Were McChrystal's comments a mere flub, mistake or deliberate? He may run for President in 2012

[Better Believe It]

Understanding that his Afghanistan strategy was failing, McChrystal may have decided to publicly manufacture a big public dispute with the White House on the conduct of the war. The story will eventually be told that it was President Obama and his "wimpy" aides who refused to accept McChrystal's advice on how to win the war and defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan.

So McChrystal resigns, or is relieved of command, and goes on to become the military darling (Rambo) of the far right and a significant section of the military brass who are "being held back" back by civilians who don't have what it takes to win wars.

He may have presidential ambitions and his interview with Rolling Stone might be the opening shot in his bid to become the Republican presidential candidate in 2012. I can see him easily winning the Republican nomination with help from well trained and experienced attack dogs who know how to use the media.

A major pitch of his presidential campaign would be the charge that the wimpy Democrats lost the war against Afghan terrorists because the troops were not provided with the help they needed and McChrystal begged for. Strong political leadership of the kind represented by a military "hero" and fighter is needed to finally win the war against terrorists and General McChrystal will restore the greatness and freedom that American has lost. The right-wing will love him and could unite around him.

That's the danger.

What do other DU'ers think?

Were McChrystal's remarks a mere flub, mistake or deliberate political calculation on his part?

[old guy]

1. Deliberate calculation.

[glinda]

19. Deliberate. WH better do something about this.

[muntrv]

2. Uh, Dimson didn't exactly kick ass in Afghanistan. Otherwise McChrystal

wouldn't be there.

[woo me with science]

3. He is a military general specializing in wartime strategy and planning.

There is no way this was not deliberate.

[JuniperLea]

5. Yep...

His only way out of an un-winnable war... and saving face. Losing generals are considered... losers.

[Liberal_in_LA]

25. uh oh. Watch your back Obama.

[peacebird]

4. The Palin will not be pleased.

[JuniperLea]

6. The Palin...

:rofl:

[Better Believe It]

7. General McChrystal would bury her in primaries.

[spanone]

8. he had to sign off on this 'on the record' interview

he knew it would create a shit-storm

the question is why...

political gain?

to fuck with Obama?

[Better Believe It]

9. I'd say political gain and he doesn't want to be blamed for "losing the war"

Blame it on Obama and parlay that into a run against Obama for President in 2012.

[muntrv]

10. McChrystal is no Douglass MacArthur.

[jaxx]

11. Neither.

What I heard was a gigantic ego talking. He put down everybody but himself. Mr. Toughguy who used underlings to make himself feel big. Bah!

[MorningGlow]

12. That was my first thought

Presidential run. After all, the repug field is crap. But the freeps would wet themselves if they could vote for a military man--and one that "stood up to Obama" at that. :eyes:

[Better Believe It]

15. This youtube video put up by right-wingers is a demonstration of what to expect if McChrystal runs.

This one was put up by an right-wingnut outfit calling itself "American Patriots Prevail".

Obama Silencing Our Generals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Np1_htJH0I&feature=related

[qazplm]

13. afghan war

is like fourth or fifth on the list of crap to do for most Americans, so not sure how much traction he'd get given he has no other policies.

[Cant trust em]

14. The economy will still be tops on people's minds in 2012.

The General will not make that go away.

[Better Believe It]

17. General McChrystal will blame Democrats if unemployment remains high,

foreclosures continue and the economy has not improved very much, if at all, by early 2012

The state of the economy will be the major question. If we aren't out of the recession the Republicans might easily win in 2012.

[Cant trust em]

33. and a general with no economic credentials is not going to be the choice to solve the problem. nt

[Better Believe It]

35. Did Ronald Reagan or Adolph Hitler have economic credentials?

What were McCain and Palin's economic credentials?

How about all of the Senators and members of the House who were elected without economic crdentials?

Economic are not required to win an election or take power.

[Cant trust em]

37. I'd give more economic credit to a governor or a senator over a general.

At least they can say something like they developed a tax and incentives package to get green businesses to locate in their state and create 10,000 jobs, or something like that.

If you were a member of the electorate with unemployment and the economy tops on your mind, would you pick a person who has a record to run on for taking on economic issues, or someone who has been in charge of 2 wars?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Better Believe It]

18. You're calling me and other DU'ers who think he might run idiots?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Better Believe It]

24. So you're calling me an idiot. Do you also call other DU'ers who you don't agree with idiots?

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LanternWaste]

26. I imagine many people think others...

I imagine many people think others are idiots for simply holding another position-- it allows us to feel much better about our own, unsubstantiated opinions I suppose.

I was once called an idiot for liking the taste of root-beer, but I simply dismissed it as little more than petulance self-validation and . I am compelled to give your statement the precise same amount of weight and credibility.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LanternWaste]

29. Again... you receive the same amount of weight and credibility.

Again... you receive the same amount of weight and credibility.

Had one responded without the petulance of a grade school boy, I imagine the weight (if not credibility) would increase. However, act like a school bot often enough, I imagine many people will being treating one as though they were a school boy.

Opinion duly noted...

[Lil Missy]

21. That is absurd on several levels.

[tammywammy]

22. +1 n/t

[tammywammy]

23. .

[Better Believe It]

30. I'm not sure what you believe is absurd .... that McChrystal made a mistake or was deliberate.

[thewiseguy]

31. Petraeus will run

I think what McCrystal did was deliberate.

[Better Believe It]

32. I think the far right and most Republicans would prefer McCrystal but Petraeus could run.

[JDPriestly]

34. McChrystal is losing in Afghanistan. He is very angry about it.

The Republicans are not going to vote for him because he flubbed up there and he knows it.

Fact is, he got his chance in Afghanistan, and he failed.

The Afghanistan War is not all that popular. And McChrystal is no Eisenhower.

Afghanistan is not the place to build political capital. It is not the European theater in WWII.

[Better Believe It]

36. McChrystal is no Eisenhower. That would be Gates

McChrystal is more like a younger Douglas McCarthur.

[JDPriestly]

39. Right

[Radical Activist]

38. Where did the running for President rumors come from?

I've seen it on DU but I don't watch enough corporate press to know if it's being discussed everywhere. If it was mentioned in the Rolling Stone article or on Fox news first then it's safe to say that he isn't discouraging the talk and he may be the source of it.