Tag Archives: afghanistan

Ten Stories In The News That The BP Oil Spill Is Overshadowing

Corporate media does it’s best to keep you uninformed… The mainstream media is running a 24 hour news cycle focusing purely on the BP oil spill, a disaster, as we have shown, that is being intentionally hyped in order to sell cap and trade legislation and moves to nationalize big business. In the wake of this, big important news stories are being overlooked. Here are just some of the stories, in no particular order, that you should be hearing on the nightly news, but of course, are not. 1. Israeli nuclear submarines positioned close to Iran: Three German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles are to be deployed in the Gulf near the Iranian coastline. The first has been sent in response to Israeli fears that ballistic missiles developed by Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, a political and military organisation in Lebanon, could hit sites in Israel, including air bases and missile launchers. The submarines of Flotilla 7 — Dolphin, Tekuma and Leviathan — have visited the Gulf before. But the decision has now been taken to ensure a permanent presence of at least one of the vessels. ** 2. Iran war propaganda: US intelligence has shown Iran could launch an attack against Europe with “scores or hundreds” of missiles, prompting major changes to US missile defenses, Pentagon chief Robert Gates said on Thursday. The anti-Iran rhetoric has amplified following the revelation that many Bilderberg members, including Zbigniew Brzezinski, are now in favor of U.S. air strikes on Iran and are “leaning towards war,”. “Some of them in Europe are saying no we shouldn’t do it but most of them are in favor of American air strikes on Iran,” Bilderberg sluth Jim Tucker relayed from the recent meeting in Spain. “They’re tilting heavily towards green lighting a U.S. attack on Iran.” ** 3. The continuing economic slide: The greatest bankster heist in history and the looming greatest depression rumbles on. Gold has hit record highs as the dollar slumps and the Euro continues to face complete collapse. Unemployment figures in the U.S. are through the roof and U.S. consumer prices posted their largest fall in nearly 1-1/2 years in May. Rumours in Europe persist regarding an impending bailout for spain, while Russia says it is ready to found a “new economic world order“. ** 4. FCC ready to restrict the Internet: The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive. Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency. 5. Obama/Blagojevich story As the Blagojevich trial continues and important details emerge, linking Obama to possible political corruption, Federal prosecutors are seeking a gag order to keep the ex-Governor and his lawyers from making public comments. ** 6. UN small arms treaty Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced that the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the U.N. to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.” Congressman Paul Broun warns that, “With willing one-world accomplices in Washington, D.C., gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.” Broun characterizes the U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty as “nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.” The treaty would force national governments to acquiesce to a global gun registry, while strengthening licensing procedures so as to make it almost impossible for a citizen to legally purchase a gun. It would also ban the private sale of semi-automatic weapons and ultimately lead to the confiscation and destruction of all “unauthorized” firearms owned by citizens. By encapsulating the gun grab within a treaty, the Obama administration could claim that no Senate approval is needed to authorize any such move against the right to bear arms – although whether a treaty trumps the Constitution is a very murky area of debate. ** 7. Mexicans riot in LA/Land given over to Mexico Violent scenes following the LA Lakers’ championship-clinching win over the Boston Celtics in the NBA finals saw angry mobs smashing their way through the streets waving Mexican flags as they went. Meanwhile, a massive stretch of Arizona has become effectively off limits to Americans, Prompting questions over whether the Obama administration is giving a major strip of the south-west back to Mexico. ** 8. Obama Plans To Sneak Through Carbon Tax By Stealth President Obama is planning to sneak through his job-killing, economy wrecking carbon tax by stealth according to the Washington Post, by passing a weakened bill and then adding in cap and trade provisions after the heat is off following the November elections. Described as the “lame duck climate strategy,” Obama is planning to secure enough votes in the Senate to pass a weakened energy bill and then drag out the conference long enough to ensure the stronger provisions contained in the original House version are added “after lawmakers have faced voters in November, thereby cushioning the vote’s political impact.” ** 9. Afghanistan Mineral Riches Story Is War Propaganda News that the U.S. has suddenly discovered $1 trillion-worth of mineral deposits in Afghanistan, and descriptions of the bounty as a “game changer” by the corporate media, represent nothing more than crude war propaganda designed to reinvigorate public support for a failing and ever more pointless occupation. The “newly discovered” riches have been known about since the 1970s and further revelations indicate that the Pentagon report cited by the New York Times as their source for the story did not even mention the untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan. ** 10. Free Speech Gag Bill Moving in House H.R. 5175, The so-called DISCLOSE Act would severely limit the ability of political groups to communicate to their members and the general public. Politico reports that , the NRA bargained for an exemption for itself and other large, established groups while trampling the rights of private citizens, new political groups, like Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty, and other small organizations. As John Bresnahan reports, “The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations… The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources.” added by: im1mjrpain

‘Restrepo’: The War That Won’t End, By Kurt Loder

New combat doc raises question: Why are we in Afghanistan? Soldiers in Afghanistan in “Restrepo” Photo: National Geographic Channel Can there be an upside to war? Possibly. In “Restrepo,” a new documentary by veteran combat journalists Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger, we find ourselves on patrol with a company of U.S. soldiers in the Korengal Valley, one of the bloodiest corners of the ongoing Afghan conflict. It’s the spring of 2007, and the men have just weathered a heavy firefight. One of them emerges from it jacked-up and exultant. “That was fun!” he says. “You can’t get a better high. Once you get shot at … you can’t top that.” The film vividly captures the dust and blood and the sheer drudgery of war. The unit has been assigned to build a new forward outpost right up against the edge of Taliban territory. Build it from scratch with picks and shovels, while in the surrounding mountains, enemy fire is constant. The Taliban warriors come so close they can be heard talking to one another. But the American soldiers work straight through the night, and make a good start. They never complain. They christen the new base Restrepo Outpost, after a departed comrade, Juan “Doc” Restrepo, who recently took two bullets in the neck and bled out on the med-evac helicopter. They talk about Restrepo a lot, and we see footage of him goofing around on the flight that brought the men over here from a base in Italy. Like them, he was very young. Still sleepless, they set out on patrol. They pass through battered villages, stopping occasionally to interrogate suspicious-looking locals. (“You got pretty clean hands for a goat-herder.”) They meet with village elders and promise to “flood” the area with money and medical supplies if the villagers will only help fight the resurgent enemy. But the people caught in the middle of this conflict have defeat written on their faces. One man tells the company’s captain, through an interpreter, “If we let you know about Taliban, then we will get killed.” Alternatively, of course, this man could be Taliban. As was the case in the Vietnam War 40-odd years ago, in which the U.S. fought another indigenous enemy that didn’t wear uniforms, it’s virtually impossible to know. The company moves on. Intermittently, the crack of gunfire starts up, and the camera jostles wildly in keeping up with the GIs as they hit the ground and crawl through the dirt. One of them has been hit, shot dead. One of his friends briefly breaks down in tears. Another soldier tries to comfort him: “It was quick,” he says. The unit comes to another village. This one has been chewed up by missile fire from the Army attack helicopters whirling overhead. Five civilians have been killed, more wounded. Inside one house we see women, children, even a baby wet with blood. This is the face of collateral damage. Somewhere there’s a grand plan for this war, a political scenario devised by a regiment of office warriors back in Washington. But the soldiers here don’t talk about it. All they know is that there’s an enemy their country is fighting, and their job is to kill him. They’re tough and brave, and they’re good at it. They casually discuss the fact that they may well die here, but that’s not what concerns them most. What concerns them most is the possibility that one of their fellow soldiers may die — one of their pals, the only family they have in this hostile place. The movie follows this company through 2008, when the men completed their 15-month deployment and were being flown back to Italy. What we don’t see is the aftermath. This past April, having alienated the local populace, the Army withdrew the last of its troops from the Korengal Valley. Earlier this month, the Afghan conflict, which began directly after 9/11, became the longest war in U.S. history. More than a thousand U.S. soldiers have died in it. Last December, President Obama announced his intention to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, bringing the total number of U.S. forces in-country to 100,000. But at the same time, he also announced that he’ll begin pulling them out again next year. The president has since wobbled on that commitment. Still, it’s hard to imagine the Taliban not feeling that victory in this long war is now mainly a waiting game. The directors, Hetherington and Junger, acknowledge that they are men of the political left. Apart from the editing decisions they’ve made, though, their documentary recalls, in a smaller way, the disturbing images that emerged out of Vietnam, and ultimately turned America against that war. “Restrepo” is the answer to a question that will surely continue being asked. Don’t miss Kurt Loder’s reviews of “Knight and Day” and “Dogtooth,” also new in theaters this week. Check out everything we’ve got on “Restrepo.” For breaking news, celebrity columns, humor and more — updated around the clock — visit MTVMoviesBlog.com .

View post:
‘Restrepo’: The War That Won’t End, By Kurt Loder

George Stephanopoulos Fawns Over Obama’s Handling of McChrystal Controversy: A ‘Political Masterstroke’

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Thursday hyped Barack Obama’s handling of the decision to fire General Stanley McChrystal and replace him with David Petraeus, lauding the action as a ” political masterstroke .” His comments built on extensive media praise on Wednesday, including many reporters who called the move “brilliant.” Stephanopoulos seemed particularly pleased. The former Democratic aide turned journalist extolled, “…That pick really seems to have been the political masterstroke that got President Obama out of the tight box he was in. It’s being welcomed both by Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill.” Reporter Martha Raddatz agreed with Stephanopoulos, enthusing, “Sending Petraeus to Afghanistan is, by all accounts, a great save, for exactly the reasons the President described.” A transcript of the June 24 segment, which aired at 7:04am, follows: ROBIN ROBERTS: But, it, as you know, is a new day, under new leadership for U.S. troops in Afghanistan. After a high-stakes meeting with General Stanley McChrystal, President Obama announced his resignation, the general’s resignation. And named his replacement, the architect of the surge in Iraq, General David Petraeus. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And, Robin, that pick really seems to have been the political masterstroke that got President Obama out of the tight box he was in. It’s being welcomed both by Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Petraeus is expected to be confirmed quickly by the Senate and to be on the ground in Afghanistan next week. The big question, now, can General Petraeus fix a war effort that has been proceeding in fits and starts? President Obama said he was changing personnel, not policy. But, many wondering if a change in strategy is needed. We have Senator John McCain standing by live to talk about that. But, we’re going to begin with Martha Raddatz and the high drama in the high change of command. And, Martha, it was pretty stunning. 30 minutes with the President and a 30-year career is over. MARTHA RADDATZ: That’s exactly right, George. General McChrystal and his top aide will not be returning to Afghanistan and say good-bye. Their personal effects are being packed up right now for shipping back to the U.S. As an official in Kabul told me this morning, it feels like a death in the family. It all happened so fast. And in retrospect, was so obvious. Cameras trained on a White House entrance, caught Stanley McChrystal leaving his tense and final meeting with President Obama. And a short time later, David Petraeus arrived. He had come for a scheduled national security council meeting about Afghanistan. But we now know that just 45 minutes after McChrystal was ousted, the President called Petraeus to the oval office and asked him to take McChrystal’s job. BARACK OBAMA: He has worked closely with our forces in Afghanistan. He has worked closely with Congress. He has my full confidence. RADDATZ: Sending Petraeus to Afghanistan is, by all accounts, a great save, for exactly the reasons the President described. Petraeus is jokingly referred to by some in the military as a water walker, who seems to turn even the worst situations around. He received enormous credit for that in Iraq, where he served three, different tours, the last overseeing the surge. Ironically, he took over central command in 2008 because the man who was then holding the job, Admiral William Fallon, was ousted, after an Esquire magazine profile put him at odds with the Bush administration. The central command job, headquartered in Tampa, put Petraeus in charge of a swath of global hot spots, from Yemen, to Iran, to Pakistan. A senior administration official joked that sending Petraeus from Tampa to Kabul, was not exactly on the Better Homes tour. But clearly, the President is hoping that the magic touch Petraeus has had in the past, will help him in one of the toughest wars ever. And this may well be the hardest challenge Petraeus has faced. We also don’t know how long he will be in Afghanistan. He has already spent nearly half of the last ten years in a war zone. George?

See the original post:
George Stephanopoulos Fawns Over Obama’s Handling of McChrystal Controversy: A ‘Political Masterstroke’

Pakistan: Anti-terror court convicts 5 Americans

Five American men were convicted Thursday on terror charges by a Pakistani court and sentenced to 10 years in prison in a case that has heightened concerns about Westerners traveling to Pakistan to contact al-Qaida and other Islamist extremist groups. The trial of the young Muslim men from the Washington, D.C., area was sensitive for the U.S., which has a duty to ensure justice for its citizens abroad but also has pushed Pakistan to crack down on militancy. Prosecutors said e-mail records and witness statements proved the men used the Internet to plot terror attacks in Pakistan and nations allied with it. The father of one of the men said they were in Pakistan to attend his son's wedding, but had intended to cross into Afghanistan for humanitarian work. The verdict comes the same week Pakistani-American Faisal Shahzad pleaded guilty to trying to bomb New York's Times Square in May after getting training by the Taliban in Pakistan's tribal areas. The judge on Thursday handed down two prison terms for each man, one for 10 years on a criminal conspiracy charge, and the other for five years on the charge of funding banned organizations for terrorism. A copy of the decision seen by The Associated Press said the terms were to be served concurrently. The men, all in their 20s, had faced up to life in prison. They were acquitted of three charges, including planning to wage war against the U.S. and Afghanistan – allies of Pakistan. The men said nothing when the verdict was read out, Deputy Prosecutor Rana Bakhtiar said. Previously, the men claimed they were tortured by Pakistani police and FBI agents, charges denied by authorities here and the U.S. Their lawyers said they would appeal the case. The trial moved with unusual speed in a country where cases often drag out for years and where terror convictions are rare and often overturned on appeal. The trial was closed to journalists and observers and was heard by a single judge in a special anti-terrorism court. The men have been identified as Ramy Zamzam of Egyptian descent, Waqar Khan and Umar Farooq of Pakistani descent, and Aman Hassan Yemer and Ahmed Minni of Ethiopian descent. They were reported missing by their families in November after one left behind a farewell video showing scenes of war and casualties and saying Muslims must be defended. story continues http://www.optimum.net/News/AP/Article?fmId=5417804 More New York Times Coverage http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/world/asia/25pstan.html?hp added by: Stoneyroad

Brzezinski: Invite Iran To Conference On Afghanistan’s Future

Great idea.  While we’re at it, let’s invite al Qaeda to a conference on Israel’s future . . . On Morning Joe today, Zbigniew Brzezinski recommended that the US organize an “international conference” on Afghanistan’s future—and invite Iran to participate. The former Carter National Security Advisor didn’t say what positive contribution he might expect from a country working in defiance of international sanctions to develop nuclear weapons and that has stated its desire to wipe Israel off the map.  ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI:  I think we have to have some sort of an international conference drawing in the neighbors of Afghanistan into the process regarding the future of Afghanistan.  That means, among others, the Iranians. So, there are a number of things we need to do, difficult as they are, to achieve the objectives the president has set for himself. Zbig’s daughter Mika could be heard uttering a [quizzical?] “hmm” in response.  Will any of the MSM pick up on Brzezinski’s suggestion?  Might Pres. Obama take a cue from Carter’s man?

Visit link:
Brzezinski: Invite Iran To Conference On Afghanistan’s Future

MSNBC Looks to Lefty Ed Schultz for Reaction on Obama’s ‘Brilliant’ Firing of McChrystal

Only 70 minutes after President Obama explained his decision to fire General Stanley McChrystal, Wednesday, MSNBC turned to leftist host Ed Schultz for analysis. Schultz gushed that the decision proved Obama is “brilliant on the basics.” He enthused, ” Well, as commander in chief, I think it’s probably President Obama’s finest hour ,” because it displayed toughness. Host Tamron Hall knocked McChrystal, referencing his role in the investigation of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. She derided, ” So, we know that McChrystal has a lot of, if you will, Xs on his report card. ” Hall and Schultz continued to frame the discussion from how it impacted the left. She worried, “For those on the left and progressives who are not happy with this war this Afghanistan who were disappointed when the President decided to commit more troops, what does that say that he’s emphasizing that this is not about policy, that he’s committed to the direction he’s chosen with this unpopular war?” Later in the hour, Hall brought on Ryan Grimm of the liberal Huffington Post to discuss McChrystal. MSNBC apparently spans the spectrum of the left and the far left. A transcript of the June 23 segment, which aired at 2:22pm EDT, follows: TAMRON HALL: We’re getting more reaction to the breaking news that top U.S. Commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal has been relieved of his command. He’s said to be replaced by General David Petraeus. Let’s bring in MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, the host of the Ed Show to react to it. Ed, I know you’re listening to a lot of callers on your radio show. You’ve got thoughts on this. What do you make of the President’s decision and what are the callers saying? ED SCHULTZ: Well, as commander in chief, I think it’s probably President Obama’s finest hour, because he’s answering a lot of critics with about how you wasn’t tough enough or couldn’t make a decision. Didn’t have any experience. This man went back to the basics. The President showed us that he’s brilliant on the basics. It’s about team. It’s about the civilian control, it’s about the democracy and how we work. And we’re not going to have anybody in a position of leadership and authority to go off and do what President- do what General McChrystal did. So I think the President was very clear and I personally got a sense in watching the President today that, you know, it just wasn’t the Rolling Stone article. It’s like there was other stuff there. That there’s a lot of stuff- HALL: Well, we know what happened last fall in London with the remarks made there. Also, the Pat Tillman investigation and what it has revealed, as well. So, we know that McChrystal has a lot of, if you will, Xs on his report card. SCHULTZ: True. And- But even beyond those as we know publicly there’s somewhat of a pattern there, I just got a sense that there was a little bit more and the President had somewhat of an angst about him. You know, I’ve had enough of this. He actually went back and paralleled a quote of President Truman about, you know, it’s not one person, not one war, something like that. But the President went to the basics: Trust, loyalty, the conduct code, deep rooted with the privates. All the way through, the discipline. You lose the discipline, you lose the break down of completing the mission and you compromise the mission. And now of course the story is General Petraeus, who I think, ironically, is probably going to get more bipartisan support than anything else in Washington. HALL: [Laughs] And you very well may be right on that as he’s been praised by Republicans many times over and some Democrats. But, let me ask you this: People talked about and have talked about the President’s response to the oil disaster. The critics say he’s shown weakness. His numbers show that most Americans are not confidence in the way he’s handled this. Where does this position him now? I know there are two very different issue, but it is about leadership with both. SCHULTZ: Well, I think the President personally did show leadership in the gulf from day one. He’s dealing with a multinational. There were contracts in it place that had to be adhered to when there is an oil spill and certain mechanisms had to kick in. No one predicted early on what this was going to evolve to. HALL: right. SCHULTZ: The administration was lied to by BP. First they said there wasn’t that much coming out and it grew as the days went on. And I thought the proper reaction was there by the President. So, I think he’s being wrongly criticized for it. The President goes out and gets $20 billion from a company that’s butchering our environment and the Republicans are criticizing him for it. I find it absolutely amazing. It just goes to show how divided we are in this country. HALL: And let me bring up something the President said regarding the transition from McChrystal to Petraeus. He said, “This has nothing to do with policy, nothing to do with personal insult.” For those on the left and progressives who are not happy with this war this Afghanistan who were disappointed when the President decided to commit more troops, what does that say that he’s emphasizing that this is not about policy, that he’s committed to the direction he’s chosen with this unpopular war? SCHULTZ: The President wants a successful mission. He’s going to get the right people in the right place to finish the job. And I’m sure that he probably turned to General Petraeus and said this is what the mission is, can you get it done. Petraeus went along with it, obviously. It’s about team, it’s about working together. The President was very clear that he encourages debate, but he does not want division. And you certainly don’t go out and air dirty laundry. Now, your question about the left. There are a lot of Americans out there who believe that this mission is a fool’s errand in Afghanistan. We’ve got a lot of issues at home, we’re gutting our infrastructure. But the President, to me, seemed very committed today to knowing that this is the strategy that we have to follow in his best judgment to make sure that we fight the terrorists on their turf. And so I thought the President was very clear on where he’s going on this.

Continued here:
MSNBC Looks to Lefty Ed Schultz for Reaction on Obama’s ‘Brilliant’ Firing of McChrystal

Media Praise Obama’s ‘Brilliant’ Decision to Fire Gen. McChrystal

President Obama’s decision to relieve General Stanley McChrystal of command in Afghanistan and replace him with General David Petraeus was met with a chorus of praise in the media, as anchors and pundits on CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN all sang in unison that it was a “brilliant” move.   During live special coverage leading up to the announcement in the 1PM ET hour on CBS, White House correspondent Chip Reid proclaimed: “it sounds like a pretty brilliant decision really.” At the same time on NBC, correspondent Jim Miklaszewski described it as a “stunning development” and added “at a quick glance, almost brilliant .” Minutes later, White House correspondent Chuck Todd declared: “politically, in this town, it’s going to be seen as a brilliant choice by the President.” Over on CNN, moments after Obama finished speaking, anchor Wolf Blitzer remarked that it was a “major moment for this president” and later observed: “a very brilliant move to tap General Petraeus.” Finally, in the 2PM ET hour on MSNBC, Meet the Press host David Gregory concluded: “I think he took swift and decisive action. I think that’s how it’s going to be read.” In addition to cheering Obama’s brilliance, another common theme in the media reaction was to assert the President’s decision would be immune from criticism. Reid explained: “So the President avoids both the criticisms here, number one, putting somebody new in charge and, number two, since he fired McChrystal, he’s not going to be accused of being weak.”  Miklaszewski noted: “this may quiet some of the critics up on Capitol Hill.” Todd later added: “…you will not hear a single word from Capitol Hill, no Republican will dare say a negative thing about this decision.”

Read more:
Media Praise Obama’s ‘Brilliant’ Decision to Fire Gen. McChrystal

REVIEW: Low-Key, High-Octane Restrepo Captures War’s Everyday Realities

In early summer 2007, filmmakers Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington settled in with a platoon of 15 soldiers newly arrived in the Korengal Valley of eastern Afghanistan, a Taliban and al-Qaeda stronghold considered one of the most dangerous postings in the war. Restrepo, the movie they made there, is remarkable not because it heightens the drama of the combat experience — one that, face it, doesn’t need any heightening via filmmaking magic — but because it so unassumingly captures the everyday rhythms of these soldiers’ lives. One minute they’re ducking Taliban bullets that come seemingly from nowhere. The next they’re cutting loose at an impromptu nighttime disco party, a short one (apparently dictated by the length of one dance track queued up on an iPod) and one with only four guys total. But the basic image — the sight of young people dancing and horsing around — is so joyous and elemental that it’s nearly devastating: Only then do we get the full measure of what it means that those bullets missed.

Go here to see the original:
REVIEW: Low-Key, High-Octane Restrepo Captures War’s Everyday Realities

It’s The Troops Stupid! General Stanley McChrystal’s Burning Disgust for the Puppet Obama…(VIDEO)

General McChrystal’s Burning Contempt for the Puppet Obama Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com June 22, 2010 The farce that is the war in Afghanistan is coming apart at the seams. General Stanley McChrystal’s sharp comments about Obama, Biden, and the administration published by Rolling Stone are not so much about disrespect, as the script-reading corporate media talking heads would have it, but rather about a policy in disarray in Afghanistan. It’s The Troops Stupid! General Stanley McChrystal’s Burning Disgust for the Puppet Obama…(VIDEO)… http://ctpatriot1970.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/its-the-troops-stupid-general-stan… Obama the wunderbar teleprompter reader (and little else) is instructed to push the completely untenable prospect that the United States can win the so-called war in Afghanistan, a country often referred to as the graveyard of empires. added by: ctpatriot1970

ABC Frets Over Pickle McChrystal Has Put Obama Into: Look ‘Petulant’ or ‘Weak’

ABC, CBS and NBC all led Tuesday night with multiple stories on the “firestorm” over disrespectful coments by General Stanley McChrystal and his aides about President Obama and other administration officials, but ABC’s Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos particularly despaired over the position in which McChrystal has put Obama. Sawyer fretted that Obama “now faces a mind-boggling choice,” before Stephanopoulos kvetched “the President has really been put in a real political box” and “a very painful political position,” forcing him to choose between “looking thin-skinned and petulant” or “looking weak.” CBS’s Katie Couric didn’t go that far, but she was disturbed by the burden on Obama: “This controversy is about the last thing the President needed on his plate as he deals with two wars overseas and another against an invasion of oil off the gulf coast.” Sawyer asked chief political correspondent/Good Morning America co-host Stephanopoulos: “What are you hearing, George?” He worried about Obama’s plight: That a debate has been raging inside the administration since this article hit last night, and that the President has really been put in a real political box. If he fires McChrystal after this, he risks looking thin-skinned and petulant. But if he accepts these words, which some consider insubordination, then he risks looking weak. So it’s a very painful political position right now for the President. Sawyer had led the June 22 World News: Good evening. There was a giant explosion heard around the world today, and it had nothing to do with weapons. Everything to do with words. General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, gave an interview to a magazine. And in it, he and his aides took aim at everyone from the President to the Vice President to Senators and diplomats. The General has been summoned to the White House by President Obama, who now faces a mind-boggling choice. Does he fire the man central to the war right before a major battle? Jake Tapper takes us inside a stunned and furious White House.

Continued here:
ABC Frets Over Pickle McChrystal Has Put Obama Into: Look ‘Petulant’ or ‘Weak’