June 23rd, 2010
03:30 PM ET

Security Brief: What happened at McChrystal, Obama meeting

A source close to Gen. Stanley McChrystal provided the first account of what happened in Wednesday's White House meeting between the general and President Barack Obama.

According to the source, McChrystal briefly explained the magazine article at the center of the controversy and took responsibility, then offered his resignation. Obama accepted the resignation, the source said.

The president "had no intention of keeping him," according to the source.

In addition, the source said McChrystal will not return to Afghanistan. His team will go back to pack up on his behalf.

soundoff (703 Responses)
  1. Shamrock6

    In order to win in Afghanistan we will need to be there forever and I am pretty sure we will be. Over the next decade we should look to build permanent bases there and start to rebuild their infrastructure. The only way these people are going to move forward is if we show them how to farm, manufacture and become part of the civilized world. Young kids need to be educated and realize that a job and a family are better ways of life than strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up for some mythical character in the sky.

    June 23, 2010 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Reno

    Good move by Obama! Subordinates do not malign the Commander in Chief...shades of Douglas MacArthur and Harry Truman. McChrystal should just be like the good old soldier and "just fade away"

    June 23, 2010 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Vectorboy

    Next up for firing: Janet "The System Worked" Napolitano

    June 23, 2010 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
  4. LauraL

    Support Our Troops has to be more than a bumper sticker slogan. General McChrystal chose to not support the troops he is leading by his remarks. Also, imagine if you posted all kinds of crap on the internet about how stupid your boss and the organization you work for are, how long would your employment last?

    June 23, 2010 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
  5. KevinS

    This was a great war time decision by President Obama!!! Any General in McChrystal's position knows how important the chain of command is and his remarkis to the public were extremely reckless and undermined the leadership and mission in Afganistan and throughout the world. How can you ask your soldiers (private, sergeants, etc) to follow your direction and command, unwavering and unquestionable when you cannot do the same to the most powerful leader in the world. Regardless of your political party Obama made the right decision her.

    June 23, 2010 at 3:51 pm | Report abuse |
  6. Tom

    What? No shared beers and a photo op at the local pub? I guess you need to be a loudmouth black university professor to qualify for special treatment from the president. O tosses out a quality military general but keeps an oaf like Rahm Emanuel. Go figure.

    June 23, 2010 at 3:52 pm | Report abuse |
  7. tall beauty98

    OBAMA did the right thing...McChrystal doesn't get it. Does the word LOYALTY mean anything to McChrystal, especially in the Military???? When someone i.e.(Obama) does anything for u whereas they didn't have to...you don't turn around & spit in their face. Clearly McChrystal doesn't have a professional bone in his body...now all he need is to be stripped of his rank, then demoted to a corporal. McChrystal now YOU do have the attn of the President...and looks like u came out w/the short end of the stick. Now who's really disengaged, McChrystal????

    June 23, 2010 at 3:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • eddale

      Don't let him off so light. He should be a private. That's where the teach you about the UCMJ.

      June 23, 2010 at 8:09 pm | Report abuse |
  8. NycDude99

    The outcome was obvious the moment the article became public. The sacrosanct rule in the United States is the military is ALWAYS under civilian control. The President had no other choice but to ask and accept this resignation or fire him.

    June 23, 2010 at 3:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • Anti-Religious

      Thank you for stating the obvious, and succinctly.

      June 23, 2010 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Bert

    The White House should have hired Donald Trump to hire this man! The General was a leader and the tone at the top starts with him. Not exactly the behavior we expect from the top military in the world!

    June 23, 2010 at 3:52 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Tayo

    Right decision, President Obama.

    Let it be remember that you are the Commander in chief, and that need to be respected. No matter what!

    June 23, 2010 at 3:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jim

      Yeah, no matter how vapid he is, don't criticize El Presidente.

      June 23, 2010 at 3:55 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Jim

    The General made a bad decision. The General resigned!

    June 23, 2010 at 3:53 pm | Report abuse |
  12. bigal04138

    J Gonzo... your name sounds like the amount of sense that you have. When any soldier talks bad about their leaders, they need to be fired. If you knew your history, you would see that this is not the only time a general has had to be replaced because of his big mouth. As far as having a brain... yours compared to Obama... now that's a no brainer... before you go calling someone brainless, make sure that yours is in good working condition.

    June 23, 2010 at 3:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jim

      If they fired everyone in the military who talked bad about the President, our military would have about 20% of 'em left.

      June 23, 2010 at 3:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      @Jim Yeah you're so right ***SARCASM**** and all of them are high ranking generals who take shots at their bosses in published magazines. Get a life.

      The morons are the people who support or not based solely on whether they're democrat or republican. The smart ones are the people who support a decision when it's the right decision to be made, republican/democrat or not.... in this case the General disrespected the chain of command and it's legacy. It doesn't matter if you agree with what he said or if you voted for McCain... I guarnatee you McCain would have responded the same way had he been Pres... you can't appear as if your subordinates are walking all over you.

      June 23, 2010 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jim

      Your logic is flawed, Dave. If McCain were President, he wouldn't be getting the criticism from the military in the first place.

      June 23, 2010 at 5:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • sheppard

      GG! Another idiot who runs his mouth without putting his brain in gear – Code of Military Justice – look it up, I spelled it for you.

      June 23, 2010 at 7:51 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Gene K.

    This is repeated history...GEN Douglas MacArthur and President Harry S. Truman. Other past Generals and Presidents have had similar issues. Not a first time here. Time marches on...

    June 23, 2010 at 3:55 pm | Report abuse |
  14. Tom

    @Kevin: "How can you ask your soldiers (private, sergeants, etc) to follow your direction and command...." blah blah blah. Easy. Most of them probably agree with him and respect him for speaking the truth.

    The president should try it sometime.

    June 23, 2010 at 3:55 pm | Report abuse |
  15. Harry

    Article 88 of the UCMJ states:

    “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

    I think this says enough of the situation. The former General made a grievous error in judgement and broke the law. Simple fact. Obama could have done worse if he wanted.

    June 23, 2010 at 3:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • BrianCNN

      Not according to the facts provided in the articles that were written. Of course, that would mean that you might have to read or worse to think critically instead of copying and pasting from someone else.

      June 23, 2010 at 3:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      Exactly! He's lucky he didn't get court martialed

      June 23, 2010 at 4:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • Shamrock6

      Brian...you've obviously never served. Harry is beyond right. He broke the law according to the UCMJ. No questions asked. Regardless of how CNN put it down. Not only did be break article 88 but he broke several others as well. He's lucky to be resigning.

      June 23, 2010 at 4:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • BrianCNN

      You're insane. Try reading. I know it's hard for you.

      According to a Rolling Stone article, some members of his staff made some comments and some members of his staff said that he made some comments and the writer recalls the General himself making a comment that wasn't so bad but that was followed by a bad comment by another guy. So, when you are prosecuting General McChrystal at your drummed up court-martial and this is your evidence, I wish you the best of luck.

      Now, the General took responsibility for the controversy caused by the article and voluntarily resigned his position to stop that controversy in its tracks.

      June 23, 2010 at 4:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Shamrock6

      Save your thinly veiled arrogance for your co-workers at the mall. I'm not concerned with your views on who said what to whom vis-a-vis some article you've pulled off the internet. The general was relieved of command. If you had ever served one day in the military you would know just exactly how bad that phrase is to one's career. I know it's difficult to wrap your cheetos-encrusted brain around it but he broke the military law. Beyond that he acted un-professionally and exhibited behavior that is not in keeping with the best traditions of our armed forces.

      June 23, 2010 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • BrianCNN

      Shamrock–it's the Rolling Stone article that is the center of the controversy. Without the article, none of this would be discussed. He resigned due to the controversy. There would be no charges against the General in violation of the UCMJ if the only evidence provided is that from this article. Had he written an op-ed piece or made a public statement with the comments that his staffers attributed to him, then there would be something to go on. If there's more evidence that demonstrates that he violated Article 88 or the others that you may know of, then fine. If this same article was written about any service member, a court-martial would be out of the question.

      I don't disagree that there is certainly a problem, but I don't think we should be so quick to start trying a court-martial against someone without any evidence. It's just not sensible.

      June 23, 2010 at 5:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • sheppard

      Yep! Brian had obviously never served. How many ways can it be explained to the nitwit and he continues to argue. You don't argue with Military Code of Justice, Brian. Glad you remained a civilian who gets to bi+ch whilst other do your fighting for you. Our pleasure!

      June 23, 2010 at 7:54 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22