23rd June 2010, 10:17 PM
I don't need to link any articles here, I know you've all heard about Obama firing Gen. McCrystal for the remarks he made to Rolling Stone. My beef is... we're at war... this guy is in charge of the war front... and Obama fires him because of a personal qualm that has nothing to do with the war, or how it is going, or the General's qualifications... is that wise? I mean, if he fired him because he was personally responsible for some failure, ya... but to fire our top man in the pivotal Afghan front, because he told a few mildly colorful anecdotes to a journalist... isn't that a little PETTY for the Commander in Chief? Isn't the General entitled to a little leeway there, for freedom of speech? Anyone else think so?
H.R.M. DARVNIVS MAXIMVS EX TENEBRIS EXIT REX DEVSQVE GORONORVMQVE TENDORVM ROMANORVM ET GRÆCORVM OMNIS SEMPER EST