Poor, poor Obama.

Wonder who will replace Petraeus, if he "hurts" Obama's feelings?

An article published in a magazine that NO ONE reads (consisting of a few negative remarks) and suddenly the POTUS calls for the resignation of General McChrystal?

Once again, Obama has demonstrated that he is unqualified to serve this country as our C in C.

Removing a highly competent general from the battlefield during wartime is indefensible.

Surely, no one is surprised that Obama's approval ratings continue to plummet day by day.

Wonder if General McChrystal will vote for Obama....next time around?

And the trend continues:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

Lion Writes....
 

"I'm smiling a bit at the realization that the Obama decision that all his supporters are calling brilliant and an example of his leadership qualities is to follow the example of George W. Bush and appoint Petraeus to administer the war on the ground."


My sentiments exactly. In fact, I do believe I can hear GW "laughing" all the way from Dallas!

Rolling Stone has a circulation of 1.4 million so I would say "no one" reads it. Now, add all the people who heard of it because of the remarks.

I don’t believe you familiar with military structure. Insubordination at any grade level in the military is a very serious offense. Public criticism of superiors does nothing but undermine the stability and trust of troops under command. Not only is Obama’s action in this particular case defensible but anything less would have had a detrimental effect on those who serve. His “hurt” feelings or one’s personal pro/con Obama stance make little difference – his decision in this instance was correct.

General McChrystal's ouster was based upon a lie. There is NOTHING in the article that suggests even the slightest hint of "insubordination" by General McChrystal.

The article was a piece of garbage written by a low life "journalist" who took (what were meant to be "off the record") remarks made by some staffers and then printed them without bothering to check for accuracy.

If Obama had shown some level of maturity and class, instead of vanity and vindictiveness, he would have simply ignored the article and focused on more important issues....such as his own performance ratings.

The real reason for McChrystal's firing by Obama will eventually emerge and it has NOTHING to do with the lies that were written in that piece of pulp trash.

A Concern About General Petraeus
 

General Petraeus is certainly well qualified for this assignment. However, his current responsibility is head of Central Command - the group in charge of our actions is SE Asia and the Middle East, not just Afghanistan.

General Ward, USA, now head of the US Africa Command; General Mattis, USMC, now head of the US Joint Force Command; and Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, General McChrystal’s second in command are all capable of assuming control of the Afghanistan war. However none of them have the intimate knowledge of the region as a whole as General Petraeus.

With war breaking out Kyrgyzstan, a country that is home to the most critical AF base we have to support the war in Afghanistan, continuing problems dealing with Pakistan, the threat of war at sea between Israel and Iran, etc., I would prefer to see General Petraeus at Central Command with responsibility for the total region. We do not have another commander with the depth and breadth of experience for Central Command. That is why I would prefer to see him there and someone else in charge in Afghanistan.

Agree....Pretaeus should have remained at Central Command.

Oh the irony of it all....."Bush's General" who was so terribly berated by Obama, HC, Reid, Pelosi, and Biden for the "surge" in Iraq....is now the "only" man who can get the "job" done in Afghanistan!

Obama is a "follower" not a "leader."