We just watched an old fashioned lynching and the culprits are on both sides of the aisle. After reading the Rolling Stone article, I was struck by a few things the lame-brain media has in this narrative that are misleading. They have taken this article as being some kind of biographical essay of a person. I was also surprised at the vitriol the media/politicians are spewing at the general, er now ex-general considering the nature of the quotes and the topic. Further, it would seem both parties are equally as easily bruised as peaches this summer. Sen. John McCain and Sen. Lindsey Grahamnesty both were apparently appalled a general could have a negative opinion about the president. McCain may have been smarting some because the general didn't exactly portray him as a fearless leader but a whiny politician. Grahamnesty is just a kneejerk power politician who presumes the nation will turn on McCrystal like they did on BP. However, I think this lynch mob that offed the general did so without even looking at the evidence.
My first impression when reading the article is that this man is raw, unscripted, and somewhat irreverent. His words and demeanor are carefully described in the piece and actually the writer painted an illustrative figure of McChrystal. That being said, it must be remembered that this is first, Rolling Stone, which gathers no facts, and second, this is not a transcript.
Rolling Stone is an historically liberal rag that has always published articles that bash anything traditional and portrayed conservatives or even moderates in a negative light. You cannot pick up a Rolling Stone, read an article, and say to yourself, 'this was such a well-balanced, objective piece' without chuckling. That isn't to say the article was a hit piece, it was not. It was a liberal view of a military figure. That's all.
Second, this isn't a movie transcript. The writer fills the prose with his own impressions of the demeanor and attitude of the people he talked to and events he witnessed. If the coarse banter at the beginning of the article were an inside joke between friends, the writer wouldn't understand it nor would he accurately depict these men at this dinner as joking with one another. Instead, he imbues the atmosphere with a kind of jock in a locker room patina that could be completely absent at the actual time and place.
But, the lazy-bones in the lame-brain media read the article, or didn't but read the excerpts, and began creating a narrative of the rogue general who plays fast and loose with the rules and irreverently refers to Joe Biden as 'Bite Me'. They have used his aides' characterizations of the general's stories to them as some kind of pathway into the general's mind. This kind of sloppy hearsay filtered through hearsay [the reporter heard it interpreted from the aide who interpreted from the general or another general's aide] became McChrystal's words, attitude, behavior, and demeanor all rolled up in one.
Furthermore, it seems a bit disingenuous to me that McChrystal should be criticized about this article that he didn't write and that doesn't have any substantive sourcing to him. He can't even answer these charges about what he said since he may not have said it in the first place. He may have made off-hand comments about his impression of people and their behaviors, but that doesn't make him a loose cannon, nor does it make his entourage loose cannons. Saying Obama seemed uncomfortable and a little lost for the Afghanistan meeting is hardly a criticism. For heaven's sake, we watched as the Dawdler-in-Chief putzed on and on about the decision. If that isn't apparent to anyone who isn't drunk on Obama juice, then what is?
Finally, it seemed to be the Republicans were johnny on the spot about this poor man as well. Don't they realize, first of all, that if it were McCain and Palin who won the election and the same facts were present, Pelosi and Reid would be talking about a Congressional Medal of Honor for McChrystal. The HuffingPuffington Post would have had a parade for him. The New Obama Times and Washington ComPost would have editorials praising McChrystal's insight and bravery.
But, the Republicans are trying to maintain the 'chain of command', as they put it. That's ridiculous. These relatively innocuous remarks about these clowns are not putting our civilian command of our military at risk. It is the stupidity of the civilians we've placed in command of our military that are putting our country at risk. For them to have joined in the lynching shows just how far they've traveled down the Yellow Brick Road toward Oz. It also shows just how craven these people can be, given the right circumstances.
I, for one, am disenchanted with this turn of events. A person should not be cornered by a pack of wild dogs, accused of thoughts, and ripped by his natural allies. McChrystal reports to have voted for the Dear Leader, and now he has been devoured like GM, Citibank, BP, and many others. McChrystal seemed to believe that if he supported these mobsters and followed their thuggish ways, he'd be safe. Well, no one is safe with this crew in town and in power. Like BP, McChrystal learned that the hard way.