{BS} NO criticism of Obungler allowed. At all.
in [Toyota]
|
From: Jeff Strickland on 25 Jun 2010 16:20 "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message news:TK7Vn.248$Hw.92(a)newsfe10.iad... > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:i03145$tho$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> >> "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message >> news:Aj5Vn.237$Hw.81(a)newsfe10.iad... >>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:i02mtk$4vq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> >>>> This is gonna come as a surprise to you, but I really don't care what >>>> the Rolling Stone reports on any subject. Period. >>> >>> Uh oh. You just said it again: >>> >>> "I listen to those that say the things I already know." >>> Jeff Strickland >>> >>> >> >> It's not that at all. I do not read Rolling Stone. Period. You don't read >> The Weekly Standard. Life goes on ... >> >> It's completely unimportant why McChrystal is out of a job. He serves at >> the pleasure of the President, and the President is displeased. The >> general is out, another general is in. >> >> What is important is the press conference where Obama stated that he and >> McChrystal share the same policy position on the conduct of the war, but >> that McChrystal is a devisive force. My contention is that if they share >> the same policy position, then the divisive force must lie elsewhere, and >> the President will have the same problems tomorrrow as he had yesterday >> because the devisive force remains. >> >> That's the issue. Not the Rolling Stone article. > > > You are lying. > > "I listen to those that say the things I already know." > Jeff Strickland > > I explained IN DETAIL what I think the issue is, and Rolling Stone's article has absolutely nothing to do with it. You're hung up on what he reportedly said, I don't care what he said, and whatever he said, I'm inclined to agree with him because I read the paper EVERYDAY, and he's been chided for not doing what those he speaks against wants him to be doing. He has plenty of room to complain about the civilian leadership because they've put handcuffs on him that keep him from running a war the way a war needs to be run. I don't care what the specifics are of what he said and whom he slammed. Whatever he said about whomever needed to be said. The problem I'm trying to get you to look at is the Presidential Double Speak that does not hold up under the most casual of review. Obama can fire the leading general for wearing pink underwear, it doesn't matter. But IF the President has issues with pink underwear, yet all the President's Men and all the President's horses are donning pink underwear, pushing out one guy isn't gonna change anything. If the President is pushing out the general, and the general is perhaps the only guy that agrees with the policy position, then the other guys that do not agree with the policy position are the people that should be replaced, regardless of getting vocal in Rolling Stone or maintaining silence as a good general is expected to do. If the general that's running the war can't do his job because others that the President has appointed won't let him, then maybe the President is shooting the messenger and ignoring the message.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 26 Jun 2010 12:48
"Please - I'm begging you - don't make me read things which contain important facts. It'll kill me." Jeff Strickland |