Let it Go, man
P is Pope but not that Pope.
It’s Stanley McChrystal, Hillary lover and Mike Flynn and General Charles Flynn’s best friend, mentor and business partner.
Weakened Our military from within with Alphabet Mafia and transgenders
DigitalSoldiers bought and paid for
Defaced The Declaration of Independence
Targeted PDJT followers with DARPA
Created their own Army of Digital soldiers ROGUE NGOs and JSOC
Infiltrated the Q movement
>>20157141
Trust me, You missed John B Wells
Glad you asked…Those who served under him Referred to him as The Pope…
P talks to
X - idk yet
Y - idk yet
Mike Flynn aka Zulutym
Charles Flynn served under him in Afghanistan as his personnel.
Who Is Stanley McChrystal?
By The Daily DishMay 15, 2009
MCCHRYSTAL1StefanZaklin:Getty
An interesting piece from someone who once served under him and clearly worships him. Read it all. Money quote:
Obviously writing from the seat of retirement, and with absolute respect and gratefulness for LTG McChrystal’s aggressive leadership, personable demeanor, and unwavering mentoring, I envy the guys that are soon to find themselves sharing the same mess hall, weight room, and helicopter as The Pope. The man is unstoppable. Demonstrably more committed than most. More open, in fact insistent, on creative and innovative ideas from his subordinates to fight the war on terror. From my perspective, our rules of land warfare, our respect for human life, and our strategic constraints handcuff us to the point that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable. But, with LTG McChrystal at the helm now all bets are off.
That last sentence suggests that McChrystal disagrees with the customary "respect for human life" demanded of the US military. McChrystal's past is mysterious but there is little doubt that he was deeply involved in one of the worst torture outfits in Iraq, Camp "Nama", an acronym for "Nasty Ass Military Area". The key sources for what went on at Nama are a NYT story here, and a Human Rights Watch report here. Two prisoners were tortured to death in this place. It was extremely closely monitored, with records of all sorts of torture and abuse, and yet there are also extensive stories of abuse that went well outside even the torture techniques approved by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Remember also that Iraq was, even by the standards of the Bush administration, supposed to be under the Geneva Conventions. The camp's record has been shrouded in secrecy from the beginning.
Nama housed the "black room" - a torture cell:
https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/05/who-is-stanley-mcchrystal/201850/
-
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/7225231/Bank-of-America-Flynn-Intel-Group-May-2017.pdf
-
Money Laundering to evade sanctions on Iran
-
Child trafficking in the Middle East US v. Dyncorp 2008
-
Pro-abortion, violation of PDJT beliefs
-
Predicts Cyber War against PDJT
These articles are old, but yeah,
SM is “The Pope”
https://www.google.com/search?q=stanley+mcchrystal+referred+to+as+The+Pope&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari
Flynn’s and McChrystal’s Lifelong friends
Must read Michael Hastings Book
The Runaway General
https://www.hackingbutlegal.com/p/michael-hastings-a-legacy-of-investigative-journalism-unsettling-circumstances-and-a-recent-veiled-threat
MAY 15, 2009
9 out of 10 Operators Agree: "The Pope" is the Right Man for the Job
One of the most experienced Afghanistan hands I know had this to say about General McChrystal in an email to me yesterday:
All the heavy breathing about him being A Killer Man and not right for COIN is way, way off base.
"Dalton Fury" the nom de plume of an old Delta commander (and the brother of one of America's most legendary warriors, if I am correct) had much more enthusiastic words for McChrystal. Gang, this piece on Small Wars Journal is the only must-read profile to have been written about General McChrystal since his nomination. It's worth about eight times what those features in the Post and Times are worth. Read this, because this is the no-%$#@ Inside Baseball stuff. (In fact, I am a little surprised anyone is allowed to write about this stuff. One of the reasons I have never written about my time in Iraq, for example, was because of the kind of op-sec stuff talked about here.)
I served as a staff officer under McChrystal in the late 90’s before leaving for 1st SFOD-D. My Ranger peers and I had a unique opportunity to see the good and the bad in the 1976 West Point graduate. I think if McChrystal were wounded on the battlefield, he would bleed red, black, and white – the official colors of the 75th Ranger Regiment. He is 110% US Army Ranger, rising to become the 10th Regimental Commander in the late 90’s, and still sports the physique to prove it. Even with a bum back and likely deteriorating knees after a career of road marching and jumping out of planes he doesn’t recognize the human pause button. Maybe by now this is a good thing as the junior officers of today might be able to keep pace with the General.
As the Ranger Regimental commander, McChrystal was considered a Tier II subordinate commander under the Joint Special Operations functioning command structure. The highest level, Tier I, was reserved exclusively for Delta Force and Seal Team 6. This always seemed to bother McChrystal. His nature isn’t to be second fiddle to anyone, nor for his Rangers to be considered second class citizens to the Tier 1 Special Mission Units.
Terms like “kit”, often used by Delta and Seal Team 6 operators to collectively describe the gear, weapons, and equipment an assaulter carries was banned from the Ranger lexicon. The term “assaulter” or “operator” was also verboten speak within the Regiment. The men wearing the red, black, and white scroll were Rangers, not assaulters and not operators. They also didn’t carry kit. They carried standard military issue equipment.
McChrystal also deplored the idea that the Regiment served as an unofficial farm team for Delta Force, or even the US Army Special Forces Green Berets. In his eyes, the Rangers were just as skilled in their primary mission of Airfield Seizures and Raids as Delta was in land based Hostage Rescue or the SEALs were in assaulting a ship underway. All things being equal, McChrystal was right. The Rangers were, and still are, just as skilled in their Mission Essential Tasks as are the Tier I units in theirs. He believed that losing quality officers and non-commissioned officers to what many considered the true tip of the spear outfits – those granted the most funding, most authority, and given the premiere targets - hurt the Regiment.
https://www.cnas.org/publications/blog/9-out-of-10-operators-agree-the-pope-is-the-right-man-for-the-job
Prove it!
Since you know Q so well!
Bet Scavino or PDJT prove I’m right before you prove your right…
McChrystal's Example
In many respects, the U.S. Army and the Catholic Church could not be more dissimilar institutions. Both have radically different missions, divergent access to resources, &seemingly, heterogeneous cultures. Yet in one striking way, the two organizations are quite analogous: both rely on &thrive under strict adherence to hierarchal rule. Despite the best efforts of some, especially during Vatican II, to move the church away from a pyramid model (pope at the top, then bishops, priests, religious, and finally laypeople) toward a flat “people of God” model, the church, for good or bad, remains thoroughly hierarchal, in both theory & in practice. The U.S. Army operates, out of necessity, in the same manner. As a result, recent events involving General Stanley McChrystal offer the church a valuable lesson &possible model to emulate.
McChrystal is regarded a dedicated, skilled, &devoted leader, who understands the intricacies of war and the sensitivities of .U.S presence in Afghanistan. His colleagues & superiors praise him continuously as a fair-minded military man, compelling others toward valiant and courageous service. Yet a couple months ago, McChrystal made an egregious mistake for anyone serving in a hierarchal institution: he upset the chain of command by calling into question the judgment of his superiors, specifically, the president and vice president. In the military, this is a mortal sin, & it cost the general his job.
At a ceremony marking his retirement on Friday in Washington, McChrystal made a simple & obvious observation to a crowd of 500 friends, family, and colleagues: “My service did not end as I would have wished.” Yet despite his less than graceful exit, many military hotshots were on hand to praise McChrystal’s years of service to his country. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said: “We bid farewell to Stan McChrystal today with pride and sadness. Pride for the remarkable roster of achievement that he has compiled as a man and a soldier, sadness that our comrade & his prodigious talents are leaving us.” It was a ceremony marked with laughter, gratitude, & an exhortation for others to continue serving with dedication. Even the man who accepted McChrystal’s resignation, President Barack Obama, honored the general’s service by allowing him to retire with four stars even though he could have pushed for a lower rank, thereby reducing his pension & his prestige.
What can the church learn from McChrystal’s departure? McChrystal was a talented & devoted servant of his institution, but he erred gravely, &he then had to step aside so as to let the mission continue unencumbered by scandal & questions of his ability to lead. In the wake of his resignation, he was not attacked personally, thrown to the curb, &destroyed, but praised for his leadership even while standing in the searing light of accountability.
I can’t help but to think of our bishops during the sex abuse scandals (I realize the parallel is a bit flawed; some bishops are seemingly guilty of near criminal activity while McChrystal is not). Many of these men are pastoral, effective, & caring servants who exercised shockingly poor judgment when it came to transferring priests guilty of abuse. Had they possessed the courage to resign, they could have been praised by their subordinates &their flocks for their work in other areas, while recognizing that their continued leadership harmed the church and its lofty mission. These men are not evil, but by their decisions they showed quite clearly that they were not up to the heavy demands of their office. Another difference between the church &the Army, it appears, is that those above these bishops on the chain of command lacked the willingness or the ability to demand resignations. As a result, many of these men remain in office, &the church suffers. These bishops had the opportunity to step aside, have their accomplishments celebrated, and allow for healing &forgiveness to take over. They chose instead another path.
The closest example the church offers to this model is the resignation of Boston’s Cardinal Bernard Law. The epicenter of the scandal in the U.S., Boston paradoxically both thrived &suffered greatly under his leadership. After much external pressure, &presumably with some internal force as well, Law finally retired &moved to Rome. Despite the justified anger at Law during his resignation, many still recalled, albeit more guardedly than with McChrystal, the good that he did for the city’s Catholic population.
The model offered by General McChrystal is one that could be utilized widely and wisely in the church.
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2010/07/27/mcchrystals-example