Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings: I'm a Journalist, "Not a Stenographer"
Michael Hastings, Rolling Stone's McChrystal Profiler, Says Troops Are Happy That General Was Ousted
The Rolling Stone correspondent whose profile of Gen. Stanley McChrystal upended America's Afghan war leadership says that soldiers on the ground are happy that the brash and sometimes reckless general was ousted by President Obama.
Michael Hastings, author of the bombshell Rolling Stone profile of Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Michael Hastings tells Huffington Post in a phone interview from
Afghanistan, where he is embedded with U.S. troops: "Over here, soldiers
were happy that he got fired. I've had a number of people come up to
me, I got an email from a Marine this morning [Thursday]: 'Hey man, you
did great work. All the guys in my company think it's good McChrystal is
not there because he was putting our lives at risk."
Hastings adds he was "very surprised" by the resignation, assuming that McChrystal was unfireable. Taking note of the general's "tense relationship" with the president, Hastings says that Obama had to push out McChrystal to "prove that he was in control" and not a weak leader.
Hastings also paints a grim picture of the major U.S. offensive in Kandahar. "I think it's in trouble, in serious trouble," he says. "The fighting is really, really heavy and they've postponed the heaviest fighting till the fall. But it's going to be nasty."
In a wide-ranging interview with HuffPost, Hastings talks about his crazy week, what he thinks about McChrystal's retirement, the challenges facing the U.S. military and he forcefully responds to the media pundits who were shocked that a reporter would dare to risk that most precious commodity: access.
It's been some week for you. Were you surprised to see the impact your story would have? Did you anticipate that kind of reaction?
Yeah, it seems to have gotten some attention. No, I didn't expect it. It's unusual for Afghanistan to get any attention. What I thought was that it will probably cause a headache for [General] McChrystal for a couple of days but that it would only be watched by those who follow Afghanistan closely.
Where were you when you first started to hear about the story's ripple effects?
I was in Kandahar. It was Monday and I'd been on an embed all day. I was sun-burned as hell. I was on the Kandahar air base, interviewing pilots, who were basically fighting every day IN THEIR helicopters. I went to bed, plugged my phone in to charge and all of a sudden I got this text message saying the AP picked up the story. I thought that was interesting.
I went out the next day with these helicopter pilots and while that was happening, by the end of that day - Tuesday - [the story] appeared to take on some momentum. I spent a lot of time on the phone. Later that night, I went out on a helicopter mission. At 3 a.m., I had to go out and meet these helicopter guys again. That morning, it was a mission where I followed these helicopters called Kiowa Warriors -- and they get called down for this gun battle between insurgents and Americans. The fighting was intense, two insurgents were killed... Then we went back to base. I had no Internet. I knew that I was getting a lot of phone calls, I was running out of batteries and had horrible reception.
McChrystal had issued his apology earlier in the day and then I learned he had been called back to Washington. It was understood that it was due to my reporting in the story, and I figured it would be good to get back to Kabul because of the fact that it looked like Gen McChrystal would resign. On Wednesday evening, I went back to Kabul... Sometimes, it's hard to get flights out of military bases, but it was pretty easy this time. They were like, "This ride's for you, man!" I was late to the flight but they got me on the flight anyway. And there were soldiers reading the story around me, reading printouts, and they didn't know who I was. That was a strange experience...
Some of the soldiers must have made the connection, hearing your name and knowing that it was you?
It was funny -- one of the soldiers I was talking to said, 'Hey, did you hear this story about McChrystal. And I said, 'Yeah, I have. I wrote it. He just said, 'That's fucking crazy, man."...
What story are you working on now - the Kandahar offensive?
That's the story I've been working on.
How is that offensive going?
I think it's in trouble, in serious trouble. The fighting is really, really heavy and they've postponed the heaviest fighting till the fall. But it's going to be nasty. This June has been the deadliest month of the war. You have this problem where we told our Afghan partners, if you don't want it , then we don't have to do it, and they said no and we said, well, we're doing it anyway. Now we're in situation where we are eventually going to do it and we don't have the popular support of the locals.
What was your reaction to McChrystal's resignation? And Obama accepting it? Were you surprised?
I was very surprised. I thought Gen. McChrystal was unfireable, that his position was secure. What is telling is that our story demonstrates this tense relationship between Pres. Obama and Gen. McChrystal and the way the WH responded confirms this. They could have swept it under the rug but they drove it... obviously McChrystal's political opponents took advantage of this opportunity to relieve him of his command, though that's just my speculation.
I didn't think Obama would do it. Essentially the story calls him out for being weak and not having control of his Afghan policy. If he had let him stay, it would have confirmed this idea in the story. He had to prove that he was in control. I wasn't sure that he was willing to do that. I was shocked that he was -- not because I don't think Obama is courageous, but because it involved some political drama... It was so fast, both right and left seemed to get together to call for his resignation. There was no one defending McChrystal.
Do you think it was the right decision?
Obviously, I have significant doubts about the [military] campaign anyway. The most important decision is not whether I think Obama made the right decision but whether his firing will satisfy the soldiers. Over here, soldiers were happy that he got fired. I've had a number of people come up to me, I got an email from Marine this morning [Thursday]: 'Hey man, you did great work. All the guys in my company think it's good McChrystal is not there because he was putting our lives at risk...
Petraeus is sort of a genius. He managed to turn what could have been catastrophic defeat in Iraq into a face-saving withdrawal. That's his mission in Afghanistan, to make it look like we didn't get run out. He's a master at playing the game... the soldiers look up to him and respect him.
Will Petraeus continue this counterinsurgency offensive?
Yes. And Petraeus has the ability to communicate this strategy in a way that is more effective... I have a scene in the story [in which McChrystal goes to meet some soldiers in a unit who were angry with the general for putting them in harm's way by limited their range of responses, which led to the killing of one of their own]. The reason those guys are so angry [with McChrystal] is that Corporal Michael Ingram was killed because they weren't allowed to tear down this house [an abandoned home long considered a security risk in the area they were patrolling]. It was a total failure to communicate his vision.
The trash talking has gotten a lot of attention but the more damaging part [of the story] for McChrystal was how the soldiers would be portrayed. He pulled me aside after the meeting [at which McChrystal went to meet with Ingram's unit to hear their concerns and to explain his strategy] and said that for them the wound is still raw. They [McChrystal's staff] were under the impression that I would make the soldiers look like they did not understand counterinsurgency but what was clear to me instead is that McChrystal's command had an issue. They thought he won them over but he didn't. He knew they were angry and upset. I had a quote from a soldier saying, 'We don't even want McChrystal to come here' which I didn't include in the story.
Have you heard from McChrystal or his staffers?
I've had some communications with his folks - not from him. Members of his staff have lost their jobs as well. They're fairly upset and they expressed that to me. Of course they'll be upset, it was quite unexpected.
What did you leave out of the story - any other comments by McChrystal about Obama, Gates, Biden, Petraeus, McKiernan, etc?
I've got over two months' worth of reporting. There was a bunch of stuff that got left out. We'll see if I can use at a later date...
I read that you are working on novel? About the punditry?
I write for fun. I had written a kind of media satire but I doubt it will see the light of day. It was just a personal project.
In the hypercompetitive media world, some of the reaction to your story has been a little negative, that you have "hostile views" and that you're anti-war. Some have wondered how you could jeopardize your future access to sources. How do you respond to that?
Look, I went into journalism to do journalism, not advertising. My views are critical but that shouldn't be mistaken for hostile - I'm just not a stenographer. There is a body of work that shows how I view these issues but that was hard-earned through experience, not something I learned going to a cocktail party on fucking K Street. That's what reporters are supposed to do, report the story.
43 Comments so far
Show AllThe pen is mightier than the sword.
It was a great story, it had the correct result. I'm not that surprised that Obama fired him as Petraeus had obviously agreed to take over before the firing. Replacing McChrystal with Petraeus takes NO guts at all.
Kudos to Michael Hastings for being a real journalist and reporting the truth. He has saved lives on all sides with his story.
We've got one good reporter and one dumb ass, BushObama president with a black face. Remember when BushObama said he wasn't against all wars, he was just against "dumb wars"—like the one in Iraq?
What does the color of his face have to do with it?
"What does the color of his face have to do with it?"
Don't pretend to be guileless. The color of his skin had a lot to do with it. Don't you remember how they hoodwinked progressives and just about 100% of blacks into thinking that Obama was part of their story, their narrative, if you will?
His color had a huge impact on voting. Huge. Stop pretending it didn't. It makes you appear foolish.
That's true. But, I only meant that we have a dumb-ass president BushObama—Bush's policies with Obama's face. Too many "progressives" think Obama is good because the Republicans are worse. (If that even makes sense.) But, as this article demonstrates, our current president is different than our previous president in physical appearance only.
"There is a body of work that shows how I view these issues but that was hard-earned through experience, not something I learned going to a cocktail party on fucking K Street. That's what reporters are supposed to do, report the story".
Right on, Michael Hastings -- right on!
Read between the lines here folks.
I am no fan of Mchrystals but those "Marines" happy that he ousted because he was putting their lives at risk are coming from a place that can NOT be supported.
They were angry because he was limiting a "wide range of responses". These soldiers do not want to put their lives at risk when they have the choice of CALLING IN AIRSTRIKES or destroying buildings that might be acting as shelter for the resistance.
This guy is an embedded reporter. That means he reports what the Pentagon deems appropriate. Do not applaud his courage or the "truth" he speaks to when the consequence appears to be the desire to "Untie" the hands of the US Military so that it can ESCALATE its response thus resulting in more dead Afgani's.
You don't seem to like the US much do you? Anything we do is bad or we had a bad reason for doing it. If the US could just be removed from the worlds stage, everything would be swell! Seems a naive viewpoint to me.
No Mr More, I do not see a US marines life as MORE IMPORTANT then that of an Afghani.
You sir are the one who claimed that dropping Nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified because it saved the lives of Americans. I do not suscribe to that theory.
I especially do not subscribe to the theory that YOU continously advance that an armed soldier invading a FOREIGN Land has more rights to HIS or HER life then that of a Civilian LIVING in that land.
If you can not understand where it is I am coming from, you can rant and rave all you like about being "anti-american" just as the Israelis claim that arguing against their dropping bombs on the Gaza strip is "Anti-Semitic".
Your nationalism and "American Exceptionalism" is duly noted and has been noted before no matter how many times you change your screename. As I stated before, I do not see the Chinese with Military bases in 100 plus countries, and I do not see the Chinese claiming the "Right" to bomb people in Panama City, Granada, Iraq and Afghanistan in self defense.
When that times comes I will be every bit as critical of THEIR actions and you will be every bit as free to claim it because "You do not like China Much'.
I would hazard to offer this opinion. If that time ever did come YOU would be joining in the condemnation of China rather then defending all that they do which amply demonstrates exactly where you are coming from.
GWNorth, I was thinking the same thing when I read this article. This embedded journalist says he supports Petraeus as a replacement because he will be less cautious about leveling buildings and murdering Afghanis with all the tools at the empires disposal.
After reading Paul Street's article ( http://www.zcommunications.org/a-callous-nation-reflections-on-the-obama-mcchrystal-rolling-stone-saga-by-paul-street ) on ZNet to day, I realize McChrystal is a hideous butcher, however, this interview lends credence to what you said about Petraeus.
Hastings says, "The reason those guys are so angry [with McChrystal] is that Corporal Michael Ingram was killed because they weren't allowed to tear down this house [an abandoned home long considered a security risk in the area they were patrolling]. It was a total failure to communicate his vision."
In addition to explaining the increased barbarism we can expect to see under Petraeus' leadership, this quote also shows the barbarism of our troops who fail to see the criminality and hypocrisy of their own actions.
This another article .
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/06/24/petraeus-expected-to-tone-down-attempts-to-avoid-civilian-deaths/
>>The “why” behind this is somewhat convoluted. Despite administration claims to the contrary it is no real secret that the McChrystal Plan isn’t going way. Rather than admit the escalation has been a failure, however, some in the Pentagon seem eager to blame the lack of progress on “restrictions” placed on the troops. Gen. Petraeus appears to be of this mind as well, and is looking to free soldiers from these restrictions, regardless of the costs in civilian lives.
Remember the claimw as continually made in Vietnam that the US Military only lost because its "hands were tied" .
The Pentagon is not a Monolith. These guys are ruthless and will sacrifice one another in order to advance their own careers.
Surely you're being ironically sarcastic, mightymite, especially using the naivete' angle.
Right?
If not, please explain why you reserve the possibility that the US military machine bent on global empire as somehow not containing a "bad reason" for military occupation of several countries rich in undeveloped resources?
Who would like a country that recently killed 1.5 million innocent people in Iraq and are busy doing the same in Afghanistan?
How would you like it if some country did that to you and your loved ones? Wouldn't ya just hate 'em?
Wait until Julian Assange releases the newest videos. 150 killed, innocents, on purpose, mostly children!
But you, here you are boosting for the USA, the red (blood), white(emptiness) and blue (sadness)
Ya just gotta love 'em, eh?
If the US could just be removed from the worlds stage, everything would be swell!
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....yes.
I think you have misread this article, and the situation for reporters on the ground. I know reporters who have been embedded. They don't write what the Pentagon or anybody else tells them to write, and they'd be pretty insulted that you think so.
While it is true that embeds have to go where the soldiers go; there is no other way in Afghanistan anyway. So their vision is limited, but their freedom to report isn't. And if you had read anything else Hastings has written, you'd know that.
And I don't think Hastings here is saying whether he thought that abandoned building should be brought down or not. He's saying the soldiers thought so, were pissed that they weren't allowed to do it, and blamed their colleague's death on McChrystal.
That means Hastings is reporting troop dissatisfaction with command; hardly Pentagon-approved reporting.
Surely this is a joke commenter. The Pentagon's use of embedded journalists is a strategic move to manage what messages are coming out of our empirical wars in central Asia and Iraq. It's not so much about censoring the journalists reporting (which probably does happen) as it is about controlling where they go and what they are allowed to see. They are not going to embed journalists in areas where our worst war crimes are taking place.
GwNorth: I tend to agree with you. The fact that Michael Hastings is an 'embedded" reporter strikes me as opportunistic, and may not qualify, to my own mind, to be quite as truthful as I had previously considered, prior to my knowing that Michael Hastings was/is, in fact, embedded with the military. No wonder he had access.
I can't help but think that it was, quite simply, time for McChrystal to go! Of course, I am reading between the lines, too.
You're missing the point here and you're trying way too hard to be the above-it-all, tough, leftoid.
He lays it bare that the occupation is a joke, which it is.
I suggest you take this point that only you can see and sit on it. If Hastings was "laying it all bare" he would NOT be an embedded reporter.
The Pentagon does not work that way.
http://www.stripes.com/news/files-prove-pentagon-is-profiling-reporters-1.94248
Now initially the Pentagon (as usual) denied they used such a system then later reversed themselves and indicated it would be under review.
Just as I thought, you didn’t read the article, or if you did, you didn’t get it. The link you included does not support your point at all. It merely shows that the military likely tries to influence what the imbedded reporters experience. Duh to the power of 10! Of course they do. But that’s not at all the point you made. You very straight-forwardly made the point about total censorship: that he could only PUBLISH what they want him to. In other words, you make the ridiculous claim that as an imbedded reporter, he has to have his articles vetted—approved by the Pentagon. Silly, totally silly.
I understand deeply how the media works, and there are obviously problems with the reality of embedded reporters, but everybody who has a sophisticated understanding knows that the problem is that you are at the mercy of the military regarding where you go and what you see, to a certain extent. But that they can censor what you write is exaggerated, juvenile silliness.
If you have read the article, you would know that he criticized the occupation totally—that it is confused and bound to fail! I suppose the Pentagon wants that to be published. He published statements from soldiers who said that if the US population knew what was going on, they would be even much more against the occupation! That is totally true, and perfectly what the Pentagon does not want to project. He perfectly describes how the Pentagon lied and covered up lies in the Tilman affair, etc., etc.
So on both counts, you’re being a bit overly dramatic, shrill, holier-than-thou, and confused. Read the article and you’ll see that he perfectly shows the mission is doomed. The Pentagon does not want that. But no matter what they want, they may be able to decide where the embedded reporter goes today, but they can’t prevent him from electronically filing any story he wants to with his home office. Your point is essentially a conspiracy theory.
My Gawd! We actually still have a real reporter out there in the American MSM - WooHoo !
Rolling Stone is not part of the MSM. It may not be that hard hitting, but it's not the New York Times or Washington Post either. Matt Taibbi of RS has written absolutely fantastic articles on health care reform, and the bank bailouts, to name just 2, that no mainstream paper would ever do these days.
Disclaimer: Despite the deranged and objectionable tone of the following, it should be said that Mr Hastings is a goddamn hero. Well done, Hastings and RS. While it is almost certainly not your intention, it is the fervent hope of many that the military be brought to its knees. Mr Hastings' article perhaps brings that moment a little closer.
Now, im a pretty well-educated and reasonably informed sort, but I'm living in mystery about one key thing, and have yet to get anyone to help me understand this: When you are 'embedded' with the troops, and they pull the covers over themselves completely, leaving you with none, or when they inadvertently kick you in their sleep or fart in the bed, who do you complain to? Is it Homeland Security? Is it the U.S. Christian-Military-Christian Office of Right-Wing Fascist Electro-Totally-Awesome-Jesus Blessing America With His Power Of Pride And Killing All The Non-Believers And People Who Think Sarah Palin Is Mentally Retarded While Court-Martialling That Fag In The Bed You're Embedded With 'Cause He Just Farted And We Won't Be having That Kind oF Fag Commie Behaviour In This Homosexual's (Sorry, Man's) Army?
Does General McChrystal, who I understand will soon be spinnin' the wax and manning the door at this fab new gay disco in Falujah, or one of his Village-People-With-Security-Clearances (okay- USED to have security clearances), come and 'take you away' you in the middle of the night, like the bogeyman?
I mean, when you're embedded with the military, you're sleeping with them, right? And/or fucking them?
That's so fuckin' gay.
I'm so confused. Okay, I won't ask if you won't tell.
All I know is, good riddance, McChrystal and your oh-so-buff-and-hard Team America. I'm sure you'll find lives to destroy and innocent people to kill somewhere. And now we'll have to 'prosecute' the war without all you big strong Stanley McCocksuckers. Boo hoo. Just remember, Stan and co.: Real men have tattoos on their arses that say 'Real Men Love Jesus And Drive Great Big Pick-Ups Back Home In 'Murrica With Bumper Stickers On Their Arses That Say Real Men Love Jesus.' You might be out of the military, but there's always a place for you in the goddamn twilight zone you call your home country - or at least what's left of it before the Gulf of Mexico situation completely destroys it.
That's SO fuckin' gay.
Your post is silly, confused, and disgustingly insulting. You seem to think that swearing and insulting people gives you gravitas. Hunter Thompson knew what he was talking about and could analyse. You're just trash talking at a very low juvenile level.
You're better off to go to some loser bar and try to impress people of your own kind.
The reaction of the robots [i.e. the soldiers] that they were glad that McChrystal was fired is something that could have come out of a Rambo movie as they seem to believe that they should be allowed to "finish the job" in Afghanistan. Now with Petraeus, whom Hastings seems to admire, at the helm it should not be all that surprising to hear the soldiers as well as the top brass claiming, as was said in Vietnam, that they can see the light at the end of the tunnel and that victory is just around the corner.
Michael Hastings wants us to believe that he is a reporter who is supposedly asking very tough questions about the situation in Afghanistan but with his sycophantic portrayal of David Petraeus it seems doubtful if Hastings will be compared anytime soon to the more incisive analysis of a more hard hitting journalist such as Robert Fisk.
"Petraeus is sort of a genius. He managed to turn what could have been catastrophic defeat in Iraq into a face-saving withdrawal. That's his mission in Afghanistan, to make it look like we didn't get run out. He's a master at playing the game... the soldiers look up to him and respect him."
"...sort of genius" might be a bit overstated, but other than that, it's pretty true. It does not at all prevent Hastings from understanding, as I do, and presumably you do, that Patraeus is an ass-licking, obsequious, game-player. And he has accomplished precisely what Hastings says. When do you hear of Iraq these days in the MSM? He's managed to make a truly mangled disaster appear at a certain level to be 'about as good as we expect over there'. It's not true, but he's made it appear that way. That's all Hastings says.
I don't think you understand what Hastings said, and I think you're missing the point.
I hesitate to comment but find a moment to do it anyway! I have read comments and they all sound quite the same - in my mind, anyway! One man against another man, one ego against another man's ego, a career ahead, a career gone, a way that won't end, a war that truly has no end - a cause (?) that has no end and the end result is and will be questioned as long as men hold onto individual greed in one form or another!
This journalist was doing what he needed to do for himself, this General did what was necessary for his future - this entire dialog on our safe Internet is what we all need to feed our immediate needs!
President Obama and his colleagues do what they must do for their egos, needs at the moment and desires for their own futures! As do all governmental peoples around the globe - do we really have any answers out here or are we all just "journalists and not stenographers"?
Please....peace is a dream.
Well, SusyCreamCheese, I think you should have followed your instincts and refrained from typing. Your attempt at some kind of wisdom completely missed the mark.
Within this gossip-filled blather of an article are a few very disturbing assumptions.
"Petraeus is sort of a genius. He managed to turn what could have been castastrophic defeat in Iraq into a face-saving withdrawal." "He's a master at playing the game."
These quotes, and at least several others of similar sucking strength, would have us believe there is something justifiable or even honorable about the war in Iraq, and then, have us believe that the war and Occupation in Iraq and the war and Occupation in Afganistan merely needed to be under a better coach.
Also, if anyone believes the United States of Global Domination really has any intention of leaving these countries before we suck every last bit of the resources out of them, then they are something less than "stenographers."
It's good to know that Michael Hastings has "significant doubts" about the "campaign".
It's too bad he can't see that these wars are killing this nation as well as the hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in Iraq and Afganistan.
It did NOT have to be this way.
Hastings is living proof that Mike Wallace and Christopher Hitchens had sex at least once.
FREE AMERICA
DIRECT DEMOCRACY
Michael Hastings is to be lauded, and thanked--TRUE patriotism comes in all sorts of colors--not just camouflage.
Now, if we could just get more real reporters, like Mr. Hastings, interested in looking at the "incident" upon which these FALSE "WARS" are suppposedly based:
The INSIDE JOB known as "9/11".
REAL Americans can start their reading here, among other places:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://stj911.org/
A Marine told the Hastings that he was glad McCrystal was gone because he was putting their lives at risk.
Dumb as a bag of rocks. You are a soldier at war, bad things happen. The real source of risk is your presence occupying Afghanistan. The risk you are scared of will only go away when you leave the country. The so-called war is a political act not a military act. Focus on the politicians, the real cause of your endangerment.
The left is becoming more hawkish than the right. McCrystal was putting the lives of soldiers at risk because he didn't want them to fire and then ask questions. The soldiers simply want the same latitude that cops have in the US, fire and then ask questions. The world is upside down. The left has become the right. The right is the ultra right. There is no center, there is no left.
There is no real "war."
According to the book about the late assassinated NFL Pat Tilman "Where Men Find Glory" there's a 40 percent "friendly" fire casualty rate.
We're basically fighting ourselves over there, just like Vietnam. Without some damning Pentagon Papers, this "war" is going to go on forever. Contractors are paying millions a month to "Warlords" for safe passage of their supply trucks. Then, caches of firearms have in the past been reported left sitting around unguarded.
That's the perfect formula for resistance: money and weapons. If there was no terrorists in the Stans before we got there, there sure as hell is now. We phucking made em. Just like we did Bin Laden (ex-CIA with Heckymyer.)
I'm sick of it. The dogs of war have not done anything honorable in decades. All they have really done is killed off the American taxpayer and ruined our reputation in the world.
We should not have fired McChrystal. We should have fired this Administration and the whole congress.
TJ
Soldiers don't become generals by being all military. As anyone who has been part of the military knows, politics plays a huge part in promotions, especially to General ranks.
Therefore, I submit that McChrystal knew exactly what kind of game he was playing, and he calculated that if he was not "fired" he would have great leeway to to prosecute his war. If he was fired, he would have cover to say the war was lost because of higher political decisions which he did not agree with knowing that they would fail.
This reporter does a fair job in conveying this message.
You are correct DCH,
To think that the General is an innocent bystander or a victim of real reporting,would be disingenuous.
The war policy will be to find a peace plan with all partys, including the Taliban, and pull out, it will happen before the 2012 elections, and Obama will get another 4 years.
Bring America Back !!!!
**If the troops really think MacChrystal was putting their lives at risk, just wait till they see Betrayus' surge on
Khandahar.
**And, why is not mainstream media picking up on this stuff, also embedded as they are. Stenographers they are !
**By now, the 'stop loss' troopers, some serving four and five tours of duty in the WoT, have learned not to kick about it to 'embedded' journalists.
**Because, for sure, General Betrayus will help design King Barak's troop withdrawal plans to co-incide with Team Obama's re-election campaign. When Johnny comes marching home, the Saviour can claim "mission accomplished" and then take a free ride on "W"'s favorite carrier jet !!
Worth waiting for , ain't it Troops ??
Michael Hastings did America a disservice. The troops did not want McChrystal gone. They respected him. That article was a hack job by a hack.
Unless McChrystal has disputed any aspect of the article -- and he has not -- how can you call the article a "hack job?"
The only "disservice" concerning McChrystal is the fact that Obama hired him in the first place -- McChrystal's role in the Pat Tillman scandal should have been enough to disqualify him.
McCrystal was only too happy to open his pie hole and let the slurry of egotistical, irreverent and self incrininating sludge come oozing out....and I for one couldn't be happier. Lets hope it helps to bring this costly joke that is Afghanistan to an end.
Afghanistan: New resources, wealth potential for the corporate empire.
Kandahar (the musical)
(verse)
"You'll go far in Kandahar, its a can-do kind of place,
Where men are men, with hairy chin, and women don't show their face.
You can get a jobba with Ali Baba, for catchin'n thieves he's a real go-getter,
Or with 'ali=burton where there's work for certain, and the pays a whole lot better"
(chorus)
This man had a personal ax to grind about Afganistan. He "supposedly" lost the love of his live in Afgan/Iran.
Who gives a shit? How many mothers have lost their sons? Children lost their fathers? Wifes' lost their husbands? Do we see all of them going out "to get" someone in such a deceitful manner?
This "person" is a greasy slime ball out to make a name and a buck for himself.