Pepe Escobar wonders what Israel REALLY bombed in Syria and I wonder what the hell's going on in D.C.

pepe's up first...



now, HERE'S some questions and concerns even MORE troubling...

ips' jim lobe via alternet...

Are the latest accusations and tough language leveled against Iran, Syria, and North Korea evidence of a resurgence by the remaining hawks in the administration of President George W. Bush hoping for a final confrontation against one or more members of the revised 'axis of evil' before his term next January?

That's the big question here this week, particularly following Thursday's long-awaited intelligence briefings to Congress about alleged North Korean involvement in the construction of a 'covert nuclear reactor' in Syria that was destroyed in a raid by Israeli warplanes in September last year.

According to some interpretations, the briefing's timing and content appeared deliberately designed to raise tensions between Washington, on the one hand, and Pyongyang and Damascus, on the other, potentially derailing ongoing long-running negotiations between the State Department and North Korea and Turkish-mediated peace feelers between Israel and Syria.

That Vice President Dick Cheney, whose opposition to engaging both North Korea and Syria and support for 'regime change' in both countries is both well known and of long standing, had pushed hard for the briefing to take place has added to speculation that a major power play by the hawks to reverse the diplomacy that has dominated Bush's second term is underway.

Rumours that the State Department's point man on North Korea, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill -- whose latest accord with Pyongyang negotiated in Singapore earlier this month has been the target of fierce right-wing attacks led by Cheney chum, former U.N. Amb. John Bolton -- has told associates that he will resign next month have added to concerns that the hawks have regained the initiative, at least on that front.

Add the promotion of Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq who has overseen the past year's 'surge' of U.S. troops, to take over the U.S. Central Command (Centcom) this summer, as well as the increasingly harsh charges against Iran's alleged interference in Iraq that have been coming out of the Pentagon in recent days.

All these developments are seen by some as an answer to the prayers of neo-conservatives, in particular, who had largely given up hopes that Bush could be persuaded to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office.

speaking entirely for my un-connected, barely-informed self, i have NEVER figured that bush and his criminal compadres had given up on attacking iran...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Why are we not surprised that Bush would nominate a toady like Petraeus to replace Fallon?

as gagging as it is to see, could anyone possibly have doubted that george bush would replace an honest-to-god, professional, integrity-filled military man with a propaganda-spewing shill whose lips are permanently attached to his ass...?

Gen. David H. Petraeus, who has commanded United States troops in Iraq for the past year, will be nominated to head the United States Central Command, which oversees military operations across a wide swath of the Middle East, Africa and Asia, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced on Wednesday.

Mr. Gates said that he and President Bush and settled on the four-star general for the post because he is best suited to oversee American operations, not just in Iraq but also in Afghanistan and other areas where the United States is engaged in “assymetric” warfare, a euphemism for battling terrorists and non-uniformed combatants.

“I am absolutely convinced he is the best man for the job,” Mr. Gates said.

The necessary paperwork to make General Petraeus’s new assignment a reality will be speeded to the White House, and from there to the Senate, where the Secretary said he is confident of quick confirmation.

and in the 13th paragraph of a 13-paragraph story, the nyt reluctantly reminds us of petraeus' successor and why he was unexpectedly and unceremoniously cashiered...

The previous Central Command chief, Adm. William J. Fallon, was ushered into retirement in March after rankling the Bush administration with public comments that seemed to suggest an emphasis on diplomacy over confrontation in dealing with Iran.

george bush is such a flaming asshole...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Shit... Fallon resigns... Goddam George W. Bush...

from defense tech...

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says that Admiral William Fallon, the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East, is resigning.

Gates said Fallon had asked Gates for permission to retire and that Gates agreed.

Fallon was the subject of an article published last week in Esquire magazine that portrayed him as opposed to President Bush's Iran policy. It described Fallon as a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

Fallon has had a 41-year Navy career. He took the Central Command post on March 16, 2007, succeeding Army Gen. John Abizaid, who retired. Fallon previously served as commander of U.S. Pacific Command.

Fallon released a statement blaming his quotes from the Esquire piece as the reason for his resignation and President Bush put out his own statemement praising Fallon's service. Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who was the head of Iraqi army training before becoming the CENTCOM number two, will take over in the interim.

Methinks the Esquire interview was 100 percent intentional and that he contemplated this move beforehand. But that's just me...

what a crock o'shit...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The classic Bush m.o. - shitcan anybody who disagrees with you

cuz you can't tolerate anybody but yes-men and sycophants around you...

President Bush is not accustomed to a subordinate who speaks his mind as freely as [head of U. S. Central Command, Admiral William "Fox" Fallon] does, and the president may have had enough.

Just as Fallon took over Centcom last spring, the White House was putting itself on a war footing with Iran. Almost instantly, Fallon began to calmly push back against what he saw as an ill-advised action. Over the course of 2007, Fallon's statements in the press grew increasingly dismissive of the possibility of war, creating serious friction with the White House.

Last December, when the National Intelligence Estimate downgraded the immediate nuclear threat from Iran, it seemed as if Fallon's caution was justified. But still, well-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. If that were to happen, it may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don't want a commander standing in their way.

there have been myriad predictions that bush has every intention of attacking iran before he leaves office... this is just more fodder for that story...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Is CENTCOM Commander Fallon standing between us and an attack on Iran?

gareth porter, writing for ips, offers some points of perspective...

• [In] a meeting between Bush and the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Dec. 13, 2006 ... the uniformed military leaders rejected a strike against Iran's nuclear programme.

• The Joint Chiefs were soon joined in opposition to a strike on Iran by Admiral William Fallon, who was nominated to become CENTCOM commander in January.

• A source who met with Fallon at the time of his confirmation hearing quoted him as vowing that there would be "no war with Iran" while he was CENTCOM commander and as hinting very strongly that he would quit rather than go along with an attack.

• Fallon also suggested that other military leaders were opposing a strike against Iran, saying, "There are several of us who are trying to put the crazies back in the box," according to the same source.

• The possibility that Fallon might object to an unprovoked attack on Iran or even resign over the issue represents a significant deterrent to such an attack.

so, with heavy senior level military opposition to a strike against iran's nuclear facilities, the purpose and scope of an attack on iran was reframed...

The George W. Bush administration's shift from the military option of a massive strategic attack against Iran to a surgical strike against selected targets associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), reported by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker earlier this month, appears to have been prompted not by new alarm at Iran's role in Iraq but by the explicit opposition of the nation's top military leaders to an unprovoked attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

porter speculates on where fallon stands in light of the revised strategy...

Fallon is unlikely to refuse to carry out such a limited strike under those circumstances.

is the strategy working...?

After several months of trying to establish specific links between Iraqis suspected of trafficking in weapons to a specific Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard contact, the U.S. command has not claimed a single case of such a link. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the U.S. commander for southern Iraq, where most of the Shiite militias operate, admitted in a Jul. 6 briefing that his troops had not captured "anybody that we can tie to Iran".

we all know what darth wants...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments