Gen. McChrystal’s Stunning Interview With Rolling Stone Enrages Obama

by Glynnis MacNicol | 8:59 am, June 22nd, 2010

» 30 comments

I don’t know what’s more surprising here, that General McChrystal would allow himself to be quoted criticizing the Obama administration’s handling of Iraq, or that Rolling Stone has twice this month managed to make itself a player in the two biggest issues facing the nation: the Gulf Spill and now Afghanistan. Take note Newsweek.

First McChrystal. For reasons that remain unclear General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, gave an interview to Rolling Stone magazine for a piece titled ‘The Runaway General’ in which he criticized the Obama administration’s handling of Iraq. Actually he ripped it to shreds. The article — which hasn’t been published yet but can be read in PDF form here — has apparently “enraged” President Obama who has ordered McChrystal to hightail it back to Washington pronto to explain himself in person. From Playbook:

Tomorrow is Obama’s regular monthly meeting with his security team on Afghanistan and Pakistan. An administration official tells POLITICO’s Morning Defense that McChrystal has been instructed to attend in person rather than by SVTC (secure video teleconference), ‘where he will have to explain to the Pentagon and the commander in chief his quotes about his colleagues in the piece.’

Allies hope that after McChrystal grovels and is publicly humiliated, the president will embrace and endorse him. An aide calls the comments, and the decision to give so much access to Rolling Stone, of all publications, ‘an amateurish mistake that’s created a distraction at a time we don’t need it.’ But officials believe McChrystal’s strategy — almost 40,000 more U.S. and coalition forces to protect the population, so locals will buy into the efforts of the central government — is working.

“Amateurish mistake” is understating the matter slightly — sounds more like hopeful thinking — but the question remains: why did he do it? Marc Ambinder thinks the gist of it is McChrystal was tired of being misrepresented to just about everyone, though even Ambinder doesn’t know why McChrystal and his advisers chose Rolling Stone to unload on. Says Ambinder:

He was tired of being the victim of what he believes is a concerted effort on behalf of Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry and others to undermine everything he was given 18 months to do. He was tired of being perceived in the press as a neoconservative killer, Dick Cheney’s hired assassin, or disloyal to President Obama and his staff. He was angry at being blamed for leaking the draft of his report to the President to Bob Woodward. (He did NOT leak the document). He was miffed that a large number of mid-ranking soldiers and battalion commanders and enlisted guys didn’t support his strategy.

Meanwhile, Rolling Stone! Who’d have guessed RS would manage to step off the rock star retrospective wagon long enough to prove (twice!) that weekly (technically bi-weekly in this case) magazines can still be relevant.

Update: The story is now live on Rolling Stone [The Runaway General]

Afghanistan, barack obama, Marc Ambinder, Rolling Stone, Stanley McChrystal

TfT

I haven’t read the article, but I don’t support any General Officer speaking out against the CINC, no matter who the CINC is. If Stanley felt the way the reporting makes it sound like, he should have resigned. Indeed, Stanley should resign now for having the poor judgement to give the interview in the first place.
tiredofbs

McChrystal is an honorable man.He has always been top notch in personal dignity & accomplishments.
There is a reason behind this & I hope the General holds his head up & walks away w/his dignity.
I cannot wait to see the Soros decision on who will take his place.
Popcorn , comfy chair,, action!!
Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers

I hope he is canned. You either respect civilian rule or you don’t, and if you don’t then you should resign.
BatBoy

Is it just me….

Or shouldn’t we wait until we know the facts before we issue an edicts?

Some magazines have a way of ….. maybe makeing things up …maybe putting two and two together and getting ten.
Bias-Media

I agree with TfT. Colin Powell evidently strongly disagreed with GWBush, but you never heard him criticize the commander in chief.

Kudos to Rolling Stones…actually having the guts to publishing something that paints the administration in a negative light…especially in this era where most of the MSM seems to pander and defend all of this administrations actions, even when it is blatantly obvious that the administration don’t know what they are doing…
http://politicsofdestruction.com/ Bobomatic

You can bet that if the General said these very things about Bush, the left would have jumped all over this and hailed the General a national hero. Once again we see the hypocrisy of the liberal left on a giant scale.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Hogan/179500970 Stephen Hogan

Bobomatic,

You speculate how the Left would act in a hypothetical situation and then use that as evidence that there is ‘hypocrisy on a giant scale’?

Nope, the world doesn’t work that way.
sarainitaly

McChrystal should be fired, or resign.

However, I am much more concerned with what he actually said then the fact that he said them in the first place.

Gird your loins, people.
MichelleF

Sorry Stephen, Bob is 110% and I think you know it.

Having said that, I don’t think McChrystal should’ve voiced his displeasure this way. I think he should have just resigned if he didn’t like the way things were being handled.
http://politicsofdestruction.com/ Bobomatic

SH.. speculate?! LOL, you liberals are predictable, so it’s hardly speculation.
Bias-Media

Bob is right…if Bush had been the President, the media would’ve cruxified him with the General’s comments. And rightly so…given the context of what the General said (DON’T LOSE FOCUS ON WHAT THE GENERAL SAID).

this is why I said Kudos to Rolling Stones, who actually have the guts to publish something like this…

The Media is suppose to be our watch dog; I expect them to report stories like this so that we can stay informed about our government’s competency (or incompetency)…this is why I’m very disgusted with the current MSM to panders to this admin…
Thomas G Williams

Face facts here, the GENERAL has violated the trust of the CinC, he has gone off the reservation and he allowed his subordinates to engage in POLITICAL speech in public A BIG NO NO, a private opinion expressed privately is one thing this is another thing all together.

You can be BEACHED for this, and he is creating a condition of anti-ness with this, the dog is howling and McChrystal is walking away pulling up his zipper, HE KNOWS IT and worse for him HIS BOSS KNOWS IT.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Hogan/179500970 Stephen Hogan

@Michelle

I didn’t say he was wrong. All I said was, right or not, you cannot just make a prediction and then say that the prediction that you just made up is evidence of a belief you already hold. It’s intellectually dishonest and a complete fallacy. You’re a smart person, Michelle, surely you know that.

@Bob

We may be predictable, but that’s only because we are intellectually consistent.

@Bias

Bob did not say that the media would have gotten Bush, he said the left. Delusion of a ‘liberal-media bias’ aside, they are two different things.
MichelleF

Stephen,
If you do a little research, you will discover, he wasn’t predicting at all, it happened all the time under Bush. Anyone that was not towing the company line was front and center in the media.

and ps, the left and the media are exactly the same thing.
Thomas G Williams

Excuse me but which people are howling left or right over this, BOBOMATIC? you have used this and in an off topic way to express your personal hatred of PEOPLE YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH, and it is a fact that as soon as someone has an opinion you dont like you just call them names and make outrageous unfounded and unsupported accusations.

Be as partisan as you want, it is your right to have YOUR opinion, that does not give you the right to impose your opinion on others or to ascribe false labels and motivations that are based in your partisan beliefs and not factual reality.

There that’s for you and your little dog MichelleF too.

Don’t bother responding to this, I am a veteran and an American having my say and you clearly hate those who are not towing the line you demand they tow.
http://politicsofdestruction.com/ Bobomatic

Hey Thomas… chill the frack out. I’m just one American expressing an opinion… I can have an opinion without “imposing”… whatever the hell that means. BTW, do I leave it up to you to decide what is “factual reality”. I think not. Yeah, I’m partisan only because I’m “intellectually consistent”.
MichelleF

clearly hate those who are not towing the line you demand they tow.

Um, it’s not the right that screams racism if you DARE to disagree with the administration is it? No, that would be the left. I don’t care if you agree with me or not. I’m giving my opinion just like you are. It seems to me that you are the one who doesn’t like people to share an opinion contrary to yours. Perhaps Mediaite should implement rules such as those on the Democratic Undergroud to avoid dissent:

{ } Inappropriate attacks against Democrats
- Insults against prominent Democrats, such as “F— Obama.”
- Name-calling against prominent Democrats. Calling Barack Obama “Barry” or some other name.
- Repeating Republican partisan attacks against Democrats.
- Broadly suggesting that there is no difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush, or that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. (Arguing that specific policies are the same would be permitted.)
- Suggesting that President Obama has perpetrated a “con job” or “fraud,” or similarly over-the-top assertions of bad faith.
- Advocating voting against Democrats, or in favor of third-party or GOP candidates.
- Broad-brush smears against Democrats generally. Broad expressions of contempt toward Democrats generally.

Maybe you ask Dan to do that for you.
MichelleF

Oh I should stress that those are things you CAN’T do on DU.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Hogan/179500970 Stephen Hogan

@Michelle

He was speculating. He stated that “if this occurred under Bush…”. That’s speculation. And he was speaking of this particular instance, not the ones you vaguely referenced, so it is still prediction.

“and ps, the left and the media are exactly the same thing.”

Cynicism must be a hard thing to live with.
JohnSimpson

At least he did it with lady gaga on the cover. She is as phony as BHO.
Bias-Media

@Stephen

to make Bob’s point, if Bush is still in office, and a General on the front line were to make comments like this, would you say the General was out of line? or would you say Bush is an idiot who don’t know how to run an illegal war?

Yes, Bob may be speculating; but his speculation is not baseless as you keep insinuating. If this is being cynical, then so be it. At least I’m not drinking kool aid…

btw…saying the media panders to this administration is not a Left vs Right issue; remember, the MSM dissed Hillary for this guy. I still struggle to understand the MSM’s love affair with Obama…
http://www.facebook.com/people/Bill-Adkins/1585417987 Bill Adkins

Relieve him of command — appropriate in this circumstance. He’s already apologized for his own statements but he is as responsible for the statements of his subordinates, an atmosphere and attitude he has at least permitted to exist if not fostered by his own attitude. This incident is a horrible black mark upon McChrystal’s otherwise honorable record and one from which I don’t think he’ll recover. And if someone wants to compare this to Bush, think Shinseki and how that went down.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Hogan/179500970 Stephen Hogan

@Bias

I never said that the speculation was baseless. In fact, I think that his prediction is largely accurate. I’m not really disputing his point and it wasn’t my intention to insinuate that I was. I just took issue that he presented his own speculation as evidence, which is fallacious logic.

And to answer your question: Yes, I would have considered the general out-of-line, even if I agreed with him.

In regards to the media, you are right that Hillary was treated badly and it was largely in reference to societal gender roles. When she was assertive, it was reported that she was being ‘aggressive’, when she showed emotion, she was ‘too emotional’. However, I seem to remember that Obama has had his own issues with the media. Remember how he wasn’t ‘black enough’ or that he was ‘too black’?
MichelleF

Remember how he wasn’t ‘black enough’ or that he was ‘too black’?

Just remember which side of the isle was making those arugments, Stephen. It was the left and they still are.
Penguin60

“as someone has an opinion you dont like you just call them names”

“There that’s for you and your little dog MichelleF too.”

What a joke.
You jump on Bob, then do the same thing. Makes perfect sense.

Back to topic, maybe the General knew exactly what he was doing. The real story is what the General is intimating.
http://twitter.com/SailRabbits Magister

There have been several writers at Rolling Stone that has kept the magazine relevant and on the front lines of journalism and though this story has blown-up quicker than others, in addition to this and the “oil spill” story, they’ve done a lot of work (Matt Taibbi?) which is frequently cited in topical discussions.

Of course the sad part of when a Rolling Stone thinkpiece or expose becomes headlines is that as a subscriber for more than thirty years, it’s really difficult for me to wait for my copy to come in the mail.
Nachi

A couple of years in Ft. Leavenworth would suit McCrystal’s ego well. Another modern goon who dares call himself a “warrior.” See all the never-served-anywhere-anything FanBoys leaping to his defense. Little Repugs who’ve never been outta their LRs or Mario Bros games. Today’s version of “warriors.” “Heroes.” Punks.
http://none pyrope

General McChrystal was put in a ‘no win’ situation, dealing with a bunch of gutless liberal weasels in the Congress, Senate, and the staff of the -0bama regime, all of who are led by the ‘Apologist in Chief.’ While the General is a student of Sun Tszu, -0bama is a student of Saul Alinsky and Jerimiah Wright. Most of the General’s critics have never donned a military uniform of this country and are too gutless to do so.

That said, General McChrystal was not within protocol to grant an interview wherein he criticized his commander–no mater how utterly incompetent that leader might be–and should therefore resign. I don’t and cannot pretend to know his motives for having done so, but it is perhaps his way of tendering his resignation–or maybe he was ordered to give the Rolling Stone reporter access to him for full disclosure by Secretary Gates.

In any event, if the General resigns it will be to the detriment of our military; a Community Organizer can easily be replaced while a seasoned General Officer cannot.
Thomas G Williams

pyrope- seems the President is the practitioner of the ART OF WAR and that the General if a student must have failed to apply it correctly.

BTW: we have a surplus of “General” level officers and this one had previously shown BAD JUDGMENT and escaped prosecution for it, the President gave him a SECOND CHANCE to show he was Qualified and Deserving of the trust of the President and THE NATION.

The General BLEW IT and he is/was being evaluated on a continuing basis, he had a free rein and he took the bit in his teeth and refused to be managed or to stay focused on the mission, that is how Generals fail.

AND WE DO NOT REPLACE THE PRESIDENT EASILY WHEN WE CAN REPLACE A KNOWN FABRICATOR WHO IS IN FACT A GENERAL. He had a second chance to show he had learned from his mistakes, maybe he did so he choose to make new ones, note how he ended up.
Paula

If we, indeed, have a surplus of general officers, one has to wonder why President Obama chose General Petraeus.

Not that this president or his staff have political motives under any circumstances, but given the talk of a “Petraeus for President” campaign in 2012, how better to sideline the candidate then to put him in command of what will likely be a long, drawn-out war?