Tuesday, June 22, 2010


Roger Goodell hs given Stanley McChrystal six games off for "poor judgment."  If he goes to Anger Management he could have his suspension reduced to four games.

Seriously, Stanley, enjoy your looming retirement.  You knew your were punking the CIC and you did it anyway.  You were trained better than that.  "Poor Judgment" is leaving your money clip on the night stand.  Discussing your Command Staff's advisors is willful misconduct.  If it made you feel good, I'm happy for you.  You hadda know there would be a price to pay.  In a chain of command, there is no First Amendment.

All kidding aside, this is a sad day.  It's not the first time this has happened and it won't be the last.  But it's still sad.

FWIW, I might even agree with some of what he said.  That's not the point at all.


At 12:56 PM, June 22, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chain of Command is what it's all about. Too bad the truth can bite one in the butt like that. Should have vented to someone else -- like the CIC. Maybe he felt the attention was worth his sacrifice.

At 1:46 PM, June 22, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

See, if this was McCh. sacrificing his career for the delivery of a message, I'd have understood that. If that's what this was, then he wouldn't have apologized. It's like shooting blanks at Ft Sumter. You're either protesting or you're not.

Resign and sell your book, then scream all you want, but you don't diss the CIC. Soldiers don't whine.


At 5:04 PM, June 22, 2010, Anonymous QC Examiner said...

I heard Obama was calling a convocation of Nobel Prize winners to tell him if he needs to kick McChyrstal's ass.

OK, just joking.


If GWB was still POTUS, I'm sure the Democrats and their allies in the press would be hailing McChrystal as a hero and brave truth-telling whistleblower for exposing the failed Bush policies in Afghanistan and the fecklessness of the CIC.

At 9:13 PM, June 22, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Again, don't paint with too broad a brush. Here, military discipline and the Chain of Command is so vital that, for me, it cancels out any partisan position.

I'm not sure there is a parallel for this. Neither McArthur nor Shinseki fits.

I'm sure you're correct that, if this were an anti-Shrub interview, George Soros would be praising the brave General, but we all have have excesses on our teams.


At 7:24 AM, June 23, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think Obama has the guts to fire the general. Hope he does, but to do so would challenge the supremacy of the military-industrial complex.

At 11:22 AM, June 23, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Quite the opposite. It will show who's actually in charge of the MIC.


At 11:38 AM, June 23, 2010, Anonymous QC Examiner said...

Well sure, I agree with all the chain of command, civilian control of military, etc. stuff, but when GWB was POTUS, Democrats had no time for all that nonsense---and Shinseki is Exhibit 1.

Democrats used Shinseki as a tool to rip GWB for not sending enough troops to Iraq and denounced him for "firing" Shinseki, even though (as I understand it) he was due to retire anyway.

Amazingly, the majority of Democrats and the establishment press are siding with Obama, which they didn't do with GWB.

You can't have it both ways---which the Democrats and their allies in the press are determined to do.

You are the one painting with a broad brush---many more Democrats were happy to use Shinseki to attack GWB and his policies than were shrieking about "chain of command" and all that.

This may be your view, but it was not the view of the majority of Democrats and their allies in the press.

Sorry, that's just a fact.

At 2:20 PM, June 23, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...


Just proves even valued blogger colleagues get their hats all spun around.

Shinseki was due a promotion and was waiting it out. He probably would have retired in 18 mos. or so, a bit better pensioned and a lot more honored.

Shinseki was under oath before congress and spoke the truth as he was required to. Everybody on both sides should have been outraged. He was the unprotected version of a Whistleblower for egregious offense of disagreeing with Rummy.

How that is comparable to ripping your CIC's Nat'l Security advisors in Rolling Stone utterly escapes me and, I'll bet in your heart of hearts, escapes you.

To sustain your position, you about have to believe Shinseki was a Dem. plant. Hell, they were more shocked at his troop estimate (which turned out to be right and was lower than CPowell's private estimate.) than Scooter Libby was at getting convicted and not fully pardoned.

Under the heading of gratuitous insults, anybody who would rip the vanity and narrowness of Richard Holbrooke can't be all bad. What a self-important gas bag!


At 2:42 PM, June 23, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I stand corrected, UMRBlog, about who is actually in charge of the MIC. Which, I guess, goes to prove that Obama is a somewhat less progressive Republican (posing as a Democrat) than Bill Clinton is (posing as a Democrat).

At 4:08 PM, June 24, 2010, Anonymous QC Examiner said...

"blogger collegues get their hats all spun around"

"I'll bet in your heart of hearts, [it] escapes you"

"you have to believe Shinseki was a Dem plant"

Huh? What?

Well yeah, just like Secretary of State and former Senator Hillary Clinton said:

"The reports that [Petraeus] provide(s) us really require the suspension of disbelief (sic)".

It seems you also are suspending "disbelief" to make your case.

But no matter---I'm outta here.

But do enjoy your other "blogger collegues".

At 6:23 AM, June 25, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

I forget that we are not acquainted. "Hat all Spun Around" is a common expression I use to expresss somebody's reasoning is flawed or misdirected. If it gave offense, I'm sorry.

Please, and I sincerely mean this, don't take your keyboard and go home. Your input is very much appreciated.

On the merits, I just think the predictable Shinseki appellation was poorly chosen.

This was an unprecedented stressor for the relationship between the Civilian CIC and the Military. Truly no precedent. Shinseki should have found sympathy from every member of Congress. Somebody should have been thinking that this would deter future witnesses from truthful testimony.

But I didn't say "valued colleague" without thought and intension. Just because I think you're wrong on one issue/example doesn't mean I don't value and want your input. You'll find plenty of examples where I've conceded your points, well made, in your blog and in mine.


At 1:50 PM, June 27, 2010, Anonymous QC Examiner said...

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

In order to comment here, if I have to parse and explain every word, phrase, sentence and paragraph, that means you don't "get" me and I don't belong here.

That's just a fact.

At 9:43 PM, June 27, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...


I've just reread all this and truly don't see where I've disagreed and also been disagreeable.

I try to reply to every substantive input I get and that does often invite a reasoned response. I surely never intended to hurt your feelings or communicate I don't "get" you. This is all a little surprising.

As nearly as I can tell there has never been a General relieved for personal attacks on "war cabinet" personnel and I was just trying to point out that wasn't Shinseki at all, or McArthur, for that matter.

If, in attempting to show this was a unique situation, I communicated I didn't see your point about the lefties rushing to dump on Shrub while lamely defending Shinseki, I'm sorry. That's exactly what happened. It's just that it wasn't, in my opinion, a parallel.

Your always welcome in my tedious little world.



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home