Don't be a wuss, BHO! Pablo Fanque reflects on Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and why Pres. Obama should have fired him as soon as he read the misguided (read: treasonous) Rolling Stone interview

By Pablo Fanque
National Affairs Editor
Photograph courtesy of The White House


The man leading our war effort in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, apologized today for granting an interview with Rolling Stone, in which he is portrayed as a lone voice of sanity who feels betrayed by The White House. 

The General has now been ordered to appear in person at the White House tomorrow.  Much press has been devoted today to speculation he will be ousted.   If we were in the President's army boots as Commander-In-Chief, we would publicly accept McChrystal's apology and then dismiss him.  His treachery in Rolling Stone aside, it's not like he is skillfully steering the Afghanistan conflict to a victorious conclusion. 

The Rolling Stone article quotes an aide to McChrystal saying the General was "disappointed" with President Obama after their first meeting, a meeting he felt the President was unprepared for. The article also accused Ambassador Karl Eikenberry of betraying McChrystal, in a leaked memo that said he doubted Afghan President Karzai was a good enough leader to justify propping up his government.

"Here's one that covers his flank for the history books, now, if we fail, they can say 'I told you so' " RS quotes the general as saying.    He goes on to say that the "real enemy" are "the wimps in the White House."

In Kabul today, General McChrystal issued a press release saying, "I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened."  Really?

Take him out, Mister President.  And don't wait for the meeting tomorrow.  He dared you.  Stand him up and knock him down.
---o0o---

Barack Obama's Facebook Message on Pearl Harbor Day (with counterpoint)

click to enlarge

---o0o---

"You can take that to the bank": BHO in 2007: I will end the war

BHO on the campaign trail in 2007 explains how the first thing he will do in office is end the war. Two years later, he ponders just how much to expand the war in Afghanistan, and no doubt, any other 'Stans that need a tune-up.


---o0o---

Editorial: The Double Secret stimulus package

By Pablo Fanque

All This Is That National Affairs Editor

If President Obama learned anything from his study of history (and believe me, he did), he knows that for all the talk of the "First Hundred Days" and The New Deal, nothing FDR did fully turned the economy around until after that moment December 7, 1941, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

From December 8th onward, boys flooded recruiting offices, a recalcitrant and isolationist Congress voted to spend massive $$$ on the war, and the U.S. cranked into full wartime production mode. Shuttered factories were re-opened, under-utilized plants went into 24/7 production mode, and virtually every single person in the country--save the feeble, lame, crazy, and elderly (and even some of them)--went to work, planted victory gardens, and bought into commodity, fuel, and tire rationing.

In the midst of a moribund war in Iraq, President Obama has ordered his first major deployment of U.S. combat troops. He has okayed 17,000 additional soldiers and Marines for Afghanistan in what he described as "an urgent bid to stabilize a deteriorating and neglected country. "

Is war the real, double secret Stimulus Package for which we have all been waiting? Already, the far left is screaming. I'm not quite sure why. Obama was clearly against the War in Iraq from the get-go. And yet, in general, he has behaved, more or less, like a Scoop Jackson or JFK "defense Democrat." And with the lure of kick-starting a sluggish economy, one has to wonder if 17,000 troops aren't just a drop in the bucket, and how long will it be before we see 100,000 troops in Afghanistan? Is Obama getting a fantastic twofer here: priming the pump AND keeping the world safe for democracy?

It's something to think about.

---o0o---