161 Comments

• IrishAndProud | Jul 12, 2010, 10:01 PM EDT

  Then shuvonn him/herself needs to state so, clearly...for him/herself. It is common usage among the antisemite Holocaust/denier and Holocaust threatening demogogues of this world (from Iran to Hezbollah to Hamas to Al Quaida, etc) to describe Israel as a 'rogue state,' so when someone like shuvonn (who is, shall we say, not exactly friendly to the idea of Israel and the Jews either) also chirps 'rogue state' when referring to Israel, it's just a wee bit natural that someone might think they have no use for the existence of that nation, either. Shuvonn needs to answer the question direct, him/herself.

• GeorgeDillon | Jul 10, 2010, 12:21 PM EDT

  I assume she means by "rogue state" the fact that it is a state which does not respect international law or human rights.

• IrishAndProud | Jul 07, 2010, 09:59 PM EDT

  shuvonn, firstly where have I ever said 're-educated?' (I still don't know what you're talking about, with that one). Secondly, you can simply REFUTE these 'twisted allegations' I've made (about your not accepting Israel's legitimacy and wanting it GONE) by simply saying otherwise, and/or explaining exactly what you meant by 'rogue state of Israel.' You haven't done so, yet (for at least two posts, now). So...what DID you mean, shuvonn, when you said 'rogue state of Israel?' If you feel 'insulted' by someone inferring that you just don't like Israel all that much (after you say 'rogue state of Israel'), then either grow a thicker skin or fess up to your rather obvious antisemitism. What, exactly, did you mean by 'rogue state of Israel?'

• shuvonn | Jul 07, 2010, 07:48 AM EDT

  You think that anyone who disagrees with you should be *re-educated* you think that anyone who speaks positively about Obama is in a *potentially unhealthy* situation. Iran and China are like that and yet YOU think the US should be now???? That is what you are advocating and that appears to be acceptable to you. You take what IS actually posted and twist it beyond recognition, make broad sweeping assumptions and leaps of illogical proportion, a dangerous thing to do with words. Yet you continue to Make loose and fast allegations and never prove them, and when you cannot defend your position, you insult and call for re-education of people who disagree with you, a disturbing personality trait but it speaks volumes about you as a person.

• IrishAndProud | Jul 06, 2010, 09:31 PM EDT

  Yes, shuvonn...'lame old arguments,' (that you don't think Israel is even legitimate, that you want the Jews GONE, ultimately...etc, etc) none of which you even denied. You said 'rogue state of Israel,' and you didn't even deny your intent when called on it, directly.

• shuvonn | Jul 05, 2010, 11:58 AM EDT

  Lame old arguments, regurgitated over and over, along with disturbing comments that infer that one needs to be *RE-EDUCATED* if one shares an opinion that is different, what kind of democratic society would tolerate that? I know what kind of human rights record that Iran(according to Amnesty International a really bad one) has and that might be the kind of thing one could expect there and yet YOU espouse the same kind of values??

• IrishAndProud | Jul 05, 2010, 06:53 AM EDT

  And you just did it again, shuvonn, proving me and monsoonman and Krauthammer right, to the letter: you said, and I quote, the 'rogue state of Israel.' Ahmadinejad talks that way about Israel, shuvonn (arent' you proud to be in such charming company?). Translation: you ALSO do NOT think Israel should exist, there IS nothing Israel could/would ever do in defense of its own existence that you would EVER consider legitimate, and you want that entire nation of six million troublesome Jews to just GO...AWAY (permanently and DEAD, preferably), whilst nations like Iran openly and verbally state their intent to wipe it off the map, with scarcely a yawn from the crowd you're part of. Now, you can come on here and deny, deny, deny that's how you feel, but you've let a wee bit too much slip out: you've delegitimized Israel's entire existence with your words, spilling the beans on your true feelings (as if those weren't already clear from your many other posts on this matter). Like a true progressive-regressive, you want the Jews, and Israel, GONE.

• IrishAndProud | Jul 05, 2010, 06:46 AM EDT

  And shuvonn...did you even read a single word of the Krauthammer article I posted? Doesn't sound like it. You certainly didn't try to actually COUNTER anything said...you just snapped right back to parroting the same arguments that HE just finished tearing to shreds (indicating, again, that you have nothing else). And you're really getting funny, trying to defend the likes of this Obama/Pelosi/Reid Congress. I would advise against doing that out in public, nowadays. It's potentially unhealthy.

• IrishAndProud | Jul 05, 2010, 06:40 AM EDT

  Yes, shuvonn...Obama was voted in with a majority...in 2008. That was TWO YEARS AGO, shuvonn. Where have you been, since then? Haven't you noticed the, uh, shall we say 'slight' changes in public opinion, since then? The world did not freeze-frame in 2008, in case you weren't aware. Time still continued to pass, after Obama's election...and dissent only grew, and still grows. Continuing to point out the 2008 election only shows that's all you have.

• Monsoonman | Jul 04, 2010, 10:52 PM EDT

  OK so you agree that the leadership of the Gazans are gangster Jihadis, at least we're making progress. So the next logical step in your education should be your realization that Israel must protect itself from such violent thugs and need to keep weapons out of Gaza until the Gazans elect a government who will recognize Israels right to exist.

• shuvonn | Jul 04, 2010, 10:35 PM EDT

  No, you do NOT know where I am going with this. You have been highly critical of Obama and how he runs this country and have made it obvious that Obama does not represent you even if he was voted in with a majority. And it has been stated that his running of the country has led to ramming through legislation that the country does not want and he is not doing a good job. And YET you want to condemn and hold responsible all of the residents of Gaza for the government they chose. Just as Israel does, however waging economic warfare against Gaza is illegal. One can feel sorry for the plight of the citizens of Gaza and not be a terrorist supporter and one can be critical of Israel and not be antisemitic, even if that is a concept you fail miserably to grasp.

• Monsoonman | Jul 04, 2010, 09:36 PM EDT

  I know where you're going with this Shuvonn. The president said the blockade was unsustainable and a commission should be appointed...

• shuvonn | Jul 04, 2010, 08:28 PM EDT

  Does the president of the US represent YOU Monsoonman?

• Monsoonman | Jul 04, 2010, 05:20 PM EDT

  You can call all of your corrupt, bought off organizations to justify your defense of the indefensible, but the one thing you cannot do is give credence or respect to the gangsters who have utter control over Gaza...hamas.

• Monsoonman | Jul 04, 2010, 05:18 PM EDT

  Hamas=corrupt jihad. How much plainer than the nose on your face can it get shuvonn? Suicide bombers, calling for the annihilation of a nation state, intolerance and destruction of all other religions, is Hamas. Just add utterly corrupt to it as the cherry on top....and this is who you defend as nauseum on this site. The Jew in Israel have every reason to not negotiate or abet these gangsters who unfortunately have seized control of Gaza. It is the Gaza residents responsibility to get non gangsters/terrorists out of their country.

• shuvonn | Jul 04, 2010, 05:14 PM EDT

  Never once in any one of my posts have I praised or defended jihad, not once, your attempting to infer or state that I have is a lie and a manipulation of facts. You are simply of a mind that anyone who has the gall to question the rogue state of Israels illegal actions is a terrorist supporter and antisemitic, classic standard pathetic lame argument that is always used. You and your ILK think Israel has the right to defend itself in a manner that has no respect for International law,it attempts to justify the illegal usage of forged passports, choosing whom it trades with and does not and yet denying basic human rights in an illegal manner to Gaza. It is not just the UN that questions the legality of the blockade, Amnesty International, Gisha, Red Cross and Oxfam also feel that it is illegal. Funny Israel frequently complains when other countries do not adhere to UN sanctions against them and they have NOT taken seriously one taken against them by the UN. The state of Israel has not proven the legality of the illegal blockade of Gaza or the acts of Piracy they committed in International Waters on their ally Turkey. The world is NOW watching and NO final say has been taken on this. FACT!

• Monsoonman | Jul 04, 2010, 04:23 PM EDT

  How arrogant of you to point a finger at someone who questions your dogma? Your respect of our intelligence so low as to use the UN, one of the most corrupt and incompetent institutions in the world, to bolster your defense of the jihadis. No the one true fair arbiter of this situation has spoken.

• shuvonn | Jul 04, 2010, 03:28 PM EDT

  Israels blockade is illegal, “International humanitarian law prohibits starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and it is also prohibited to impose collective punishment on civilians,” There is evidence that suggests that it is being imposed upon the civilians of Gaza to punish them for having elected Hamas.

• shuvonn | Jul 04, 2010, 03:06 PM EDT

  FINAL ?? I find it amusing that you consider the United Nations, Amnesty International, Oxfam, Gisha and the International Committee for the Red Cross Moot. How arrogant you come across, attempting to bolster the rogue state of Israel. There is NO final say on this matter YET. Israel have yet to prove to the world they are not committing economic warfare on Gaza and going against every rule established for war reducing the aid by 75% since its ILLEGAL blockade. You have PROVEN NOTHING as usual...

• Monsoonman | Jul 04, 2010, 12:28 PM EDT

  The commission who has the FINAL SAY on these matters, has had the FINAL SAY, Shuvonn. The SHAM entities used to bolster your argument mean nothing anymore, they have been rendered MOOT by the TCIB.

• shuvonn | Jul 04, 2010, 08:31 AM EDT

  Hamas does not administer a state that is internationally recognized. And Israel has not adhered to the Geneva Conventions and the San Remo Manual regarding the blockade, as it is supposed to have specifically listed the goods that it considered banned and has not done so. Israel is using collective punishment against Gaza, without distinguishing between military and civilian population. Gisha an Israeli human rights group had to take the Israeli government to court to NAME the products they banned from entering Gaza, that has not fully occurred yet.. As for who has the final say, they are WRONG, it is internationally recognized as being illegal by the UN, Amnesty International, The Goldstone report, Care International, Oxfam, International Committee for the Red Cross to name a few. Israel *CLAIMS* it no longer occupies Gaza, yet it controls who leaves, who enters, as well as what enters and leaves, and it THAT ain't occupying, I am not sure what is???????

• Monsoonman | Jul 04, 2010, 01:45 AM EDT

  The Transoceanic Commission on Illegal Blockades has determined that Israels self defensive actions in the screening for weapons and other banned material bound for Gaza IS LEGAL. They have the FINAL SAY in these matters.

• shuvonn | Jul 03, 2010, 05:17 PM EDT

  An ILLEGAL blockade IS just that AN ILLEGAL blockade. Amnesty International, the UN, The Red Cross, all disagree...

• Monsoonman | Jul 03, 2010, 11:55 AM EDT

  The International Committe on the Preservation of World Peace (ICPWP) has declared Hamas a criminal organization. Hamas is secretly funded by Iran, is dedicated to violence and the destruction of another sovereign country. (ICPWP) has determined that until Hamas and all other violent organizations dedicated to Jihad are removed from governance positions in Gaza, Israel has every right to quarantine this area for its own safety and preservation.

• shuvonn | Jul 03, 2010, 09:36 AM EDT

  The International Committee of the Red Cross say that the Blockade is illegal and in direct violation of the Geneva Convention and humanitarian law. Israel has breached the Oslo Accords, they signed up to in 2001 regarding Gaza. Amnesty International consider the illegal blockade of Gaza a form of collective punishment, and a flagrant violation of International law. Israel violated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. And since the blockade is ONLY permitted during times of war it is also considered an act of war by Israel on Turkey (its ally) in International waters. Israel has the right to defend itself yet not at the expense and with total disregard of every other country in the world. Scott Brown misled the people of Mass and that will most likely go against him when he has to fight for that seat again in 2013. And IF the majority of votes go in favor in congress to pass legislation then they DO represent the majority of the people of the US, as they were voted in based upon what they promised their voters.

• IrishAndProud | Jul 01, 2010, 07:32 PM EDT

  And regarding the world disregarding ALL methods of Israeli self-defense, Krauthammer asks: "But, if none of these is permissible, what's left? Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem. What's left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing onto a consensus document that singles out Israel's possession of nuclear weapons -- thus de-legitimizing Israel's very last line of defense: deterrence. The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution." [END QUOTE] I for one do not see how anyone can rationally argue with any of this...and I don't see many of Israel's detractors even trying to. Their real motives are clear...and ugly.

• IrishAndProud | Jul 01, 2010, 07:29 PM EDT

  Krauthammer continues: "...Oh, but weren't the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel's offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza -- as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza. Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel's inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas. Israel has already twice intercepted ships laden with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?"

• IrishAndProud | Jul 01, 2010, 07:25 PM EDT

  And from the article 'Those Troublesome Jews' (meaning the LEFT's view of them), Charles Krauthammer writes thusly: "The world is outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers. But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel -- a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets. In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded ("quarantined") Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry..."

• IrishAndProud | Jul 01, 2010, 07:12 PM EDT

  And answer this one, shuvonn: does the Unites States Congress have the backing of the American people?

• IrishAndProud | Jul 01, 2010, 07:11 PM EDT

  Shuvonn...answer the question: do you think the people of Massachussetts are stupid for being duped by Scott Brown (since he's their most popular politician, bar none)?

• shuvonn | Jul 01, 2010, 11:22 AM EDT

  Aside from the fact that you are OFF topic on this thread, do you have the figures for the rockets INTO Gaza and the numbers of Palestinian dead from those or do they not count to you? Israeli human rights organization Gisha, the Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, obtained an Israeli government document which says "A country has the right to decide that it chooses not to engage in economic relations or to give economic assistance to the other party to the conflict, or that it wishes to operate using 'economic warfare,' ".[78] Sari Bashi, the director of Gisha, said that this shows that Israel isn't imposing its blockade for its stated reasons of a security measure to prevent weapons from entering Gaza, but rather as collective punishment for the Palestinian population of Gaza. Which is ILLEGAL.

• Monsoonman | Jul 01, 2010, 09:41 AM EDT

  This kind of behavior has to end before there can be any meaningful peace: Over 90 rockets and mortar shells have been fired at Israeli territory since the beginning of 2010, and over 330 rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel since the end of operation Cast Lead 18 months ago. Announcing its retaliatory attack, the IDF stated that it will “not tolerate any attempt to harm the citizens of the State of Israel and the soldiers of the IDF, and will continue to act with determination and strength against any element that activates terrorism against the State of Israel.” “The IDF views the Hamas terrorist organization as exclusively responsible for whatever happens in the Gaza Strip and for maintaining quiet there,” the statement continued.

• Monsoonman | Jul 01, 2010, 09:31 AM EDT

  Wounded knee: Have you got anything intellectual to add besides the personal attacks? How about your comments on the situation in Afghanistan, the homebase for the 911 attacks on the USA. Anything? Something?

• WoundedKnee | Jul 01, 2010, 08:10 AM EDT

  Monsoonman: You're a real warmonger, aren't you? You seem to get off on killing and destruction. Bet you're a chickenhawk, the only fight you ever got involved in was when some kid beat you up at school.

• shuvonn | Jul 01, 2010, 06:49 AM EDT

  I never called Scott Brown names as you infer, his vote was not needed in the health care passing. FACT. And he DID say he would honor Kennedy's memory which was NOT what he did. FACT. He DID try to pass himself off as an independent voter which is not what his record to date has been.FACT. Mass already requires the citizens to have health Insurance. And if a majority votes for something it could not no matter HOW much you try to call it against the will of the people.

• IrishAndProud | Jun 30, 2010, 10:27 PM EDT

  Herbert continues: "By nearly 2 to 1, respondents to the most recent New York Times/CBS News poll believed the United States is on the wrong track. Despite the yelping and destructive machinations of the deficit hawks, employment and the economy are by far the public’s biggest concern. Mr. Obama is paying dearly for his tin ear on this topic. Fifty-four percent of respondents believed he does not have a clear plan for creating jobs. Only 45 percent approved of his overall handling of the economy, compared with 48 percent who disapproved." [END QUOTE] Sheesh, when LIBERALS are talking this way about you, and noting such things...it ain't pretty. Obama's glory days of 2008 are long gone. It's 2010 now, and a whole different ball game.

• IrishAndProud | Jun 30, 2010, 10:24 PM EDT

  Here's what liberal, black columnist Bob Herbert wrote in the NY Times, yesterday: "It’s getting harder and harder for most Americans, looking honestly at the state of the nation, to see the glass as half full. And that’s why the public opinion polls contain nothing but bad news for Barack Obama and the Democrats...Mr. Obama and the Democrats have wasted the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity handed to them in the 2008 election. They did not focus on jobs, jobs, jobs as their primary mission, and they did not call on Americans to join in a bold national effort (which would have required a great deal of shared sacrifice) to solve a wide range of very serious problems, from our over-reliance on fossil fuels to the sorry state of public education to the need to rebuild the nation’s rotting infrastructure...There is a widespread feeling that only the rich and well-placed can count on Washington’s help, and that toxic sentiment is spreading like the oil stain in the gulf, with ominous implications for President Obama and his party. It’s in this atmosphere that support for the president and his agenda is sinking like a stone..." [END QUOTE]

• IrishAndProud | Jun 30, 2010, 10:17 PM EDT

  Yes, Obama's minions in the Imperial Congress passed his health care deform against the clear wishes of the American majority (including in Massachusetts, where the people elected Scott Brown who verbally stated that he would be that '41st vote' against Obamacare). It hasn't done Obama one whiff of good politically, either, as clear majorities continue to oppose the health care law, and to support its repeal. btw Scott Brown today is the most popular elected official in Massachussetts, outpolling both Obama and John Kerry...how can that be, shuvonn, if he's a sheister, like you say? Do you think Massachussetts people are stupid, for being 'duped' by him? If he's supposedly in any political 'trouble' heading into 2013, I sure don't see it. What I DO see is BIG trouble for Zerobama and the Democrats, this November. Anyone who denies that is simply practicing passive aggression -- denying reality merely to tick off the other side (which doesn't really work all that much anymore, either). Of course, these are usually the same folks who say the economy's getting 'better', when every single indicator (not to mention public opinion) screams otherwise. It's getting awfully lonely, empty and echoey out there, for Obama's dwindling supporters.

• Monsoonman | Jun 30, 2010, 07:45 PM EDT

  Furthermore McChrystal was the suction cup tip of the arrow when it came to prosecuting the liberal version of "war" in Afghanistan. Habeas corpus and lawyers to prisoners taken, warning villages a week ahead of time that the military was going to check for terrorists (it gave them plenty of time to plant ied's) and most important of all: our troops when fired upon could not put ammunition in their weapons and fire back until they got permission from a tassle shoed remf lawyer....what a fiasco. Now Petraeus will have to reverse the damage.

• Monsoonman | Jun 30, 2010, 07:01 PM EDT

  Brown was up front with the people of Massachusetts before the senatorial election that he would vote against "teddys dream" for socialized healthcare. The people of Massachusetts overwhelmingly elected him.

• McNamara31 | Jun 30, 2010, 01:29 PM EDT

  McChrystal in Afghanistan slept four hours a night, ate one meal a day, jogged seven miles each morning, and banned the use of alcohol from all his bases. Then, one night, at an Irish bar in Paris, on his 33rd anniversary, he and his team, verbally imploded in the presence of a Rolling Stone writer. And the rest ....... he'll regret for a life.

• McNamara31 | Jun 30, 2010, 01:14 PM EDT

  GuinnessGirl,Shuvonn... Facts and perspective..Love it! P.S.Irish and Proud Didn't know you've taken to editing, and proof reading comments of late.

• shuvonn | Jun 30, 2010, 09:55 AM EDT

  Brown ran and tried to pass himself off as an independent voter and while yes he IS a republican, that is what he promised the people of Mass when they voted him in. The people of Mass already have mandatory health care and he DID promise to honor Kennedy's memory which was NOT what he DID voting against what Kennedy had worked for all of his life. Obama did not NEED his vote when the law passed :-) And I have my facts straight, Nothing revisionist here at all. He has not done what he promised the people of Mass when they voted him in, he has consistently voted in favor of BIG business since he was voted in, oil companies and banks have benefited from his stance only new in Washington and already acting like a Washington insider... Lets see what he does when he has to run again in 2013.

• Monsoonman | Jun 30, 2010, 09:14 AM EDT

  Scott Brown promised to vote against the kennedy "healthcare overhaul" because it wasn't in the best interests of the people of Massachusetts and he won election victory by a wide margin. Scott Brown is and was a registered Republican, not an independent. The voters of Mass. knew if they voted Brown in, the democrats would lose their super majority in the senate. No one got the wool pulled over their eyes.....Just to get the facks straight. Funny how some like to practice revisionist history while the ink is still fresh on the newspaper.

• shuvonn | Jun 30, 2010, 08:35 AM EDT

  Scott Brown promised he would do all he could to honor Kennedy's memory, when he took over his seat, which in my opinion was NOT what he did by voting AGAINST something Kennedy worked for most of his time in Office. Mass already has mandatory health care in place. Brown ran supposedly as an independent, which is not what his voting record has been to date, he did NOTHING before he was elected and People in MASS ALREADY have a similar health care plan in place, it is MANDATORY to have heath care insurance or you get fined on your taxes so his being voted in had NOTHING to do with that. Martha Coakley was a lousy candidate, a non starter, she took off on vacation just before the election,hardly campaigned, mistakenly called a red sox player a yankees one, so it was supposedly in the bag for her until maybe two weeks before it ALL turned on a dime and he got in... And Obama did not even NEED his vote to pass the healthcare bill by a MAJORITY. It was badly needed what some people fail to see is that US taxpayers already pay for un-insured, under-insured and illegals already. That causes people to not seek medical attention for something small that could be taken care of BEFORE it becomes a major issue and costs more. IF there was affordable reasonable cost insurance plans like they now have in mass, it is well known and acknowledged by health care professionals that health maintenance is lower among un-insured which makes them targets for health issues that could be prevented from becoming major issues and so cost less to care for them in the long term. Scott Brown played himself off as a man of the people as in I drive a TRUCK as if that matters, he may not be able to hold onto his seat when it comes up again in 2012. Considering he voted to look after the interests of BIG business with this oil mess and Republicans apologizing to BP I am not SO sure about your predictions for November :-)

• IrishAndProud | Jun 29, 2010, 10:58 PM EDT

  Posted by woodmontwoman on Jun 23, 2010, 10:05 AM EDT "As anyone who has served in the military knows, the president, whoever it might be and whatever your politics, is the Commander in Chief and is to be shown respect in public. A professional soldier knows what his or her duty is and understands the chain of command. Gen. McChrystal did not act with conduct becoming an officer.." *** Well, good. You're now in almost complete agreement on this matter with conservative columnist George Will. And considering Obama had to replace McChrystal with someone even more conservative (Petreus) who he'd also said was 'wrong' (for using a troop surge which Obama's now embracing), I'd say things are going pretty well, considering the current mess that is Afghanistan.

• IrishAndProud | Jun 29, 2010, 10:53 PM EDT

  Actually, it's 'shuvonn.'

• McNamara31 | Jun 29, 2010, 10:32 PM EDT

  GuinnessGirl,Shuvoon... Facts and perspective..Love it!

• GuinnessGrrl | Jun 29, 2010, 04:31 PM EDT

  Posted by woodmontwoman on Jun 23, 2010, 10:05 AM EDT As anyone who has served in the military knows, the president, whoever it might be and whatever your politics, is the Commander in Chief and is to be shown respect in public. A professional soldier knows what his or her duty is and understands the chain of command. Gen. McChrystal did not act with conduct becoming an officer. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You are absolutly right.

• GuinnessGrrl | Jun 29, 2010, 04:30 PM EDT

  Posted by chesapeake on Jun 23, 2010, 10:14 AM EDT A professional military man working for two half-assed politicians with absolutely no military experience assigned to complete an impossible task in order to make his bosses look good. Is he frustrated? Wouldn't you be? Relax, Obama really can't fire him; but if mhe does, I'd lay bets that the replacement has a Hispanic name! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Wrong on both counts! McChystal "resigned" and Petraeus certainly doesn't sound Hispanic!

• IrishAndProud | Jun 29, 2010, 03:23 PM EDT

  And interestingly enough, Scott Brown ran specifically against Obamacare...IN MASSACHUSSETTS, no less, one of the 'bluest' of blue states...and WON on it!!! People even THERE didn't want that stinker of a bill...and yet the Imperial Congress went ahead and rammed it through anyway. It was forced on this country against its collective will, and it's still opposed by the majority of the country, to this day. This is one reason of many the Dems are in such dire straits. Talk about the Congressional majority opposing the AMERICAN majority...CASE...IN...POINT!

• IrishAndProud | Jun 29, 2010, 03:17 PM EDT

  And btw, once again, shuvonn...Carter had a BETTER record than Obama in the polls, and he STILL lost a staggering 44 states out of 50. Obama is in fact doing WORSE than Bush in the polls, currently. Bush may have been disagreed with (including by me), but he at least had respect. Obama no longer does. This is a whole different ballgame, now.

• IrishAndProud | Jun 29, 2010, 03:14 PM EDT

  shuvonn, Scott Brown had pulled AHEAD of Coakley in the polls, toward the end. It wasn't terribly shocking to anyone who'd been following that story (though it was certainly relieving to his followers). And what are you talking about, that I have trouble 'grasping' the concept of majority rule, or that I'm 'spinning'? I've already explained to you CLEARLY in my post below: Congressional majority does not always reflect POPULAR majority -- and in fact rarely does, nowadays. That's not 'spin,' shuvonn...that's FACT. They've flown in the face of the public that voted them in (both the congress AND Obama), and the public no longer supports them, on even a single, major issue. Trying to poo-poo and discount any public opinion polls because none of them show what you like is a dangerous game, from the political perspective. That's an attempt to de-letigimize mass public opinion -- which not only does not work in a representative republic, but also completely undermines and contradicts your very point about majority rule. The majority of the USA does NOT want or support ANYTHING this Congress or President are doing...and yet they keep right on doing it, in-your-face, we-don't-care-what-you-think, no matter what...only adding to their already staggering political woes (and the country's) in the process. The majority of the Congress want one thing; the public they only pretend to represent wants another. We want A, B, and C...and they do X, Y, and Z. The public and the imperialistic Congress (and yes, they are IMPERIALISTIC because they continuously FLAUNT the peoples' will) are NOT on the same page...but that's why we have elections every so often, to correct that. And November is shaping up to be a MAJOR correction. And I'm being MILD, putting it that way.

• shuvonn | Jun 29, 2010, 12:34 PM EDT

  Bush had a worse record on polls when he was in power over 9/11 and hurricane Katrina although it appeared it was Cheney running the show. Now you can spin THIS any way you want, unless a majority vote against legislation, it gets passed, pretty simple concept you appear to have difficulty grasping. Polls mean NOTHING in the long term, how many times have you heard up and down polls and the voters shock everyone and vote in someone what was unheard of previously like in Mass, when Scott Brown won over Coakley. Lets see if he wins the seat again, when he has to go again next year. The tea party is a storm in a tea cup and Palin is a lightening rod.

• IrishAndProud | Jun 29, 2010, 12:42 AM EDT

  And the majority of this country has NOT been 'changing its mind all the time,' shuvonn...it's been a majority against the Democrats and Obama for some time, now. The only changing of minds nowadays is coming from former Obama supporters or fence-sitters, who are now swelling the ranks of his detractors -- as his numbers continure to drop...and drop...and drop...

• IrishAndProud | Jun 28, 2010, 06:10 PM EDT

  shuvonn...you're talking about a majority of CONGRESSIONAL votes, when passing legislation. I'm talking about the AMERICAN MAJORITY that VOTED those members of Congress into office...and it is THEY who are no longer being represented by this Congress. Yes, polls change...but when this MANY polls consistently show the Congress and Obama this deeply out of favor with the general public (and it's only getting worse), they are in fact a reflection of the country's sentiments and should not just be ignored, continually (that's what's helping to FEED the public disgust, in fact...the people sense they're being ignored, which they are). It's all-too-easy to just write polls off as being 'fickle people' when those polls don't show what you like (and of course to TRUMPET them when they do), but if those polls are still sour for a ruling party come election time (as all indications are they will still be for the Dems, come November), they tend to be a LOT more important.

• CaliforniaShamrock | Jun 28, 2010, 11:43 AM EDT

  Would the general have let any of his men talk about him that way and be published in a magazine without any repercussions?

• shuvonn | Jun 28, 2010, 11:14 AM EDT

  Ahh that sense of humor you have Irishandproud :-) Polls mean NOTHING in the long term, people are fickle and change their minds all the time. Bush suffered through YEARS of low poll ratings, And One cannot pass ANY legislation without a majority voting to pass it, FACT !! No lashing out here at all at all, just talking facts :-) DLW: People who talk badly about their bosses on facebook, get FIRED !

• McNamara31 | Jun 28, 2010, 11:07 AM EDT

  LiamDavid...Well said, factual and realistic.

• DLW12183 | Jun 28, 2010, 08:31 AM EDT

  Very thinned skin President

• IrishAndProud | Jun 28, 2010, 04:55 AM EDT

  Uh...Liam...I'm not talking about the VOTE nearly two years ago. I'm talking about the national sentiment of the USA as it is CURRENTLY...and it doesn't bode well at all for Obama and his party, with midterm elections coming up. And that is exactly Obama's problem: He's NOT 'cleaning up' anything, he's making stuff exponentially WORSE on literally all fronts...which is why his support is falling away by the day. It's not the glory days of 2008 anymore...not even by a long shot. If Obama was making progress 'cleaning' things up, or was even perceived to be doing so, he would have vastly more public backing -- but he DOESN'T have it, and is losing it, daily. As for Afghanistan, as I've already stated on this post I'm currently inclined to see it like the columnist George Will, who advocates pulling out and cutting the losses. I think the current effort there is in fine hands with Petraeus, but I think there is only so much he can do considering the whole, overall situation -- and I have doubts as to whether the war there is truly winnable as things are. Afghanistan has never been conquered...and I don't see the western powers there now as some sudden exception to that -- particularly with how it's been going lately.

• LiamDavid | Jun 28, 2010, 03:28 AM EDT

  Sadly for Mc Chrystal, he forgot who the boss was! He also violated his oath as an Officer of the United State Army. “Bye, Bye” Stanley”! As for the comments made by “IrishAndProud”, the only majority vote in America was the one that voted President Obama into the Whitehouse. All of those who oppose Obama claim that the world is coming to an end and its Obama’s fault! I’m not an Obama supporter necessarily, but any man willing to be a black American President, and willing to try and clean up the mess following 8 years of Republican miss-management, deserves a good deal of credit, or a straightjacket? Mr. Dennis Q, I think you hit it on the head, the Afghan war is unwinnable for the very reasons you stated and more. Since this and the Iraqi war was entered into with very little clear thought or stated goal, America and her allies have just been adlibbing the stated goal for the past 9 years. Let us all allow the Afghan people to settle their future on their own! No outside country will ever have the power to change their hearts.

• IrishAndProud | Jun 28, 2010, 12:45 AM EDT

  Shuvonn wrote: "One cannot EVER govern against the will of the majority....otherwise NO legislation would get passed. Polls mean NOTHING if the majority vote against something it will NOT pass." **** Uh, I'm not following you, shuvonn. The U.S. Congress IS in fact voting against the will of the majority (and Obama is also flying in the majority's face), on a daily basis. That's why their poll numbers are so low. If people supported what they were doing, their poll numbers would be higher...that's how polls have always worked, from day one. I'm sensing some frantic-ness in your responses -- almost like you feel the world is closing in on you a bit, and are lashing out in desperation. But if you're an Obama supporter nowadays -- in these politically dark, sinking times -- I'm not too shocked.

• IrishAndProud | Jun 28, 2010, 12:37 AM EDT

  Interestingly enough, McChrystal himself is a political liberal, by most measures...and now he's been replaced by someone more politically conservative (Petreus), who Obama openly, publicly disagreed with, about a tactic that Obama now by sheer force of reality has to embrace (a troop surge). Ultimately, whilst I see this as poetic justice for Obama, I also see it as a plus for the overall situation, and not a minus. Petreus will do what he thinks is the best for the troops and the war effort, given what options he has.

• DennisQ | Jun 28, 2010, 12:32 AM EDT

  I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me how you can win a war when all the other side has to do is wait you out. How many times do you retake the same hill? Eventually somebody's going to wake up and say, All right, we get it! But instead of addressing this very sensible point, the generals act as though these wars are winnable. They're not.

• oldbear | Jun 27, 2010, 11:34 PM EDT

  He did - pay for his insubordination and for once I agree w/Obama's sacking the general.

• McNamara31 | Jun 27, 2010, 08:20 PM EDT

  pflynn...Don't let facts get in the way. GWB put 2 wars on credit cards, and increased the U.S. National debt by 73%, "before" Obama ever stepped into the White House, and his policies of deregulation caused the financial markets to implode. As for McChrystal, too many drinks in an Irish bar in Paris and the pen of a Rolling Stone writer brought down his historic career.

• mhichil | Jun 27, 2010, 08:08 PM EDT

  Naw ..the Irish Pubs may rue they let him in and besmirch the character of the good place. I have been in Irish pubs over 50 years and the only obnoxious thing I have ever seen is some drunk american having a piss. nuff said? McChrystal in america here would be appropriately 'son of meth' ....and you know having genetic family roots in Ireland does not qualify for dual citizenship. Now we got hyphenated -americans. We used to have common identity, now diversity is used to divide us. I remember when ye was all Firblogs.. but its politics, right? but I digress. cheers!

• Monsoonman | Jun 27, 2010, 06:52 PM EDT

  Shuvonn, will you please point out where I tell you what you can or can't discuss? I simply reminded you we were discussing afghanistan/alquaeda/taliban and you jumped over to Iraq and bds. Geesh!

• DennisQ | Jun 27, 2010, 05:47 PM EDT

  Al Qaeda's not in hiding, they're gone from Afghanistan. We have no ongoing reason to be there, except whatever beef we have with the Taliban. I don't know what that beef is, except for a past relationship they once had with Al Qaeda. Why are we still there? It looks like a lot of nonsense.

• shuvonn | Jun 27, 2010, 05:37 PM EDT

  Now you are going to tell me what I can and cannot discuss? I do not need things cleared up for me, and certainly not from YOU. Apparently it was NOT patriotic when the Dixie Chicks did it so you are not correct in your assertion that it is considered patriotic, that was not the case when George Bush was being criticized.

• McNamara31 | Jun 27, 2010, 03:42 PM EDT

  pflynn70.. Don't ever let the facts get in your way..Unemployment and econony? Two wars on credit cards, National debt was increased by 73% by GWB before Obama stepped in the door, the deregulation of Wall St. and the roll back of environmental safeguards, again GWB. Too many drinks at an Irish bar in Paris is what sadley brought down the long career of McChrystal, along with the pen of a Rolling Stone reporter. http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-jobs-lost-in-the-bush-and-obama-administration-2010-2

• Monsoonman | Jun 27, 2010, 03:34 PM EDT

  Shuvonn: you are now shifting the argument over to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. That is NOT what the topic is. Here is an excerpt from the head of the cia, leon panetta(is he a lefty enough for ya) concerning al quaeda, the taliban and afghanistan, maybe this will clear things up for you:AP - "The U.S. has driven al-Qaida into hiding and undermined its leadership, but is struggling to oust the taliban, Al quaedas primary supporter in Afghanistan, the nation's spymaster said Sunday." In America it is patriotic to criticize our leaders, only in socialist, repressive countries is it considered a crime.

• shuvonn | Jun 27, 2010, 03:30 PM EDT

  You are delusional if you think that the state of the American economy is Obama's fault. Bush had 8 years BEFORE that to screw things up, they are BOTH at fault here NOT just one of them. The TRUTH? You think its acceptable to speak so disrespectfully of your president? There was RUCTIONS when the Dixie Chicks made comments about Bush, but it's acceptable when its about Obama? The unemployment did not just happen over night, the illegal immigration problem has been an issue for YEARS, BEFORE Obama was in power. McChrystal LIED about Tillman's death, and was simply not doing the job he promised he would do, and you cannot get away with speaking about your boss like he did and keep you job. De-Regulation was what started this whole world wide economic mess, and there is NO way you can blame it all on one person. Pointing the finger of blame at one thing or one person, is simply not realistic, but you already have....

• pflynn70 | Jun 27, 2010, 12:28 PM EDT

  It's a shame when the TRUTH COMES OUT! Obama & Biden are both liberal idiots and if you need proof, just look at what they have done to the U.S in 18 months. Horrible un-employment Horrible economy Horrible problems on immigration. Horrible track record on Nationa Security Horrible selection on cabinet & judge choices Horrible problems on Health Care Horrible problems with the amount of "Gov't take-overs. And now he has to fire McChrystal because dumb ass did not listen and sent troops when needed, he took 6 weeks to make a cecision and sent less than requested. You now know why Mc Chrystal was just fed up.

• shuvonn | Jun 27, 2010, 11:07 AM EDT

  It is NOT hackneyed because there is NO real proof of same, kind of like the invasion of Iraq by the US (AFTER that is became an ALLIED and JOINT invasion) based upon the so called *WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION* that were NEVER found and afterwords found to be false. People lose their menial jobs for speaking disrespectfully of their bosses on facebook. Your boss is your boss and like him or not, he IS the BOSS. There is an atmosphere and attitude that Republicans are better friends of the military than Democrats in power, and it was right that McChrystal was fired, he undermined his own troops, and the authority of the president. Even if you do not like your boss or president you have to SUCK IT UP, elections happen and you can vote in whom you want the then but in the meantime respect is key. You are very unAmerican for being disrespectful of your president monsoon man. As for the 9/11 It makes ALL the difference in the world where they came from and your refusal to accept that says more about you than ANYTHING else you go on about...

• borefield | Jun 27, 2010, 10:01 AM EDT

  What was he thinking?, he should know The Media will sell you out each and every time. This is a profession where integrity is non existent. They would sell their mothers for a story, especially a scandalos one.

• DennisQ | Jun 27, 2010, 02:03 AM EDT

  Where's the evidence that Afghanistan was the base of operation for the 9/11 attacks? The assertion that the Taliban wer in cahoots with Al Qaeda fills in a gap in the theory of the war. All we really know is that the Taliban allowed Al Qaeda to set up training camps. These two groups are very distinct from one another. If we're in Afghanistan to punish the Taliban for their role in the 9/11 attacks, shouldn't there be some proof? It's quite possible that the Taliban found out about 9/11 by reading about it in the newspaper.

• Monsoonman | Jun 26, 2010, 06:41 PM EDT

  It is hackneyed when you keep overlooking the fack that Afghanistan was the base of operation for the 911 attacks against the USA. It doesn't make any difference where the religious kooks originated from, they were trained and funded by Al Quaeda in Afghanistan.

• Monsoonman | Jun 26, 2010, 06:28 PM EDT

  McChrystal and staff were outed for voicing their honest opinion of biden and obama. Kind of chilling to see what the military really thinks of the vapid duo.

• shuvonn | Jun 26, 2010, 06:00 PM EDT

  Explain how it is hackneyed when its a FACT, you can call it what you want to it is a FACT, the majority were Saudia Arabian. FACT! McChrystal LIED about Tillman's death,and tried to use it for his own gain not to mention he was not doing what he promised in Afghanistan for Obama and the remarks that he and his staff made undermined the military. People have been fired for complaints on made on facebook about their jobs, belittling your boss the president or allowing it to happen should not be tolerated... And if they do not get the opium from Afghanistan they will get it elsewhere, and it is NOT just American youth that are on the stuff. The farmers there make ten times more growing that so it has to start at what crops the farmers grow in order to make money, napalm aint gonna solve the problem long term. That kind of arrogance is why the USA is hated world wide...That kind of blow them all up, nuke em, etc because it is NOT your own country is all you hear, how arrogant to not think that those people are caught in the middle of a war they never asked for and should not be paying for with their lives...but they do not count, they are NOT Americans...or Israelis.... SICK actually...

• Monsoonman | Jun 26, 2010, 05:39 PM EDT

  McChrystal was obamas hand picked guy to wage the liberal version of "war" in Afghanistan. As many know, it has not been going well with the US forces being made to fight with both hands tied behind their backs. Gallantry medals are being awarded to our soldiers posthumously who died because they withheld fire. The whole farcical idea of having a war like this is a preposterous liberal wet dream. The troops should not be asked to sacrifice their lives and limbs for this absurdity. Either win the war with all means necessary, including napalming the opium fields which are poisoning our youth, or get out. This death by a thousand cuts doesn't get it.

• Monsoonman | Jun 26, 2010, 05:28 PM EDT

  Don't start with the hackneyed: "they were Saudi Arabian", shuvonn. They were based/trained/paid/outfitted in Osama Bin Ladens Headquarters in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was the base of operations for the terrorist attacks on the USA. In Afghanistan Al Quaeda was aided and abetted by the Taliban.

• shuvonn | Jun 26, 2010, 03:12 PM EDT

  The majority of the terrorists were Saudia Arabian, NOT Iraqi, and not Pakistani. And IF it is NOT the government that is backing those terrorists then it is not the entire country NOR their population that should face US bombs. If you compare the actions of a government army and those of an illegal organization that do not have the backing of their countries government, you are not comparing apples to apples on any level. And as for your *good legal advice* keep it unless you are ASKED for it. Yes indeed there is some disconnect, but it is from YOU rather than from the people you accuse of being disconnected.

• Monsoonman | Jun 26, 2010, 12:28 PM EDT

  Does anyone else see the hypocrisy and utter irony of obama appointing Gen. Petraeus as the new battlefield commander in Afghanistan? Niall? Patrick? shuvonn?...You do remember when obama and hillary raked him over the coals, called him a liar and a disgrace, nicknamed him general betray us?...but now they call on him to bail them out...Not a peep out of the peeps for this, LOL!!!!!The silence is deafening from our esteemed press corpse.

• Monsoonman | Jun 26, 2010, 12:24 PM EDT

  shuvonn: Did the 911 terrorists call in and ask for legal advice before they hijacked aircraft filled with human beings and slammed them into buildings? There is some sort of disconnect between harsh reality and the nether world of trial law, you seem to think if they would only respect our traffic laws then everyone would be happy ever after. Here's some real good legal advice for jihadists: don't use your country as a headquarters/staging area for attacks against the US, there will be violent consequences.

• shuvonn | Jun 26, 2010, 10:58 AM EDT

  Terrorist villages? You mean like the *terrorists* the Brits shot on Bloody Sunday? It's the US and THEM mentality that results in the USA being NOT liked worldwide.... I find it amusing that you think that the troops have to be called in to ask permission to return fire, that OBVIOUSLY did not happen when Tillman was killed in *FRIENDLY FIRE* That kind of strategy exposes innocent civilians to unnecessary death and injury, how many innocent Iraqi and Pakistani civilians have been killed since the US decided to gift them with their form of democracy?

• Monsoonman | Jun 26, 2010, 12:57 AM EDT

  General Petraeus is reversing all of the cockamamy "rules of engagement" that exposed our troops to unnecessary death and injury. No more will troops have to call into remf headquarters and ask a lawyer for permission to return fire, no longer will terrorist villages be given a weeks notice before they are raided. General Petraeus new order of battle is modeled after Pope Innocent III m.o. during the crusades : "Kill them all and let God sort them out"

• shuvonn | Jun 25, 2010, 11:52 AM EDT

  One cannot EVER govern against the will of the majority....otherwise NO legislation would get passed. Polls mean NOTHING if the majority vote against something it will NOT pass.

• hyattsville | Jun 25, 2010, 09:41 AM EDT

  Yes IrishAndProud you're 'neither a Democrat nor a Repub, either', you're a Marxist, a Groucho Marxist... 'Whatever it is I'm against it!'

• IrishAndProud | Jun 25, 2010, 03:06 AM EDT

  As for Obama, what I said was that I find bemusing that he had to hire a General who he'd openly lectured against, previously (and who I supported)...and now he finds himself stuck with that very same General. What goes around, comes around. When you disagree PROFOUNDLY with a guy like Obama (which I do, on virtually everything) and believe he is literally DESTROYING the country and continually governing against the will of the majority (which he is, according to every single poll), then merely seeing him stuck with a specific General (and not a bad one, at that) is pretty small potatoes, in the whole sceme of things. Besides, It's not me causing all of Obama's current political woes (which are currently the worst they've ever been) -- he's doing it all to himself. I'm just one person, observing.

• IrishAndProud | Jun 25, 2010, 02:54 AM EDT

  Well then that makes two of us, shuvonn, because I'm neither a Democrat nor a Repub, either -- and for my part I felt the initial case for invasion of Iraq was weak and unconvincing. And further (as I stated in an earlier post) I am also not a neocon...and I don't care for talk radio, period. So it would appear then that we are basically two independents, who approach things from two different perspectives and actually overlap (or something similar) on certain things.

• JimThompson | Jun 24, 2010, 01:32 PM EDT

  He is a good man. I think it is a shame that a poor man was able to remove him from his job and the army.

• WoundedKnee | Jun 24, 2010, 11:36 AM EDT

  That sounds liike a really ugly nite at that bar. Those are not the kind of people I'd like to have a drink with.

• shuvonn | Jun 24, 2010, 11:13 AM EDT

  So Irishandproud is not saying that he wishes bad luck on the troops when he says that the whole thing is a scream? And you are amused that you feel that your president is *bungling the whole thing up* and that is *poetic justice* I find that disturbing to be honest. Nancy Pelosi is a peanut butter politician, (you either love her or hate her) and I have listened to rush Limbaugh and I stand by my opinion of him. And I am neither a democrat or republican. I may not have cared for Bush, because I felt that Cheney was running the show anyway and it was a conflict of interest for him to have any interest in Haliburton while putting troops in danger. I have always supported the troops regardless of their civilian leader, ALWAYS... I had no use for the search for weapons of Mass Destruction, or the war on Iraq, because while the need to get rid of Saddam was certainly a necessity, it was the WRONG war, but I had the utmost respect for the men who were sent to carry out the decisions made in nice offices....that's the way it always is....

• Monsoonman | Jun 24, 2010, 10:05 AM EDT

  Shuvonn, look down at the hand you are pointing your index finger with and you will find your other three fingers pointing back at yourself. Your thumb is technically neutral, just fyi.

• IrishAndProud | Jun 24, 2010, 03:25 AM EDT

  Are you a Democrat, shuvonn? Do you sympathize with that party?

• IrishAndProud | Jun 24, 2010, 03:16 AM EDT

  And I might also ask, shuvonn: Have YOU ever listened to Rush Limbaugh? I gather you're not one of his listeners, unless you're the type who likes to sit there and hate him while he talks. And if you DON'T listen, then how can you call him a 'fat idiot' if you don't even know what he's saying other than through left-wing second-hand sources? Do YOU listen to that 'narcissistic idiot' Obama? How about that liberal idiot Chris 'tingle-up-my-leg Matthews'? Keith Olbermann, maybe? Nancy Pelosi? Who do YOU listen to, shuvonn? What TV networks do YOU watch? What are YOUR sources? You see, when you attempt to impugn others -- and by inference say that YOUR sources, of course, are somehow 'normal' and 'mainstream' (and I'd like to see ANY poll showing hard-core liberalism to be the mainstream in the USA, nowadays) -- you only open yourself up to this.

• IrishAndProud | Jun 24, 2010, 02:58 AM EDT

  And...shuvonn...you've been doing little OTHER that 'ASSuming' about ME, ever since our correspondence started. You can dish it out, but you flatly cannot take it. You know nothing more about me than I do about you, when it all comes down to brass tax. As for the troops in Afghanistan, I live in a military town myself and have known any number of troops who have actually served there (and in Iraq, too), so no need to pull out the 'insensitive' card and try to play it against me, when if anyone it is LEFTISTS who deserve that description to the letter, the way they've treated and spoken about virtually ANY soldiers from ANY western nation who've served in a theatre of war for nearly three generations, now. If you read my post, you would see it is OBAMA'S SITUATION that he now finds himself in (having to name a General he'd earlier challenged, to head up the very kind of effort he challenged) that I find a scream -- not the war itself or those fighting in it (though as before, I had a feeling you'd go after me on that). I've already posted about my thoughts on what the U.S. should do next in Afghanistan, but as for wishing ill of the troops? No. I also sincerely hope this is not a case of you all-of-a-sudden supporting the troops and speaking well of them only because Obama is in the White House now...but when Bush was there you had no use for them, at all. I've seen it before.

• IrishAndProud | Jun 24, 2010, 02:36 AM EDT

  DennisQ actually asks a decent question, below. Whilst Al-Quaida and the Taliban are technically two different and distinct movements within Islam (the former a terrorist network, and the latter a conservative Islamist movement), in reality they both come from the same Sunni Islamist perspective, and while they're opposed by many Afghans, they also (quite obviously) have the support of many other Afghans...otherwise how could they have such resiliency, and just blend in and disappear, so well? They clearly have the help and collusion of many people there. Afghanistan is an Islamic country and has been for quite a while; it's also never been totally conquered by outsiders (just ask Alexander the Great, Ghenghis Khan, the Brits and the Soviets), and suffers from near-constant warfare amongst it own warring factions (it's even said of the Pashtuns -- the largest ethnic group -- that they're not at peace unless they're at war). This kind of thing is one reason I'm not a neo-con; other cultures and peoples may not WANT western-style 'democracy' in their own lands. So, what exactly should the U.S. strategy be? Nowadays, I'm actually more inclined to support the columnist George Will's approach: he advocates cutting the losses and pulling out.

• DennisQ | Jun 24, 2010, 02:35 AM EDT

  There's something wrong with the battle plan if we're constantly retaking the same hill. Maybe it's a bad idea to market these wars as epic confrontations between good and evil. That approach invites a response in kind, and we end up pitting ourselves against religious crazies like the Taliban. OK, so what is the war in Afghanistan really all about? However, here's a caveat. If you're too aggressive in promoting an alternate theory of the conflict, you get marginalized the way Wayne Morse was marginalized for disbelieving the Gulf of Tonkin story. Lonely guy, he was completely vindicated after he died.

• hughaed | Jun 24, 2010, 12:56 AM EDT

  A writer commented: "9-11-2001. The whole thing was planned and prepared there [in Afghanistan]." So if that's the case why weren't any of the men that commandeered the planes that hit the towers Afghans? They were, in fact, Saudi Arabians. Why do you think George Bush didn't attack Saudi Arabia since not only were the attackers from there but Bin Laden as well? The fact that the Bush family are very good friends of the Saudi Arabian royal family might have something to do with it. And the fact that recent revelations concerning 1 trillion dollars worth of rare metals have been found in Afghanistan might have something to do with it, especially since it was known for the past couple of decades. The fact that billion dollar bases are being established in Iraq & Afghanistan might have something to do with it. But if you naively believe that it had anything to do with 9-11, except as an expedient excuse, then you are living in a fantasy land created by Bush-Cheney & continued by the Washington spin machine.

• DennisQ | Jun 24, 2010, 12:26 AM EDT

  The first principle of warfare is to know your enemy. I heard Obama say today that our purpose in Afghanistan is to defeat Al Qaeda. Somebody please help me out here. What's the difference between Al Qaeda and the Taliban? Why do the Taliban enjoy the kind of popular support it takes that they blend invisibly into the population? And how come we're still fighting them after eight years?

• ooconnell | Jun 23, 2010, 09:36 PM EDT

  @redspirit: with all due respect to you, Obama 44 deserves every bit of chatter, if he's just going to keep continuing the same basic policies as Bush 43, but expecting a different result.

• ooconnell | Jun 23, 2010, 09:32 PM EDT

  vincem13, God Bless you, but there is nothing conservative about trying to building and maintaining an imperial outpost where the Greeks, Romans, British, and Russians failed. Bombing them because of Bin Laden is another thing. Have they found him in Iraq, yet?

• vincem13 | Jun 23, 2010, 09:11 PM EDT

  "It must be true, its in Rolling Stone!" Sorry don't think I buy that one. I am amazed at the comments on Afghanistan. Doesn't anyone remember why we went there in the first place? Let me jog your memory: 9-11-2001. The whole thing was planned and prepared there. Almost certainly there were Irish or Irish-Americans who died in New York, at the Pentagon or on Flight 93. President George W. Bush decided that in this case, Evil would NOT triumph because good men did nothing. But there will always be liberals who prefer that evil triumph, because good is too conservative.

• debmoore | Jun 23, 2010, 08:55 PM EDT

  Poor judgement on McChrystal's part to let Rolling Stone be there. Anyway, we should long be out of Bush's war as it is pointless. These people cannot live in a democracy so let them rule their own lives....Hopefully, Obama will wake up soon and start getting our troops out.

• GeorgeDillon | Jun 23, 2010, 08:45 PM EDT

  We need to get out of those foreign countries and stop pouring countless billions of military aid into places like Israel and Egypt. Come Home, America--we're broke!

• redspirit | Jun 23, 2010, 08:25 PM EDT

  I don't understand all this chatter about Obama. We are in this stupid war because of Bush in the first place. The last three wars were because of the No 1 and No 2 Bush. I haven't seen any reason why we have been involved in any of them.

• sallyorob | Jun 23, 2010, 07:16 PM EDT

  I've been drunk in Kitty O'Shea's several times. That's what Irish Americans do.

• jimmy12003 | Jun 23, 2010, 07:11 PM EDT

  they should pull the troops out of there anyway! its easy to see, its another war that cant, and wont be won! its been about eight years now! really, how long is bush seniors pipe line that they have been building there since the begining? have they not got it completed yet? can he not just hire locals to protect it?

• shuvonn | Jun 23, 2010, 07:03 PM EDT

  IrishandProud: SO when you tell me what you SHOULD have said, you are NOT telling me what to say? You should have clarified.... IS English your first language?? Because you seem to lack a basic understanding of the grasp of it.. I am so very far from insecure :-) Sorry to disappoint you, and you have never gotten under my skin but you are a hypocrite. Anyone who is a REPUBLICAN puts that name in, most normal people do not use middle names on a daily basis, the usage of Hussein infers a muslim background, as part of the right wing agenda, I bet you LOVE that fat idiot Rush Limbaugh, and you are right I am left handed :-). I already said that I did not agree with the criticism of Bush, but YOU overlooked that because it did NOT suit YOUR agenda. I was pointing out the fact that there was an outcry over the Dixie Chicks being critical of Bush and YOU seem to think that YOU can be critical of Obama, and that is why McChrystal was fired, good job you do not work for Obama. It is sickening for YOU to be amused at the troops who are serving their country and many have lost their lives, I am glad that YOU find it amusing, I do not find the loss of American lives a scream. And FYI who says I am not in the US? Gosh you DO ASSume a lot, and look where THAT gets you, AND finding amusement at the loss of American lives OR HOW BADLY THE WAR IS GOING.... how SICK are you.....

• IrishAndProud | Jun 23, 2010, 06:02 PM EDT

  I also find it rather bemusing that Obama picked Petraeus to replace McChrystal. It was Obama who lectured Petraeus on how 'futile' the U.S. troop surge in Iraq would be (back when Obama was a senator), and of course the troop surge worked...and now...HA HA!!! He's placing Petraeus in charge of the Afghan mission, to oversee his OWN troop surge (which isn't working because Obama is bungling the mission)! Poetic justice, folks. This whole thing's a scream. Oh, and again shuvonn...Jimmy Carter's approval rating was HIGHER than Obama's at this same point in HIS presidency...and he ended up losing 44 U.S. states out of 50. As for Bush, that's the U.S. electoral system you're criticising; if you don't like it, then move there and work to change it.

• IrishAndProud | Jun 23, 2010, 05:55 PM EDT

  HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! The ever-insecure shuvonn, back to denying my genetics because I don't agree with him/her -- precisely as I thought might happen, because (s)he continuously resorts to that, whenever I get under his/her skin. HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAA! Does it get any better that this, folks? Oh, and btw shuvonn...I didn't 'sneakily' put it Obama's Muslim middle name...I did it quite openly and directly. Here it is again, for you: Barack Hussein Obama. And I wasn't 'telling' people what they should be saying; I was merely responding to you with an opposing viewpoint, which being the leftist you are, you cannot stand. Bush was criticized by people like YOU incessantly, but of course no one can criticize Obama...and I was pointing out your hypocrisy.

• GeorgeDillon | Jun 23, 2010, 05:50 PM EDT

  "The Irish American general" _------------- What makes him Irish-American? Getting drunk in a bar called Kitty O'Sheas?

• ciarrai | Jun 23, 2010, 05:46 PM EDT

  He paid. Not as dearly as all of our people who are getting killed for nothing in Afganistan. What the heck is one American shedding one drop of blood in that crazy place for? It is a crying shame.

• DennisQ | Jun 23, 2010, 03:23 PM EDT

  McChrystal was fired for being incompetent. Before he got the job he was asked his honest assessment whether victory was still possible in Afghanistan. He should have said no. By all accounts McChrystal is thought to be "brilliant." But there's nothing brilliant about becoming an embarrassment. Obama decided to cut his losses and put Petraeus in charge. Petraeus probably understands that his job isn't to turn things around but to get out as gracefully as possible . . . in other words, the same job he did in Iraq.

• shuvonn | Jun 23, 2010, 02:49 PM EDT

  You are a HYPOCRITE Irishandproud, I am not parrotting words anyone else said I was directly QUOTING OBAMA in his good riddance speech to the stupid general he FIRED, and YOU are sneaky putting in his middle name (A TRUE reflection of YOUR agenda) what I was saying was that McCHRYSTAL IS GONE AND GOOD RIDDANCE....Bush's approval rating was LOWER for most of his presidency.... even when he didn't win the popular vote :-) Apparently BUSH was above criticism, as there was such a fuss over comments made by the Dixie chicks, but Obama is fair game? What is more honest is that YOU are NOT Irish and YOU have NO right to tell people what they should be saying. I had no more time for the critical way Bush was treated although I Always felt it was Cheney the war criminal running the show...and not Bush.....

• hyattsville | Jun 23, 2010, 02:22 PM EDT

  IrishAndProud I’m imagining that with your people skills, inclusiveness and supportive personality you either work alone or are unemployed. Whatever you think of President Obama, he IS the Commander in Chief and McChrystal's public undermining of him was absolutely not on. Nor should he have shown such a very disjointed front to America's enemies. Additionally, the forces under McChrystal’s command appear to have killed even more innocent Afghan civilians than those under his predecessor, which hardly shows stellar leadership qualities. Obama assured us that the firing wasn’t ‘based on any sense of personal insult.’ Let’s see if Gen. Petraeus can wrap this up.

• IrishAndProud | Jun 23, 2010, 02:14 PM EDT

  shuvonn, if you even read the article you would have seen that McChrystal himself didn't even criticize Obama once. And BTW Barack Hussein Obama is not some sacred cow who's above criticism -- and according to American public opinion nowadays he enjoys no more majority support, on virtually anything. He's a loser. McChrystal has 'undermined' nothing (you're parroting words that his critics have been using in their articles). Funny, I just can't see people like you backing off the far-worse criticism that Bush constantly received and 'sucking it up' because HE was President. What you SHOULD have said, shuvonn (because it's far more honest) is that you want people to not criticise a LEFT wing guy...like Obama. But RIGHT wingers? Hey, go for it, right?

• jmcauliff | Jun 23, 2010, 02:05 PM EDT

  Even more disturbing than the arrogance shown by General McChrystal and colleagues toward the nation's elected leaders and key staff is their presumptuousness that the US by dint of a repackaged counterinsurgency strategy (COIN) can reorganize Afghanistan to a model more satisfying to our values and interests. Read the full Rolling Stone article on its web site rollingstone.com John McAuliff

• SnakeEater565 | Jun 23, 2010, 01:53 PM EDT

  Good for General McChrystal. If Obama is smart, and he is, he will keep him.

• shuvonn | Jun 23, 2010, 01:47 PM EDT

  See what happens when you are disrespectful of the president? Regardless of your personal feelings of the job the president is doing, some of you are hypocrites being disrespectful of him as McChrystal undermined the civilian control of the military, and I can still hear the complaints about the Dixie Chicks comments about George Bush, SUCK IT UP OBAMA IS YOUR PRESIDENT, ALLOW HIM TO DO HIS JOB, and stop the insults....deal with it....

• 1661996usmc | Jun 23, 2010, 12:51 PM EDT

  The U.S. needs a Marine General to take over.

• irishgenebuf | Jun 23, 2010, 12:28 PM EDT

  McChrystal is an idiot. He is the wrong guy in the wrong job. We need a sane mature person who will concentrate on extricating us from Afghanistan. Not an overgrown juvenile who is content to stay there forever. He should be fired on performance. The rowdiness and boys' life stuff is extra.

• bcoc1124 | Jun 23, 2010, 12:20 PM EDT

  While McChrystal may have many qualities that military leadership requires, he does not seem able to comprehend that all actions have consequences. When he and his"Team America" acted as "college boys" they failed to realize - or perhaps didn't care- that their drunken exploits reflected on themselves, their uniforms, and their country. When the United States needs "the best and the brightest" we get boys peeing on themselves. Can them all!

• Mousey123 | Jun 23, 2010, 12:08 PM EDT

  Mousey 123 is stunned. The one question that keeps bouncing around in Mousey's head is, what the hell did McChrystal THINK was going to happen when this article was published? If he didn't know, then he is dumber and/or about 600x more arrogant than his aids, his press agent and the media allow.

• Derrylass627 | Jun 23, 2010, 12:01 PM EDT

  Poor Katieherk, you are such a dunce. Obama does not abhor our military - he loves them and supports them as we all do. McChrystal's behavior was just not professional - deal with it! In his position he has to be respectable at all times or suffer the consequences. If he doesn't respect Obama he needs to go!

• katieherk | Jun 23, 2010, 11:52 AM EDT

  Obama gets what he deserves because he abhors the American soldier and does not want freedom for anyone!!

• CrashKC5 | Jun 23, 2010, 11:48 AM EDT

  While I agree with much of McChrystal's assessment and characterization of the current administration, I don't think it was right for him to speak of this in public. It's obvious that Obama and his administration are not respected by this man and for that reason he should step aside. The part I don't like is why do people speak their mind, then apologize for it when it gets in public. Why apologize for what you truly believe? If a high ranking member of our military disapproves of the Commander-in-chief, he should tell him to his face and not share it with the rest of the world.

• Scrivner | Jun 23, 2010, 11:41 AM EDT

  Those, especially Dennis, like to compare Afganistan to Viet Nam...unfortunately it is becoming true...LBJ micro managed the war, put unbelievable rules of engagement in place, denied assistance to our allies and therefore lost the war (yes, it was a war). Two million "boat people" would disagree with your conclusion that the NVA were peaceful agarian refomers.

• Porickseantuny | Jun 23, 2010, 11:09 AM EDT

  Speak softly and carry a big stick is the best policy. Obama speaks softly and carries a marshmellow. But McChrystal should be discharged for stupidity. He failed to recognize the fox in the hen house.

• jones3731 | Jun 23, 2010, 11:06 AM EDT

  I think McChrysatl is an idiot. Why would you let an anti-war rag like RS hang with you anyway? I don't think Obama will fire him though because McC is his whipping boy and if he fires McC then all the pressure will be on Obama.

• pflynn70 | Jun 23, 2010, 10:59 AM EDT

  As an old infrantryman,whats so bold as a bunch of soldiers having drinks and getting looped in a bar? If I had to work every day on a war that is not supported by the commander in chief and led by a bunch of left wing dummies, believe me I'd be in there drinking as well. You have a committed great 4 star general, he didn't get there by "promising hope & change" he got there by sheer courage and guts. I thinks we should put a helmit on Obama & Biden along with some of the other jerks in the White House and then assess the war. Bet there would be a severe change in "attatude".

• donal1951 | Jun 23, 2010, 10:32 AM EDT

  As an old fart retired journalist, I agree with Mike Leahy, here was no reason for the information to e made public. Here were a group of soldiers, some of them general officers, letting off some steam. They should have been left alone. When I worked in Washington, I got invited to some Christmas parties thrown by hush-hush portions of DoD. I didn't have to be told everything was off the record. It was understood. It was a time for all of us, the Navy Department workers and me, the lone reporter, to blow off steam an have fun.

• chesapeake | Jun 23, 2010, 10:14 AM EDT

  A professional military man working for two half-assed politicians with absolutely no military experience assigned to complete an impossible task in order to make his bosses look good. Is he frustrated? Wouldn't you be? Relax, Obama really can't fire him; but if mhe does, I'd lay bets that the replacement has a Hispanic name!

• woodmontwoman | Jun 23, 2010, 10:05 AM EDT

  As anyone who has served in the military knows, the president, whoever it might be and whatever your politics, is the Commander in Chief and is to be shown respect in public. A professional soldier knows what his or her duty is and understands the chain of command. Gen. McChrystal did not act with conduct becoming an officer.

• patriciarea | Jun 23, 2010, 09:48 AM EDT

  what an idiot, he should have known better.

• MikeLeahy | Jun 23, 2010, 09:44 AM EDT

  I hate to sound like an old fart, but in the good ol' days a journalist would never release this kind of information. Who benefits from this getting out?

• MotherIrish | Jun 23, 2010, 09:24 AM EDT

  First meeting of McChrystal & Obama was a photo op and not for McChrystal. We have a most inept president in office and I will bet any money McChrystal rues the vote he gave to Obama and wishes now he could veto that vote. He has to stay. Obama is the one who should go.

• JamesMurphy | Jun 23, 2010, 09:19 AM EDT

  A storm in a teacup. Sure McCrystal and his boys should have been especially careful with a publication like Rolling Stone, but they have been living unreal lives for so long they no doubt are inured to what makes the so-called real world tick. Give him another job and bring all U.S. troops home from Afghanistan. Only the Afghanis can solve the problems of that desparate country.

• killowen | Jun 23, 2010, 08:56 AM EDT

  Nice to know someone on high is willing to tell it like it is - a shambles. Bleeding badly across the globe for our BP (Brit Partner). That special relationship - don't you know.

• Helen Ferone | Jun 23, 2010, 08:56 AM EDT

  He's entitled to his opinion (supposedly), and said what most Americans feel. Why should our men go back 2 or 3 times when they were lucky the first time, and made it home safely?

• Fatherpat | Jun 23, 2010, 08:56 AM EDT

  Let's face it...the problem is not too much Guiness and a couple of badly executed jigs...no the problem goes much deeper. The US has banjaxed Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistan...the list goes on and the cloak and dagger general is getting axed. Get smart and get the hell out of Afghanistan and everywhere else the hired killers of our corpocratic militarist industrial complex has its grubby paws. While we're at it dump this whole NATO scam and clean up our slums and crumbling schools! Get out of the war industry now before it kills us all. About time USans cleaned up the corruption and filth at home and Congress and the Gulf would be two places to start. Still I dare say Janitor Jolson of the White house is not the man for such tasks.

• weedbgone | Jun 23, 2010, 08:55 AM EDT

  Well the Irish do get a little drunk, they are under pressure all the time, but Obama is the boss, it's ashame he probably ruined his career by allowing Rolling Stone Magazine to "get him".

• breadman | Jun 23, 2010, 08:54 AM EDT

  You have onviously never been to war, never shot somebody, or pushed a button to fire a bomb at soemone, you will never know what comraderey is and what you feel for a guy who has your back when soemone is trying to kill you. This president like you will never understand that.He will run all the good guys out of the service in his to long 4 year term.

• tomgallagher | Jun 23, 2010, 08:52 AM EDT

  This is how the entire U.S. Military feels about Obama and his know nothing syncophants.

• Sunnycelt | Jun 23, 2010, 08:42 AM EDT

  Dump McChrytal.....!

• powsmias | Jun 23, 2010, 08:36 AM EDT

  what we have is an experienced soldier criticizing a community organizer and his staff of know nothing morons and he's catching hell for it? parole sirhan sirhan. Hope all the dirtbags that elected him get spinal cancer and suffer.

• IrishAndProud | Jun 23, 2010, 01:47 AM EDT

  Dennis, you sound PRECISELY like Barack Hussein Obama -- since he's been going around the world saying PRECISELY such things to our allies and enemies, alike (the latter gleefully becoming more brazen with each passing day -- name even a single solitary enemy that's become more 'meek' because of Obama). Everything to the liberal is nuanced; nothing is black and white. You could say, Dennis, that LEFT wingers (such as Obama and yourself) know nothing about clarity. America DESERVES to lose every war, because our hearts are purely evil and nothing but. Rather than the sarcasm, why not just come out and say it, directly?

• DennisQ | Jun 23, 2010, 01:06 AM EDT

  America's central foreign policy lapse is that we have a Saturday morning cartoon show image of the world. We're the good guys; our enemies are the bad guys. If the rest of the world doesn't see things our way, by God we'll beat them into submission until they do! Right wingers don't know much about subtlety. America deserves to win every war because our hearts are pure and good.

• jmd0524 | Jun 22, 2010, 11:22 PM EDT

  They were obviously on an R and R from a WAR. Give them a break. It's not like they were on duty in Afghanistan and were berating their bosses. Who has never made disparaging remarks about their boss?

• DennisQ | Jun 22, 2010, 10:13 PM EDT

  The "enemy" in Afghanistan are Afghans who are tired of being occupied by foreigners. This is the same "enemy" we fought - unsuccessfully - in Vietnam, and the same "enemy" we are fighting - unsuccessfully - in Iraq. People don't want foreign armies occupying their country. Does the term Sinn Féin mean anything to you? It means in Irish what Viet Nam means in Vietnamese.

• CullenAbroad | Jun 22, 2010, 08:57 PM EDT

  I agree - ball is in Obama's court - his play.

• Bushothehill | Jun 22, 2010, 07:02 PM EDT

  The dogs of Washington, who identify themselves as representatives of the people, are unworthy of cleaning the detritus from the soles of McChrystal's combat boots.

• IrishAndProud | Jun 22, 2010, 06:18 PM EDT

  Well, Obama didn't REALLY 'go with it', at all. McChrystal requested a certain number of troops, and Obama dithered around with it for months before giving him far fewer. Further, Obama has already announced to the enemy when the USA will be pulling out, long before victory has actually been achieved (and which is made all the more difficult by hand-tying 'rules of engagement' that prevent troops from pursuing the enemy with the force that's needed, at the time). It's OBAMA who's mishandled this thing from the get-go, not McChrystal...and it would be both dishonest and all-too-politically-convenient to blame the general, here.

• KathyCallahan | Jun 22, 2010, 06:05 PM EDT

  Obama is ultimately responsible as commander in chief...McC was living at risk and Obama is ultimately responsible for what goes down in Afghanistan and the pub. McC rose up and Obama should have been aware

• DennisQ | Jun 22, 2010, 05:42 PM EDT

  The war in Afghanistan was a loser from the outset. We didn't know what we were trying to do when we got in there, and we still don't know what we're trying to do. Stanley McChrystal assured the new president he could pull off some kind of victory, and Obama went with it. But McChrystal hasn't delivered - the war is a loser, and it's time to get out. The "pub story" is at best a cover. Obama's got the support of all the professional military people; McChrystal has only his personal staff.

• KathyCallahan | Jun 22, 2010, 04:34 PM EDT

  McChrystal got stuck in a moment and couldn't get out of it Tragic all around

• JBRAFTREE | Jun 22, 2010, 03:48 PM EDT

  Right Irishand!!!

• IrishAndProud | Jun 22, 2010, 03:07 PM EDT

  Like any of this is anything new in military circles. I'm not defending drunken behaviour (by these folks or anyone else, for that matter), but there was utterly nothing unusual described, in this article. As for the utter disdain for Obama, how could there NOT be? The guy is no longer supported by a majority of the American people themselves, much less the military. What's the surprise, here? Were they just supposed to 'keep it under wraps,' maybe, and simply never articulate it verbally? Exactly how would that be any different, really? Everyone knows their sentiments, already...and those sentiments are far more in line with current American public opinion than not. This may cost McCrystal his job -- but it will only HELP him in the court of public opinion.