In one of the more bizarre pieces I’ve read in a while, The New York Times asserts that Obama’s firing of General Stanley McChrystal in Afghanistan after disparaging the President to the press consititutes a political “victory”:
Mr. Obama’s much-needed victories, nearly a year and a half into a presidency that was saddled from the start by two wars and a terrifying financial plunge, may not prove to be lasting.
[snip]
“I think we used this week or so not only for a reassertion of executive authority, but as an demonstration that, when presidential power is judiciously applied, you can get a lot done,” said Rahm Emanuel, the president’s chief of staff, who argued for a more confrontational approach to BP and for General McChrystal’s ouster. He described financial reform legislation as one of five pillars of “a new foundation” for the economy, after the stimulus package, the health care overhaul and the re-engineering of college aid. (The fifth, an energy bill, may prove the hardest.)
So let me get this straight, Obama’s a handpicked Afghanistan commander — a political liberal and self-confessed Obama voter — repeatedly disparages the President to the press, finally resulting in a near-total breakdown of the civilian military command. Obama replaces him with a Petraeus, a general that just three years ago who’s credibility he savaged in the Senate. Petraeus then went on to show up the future President, such that Obama’s not begging for his help.
In what world is this a political win for Obama?
