Micheal wrote:
>it's much more about how the war is lost than about backbiting gossip
Is this perhaps why McChrystal got canned? I mean, if the article was only about McChrystal badmouthing the president a little bit, but otherwise everything was peachy, it could probably be explained away (Quote taken out of context, McChrystal misspoke, apologies made, full confidence reaffirmed, etc.). But since it's in the context of a badly failing war effort, Obama has to look like he's shaking things up, taking charge, bringing in new leadership. (Not that Patreaus is new leadership by any stretch of the imagination, by that's I why said he has to 'look like' he's shaking things up.) In that context, McChrystal's badmouthing is just an excuse to avoid addressing what the article is actually about.
James
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> wrote:
>
> It seems if you actually read the Rolling Stone article, it's much more
> about how the war is lost than about backbiting gossip:
>
>
> http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2010/jun/22/mcchrystal-does-not-matter/
>
> Michael
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>