Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Left Masthead
November 7, 2016
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed





America the Ingenious
Invisible Nation

Truthdig Bazaar
Tuna: Love, Death, and Mercury

Tuna: Love, Death, and Mercury

By Richard Ellis
$10.88

more items

 
Report
Print this item

Sane Officers Oppose Cheney

Posted on Nov 15, 2007

By Joe Conason

The Pentagon has launched a preventive strike against a target that military chiefs presumably regard as one of the most active current threats to U.S. and world security—namely, the office of the vice president of the United States. Thrusting back hard against Vice President Dick Cheney’s warmongering, the head of U.S. forces in the Mideast declared that an attack on Iran “is not in the offing,” and more or less urged the vice president and his political allies to shut up.

In a front-page interview published on Nov. 12 by the Financial Times, Admiral William Fallon, who heads the U.S. Central Command, spoke in diplomatic tones, as top military officers usually tend to do when they make strong political statements. Yet there was no mistaking the admiral’s message. While Iran certainly poses a “challenge,” he said, U.S. policymakers must engage Tehran to encourage changes in the regime’s behavior. But the Iranians won’t “come to their senses” while under threat of bombardment, invasion or worse.

“None of this is helped by the stories that just keep going around and around and around that any day now there will be another war, which is just not where we want to go,” he said with a degree of exasperation. “It seems to me that we don’t need more problems. It astounds me that so many pundits and others are spending so much time yakking about this topic [of war against Iran].”

Most of that bellicose speculation can be traced back to vice presidential circles, including the neoconservative ideologues (or as the admiral put it, the “pundits”), who popularized the notions that Iran is an imminent threat to the United States, Israel and the world and that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the next Hitler. Those themes certainly have a familiar ring; the last imminent threat was Iraq, and the last next Hitler was Saddam Hussein. Not content with the great success of their Mesopotamian misadventure, the same people have been urging action against Iran.

Admiral Fallon’s remarks follow in the wake of recent statements by both President George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney. Not long ago, the president blurted a strange warning that if other nations wish to avert “World War III,” then they had best ensure that Iran never obtains “the knowledge” to construct nuclear weapons. “We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” growled the vice president, muttering about the “serious consequences” that the Iranians would suffer. Since nobody believes that Tehran will come close to acquiring a nuclear weapon before the Bush administration leaves office, the ominous comments were taken as signals that the White House is contemplating preemptive action. Those signals have emanated for years from the office of the vice president and those associated with him.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

More important, the nation’s military leaders seem determined to block any rush to war, no matter what the vice president may desire. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have reportedly expressed strong opposition to any military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and little enthusiasm for even limited action against Iranian forces. Their reluctance stems from tactical concerns about the impact of conflict with Iran on U.S. forces in Iraq, and strategic worries over waging wars in three Muslim nations in the region simultaneously.

For now, the influence of sane and sensible officers appears to be ascending. Only a few days before Admiral Fallon spoke out, an Associated Press dispatch noted that American officials are quietly reducing our force profile in the Gulf region—for instance, by withdrawing an aircraft carrier that was sent earlier this year to emphasize the American regional security commitment.

As for President Bush, if his own words are to be believed, then he too has decided to pursue the diplomatic option rather than engage in reckless bombing. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has explicitly rejected the idea that the Senate authorized war last September by designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a “terrorist organization.” She went on to say “the president has also made very clear that he’s on a diplomatic path where Iran comes into focus.”

If calmer counsel is prevailing, however, tensions are certain to rise again when the U.S. moves for United Nations sanctions against Tehran. It would not take much to provoke fire on either side, which is why rhetorical tone is so important. “You certainly don’t want to encourage any kind of a miscalculation or misstep by talk,” said Admiral Fallon, who seems to understand how swiftly foolish fantasies of war can be transformed into lethal realities.

Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer.

© 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Joe Spenner, November 30, 2007 at 7:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

BUSH AND CHENEY “MUST” BOTH BE IMMEDIATELY TESTED FOR BEING INCAPAPABLE OF SANE JUDGEMENT BECAUSE OF
USE OF COCAINE AND OPIUM! CRITICALLY IMPORTANT~!
FOR EXACT DOCUMENATION, GET COPY OF BOOK FROM THE INTERNET BY THEIR VICTIMS, TITLED: “TRANCE FORMATION OF AMERICA,” by Cathy O’Brien with Mark Phillips.  (I met the authors).  PLEASE ACT!

Report this

By GP, November 20, 2007 at 7:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As we teeter at the edge of an abyss of total insanity, a momentary word of relief has come from an unexpected source – a US military chieftain.  IRAN IS NO THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES.  People in the US have been dumbed-down and seduced to the point of believing everyone in the Middle East is crazy as well as a threat.  They actually believe cave dwellers alone attacked us and that we can make ourselves less vulnerable by maiming and humiliating strangers.  These folks have not done their homework.

Then there exists in our own country super religious zealots – the extremist’s extremists - disingenuous and perverse little people who must, like lemmings, harbor a death wish, believing civilization deserves to be vaporized in a nuclear cloud as payback for our hedonism.  Thankfully, there exists a different breed in mankind who believe that the human experience is sacred and mysteriously purposeful, understanding that we must face-off against that depraved juggernaut of the warmonger New World Order head-on.  These proponents know life is a gift not to be squandered in fear or apathy. 

Diseased and twisted entities have been waxing for some time materializing on a powerful perch corporately and politically.  They have become expert in appetite manipulation, information deprivation and terror mongering.  Will they succeed to permanently bottle and enslave the last vestiges of beautiful rejoicing sanity by way of fear, propaganda, chemical application, electronic intrusion, and ultimately perhaps, breeding and culling? 

In what’s left of our nation, if enough sane people find the spirit to fight the noble fight to whatever end, enslavement of the masses by the New World Order will fail.  If we choose not to locate this spirit, then a dark age falls upon us.  This is our last chance to rescue freedom.  If only a handful of individuals fight this fight, and their numbers are not adequate, those will be the only ones that will have been worth a damn in any event.  Make your choice.  But if we win, this will be an historic moment.  The founding fathers risked their own necks for principles that are rare and dear, and they won.  It’s our turn now to place our comfortable necks on the line.  There really isn’t anything to lose, but everything to save – including our souls.

Report this

By Liam, November 19, 2007 at 6:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When the basis of your belief is the coming Armageddon and you see a way of ushering the end times, why wouldn’t you take every opportunity to attack the godless heathen and do God’s good and holy work. After all, we have God on our side. Besides, we know the Iranians are warmongering unbelievers and evildoers who want nothing better than to annihalate us. Look at what they are doing to us with oil. Making us beg and grovel and taking away our profits.

As someone once replied when asked if he knew any good indians, “only the dead ones”. (sorry don’t have the exact quote handy). So let’s just nuke em before they can nuke us. If that ushers in the end times then praise Jesus and pass the ammunition.

As for Bush-Cheney, to hell with the constitutional parameters of the offices. They remind me of King John and the sherif of Knotingham. Where the hell is Robin Hood when you need him.

Report this

By S.C.C. / L.G.N.A., November 17, 2007 at 8:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

OUR CURRENT SENTIMENT:

“BRING ALL OF OUR TROOPS AROUND THE WORLD HOME NOW! LET THEM GUARD OUR BORDERS AND DEFEND THE BILL-OF-RIGHTS; BEFORE THE CITIZENRY HAS TO DO IT WITHOUT THEM”...

Besides, we’re tired of having our women stripped searched (and even dieing) in our domestic airports while our borders remain wide-open and the Border Patrol guards are being imprisoned if they do their job.

LIBERTY NOW, LIBERTY FOREVER…!!!

Report this
JimBob's avatar

By JimBob, November 17, 2007 at 2:13 pm Link to this comment

Got to admit, when military types speak out and say political things (often dangerous, war-mongering things) we don’t agree with, we shriek and holler about the need for the military to be subservient to civilian control and call for the heads of the speakers.  When someone like Fallon says something sensible that we agree with, he’s a great guy and should keep it up.  Doesn’t make the warmongers right or Fallon wrong, but it is a phenomenon, you’ll agree.

Report this

By purplewolf, November 16, 2007 at 8:26 pm Link to this comment

why when a person is already a member and logged in do you make them fill out this crap again but it is not on other pages.Is it more of the government surveillance onto the little people

Report this

By Dennis, November 16, 2007 at 7:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Isn’t this guy tough [Cheney]? He never has been in a fight by himself, how hard is it to get somebody else to fight your battles. I say to the VP put on a uniform swear in a hole bunch of your neo-nuts and I’m sure that the Admiral would be willing to give your troops a free ride to the Iran shores whereby he could lead the invasion. I would love to be on a ship just off the coast as they land with a pair of binoculars to watch this group of heroes!

Report this

By cyrena, November 16, 2007 at 6:33 pm Link to this comment

Writer on the storm,

I stand corrected. Disingenuous was the wrong word. But, I didn’t necessarily mean that you were ‘wrong’ either. Rather, we are apparently hearing different language and different debate. In my circles of conversation, “boots on the ground” has never been suggested, since we obviously don’t HAVE any boots to PUT on the ground.

So, in these parts, we’ve only ever considered airstrikes, since that seems to have been the plan for quite some time now. (at least 2 years). Still, I guess I was saying the same thing you were in that regard. The outcome will be the same.

Winghunter,

Saber-rattling is saber-rattling, and NOT diplomacy, regardless of who one might be dealing with. (it’s also not SABRE-rattling unless you’re somehow connected to the travel industry that uses that system/technology for its operations).

And, while I’ve been closely monitoring the events in the middle east, I’ve yet to hear or read anyone calling for the destruction of the U.S., unless you’re referring to the insanity emanating from the White House/Executive offices, and even that ‘call for destruction’ hasn’t been ‘worded’ as such. (even though that IS of course what we’ve been watching for the past 7 years now.)

As for growing up fast, would that be the same as needing to ‘sleep fast’? As in, there isn’t much time? You could have a point.

Meantime, maybe you could learn Persian/Farsi, so that you’ll understand those who speak it, for whenever you choose to quote them, or otherwise put words in their mouths. Like I said, there’s been no call for the destruction of our nation. Dick Bush doesn’t speak any language, so we have only their actions to determine that they have in fact determined to destroy us, and their getting there fast.

Report this

By cyrena, November 16, 2007 at 4:58 pm Link to this comment

#113971 by WriterOnTheStorm on 11/16 at 9:54 am)
#113885 by cyrena
With respect, I don’t think you meant “disingenuous”. You meant to say I was wrong. Nevertheless, your assessment reads too much into the debate. The public discussion, from the pundits to the generals, has been about boots on the ground. The language has been expressly about war, not about sorties and smart bombs.
WOTS,
I stand corrected. You’re right. Disingenuous was the wrong word. But, it might be inaccurate to even say that you were ‘wrong’ because we’ve obviously been hearing different language and/or engaging in different debates.
So, you’ve been hearing boots on the ground and war type language, whereas in my own neck of the woods, that language has never actually been entertained. All we’ve ever acknowledged around here is airstrikes. (the reason for all of those aircraft carriers hanging around the Persian Gulf for at least 18 months now) NOT boots on the ground, for the obvious reasons…we don’t HAVE any boots to put on the ground.

So, airstrikes is all we’ve much talked about around here, and the war talk only results from that, since retaliation is a given. We strike, or Israel strikes, and WWIII gets into full swing.

Report this

By Anonymous, November 16, 2007 at 12:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Admiral Fallon is in the military. The last time I checked those in the military take orders from the President and his appointees, not the other way around. Also, they don’t have access to all of the information like the President, so their view of things is much more limited than that of the President, especially in regards to diplomatic efforts. In other words, the good admiral should really stick to taking orders and not insert himself into geopolitics, if that’s indeed what he’s doing. It’s hard to say without seeing the full transcript of the interview. He may have been grossly taken out of context. In any case, the admiral isn’t saying that the Bush administration is wrong, but only confirmed that they weren’t preparing for any strikes on Iran. Further, Admiral Fallon also said the following which was conveniently left out of the analysis presented by the author of this article:

“There has got to be some combination of strength and willingness to engage. How to come up with the right combination of that is the real trick.”

In saying this, he admits that he doesn’t know what steps are necessary to strike the proper “balance” to achieve the desired results. That’s a far cry from denouncing the Bush administration for their approach.

Report this

By Tim Kelly, November 16, 2007 at 11:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How is that the Iranian leader is a terrorist for stating Iran will defend itself but the U.S. is “ensuring diplomacy succeeds” by constantly threatening pre-emptive strikes against Iran?  At the same time U.S. citizens claim to not be willing to negotiate with terrorists, the U.S. threatens to kill Iranian children.  Iran is not threatening to wage war on anyone, but reiterates that it will defend itself.  Iran has not invaded another country in 500 years.  The U.S. was fully complicit in Iraq’s invasion of Iran in the 1980s.  Who is the terrorist?

The U.S. negotiated with North Korea after they showed they had nuclear weapons.  The U.S. invaded Iraq after it was clear they did not have nuclear weapons.  If I was Iran, I’d be trying to build a nuclear weapon as fast as possible, because the U.S. is threatening to kill their children.

Report this

By Barry Champlain, November 16, 2007 at 10:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

And when the inarticulate front man for Cheney reminds the Joint Chiefs et.al. that he’s the Commander-In-Chief (a.k.a., “The Decider”... all you ever had to hear about this presidency, to know what it’s all about), a bankrupted America will start its second futile, “preemptive” war in the Middle East. Multiples more will die, we’ll borrow even more money to pay off the defense industry and the private contractors… and loyal, legacy-minded Bushies will blame the latest disaster of historical proportions on a “Democrat” Congress (this time, rightfully so).

And we are just sitting here, on our thumbs, watching the slo-mo zeppelin go down in flames.

Report this

By karim29007, November 16, 2007 at 10:03 am Link to this comment

IS THE V.P. HAS GONE MAD ?
—————————————

Despite of popular belief not only I disagree but also all the indications are that he is at the top of his Performance and is the DECIDER.

The V.P is the person whom the ZIONISTS has worked on and nourished him for decades, he is just doing his job SINCE he signed-on.

The dictatorial regime in Washington, operating in an echo chamber, the all too corrupt legisletive mechanism and the state of the nation, as it is in now, are only the SYMPTOMS.

THE CAUSE IS THE ZIONISTS WITH THEIR HIGHLY ORGANIZED NETWORKS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

THE CANCEROUS ENEMY WITHIN MUST BE STOPPED.

AND UNTIL THEN THERE WOULD BE MANY MORE REGIMES LIKE THE SAID ONE BEFORE ONLY WITH DIFFERENT NAMES AND COLORS.

Thousands of AMERICANS, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF IRAQIS, MANY THOUSANDS OF AFGHANS HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES SO FAR INCLUDING THE ON GOING GENOCIDE IN PALASTINE.

And NEXT. WITH ALL THE OPTIONS ON/UNDER THE TABLE?

As we all well aware once the CAUSE gets removed the SYMPTOMS DISAPPEARS.

Report this

By WriterOnTheStorm, November 16, 2007 at 9:54 am Link to this comment

#113885 by cyrena

With respect, I don’t think you meant “disingenuous”. You meant to say I was wrong. Nevertheless, your assessment reads too much into the debate. The public discussion, from the pundits to the generals, has been about boots on the ground. The language has been expressly about war, not about sorties and smart bombs.

No official is going to state that air strikes are off the table. Such a move would solve nothing, and cripple any potential diplomatic efforts.

The strategy therefor, has been to throw out the red herring of war, so that eventual air strikes will appear as a measured and considered compromise. Such air strikes will be carefully timed for maximum effect on the presidential election, naturally.

Report this

By Jonas South, November 16, 2007 at 9:53 am Link to this comment

RE #113902 by Winghunter.
He wrote: ‘....If you have no idea who our self-declared enemy actually is, how the heck do you mindnumbingly offer what will persuade them to stop their nuclear ambitions!?’

By ‘our self-declared enemy’, do you mean that Iran has declared itself enemy of the U.S.? On this point, we should note that Iran helped us with our initial efforts against terrorism, and subsequently put a ‘let’s cooperate’ offer on the table, which Bush brushed off.

Iran is no less a democracy than us. Granted that is not saying much, but, in the recent past, Iranians have voted for a moderate government multiple times. It is not brilliance to conclude that the more we threaten Iran with force, the more we empower the Mad Mullahs, which may well be the neo-cons’ point.

Were we a more perfect democracy, we would be using the five or so years that UN inspectors say we have before Iran arms itself, to work on a deal no one can refuse, namely, a nuclear-free Middle East guaranteed by us.

Report this

By James, November 16, 2007 at 8:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We will not invade Iran.

Isreal will not invade Iran.

I speculate Iran already has the atomic bomb. Our intelligence has been extremely poor and obviously so has others since we envisioned Iraq having WMD’s. The difference is Iraq is not like Iran.

If a bomb can be built in 3 years (Manhattan Project) at a time when technology might be considered barbaric in todays standard why should anyone beleive that Iran does not have a bomb already. Lets face it the information is at your finger tips and Iran has had atomic power back in the days of the Sha. I think if Iran has manufactured 3000 centrifuses for its atomic power plant making pure grade uranium should be kids play.

I might further speculate that if they dont that quite possibly they do when they purchased those cruise missiles from the black market days of the falling Soviet Union.

Iran is a technological country. It has a booming GDP and thats with 30 years of trade sanctions.

Isreal is not going to attempt to expand the violence they have endured or shelled out as the last failing in Lebanon proved there military is not what many think and its aggressor is getting quite resilient. The end result is devastation for all.

The world does not need sabor waiving idiots pronouncing ALqeada is everywhere. Its all about oil pure and simple. The decoy is fear and we need to remember those famous words:” We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

Report this

By racer, November 16, 2007 at 3:45 am Link to this comment

THIS IS HOW IT WORKS FOR THE GLOBAL ELITE, FIRST CONTROL THE WORLDS MONEY WITCH THEY DO, NEXT CONTROL THE WORLDS OIL SUPPLY, AND NEXT ALL OF HUMANITY AND POPULATION CONTROL. AND THIS HAPPENING AS WE SPEAK. JUST LOOK AT OUR GOVERNMENT WHO IN CONTROL, THE CANDIDATES WHO IS IN CONTROL, OUR OPEN BORDERS WHO IS IN CONTROL, DO YOUR HOME WORK ON CFR, FREEMASONRY, TC, AND WE CAN TALK IT TO DEATH, BUT THAT WONT CHANGE A THING, THEIR ORGANIZED AND WE NOT, THE HAVE A PLAN AND WE DON’T, THEY HAVE THE MONEY AND WE DON’T, THEY HAVE THE POWER AND WE DON’T, ALL WE HAVE HOT AIR. BY BY MIS AMERICAN PIE.

Report this

By SamSnedegar, November 16, 2007 at 3:22 am Link to this comment

most of the comments here are pertinent and useful, but pay particular attention to Cyrena…

The USA will eventually HAVE to bomb Iran, no not for Israel, and not for being part of any “axis of evil,” but for standing in the way of our invasion of more oil rich arab countries like the Emirates, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.

It isn’t a question of retaliation by Iran though: it is because Iran will not stand by while we invade the Emirates or Saudi Arabia; they will jump into that operation with both feet and all their air force and submarine force, and be a nuisance to our mideast oil pilfering.

You won’t hear that from Conason, who it seems can’t talk about oil, in the sense meant by Greenscum, but the Cheney mouth is paving the way for more invasions of arab oil countries AND the necessary quelling of any attempt at assistance for those victims by the Iranians.

And we are not really warmongers so much as we are oil pirates; if the mideast would just lie back and enjoy our raping them and controlling all their oil, we wouldn’t have to hurt anyone. Look at the benefits for Iraqis if they shut up and sit down: we will give them 5% of their oil; what could be fairer?

Report this

By Winghunter, November 16, 2007 at 3:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Some of you folks demonstrate a concentrated effort towards pure stupidity…especially Joey.

A terrorist ‘president’ calls for our destruction yet you can’t quite grasp that “sabre-rattling” is certainly a form of diplomacy when dealing with the insane.

If you have no idea who our self-declared enemy actually is, how the heck do you mindnumbingly offer what will persuade them to stop their nuclear ambitions!?

You folks better grow up a little faster and run your mouths a little less.

Report this

By cyrena, November 15, 2007 at 10:21 pm Link to this comment

#113800 by WriterOnTheStorm
•  A red herring if there was one since war, armed invasion, was never on the table. The question is and remains, will Iran be subject to air strikes. Some say this will be left to Israel but even this is so, the repercussions will be the same.
WOTS…This seems a bit disingenuous, since I don’t think anyone has been talking about an ‘armed invasion’ such as the thugs perpetrated against Iraq. At least not anybody paying attention to the threats against Iran.
So, the question has ALWAYS been about air strikes, and who would do them. Israel, US, or both. And, the outcome, (regardless of who does it) has ALWAYS been a given as well. It will result in war, because Iran will retaliate. Another certainty.  So, no red herring here. (at least not for anybody paying attention, and making the logical connections of dots.) Somebod(ies) perpetrate air attacks on Iran. Iran retaliates against the perpetrators with the help of Russia. Voila, WWIII with nukes.
And, that’s been the conversation for at least 3 years now, although every once in a while, somebody (like Joe here) will mention Condi and diplomacy. But, Condi only says that stuff from time to time. Like, for every 10 threats or saber rattles against Iran, she’ll utter some BS about diplomacy. (or at least a pundit will give her credit for that, even though I’ve never actually heard her say anything of the sort myself, or seen anything like those words actually attributed to her). And, then, it starts all over again.
So, if it’s just been a 3 or 4 year fight between Condi and the Dick, it’s reasonable to accept the general outcome. The Dick always gets around her, no matter what. Dick had considered having Israel do the strikes well over a year ago, and then Israel got a PMS attack, and decided to hit Lebanon –again- instead. But, it’s not like this hasn’t ALWAYS been part of the plan. It’s just delayed (at least by the Dicks agenda) for various and sundry reasons. MAYBE, because the military hasn’t been so anxious to follow these orders.
So, while it may be true that military personnel have never been known to disobey an order, (and I would disagree, but it’s not important to this) there’s a first time for everything, and it may be the only hope.
Douglas:
•  #113707 by Douglas Chalmers on 11/15 at 5:22 am
(1192 comments total)
How abou pulling your finger out (of the dyke!) Truthdig and providing a link to the story instead of being too lazy to do your job - three days late!!!  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/38dd00ca-90a6-11dc-a6f2-0000 779fd2ac.html
It’s really not so late. The same information, (or basically the same) is contained in Chris Hedges piece, with the appropriate links, and that’s been posted here since the 12th. So if anything, Joe’s piece is what might be considered ‘late’ and I would suspect that’s just because it seems that this is the standard day/time when TD generally publishes his stuff.
A helpful update/correction is actually provided by Tim Kelly at #113738. He writes:
•  The article is incorrect.  The Enterprise is being replaced by the Harry S. Truman.  At approximately the same time the U.S. troop presence in Iraq will reach 175,000, there will be at least two aircraft attack carrier groups in the Persian Gulf area, with two others not far away.
http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html

So, it would appear that we’re still pretty dependent on the military commanders/generals to disregard Cheney’s orders. I don’t know if there’s anything we can do to stop Israel from hitting them though.

So, now that we’ve figured that out, do you know of at least 3 places in the US Constitution, (original version) that set up the legal precedent for Slavery? See if you can find it faster than I can. I have an exam coming up real soon. Like, in less than 12 hours.

I don’t think Cheney’s gonna do anything about Iran before then. (then again, what do I know).

Report this

By Bert, November 15, 2007 at 8:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think it’s riotously funny that Abazaid AND Greenspan now line up with a guy named Jello Biafra,
which some of you may remember as former lead singer
for the Dead Kennedys, he did a bit called ‘die for
oil, sucker’, oh, about 15-16 years ago, or so,
and, turns out, he was right. Well, here we stand,
watching the 5th year of Operation Texaco roll by,
and finally people are starting to ask ‘whats up’.
Dennis Kucinich isn’t asking, though, he’s stating,
that it’s time to impeach Cheney. He’s put the
resolution ‘on the table’, and it’s gone forward
to committee, where they’re working on it.

http://www.impeachbush.org

Report this

By tenstring, November 15, 2007 at 5:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“The next Hitler”—I think we all know who that is.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 15, 2007 at 3:24 pm Link to this comment

Good for Fallon, we need other to speak out.

There are enough retired generals against Bush’s current course of diplomacy to start a new lobby in Washington.

As I last recalled my chain of command which every soldier learns in boot camp, the Vice President is no where to be found.  I didn’t know there was a vice commander in chief.

Maybe Cheney has added something new, it wouldn’t be the first time.

Report this

By david, November 15, 2007 at 2:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If Cheney has to fire every officer above the rank of private to get his attack on Iran, then that is what he will do.  It’s a foregone conclusion that Iran is the next neocon target.  Hell, I can’t even plan a vacation.  I REALLY don’t want to be in Mexico when the nukes start falling.

Report this

By rowdy, November 15, 2007 at 1:14 pm Link to this comment

douglas chalmers

do you ever look at “working for change”? joe conason is one of their regular bloggers. this piece was on the new york observer on the 13th,and WFC posted it yesterday. WFC is now credomobile.com

Report this

By bigjimbo, November 15, 2007 at 1:13 pm Link to this comment

Baring mad draft-dodger cheney is NOT in the military chain of command and should be told forcefully by the JCS to SHUT THE F=== UP!

Report this

By WriterOnTheStorm, November 15, 2007 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment

A red herring if there was one since war, armed invasion, was never on the table. The question is and remains, will Iran be subject to air strikes. Some say this will be left to Israel but even this is so, the repercussions will be the same. Everyone knows where those bunker busters come from, and whose approval must be obtained before they drop.

At that point, it will be their IED’s versus our collateral damage. It’s a brave new world.

Report this

By Ed, November 15, 2007 at 11:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m glad to see Admiral Fallon speak up. This administration is the most dangerous since Regan and more corrupt and more sinister than Nixon. A military coup (as mentioned by #113764 Wydia) would be an improvement over the current executive branch.

Report this

By Jonas South, November 15, 2007 at 10:58 am Link to this comment

Dick Chaney is set upon on all sides, and he is losing his mind. As Greg Palast relates in his latest book ´Armed Madhouse´, Dick at times represents diametrically opposite forces simultaneously: The Big Oil companies want Iraq to keep strong central control over its oil, and Israel wants to fragment and weaken the country.

Now, its easy to see why Dick, who is a longtime devotee of Texas oil interests, would want what Big Oil wants, which is to share profits with one government in each oil producing country. But who is pulling him the other way, into splintering Iraq and therefore splintering control over Iraqi oil?

Perhaps one can ask his wife. Lynn Chaney is a key member of the Heritage Foundation, that bastion of AIPAC interests we politely call neoconservatism in order to avoid touching that third rail. Pity poor Dick: his mind is split wide open. Pity us: we must live with him for a while longer.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, November 15, 2007 at 10:44 am Link to this comment

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - “Israel is quietly preparing for the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran despite public pledges it would deny its arch-foe the means to pose a threat…... Top aides to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert are drafting proposals on how Israel, whose security strategy is widely assumed to hinge on having the Middle East’s only atomic arsenal, might deal with losing this monopoly, they said….... Israel is also building up a fleet of German-made submarines which are believed to carry nuclear missiles….” http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1536181420071115?sp=true

Report this

By thomas billis, November 15, 2007 at 10:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There is a remedy.It is in the Constitution.It is called impeachment.The parts of the Constitution the Republicans are not decimating Speaker Nancy Pelosi is taking off the table.If there was ever a case for impeachment Dick Cheney is the poster boy.If he is not then lets make “1984"by George Orwell the new constitution and let us get on with constant warfare.George Bush has already started” newspeak”.Many of the terms he uses I have never heard before.

Report this

By Wydia, November 15, 2007 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

I’m wondering how many military people are quesy about how this administration is decimating both the military and the constitution, and how many might be considering the necessity of taking action against this administration in the event of an attempted Cheney/Bush coup. Given the recent executive order regarding suspension of the constitution in the event of a national emergency, I don’t think such a coup attempt by this administration is all that unlikely, especially if the Republicans can’t fix this next presidential election as they did the last two. Wouldn’t that be an interesting turn of events if it took our military to restore the constitution?

Report this

By Dave Nofmeister, November 15, 2007 at 9:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I feel pretty bad for the military right now, with depleted money, no-one enlisting, fighting a crummy, unpopular war and potentially another war on the horizon.  I really think that we need to consider diplomacy a bit more here, as the only alternative would be a World War II styled military buildup, and truly “getting involved” with the Middle East.

Report this

By mary, November 15, 2007 at 9:31 am Link to this comment

Maybe Adm Fallon’s position will help set the course towards a Cheney Impeachment.  Get some spine Nancy and Harry and help stop this monster instead of helping him.  It will be interesting to see if Bush is even listening to the Admiral, or anyone else who isn’t playing his tune.  I just wonder how far our Military will let him go without a Congressional Declaration of War.  This could be the real test of our Democracy….

Report this

By Tim Kelly, November 15, 2007 at 7:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Only a few days before Admiral Fallon spoke out, an Associated Press dispatch noted that American officials are quietly reducing our force profile in the Gulf region—for instance, by withdrawing an aircraft carrier that was sent earlier this year to emphasize the American regional security commitment.”

The article is incorrect.  The Enterprise is being replaced by the Harry S. Truman.  At approximately the same time the U.S. troop presence in Iraq will reach 175,000, there will be at least two aircraft attack carrier groups in the Persian Gulf area, with two others not far away.

http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html

I have never met a military person yet who will refuse orders, illegal or not.  If Bush says bomb Iran, the U.S. military will bomb Iran (with lots of personalized messages written on the bombs for good photo-ops, those soldiers are such jokers, hah hah).  Don’t forget to support the soldiers while they carry out illegal orders!

Report this

By ocjim, November 15, 2007 at 6:53 am Link to this comment

Admiral Fallon must know that Cheney has gotten his way with “a challenged” president before, manipulating Bush thru the media and thru fatherly pressure into doing things Bush’s vacuous mind couldn’t encompass. Perhaps Cheney feels that the same jingoistic fervor just after 9/11 will get him an attack on Iran. Certainly the corporate media seems to be trying to help.

As ill-advised as an attack on Iran is, many of us fear that Bush, who has proven not too sharp identifying consequences of his actions, might succumb to the dark one’s will.

Report this

By samuel burke, November 15, 2007 at 5:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

truthdig used to be on of my first stop for the days news, now i rarely glimpse in here because they are just not keeping up with the events as they are transpiring.

it is my belief that at this time in americas history it is all about who the next president is going to be, the neocons need either rudy giuliani or hilary in office to be able to continnue with business as usual.

i think obama is too much of an unknown to them and edwards has already made his necons comment, both of these candidates in my opinion will need to escalate the anti neocon sentiment to a higher scale if they wish to garner the support of the american people.

anti neocon,anti aipacs stranglehold on our politicians and press.
anti unconditional support for israel
for a new mid east policy of rapproachment with our muslim brothers and sisters in the middle east.

it’s all about americas interests now.
no political entanglements, and free trade and brotherhood with all equally.

Report this

By KISS, November 15, 2007 at 5:32 am Link to this comment

CNN broadcasted this briefing yesterday and last week CNN also gave a news accounting on a new Blockbuster bomb made to specifically be used on Iran’s Nuclear facility.
Even the no news networks carried pieces of these stories.But than looking at the news and not sit-coms is necessary.
My personal belief is that Israel will be the one to do the bombing and Big Brother USA will intervene if consequences arise.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, November 15, 2007 at 5:22 am Link to this comment

How abou pulling your finger out (of the dyke!) Truthdig and providing a link to the story instead of being too lazy to do your job - three days late!!!  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/38dd00ca-90a6-11dc-a6f2-0000779fd2ac.html

Report this

By Tom Doff, November 15, 2007 at 4:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is a very significant event, that our sane military leaders are speaking up against the irrationality of the White House’s pushing for action against Iran.

Based on recent precedent, what it means is that all sane members of the military will be fired or forced to resign, leaving us with a military as demented as our political ‘leadership’.

Do you feel safer? If so, you should check to see where your mind has gone.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

Like Truthdig on Facebook