• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McChrystal relieved of his command.

Let me explain something to you, since you appear to be woefully underinformated as to the kind of behavior that is expected from military officers. "Joking" criticism of superior officers is generally frowned upon, particularly by four star generals talking to reporters. We're not talking about about a guy who was accidentally overheard making a joke in the privacy of his own home or something, we're talking about a four star general representing the military to the press who permitted an unforgivable lapse of decorum. What's so hard about accepting the fact that this guy failed to live up to his duty? Oh yeah, I guess that'd require you to not be critical of Obama. :roll: I repeat, you and tex are indulging in the worst kind of partisan hackery.

Oh Mr. Pot, you're a hoot. Just don't look into the mirror, you're going to have an awful big shock when you realize you're the one that's black.

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.

He should've resigned, or been relieved.

there was enough said concerning the strategy and administration of the Commander in Chief that he created a situation where there was really no other reasonable answer to expect.

You just don't speak in such a manner

it was idiotic for the interview to have been allowed to happen in the first place.

Grounds for dismissal? Entirely.

See, wonderful little thing called intellectual honesty. What he did was wrong. What Obama did in response was right. I dislike Obama. I have respect as a military officer for McChrystal. Despite these facts I have no qualms or issues at all with acknowledging his mistake and his correct punishment for it.

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:

A number of his comments about Obama

***Zyph Note - In regards to a comment stating he'd need to actually make a comment about Obama***

Yeah, I realize that, and he did

refraining from criticizing the commander-in-chief is a sacred duty for our military officers. He failed.

:roll: Yeah, so I guess a four star general badmouthing the commander-in-chief .

Without once, throughout this entire thread, presenting a single solitary direct quote from the General speaking negatively towards Obama. Perhaps it'd be an easy claim to make if something actually backing it up was given, but so far you've been completely and wholey unable to do that, instead hiding behind the cover of claiming anyone that dare object to your extreme hyper partisanship as being them themselves "the worst kind of partisan".
 
Last edited:
Or who can forget Obama's drilling of patreus...



Yes, Obama did give Petraus hell at one time, but his replacing McChrystal with Petraus shows me that this is not some political stunt. After all, Obama does not really like Petraus that much, Liberals referred to him as "Betray us", and he was appointed by Bush. That tells me a lot about Obama. I still disagree with most everything Obama is doing, but for him to put political hackery aside, and do what he feels is in the best interests of America, I can only say this - "Well done, Mr. President".

NOTE: I couldn't help but choke when I said this, but honesty dictates that I say it. :mrgreen:
 
Yes, Obama did give Petraus hell at one time, but his replacing McChrystal with Petraus shows me that this is not some political stunt. After all, Obama does not really like Petraus that much, Liberals referred to him as "Betray us", and he was appointed by Bush. That tells me a lot about Obama. I still disagree with most everything Obama is doing, but for him to put political hackery aside, and do what he feels is in the best interests of America, I can only say this - "Well done, Mr. President".

NOTE: I couldn't help but choke when I said this, but honesty dictates that I say it. :mrgreen:




Sure it is. The war is not going well, and AND there are rumors of a patreus run for the white house, why not put the man in charge so if things really go south, heck at least it keeps the dood out of running for the POTUS job. :ssst:
 
Sure it is. The war is not going well, and AND there are rumors of a patreus run for the white house, why not put the man in charge so if things really go south, heck at least it keeps the dood out of running for the POTUS job. :ssst:

I just heard on CNBC that Patreus is takeing over for McChrystal.
 
I brought up someone who is a EXPERT in this area who refutes your claim. You have no expert on your side.

You lost 3 pages ago.

You must've missed my edit. Here's my expert:

Guy Incognito schooling Tex earlier in this thread said:
Edit: And you don't have to take my word for it that this is a close question (I suspect you wouldn't no matter how persuasive I argue it), so here is something from Georgetown to match your Ivy League professor:

Could McChrystal face a court-martial?

06/23/10: The Washington Times reports that when Gen. Stanley McChrystal shows up at the White House for his highly anticipated meeting with President Obama, he is certain to hear about his commander in chief's displeasure — and may even be fired or resign. But a close reading of military law suggests that an even more drastic remedy is theoretically available to Gen. McChrystal's superiors to punish him for denigrating senior members of the administration in interviews with Rolling Stone magazine — court-martial. Section 88 of the Uniform Military Code of Justice says that any officer who uses "contemptuous words" against the president, vice president, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, or certain other officials "shall be punished as a court martial directs."

http://www.securitylawbrief.com/main...rtmartial.html

BTW, your grade just got bumped down to a C for committing the fallacy of argument from authority. But I admire your tenacity! So extra credit!
 
Last edited:
Yes, Obama did give Petraus hell at one time, but his replacing McChrystal with Petraus shows me that this is not some political stunt. After all, Obama does not really like Petraus that much, Liberals referred to him as "Betray us", and he was appointed by Bush. That tells me a lot about Obama. I still disagree with most everything Obama is doing, but for him to put political hackery aside, and do what he feels is in the best interests of America, I can only say this - "Well done, Mr. President".

NOTE: I couldn't help but choke when I said this, but honesty dictates that I say it. :mrgreen:

To be fair, while that is a legitimate reading of it, another legitimate reading could be that Obama doesn't actually dislike Petraus and actually thinks he's a fully competent and worth while general but because he was being put in charge of a War Obama didn't agree with by a President he didn't agree with to impliment a strategy he didn't agree with to get a result he didn't agree with as being possible then Obama decided to grill him and lambast him for political points there.

I'm not saying one is absolute truth or the other is, but your reading it could be just as easily 100% backwards as it could be correct Dana.
 
You must've missed my edit. Here's my expert:

BTW, your grade just got bumped down to a C for committing the fallacy of argument from authority. But I admire you tenacity! So extra credit!

Your link doesn't work work and your quote doesn't include the claim you're making
 
It did include the claim, it didn't include anything to give any indication that the claim was being made by a George Town Professor.

Damn you paying attention to details!
 
It did include the claim, it didn't include anything to give any indication that the claim was being made by a George Town Professor.

If you follow the link and read that little "Contributors" box in the right column you will see that the blog is written by Georgetown law professors.

Damn you paying attention to details!

Uh, more like inattention to details? By why let facts get in the way of a good rant, huh?
 
Last edited:
Umm.....Guy.

You may want to do a bit more research into your links before you start tooting your own horn.

There is nothing from your link showing any indication what so ever that a Georgetown professor is making this assertion or this statement. All you have is a georgetown law's news crawler. The satement from that website you linked is not a unique statement made by a Georgetown Professor. Instead it is a DIRECT QUOTE from the story its linking. Let me demonstrate.

This is your links post:

06/23/10: The Washington Times reports that when Gen. Stanley McChrystal shows up at the White House for his highly anticipated meeting with President Obama, he is certain to hear about his commander in chief's displeasure — and may even be fired or resign. But a close reading of military law suggests that an even more drastic remedy is theoretically available to Gen. McChrystal's superiors to punish him for denigrating senior members of the administration in interviews with Rolling Stone magazine — court-martial. Section 88 of the Uniform Military Code of Justice says that any officer who uses "contemptuous words" against the president, vice president, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, or certain other officials "shall be punished as a court martial directs."

This is the opening three paragraphs of the WashTimes story:

When Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan, shows up in disgrace at the White House Wednesday for his highly anticipated meeting with President Obama, he is certain to hear about his commander in chief's displeasure — and may even be fired or feel obliged to resign.

But a close reading of military law suggests that an even more drastic remedy is theoretically available to Gen. McChrystal's superiors to punish him for denigrating senior members of the administration in interviews with Rolling Stone magazine — court-martial.

Section 88 of the Uniform Military Code of Justice says that any officer who uses "contemptuous words" against the president, vice president, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, or certain other officials "shall be punished as a court-martial directs."

You should notice something. They're word for word the exact same thing. What you quoted was NOT a Georgetown Professors opinion or statement on the issue. It was the Washington Time's statement on the issue, reposted onto a page that simply is a collection of news story links. To suggest that is the view or words of the Georgetown Professor that runs the news linking blog would be like suggesting anytime Matt Drudge posted an excerpt from an AP story on his blog that it is actually HIS words and HIS view and opinion.
 
Last edited:
Umm.....Guy.

You may want to do a bit more research into your links before you start tooting your own horn.

Damn, you got me there. I hereby retract with apologies to you guys. I stand by my earlier remarks, however. Guess I'll have to look elsewhere for an expert.
 
If you follow the link and read that little "Contributors" box in the right column you will see that the blog is written by Georgetown law professors.

Although the blog in question is written by Georgetown University law professors, not all of the blog's content was written by them. In this case, the blog references a Washington Times story written by The Times' staff person, Shaun Waterman.

Could McChrystal face a court-martial? - Washington Times

No Georgetown law professors offer opinions on the news story in question.
 
Although the blog in question is written by Georgetown University law professors, not all of the blog's content was written by them. In this case, the blog references a Washington Times story written by The Times' staff person, Shaun Waterman.

Could McChrystal face a court-martial? - Washington Times

No Georgetown law professors offer opinions on the news story in question.

Yeah, that totally escaped my notice. No excuse there, I epic failed.
 
I already gave a quote where be badmouthed the vice-president in violation of Article 88. He's known to have said something along the lines of "Obama looked scared" meeting with military brass for the first time, and I call that badmouthing the CIC. He tolerated contemptuously language from his advisors and staff. All this happened in front of the press. There are numerous other news outlets that can provide you with all the rest of quotes if you take the time to look them up. Honestly, why bother to defend this guy? He's a disgrace to the uniform.

So do McChrystal's comments amount to insubordination? No, says Eugene Fidell, who teaches at Yale University School of Law and is president of the National Institute of Military Justice. “I don’t really think this is contemptuous," says Fidell. "I don’t think it makes the needle bounce under Article 88. There’s 'contemptuous words' and being disrespectful," Fidell added. "Those are two different things.”

You can concede at any time now.

TAPPED Archive | The American Prospect

DITTO again.
 
NP, honest mistake on that one. I clicked the link to see what it was referencing because it read eerily familiar to a story I had previously read which led me to discover it.

Oh, and regards to the Appeal to Authority. If your only statement is that "This guy says its okay and he's an expert so its okay" that'd be an appeal to authority. Your only basis is that an expert said it so its true. However using an expert as one of many arguments IS a legitimate method of debating, and is completely legitimate especially when the opposition is offering up little to no evidence on their own hand.

Let us look at the evidence when it comes to court matial.

  • You have anecdotal evidence of former military individuals stating it doesn't meet the standard needed.
  • You have authorative evidence of a military expert and scholar stating it doesn't meet the standard needed.
  • You have historical evidence as two former Generals removed in a similar fashion of McChrystal for arguably far more damning comments were neither court martialed.
  • You have factual evidence to the rarity of it from the very link your Georgetown Professor's blog provided, which states that only ONE court martial has ever actually occured under the rule and that was for an action FAR more obvious and unquestionably insubordinate than what McChrystal did (A soldier holding up a sign at a demonstration denouncing the President as Fascist)

So throughout this there are numerous pieces of evidence to suggest that McChrystal shouldn't, and likely won't, be brought forward for a court martial. The ONLY evidence you've brought to the contrary so far has been your own reading of the rule and what you THINK should happen.
 
Pssssssst

It was already posted.

Psssst, didn't you see the ditto....I cut and pasted from Tex's post. But don't tell him.
 
LOL Didn't realize it was quoted of Tex's without the quote box. My bad.
 
So throughout this there are numerous pieces of evidence to suggest that McChrystal shouldn't, and likely won't, be brought forward for a court martial. The ONLY evidence you've brought to the contrary so far has been your own reading of the rule and what you THINK should happen.

Well, I still think that the Yale professor's comments go to my point that there is an argument to be made on both sides of the issue of whether this conduct rises to the level of an article 88 violation, but your point is well taken.

Here is the best evidence I can scrounge up to support my argument atm, and then I have to go to work. You'll have to bear with me because it is a bit circuitous. According to US v. Howe, 17 U.S.C.M.A. 165 "[W]e emphasize the Article 88 is designed to cover the use of "contemptuous" words toward holders of certain offices named therein. "Contemptuous" is used in the ordinary sense as is evidenced by the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, paragraph 167. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary. " Merriam Webster defines contempt as "the act of despising : the state of mind of one who despises : disdain b : lack of respect or reverence for something." Contempt - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary So, I'd argue that the Yale prof is mistaken that "contemptuous" and "disrespectful" are materially different for purposes of an article 88 violation. That's all I've got for now, but I think it's a solid point.
 
Back
Top Bottom