Cheney Targets Iran [Admiral Fallon may be opposed]

Rolling Stone ^ | October 18 2007 | Robert Dreyfuss

[freedomdefender]

Sometime early next year, Dick Cheney is planning to start his third war in the Middle East. According to a wide range of Washington insiders — from Cheney sympathizers to anti-war activists — the vice president is angling behind the scenes for yet another unilateral military action, this time aimed at toppling the clerical regime in Iran. "It's an open secret," one leading analyst of Iranian relations tells Rolling Stone. ...

"For Bush, the Middle East is everything," says Larry Korb, a former defense official in the Reagan administration. "Cheney reinforces the idea that Bush's legacy will be what happens there. And Cheney can tip the balance."...

Some observers say that Cheney is losing the policy fight on Iran. Acting against the vice president's advice, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is engaging in talks with Iran in search of a negotiated end to its nuclear program. In March, she gained a key ally when Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, a diplomacy-minded officer, was named to head the U.S. Central Command, the war-fighting body with responsibility for the Persian Gulf. Dismissing talk of an attack on Iran as "unhelpful" and "distracting," Fallon declared that "the idea that we have yet another conflict in this region strikes me as not where we want to go."

[freedomdefender]

I'm with Admiral Fallon, head of U.S. Central Command. Dismissing talk of an attack on Iran as "unhelpful" and "distracting," Fallon declared that "the idea that we have yet another conflict in this region strikes me as not where we want to go."

[ari-freedom]

does anyone seriously believe that Iran will change their nuke ambitions without a military response?

[freedomdefender]

Are the president and vice president willing to sacrifice the future of the Republican Party on the altar of the failed war in Iraq and a new war in Iran? According to most analysts, the answer is yes. "We see a stubbornness in the president that is virtually unique," says Doug Bandow, a foreign-policy expert and former Reagan aide. "What does he care about the party's future? He parachuted into politics on his father's coattails. He's never been much of a party guy, and I think he could care less. Cheney is more of a Republican, but he's at the end of his career. He just might be ready to bring the whole house down on top of them if that's what it takes."

Interesting observation. By his efforts to bring tens of millions of more immigrants into the country - and legalize tens of millions already here - Bush showed he doesn't give a rat's behind about the future of the GOP. Giving citizenship to all those prospective Democrat voters would destroy the Republican Party. Apparently Bush doesn't care. By the same token, a war on Iran - by sending gasoline prices to $5, 6 or 7 dollars per gallon and triggering a recession or depression - would guarantee a big Hillary win and a massive Democrat control of Congress.

[roses of sharon]

The VP is chuckling, since Rolling Stoner Mag, and the Admiral were not elected, President Bush was, twice, lol.

[freedomdefender]

does anyone seriously believe that Iran will change their nuke ambitions without a military response?

Fallon must, or he must think that the issue isn't worth starting another war over.

[freedomdefender]

the Admiral wasn't elected

Neither was Petraeus.

[ari-freedom]

so what would his response be?

[LibFreeOrDie]

From Wikipedia:

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, he [Robert Dreyfuss, the author of this article] was the Middle East editor for the Executive Intelligence Review, the magazine of the Lyndon LaRouche organization. His 1981 book Hostage to Khomeini was commissioned by Lyndon LaRouche and published by the LaRouche publishing house of the time, New Benjamin Franklin House, which subsequently (1989) figured in the New York State "LaRouche trial."

[SuziQ]

In addition to BDS, which is more recent, it seems the libs are also suffering from CDS, and have been, since before the election in 2000.

[roses of sharon]

LOL, obviously.

[freedomdefender]

"response" to what?

Iran is a decade away from having any nuclear military capablity - if then. And that's assuming they'll even try to build a bomb, as opposed to nuclear power generation. The IAEA has said they've found no evidence that Iran is trying to build a bomb.

[mkjessup]

I'm with Admiral Fallon

So in other words, you're yellow.

[freedomdefender]

I don’t care about Dreyfuss. It’s Fallon’s quote that interests me. The head of CentCom doesn’t want a war against Iran. Bush appointed Fallon. Fallon may yet save us from a bad move in the Middle East.

[freedomdefender]

I'm with Admiral Fallon So in other words, you're yellow.

No, I'm with Admiral Fallon. If you're calling our military names, that's your problem.

[FreePoster]

Maybe this guy’s regular job is writing about music? Because there’s nothing in here but mulling over vague rumors with an anti-Bush, anti-conservative slant. As I would expect from this tired old magazine. There have been rumors about hitting Iran for how long now? For at least the past six years.

[LibFreeOrDie]

The article quotes two separate words out of context and you’re ready to believe it?

Where’s the entire quote in context? Better yet, a transcript of the interview.

[ari-freedom]

so i guess Israel will have to do it themselves just like Osirak and Syria

[freedomdefender]

Dismissing talk of an attack on Iran as “unhelpful” and “distracting,” Fallon declared that “the idea that we have yet another conflict in this region strikes me as not where we want to go.”

[freedomdefender]

re. the context of the quote, see this AP story from Feb 16: http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/feb/16/commander-urges-end-iran-war-talk/

Commander urges end to Iran war talk CAMP H.M. SMITH, Hawaii — The Navy admiral tapped to take command of U.S. forces in the Middle East said any speculation of war with Iran is "unhelpful" and only serves to "up the ante of fear and uncertainty." Adm. William Fallon told the Associated Press in an interview that Iraq and Afghanistan are priority tasks for the United States in the Middle East. Fighting a war with Iran is not something the U.S. wants, he said. "Some in the world are talking some fear of alleged imminent attack by the United States on Iran," Fallon said. It "serves no good purpose, (is) unhelpful, distracting and just serving to up the ante of fear and uncertainty." Speculation that the United States may be planning to attack Iran rose this year after President Bush announced plans to send an additional aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf region. Defense Secretary Robert Gates later said the carrier and its accompanying ships were sent to show Tehran that the Iraq war was not making the United States vulnerable. The United States also has accused Iran of supplying money, weapons components and training to Shiite militia in Iraq, as well as technology for roadside bombs. Iran has denied the allegations, saying it only has political and religious links with Iraqi Shiites. Fallon, who has been confirmed by the Senate to succeed Army Gen. John Abizaid at the Central Command next month, spoke at his Pacific Command headquarters from where he oversees U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific region. Fallon reiterated U.S. allegations that Iran is responsible for supporting some of the violence in Iraq. But he expressed hope Tehran would change course and start to play a constructive role. "Of significant note, I believe, is the role that Iran is playing directly or indirectly, in fomenting, perpetuating, instability inside Iraq," Fallon said earlier this week. Fallon said he believed Iran could help lower violence in Iraq and Afghanistan - countries on either side of Tehran's borders - but he hadn't yet seen any sign Iran was willing to lend its assistance. "I believe that Iran could and should be playing a significant part. How that comes about remains to be seen," Fallon said. "But the idea that we have yet another conflict in this region strikes me as not where we want to go, and not what we want to be engaged in." The admiral said he looks forward to seeking suggestions from people in the region on how Iran could help lower the violence. U.S. military leaders "are trying to determine exactly what kind of role Iran is going to play in the future - whether they will be helpful or unhelpful, the degree which they will cooperate in efforts to stabilize Iraq," Fallon said.

[Professional]

We should a nuked them back in 1979. Actually, Reagan should have the day he was elected.

On 2001, Sept 12th, we should have nuked Tehran, Bagdad, Tripoli and Damascus. Am I forgetting anyone?

Today we should nuke Iran.

Pretty much, see what I’m thinking. I can handle you not sharing my views on this, as my version of diplomacy is admittedly pretty harsh.

[mkjessup]

No, I'm with Admiral Fallon. If you're calling our military names, that's your problem.

If you're "with" Admiral Fallon, apparently you (like the Admiral) has a yellow streak when it comes to Iran. The facts are, that Iran has a nuclear program, it has every intention of acquiring nuclear weapons, it is in defiance of the international community, it poses a threat to regional and global stability, and for a Naval officer, let alone a g*damned Admiral, to be spouting off about why we shouldn't attack Iran, is just as seditionist as then Lt. John Kerry going to Paris to conduct private negotiations with the Communists.

Fallon's one and only responsibility is to carry out the orders of the Commander in Chief, and if those orders are to attack Iran, he had damn well better do it with gusto, or resign his commission.

Considering that he is already lining up on the side of the leftist 'Rats, Russia's Putin, not to mention that little runt Ahmadinejad by undermining the authority of the Administration, he should resign right now.

And if the reports that he called General David Petraeus a 'chickensh*t sycophant' are true, he needs his ass thoroughly kicked.

If you want to be "with" somebody, you've made a poor choice.

I'm with the man from Wyoming, Dick Cheney, who in a perfect universer, SHOULD have been our Commander In Chief.

[Professional]

I doubt that is what the Admiral either said, or meant. Otherwise wouldn’t he actually be contrary to the statement of the WH and the State Dept, where we will not take the option off the table?

[Professional]

I’m thinking he didn’t want to talk about it, because it isn’t his job, pay grade discussing us diplomacy, or lack thereof?

[ari-freedom]

we don’t always get what we want. you don’t want to telegraph your next move either.

[TChris]

Does Admiral Fallon need to end his career? Openly opposing your Commander in Chief doesn't seem to be a particularly bright move, IMO.

But maybe that's just me.

[freedomdefender]

the Admiral) has a yellow streak when it comes to Iran.

Again, you can call our military names. I'm a military supporter and don't call our military names.

As for me being "yellow" in opposing a war on Iran - LOL that's a schoolyard taunt. I wouldn't be fighting in it, so it's not a matter of cowardice. Like all the neocons, I don't serve in the military and never have. Just like Bill Kristol, Podhoretz, Hitchens, Cheney and the others who want more wars, I've never served. So it's not a matter of cowardice - it's a matter of common sense. We don't need more war in the Middle East - especially given the possibility a war on Iran could undermine our effort in Iraq (as Adm Fallon suggests), and also cause a worldwide recession or depression.

By the way, I also opposed Clinton's wars - Haiti and Kosovo. Did that also make me "yellow"? Clinton was macho - a real man - and I was "yellow" for seeing that he was wrong? Yeah, right.

[mkjessup]

Fallon had some bright moments in his career, but those moments are long past. His naval air history is commendable, but these comments about finding a way to work with Iran, or to get Iran to help stabilize the Middle East, are just an extension of his toadying up to the ChiComs when he was in charge of the Pacific Fleet, he was absolutely conciliatory to Beijing, and that (to quote the good Admiral) “isn’t helpful”.

If military officers want to play politics and oppose their Commander In Chief, they need to resign and to so as private citizens.

That is the open and shut of it.

[freedomdefender]

Fallon sounds like a man of conscience, that’s for sure. He’s sticking up for his troops and sailors in the Iraq theater - because he understands the hell that could break loose for them if we get into a war in the next-door country of Iran.

[freedomdefender]

Fallon had some bright moments in his career, but those moments are long past.

I guess Bush didn't understand that when he appointed Fallon head of CentCom. You know a lot more than Bush about it - you should write him and set him straight!

[mkjessup]

Again, you can call our military names. I'm a military supporter and don't call our military names.

I'm not calling the military "names" bucko, I'm calling ONE individual, the illustrious Admiral Fallon, a name. And if he is so desperate to find a way to accomodate Iran and to encourage a terrorist rogue state into 'stabilizing' the Middle East, he's either insane, stupid, naive, or yellow.

That goes for you too Sparky. Iran is the enemy, Iran is responsible for killing U.S. troops through their proxies in Iraq, and you need to wake up and face it.

As for me being "yellow" in opposing a war on Iran - LOL that's a schoolyard taunt. I wouldn't be fighting in it, so it's not a matter of cowardice. Like all the neocons, I don't serve in the military and never have. Just like Bill Kristol, Podhoretz, Hitchens, Cheney and the others who want more wars, I've never served. So it's not a matter of cowardice - it's a matter of common sense. We don't need more war in the Middle East - especially given the possibility a war on Iran could undermine our effort in Iraq (as Adm Fallon suggests), and also cause a worldwide recession or depression.

It's got nothing to do with "neo-cons" or having served or not. The fact is, Iran has been an enemy of the United States for decades, has been a state sponsor of terrorism on a global scale, and they are going to have to be dealt with sooner or later, and if you have any sense at all, you should understand that sooner is better than later, particularly if 'later' is when Iran has a nuclear capability. Use your head.

By the way, I also opposed Clinton's wars - Haiti and Kosovo. Did that also make me "yellow"? Clinton was macho - a real man - and I was "yellow" for seeing that he was wrong? Yeah, right.

This has nothing to do with Clinton, nor with Haiti and Kosovo. Stay on topic.

[shibumi]

"I'm with the man from Wyoming, Dick Cheney, who in a perfect universer, SHOULD have been our Commander In Chief."


amen.

(I take exception only to the extra "r", but given the passionate nature of your post, it's understandable.)

[mkjessup]

I guess Bush didn't understand that when he appointed Fallon head of CentCom. You know a lot more than Bush about it - you should write him and set him straight!

Fallon is the Harriett Myers of our military. Unfortunately in this instance, the 'nomination' was upheld.

And Bush's decision about Fallon is exactly why I expressed the sentiment that Dick Cheney should have been the Commander in Chief, as I firmly believe that George W. Bush would have made a great Vice President, and next year he could be preparing to go home to Texas and start back up with his baseball team operations.

[mkjessup]

Thank you FRiend. Common sense seems to be in short supply in this thread, yours is appreciated.

[TChris]

Fallon sounds like a man of conscience, that’s for sure. He’s sticking up for his troops and sailors in the Iraq theater - because he understands the hell that could break loose for them if we get into a war in the next-door country of Iran.

An officer's duty is first to his Commander in Chief, not to his troops. He should know that.

[mkjessup]

An officer's duty is first to his Commander in Chief, not to his troops. He should know that.

Exactly.

[roses of sharon]

Obviously those who saddle up with the left and their commies worldwide, are ticked that Saddam and Sons are no longer around to kill Israeli kids in their buses.

The constant slurs of Cheney and the Jews (neocons) being warmongers, are old fashioned antisemitism.

They don’t mind at all if Iran’s nutjobs get the bomb, because it neutralizes their “problem” with the ME, ie, ISRAEL.

You know, their “stable” ME with Saddam and Iran with WMD!

[Crim]

He cant stay on topic....he’s a paulistinian...

[ari-freedom]

Again, you can call our military names. I’m a military supporter and don’t call our military names.
-
yeah, just like those 41 democrats who condemned Rush

[ari-freedom]

[mkjessup]

It is conveniently forgotten that if the United States had NOT liberated Iraq from Saddam and his depraved sons, not only would innocent Iraqis continue to be fed into industrial shredding machines alive, and feet first, not only would random, innocent Iraqi women be abducted and taken to officially sanctioned government rape rooms to be violated, but Saddam would most likely be closing in on an actual nuclear weapons capability because he certainly would not have remained idle in the face of Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons. We would now have TWO terrorist states in the Middle East on the verge of a nuclear capability and that would be even worse than the situation we have now.

[mkjessup]

He cant stay on topic....he’s a paulistinian...

Well sh*t, that explains it. ;)

[shibumi]

"An officer's duty is first to his Commander in Chief, not to his troops. He should know that."


Fallon (and a few FReepers here present, it seems) need to go and re-watch "Patton" to understand how committment to victory has to come before misplaced "concern for the troops."

REAL concern for the troops is expressed by giving them the support, supplies, weapons and the freedom to do their job, which is to see to it that it's the guy on the other side that has to die for his country.

Anything else is just socio-psycho-babble.

(And, yes, This is one veteran who would follow a Commander-in-Chief like Cheney, if for no other reason than that he has a clear idea of the objective.)

[Yehuda]

freedomdefender wrote:
..."Iran is a decade away from having any nuclear military capablity - if then. And that's assuming they'll even try to build a bomb, as opposed to nuclear power generation. The IAEA has said they've found no evidence that Iran is trying to build a bomb."

And you believe the IEAA?

7/9/03/ Kharrazi, ElBaradei discuss IAEA technical assistance to Iran

Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi and Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei on Wednesday held talks about technical assistance of the agency to Iran and ways to build confidence between the two parties, IRNA reported from Tehran.

Never mind the distraction in the background, I'm sure you can buy this bridge, real cheap.

[mkjessup]

Again, you can call our military names. I’m a military supporter and don’t call our military names.
yeah, just like those 41 democrats who condemned Rush

Waiting for freedomdefender to call Rush a "neo-con" and/or a "chicken-hawk" in 7...6...5...4...3...2......

[ari-freedom]

Mohamed ElBaradei. yeah that’s a name you can trust

[mkjessup]

Well said FRiend!

And thank you for your service to our Nation.

[roses of sharon]

Not to mention that Saddams goons would have been killing us and Afghans for the last 5 years. Imagine our troops everyday having to worry about his WMD coming into Afghanistan.

No, their “stability” arguments are incredible and intellectually dishonest.

It is only Israel that raises their ire.

[mkjessup]

Mohamed ElBaradei. yeah that’s a name you can trust

Why of course, ElBaradei is just an Islamic Joe Isuzu.

[Yehuda]

” The fact is, Iran has been an enemy of the United States for decades, has been a state sponsor of terrorism on a global scale, and they are going to have to be dealt with sooner or later, and if you have any sense at all, you should understand that sooner is better than later, particularly if ‘later’ is when Iran has a nuclear capability. Use your head.”

BUMP!

[mkjessup]

If there is to be any ‘stabilization’ taking place in the Middle East, it should be stabilization that is initiated by the United States and Israel in stamping out the scourge that is Islamofascist terrorism.

Israel is the only stable democracy in the Middle East, Iraq is trying to build one, and Iran is trying to strangle the baby in it’s crib.