I read through the article. In regards to the things people CLAIM McChrystal has said and whats in there I found this
The only things in the article seemingly stated BY McChrystal:
“How’d I get screwed into going to this dinner?” in regards to being in paris to pitch strategy to NATO allies, which seems to be followed by joking with his Chief of Staff about it coming with the position making it appear to be simple joking, his way of dealing with a situation the interviewer even states seems to make him uncomfortable
About Biden? His ONLY comment about him was jokingly stating his desire to say “Who’s that?” when talking about how he’d like to respond to what he terms as “The Biden Question”, which seems to be a reference to the fact sometime last year he was asked about his views on Biden’s strategy in Afghanistan and got a scolding from the White House for his response. So his only “disrespect” towards Biden is a joke saying he’d want to go “Who’s that” when asked leading questions about Biden.
The notion that he said Obama was “uncomfortable and intimidated” after a meeting with military brass. Well, that came from “Sources familiar with the meeting”. Calling the meeting where he got appointed head of Afghanistan a “10 minute photo-op”. That wasn’t McChyrstal, that was an aide’s definition of it. That McChrystal was “disappointed” about Obama’s knowledge of him in the meeting? Again, the view of an aide.
The “Mission Failure” comment? From a report requested by Gates that was supposed to be private and was leaked by someone else.
The only even QUESTIONABLE statement directly applied to McChyrstal the entire interview? That the 3 month waiting period as Obama made a decision about the troops for Afghanistan as “painful” because he was selling his soldiers an unsellable position during that 3 month bubble. That’s not insulting of the President, or a superior, or anything of the such, but was a statement of the difficulty of command when you’re in limbo.
The supposed comments by McChrystal about Holbrooke, the guy in charge of reintegrating the Taliban, being like a “wounded animal and being “dangerous”? Yep, again, an aide. The only thing McChrystal does that’s seen first hand? He receives an email from him during the trip to Paris, which he was already uncomfortable with, and states he’s doesn’t even want to read it. Truly insubordinate.
It talks about McChrystal being at odds with Ambassador Eikenberry…but then proceeds to focus on things EIKENBERRY has said or done towards McChrystal. The only thing quoted to McChrystal about Eikenberry? That he knew him for years, they’d never said anything like that to McChrystal’s before, that he felt betrayed, and felt Eikenberry’s comments were simply a CYA move incase the efforts in Afghanistan failed. All the other “slights” are nothing but people’s opinions of what McChrystal’s actions, like appointing someone else Viceroy, were meant to mean.
There is not a single, solitary, quoted word from McChrystal about the Commander in Chief. The only thing that even mentions Biden that is directly from him is stating dimsisively "Who's that" when jokingly answering how he'd like to answer his next round of "Biden Questions". There is no direct quote of him insulting Ambassador Eikenberry, who even then wouldn't be a superior. Holbrooke? He states he doesn't want to read an email he sent. The ONLY questionable thing he said the entire time DIRECTLY that related to Obama is any way is that it was very difficult to sell an unsellable position during the 3 month limbo of not knowing if the President would send the requested number of troops or not.
Every single solitary bit of truly damaging, "insubordinate", comments that are attributed to McChrystal in that entire article come from 3rd party heresay sources. An "Aide" said he was disappoitned the President used their meeting as a Photo-op. A "source" said he stated the President looked intimidated. An "aide" said he stated Holbrooke was a "wounded animal" and "dangerous" in the way he did his job.
This isn't apples to oranges, its apples to apples. One man was roasted and reamed and removed from his job based in large part by 3rd party heresay stated through a source with questionable bias, while another man is completely untouched as we're told to absolutely ignore the 3rd party heresay of a man with questionable motivational bias but is under oath.
Article here if you want to read it
:shock:
