A Hypocritical Response To The McChrystal Ouster? : It's All Politics There seems to be a majority sentiment that Gen. Stanley McChrystal had to go after his controversial comments in Rolling Stone were reported.  But one blogger wonders why some criticism from the military elicits a different reaction.
NPR logo A Hypocritical Response To The McChrystal Ouster?

A Hypocritical Response To The McChrystal Ouster?

I read this and wonder if there's something to it.  I don't know if it's comparable, or it's apples and oranges.  At the least, I thought I'd share it.

Philip Klein, blogging at The American Spectator, writes about today's ouster of Gen. Stanley McChrystal and the comments made by President Obama regarding civilian control of the military.

That's all well and good, writes Klein, "but when Admiral William Fallon resigned as head of Central Command in 2008, it was covered as if the Bush administration couldn't handle disagreements, and Democrats went on the attack."

Klein quotes a Bloomberg News account at the time, saying that Fallon's resignation "provoked criticism that President George W. Bush won't tolerate dissent and fed speculation his Iran policy could become more confrontational."

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said, "Congress needs to determine immediately whether Admiral Fallon's resignation is another example of truth tellers being forced to the sidelines in the Bush administration."

And Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he was "concerned" that Fallon's resignation "is yet another example that independence and the frank, open airing of experts' views are not welcomed in this Administration."

I've long been of the opinion that if a member of the military has a policy disagreement with his civilian bosses, his choices are clear:  he either keeps it to himself or resigns his post in order to speak out.  You don't air grievances and stay in uniform.

I suspect that is an overwhelming sentiment in this country.

But what do you think of Klein's example in this case?