I disagree with blk on this one. I picked up The Wrecking Crew at Mark's suggestion and when you have a group of people who are determined to destroy the current government you have to pay attention to them.
Hypothetically, is it possible that some might oppose the olympics on grounds of not hating America? You know, like feeling that this would be a waste of resources needed now, not to be paid back in 7 years? Easy answer: No, on all counts. My bad - anyone who opposes imposing several billions of dollars of debt on Chicago so Daley can ladle big wads of cash into his cronies' pockets automatically hates America. Is there someway I can fall in love with American again? Do I have to embrace cronyism and such? Is there no other way? Maybe I just don't want to throw an insanely over-hyped and insanely irrelevant track meet that would cost Chicago at least $5 Billion and because of that I am rooting against the United States? Dissent is the highest form of patriotism after all.
No Games Chicago organizer Alison McKenna said to me, "I oppose the Olympics coming to Chicago because instead of putting money toward what people really need, money will be funneled to real estate developers who will be tearing down Washington Park and other important community resources. I oppose the Olympics coming to Chicago because the nonprofit child-welfare agency that I work for had to sustain budget cuts and layoffs, while Chicago has spent $48.2 million on the 2016 Olympic bid, as of July 2009."
I thought you all cared deeply about such issues. Now new stadiums are your highest priority? Obama hasn't spoken with his top general in Afghanistan for 70 days amidst the most critical turning point in the Afghan conflict. All you have to do is look at what is happening in Vancouver for the 2010 Winter Olympics the province is going bankrupt as the developers cash in.
The Olympics are being sold as a balm for our economic crisis. There is absolutely zero in the historic record to support this - Dave Zirin, Huffpost blogger.
Last poll by the Chicago Trib: 47% for 45% against. 84% against using any taxpayer money for this. If you are not connected to Daley, this is going to be a "jobless" Olympics.
"Obama hasn't spoken with his top general in Afghanistan for 70 days"
Is it possible for you guys to have an original thought? I've heard this exact line from every conservative outlet in the last week. Anyone with any sort of understanding of the military knows this doesn't matter.
As far the rag on Chicago, it's not surprising that you wouldn't want the games there. After all, it's not where "real" Americans live, right?
"It was the men’s first meeting in person since General McChrystal took over all American and NATO forces on the ground in June. They spoke only once after that, in a videoconference call in August, until this week, when the general joined a video conference with the president to discuss the situation in Afghanistan. Mr. Obama spoke with the general by phone on Wednesday and suggested they meet in Copenhagen."
So, they met personally in June and last Friday as well as video conference calls in August and earlier this week. Not exactly "hasn't spoken with his top general in Afghanistan for 70 days" now is it?
Look at the dates Marky. In fact, read what you posted again:
"It was the men’s first meeting in person since General McChrystal took over all American and NATO forces on the ground in June. They spoke only once after that, in a videoconference call in August, until this week, when the general joined a video conference with the president to discuss the situation in Afghanistan."
Now look at the date of this article, October 3rd. I also saw a similar article dated the 2nd.
So even according to the source you quoted, McChrystal met with the President in June, didn't talk to him at all in July, talked to him once in August, and didn't talk to him again until late September 30th when this last meeting was arranged.
So let's count the days, shall we?
If we give Obama the benefit of the doubt and say that they met on June 30th, that gives zero days in June, 31 days in July, 31 in August (where they talked once and 29 days in September before they talked again. That adds up to a period of 91 days, during which Obama talked to his field commander only once.
""I’ve talked to the president, since I’ve been here, once on a VTC [video teleconference]," Gen. Stanley McChrystal told CBS reporter David Martin in a television interview that aired Sunday.
"You’ve talked to him once in 70 days?" Mr. Martin followed up.
"That is correct," the general replied."
Are you paying attention to the facts now? As for this:
"Anyone with any sort of understanding of the military knows this doesn't matter."
Hello? One of the President's titles and duties is "Commander In Chief". He is ultimately in charge and responsible for the military. But how can he be in charge if he doesn't even talk to them? If he's not talking to them on a regular basis, then he's not really commanding.
Simple question for you, Ed. Who does Stan McChrystal report to?
If that one is to tough for you, I'll give you an easier one: Who is the civilian leader of our armed forces and to whom doe HE report? And how often has President Obama and this person met? (Hint: I just gave you one of the answers in this last question.)
As much as it pains me to admit, I have to go with Marky on this one. The general follows the chain of command. I'm pretty sure he's communicating with his immediate superiors much more frequently than once every 70 days, superiors who then report to the C-in-C just as frequently. This is a bogus criticism. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms out there to focus on - we don't need to create more.
While I'll agree with that, Kevin, I also can't help feeling that for him to meet with the general in charge of his major war effort once in that time, and yet to meet with the President of SEIU about once a week in that same time period, shows a set of priorities that I personally find pretty disturbing.
SEIU...next rage filled target now that we're done with ACORN. Is it as obvious to you, GOF, as it is to me why SEIU is now the new target of the right?
I see, so SEIU, or presumably the NEA (or are you AFT affiliated?) is okey-dokey, but a corporation (also owned by people) is EEEEEEvuuuuuuuuuullllllllll.
If you were any more transparent you'd have a second job as a window.
SEIU...next rage filled target now that we're done with ACORN. Is it as obvious to you, GOF, as it is to me why SEIU is now the new target of the right?
Other than the use of the letters "SEIU", does this response have any slightest relationship to what I said?
I don't care if it's the DAR, or the NAACP, or the KKK, or... pick a string of letters, I don't care which. To remind you of the point, President Barack Obama has committed ten times the face time to a private organization than he has committed to face time with the commander of his troops in an active war theatre. That is a fact, beyond dispute.
Now, in terms of conclusions/opinions, I say that says a lot about his priorities. Do you disagree?
I find such a set of priorities in a sitting President more than a little disturbing. Do you disagree?
Would you have found it disturbing had Bush met with the leader of the Christian Coalition ten times as often as with his commanders in the field?
You can make blanket statements about "rage against the SEIU" all you want, but I challenge you to point to any actual (as opposed to imagined) "rage" in my remarks about them. Personally, I feel like if you have something to say about "rage against the SEIU".....
GOF, did you suddenly become the president's chief of staff? Where is your source for this information? And, if it is true, compare that to how much time he has spent with Gates or Jones.
I can't answer your questions until I see your source for this information and you recognize the chain of command issue.
I understand chain of command perfectly well, thank you. I realize McChrystal is a general in the field, not a cabinet minister, that there are steps in the chain of command between him and the President.
It's not like I'm calling it "dereliction of duty" or anything on Obama's part. I'm calling it a curious and disturbing trend in priorities. Judging by his access Andy Stern is a cabinet member, only without the title (or the need to be vetted. Lucky break, huh?)
You don't know Obama's reasons, and nor do I. All I'm doing is commenting on what I do know:
Obama's "war of necessity" apparently doesn't, in the estimate of this administration, require more than half an hour of "face time" with the theater commander in two and a half months. That says something about Obama's judgment and priorities. Whether what it says is good, bad or indifferent is arguable.
Andy Stern, a civilian with no official connection whatsoever to the Obama administration, gets that much "face time" with the President every week. That also says something about Obama's judgment and priorities.
So, once again... Would you have found it disturbing had Bush met with the leader of the Christian Coalition ten times as often as with his commanders in the field?
The way you have framed the question, no. But I am well aware of how your mindset debates issues so...nice try...but here is how the question should be answered.
First of all, I don't think the Christian Coalition and the SEIU are comparable. Two different organizations with vastly different agendas. The former is more esoteric than the latter. The CC mention is an obvious attempt to inflame what you may perceive as a negative for me being more liberal. Not all liberals are athiests. I'm not but I know that I'm not a "real Christian" according to Ed either.
Second, I'm sure President Bush spent much time with his SecDef and NSA...probably equal to the time he met with the CC. So that would be another reason to not have a problem with it.
Third, the problems I have with Bush is not how much time he spent with certain people but his cognitive process on formulating his strategy. It was poor. So, it doesn't matter if he spent a minute, hour, or a day meeting with leaders. He was incompetent.
Where does it show in the article how much time he spent with SEIU and how much time he spent with his national security team? And the time comparisons? I could've missed it, of course.
17 comments:
It is pointless to continue to yell about how stupid and idiotic the other side is. - blk
I disagree with blk on this one. I picked up The Wrecking Crew at Mark's suggestion and when you have a group of people who are determined to destroy the current government you have to pay attention to them.
Hypothetically, is it possible that some might oppose the olympics on grounds of not hating America? You know, like feeling that this would be a waste of resources needed now, not to be paid back in 7 years? Easy answer: No, on all counts. My bad - anyone who opposes imposing several billions of dollars of debt on Chicago so Daley can ladle big wads of cash into his cronies' pockets automatically hates America. Is there someway I can fall in love with American again? Do I have to embrace cronyism and such? Is there no other way? Maybe I just don't want to throw an insanely over-hyped and insanely irrelevant track meet that would cost Chicago at least $5 Billion and because of that I am rooting against the United States? Dissent is the highest form of patriotism after all.
No Games Chicago organizer Alison McKenna said to me, "I oppose the Olympics coming to Chicago because instead of putting money toward what people really need, money will be funneled to real estate developers who will be tearing down Washington Park and other important community resources. I oppose the Olympics coming to Chicago because the nonprofit child-welfare agency that I work for had to sustain budget cuts and layoffs, while Chicago has spent $48.2 million on the 2016 Olympic bid, as of July 2009."
I thought you all cared deeply about such issues. Now new stadiums are your highest priority? Obama hasn't spoken with his top general in Afghanistan for 70 days amidst the most critical turning point in the Afghan conflict. All you have to do is look at what is happening in Vancouver for the 2010 Winter Olympics the province is going bankrupt as the developers cash in.
The Olympics are being sold as a balm for our economic crisis. There is absolutely zero in the historic record to support this - Dave Zirin, Huffpost blogger.
Last poll by the Chicago Trib: 47% for 45% against. 84% against using any taxpayer money for this. If you are not connected to Daley, this is going to be a "jobless" Olympics.
rld, how dare you(!) use facts, logic, and historical perspective to argue your side of the story, you pea-brained asshat America hater.
"Obama hasn't spoken with his top general in Afghanistan for 70 days"
Is it possible for you guys to have an original thought? I've heard this exact line from every conservative outlet in the last week. Anyone with any sort of understanding of the military knows this doesn't matter.
As far the rag on Chicago, it's not surprising that you wouldn't want the games there. After all, it's not where "real" Americans live, right?
RLD,
Just saw this in today's Times.
"It was the men’s first meeting in person since General McChrystal took over all American and NATO forces on the ground in June. They spoke only once after that, in a videoconference call in August, until this week, when the general joined a video conference with the president to discuss the situation in Afghanistan. Mr. Obama spoke with the general by phone on Wednesday and suggested they meet in Copenhagen."
So, they met personally in June and last Friday as well as video conference calls in August and earlier this week. Not exactly "hasn't spoken with his top general in Afghanistan for 70 days" now is it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/world/asia/03mcchrystal.html?em
Look at the dates Marky. In fact, read what you posted again:
"It was the men’s first meeting in person since General McChrystal took over all American and NATO forces on the ground in June. They spoke only once after that, in a videoconference call in August, until this week, when the general joined a video conference with the president to discuss the situation in Afghanistan."
Now look at the date of this article, October 3rd. I also saw a similar article dated the 2nd.
So even according to the source you quoted, McChrystal met with the President in June, didn't talk to him at all in July, talked to him once in August, and didn't talk to him again until late September 30th when this last meeting was arranged.
So let's count the days, shall we?
If we give Obama the benefit of the doubt and say that they met on June 30th, that gives zero days in June, 31 days in July, 31 in August (where they talked once and 29 days in September before they talked again. That adds up to a period of 91 days, during which Obama talked to his field commander only once.
The "70 days" number comes from a CBS television interview with McChrystal:
""I’ve talked to the president, since I’ve been here, once on a VTC [video teleconference]," Gen. Stanley McChrystal told CBS reporter David Martin in a television interview that aired Sunday.
"You’ve talked to him once in 70 days?" Mr. Martin followed up.
"That is correct," the general replied."
Are you paying attention to the facts now? As for this:
"Anyone with any sort of understanding of the military knows this doesn't matter."
Hello? One of the President's titles and duties is "Commander In Chief". He is ultimately in charge and responsible for the military. But how can he be in charge if he doesn't even talk to them? If he's not talking to them on a regular basis, then he's not really commanding.
Simple question for you, Ed. Who does Stan McChrystal report to?
If that one is to tough for you, I'll give you an easier one: Who is the civilian leader of our armed forces and to whom doe HE report? And how often has President Obama and this person met? (Hint: I just gave you one of the answers in this last question.)
Are YOU paying attention to the facts?
As much as it pains me to admit, I have to go with Marky on this one. The general follows the chain of command. I'm pretty sure he's communicating with his immediate superiors much more frequently than once every 70 days, superiors who then report to the C-in-C just as frequently. This is a bogus criticism. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms out there to focus on - we don't need to create more.
While I'll agree with that, Kevin, I also can't help feeling that for him to meet with the general in charge of his major war effort once in that time, and yet to meet with the President of SEIU about once a week in that same time period, shows a set of priorities that I personally find pretty disturbing.
One of the saying I have in my personal life, may not hold true for other areas of life...
I can tell exactly what someones priorities are just by looking at their calender and their checkbook.
SEIU...next rage filled target now that we're done with ACORN. Is it as obvious to you, GOF, as it is to me why SEIU is now the new target of the right?
I see, so SEIU, or presumably the NEA (or are you AFT affiliated?) is okey-dokey, but a corporation (also owned by people) is EEEEEEvuuuuuuuuuullllllllll.
If you were any more transparent you'd have a second job as a window.
SEIU...next rage filled target now that we're done with ACORN. Is it as obvious to you, GOF, as it is to me why SEIU is now the new target of the right?
Other than the use of the letters "SEIU", does this response have any slightest relationship to what I said?
I don't care if it's the DAR, or the NAACP, or the KKK, or... pick a string of letters, I don't care which. To remind you of the point, President Barack Obama has committed ten times the face time to a private organization than he has committed to face time with the commander of his troops in an active war theatre. That is a fact, beyond dispute.
Now, in terms of conclusions/opinions, I say that says a lot about his priorities. Do you disagree?
I find such a set of priorities in a sitting President more than a little disturbing. Do you disagree?
Would you have found it disturbing had Bush met with the leader of the Christian Coalition ten times as often as with his commanders in the field?
You can make blanket statements about "rage against the SEIU" all you want, but I challenge you to point to any actual (as opposed to imagined) "rage" in my remarks about them. Personally, I feel like if you have something to say about "rage against the SEIU".....
....tell it to Ken Gladney.
GOF, did you suddenly become the president's chief of staff? Where is your source for this information? And, if it is true, compare that to how much time he has spent with Gates or Jones.
I can't answer your questions until I see your source for this information and you recognize the chain of command issue.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/28/nation/na-stern28
I understand chain of command perfectly well, thank you. I realize McChrystal is a general in the field, not a cabinet minister, that there are steps in the chain of command between him and the President.
It's not like I'm calling it "dereliction of duty" or anything on Obama's part. I'm calling it a curious and disturbing trend in priorities. Judging by his access Andy Stern is a cabinet member, only without the title (or the need to be vetted. Lucky break, huh?)
You don't know Obama's reasons, and nor do I. All I'm doing is commenting on what I do know:
Obama's "war of necessity" apparently doesn't, in the estimate of this administration, require more than half an hour of "face time" with the theater commander in two and a half months. That says something about Obama's judgment and priorities. Whether what it says is good, bad or indifferent is arguable.
Andy Stern, a civilian with no official connection whatsoever to the Obama administration, gets that much "face time" with the President every week. That also says something about Obama's judgment and priorities.
So, once again... Would you have found it disturbing had Bush met with the leader of the Christian Coalition ten times as often as with his commanders in the field?
The way you have framed the question, no. But I am well aware of how your mindset debates issues so...nice try...but here is how the question should be answered.
First of all, I don't think the Christian Coalition and the SEIU are comparable. Two different organizations with vastly different agendas. The former is more esoteric than the latter. The CC mention is an obvious attempt to inflame what you may perceive as a negative for me being more liberal. Not all liberals are athiests. I'm not but I know that I'm not a "real Christian" according to Ed either.
Second, I'm sure President Bush spent much time with his SecDef and NSA...probably equal to the time he met with the CC. So that would be another reason to not have a problem with it.
Third, the problems I have with Bush is not how much time he spent with certain people but his cognitive process on formulating his strategy. It was poor. So, it doesn't matter if he spent a minute, hour, or a day meeting with leaders. He was incompetent.
Where does it show in the article how much time he spent with SEIU and how much time he spent with his national security team? And the time comparisons? I could've missed it, of course.
Post a Comment