President McChrystal?
June 23rd, 2010 § 1 Comment
This man is dangerous — and in his eagerness not to appear weak, Obama has foolishly allowed himself to be cornered. If Obama backs down, McChrystal will be vindicated; the president is indeed a wimp. If Obama asserts his authority and fires McChrystal, he will forever be blamed for ‘losing Afghanistan’. The general wins either way. However, the latter case is more worrying. Now that Petraeus is out as a potential nemesis after fainting at the congressional hearing, it means in 2012 Obama will be running against an ambitious, telegenic, and media savvy potential GOP candidate with all the braggadocio and machismo that appeals to everyone from the Christian Right to Thomas Friedman.
You can read the Rolling Stone article here (also see Shihab Rattansi’s interview with report author Michael Hastings below). Also, see Alyona Minkovski of RT interview Lawrence Wilkerson and neocon James Carafano. (Unlike the two commentaros, Col. Pat Lang , Juan Cole, Robert Dreyfuss, and Robert Scheer are unequivocal: Obama must fire McChrystal.)
dear Mr. Idress, Do you mean McChrystal or Obama is dangerous; not so clear the way you write. You seem to be obsessed with Noam Chomsky hardly missing an opportunity to belittle him. When and where did Chomsky say there was no Israel lobby. I understood him to say that the lobby did not control or influence US foreign as much as was claimed by Mearsheimer and Walt. an arguable proposition.
Why don’t you save your irritation for the real enemy
John Danziger