Bush Wars
See other Bush Wars Articles
Title: US general [McChrystal] summoned to Washington
Source:
ALJAZEERA.NET
URL Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/a ... 10/06/2010622111222326834.html
Published: Jun 22, 2010
Author: Staff
Post Date: 2010-06-22 07:56:15 by Fred Mertz
Keywords: None
Views: 109151
Comments: 99
The top US military commander in Afghanistan has been summoned to Washington after criticising the administration of Barack Obama, the US president, in a magazine article. The White House recalled General Stanley McChrystal from Afghanistan on Tuesday to explain comments he made in a Rolling Stone magazine interview to be published on Friday, military officials said. The order came after McChrystal apologised for the controversial comments in the profile, in which he is quoted denouncing a top diplomat while his aides dismiss Obama and mock his deputies. "I extend my sincerest apology for this profile," McChrystal said in a statement issued ahead of the article's release. "It was a mistake reflecting poor judgement and should never happened." McChrystal, a former special operations chief, usually speaks cautiously in public and has enjoyed mostly sympathetic US media coverage since he took over the Nato-led force last year. "Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honour and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard," he said. Strategy debate In the profile, McChrystal jokes sarcastically about preparing to answer a question referring to Joe Biden, the US vice-president, known to be a sceptic of the commander's war strategy. He also told the magazine that he felt "betrayed" by Karl Eikenberry, the US ambassador to Kabul, in a White House debate over war strategy last year. Referring to a leaked internal memo from Eikenberry that questioned McChrystal's request for more troops, the commander said that the ambassador had tried to protect himself for "for the history books". "I like Karl, I've known him for years, but they'd never said anything like that to us before," McChrystal said in the article. Eikenberry, himself a former commander in Afghanistan, had written to the White House saying Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, was an unreliable partner and that a surge of troops could draw the US into an open-ended quagmire. The article revisits the friction between the White House and the military last year as Obama debated whether to grant McChrystal's request for tens of thousands of reinforcements. Al Jazeera's James Bays, reporting from Kabul, said that McChrystal managed to offend every single one of his key bosses with the statements in the article. Our correspondent said that the Rolling Stone reporter managed to get high level access: "I met the reporter in Washington, DC, over a month ago after he came out of a meeting inside the White House with McChrystal's advisors. "This incident shows the tensions that exist between the top advisors here in Afghanistan. What will happen now is how this agreement is viewed on Capitol Hill and on the Afghan street. "The Taliban is also trying to win over the Afghan people. There is certainly very little disunity normally in the Taliban." Further turmoil Meanwhile, as foreign forces in Afghanistan marked another grim milestone in their war against the Taliban, signs of cracks in the alliance surfaced. After 10 soldiers were killed in a single day, there was further turmoil for Nato as Britain announced that Sherard Cowper-Coles, its special envoy to Afghanistan, was taking "extended leave". William Hague, Britain's foreign secretary, is to review the post of special envoy to Afghanistan, the BBC reported. The news of Cowper-Coles's departure came amid reports that he had clashed with military officials over strategy, just a month ahead of a crucial international conference in the Afghan city of Kabul. The Guardian newspaper reported there had been serious disagreements in recent months between Cowper-Coles and officials from Nato. It said that Cowper-Coles was convinced the military-focused counter-insurgency effort was headed for failure and wanted talks with Taliban fighters to be a priority. The Taliban, however, has so far rejected a plan drawn up at a landmark Kabul peace meeting to give jobs and money to those who lay down arms. Last month they promised a new campaign of attacks on diplomats, lawmakers and foreign forces.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-58) not displayed.
.
.
.
#59. To: lucysmom (#58)
Prepare to have your ass handed to you on this one.
Learning a man that tried to destroy your company just got sentence to 18 months in prison, and fined $600,000 will make ya a happy happy man. What a great day. Now, all I have to do is select the right card to send him in prison lol.
She's right per Article 88 of the UCMJ. However, you are right in terms of politics. Nobody is going to prosecute McChrystal.
Nope. Article 88 of the UCMJ states: ----- Text. “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” Elements. (1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces; (2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article; (3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and (4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element (5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned. The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, adverse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article. Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.
That is un-Constitutional as hell and will never stand if they try to enforce it. The MOST they can do is order a officer to resign his or her commission. It is also relatively new because it mentions Boy Jorge's Office of Reich Security. I guess you've never been in the military. lucysmom posted on 2010-06-24 11:09:05 ET Reply Trace Private Reply -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #59. To: lucysmom (#58) Prepare to have your ass handed to you on this one. Ah, YES. Try to read whats posted...in order. Or...perhaps you were 'diverted'? rotfl. sneakypete is a vet, you know this. Goofysmom apparently doesn't.
Learning a man that tried to destroy your company just got sentence to 18 months in prison, and fined $600,000 will make ya a happy happy man. What a great day. Now, all I have to do is select the right card to send him in prison lol.
She was wrong on that point, but sneaky apparently wasn't familiar with the UCMJ. And you are just plain wrong in most everything you post. :-)
That was the only point in her post, and the only point I addressed. As for the rest of your post, it demonstrates a well worn pattern. The worse a given week goes for Owe-bama, the more childish you become.
Learning a man that tried to destroy your company just got sentence to 18 months in prison, and fined $600,000 will make ya a happy happy man. What a great day. Now, all I have to do is select the right card to send him in prison lol.
Good guess! Tell me what it's like,
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
However, you are right in terms of politics. Nobody is going to prosecute McChrystal. Article 88 will get tossed the very first time they try to prosecute anybody on it. The Nuremberg Trials after WW-2 settled that one. How can Article 88 stand when ALL soldiers,even enlisted privates,are taught they have a DUTY to ignore illegal orders? Not to mention the legal rights subordinate officers have to not only disobey orders from their superiors,but to relive them of command and assume their command if the subordinate officer thinks the commanding officer has either became mentally incompetent or is on a illegal course of action.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
(roaring with laughter) Pass the popcorn, here comes the good part....
Learning a man that tried to destroy your company just got sentence to 18 months in prison, and fined $600,000 will make ya a happy happy man. What a great day. Now, all I have to do is select the right card to send him in prison lol.
You understand the difference between refusing to obey an order you believe to be illegal and granting an interview to Rolling Stone?
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace I'm biased, obviously, given the shit I'm subjected to daily here from the anti groupie. Badeye posted on 2010-06-10 11:34:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
Oh please Uncle Boofer...tell us again about those three great AMERICAN companies, Royal DUTCH Shell, Exxon and Mobil[e] and how the Jones Act is hindering operations in the Gulf!!! We LOVES that story!!!
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace I'm biased, obviously, given the shit I'm subjected to daily here from the anti groupie. Badeye posted on 2010-06-10 11:34:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
She was wrong on that point, but sneaky apparently wasn't familiar with the UCMJ. "The military is perhaps not the best career choice for someone bent on the vigorous exercise of civil liberties. As countless drill sergeants have informed their new recruits, 'We're here to defend democracy--not to practice it.'" ...Surely, without respect for the chain of command, a military organization would simply disintegrate in the heat of battle. So it is not surprising that the free speech rights of soldiers are sharply curtailed when it comes to criticizing their superiors." writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030619_falvy.html Good article, Sneaky, you should read it to prevent future embarrassment.
rotflmao.
Learning a man that tried to destroy your company just got sentence to 18 months in prison, and fined $600,000 will make ya a happy happy man. What a great day. Now, all I have to do is select the right card to send him in prison lol.
sneakypete: "Good guess! Tell me what it's like," Yes lucysmom, please do....... Huh? The UCMJ wasn't put into law until Truman.
Shhhhh! Like Belushi in Animal House....she's on a roll....(roaring with laughter)
Learning a man that tried to destroy your company just got sentence to 18 months in prison, and fined $600,000 will make ya a happy happy man. What a great day. Now, all I have to do is select the right card to send him in prison lol.
Hey murron.
Learning a man that tried to destroy your company just got sentence to 18 months in prison, and fined $600,000 will make ya a happy happy man. What a great day. Now, all I have to do is select the right card to send him in prison lol.
Members of the military have been prosecuted, about 122 of them; usually though they are just invited to resign. From the article, it appears that McChrystal has all the social grace and maturity of a high school football player in the locker room.
So you think the military operated without rules until 1950? roaring with laughter! The existing code was revised and standardized in 1950. On 30 June 1775, the Second Continental Congress established 69 Articles of War to govern the conduct of the Continental Army.
Goofy? You want to go back and read the thread slowly? Or, maybe find somebody to read it to you? rotflmao. God, this thread is a hoot. First Rule of Holes, Goofy. When you are in one, stop digging. Second Rule of Holes, don't begin digging another one, til you are out of the first one.
Learning a man that tried to destroy your company just got sentence to 18 months in prison, and fined $600,000 will make ya a happy happy man. What a great day. Now, all I have to do is select the right card to send him in prison lol.
Hey BE...
Goofysmom is providing our entertainment this afternoon. She's quite amusing today.
Learning a man that tried to destroy your company just got sentence to 18 months in prison, and fined $600,000 will make ya a happy happy man. What a great day. Now, all I have to do is select the right card to send him in prison lol.
I've noticed.. She really seems to be knowledgeable ....about what, I have no idea.
Reminds me of the old saying the most dangerous thing in the world is a second year pysch major....(chuckle)
Learning a man that tried to destroy your company just got sentence to 18 months in prison, and fined $600,000 will make ya a happy happy man. What a great day. Now, all I have to do is select the right card to send him in prison lol.
I've heard that many times... They say 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing to have'....I've been in danger all my life....
LOL! Like all "good" lefties,you just LOVE your theories.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
BullBarry. If they were prosecuted they would not have been allowed to resign. They were allowed to resign in order to prevent trying to prosecute them on a regulation that wouldn't stand. From the article, it appears that McChrystal has all the social grace and maturity of a high school football player in the locker room. Well,he IS a Obomomite. Did you expect him to be rational?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Sounds like goofysmom want to date a football player, but was to fat or ugly.
Learning a man that tried to destroy your company just got sentence to 18 months in prison, and fined $600,000 will make ya a happy happy man. What a great day. Now, all I have to do is select the right card to send him in prison lol.
that's true, but it is derived from the articles of war passed by the 2nd continental congress. She's right again. see: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/contcong_06-30-75.asp
Drink much?
Only with your seester, why?
Learning a man that tried to destroy your company just got sentence to 18 months in prison, and fined $600,000 will make ya a happy happy man. What a great day. Now, all I have to do is select the right card to send him in prison lol.
Actually, she was wrong as it related to what she said about SP. but your a liberla, not like you can admit such.
Learning a man that tried to destroy your company just got sentence to 18 months in prison, and fined $600,000 will make ya a happy happy man. What a great day. Now, all I have to do is select the right card to send him in prison lol.
Why don't you make an actual point, Boofer? If she's incorrect...point out where.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace I'm biased, obviously, given the shit I'm subjected to daily here from the anti groupie. Badeye posted on 2010-06-10 11:34:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
Nothing like Boofer having a Crown Royal moment, eh Fred?
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace I'm biased, obviously, given the shit I'm subjected to daily here from the anti groupie. Badeye posted on 2010-06-10 11:34:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
The UCMJ (and the article 88 which was referenced) has only been around since 1950. It has not been around since the founding fathers. The statement was false.
Liberals are never wrong, just ask one....lol
Learning a man that tried to destroy your company just got sentence to 18 months in prison, and fined $600,000 will make ya a happy happy man. What a great day. Now, all I have to do is select the right card to send him in prison lol.
The statement was false. This article of the UCMJ is relatively new (about 60 years old) but it can trace itself back to colonial times. If you think nobody gets prosecuted under it, think again. Numerous officers have been disciplined for criticizing the president. Two Marine Corps officers were administratively punished for published letters to newspapers that were disrespectful to the president in the 1990s. Article 134, known as the catch-all article, makes criminal those acts of speech that are prejudicial to good order and discipline or that could bring discredit upon the Armed Forces. This is pretty broad and explains why it is often called the catch-all article. If your chain of command thinks your political involvement has affected your unit or the military, you could be punished under this article. http://militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?1559902-Watch-what-you-say-Speech-limits-under-UCMJ Beginning with the adoption of the first Articles of War in 1775, Congress and other civilian leaders have sanctioned this restriction in order to prevent the possibility of a military coup. In applying this principle to the Howe case, the court stated: True, petitioner is a reserve officer, rather than a professional officer, but during the time he serves on active duty, he is, and must be, controlled by the provisions of military law. In this instance, military restrictions fall upon a reluctant "summer soldier"; but in another time, and differing circumstances, the ancient and wise provisions insuring civilian control of the military will restrict the "man on the white horse " www.airpower.maxwell.af.m...w/1980/may-jun/moran.html It seems vital to note that, although Article 88 has its roots in a 1776 directive to the Continental Army drafted by none other than Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, there does not seem to have been any similar concern in the minds of the Founders over the exercise of free speech by members of the armed forces.
Every idiot knows there has been some kind of military justice code since there has been a military. Such a code was not "uniform" before the UCMJ; the standards varied. Your statement that the UCMJ dates back to the founding fathers is false. Admit your error and move on.
They still do under the UCMJ - as sneaky has pointed out.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace I'm biased, obviously, given the shit I'm subjected to daily here from the anti groupie. Badeye posted on 2010-06-10 11:34:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
quib·ble (kwbl) The UCMJ, has not been titled as such since the founding of our country, however the particular rule in the UCMJ (the heart of the matter) at issue is as old as our country, itself.
Not in the form it is in today,it wasn't. Boy Jorge's new Office of Reich Security is mentioned in it now,and it didn't exist until Boy Jorge,Part 2. I'm thinking some statist/communist/fascist SOB snuck it in without it ever being voted on or even reviewed. No way in hell it can stand. The statists may have been hoping for the perfect case to establish a precedent,but given the Nuremberg Trials,there is no way that crap is going to flush. The Nuremberg Trials forever killed the "I vas chust follink orders!" defense.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
#60. To: sneakypete, lucysmom, badeye (#55)
That is un-Constitutional as hell and will never stand if they try to enforce it. The MOST they can do is order a officer to resign his or her commission.
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#61. To: Badeye, lucysmom, sneakypete (#59)
Prepare to have your ass handed to you on this one.
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#62. To: go65 (#61)
#58. To: sneakypete (#55)
#63. To: Badeye, lucysmom, sneakypete (#62)
sneakypete is a vet, you know this. Goofysmom apparently doesn't.
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#64. To: go65 (#63)
She was wrong on that point,
#65. To: lucysmom (#58)
I guess you've never been in the military.
#66. To: go65 (#60)
That is un-Constitutional as hell and will never stand if they try to enforce it. The MOST they can do is order a officer to resign his or her commission. She's right per Article 88 of the UCMJ.
#67. To: sneakypete (#65)
I guess you've never been in the military. Good guess! Tell me what it's like,
#68. To: sneakypete (#66)
#69. To: Badeye, go65 (#64)
#70. To: go65, Badeye, sneakypete (#63)
sneakypete is a vet, you know this. Goofysmom apparently doesn't.
#71. To: lucysmom (#70)
#72. To: sneakypete, lucymom (#65)
(Edited)
lucysmom: "guess you've never been in the military."
#73. To: lucysmom (#40)
The UCMI has been around since the founding fathers and that's what it says.
#74. To: no gnu taxes (#73)
The UCMI has been around since the founding fathers and that's what it says. Huh? The UCMJ wasn't put into law until Truman.
#75. To: Murron (#72)
#76. To: sneakypete (#66)
Article 88 will get tossed the very first time they try to prosecute anybody on it. The Nuremberg Trials after WW-2 settled that one.
#77. To: Badeye (#74)
The UCMI has been around since the founding fathers and that's what it says. Huh? The UCMJ wasn't put into law until Truman.
#78. To: lucysmom (#77)
#79. To: Badeye (#75)
#80. To: Murron (#79)
#81. To: Badeye (#80)
Goofysmom is providing our entertainment this afternoon. She's quite amusing today.
#82. To: Murron (#81)
#83. To: Badeye (#82)
Reminds me of the old saying the most dangerous thing in the world is a second year pysch major....(chuckle)
#84. To: lucysmom (#70)
Good article, Sneaky, you should read it to prevent future embarrassment.
#85. To: lucysmom (#76)
Members of the military have been prosecuted, about 122 of them; usually though they are just invited to resign.
#86. To: sneakypete (#85)
#87. To: no gnu taxes, badeye, lucysmom, fred mertz, war, sneakypete (#73)
Huh? The UCMJ wasn't put into law until Truman.
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#88. To: Badeye (#86)
#89. To: Fred Mertz (#88)
#90. To: go65 (#87)
#91. To: Badeye (#78)
#92. To: Badeye, Fred Mertz (#86)
(Edited)
Sounds like goofysmom want to date a football player, but was to fat or ugly.
#93. To: go65 (#87)
#94. To: no gnu taxes (#93)
#95. To: no gnu taxes (#93)
It has not been around since the founding fathers.
#96. To: lucysmom (#95)
#97. To: no gnu taxes (#96)
Such a code was not "uniform" before the UCMJ; the standards varied.
#98. To: no gnu taxes (#96)
Such a code was not "uniform" before the UCMJ; the standards varied. Your statement that the UCMJ dates back to the founding fathers is false. Admit your error and move on.
intr.v. quib·bled, quib·bling, quib·bles
1. To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections.
2. To find fault or criticize for petty reasons; cavil.
#99. To: no gnu taxes (#93)
The UCMJ (and the article 88 which was referenced) has only been around since 1950.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]