Y'all know the drill. When the story first broke regarding General Stanley McChrystal supposedly "committing an act of insubordination" by trashing President Obama to Rolling Stone magazine, the conventional wisdom was to say that "he should be fired". Well, then, after reading Michael Rulle's excellent article titled, "Has Anyone Actually Read the Rolling Stone Article?", it became apparent to me that A.) most of the general public and the mainstream media had not read the infamous article, and B.) that it is foolish to take anything that the MSM says at face value. In other words, this whole story began to stink as though a skunk had scurried across the backyard.
He made a series of insightful points in his piece. However, It was Michael's final paragraph that should inspire true journalists and bloggers everywhere to do some serious digging of their own:
"Maybe the Afghanistan strategy is wrong; I have no idea and that is not my point. McChrystal is dynamic and charismatic, but does not strike me as a cowboy. Yes, I can see how the article can irritate “real men”. But “real men” would pick up the phone and say to the General “chill out, we need you, fix it”. The fact that McChrystal took full responsibility for this manufactured “crisis of insubordination” indicates strong character. The crocodile rage (the Left) and tears (the Right) manufactured by the media and the politicians over this article shows incredible weakness by us as a nation. Remember the “strong horse” versus “weak horse” analogy made so infamous by Osama Bin Laden? Well, our weak horses just fired our strong horse.
God help us."
Now, after doing some extensive research, I have come to three big conclusions about this "McChrystal insubordination" story.
The first conclusion is that the MSM is going for General McChrystal's jugular, because they are attempting to do some serious CYA for The One. How does one come to this conclusion, you ask? Well, why don't we take a look at this quite revealing video montage from Newsbusters, and you tell me what you think.
Our word for the day boys and girls is "brilliant". Man, the JournoList strikes again, because those guys all had their talking points down pat. But seriously, listening to those Obama sycophants prattle on, one couldn't help but be reminded of Inigo Montoya from "The Princess Bride" when he said the following--
"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means".
First of all, if Obama is so "brilliant", why did it take him months to finally send General McChrystal the troops that he requested? It seems that a "brilliant" man would understand that you need soldiers to win a war--not unicorn farts and pixie dust. Second of all, wouldn't a "brilliant" man know that it's probably a good idea to meet with your commander in Afghanistan for more than, say, just 25 minutes on Air Force One? Furthermore, wouldn't a "brilliant" man know that winning the war in Afghanistan is more important than pitching Chicago to the International Olympics Committee? And finally, wouldn't a "brilliant" man command more respect from his commanders and soldiers in the field than Obama does? Just a thought.
Oh, and here's a little more food for thought. Barack Obama didn't even support General Petraeus during the surge or condemn that awful MoveOn.org ad calling him "General Betray Us". However, now, Obama is "brilliant" for hiring George W. Bush's general who is going to be McChrystal on steroids? (Petraeus will ask for even more troops and more time than McChrystal did.) Sorry, but that's a little hard to swallow.
Conclusion 2: What does this story say about its writer and publisher?
Now, the second conclusion regarding the whole McChrystal/Rolling Stone circus that most reasonable people should come to is that Michael Hastings is an unpatriotic, military hating skunk of a human being. Greg Gutfeld discussed this aspect of the McChrystal situation on Huckabee the other night--particularly, when he stated that Rolling Stone is known for its hatred of the military. (Specifically, Gutfeld said that, "The only thing that they (Rolling Stone) hate more than war, is winning a war", and Mike Huckabee called Michael Hastings "a far left-wing reptile".)
It should interest one that Michael Hastings' top ten most famous pieces are all anti-war and anti-military. Not to mention, Bill O'Reilly stated on his show the other night that Hastings called Rudy Giuliani a "maniac" and referred to John McCain as "Captain Ahab". Is this true, you ask? Well yes it is, because Hastings, himself, admitted to both statements when asked about them by Howard Kurtz.
However, Hastings' image really began to sour when some of his colleagues in the MSM started to trash him for unethical behavior.
For instance, The Washington Post recently had an article implying that Hastings behaved unethically, and that most of the incendiary statements made about the Obama Administration were made by aides at McChrystal's 33rd wedding anniversary--and, it was understood that those statements were off the record. Specifically, the WaPo wrote the following with regard to this matter:
"A member of McChrystal's team who was present for a celebration of McChrystal's 33rd wedding anniversary at a Paris bar said it was "clearly off the record." Aides "made it very clear to Michael: 'This is private time. These are guys who don't get to see their wives a lot. This is us together. If you stay, you have to understand this is off the record,' " according to this source. In the story, the team members are portrayed as drinking heavily."
Now, what's particularly interesting about this, is that this WaPo column was partially written by none other than Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the guy that wrote a very famous book that was hyper-critical of the war in Iraq titled Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone. So, if Chandrasekaran is criticizing you for biased, unethical war reporting, let's just say you've got problems.
[Just to be clear, NO ONE is equating Chandrasekaran with Hastings. There is absolutely nothing wrong with writing a scathing critique of how a war is being fought and suggesting that we should have done X instead of Y. There is something very wrong with printing off the record comments by inebriated aides at McChrystal's wedding anniversary in the hopes of ruining his career and sabotaging the war effort.]
Furthermore, Chandrasekaran is not alone in his opinion that maybe Mr. Hastings's behavior wasn't entirely on the up and up. For example, Toby Harnden of Telegraph wrote that Rolling Stone deliberately reported that McChrystal voted for Obama -- when his team had asked them in writing not to -- and, Harnden referred to Rolling Stone and Hastings as "a disgrace to the profession". (Can't get more direct than that, now can we?) Not to mention, veteran CBS war correspondent, Lara Logan, also criticized Hastings to Howard Kurtz and stated that--given what she knows about McChrystal-- his reporting just "didn't add up". The Huffington Post then reported the following exchange between Kurtz and Lara Logan--
Host Howard Kurtz asked Logan if there is an "unspoken agreement that you're not going to embarrass [the troops] by reporting insults and banter."
"Absolutely," she said. "Yes... there is an element of trust."
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury of public opinion--as to Hastings' (as well as Rolling Stone's) character, I rest my case. Yes Mr. Hastings, your patriotism is being questioned--write it down, take a picture, do whatever floats your boat.
Now, onto the third and final conclusion about this ridiculous scandal that wasn't involving General Stanley McChrystal.
Come to think of it, NOT ONE leftist pundit who said that McChrystal should be fired has ever contradicted anything that he, or his aides, have said. Yeah, sure they've all mindlessly prattled on about Obama's supposed "brilliance" in hiring General Petraeus (probably the only general that he knows), and about how "insubordinate" McChrystal was (let this be a lesson to us all--don't have one too many drinks at your boss' wedding anniversary if you are within earshot of some pathetic journalistic skunk). However, no one has heard anyone say that McChrystal was wrong and that Obama showed decisive leadership with regard to the war in Afghanistan, or that the civilian leadership isn't horribly bungling things in Afghanistan. In fact, Toby Harnden summed it up perfectly when he wrote the following--
"McChrystal and his "Team America" vented about Ambassador Karl Eikenberry betraying them with a leak; portrayed special envoy Richard Holbrooke as an egotist in fear of losing his job; joked about Vice President Joe Biden being a bit of a blowhard; and suggested James Jones, National Security Adviser, was an ineffectual relic of the Cold War.
These are hardly controversial opinions - even within the White House. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff and a man whose salty language would make a sailor blush, probably says worse things about his colleagues to a reporter before breakfast on most days of the week."
Furthermore, while we're on the subject on non-controversial opinions, even liberal pundits are in agreement that Obama dithered with regard to Afghanistan, and took way too long to send McChrystal the troops that he needed. In fact, Maureen Dowd wrote the following last fall to describe President Obama's tenure in office--
" If we could see a Reduced Shakespeare summary of Obama’s presidency so far, it would read:
Dither, dither, speech. Foreign trip, bow, reassure. Seminar, summit. Shoot a jump shot with the guys, throw out the first pitch in mom jeans. Compromise, concede, close the deal. Dither, dither, water down, news conference."
Moreover, in his latest column, Mark Steyn (who describes the president as "unengaged") even quoted Thomas Friedman admitting that the Obama Administration never wanted the Afghan surge in the first place--
"The ugly truth," wrote Thomas Friedman in The New York Times, "is that no one in the Obama White House wanted this Afghan surge. The only reason they proceeded was because no one knew how to get out of it."
Oh, and did you hear that some of McChrystal's aides implied that Vice President Joe Biden might be a bit of a blowhard? The hell you say! Wait a second--is this the same guy who just called some manager of a custard shop a "smartass" for asking about his taxes? OK, well Biden might be a bit of a blowhard, but we never would have figured this out on our own if it weren't for the leaks from McChrystal's guys. (Rolls eyes.)
So basically McChrystal (a four star general) was fired because his aides let off a little steam at their boss' 33rd wedding anniversary and uttered some things that everyone in their right mind accepts as universal truths?! Really?! Someone please stop me before my head explodes.
So, in conclusion, I just want to say to General Stanley McChrystal--on behalf of patriotic Americans everywhere--thank you. Thank you so much for for your stellar military career that spans more than three decades. Thank you for running the black ops missions in Iraq, and for hunting down and killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Thank you for putting your life on the line everyday in that hellhole called Afghanistan, and for actually trying to win the war there (imagine that!). You will always have our deepest appreciation and gratitude. Sir, with this video below, we salute you.
PS--And to you Michael Hastings, well, let's just say that I have a "salute" of my own that I would like to give you--but, being a Christian woman and being in polite company...it's not gonna happen. However, I can offer you some advice. Dude, take a shower. Seriously, in every single picture, you look like you haven't bathed in days. The troops that had to sit next to you on an airplane should get hazardous duty pay. Damn dirty hippie skunk.