Its not being the worst kind of partisan for criticizing Obama. That would be attacking Obama in an over the top fashion with hyperbole, exaggerations, and lies while not even batting an eye, making a statement against, or giving the slightest thought into the potential wrong doings or questionable actions of the General.
Simply because I do not become so frothingly hyper partisan like yourself to believe the extent at which you try to portray the situation, which you've repeatedly and continually failed to back up with anything save for insults and insinuations of "lack of understanding" on the part of other when in reality you've simply presented nothing of actual substance to back up your assertions concerning the CIC, does not make me "partisan". Indeed, it is your extreme exaggeration and your complete one sidedness, 100% and without question behind Obama and 100% without exception trashing and belittling McChrystal for everything that he's worth, that causes you to view someone that's actually being relatively objective here as being "partisan" because you have flung yourself so far to the left that you're about to find yourself in the middle of the Pacific.
If you are actually going to take the leap that third party heresay comments and relatively light joking mixed with negative comments towards members of the beuracracy is somehow singularly and completely enough to label someone a "prick" and "rubbish" and entirely unworthy and incapable of leading Men and Women of the Military and yet withhold even a sliver of objectivity to look at what pushed a well respected and well decorated general to even get to this point and how such things reflect upon the President, his judgement, and his administration then there is really no reason for a single solitary respectable and intelligent poster on this forum to take a word you blather on about seriously.
McCrhystal was in the wrong, its extremely difficult to argue that in any way. One may argue that his VIEWS were correct, but there's little debate one can truly make to suggest that his ACTIONS were. Its a difficult debate to claim that he deserves a court martial, though a slightly less difficult one to state he deserves a trial for it though still rather specious. Its an entirely fruitless debate thus far for you to repeatedly claim that he's negative statements about the President as you have REPEATEDLY: