MSNBC

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Should be McChrystal fired ??

Keith Olbermann Special Comment

Special Comment on the self-destruction of General Stanley McChrystal. "We have the highest respect for General McChrystal and honor his brave service and sacrifice to our nation. General McChrystal`s comments, as reported in ` Rolling Stone,` are inappropriate and inconsistent with the traditional relationship between Commander-in-Chief and the military." Senators Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, and John McCain said that. They left out the far greater truth, that the comments are inappropriate and inconsistent with the traditional relationship between military and civilian authority and are thus intolerable. We can honor his service, the way we honor the service of General Curtis LeMay, or the way we honor the service of General Douglas MacArthur, forever blemished, forever compromised, forever instructive that however much credit each heroic soldier deserves, he and his comrades are not the masters of this country, but its employees. It is the fundamental tenet on which this nation rests; it is what has kept us from any serious dalliance with a militaristic government in all our long history; it is the simple balanced poetry that has saved us from the threat of military overthrow and dictatorship for 234 years, while nearly all the other great nations of the world, from Germany to Japan, have succumbed to it, again and again.

And what happens next should be no surprise to anybody: General McChrystal will walk into the White House tomorrow and offer his resignation, not just from his leadership position in Afghanistan, but from military service itself. And that, Mr. President, is when you should thank him for that service. And you should thank him for whatever admission he makes about the chain of command. And that is when, Sir, presuming he recognizes his rank stupidity and his erasure of that inviolable line between the military and the civilian, you should say you are heartened that he realizes the depth and breadth of his idiocy. And that is when, Sir, you should take General McChrystal`s resignation, and fold it up, and put it in your top drawer, and tell him that that is where it will remain, and that as of now you are not accepting it. Correct. He tenders his resignation. You tell him to get the hell back to Afghanistan because he`s not getting out of this morass he helped create, and tell him to make sure we get the surge troops withdrawn on time or faster if he can. And then, Sir, you sit back and watch the political world`s collective jaw drop. This would not be mere contrariness, nor even the satisfying destabilization of the entire political climate, although those would be fun, too. Consider the last Administration. Let`s look at the list alphabetically. General John Abizaid of CentCom expressed public skepticism about the Bush surge in Iraq, replaced. General George Casey, Iraq, expressed public skepticism about the Bush surge in Iraq, replaced. Admiral William Fallon, ex-head of CentCom, told " Esquire Magazine" we should not use force against Iran, retired by Mr. Bush. Dr. Larry Lindsey, director of the National Economic Council, told Mr. Rumsfeld estimated that war in Iraq would cost 60 billion dollars. He said, no, 200 billion. Rumsfeld called that "baloney." Lindsey was fired. It was "baloney." It cost three trillion dollars. General Eric Shinsecki, Army Chief of Staff, warned that the Rumsfeld troop estimates were disastrously low, hundreds of thousands would be needed for occupation, "vilified, then marginalized" by Bush. General Anthony Zinni, Marines, Retired, Middle East Envoy, said that the President had far more pressing foreign policy priorities to face than Iraq, and that the trouble would start in Iraq after the war itself ended, not reappointed. Remember, this from the previous President whose empty, but lovely- sounding catchphrase was `I listen to the commanders on the ground.` It was true. He did listen. And then he fired all the ones who dared to tell him the truth. It cannot be argued that General McChrystal has said anything as controversial, as jarring, as upsetting to the status quo as any of the men Bush ignored, and in ignoring, led to the deaths of Americans, and to the wasting of money and our international goodwill. McChrystal made, to be blunt about it, a fool out of himself. He called a lot of people names. He has previously been involved in the leak of his own complaints demanding more troops and faster decisions in Afghanistan. And most heinously -- and this is the toughest part of this pill to swallow -- he was the facilitator in the cover-up of the friendly fire death of Pat Tillman. It is difficult to bypass an opportunity for retribution and humiliation against such a man. But more opportunities for that will come in time. It is not McChrystal that matters right now. It is doubtful he is an irreplaceable general officer. It is doubtful he will influence Afghanistan much one way or the other. That mistake has been made already by this military and this President. But, Mr. President, consider the after-math of McChrystal`s resignation or firing. If, in the America of 1951, the dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur, a strutting peacock of a soldier with a corncob pipe prop and a messianic complex, could turn the politics of the time on its head because Harry Truman had had the temerity to fire him after he said we should use nukes against the Chinese and create an impassible radioactive zone in the Far East-- if that happened then, what exactly will the ouster of General McChrystal provoke, no matter how justified, in our stupid, under-informed, constantly propagandized America of 2010? Who will be the first to identify McChrystal as a martyr to the evil Obama Administration? How many Americans, still looking for a rationalization to justify their rage at a Democratic president, or a black one, or an intelligent one, will have new fuel to feed their blind hatred? Keep him, Mr. President. You will not merely neuter the political blowback, you will present a front of force and calm and intelligence and a willingness to, dare I use the phrase Sir -- a willingness to listen to the Commanders on the ground, even when they shoot off their big brass-covered bazoos. You can own this man, Mr. President, and own the political aftermath, which is now pregnant with opportunities for your critics. The General can be your voice to speed up the de-escalation. My goodness, he could be your mouthpiece if you suddenly saw the morass for what it is and decided to declare victory and get the hell out now. Who would fight with you on that, Sir? You would be the President who defended General McChrystal after he humiliated himself. You would be the leader sensitive to the military, and its needs, and its failures, and its pressures. President Obama has pushed the Abraham Lincoln thing from the day he declared his candidacy. It may serve him well tonight to consider the third of the eight generals Lincoln employed to run the Union Army during the Civil War. After the Antietam disaster, Mr. Lincoln cashiered General McClellan, the hugely popular "Young Napoleon," promoted John Pope of Illinois. His advisors were horrified. Pope, as Shelby Foote recalled in Ken Burns`s documentary, was a liar and a braggart. Yes, said Lincoln, in fact I knew his family back in Illinois. All the Popes were liars and braggarts. I see no particular reason why a liar and a braggart shouldn`t make a good general. Pope did not win the Civil War, but in appointing him, Lincoln made it plain that what he needed from his Generals was usefulness, not etiquette. And which is more useful to this President and this nation right now? A martyred ex- General, around which an irresponsible and potentially dangerous opposition can coalesce? Or a spared and humbled General, surely no worse than any potential replacement, whose retention can recalculate the political formula, without a drop of blood, or a drop of tears, being shed? Good night and good luck.

S. Korea vows 'firm' action against North

Pyongyang warns of 'war' if punished after South says it sank warship

msnbc.com news services

updated 5:10 a.m. ET May 20, 2010

SEOUL - South Korea accused North Korea Thursday of firing a torpedo that sank a naval warship in March, killing 46 sailors in the country's worst military disaster since the Korean War.

South Korea said it would take "firm" measures against its impoverished and reclusive neighbor, which furiously responded that it was ready for war if Seoul or its allies imposed sanctions.

The issue has plunged already icy relations between the two Koreas deeper into the freezer, heightened tensions in the economically powerful region and tested the international position of China, Pyongyang's only major backer.

Story continues below ↓

---

advertisement | your ad here

---

A report by investigators, including experts from the United States, Australia, Britain and Sweden, concluded that a North Korean submarine sank the Cheonan corvette.

The report, announced in a nationally televised news conference, said intelligence had shown that North Korean submarines were likely in operation near the scene of the sinking, with similar vessels of other neighboring countries all inside their territorial waters.

"The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine," it said. "There is no other plausible explanation."

A senior South Korean government official said previously that the attack appeared to have been in revenge for a firefight near the disputed North-South border late last year in which the North's navy was humiliated.

'Deeply troubling'

International condemnation was immediate, with the stark exception of China, which analysts say is desperate to avoid any action that might destabilize its reclusive neighbor and lead to a spill-out into its territory.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, a former South Korean foreign minister, called the investigation results "deeply troubling," his spokesman said in a statement.

Both the United States and Britain gave their backing to the findings, with the White House calling it an act of aggression that was another sign of the North's unacceptable behavior.

Continues... Link

Keith Olbermann Comment on SOTU night

OLBERMANN: There is doubt among those who elected him that this president has proved the leadership requisite to regaining control of this country. From the banks, from the insurers, from the corporations, and given to the people.

There should also be no doubt that this president is capable of that leadership. Others have been, in times bleaker still, with fewer weapons at hand. “Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that government is best, which is most indifferent.” So said Franklin D. Roosevelt on the 31^st of October, 1936, as he sought a second term against those who would freeze government spending and comfort the banks, while letting the people founder.

Change begins with saying aloud that which is wrong, saying it loudly and clearly, challenging those who would defend the wrong. The rest of it is best heard as Mr. Roosevelt said it, just three blocks from here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, FMR. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace: business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs.

And we know now that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob. Never before, in all our history, have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me. And I welcome their hatred.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: And there, Mr. President, is your template. Welcome their hatred. Seize the mood of this nation, identical tonight to what it was in 1936, nearly, as Mr. Roosevelt perfectly captured it. “Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob.” And aspire also to what he added. “I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match.”

"Right Wing Encourages Racial Profiling" by Keith Olbermann

OLBERMANN: This is the second day of a new feature, a pair of short comments each night. This would, thus, be the first of those for tonight.

There is nothing that racists in this country like better than an excuse to tell themselves that they are not being racist, just a coincidence that it‘s a black president who‘s, quote, “destroying,” unquote, this country—when in fact he has done very little that a white Republican president would not also have done. Just the coincidence that the Christmas Day terror attempt in Detroit has led to repeated right-wing calls for a special profiling of all people who are like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, people from Nigeria, students from Yemen, big fans of British soccer?

No. If you are an 18 to 28-year-old Muslim man, then you should be strip-searched, so says Tom McInerney, a frightened ex-general who works for FOX. Racially profile all Muslims, so says Peter King, a frightened ex-national guardsman who works in Congress. And at the airports, quote, “There should be a separate line to scrutinize anybody with the name Abdul or Ahmed or Mohammed,” so says Mike Gallagher, a frightened ex-radio station manager who works on the air.

Here‘s a question to Mr. Gallagher and Congressman King and Lieutenant General McInerney and it‘s a two-word question and it‘s in the form of a name. Richard Reid?

Also to Mr. Gallagher, there‘s one special flaw in your plan, what would you do if everybody, the suspect and the pious alike named Abdul or Ahmed or Mohammed suddenly changed his name to Mike Gallagher?

Link