Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Video: There's a Reason Barack Obama Hand Picked Gen. Stanley McChrystal To Replace Gen. David McKiernan In Afghanistan...Now We Are Finding Out Just Why

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Fuck this moron!!

Anonymous said...

Moron? And here I thought General McChrystal was the man responsible for striking fear into the hearts of AQI leaders in Iraq. Ask Abu Musab Al Zarqawi what he thinks of General McChrystal.

And Holger, really? Obama replaced Mckiernan with McChrystal because he foresaw the Newton massacre by 3 and a half years and was banking on McChrystal to talk sensible gun reform? Wow, that's up there with the Birther conspiracy!


I on the other hand thought McChrystal took over because of his Counter-Terrorist background as opposed to McKiernan's conventional battlefield tactics.

Holger Awakens said...

Anon #2,

Nice try bub. Are you seriously going to put out here that Obama chose McChrystal due to Obama's military strategy? That's laughable. Obama chose McChrystal because McChrystal voted for Obama and Teh One jumped at the chance to have a minion at the helm of war he wanted to shove surrender-like ROE upon. Liberals love other liberals.

:Holger Danske

Anonymous said...

A lot of Republicans like McChrystal voted for Obama in 2008. Why do you think he won by 9 million+ votes four years ago? It was by a wide margin not only because of a historically high voter turn out(which favors Democrats) but because many Centrist Republicans were tired of the Bush administration shenanigans. Bush with such historically low approval ratings should not really have stumped for John McCain. Did him no favors there. That and well everyone who wasn't deaf, mute and blind knew that the Democrats were going to sweep into victory in 2008. Selecting Sarah Palin also floundered McCain's campaign.

But getting back to McChrystal, Obama didn't choose him because McChrystal voted for him or because Obama had a specific military strategy in mind. He chose him on the advice of Secretary Robert Gates who btw was light years ahead of that disastrous flunkie Donald Rumsfeld. And Mike Mullen also recommended McChrystal. They told him given the nature of the Afghan War a General with a counter-terrorist experience was needed as opposed to General McKiernan who had a more conventional approach to war. McChrystal is anything but a liberal. But I guess if someone doesn't accept your narrow minded view of conservatism they are liberal Marxists with a one world government agenda.

Anonymous said...

If its anyone who talks of surrender its you Holger. Always advocating that we sell our foreign policy to another country. How about doing something that's good for AMERICA for a change?

Maggie@MaggiesNotebook said...

It was apparent that there were serious problems with a US Military General clearing his calendar to give an interview to Rolling Stone.

Anonymous said...

Many Generals have given interviews during deployment. Yet another weak argument to smear a General's name because he doesn't agree with certain social policies.

Holger Awakens said...

Okay Anonymous, you got me. General McChrystal decided that the Presidential candidate, Obama, who had said that all America had done in Afghanistan was bomb villages and kill innocent civilians was a better choice to him than a man, John McCain, who had served his country in battle and had survived years in a North Vietnamese prison. I got ya. McChrystal was chosen because Obama felt he could manipulate the man and apparently, at some point in time, McChrystal found his senses again as a military man.

I find it more than coincidence that a man who voted for Hussein is now carrying the water for him on national tv on the gun control debate.

:Holger Danske

Anonymous said...

Maybe McChrystal felt that despite McCain's service, he was afterall fighting an unjust war in Vietnam. It's funny how you Jesusless Christians or rather Constantinians more like it scream and holler about abortion in America but have no qualms about Operation Rolling thunder that incinerated thousands of innocent civilians including children who had done nothing to directly threaten America.

If McChrystal was Obama's puppet he wouldn't have boxed in the White House in the fall of 2009 concerning the second surge. Or ramped up special forces night raids five fold.

Yes it's all a liberal conspiracy when a General that knows quite a lot about guns says that combat weapons designed to inflict maximum carnage should not be so easily attained by civilians.

I sometimes wonder if you've ever even read the Gospel, let alone accept its message of the Golden Rule. I mean everything you utter in your blog has nothing to do with Jesus' Christianity. I don't think Jesus was pro-war, pro-greed and pro-guns/violence.

Findalis said...

I wonder if this moron is going to make a run for President in 2016?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
whitestone said...

Yup... them 5.56 cartridges are waaaay too powerful for us civilians... that's why I prefer to use my .338 Win Mag.
What an ass!
The whole reason we had to change ammo in theater was that the 62 grain penetrators were going completely through the bad guys and not stopping them unless it was a CNS shot.
Must have been offered an ambassadorship somwhere nice...

Anonymous said...

Censorship. Nice. That's what usually happens when one side has no argument and resorts to censorship. How about supporting your argument with facts? Like how are you not a Mammon worshiper? How are you not a Constantinian who follows a Jesusless Christianity? How can you claim to be a Christian if you are pro-war and pro-greed? I Expect more censorship Holger but...the questions remain. How can you claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ? On what moral basis?