McChrystal Gone, But Does That Solve Obama's Problem?

Since the "controversial" remarks by Gen. Stanley McChrystal and the decision by President Obama to relieve him of his command in Afghanistan, the MSM has once again jumped on the good ship Obama as all have chimed in as how "brilliant" the decision is.

However, the question remains, did Obama do the right thing and dismiss a high-ranking officer because of insubordination, or was it to hide his deficiencies as a war president due to his abundance of inexperience? In other words, was McCrystal right? That's something the media has yet to ask. Of course, it goes without saying that the questioning of leadership decisions and tactics of a certain former president wouldn't be in doubt and the dismissal of a dissenting general would have no doubt been seen as a president passing the buck, as his firing would be seen as a cover-up of that president's incompetence. No matter, right?

McChrystal's replacement? Gen. David Patraeus. You know, the one that former New York senator and current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton said one would have to enter a state of "disbelief" to believe any positive news that came out of Iraq, as the surge was actually turning around the Iraq War. The surge that both Clinton and Obama said wouldn't work. Will Clinton and Obama have so much trouble believing Patraeus now?

Finally, I find it quite peculiar that Obama dithered for months over whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, dithered for weeks over how to respond to the Deepwater Horizon spill. But when McChrystal criticized the president, he was gone in a day.
It's good to know where his priorities lie and that he can make a snap decision when he needs to. Uh huh, sure.