tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8591018003444406729.post499827353474506973..comments2023-10-25T06:13:28.265-04:00Comments on The Conservative Wahoo: The Best McChrystal Theory I've Seen YetThe Conservative Wahoohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17818674434286683162noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8591018003444406729.post-1176349048169763572010-06-23T10:49:12.773-04:002010-06-23T10:49:12.773-04:00GG--spot on.GG--spot on.The Conservative Wahoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17818674434286683162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8591018003444406729.post-57625791834016776232010-06-23T09:54:31.129-04:002010-06-23T09:54:31.129-04:00Interesting theory, but I arrive at the same concl...Interesting theory, but I arrive at the same conclusion that Feaver does; that is, so what? Ultimately, it doesn't excuse the behavior.<br /><br />I have no problem with McChrystal and his staff blowing off steam, just don't do it within earshot of a reporter, especially one with an angle.Goldwater's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07002029000125533764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8591018003444406729.post-7802463823841052222010-06-23T08:58:50.325-04:002010-06-23T08:58:50.325-04:00They shouldn't have gone near a Rolling Stone ...They shouldn't have gone near a Rolling Stone reporter anyway. What exactly were they thinking, they'd get a fair shake? If McChyrstal wanted to make a point there are better, more reliable places to make it."The Hammer"https://www.blogger.com/profile/16342812251947807673noreply@blogger.com