not macarthur
‎
Obama had to axe General McChrystal. End of story, and I think if you could pin down the partisan hacks who thump that “he just spoke the truth” down by laying down the scenario, leaving out the party references, they would have to admit it.
Then again, the professional Military apparatus would have no problem spotting the bias toward the “D”. See here:
1993: Air Force Maj. Gen. Harold Campbell ridicules President Clinton during a speech in Europe, calling him “gay-loving,†“pot-smoking,†“draft-dodging†and “womanizing.†He retired after accepting a fine and letter of reprimand.
‎
I flipped over and past and through several Conservative talk radio programs for brief jaunts. It is a whole different universe. They bring up Truman and MacArthur. The analogy for Obama and McChrystal is not apt — like it or not, Obama and McChrystal are on the same goddamned page on the Afghan mission — Obama gave him everything he demanded and maintained contempt. It’s possible his frustration came from wanting an out?
The one good thing I get out of the talk radio spoutings on Truman, or the little I picked up, is a good little “finis” to some neo-conservative Truman love-fest and “why can’t the Democrats be more like Truman?” — The Weekly Standard once posited that Truman would fit the Republican side of the aisle today with his hawkish foreign policy. As always, the historical lines bring out something to the effect that MacArthur advocated Insanity, Truman let him go, and Truman was accused of Appeasement. It was good to hear Truman being called an appeaser, flashback to 1950 political dis-entanglements… string the line through to today. The parties look about the same, actually… for some ill effect.
… I don’t know what satire of Jingoistic extra-military cadre that a clique might have appropriated back then for a self-described nickname, ala “Team America”, though.