Admiral Mullen on Guantánamo: "More than anything else it's been the image"

'scuse me...?

Asked why he thinks Guantánamo, Bay, commonly dubbed Gitmo, should be closed, and the prisoners perhaps moved to U.S. soil, [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen] said, "More than anything else it's been the image — how Gitmo has become around the world, in terms of representing the United States."

Critics have charged that detainees have been mistreated in some cases and that the legal conditions of their detentions are not consistent with the rule of law.

"I believe that from the standpoint of how it reflects on us that it's been pretty damaging," Mullen said, speaking in a small boat that ferried him to and from the detention facilities across a glistening bay.

i think mike mullen may actually be more of a straight-shooter than most, but, i gotta tell ya, guantánamo has an image problem for a REASON... it's not like it's some kind of false, contrived, deliberate disinformation campaign has been waged on the place... ferchrissakes, mike... get a clue...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Mike Mullen's first public speech pays homage to the Center for a New American Security

remember my post from last week where i listed all of the board members, trustees and advisors of the center for strategic and international studies and the center for a new american security...? guess what organization the new chairman of the joint chiefs of staff gave his first public speech to...? why, cnas, of course... as dear, departed molly ivins used to say in her so very colorful way, "ya gotta dance with them whut brung ya..."


Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Adm. Mike Mullen gives his first public speech since becoming chairman at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, Oct. 25, 2007. The event was hosted by the Center for a New American Security which develops strong national security and defense policies promoting and safeguarding American interests and values. [emphasis added] Defense Dept. photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley

remember now, csis and cnas are led by such populist, progressive and peace-loving folks as richard armitage, zbigniew brzezinski, william s. cohen, ray hunt, henry kissinger, the recently-ousted stanley o'neal of merrill lynch, brent scowcroft, william perry, madeleine albright, rand beers, and michael o'hanlon, to name a few... we can certainly count on folks like THESE to safeguard our "interests and values," no...? mike mullen knows which side his bread is buttered on...

more from molly...

The United States of America is still run by its citizens. The government works for us. Rank imperialism and warmongering are not American traditions or values. We do not need to dominate the world. We want and need to work with other nations. We want to find solutions other than killing people. Not in our name, not with our money, not with our children's blood.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Arrest George W. Bush

i don't know how i missed THIS... wait a minute... yes, i do... i've stopped visiting the huffpo, not because there aren't worthwhile - and sometimes extraordinarily worthwhile - posts there... it's because arianna just gets my goat with her hollywood name-dropping and west coast, cocktail party, political baroness style... yeah, i know... my loss...

an "extraordinarily worthwhile" post from the august 25 huffpo...

General Pace, You Can Save the US - by Arresting Bush for "Conduct Unbecoming"

Posted August 25, 2007 | 03:08 AM (EST)

---

General Peter Pace
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
400 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20318-0400

Dear General Pace,

I note with admiration your courage in making clear your private concerns about the safety of the US military and the longterm danger to US national security caused by the President's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the quagmire in Iraq.

Though you are Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President's principal military advisor - President Bush has shown his disdain for your honesty and wisdom. Though you are a decorated Vietnam war hero - who has served his nation honorably for four decades - the President is dispensing with your services. You have one month left in your position before you are tossed out by the President.

President Bush is going to ignore your advice. Just as he has ignored the advice of other Generals who have had the courage to respectfully point out how terribly wrong he is in respect of the Iraq War and the safety of the US military he is sworn to protect. Highly-decorated colleagues of yours such as General Anthony Zinni (Commander in Chief of U.S. Central Command), General Eric Shinseki (Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army) and General John Abizaid (Commander of the U.S. Central Command).

General Pace - you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.

You can relieve the President of his command.

Not of his Presidency. But of his military role as Commander-In-Chief.

You simply invoke the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.

The United States Code: Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47, Subchapter X, Section 934.

Article 134 reads:

"Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."

Article 133 reads:

"Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

A gentleman is understood to have a duty to avoid dishonest acts, displays of indecency, lawlessness, dealing unfairly, indecorum, injustice, or acts of cruelty.

To be crystal clear - I am NOT advocating or inciting you to undertake any illegal act, insurrection, mutiny, putsch or military coup. You are an honorable patriotic man.

I am NOT advocating or inciting you to interfere with any of the civilian duties of the President. That would not be a legal action by you.

However you have the legal responsibility - under Article 134 of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice - to protect the troops under your command by relieving the President of his MILITARY command.

If you have reason to believe that the President is responsible for "disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces" and for "conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital" then you have the obligation to act.

In addition to relieving him of his command as Commander-In-Chief, you also have authority to place the President under MILITARY arrest.

Article 7 of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice specifically says:

(b) Any person authorized under regulations governing the armed forces to apprehend persons subject to this Code may do so upon reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that the person apprehended committed it.

(c) All officers, warrant officers, petty officers, and noncommissioned officers shall have authority to quell all quarrels, frays, and disorders among persons subject to this Code and to apprehend persons subject to this Code who take part in the same.

I understand that it would not be an action to undertake lightly.

In all your 39 years of service you have shown total loyalty to the chain of command.

However, given the current imperilment of US troops, and the "Conduct Unbecoming Of An Officer And A Gentleman" of this President - you have a greater responsibility to your nation, your code of honor and to the US Constitution.

I wish you well as you prepare to undertake the most heroic action of your distinguished career.

General Pace - please save the US.

Respectfully yours,

Martin Lewis

mr. lewis has carefully constructed an argument that has been floating around in my head for some time... obviously this was written before mike mullen replaced peter pace, so we probably ought to make sure this letter gets into admiral mullen's hands...

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

Iran, the sacking of Peter Pace, nukes, unfettered presidential power, and martial law

i really need to stop reading paul craig roberts... he takes all the creepy-crawlies that start skittering around in my mind when i stand back and look at what is really happening and puts them in black and white...

(btw, not meaning to break my arm patting myself on the back, but i offered the very same rationale for pace's sacking back on june 9... i also posted on NSPD 51 and HSPD-20 back on may 20 and commented on how nicely they seem to fit with the martial law provision of Section 1076 of the Defense Authorization Act, another post i put up back on april 25...)

"It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral."

General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Press Club, February 17, 2006.

"They will be held accountable for the decisions they make. So they should in fact not obey the illegal and immoral orders to use weapons of mass destruction."

General Peter Pace, CNN With Wolf Blitzer, April 6, 2003

[...]

The Bush regime has concluded that a conventional attack on Iran would do no more than stir up a hornet's nest and release retaliatory actions that the US could not manage. The Bush regime is convinced that only nuclear weapons can bring the mullahs to heel.

The Bush regime's plan to attack Iran with nuclear weapons puts General Pace's departure in a different light. How can President Bush succeed with an order to attack with nuclear weapons when America's highest ranking military officer says that such an order is "illegal and immoral" and that everyone in the military has an "absolute responsibility" to disobey it?

An alternative explanation for Pace's departure is that Pace had to go so that malleable toadies can be installed in his place.

Pace's departure removes a known obstacle to a nuclear attack on Iran, thus advancing that possible course of action. A plan to attack Iran with nuclear weapons might also explain the otherwise inexplicable "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" (NSPD-51 AND HSPD-20) that Bush issued on May 9. Bush's directive allows him to declare a "national emergency" on his authority alone without ratification by Congress. Once Bush declares a national emergency, he can take over all functions of government at every level, as well as private organizations and businesses, and remain in total control until he declares the emergency to be over.

Who among us would trust Bush, or any president, with this power? What is the necessity of such a sweeping directive subject to no check or ratification?

[...]

A speculative answer is that, with appropriate propaganda, the directive could be triggered by a US nuclear attack on Iran. The use of nuclear weapons arouses the ultimate fear. A US nuclear attack would send Russian and Chinese ICBMs into high alert. False flag operations could be staged in the US. The US media would hype such developments to the hilt, portraying danger everywhere. Fear of the regime's new detention centers would silence most voices of protest as the regime declares its "national emergency."

This might sound like a far-out fiction novel, but it is a scenario that would explain the Bush regime's lack concern that the shrinking Republican vote that foretells a massive Republican wipeout in the 2008 election. In a declared national emergency, there would be no election.

As implausible as this might sound to people who trust the government, be aware that despite his rhetoric, Bush has no respect for democracy. His neoconservative advisors have all been taught that it is their duty to circumvent democracy, as democracy does not produce the right decisions. Neoconservatives believe in rule by elites, and they regard themselves as the elite. The Bush regime decided that Americans would not agree to an invasion of Iraq unless they were deceived and tricked into it, and so we were.

[...]

Americans might have more awareness of their peril if they realized that their leaders no longer believe in democratic outcomes.

i really wish i didn't agree with him... the kind of scenario roberts spells out is PRECISELY the kind of scenario that nobody in this country chooses to see or, more accurately, hasn't paid close enough attention to to understand how carefully the stage has been set for it to play out... using roberts' term, the bush "regime" - precisely the correct word imho - is extraordinarily dangerous, not only for this country but also for the world... i think these criminals are both perfectly capable and perfectly willing to carry out such a catastrophic plan... i would sincerely hope, however, that prior to its execution, the enormity of it would leak out and inspire our somnolent populace to finally undertake to throw the bastards out so we can start with the hard work of getting our country back...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Why a Navy guy? Cuz Rummy thought the Army was irrelevant.

or, could it have something to do with the massive naval flotilla hanging out in the persian gulf awaiting orders to attack iran...?

"There's no obvious reason a Navy guy would be put in charge of Centcom, or why we would have two sea service people replacing two other sea service people at the top of the Joint Chiefs," said Loren B. Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Virginia-based military think tank. "But the reality is that they seem to be able to work with big ideas and big political leaders better than the other services."

ah-HA...! so, working with "big political leaders" is a major requirement... hmmmm... i wonder who they have in mind...?

Asked what accounted for the lack of Army officers in high-profile interservice, or "joint," commands, retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey said simply: "Rumsfeld bias."

Rumsfeld and his civilian aides "set in motion for five years a series of decisions that discredited Army leadership," McCaffrey said. "It strikes me as extremely unusual that the principal load-bearing institution of national defense is the U.S. Army; Rumsfeld thought it was irrelevant at best."

lovely... interservice rivalry has always been an issue, so leave it to rumsfeld to make it worse...

Asked what accounted for the lack of Army officers in high-profile interservice, or "joint," commands, retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey said simply: "Rumsfeld bias."

Rumsfeld and his civilian aides "set in motion for five years a series of decisions that discredited Army leadership," McCaffrey said. "It strikes me as extremely unusual that the principal load-bearing institution of national defense is the U.S. Army; Rumsfeld thought it was irrelevant at best."

and, naturally, the navy asserts a strong claim to occupying a loftier perch than those stupid ground-pounders...

Navy officers say their worldview is uniquely fitted for the current environment, in which threats are global and understanding foreign cultures is critical. Because Navy officers must constantly patrol the world's seas and regularly interact with international governments in ports abroad, they say, the Navy has developed a culture that is more open to a broader view of American power.

does anyone else find that phrase - "more open to a broader view of American power" - slightly disturbing...?

here's the breakdown...

Of the U.S. military's top seven high-profile interservice, or "joint," commands, five are held by Navy or Marine Corps brass.

Joint Chiefs

Current:
• Chairman: Gen. Peter Pace (Marine Corps)
• Vice Chairman: Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani (Navy)
Next in line
• Chairman: Adm. Michael G.Mullen (Navy)
• Vice Chairman: Gen. James E. Cartwright (Marine Corps)

Regional Commands

• Northern: Gen. Victor E.Renuart (Air Force)
• Southern: Adm. James G.Stavridis (Navy)
• European: Gen. John Craddock (Army)
• Central: Adm. William J.Fallon (Navy)
• Pacific: Adm. Timothy J.Keating (Navy)

no mention of any relationship between the choice of mullen to this news item from may 24...

The U.S. navy began war games on Iran's doorstep on Thursday, navy officials said, a day after a large flotilla of U.S. ships entered the Gulf in a dramatic daytime show of military muscle.

The group includes two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, whose presence adds to the pressure on the Islamic Republic to abandon its own nuclear ambitions, which the West says are an attempt to develop atomic weapons.

and, when you have an official source making a comment like this to a simple yes or no question, you can safely assume the answer, in this case certainly, is yes...

Asked if any of the American ships carried atomic weapons, a U.S. navy spokesman said the United States routinely did not comment on whether its warships were equipped with nuclear arms.

so, here we are, waiting for the navy guy to come aboard... oh, yay...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Is Mike Mullen replacing Pace because of his support for a strike against Iran?

nico pitney, posting originally on think progress, shares some insights on pace's replacement, mike mullen, none of it particularly comforting...

Some insight on Mullen can be gained from a speech he gave to sailors in Pearl Harbor in Feb. 2007:

In his opening remarks, Mullen, a Vietnam War veteran, told Pearl Harbor sailors: "I honestly believe this is the most dangerous time in my life.

"The enemy now is basically evil and fundamentally hates everything we are -- the democratic principles for which we stand ... This war is going to go on for a long time. It's a generational war."

From a Feb. 2006 interview with Mullen:

You use the term 'Long War', and it's important to understand that and really grab this issue because it is going to be around for a significant amount of time. I call it generational. That said, there are still traditional capabilities that are very much required.

When [Adm. William J. Fallon] was appointed in January to lead CentCom, analysts noted the choice of a Navy officer reflected "a greater emphasis on countering Iranian power, a mission that relies heavily on naval forces and combat airpower to project American influence in the Persian Gulf." In announcing the nomination of Mullen this afternoon, CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr said that Mullen "watches Iran closely."

so far, there are several reasons why pace was replaced that are floating around... one is my speculation that he might have become tired of simply being a mouthpiece for bush administration talking points... larry johnson is convinced that he was axed for the supporting letter he wrote concerning scooter libby... most disturbing was the opinion offered by leveymg at daily kos, that pace was shown the door for opposing an attack on iran, a view which seems to square with mullen's quotes above... after reading that, i searched back to my post on the article in the new yorker from its april 2006 edition written by seymour hersh... remember, what he was writing about took place well over a year ago...

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.

[...]

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

[...]

“The planning is enormous,” the former senior intelligence official said, referring to the activity at the U.S. Central Command headquarters, in Florida; the Joint Warfare Analysis Center, in Virginia; and the U.S. Strategic Command, in Nebraska. “Space assets, SLBMs”—submarine-launched ballistic missiles—“tactical air, and sabotage, coöperation from the Turks and the Russians.” He added that the plans include “significant air attacks on their countermeasures and anti-aircraft missiles—a huge takedown.” He depicted the planning as hectic, and far beyond the contingency work that is routinely done. “These are operational plans,” the former official said.

[...]

One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.

all of this led to an astounding revelation by hersh...

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’”

that brings us to just this past february where possible resignations were again in the news, this as reported by the times of london...

Some of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

[...]

A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source.

lots of puzzle pieces here, but the biggest and most critical one to keep an eye on concerns mullen and iran, because it appears as though george is, once again, stacking the ideological deck...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Larry Johnson's take on the Pace dumping

i confess, i didn't think of this angle, but that's why we read other bloggers with more insight and experience that we have, right...?

Let there be no doubt -- Perfect Peter Pace has been shown the door because of his letter to Judge Walton pleading on behalf of Scooter Libby. That letter was the final straw demonstrating his incompetence and political tin ear as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

How can you call upon troops to conduct themselves with honor and integrity when you make lame excuses for the conduct of a convicted perjurer and obstructer of justice like Scooter Libby? Pace's Libby letter was the tipping point. His status, already shaky with the debacle of Iraq and a six year record of failure, became toxic with that letter.

makes sense to me...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Bush throws Pace under the bus - or does he?

so much for trusting your generals...

The Bush administration sidelined Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Friday, announcing plans to replace him as the nation's top military officer rather than reappoint him and risk a Senate confirmation struggle focusing on the Iraq War.

so, what makes them think there isn't going to be a confirmation battle with THIS guy...?

Defense Secretary Robert Gates ... announced he would recommend Adm. Mike Mullen to replace Pace.

Mullen is the chief of naval operations, and Gates praised him for having the "vision strategic insight and integrity to lead America's armed forces."

and so, while the wheels of the bus are still rolling over pace's mangled corpse, we have the obligatory paeans of boiler-plate praise, probably as phony as a three-dollar bill...

"President Bush appreciates Gen. Pace's long and distinguished service to the country and as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe, who was traveling overseas with Bush. "He is an example for all our men and women in uniform and has been an integral part of the president's national security team."

[...]

Gates heaped praise on Pace, a Marine of more than 40 years. "He has served our country with great distinction and deserves the deepest thanks of the American people for a lifetime of service to our country and for his leadership. I have thoroughly enjoyed working with him, trust him completely and value his candor and his willingness to speak his mind," he said.

so, what's the REAL reason for dumping pace...? who knows...? maybe it was pace himself, who got tired of being given white house talking points to mouth, and having to look himself in the mirror each morning... maybe we'll get to meet the REAL pace once he re-enters civilian life...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Bush has no respect for the troops, his generals, the American public or the truth

maybe i'm naive or terminally disingenuous, but i continue to be astounded that our media, given all that's out there about the horrors that have been and continue to be perpetrated by the most criminal administration in the nation's history, are still giving bush a free ride... they don't include context in their stories, they don't point out glaring hypocrisies, and they don't call foul on outright lies... moyers' documentary was a masterpiece of pointing out the media complicity in the lead-up to the illegal iraq war... the sad truth is that it's never stopped...

Bush has never stopped making statements about the Iraq War that are untrue, illogical or irrelevant. Yet, the Washington press corps remains almost as lax today about holding Bush accountable as it was in 2002 and 2003.

So, when Bush mocks Democratic “politicians in Washington” who supposedly seek to substitute their judgments for those of experienced commanders on the ground, the national news media stays silent on Bush’s hypocrisy. It’s almost never mentioned that he was the Washington politician in December who overruled the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the two top generals in Iraq on the escalation of the war.

Bush not only rejected the advice of the Joint Chiefs and his field generals, John Abizaid and George Casey, but then replaced Abizaid and Casey with new commanders who were compliant to Bush’s wishes. Though the removals fell within Bush’s Commander-in-Chief powers, it can’t be said he was respecting the judgments of the combat generals.

the most obvious hypocrisy to me is bush's claim to support the troops while displaying a completely cavalier disregard for their welfare by mandating multiple tours, failing to provide proper equipment, sending the wounded and disabled back into combat, shorting them on health care and rehabilitation, and damaging or destroying the families they left behind... the man is a disgrace as both a president and a human being...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

A shadow battle against the shadow government that wants war with Iran

robert parry, as usual, offers a first-rate analysis and summary of the ugly disease that took us into iraq and is poised to strike iran...

One intelligence source told me that Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, has explored the possibility of resigning if Bush presses forward with air attacks against Iran, a war strategy that might be done in coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Though Pace has given no public signal on resigning, he has undercut Bush’s case for an expanded Middle East war by challenging the administration claims about Iran’s alleged sponsorship of attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq and by telling Congress that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have eroded American military capability to confront another crisis.

[...]

One intelligence source directed me to a paragraph in Seymour Hersh’s new article in The New Yorker, referring to Bush’s order for hair-trigger preparations on going to war with Iran so he can attack within 24 hours.

[...]

By creating such a tight time frame for action, Bush would negate the possibility for the Pentagon brass and Congress to mount any serious opposition to a presidential order on Iran, even if they are convinced Bush’s actions will be catastrophic.

The tradition of the U.S. military is to implement presidential orders regardless of doubts. Perhaps months later, a dissenting commander might quietly resign.

That practice and the 24-hour window may help explain why several U.S. generals are pondering now how to stop Bush from blindsiding them with a new war. One of their tactics appears to be leaking indications of their strong opposition to the press.

[...]

But one source told me that the resistance – from the Pentagon, Blair and even Democrats in Congress – appears to be having an effect on Bush’s decision-making. This source said he believed Bush had planned to launch an attack on Iran, possibly as early as this week, but was getting “weak knees.”

[...]

But one source told me that the resistance – from the Pentagon, Blair and even Democrats in Congress – appears to be having an effect on Bush’s decision-making. This source said he believed Bush had planned to an attack on Iran, possibly as early as this week, but was getting “weak knees.”

if bush is getting "weak knees," it will be the first time that anything has come between his fantasy world and reality...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments