By Timothy D. Naegele
Like former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson before him, in 1980 and 1968 respectively, Barack Obama will not be reelected in 2012. The twin pincers of a domestic economy in the throes of the "Great Depression II"—which economic historians will describe as such, or by using similar terms 20-40 years from now—and his failed Vietnam-like Afghan war will seal his political fate. Other factors will contribute mightily too, such as the perception that he is "out of touch" just as Jimmy Carter was; and that Obama is a silver-tongued, narcissistic "foreign born" demagogue who is un-American. Perceptions often become reality, certainly in politics.
We are witnessing the end of Obama as a politician now. The zenith of his presidency occurred with the enactment of ObamaCare, just as Hillary Clinton's health care efforts marked the "high water mark" of her influence during Bill Clinton's presidency. Obama's nadir is yet to come, but the 2010 mid-term election debacle represented an important milestone on the slippery downward slope of his presidency. The domestic economy will get far worse; his Afghan war is a morass that seems unwinnable and inescapable; and national security issues loom—such as North Korea and Iran—which may prove "hazardous" at best.
Barack Obama is a failed politician whose “magic” has come and gone. He is not merely a bad president. He may have the distinction of going down in history as one of the worst presidents that America has ever had, or perhaps the worst depending on what happens during the remainder of his term in office. That he is presiding over a failed presidency is not in dispute. The only question becomes: how bad will things get for the American nation, its people and for him, before he leaves public office? It is fair to surmise that we have only seen the tip of an enormous political, economic, social and national security "iceberg"—or nightmare—reminiscent of the one that the RMS Titanic struck in 1912.
It is not beyond the pale to believe that scandals will engulf Barack Obama's presidency as more and more is learned about who he is and how he has governed, and what he and others in his administration have done during the time they have been entrusted with the presidency. Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton: a "cat" with seemingly nine lives politically. He is a "mix" between Carter who was perceived as cerebral and out of touch, and Johnson who was viciously maligned and prevented from running for reelection.
When I was a young Army officer stationed at the Pentagon, before working on Capitol Hill, I remember bumper stickers on cars in the District of Columbia that asked: "Where is Lee Harvey Oswald now that we really need him?"—a reference to John F. Kennedy's killer. Johnson was hated, and such implied threats were real. There are rising negative sentiments about Obama today, involving large numbers of Americans who are not racially prejudiced or merely disillusioned. Indeed, two Democratic pollsters and advisers to Presidents Clinton and Carter respectively, Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell, wrote an important op-ed piece in the Washington Post recently, which stated:
[W]e believe Obama should announce immediately that he will not be a candidate for reelection in 2012.
. . .
[T]he president has largely lost the consent of the governed. The  midterm elections were effectively a referendum on the Obama presidency.
However, his raving and overarching narcissism will likely drive his decision making to put his own perceived best interests ahead of the good of the country and his political party; and he will probably fight on to the bitter end. More and more Americans are concluding that he does not deserve a second term in the White House. Political pundit and former adviser to Bill Clinton, Dick Morris, argues that he will be challenged by both those on his left and right politically.
Barack Obama is an unsuccessful "community organizer" from Chicago—and before that, Hawaii and Indonesia—who became a black man when it suited him, despite the ethnicity of his mother and her parents who nurtured him like no one else in his life. The best of him, he has readily admitted, is what the three of them gave him; and clearly he cherishes their memories. Yet, it is not such personal qualities that will determine his political fate. Jimmy Carter was perceived as likable too.
With respect to the economy, we are in the midst of the "Great Depression II," and there is nothing he can do about that fact. The economic tsunami that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan unleashed has been rolling worldwide, with no end in sight. At most, government policies can affect it at the margins—because it will run its course, essentially oblivious to government intervention. Where and when it stops, no one knows; however, Obama's actions to date have only made it worse. His so-called "stimulus package" has done little or nothing to help the economy; and his reform of the financial markets is akin to shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.
His signature legislation, ObamaCare, was opposed by a majority of the American people, but that did not stop Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from arrogantly shoving it down their throats, as if to say that the two of them knew what was best for their wards. ObamaCare is likely to be a tragedy for Americans who need health care the most, such as senior citizens; and according to a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, 58 percent of American voters favor its repeal, while 37 percent are opposed.
His policies with respect to Russia's "dictator-for-life" Vladimir Putin are a travesty to say the least, which simply reflect his almost-total naïveté that is stunning—America's "Hamlet" on the Potomac. His negotiation and endorsement of the New START Treaty is a perfect example. Also, he stood by helplessly while those Iranians who advocated freedom were tortured or killed. His positive contributions with respect to peace between the Israelis and Palestinians are essentially nonexistent, at a critical juncture in the history of the Middle East. And the list goes on and on.
[N]obody in the US understands [the Afghan] war any more. The conflict long ago ceased to be Bush's war, and is now Obama's. Worse still, it will inevitably end with an inglorious withdrawal. Why, then, should the US send in yet more troops? Why spend $100 billion a year waging war when train stations and schools back home are falling to pieces, and the money would be better spent on other American projects and research? Congress refuses to approve extra spending on renewing America: The money has already been spent.
. . .
The problem is simply that Obama is smaller than the promise he made, and tiny in comparison to the hopes an entire nation placed on him in 2008. There's one thing that Barack Obama failed to do. That was his real failure, the big mistake he made, back when everything seemed possible.
. . .
[H]e didn't even try.
The fact is that Barack Obama is a professional politician and nothing more. And Americans have come to loathe such creatures, not love them. So "out of touch" is he that when the BP oil spill was polluting the Gulf of Mexico, Michelle Obama and their youngest daughter flew to Spain—and she was described as America's "Marie Antoinette." More importantly, Obama is not fit to serve or govern, and he never has been. He is a demagogue and a liar, and an embarassment to this great nation and its people. He is incompetent; and yes, he is evil. Before his presidency ends, he is apt to do even more irreparable damage to our national security, our economy, and with respect to a whole host of critical areas.
He should be relieved of command, and end his political career with dignity like his former military commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley A. McChrystal. This is what Democrat pollsters Schoen and Caddell have urged Obama to do. The good General McChrystal, who was forced by Obama to resign his command, might be the first public official (or former-public official) to call for Obama's resignation. He knows, better than most people, about Obama's ineptitude and recklessness with the lives of U.S. military personnel and America's honor—which are at stake and on the line each and every day in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world.
The fact that Obama named General David Petraeus to replace McChrystal as commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and that Petraeus was willing to accept the job and step down from his position as Commander of the U.S. Central Command—which oversees American military efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Central Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, and parts of Africa—speaks volumes about the character, talent, loyalty and integrity of Petraeus. However, it does not change the verdict with respect to Obama and his failed presidency.
There is nothing positive about his administration or what he has done to date, nothing. Despite projecting an upbeat, positive, personable image on the campaign trail, which enthused millions of voters and gave them hope, at best he has proved to be an "empty suit." If Americans read his book, "Dreams from My Father," they will realize that his radical beliefs are in tune with Indonesia where he lived—or perhaps some other foreign country—but not with the United States. The "change" he espoused has not been consistent with the beliefs and goals of mainstream American voters.
The critical words that General McChrystal and his staff spoke in a Rolling Stone interview were true and needed to be said—even though lots of Americans might have preferred not to hear about the acrimony and dissension between our military and the Obama Administration. We have a president who is a far-Left neophyte and wrong for America; and he is presiding over a presidency that almost surely will get dramatically worse with the passage of time. And we have a lovable but utter buffoon for vice president, who is a pathological liar and the laughingstock of the world, and who makes former Vice President Spiro Agnew look brilliant by comparison.
With respect to Afghanistan, at the same time that Obama announced the deployment of an additional 30,000 American troops, he said the U.S. would begin pulling out by July of 2011—just before his anticipated reelection campaign begins in earnest, and only one year after our forces will have been deployed fully. If implemented, it would be tantamount to conceding the country to our enemies sometime in 2011; and it would result in the shedding of American blood and that of our allies for nothing, like Vietnam.
While Obama may be in the process of jettisoning that unrealistic timeline, his thought processes are not surprising because he is an anti-war politician who never served in the U.S. military, and he knows nothing about running a war. His goals—which never refer to the possibility of "victory" in Afghanistan—are designed to appease his political soul mates and constituency, America’s anti-war far-Left. He is focused on an “exit strategy” instead of winning. He has not been successful at running anything, ever; and it is unlikely that Afghanistan will be an exception. Since when does a failed, anti-war, far-Left "community organizer" from Chicago, who was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia, know how to run a war, much less successfully?
Independents and Republicans helped elect Obama and Democrat candidates in 2008; and they joined with "disenchanted" Democrats and members of the Tea Party movement in November of 2010 to produce an opposite result. The combination of Afghanistan—which is apt to be Obama's Vietnam—and growing economic problems may doom his presidency, just as similar issues converged to deny Lyndon Johnson's reelection in 1968. Like John F. Kennedy before him, who inspired so many people and caused legions to enter politics, Obama has feet of clay and is dashing Americans' dreams and political fantasies.
In the final analysis, it is increasingly clear that Obama is a fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who will be forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history—unless he tragically alters the course of American history. His naïveté is matched by his overarching narcissism; and he is more starry-eyed and “dangerous” than Jimmy Carter. Indeed, it is likely that his presidency will be considered a sad and tragic watershed in history; and the American people are recognizing this more and more with each day that passes. Hopefully he chooses to end his political career with dignity by not running for reelection in 2012, instead of continuing to drag this great nation down with him.
© 2010, Timothy D. Naegele
 Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate's Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, which specializes in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.comand http://www.naegele.com/naegele_resume.html). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal. Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who's Who in America, Who's Who in American Law, and Who's Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at firstname.lastname@example.org
 See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama [Please note: the postings beneath this article are important as well]; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/sarah-and-todd-palin-the-big-winners andhttp://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/the-rise-of-independents/and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/the-speech—is-barack-obama-smoking-pot-again/and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/barack-obama-america’s-second-emperor/
 See, e.g., http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/173_212/-365185-1.html andhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/tms/politics/2009/Apr/08/euphoria_or_the_obama_depression_.html andhttp://www.philstockworld.com/2009/10/11/greenspan’s-legacy-more-suffering-to-come/ andhttp://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/the-great-depression-ii/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/is-financial-reform-simply-washingtons-latest-boondoggle/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/will-the-eus-collapse-push-the-world-deeper-into-the-great-depression-ii/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/the-economic-tsunami-continues-its-relentless-and-unforgiving-advance-globally
 See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/are-afghanistan-iraq-and-pakistan-hopeless-and-is-the-spread-of-radical-islam-inevitable-and-is-barack-obama-finished-as-americas-president/and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start/
 In his book, "Dreams from My Father," Obama wrote:
Junkie. Pothead. That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man.
See Obama, “Dreams from My Father” (paperback “Revised Edition,” published by Three Rivers Press, 2004), p. 93; see also pp. 120, 270; http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/.
Regardless of whether he has taken illegal drugs or not since his college years, he is occupying our White House; and sooner or later, stories will trickle out about the time he has spent there.
 See http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/obama-may-face-left-wing-primary/; see alsohttp://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/#comment-968and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/sarah-and-todd-palin-the-big-winners/ ("[I]t is not beyond the pale to believe that two women might face off for the American presidency in 2012, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, which would be historic!")
 See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ and Obama, “Dreams from My Father” (paperback “Revised Edition,” published by Three Rivers Press, 2004).
 Paul Krugman has written a New York Times' article entitled, "The Third Depression," which states:
Recessions are common; depressions are rare. As far as I can tell, there were only two eras in economic history that were widely described as “depressions” at the time: the years of deflation and instability that followed the Panic of 1873 and the years of mass unemployment that followed the financial crisis of 1929-31.
. . .
We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression. It will probably look more like the Long Depression than the much more severe Great Depression. But the cost—to the world economy and, above all, to the millions of lives blighted by the absence of jobs—will nonetheless be immense.
. . .
[T]he recession brought on by the financial crisis arguably ended last summer.
But future historians will tell us that this wasn’t the end of the third depression, just as the business upturn that began in 1933 wasn’t the end of the Great Depression. . . . [B]oth the United States and Europe are well on their way toward Japan-style deflationary traps.
This conclusion is consistent with the thesis of articles that I have written and interview responses that I have given; namely, we are in the midst of the "Great Depression II"—certainly in terms of the 20th and 21st Centuries—which will continue to unfold during at least the balance of this decade. See infra n.3.
As far as rhetoric is concerned, the revival of the old-time religion is most evident in Europe, where officials seem to be getting their talking points from the collected speeches of Herbert Hoover, up to and including the claim that raising taxes and cutting spending will actually expand the economy, by improving business confidence. As a practical matter, however, America isn’t doing much better. The Fed seems aware of the deflationary risks—but what it proposes to do about these risks is, well, nothing. The Obama administration understands the dangers of premature fiscal austerity—but because Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress won’t authorize additional aid to state governments, that austerity is coming anyway, in the form of budget cuts at the state and local levels.
Why the wrong turn in policy? The hard-liners often invoke the troubles facing Greece and other nations around the edges of Europe to justify their actions. And it’s true that bond investors have turned on governments with intractable deficits. But there is no evidence that short-run fiscal austerity in the face of a depressed economy reassures investors. On the contrary: Greece has agreed to harsh austerity, only to find its risk spreads growing ever wider; Ireland has imposed savage cuts in public spending, only to be treated by the markets as a worse risk than Spain, which has been far more reluctant to take the hard-liners’ medicine.
It’s almost as if the financial markets understand what policy makers seemingly don’t: that while long-term fiscal responsibility is important, slashing spending in the midst of a depression, which deepens that depression and paves the way for deflation, is actually self-defeating.
So I don’t think this is really about Greece, or indeed about any realistic appreciation of the tradeoffs between deficits and jobs. It is, instead, the victory of an orthodoxy that has little to do with rational analysis, whose main tenet is that imposing suffering on other people is how you show leadership in tough times.
And who will pay the price for this triumph of orthodoxy? The answer is, tens of millions of unemployed workers, many of whom will go jobless for years, and some of whom will never work again.
Amen. Where I differ with Krugman is that his solution is more Keynesian governmental spending, with the goal of spending our way to prosperity. As stated in articles that I have written and interview responses that I have given, the economic tsunami that Alan Greenspan unleashed has been rolling worldwide, with no end in sight. At most, government policies can affect it at the margins—because it will run its course, essentially oblivious to government intervention. Where and when it stops, no one knows. Originally I predicted the 2017-2019 time frame, but it may take longer than that because of misguided and wasteful government "tinkering."
In an editorial entitled, "The Keynesian Dead End," the Wall Street Journal concluded that spending our way to prosperity is going out of style—and the editorial essentially rebuts the solution that Krugman recommended:
For going on three years, the developed world's economic policy has been dominated by the revival of the old idea that vast amounts of public spending could prevent deflation, cure a recession, and ignite a new era of government-led prosperity. It hasn't turned out that way.
. . .
The response at the White House and among Congressional leaders has been . . . Stimulus III. While talking about the need for "fiscal discipline" some time in the future, President Obama wants more spending today to again boost "demand." Thirty months after [Obama economic adviser Larry] Summers won his first victory, we are back at the same policy stand.
The difference this time is that the Keynesian political consensus is cracking up. In Europe, the bond vigilantes have pulled the credit cards of Greece, Portugal and Spain, with Britain and Italy in their sights. Policy makers are now making a 180-degree turn from their own stimulus blowouts to cut spending and raise taxes. The austerity budget offered this month by the new British government is typical of Europe's new consensus.
To put it another way, Germany's Angela Merkel has won the bet she made in early 2009 by keeping her country's stimulus far more modest. We suspect Mr. Obama will find a political stonewall this weekend in Toronto when he pleads with his fellow leaders to join him again for a spending spree.
Meanwhile, in Congress, even many Democrats are revolting against Stimulus III. The original White House package of jobless benefits and aid to the states had to be watered down several times, and the latest version failed again in the Senate late this week. . . . Mr. Obama is having his credit card pulled too—not by the bond markets, but by a voting public that sees the troubles in Europe and is telling pollsters that it doesn't want a Grecian bath.
The Journal adds:
The larger lesson here is about policy. The original sin—and it was nearly global—was to revive the Keynesian economic model that had last cracked up in the 1970s, while forgetting the lessons of the long prosperity from 1982 through 2007. The Reagan and Clinton-Gingrich booms were fostered by a policy environment for most of that era of lower taxes, spending restraint and sound money. The spending restraint began to end in the late 1990s, sound money vanished earlier this decade, and now Democrats are promising a series of enormous tax increases.
Notice that we aren't saying that spending restraint alone is a miracle economic cure. The spending cuts now in fashion in Europe are essential, but cuts by themselves won't balance annual deficits reaching 10% of GDP. That requires new revenues from faster growth, and there's a danger that the tax increases now sweeping Europe will dampen growth further.
President Obama's tragic mistake was to blow out the U.S. federal balance sheet on spending that has produced little bang for the buck. . . .
With the economy in recession in 2008 and 2009, we argued that some stimulus was justified and an increase in the deficit was understandable and inevitable. However, we also argued that permanent tax cuts aimed at marginal individual and corporate tax rates would have done far more to revive animal spirits, and in our view would have led to a far more robust recovery. . . .
What the world has now reached instead is a Keynesian dead end. We are told to let Congress continue to spend and borrow until the precise moment when Summers and Mark Zandi and the other architects of our current policy say it is time to raise taxes to reduce the huge deficits and debt that their spending has produced. Meanwhile, individuals and businesses are supposed to be unaffected by the prospect of future tax increases, higher interest rates, and more government control over nearly every area of the economy. Even the CEOs of the Business Roundtable now see the damage this is doing.
A better economic policy will have to await a new Congress, which we hope at a minimum can prevent punishing tax increases. But for now the good news is that voters and markets are telling politicians to stop doing what hasn't worked.
Thus, economic "thinkers" continue to flail around, while the Great Depression II takes its toll in terms of horrendous human suffering worldwide, with no end in sight.
 See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/israels-senseless-killings-and-war-with-iran/ [Please note: the postings beneath this article are important as well]
 In his announcement with respect to McChrystal, Obama stated:
I don’t make this decision based on any difference in policy with Gen. McChrystal, as we are in full agreement about our strategy. Nor do I make this decision out of any sense of personal insult.
It has been said before, and it bears repeating, that if one wishes to watch Barack Obama lie, all one needs to do is watch his lips move.
 See, e.g., http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/07/28/leaked-report-hurts-obama/#more-1230 ("Having already lost all Republicans and almost all independents, Obama is shedding Democrats these days. . . . [W]hile liberals have increasing reason to question Obama’s performance on their litmus-test issues, they also have increasing cause to wonder at his competence").
 He is not evil in the sense of being the "antichrist," as some would suggest, but evil in the sense of leading the United States in the wrong direction and having lied to the American people in the process of doing so. As stated previously:
It has been said: “Jimmy Carter may be heading to #2 on the [list of] all-time worst presidents in American history, thanks to ‘O.’” This is an understatement. When history is written, Barack Obama may be hated more than George W. Bush has been by the Democrats, more than Bill and Hillary Clinton have been hated by the Republicans, more than Nixon was hated by the Democrats, and even more than Johnson was hated by a broad swath of the American electorate . . . and the list goes on and on. Obama may emerge as the most hated president in history.
 With McChrystal's military career at an end, there will be nothing to prevent him from lashing out at Obama and telling the truth (e.g., in memoirs released shortly before the 2012 presidential elections, which tell the unvarnished truth about Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan and sear Obama in explicit terms):
Obama seemed to suggest that McChrystal's military career is over, saying the nation should be grateful "for his remarkable career in uniform" as if that has drawn to a close.
McChrystal left the White House after the meeting and returned to his military quarters at Washington's Fort McNair.
Former adviser to President Bill Clinton and political pundit Dick Morris adds:
Relieving the general of command sends a message that Obama is thin-skinned, arrogant, and easily offended.
Coming at the same time that the failure of the Obama Administration to clean up the oil spill in the Gulf is already rankling liberal voters, the McChrystal comments will add to their doubts about Obama. They already are against his decision to send additional troops there and have long believed that we should not be fighting in Afghanistan. By calling attention to how badly the war is going and the disarray in the president's foreign policy apparatus, the McChrystal interview can only highlight and underscore these concerns and further dampen liberal enthusiasm for Obama.
Neither the oil spill nor the Afghan War will drive any liberals to vote for conservatives or induce Democrats to vote Republican. But they both will hold down Democratic turnout and reinforce cynicism about the Obama presidency on the left. Those initially attracted by Obama's charisma will be driven away by these twin failures.
The Democratic Party is really a synthesis of environmentalists and peace advocates with a few gay rights activists and public employee unions thrown in. Now, Obama has alienated both the green and the anti-war segments of the party. And the continuing spillage from the Gulf oil well and from the General's mouth will further damage his standing with his political base.
Whatever the fate of General McChrystal or of the American involvement in the war, the mounting casualty lists will drag down Obama's prospects in November still further and depress his ratings in the days ahead.
While some of his far-Left "true believers" may have read the book and agreed with his core beliefs, the majority of Americans did not; and they had no idea how much his future policies would differ from what they perceived as the mainstream views that he was espousing on the campaign trail.
 For example, the author Michael Hastings writes:
The general's staff is a handpicked collection of killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs . . . , and they pride themselves on their can-do attitude and their disdain for authority.
. . .
[McChrystal] also set a manic pace for his staff, becoming legendary for sleeping four hours a night, running seven miles each morning, and eating one meal a day. (In the month I spend around the general, I witness him eating only once.) It's a kind of superhuman narrative that has built up around him, a staple in almost every media profile, as if the ability to go without sleep and food translates into the possibility of a man single-handedly winning the war.
See "The Runaway General" by Michael Hastings, Rolling Stone (June 22, 2010), http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236#
Barack Obama is quoted by the national media as having said that the article showed "poor judgment," and that he wanted to talk with McChrystal before making any decision about whether he should remain the U.S. commander in Afghanistan.
While it was surprising that McChrystal gave the Rolling Stone any access, much less seemingly unfettered access to his innermost thoughts and beliefs—especially given the Rolling Stone's reputation—the fact is that he did, and he and his staff spoke their minds, and their words are now part of American history.
The article adds:
After arriving in Afghanistan last June, [McChrystal] conducted his own policy review, ordered up by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The now-infamous report was leaked to the press, and its conclusion was dire: If we didn't send another 40,000 troops—swelling the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan by nearly half—we were in danger of "mission failure." The White House was furious. McChrystal, they felt, was trying to bully Obama, opening him up to charges of being weak on national security unless he did what the general wanted. It was Obama versus the Pentagon, and the Pentagon was determined to kick the president's ass.
. . .
Obama has quietly begun to back away from the deadline he set for withdrawing U.S. troops in July of next year. The president finds himself stuck in something even more insane than a quagmire: a quagmire he knowingly walked into, even though it's precisely the kind of gigantic, mind-numbing, multigenerational nation-building project he explicitly said he didn't want.
It is reminiscent of "Brer Rabbit And The Tar Baby," and Afghanistan is becoming Obama's "tar pit."
The article continues:
In private, Team McChrystal likes to talk shit about many of Obama's top people on the diplomatic side. One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a "clown" who remains "stuck in 1985." Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, "turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it's not very helpful." Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal's inner circle. "Hillary had Stan's back during the strategic review," says an adviser. "She said, 'If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.'"
. . .
At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "Oh, not another e-mail from [Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard] Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it." He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.
"Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg," an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail.
. . .
When it comes to Afghanistan, history is not on McChrystal's side. The only foreign invader to have any success here was Genghis Khan—and he wasn't hampered by things like human rights, economic development and press scrutiny.
. . .
The very people that [McChrystal's military strategy known as counterinsurgency, or] COIN seeks to win over—the Afghan people—do not want us there. . . . There is a reason that President Obama studiously avoids using the word "victory" when he talks about Afghanistan. Winning, it would seem, is not really possible. Not even with Stanley McChrystal in charge.
The media and politicians like Barack Obama said the same thing about George W. Bush's—and David Petraeus'—"surge" in Iraq, and they were mistaken.
 The highly-respected Rasmussen polling organization found in results that were released on June 25, 2010:
Forty-seven percent (47%) of U.S. voters agree that it was appropriate for President Obama to fire America’s top commander in Afghanistan this week, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Thirty-six percent (36%) disagree and say the president should not have removed General Stanley McChrystal from his command. Another 17% are not sure.
Just 32%, however, believe it was appropriate for McChrystal to criticize the president and other top U.S. officials in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine. Fifty percent (50%) feel the general’s public comments were not appropriate. Nearly one-out-of-five voters (18%) are undecided.
Publication of that interview prompted the president to call McChrystal back to Washington and, during a private White House meeting, to accept his resignation. Obama then announced that General David Petraeus, who commanded U.S. troops in Iraq in 2007 and 2008, will take his place.
Forty-seven percent (47%) view the naming of Petraeus as the new top commander in Afghanistan as good for the U.S. war effort there. Only nine percent (9%) say it’s a bad move, while 30% think it will have no impact. Fourteen percent (14%) aren’t sure.
Voter confidence in the course of the war in Afghanistan has been falling in recent weeks. Just 41% of voters now believe it is possible for the United States to win the nearly nine-year-old war in Afghanistan. Thirty-six percent (36%) disagree and say it is not possible for America to win the war. Another 23% are not sure.
 In an editorial entitled, "The Petraeus Hail Mary," the Wall Street Journal pointed out the divisive effect that Biden has had with respect to American policies and their implementation in Afghanistan. Biden has been a "loose canon," who was fully capable of fabricating facts if not engaging in outright lies.
See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704629804575325073086949444.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop("Mr. Obama said yesterday that no one individual is indispensable in war, but if any single person is, it is a President. Mr. Obama too often gives the impression of a leader asking, 'Won't someone rid me of this damn war?'"); see alsohttp://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start/#comment-169
Former President Bill Clinton was reluctant to take on the military politically, and wisely so—much to the chagrin of his far-Left constituents, some of whom believe America does not need to be strong militarily. As I have stated before: “America’s economic and military strength go hand in hand. Both are indispensable ingredients of our great nation’s future strength.”
 If Obama's presidency does not end before 2012, it is likely that he will not run for reelection, just as Truman declined to run in the midst of the Korean War, and Lyndon Johnson declined to run in the midst of the Vietnam War.
 See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/john-f-kennedy-the-most-despicable-president-in-american-history/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/ronald-reagan-and-john-f-kennedy-a-question-of-character
 Also, there is the issue of personal Obama family extravagances at the expense of U.S. taxpayers, especially at a time when so many Americans are suffering. See, e.g., http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1298063/Michelle-Obama-takes-daughter-Sasha-Spanish-getaway--leaves-birthday-boy-Barack-behind.html ("Michelle Obama is set to holiday with daughter Sasha on Spain's Costa del Sol. . . . Mrs Obama . . . has reserved 30 rooms at a five-star hotel")
 Lyndon Johnson chose not to run for reelection in 1968; and Obama advised New York Congressman Charles Rangel to end his political career with dignity as well. Hopefully he follows his own advice.See http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0710/Obama_Time_for_Rangel_to_end_career_with_dignity.html
Disclosure: No positions