Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Cantor: McChrystal must be "frustrated" with Obama

The Republican response to the Rolling Stone article is fascinating: The House GOP leadership is suggesting it reveals that Stanley McChrystal is "frustrated" with President Obama over the war, perhaps because he isn't giving the troops "what they need."

Eric Cantor's office emails over this:

Obviously a General and his top brass don't make statements like these without being frustrated, so I hope that the President's meeting with General McChrystal will include a frank discussion about what is happening on the ground, and whether the resources and the plan are there to defeat terrorists and accomplish our mission in Afghanistan. Without question, the article in Rolling Stone raises a lot of concerns, but our top priority must be to ensure that our forces in Afghanistan have what they need in order to successfully execute their mission and win the war there.

At the moment, Democrats in Congress are standing in the way of a clean bill to fund our troops and provide the resources needed because they want to lard it up with domestic spending. We need to get our troops these funds, and should do so without any pork or unrelated domestic spending items thrown in.

This is in keeping with previous GOP attempts to subtly drive a wedge between Obama and McChrystal, at the expense (it goes without saying) of Obama. When Obama decided to send more troops to Afghanistan, multiple Republicans cast it as a decision by McChrystal and the commanders, suggesting that Obama was merely following their lead.

Now the GOP response to the Rolling Stone article isn't to worry whether it constitues insubordination towards the Commander in Chief, but to suggest that the commanders may have good reason to be "frustrated" with Obama and Dems for some reason.

By Greg Sargent  |  June 22, 2010; 1:00 PM ET
Categories:  Foreign policy and national security , House GOPers  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Stanley McChrystal "scolds" his terrorist hunters
Next: GOP Rep Franks: Obama's treatment of BP was "arrogant"


Obama derangement syndrome. Everything that is against Obama is something that they will cheer. ANYTHING.

Posted by: calchala | June 22, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Shorter Cantor: we don't wanna think past right noooooowwww.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 22, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Barton who?

Via TAP:

"So do McChrystal's comments amount to insubordination? No, says Eugene Fidell, who teaches at Yale University School of Law and is president of the National Institute of Military Justice. “I don’t really think this is contemptuous," says Fidell. "I don’t think it makes the needle bounce under Article 88. There’s 'contemptuous words' and being disrespectful," Fidell added. "Those are two different things.”

Posted by: sbj3 | June 22, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Just like when Republicans sided with BP, and against their Gulf Coast Victims,

Now Republicans are siding with an Insubordinate General, who lacks the sense of honor to actually resign for his repeated acts of insubordination.

Call Him:

General Stanley McVuvuzela. He makes plenty of stupid noise, without ever hitting a right note.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 22, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

sbj - Guess in your book being contemptuous means only cheney's sneering. Whoever wrote that crap needs a dictionary pronto.

Posted by: amkeew | June 22, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"When a reporter asked if Obama would dispute the general's characterization in the Rolling Stone piece that Obama was not engaged during a key meeting about the war strategy,[Robert] Gibbs deadpanned: "He'll have his undivided attention tomorrow."

Gibbs said Obama ordered McChrystal off the battlefield and to Washington "to see what in the world he was thinking." Gibbs also said "all options" including firing McChrystal, are on the table tomorrow.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 22, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Greg, email back and ask if they got on the record as "frustrated" when Bush bled the Afg effort dry by invading Iraq.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 22, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Legal Exhortation

"PROHIBITED POLITICAL ACTIVITIES" "Use contemptuous words against the office holders described in Article 88, UCMJ (for officers) and AFI 51-902 (for officers and enlisted members)" (loc. cit. Ultra 368): This legislation article is from the UCMJ sued by Newsweek wrongly against Stan.
The UCMJ is a court-martial, and Stan is still one of us, with all the hostility and other frustrating views concerning
UCMJ, we are the ones who provide the Tribunal:

The Rolling Stones publication refers to the constitutional and inalienable rights.

"EXCEPTIONS TO Posse Comitatus Statutory exceptions. By its terms, the Act does not preclude support-expressly authorized by the Constitution" (The Military Commander and the Law 2008, page 392). ...

"Write a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing the member's personal views concerning public issues, if those views Do Not attempt to promote a partisan political cause" (loc. cit. Supra 366).
"Write a personal letter, not for publication, expressing preference for a specific political candidate or cause" (loc. cit. Supra 366).

(Given by the USAFE (6/21/10)):)

Posted by: SvenHedin | June 22, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Here's some interesting back story:

NBC correspondent Richard Engel hangs McChrystal's PR debacle on the eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland. After talking to the Rolling Stone writer, Michael Hastings, Engel reports:

After McChrystal's press advisers accepted a request for a profile in Rolling Stone, Hastings joined McChrystal and his team in Paris. It was supposed to be a 2 day visit, followed up with more time in Afghanistan..

The volcano in Iceland, however, changed the plans. As the ash disrupted air travel, Hastings ended up being 'stuck' with McChrystal and his team for 10 days in Paris and Berlin. McChrystal had to get to Berlin by bus. Hastings says McChrystal and his aides were drinking on the road trip "the whole way.'"

"They let loose," he said. "I don't blame them, they have a hard job."

Hastings then traveled with McChrystal in Afghanistan for more time. What was supposed to be a two-day visit turned into a month, in part due to disruptions of the volcano.

Hastings says McChrystal was very "candid" with him and knew their conversations were for reporting purposes. "Most of the time I had a tape recorder in his face or a notebook in my hand," he said.

Hastings says most of the critical comments, which are now causing a stir, were said in the first 24 hours or so.

"It wasn't a case of charming him into anything," Hastings said.

He adds there hasn't been pushback or denials from McChrystal because has most of the quotes on tape.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 22, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

From ABC News.

Breaking News White House Press Secretary Gibbs Refuses to Say Whether Gen. McChrystal's Job Is Safe

Posted by: Liam-still | June 22, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Mcnumbnuts should be relieved TODAY... Court martial TOMORROW.. Hung for Treason on Sunday.

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | June 22, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

The idea that Cantor as well as more than a few other GOP'ers, have the gall to make these kinds of comments when a General has acted and breached his own protocols, is stunning. and might I add that if the situation was reversed, I hardly think that Cantor et al would be so generous with his comments concerning such a breach of protocol against he President of the United States. Bush? Heck no....

Posted by: Polly_Tics | June 22, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

From Dave Weigel:

McCain, Lieberman, Graham: President must decide McChrystal’s future

"We have the highest respect for General McChrystal and honor his brave service and sacrifice to our nation. General McChrystal’s comments, as reported in Rolling Stone, are inappropriate and inconsistent with the traditional relationship between Commander-in-Chief and the military. The decision concerning General McChrystal’s future is a decision to be made by the President of the United States."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 22, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama is trying to clean up the big mess that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld created, and Cantor is trying to undermine his Commander In Chief Authority.

Just like Bush/Cheney picked Ahmed Chalibi for to lead in Iraq, they also picked the corrupt and incompetent crook, Hamid Karzai, to lead in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 22, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

The first casualty of the RS story.

"Duncan Boothby, who has been on McChrystal's staff for roughly a year, was the first casualty of a controversy that prompted White House officials to summon the general to the White House to explain the remarks in the profile that will appear in this week's issue of Rolling Stone.

Boothby was heavily involved in arranging access for journalist Michael Hastings to McChrystal and his staff this year so Hastings could write the profile, titled "The Runaway General."

An official in Kabul confirmed the resignation, speaking on condition of anonymity because it was a personnel issue."

Posted by: lmsinca | June 22, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Breaking news.

"NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- A federal judge in New Orleans has blocked a six-month moratorium on new deepwater drilling projects that was imposed in response to the massive Gulf oil spill.

Several companies that ferry people and supplies and provide other services to offshore drilling rigs had asked U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans to overturn the moratorium.

President Barack Obama's administration has halted the approval of any new permits for deepwater drilling and suspended drilling at 33 exploratory wells in the Gulf.

Feldman says in his ruling that the Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning for the moratorium. He says it seems to assume that because one rig failed, all companies and rigs doing deepwater drilling pose an imminent danger."

Posted by: lmsinca | June 22, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Imsinca, did you see the back story info on the last thread?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 22, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

I'd agree that the quotes Greg excerpted in his previous post -- about McC's disdain for civilian collateral damage -- are the most damning.

If he's allowed to retain his post, it will cement that perception about the entire US war effort in AfPak, and that will certainly lead indirectly to higher US casualties.

Posted by: jzap | June 22, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

I saw that Sue, great job and a little luck in getting the story, then they stab themselves in the back rolling it out. Interesting stuff.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 22, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Who'd have thought that the administration of a first-term Senator with no executive or other relevant life experience would turn out to be a chaotic mess, on the verge of complete crack up in less than a year and a half?

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 22, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

q "moonbats, please" b, and you come to this conclusion because of Cantor's "McChrystal must be frustrated" statement? Interesting though process.

I'm pretty sure that Obama is frustrated that McChrystal's COIN strategy he so strongly advocated for isn't actually working.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 22, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Judge lets President Obama off the hook. He tried to make sure the other rigs were not as flawed as the one that is destroying the Gulf Waters, so the next spill is on the Judge, and all those politicians who called for to have the moratorium lifted.

The Judge is an Idiot. By his reasoning; the government can never recall automobiles, just because some of them had failed braking systems.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 22, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

All, how's this for honesty: Trent Franks says Obama's treatment of BP was "arrogant":

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 22, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

"q "moonbats, please" b, and you come to this conclusion because of Cantor's "McChrystal must be frustrated" statement? Interesting though process."

Moonbat, please!

I came to that conclusion from reading statements reflecting what appears to be M's frustration with Obama and crew. Seems fairly obvious.

Perhaps they deserve each other -- the President who hand picked the general, who voted for him, and both appear to be floundering.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 22, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

It's quite obvious that the majority of these posters have NEVER served in the military, or are simply so blinded by their hatred of Obama that they will spout off about anything that involves him. In case you've forgotten, the Presidency includes the post of COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Military personnel do NOT publically criticize their superiors in the chain-of-command, period. I don't care what one's political persuasion is, it is obvious to ANYONE who gives a damn about American history and honor that McChrystal's comments were WAY out of line, and demonstrate a lapse in judgement that speaks very badly of a supposed senior military officer. (As proof of this axiom, imagine what your response would have been had BUSH been subject to the same disrespect from a senior field commander. You'd be screaming your HEAD off!)

If McChrystal doesn't like his commander's policies, he has one and ONLY one acceptable option: RESIGN!

Rational contrary opinions are welcome-- but save your time (and mine) if you simply want to call names and spout nonsense.

Posted by: NYCBruce | June 22, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

"Rational contrary opinions are welcome-- but save your time (and mine) if you simply want to call names and spout nonsense."

Hmmm, I don't recall seeing the bulletin giving you charge. If you had something pertinent to say, perhaps someone would care.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 22, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company