter who he/she may be), for ALL matters?

Didn't think so.

 

[CloudStrife]

Elections have consequences and this is one of them. Among the MANY others we are seeing daily.

To those who are applauding the general for "speaking his mind" to Rolling Stoned, think about where those comments lead. Do you really want a military that is not firmly under civilian control? NOT answerable to Commander in Chief (no matter who he/she may be), for ALL matters?

Didn't think so.

But who is the president answering to?

 

[gbundersea]

To those who are applauding the general for "speaking his mind" to Rolling Stoned, think about where those comments lead. Do you really want a military that is not firmly under civilian control? NOT answerable to Commander in Chief (no matter who he/she may be), for ALL matters?

Given the choice of a military serving the Constitution, or serving the current administration regime who, in my opinion, IS THE ENEMY, I'd indeed take the military. Each and every thing this regime does is counter to the Constitution, freedom, national security, and our nation's very existence. The last thing we need is a military blindly following that enemy's orders. Remember the "domestic" part of the whole "enemies" thing, and look no farther than DC to see it in the flesh.

 

[Gus McCrae]

Michael Savage perhaps said it best:

"The man who has spent most of his life defending America has been fired by the man who spent most of his life stapling fliers to telephone poles in Chicago."


How true.

That's pretty good.

 

[Hardballing]

But who is the president answering to?

The electorate, us, every 4 years.

As a practical matter, once elected, he/she has ENORMOUS power to either do great things, or ef things up greatly.

NO recourse under the Constitution, except impeachment, other than election every 4 years when he/she MUST answer to "We The People".

 

[Hardballing]

Given the choice of a military serving the Constitution, or serving the current administration regime who, in my opinion, IS THE ENEMY, I'd indeed take the military. Each and every thing this regime does is counter to the Constitution, freedom, national security, and our nation's very existence. The last thing we need is a military blindly following that enemy's orders. Remember the "domestic" part of the whole "enemies" thing, and look no farther than DC to see it in the flesh.

The only issue in your statement is that the military, if given total control, would not imo serve the Constitution for long. It would serve the military. Same story with the "Fedzilla" we have now. It has grown so large and diverse (away from it's original purposes) that now it only exists to serve itself.

The pols lie to get the vote. Then as they are "in" for a specified time, voters be damned, until it's time to lie again to get another vote.

The answer is not in military control, the answer is in term limits and limits of one federal elected office per lifetime. In that manner, imho, we get back to the idea of citizen legislators and away from a "political class".

Will that happen? Probably not in my lifetime and probably not until there is a lot of ugliness to force it to happen.

Just one mook's .02.

 

[gbundersea]

...term limits and limits of one federal elected office per lifetime. In that manner, imho, we get back to the idea of citizen legislators and away from a "political class".

Agree 100%

 

[CloudStrife]

Term limits are not the answer. That does nothing but limit our choices each election. The answer to our problems is educated and sensible voters. Without that, term limits or not, the crap would be put into office again and again.

 

[oleheat]

Has anyone considered maybe the guy did this whole thing on purpose to alert certain groups in the American populus that they are being led by a group of hopeless amateurs, with a complete dud for Commander-In-Chief?

I wouldn't rule this out.

I can't see any other reason to even give an interview to a degenerate, drug-culture magazine such as Rolling Stone....

 

[CloudStrife]

Has anyone considered maybe the guy did this whole thing on purpose to alert certain groups in the American populus that they are being led by a group of hopeless amateurs, with a complete dud for Commander-In-Chief?

I wouldn't rule this out.

I can't see any other reason to even give an interview to a degenerate, drug-culture magazine such as Rolling Stone....

It does seem odd that he said what he said for all to read. He's either an enormous idiot lacking any sense, or he knew what he was doing. Since he's (was?) a general, I don't think he could be that much of an idiot.

 

[Hardballing]

Term limits are not the answer. That does nothing but limit our choices each election. The answer to our problems is educated and sensible voters. Without that, term limits or not, the crap would be put into office again and again.

Cloud,

I have seen your opinion, as above, on this matter a number of times and I respectfully disagree.

We have reached a tipping point imo where the goal, however true, of "educated and sensible voters" is a pipedream. Too many diversions, too much indifference (including during election cycles), too many in the "what's in it for me" catagory. Too many many things frankly.

Unless and until "we the people" break a cycle of having a political class, your goal is not attainable. We are currently ruled, not governed. There are no leaders who put their constituents ahead of themselves. The political class has empowered itself with offices, staff, perks (like free mail) where the advantage is always with the incumbent. Even in years like this where the electorate is somewhat riled up.

Sorry Brother, somehow, someway, somewhat there has to be an end of this cycle of answering to "our betters". What is the ultimate answer? Don't have a clue frankly and what clues I do have I don't want to discuss on an open internet forum. But the idea of initally limiting their power, and decreasing it substantially MUST, imho, come first. Cause if this continues, we are all royally...well...you get the idea.

Again, just one mook's .02.

 

[dantheman]

" educated and sensible voters " ? I don't even know where to start ...

I'll settle for a decent voter turnout by white , middle class , conservatives . That's all it would take . This mess is our own fault .

 

[leVieux]

Has anyone considered maybe the guy did this whole thing on purpose to alert certain groups in the American populus that they are being led by a group of hopeless amateurs, with a complete dud for Commander-In-Chief?

I wouldn't rule this out.

I can't see any other reason to even give an interview to a degenerate, drug-culture magazine such as Rolling Stone....

That's my quick assessment, too...........leVieux

 

[dantheman]

I looked at his " stats" . His career isn't that impressive . He commanded a lot of different units , and held a lot of different positions , but he didn't appear to have
the kind of credentials as , oh say , Norman Schwarzkopf .