Blame it on the Vocano and the Bud Light Lime, General?

United States
June 27, 2010 3:52pm CST
There was a very interesting article on ABC about the real reason that General McChrystal and his staff opened up so much to Rolling Stone writer Michael Hastings. According to the article, Hastings was only suppose to spend a day or two with the General and his staff, but because of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano eruption they ended up spending weeks with them. During this time they spent a long time in Germany on what the writer called "alcohol-soaked time, when the Bud Light Limes flowed." Now many of us have done some pretty stupid things when we were drunk, and if this really is the case than I think it changes everything. What do you think of this, and do you think this should change the situation, or do you think he paid the price for doing something stupid? http://abcnews.go.com/International/gen-stanley-mcchrystal-icelands-volcano/story?id=11016455&cid=ESPNheadline
3 people like this
7 responses
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
28 Jun 10
Let's see...is a drunky mouthy General better than a sober mouthy General? I think that you can get away with using poor judgement and running your mouth at a conference if you're a civilian. I don't believe that you can get drunk and run your mouth to a reporter when you hold the position McChrystal held. He should have known better...he's a professional.
2 people like this
• United States
29 Jun 10
I agree, I just thought that it made more sense knowing the whole story. But, it still doesn't change the outcome.
@dboman (457)
• United States
27 Jun 10
It doesn't change the situation. The military has guidelines and protocol, and these were broken. Intoxication is not an excuse. Good question, but there was still a serious lapse in judgment.
• United States
27 Jun 10
I do agree with you that this doesn't excuse his actions, but I do think that it does help you understand more why he said it.
1 person likes this
@laglen (19759)
• United States
28 Jun 10
well, have you ever tried bud light lime? that lime flavoring is awful! I would give up state secrets in a second to make them stop the flowing..... No, I think he did something VERY stupid and is now paying the price.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
28 Jun 10
Thanks for the heads-up! I haven't been able to bring myself to try Bud Light Lime because it doesn't even sound good but thanks for confirming my suspicions! Annie
1 person likes this
@laglen (19759)
• United States
29 Jun 10
lol your welcome, I am all for public service! Some people do like it though. I bartended last night and had a guy drinking it all night.
• United States
29 Jun 10
Laglen, I don't drink (I know that many on here would disagree with that), so I have no idea how it taste. I think my mother-in-law tried it and she liked it, but she is pretty weird. I agree it was stupid
1 person likes this
@chertsy (3797)
• United States
27 Jun 10
I don't think this should change anything. General McChrystal is a grown man and should have known his limit when it came to drinking. Now for the writer, I call it a brilliant move. Like the saying loose lips sinks ships, and this is what the general did. Oh I think he paid a huge price for drinking to much. He ruined his career, he also ruined his family. His family will always be known as the son or daughter of the military guy that got drunk and told all.
1 person likes this
• United States
29 Jun 10
I see where you are coming from, and I do agree with you. I was talking to my boss today about it, and he said the same thing you did. I asked if we were to fire people who got drunk and made bad comments about him what would happen. He said there was be a lot less people working here, and I guess that was my point. If he would have gotten drunk with his staff around and no one else than he would still have his job. But, we all make mistakes, and have to held accountable for them.
1 person likes this
@chertsy (3797)
• United States
29 Jun 10
I don't think he should get drunk around his staff either. The military has high standards. The enlisted can't socialize with the officers and vice versa. General McChrystal was high up on the totem pole and he should have known better to get drunk at all. Yes we should be accountable for our mistakes. Sad part in the military it can cost a whole lot more. Which can effect a person entering into the civilian world.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
28 Jun 10
Well that does make it a bit more understandable, but it still is what it is. Reporters always love the dirt and with en embedded reporter it's easier for people to forget to some extent what he's there for.
1 person likes this
• United States
29 Jun 10
I think the reporter, or his editor should have contacted the General or the Pentagon before releasing the story. But, they are just doing their job.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
29 Jun 10
I'm really torn on whether the guy should be fired or not and also the real reason behind it. On one hand, I can totally see how this kind of thing is viewed by the public if Obama doesn't fire him. He's weak, he's at the mercy of his General, insubordination is tolerated, etc. And forget that nobody really threw any flames here. It's the principle of the matter. On the other hand, the only person you won't hear of criticizing the "higher ups" are people who don't have microphones and/or reporters in their faces. America's Armed Forces demand a higher standard of one's self, but there's also the reality that people are people, and if anyone deserves to blow off steam, it's a member of our Armed Forces. On the scale of F-ups, this rates at about a 000.1 when you think about the proverbial deep end and going off... And not to turn this around on Obama, but even folks who worship at his feet know full well that he's the dish-it-but-can't-take-it type. He is constantly criticizing everything, often just to do it without any reason to stand on, and grabbin' his blanky when it's returned. So I don't know if he just got POed about it, or he approached it logically to feign strengh and decisiveness. I think all situations need to be viewed in their proper context. It's what we owe if we owe anything at all. And that especially holds true of a General who, for all intents and purposes, seems to be a very decent and brave man. Not to even mention the fact that he can't honestly be expected to duct tape the mouths shut of his aides and the like.
• United States
29 Jun 10
The thing I don't understand is how the General was put in this situation for this long with the reporter. One of the other things that I do find interesting is the fact that Generals in Afghanistan were complaining to reporters for years about being forgotten (especially when Bush was in office). I do think it is different to attack the attention by the commander in chief, than to attack the commander in chief. But, I am sure that if he listens to right wing hate radio, he hears EVERYONE else doing it, and thinks it is OK for him too. I don't think you are correct with saying that Obama is a "dish-it-but-can't-take-it type". If he was as bad as you say than Rush, Hannity, and Beck would be in Gito right now.
• United States
30 Jun 10
Better than I would if I was him. The hypocrisy of the attacks on him are comical in many cases. The same people that are upset with him about the deficit today, are the ones that pushed two wars and unlimited spending but NEVER paid for one cent of it. If I was him I would be crying from the tallest mountain all of the false comments made about him.
• United States
30 Jun 10
Hmm. So you say Obama can take criticism?
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
28 Jun 10
I don't think this changes a thing, if anything it makes me feel more sure McChrystal needed to be removed from command! Our high-ranking military officials are held in high esteem and granted a great deal of deference and respect, which is fine, they have huge responsibilities and hold countless lives in their hands every day. These people are treated differently from the average person, including the average soldier, because they're supposed to be BETTER than average in many ways which include discipline and self-control. There is nothing wrong with a soldier, including a General, having a few drinks while off-duty but he or she should always be aware of his or her limitations and take care to not drink beyond the point of which control is lost. That having been said, I've seen several interviews with the writer of this piece and he's said most of the more surprising items that appeared in the article were obtained in the first day or two of the time he spent with McChrystal and his aides. It seems they were quickly forthcoming with their feelings about our President and members of his Administration and needed little persuading to open up. Annie