Fire his ass

stoneric · 10-05-2009, 01:50 PM

Obama ‘Furious’ Over Gen. McChrystal Speech
Working Relationship 'Not Great' as General Fights for Escalation
by Jason Ditz, October 04, 2009

Friday’s 25 minute in-flight meeting between President Obama (just returning from what proved to be a failed last minute pitch for Chicago’s Olympics bid) and Gen. Stanley McChrystal was more than just the coincidental meeting officials tried to spin it as.

Gen. Stanley McChrystalRather officials say that President Obama was “furious” with the General following his pointed remarks at a London speech the day prior. At the speech, Gen. McChrystal mocked Vice President Biden’s call to scale back the objectives of the eight year long war, saying it would lead to “Chaos-istan” and insisting that he would never accept such a plan.

The meeting that followed was reportedly “awkward,” and experts say that the working relationship between the president and the commander of the Afghan War is “not great.”

Undaunted, however, General McChrystal is said to have spent much of their brief time together emphasizing the increasingly grim situation on the ground and pressing the president to make a decision on his call for additional troops.

The Obama Administration is reportedly unsure what to make of McChrystal, with one adviser saying “people aren’t sure whether McChrystal is being naive or an upstart.” Whatever the case, it is uncharacteristic for a US general to spend so much of his time publicly petitioning for his strategy and attacking the commander in chief for not endorsing it immediately.

This guy mcchrystal sleeps 3 hours a night and eats 1 meal a day. He has tortured himself into delirium.

verklingen · 10-05-2009, 02:05 PM

if obama does dismiss him the pundits will have a field day

Mydriasis · 10-05-2009, 02:20 PM

So much for let's end the war, lol.

I bet $5 they are gonna get more troops. I don't think Obama really has power over the military to be honest. Some people believe the military was behind JFK's assassination.

But I guess we'll wait and see how it all unfolds. I hope they don't need more troops, I mean I understand the US probably wants a base over there just incase shit hit's the fan over seas, but how long does it really take...

zerodown · 10-05-2009, 02:28 PM

What? The president unable to give orders to his subordinates? Wow, that can't be right, not in america.

The president is only a puppet, always has, an interpreter of bad news from the invisible hand to the visible working class that struggles working their asses off each day so the few can have their pretty little wars.

Roach · 10-05-2009, 02:40 PM

Quote:

I don't think Obama really has power over the military to be honest.

It ain't wat you gotz it's the wayz how you use it !

Authority as Commander-in-Chief on the battlefield

As Commander-in-Chief, the U.S. President outranks any military officer and so has the inherent right to assume command on the battlefield. It should be noted that only one man has ever been Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces without being President: he was George Washington, appointed Commander in Chief by the Continental Congress. However, because presidents are rarely present in war zones, and often have less military experience than the military commanders, only two presidents, George Washington and James Madison, have so far done so. Washington personally led a federalized militia force of approximately 15,000 troops to quell the Whiskey Rebellion during his second term, although he was not present during any of the skirmishing in the relatively bloodless conflict.

During the War of 1812, President Madison was under enemy fire on August 24, 1814, when American forces were routed by British troops in Bladensburg, Maryland. Madison, incensed by the American commanding general's incompetence, was on the scene and personally assumed command of the only remaining American force, a naval battery commanded by Commodore Joshua Barney. He did so to stall the British invasion of the American capital, but his efforts were unsuccessful, and the British burned Washington over the next two days.

During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln considered personally assuming battlefield command of the Union Army, and studied military texts when he became frustrated by the incompetence and lethargy of his generals. He actually came under enemy fire in 1864 during the Confederate attack on Fort Stevens in the District of Columbia, but did not exercise battlefield authority as commander-in-chief at any time.

actually if he wanted to he could lead the troops in either of America's current wars....on the battlefield (or off).

Mydriasis · 10-05-2009, 02:46 PM

So why didn't he end the war like he said he would? That's half the reason why my friends voted for him in the first place.

verklingen · 10-05-2009, 02:51 PM

^ i'm not sure but thank your friends next time you see them. with many GOP congressmen calling for military action against iran, we may be facing yet another invasion if not for their votes.

if i remember correctly obama said during the campaign that he would get us out of iraq. i remember him talking about how we needed to focus in afganistan, but that may have been late in the campaign. by election day no one should have voted for obama expecting an abrupt end to our wars.

stoneric · 10-05-2009, 03:27 PM

Obama, hillary and mccorpse were trying to out hawk each other on Afghanistan so anything he does to contradict that mistake will be a plus. I'll be happy if he lied his ass off during the campaign or if he just comes to his senses. Afghanistan is a bottomless pit.

Hedons · 10-05-2009, 07:16 PM

Fire his ass?

Why? For being critical of the president?

-Hedons

ProfessorMurder · 10-05-2009, 08:15 PM

Matthew Rothchild from The Progressive states it clearly

By choosing Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Obama shows how indifferent he is
to the serious allegations that have swirled around McChrystal, a darling of
the Bush-Cheney regime.

It was McChrystal, after all, who approved a medal for Pat Tillman, the
former NFL star, saying he fell under “devastating enemy fire.” But just a day
later, McChrystal warned the White House that it might have been friendly
fire, not enemy fire.

And, according to Seymour Hersh, McChrystal was the guy who was running
Cheney’s assassination squads. From 2003-2008, McChrystal headed the
Joint Special Operations Command, which Hersh called “an executive
assassination wing” that reported directly to Cheney’s office.

What’s more, Esquire has reported that McChrystal authorized torture at a
secret camp, where two detainees died under interrogation, and expressly
prohibited the Red Cross from entering the camp, which would be a double
violation of the Geneva Conventions.

McChrystal’s promotion mocks Obama’s rhetoric about making a clean break
with the torture regime of Bush and Cheney.

http://gsmso.blogspot.com/2009/05/mc...ghanistan.html

ProfessorMurder · 10-05-2009, 08:28 PM

Not to mention a repeat attack on an Afghan valley base.
Haven't learned the lesson.

The Associated Press: Afghan battle probe a reminder of war's challenges

By RICHARD LARDNER (AP) – 12 hours ago

WASHINGTON — As President Barack Obama grapples with the way ahead in
Afghanistan, a decision to launch a new investigation into a deadly firefight is
a painful reminder of the challenges the U.S. faces in a country known as the
graveyard of empires.

Fought in the small village of Wanat near the Pakistan border, the battle
claimed the lives of nine American soldiers and wounded 27 others after their
platoon-sized unit was attacked by as many as 200 insurgents during the
early hours of July 13, 2008. Accounts of the battle indicate senior
commanders may have made serious mistakes, leaving the soldiers short-
handed and without critical support needed to blunt such an intense raid.

On Saturday, just days after Army Gen. David Petraeus ordered the inquiry,
U.S. forces in Afghanistan endured a stark echo of that tragedy: eight U.S.
soldiers were killed when several hundred militant fighters struck two
American outposts in the same rugged region in northeastern Afghanistan
where the earlier assault occurred.

The emerging story of the 2008 battle along with Saturday's attack adds new
weight to calls by Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top officer in
Afghanistan, for thousands more American forces to deal with the dicey
political, cultural and geographical conditions there.

The efforts of Brostrom and others gained momentum when a military historian at the
Army Combat Studies Institute in Kansas wrote a detailed account of the battle at
Wanat, based on soldiers who were there, that contradicts many of the service's
conclusions. The 238-page study by Douglas Cubbison, though not yet officially
released, was obtained by The Associated Press and other news organizations.

Cubbison's report details a growing hostility toward the Americans in Wanat and a failure
by higher-level commanders to recognize the tension when they ordered the unit to the
village just a few weeks before the attack.

Concern had been expressed by 1st Lt. Jonathan Brostrom, a platoon leader, about the
number of troops he had and the mountainous terrain surrounding the outpost, Cubbison
was told during the interviews.

The commanders withdrew airborne intelligence-gathering assets from Wanat to another
location one day before the attack despite vehement protests from the unit. The
reasons, according to Cubbison's report, were that "nothing of consequence" had been
detected in Wanat and the equipment was needed elsewhere.

ProfessorMurder · 10-05-2009, 08:36 PM

NATO Says U.S. Airstrike in Kunduz Killed 30 Civilians - WSJ.com

By YOCHI J. DREAZEN

WASHINGTON -- NATO investigators believe that 30 civilians were killed in a
controversial U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan's Kunduz province, a preliminary finding that
could spark new pressure for disciplinary actions against the German and American
personnel involved in the attack.

A team of military officers led by Canadian Maj. Gen. C.S. Sullivan spent more than a
week probing the Sept. 4 bombing, which took place after a German commander in
Kunduz ordered an airstrike on two hijacked fuel trucks that he feared would be used in
a suicide attack against his troops.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization investigators believe roughly 100 people were killed in
the resulting strike, including approximately 70 militants, according to people familiar
with the matter. A separate Afghan government probe reached roughly the same
conclusions about the militant and civilian death tolls, these people said.

The NATO investigation is trying to determine the precise sequence of events that led
the local German commander, Col. Georg Klein, to order an airstrike rather than sending
ground forces, according to people familiar with its work. The full probe is expected to
be completed within the next two weeks, these people said.

Its findings will then be formally presented to the German and U.S. militaries, which will
decide whether to discipline or bring criminal charges against the personnel involved in
approving and carrying out the strike, these people said.

The investigation comes amid mounting tensions between Washington and Berlin about
the strike, which NATO acknowledged last week had "killed and injured" civilians as well
as insurgents.

The rift threatens to further erode European public support for the war effort, which is
already deeply unpopular in most NATO countries. Germany, France and the U.K.
recently called for an international conference to seek ways of transferring responsibility
for the country's security from NATO to the Afghan government.

Several military officers at the Pentagon and the U.S.-led NATO high command in Kabul
said in recent interviews that the Kunduz attack violated the rules put in place by the
top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to limit the use of
bombs and other heavy weaponry in civilian areas.

Gen. McChrystal's written guidance ordered NATO commanders to use such weaponry
only in cases of imminent danger to their troops. That condition doesn't appear to have
been met in the Kunduz strike, which happened even though no German troops were
taking fire or facing immediate Taliban attack.

German officials have rejected foreign criticism. In an address to parliament last week,
German Chancellor Angela Merkel offered regret for any potential civilian fatalities
but warned against jumping to conclusions about German culpability.

Ipso Facto, fire him.
He's going to have to take one for Germany.

ProfessorMurder · 10-06-2009, 03:50 AM

A D.C. whodunit: Who leaked and why? | Reuters

POLITICO (Washington) - Bob Woodward's Monday-morning exclusive on a 66-
page report from Gen. Stanley McChrystal to President Barack Obama about
Afghanistan policy was a rite of passage for the new administration: the first
major national security leak and a sure sign that the celebrated Washington
Post reporter has penetrated yet another administration.

So who did it?

The simplest theory — and one most administration officials Monday were
endorsing — is that a military or civilian Pentagon official who supports
McChrystal's policy put it out in an attempt to pressure Obama to follow
McChrystal's suggestion and increase troop levels in Afghanistan.

But not everyone in Washington is a believer in Occam's razor, so all manner
of other theories flourished.

There are believers in the reverse leak, in which the leak itself is meant to
damage McChrystal's position by inducing White House anger at the general.
There's the fake leak, in which the White House may have been trying to
back itself into a corner.

In the larger sense, the document's contents are completely unsurprising —
McChrystal's views were widely known, and the assessment just spells them
out. But giving the document to a brand name like Bob Woodward, who has a
flair for the dramatic, ensures big play in The Washington Post and broad
pickup by other media.

"This leak would, by all appearances, be the act of someone who supports an
increase in troop strength and resources," said Kevin Kellems, a
communications director for former Vice President Dick Cheney, who noted
that "the power of Woodward going on page A1 is exceptional" in its ability to
dictate to wire services and cable outlets, a vanishing power of the
newspapers. "This is the act most likely of a civilian who is an advocate of
this position and believes they were right to do this because lives were at stake."

stoneric · 10-06-2009, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hedons

Fire his ass?

Why? For being critical of the president?

-Hedons

He lives under the UCMJ. Better check the chain of command.

José · 10-06-2009, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mydriasis

Some people believe the military was behind JFK's assassination.

I don't care WHO was behind that shit, that shot was fucking INCREDIBLE.

Mydriasis · 10-06-2009, 01:13 PM

I guess it was voted against that mccrystal could talk to the congress, that's fucking stupid. I don't support the war, but shit freedom of speech ya know what I mean?

Sometimes I just wanna hop the fucking border and live in Canada.

stoneric · 10-06-2009, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mydriasis

I guess it was voted against that mccrystal could talk to the congress, that's fucking stupid. I don't support the war, but shit freedom of speech ya know what I mean?

Sometimes I just wanna hop the fucking border and live in Canada.

What does freedom of speech have to do with anything? The general follows orders from the commander in chief. Do you understand the chain of command? The general should. We don't need the fucking pentegon running foreign policy.

stoneric · 10-06-2009, 02:00 PM

Like I said earlier, he lives under the UCMJ. Lucky he's not in the stockade but that's reservered for peons just like in the real world.

Mydriasis · 10-06-2009, 02:02 PM

Yea your right. I just get confused with how backwards shit is. You'd just assume a general could speak to congress about what he/she knows about whats going on with the war... But politics is politics and just like Danny Devito said on It's Always Sunny In Phillidelphia "You have to be a real low-life piece of shit to get involved with politics"

ProfessorMurder · 10-06-2009, 04:14 PM

Afghanistan Attack Kills 8 US Soldiers U.S. Afghanistan Base: Death Trap From The Beginning - ABC News

The remote base in northern Afghanistan where eight U.S. soldiers were killed
this weekend in a deadly battle was well-known inside the military as
extremely vulnerable to attack since the day it opened in 2006, according to
U.S. soldiers and government officials familiar with the area.

When a reporter visited the base a few months after it opened, soldiers
stationed in Kamdesh complained the base's location low in a valley made
most missions in the area difficult.

"We're primarily sitting ducks," said one soldier at the time.

The boulder strewn road that led into the valley was referred to by U.S.
soldiers stationed there as "Ambush Alley."

The base, located less than 10 miles from the Pakistan border and nestled in
the Hindu Kush mountains, was attacked almost every day for the first two
months it was opened, hit by a constant stream of rocket-propelled grenades
and small arms fire.

By the third or fourth month of the base's existence, resupply had been
limited to nighttime helicopter flights because the daytime left helicopters
and road convoys too exposed to insurgent attacks. That remained true
through the weekend.

The base had several near-misses with enemy fire over the years. In 2006,
all daytime helicopter flights landing at the valley floor were cancelled when
an American Blackhawk was nearly hit with an incoming rocket as it was
taking off. After the incident, helicopters were banned from landing anywhere
but an observation post some three hours' walk above the base on a nearby
ridgeline. Even then, helicopters filled with troops or equipment were rushed
during offloading, as pilots were keen to take off before drawing hostile fire.

And like many other remote and rural parts of Afghanistan, the local
population had begun souring on the American presence after airstrikes had
hit civilians in the neighboring villages.

Insurgent Attack

One U.S. military official told ABC News that they believe the insurgents
started a fire as they began to attack. "They burned the base down," said
the official.

The smoke from the fire initially limited the air support U.S. soldiers
requested, according to a military official. The fighting lasted "throughout the
day" as there were signs that the insurgents were able to breach the base
before being "repelled." As insurgents fired from three or four different
locations above the base, they also maneuvered and over took one of the
observation posts on higher ground, taking out a post meant to protect Camp
Keating from enemy fire.

The soldiers were preparing to leave the base for good this week, in a plan
that had been set in motion as early as a year ago, according to American
officials familiar with the military's plan. Military officials have said that they
do not believe the insurgents knew the U.S. forces were withdrawing from
the base.
The attack, according to a senior State department official, was most likely
the last major effort by the insurgents before the winter snows blanket the
province and make maneuvering and fighting that much harder to accomplish.

"Unfortunately," said the State Department official, "this [attack] gives the
insurgents a propaganda victory because they can go and claim to the locals
that they forced the Americans out."

10-05-2009, 01:50 PM	#1 (permalink)
stoneric bougeman Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 5,643 Thanks: 702 Thanked 1,512 Times in 1,067 Posts	Fire his ass Obama ‘Furious’ Over Gen. McChrystal Speech Working Relationship 'Not Great' as General Fights for Escalation by Jason Ditz, October 04, 2009 Friday’s 25 minute in-flight meeting between President Obama (just returning from what proved to be a failed last minute pitch for Chicago’s Olympics bid) and Gen. Stanley McChrystal was more than just the coincidental meeting officials tried to spin it as. Gen. Stanley McChrystalRather officials say that President Obama was “furious” with the General following his pointed remarks at a London speech the day prior. At the speech, Gen. McChrystal mocked Vice President Biden’s call to scale back the objectives of the eight year long war, saying it would lead to “Chaos-istan” and insisting that he would never accept such a plan. The meeting that followed was reportedly “awkward,” and experts say that the working relationship between the president and the commander of the Afghan War is “not great.” Undaunted, however, General McChrystal is said to have spent much of their brief time together emphasizing the increasingly grim situation on the ground and pressing the president to make a decision on his call for additional troops. The Obama Administration is reportedly unsure what to make of McChrystal, with one adviser saying “people aren’t sure whether McChrystal is being naive or an upstart.” Whatever the case, it is uncharacteristic for a US general to spend so much of his time publicly petitioning for his strategy and attacking the commander in chief for not endorsing it immediately. This guy mcchrystal sleeps 3 hours a night and eats 1 meal a day. He has tortured himself into delirium.

10-05-2009, 02:05 PM	#2 (permalink)
verklingen Radical Dreamer Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: texas Posts: 8,005 Thanks: 811 Thanked 1,491 Times in 946 Posts	if obama does dismiss him the pundits will have a field day __________________ “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” rip matt

10-05-2009, 02:20 PM	#3 (permalink)
Mydriasis Do Not Resuscitate Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,293 Thanks: 840 Thanked 431 Times in 298 Posts	So much for let's end the war, lol. I bet $5 they are gonna get more troops. I don't think Obama really has power over the military to be honest. Some people believe the military was behind JFK's assassination. But I guess we'll wait and see how it all unfolds. I hope they don't need more troops, I mean I understand the US probably wants a base over there just incase shit hit's the fan over seas, but how long does it really take... __________________ ۞

10-05-2009, 02:28 PM	#4 (permalink)
zerodown Mafutero Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: PR Posts: 782 Thanks: 41 Thanked 169 Times in 131 Posts	What? The president unable to give orders to his subordinates? Wow, that can't be right, not in america. The president is only a puppet, always has, an interpreter of bad news from the invisible hand to the visible working class that struggles working their asses off each day so the few can have their pretty little wars. __________________ "I've seen people so poor all they got is money." We have to learn to unlearn Its not contradiction, its amendment Not everything we see is reality Not everything we hear is the truth Not everything we're taught helps us grow ~Cultura Profetica "La locura se lleva en la cabeza y las drogas en los bolsillos" ~Roberto Iniesta

10-05-2009, 02:46 PM	#6 (permalink)
Mydriasis Do Not Resuscitate Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,293 Thanks: 840 Thanked 431 Times in 298 Posts	So why didn't he end the war like he said he would? That's half the reason why my friends voted for him in the first place. __________________ ۞

10-05-2009, 02:51 PM	#7 (permalink)
verklingen Radical Dreamer Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: texas Posts: 8,005 Thanks: 811 Thanked 1,491 Times in 946 Posts	^ i'm not sure but thank your friends next time you see them. with many GOP congressmen calling for military action against iran, we may be facing yet another invasion if not for their votes. if i remember correctly obama said during the campaign that he would get us out of iraq. i remember him talking about how we needed to focus in afganistan, but that may have been late in the campaign. by election day no one should have voted for obama expecting an abrupt end to our wars. __________________ “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” rip matt

10-05-2009, 03:27 PM	#8 (permalink)
stoneric bougeman Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 5,643 Thanks: 702 Thanked 1,512 Times in 1,067 Posts	Obama, hillary and mccorpse were trying to out hawk each other on Afghanistan so anything he does to contradict that mistake will be a plus. I'll be happy if he lied his ass off during the campaign or if he just comes to his senses. Afghanistan is a bottomless pit.

10-05-2009, 07:16 PM	#9 (permalink)
Hedons Ribbed for her pleasure! Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Chicago Burbs. Delta(x) times Delta(p) is greater than or equal to h-bar over two. Posts: 4,645 Thanks: 23 Thanked 189 Times in 101 Posts	Fire his ass? Why? For being critical of the president? -Hedons __________________ New and improved! Now with flushable applicator.

10-05-2009, 08:15 PM	#10 (permalink)
ProfessorMurder Jackal Ghoul Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Rio Grande Valley, Texas Posts: 1,270 Thanks: 31 Thanked 125 Times in 99 Posts	Matthew Rothchild from The Progressive states it clearly By choosing Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Obama shows how indifferent he is to the serious allegations that have swirled around McChrystal, a darling of the Bush-Cheney regime. It was McChrystal, after all, who approved a medal for Pat Tillman, the former NFL star, saying he fell under “devastating enemy fire.” But just a day later, McChrystal warned the White House that it might have been friendly fire, not enemy fire. And, according to Seymour Hersh, McChrystal was the guy who was running Cheney’s assassination squads. From 2003-2008, McChrystal headed the Joint Special Operations Command, which Hersh called “an executive assassination wing” that reported directly to Cheney’s office. What’s more, Esquire has reported that McChrystal authorized torture at a secret camp, where two detainees died under interrogation, and expressly prohibited the Red Cross from entering the camp, which would be a double violation of the Geneva Conventions. McChrystal’s promotion mocks Obama’s rhetoric about making a clean break with the torture regime of Bush and Cheney. http://gsmso.blogspot.com/2009/05/mc...ghanistan.html __________________ "No contaban con mi astucia!"

10-05-2009, 08:28 PM	#11 (permalink)
ProfessorMurder Jackal Ghoul Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Rio Grande Valley, Texas Posts: 1,270 Thanks: 31 Thanked 125 Times in 99 Posts	Not to mention a repeat attack on an Afghan valley base. Haven't learned the lesson. The Associated Press: Afghan battle probe a reminder of war's challenges By RICHARD LARDNER (AP) – 12 hours ago WASHINGTON — As President Barack Obama grapples with the way ahead in Afghanistan, a decision to launch a new investigation into a deadly firefight is a painful reminder of the challenges the U.S. faces in a country known as the graveyard of empires. Fought in the small village of Wanat near the Pakistan border, the battle claimed the lives of nine American soldiers and wounded 27 others after their platoon-sized unit was attacked by as many as 200 insurgents during the early hours of July 13, 2008. Accounts of the battle indicate senior commanders may have made serious mistakes, leaving the soldiers short- handed and without critical support needed to blunt such an intense raid. On Saturday, just days after Army Gen. David Petraeus ordered the inquiry, U.S. forces in Afghanistan endured a stark echo of that tragedy: eight U.S. soldiers were killed when several hundred militant fighters struck two American outposts in the same rugged region in northeastern Afghanistan where the earlier assault occurred. The emerging story of the 2008 battle along with Saturday's attack adds new weight to calls by Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top officer in Afghanistan, for thousands more American forces to deal with the dicey political, cultural and geographical conditions there. The efforts of Brostrom and others gained momentum when a military historian at the Army Combat Studies Institute in Kansas wrote a detailed account of the battle at Wanat, based on soldiers who were there, that contradicts many of the service's conclusions. The 238-page study by Douglas Cubbison, though not yet officially released, was obtained by The Associated Press and other news organizations. Cubbison's report details a growing hostility toward the Americans in Wanat and a failure by higher-level commanders to recognize the tension when they ordered the unit to the village just a few weeks before the attack. Concern had been expressed by 1st Lt. Jonathan Brostrom, a platoon leader, about the number of troops he had and the mountainous terrain surrounding the outpost, Cubbison was told during the interviews. The commanders withdrew airborne intelligence-gathering assets from Wanat to another location one day before the attack despite vehement protests from the unit. The reasons, according to Cubbison's report, were that "nothing of consequence" had been detected in Wanat and the equipment was needed elsewhere. __________________ "No contaban con mi astucia!"

10-05-2009, 08:36 PM	#12 (permalink)
ProfessorMurder Jackal Ghoul Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Rio Grande Valley, Texas Posts: 1,270 Thanks: 31 Thanked 125 Times in 99 Posts	NATO Says U.S. Airstrike in Kunduz Killed 30 Civilians - WSJ.com By YOCHI J. DREAZEN WASHINGTON -- NATO investigators believe that 30 civilians were killed in a controversial U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan's Kunduz province, a preliminary finding that could spark new pressure for disciplinary actions against the German and American personnel involved in the attack. A team of military officers led by Canadian Maj. Gen. C.S. Sullivan spent more than a week probing the Sept. 4 bombing, which took place after a German commander in Kunduz ordered an airstrike on two hijacked fuel trucks that he feared would be used in a suicide attack against his troops. North Atlantic Treaty Organization investigators believe roughly 100 people were killed in the resulting strike, including approximately 70 militants, according to people familiar with the matter. A separate Afghan government probe reached roughly the same conclusions about the militant and civilian death tolls, these people said. The NATO investigation is trying to determine the precise sequence of events that led the local German commander, Col. Georg Klein, to order an airstrike rather than sending ground forces, according to people familiar with its work. The full probe is expected to be completed within the next two weeks, these people said. Its findings will then be formally presented to the German and U.S. militaries, which will decide whether to discipline or bring criminal charges against the personnel involved in approving and carrying out the strike, these people said. The investigation comes amid mounting tensions between Washington and Berlin about the strike, which NATO acknowledged last week had "killed and injured" civilians as well as insurgents. The rift threatens to further erode European public support for the war effort, which is already deeply unpopular in most NATO countries. Germany, France and the U.K. recently called for an international conference to seek ways of transferring responsibility for the country's security from NATO to the Afghan government. Several military officers at the Pentagon and the U.S.-led NATO high command in Kabul said in recent interviews that the Kunduz attack violated the rules put in place by the top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to limit the use of bombs and other heavy weaponry in civilian areas. Gen. McChrystal's written guidance ordered NATO commanders to use such weaponry only in cases of imminent danger to their troops. That condition doesn't appear to have been met in the Kunduz strike, which happened even though no German troops were taking fire or facing immediate Taliban attack. German officials have rejected foreign criticism. In an address to parliament last week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel offered regret for any potential civilian fatalities but warned against jumping to conclusions about German culpability. Ipso Facto, fire him. He's going to have to take one for Germany. __________________ "No contaban con mi astucia!"

10-06-2009, 03:50 AM	#13 (permalink)
ProfessorMurder Jackal Ghoul Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Rio Grande Valley, Texas Posts: 1,270 Thanks: 31 Thanked 125 Times in 99 Posts	A D.C. whodunit: Who leaked and why? \| Reuters POLITICO (Washington) - Bob Woodward's Monday-morning exclusive on a 66- page report from Gen. Stanley McChrystal to President Barack Obama about Afghanistan policy was a rite of passage for the new administration: the first major national security leak and a sure sign that the celebrated Washington Post reporter has penetrated yet another administration. So who did it? The simplest theory — and one most administration officials Monday were endorsing — is that a military or civilian Pentagon official who supports McChrystal's policy put it out in an attempt to pressure Obama to follow McChrystal's suggestion and increase troop levels in Afghanistan. But not everyone in Washington is a believer in Occam's razor, so all manner of other theories flourished. There are believers in the reverse leak, in which the leak itself is meant to damage McChrystal's position by inducing White House anger at the general. There's the fake leak, in which the White House may have been trying to back itself into a corner. In the larger sense, the document's contents are completely unsurprising — McChrystal's views were widely known, and the assessment just spells them out. But giving the document to a brand name like Bob Woodward, who has a flair for the dramatic, ensures big play in The Washington Post and broad pickup by other media. "This leak would, by all appearances, be the act of someone who supports an increase in troop strength and resources," said Kevin Kellems, a communications director for former Vice President Dick Cheney, who noted that "the power of Woodward going on page A1 is exceptional" in its ability to dictate to wire services and cable outlets, a vanishing power of the newspapers. "This is the act most likely of a civilian who is an advocate of this position and believes they were right to do this because lives were at stake." __________________ "No contaban con mi astucia!"

10-06-2009, 01:13 PM	#16 (permalink)
Mydriasis Do Not Resuscitate Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,293 Thanks: 840 Thanked 431 Times in 298 Posts	I guess it was voted against that mccrystal could talk to the congress, that's fucking stupid. I don't support the war, but shit freedom of speech ya know what I mean? Sometimes I just wanna hop the fucking border and live in Canada. __________________ ۞

10-06-2009, 02:00 PM	#18 (permalink)
stoneric bougeman Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 5,643 Thanks: 702 Thanked 1,512 Times in 1,067 Posts	Like I said earlier, he lives under the UCMJ. Lucky he's not in the stockade but that's reservered for peons just like in the real world.

10-06-2009, 02:02 PM	#19 (permalink)
Mydriasis Do Not Resuscitate Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,293 Thanks: 840 Thanked 431 Times in 298 Posts	Yea your right. I just get confused with how backwards shit is. You'd just assume a general could speak to congress about what he/she knows about whats going on with the war... But politics is politics and just like Danny Devito said on It's Always Sunny In Phillidelphia "You have to be a real low-life piece of shit to get involved with politics" __________________ ۞

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

10-06-2009, 04:14 PM	#20 (permalink)
ProfessorMurder Jackal Ghoul Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Rio Grande Valley, Texas Posts: 1,270 Thanks: 31 Thanked 125 Times in 99 Posts	Give Me 20-30 Billion Dollars (40,000 Troops) or "Afghanistan Gets It" Afghanistan Attack Kills 8 US Soldiers U.S. Afghanistan Base: Death Trap From The Beginning - ABC News The remote base in northern Afghanistan where eight U.S. soldiers were killed this weekend in a deadly battle was well-known inside the military as extremely vulnerable to attack since the day it opened in 2006, according to U.S. soldiers and government officials familiar with the area. When a reporter visited the base a few months after it opened, soldiers stationed in Kamdesh complained the base's location low in a valley made most missions in the area difficult. "We're primarily sitting ducks," said one soldier at the time. The boulder strewn road that led into the valley was referred to by U.S. soldiers stationed there as "Ambush Alley." The base, located less than 10 miles from the Pakistan border and nestled in the Hindu Kush mountains, was attacked almost every day for the first two months it was opened, hit by a constant stream of rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire. By the third or fourth month of the base's existence, resupply had been limited to nighttime helicopter flights because the daytime left helicopters and road convoys too exposed to insurgent attacks. That remained true through the weekend. The base had several near-misses with enemy fire over the years. In 2006, all daytime helicopter flights landing at the valley floor were cancelled when an American Blackhawk was nearly hit with an incoming rocket as it was taking off. After the incident, helicopters were banned from landing anywhere but an observation post some three hours' walk above the base on a nearby ridgeline. Even then, helicopters filled with troops or equipment were rushed during offloading, as pilots were keen to take off before drawing hostile fire. And like many other remote and rural parts of Afghanistan, the local population had begun souring on the American presence after airstrikes had hit civilians in the neighboring villages. Insurgent Attack One U.S. military official told ABC News that they believe the insurgents started a fire as they began to attack. "They burned the base down," said the official. The smoke from the fire initially limited the air support U.S. soldiers requested, according to a military official. The fighting lasted "throughout the day" as there were signs that the insurgents were able to breach the base before being "repelled." As insurgents fired from three or four different locations above the base, they also maneuvered and over took one of the observation posts on higher ground, taking out a post meant to protect Camp Keating from enemy fire. The soldiers were preparing to leave the base for good this week, in a plan that had been set in motion as early as a year ago, according to American officials familiar with the military's plan. Military officials have said that they do not believe the insurgents knew the U.S. forces were withdrawing from the base. The attack, according to a senior State department official, was most likely the last major effort by the insurgents before the winter snows blanket the province and make maneuvering and fighting that much harder to accomplish. "Unfortunately," said the State Department official, "this [attack] gives the insurgents a propaganda victory because they can go and claim to the locals that they forced the Americans out." __________________ "No contaban con mi astucia!"