Please Freepmail me to be added to the Ollie North ping list.
Posted on 03/13/2008 9:09:43 PM PDT by jazusamo
AIKEN, S.C. -- The salacious details of New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's hypocritical, extramarital love life have captivated the media all week. Had the Empire State's chief executive picked a different day to get caught with his pants down and quit his job, some other prominent resignations might have received more coverage. Apparently, there just aren't enough journalists to stake out the Spitzer's Manhattan apartment, track down his hookers and cover these other premature exits.
Tales of the tainted governor took up so much ink and airtime that the potentates of the press didn't even notice the sex scandal that claimed the career of another powerful hypocrite: Tehran's brutal police chief, General Reza Zarei. The general, a favorite of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been responsible for "moral enforcement" of Sharia law, including "dress codes" that require women to be covered from head to toe. The chief "stepped down" after he was caught nude in a Tehran brothel accompanied by six naked prostitutes. It's a shame our press corps missed this one.
Spitzer's sexual shenanigans also pushed another unexpected departure into the background noise -- that of U.S Navy Admiral William "Fox" Fallon, the commander in chief of U.S. Central Command. Though devoid of the titillating details oozing out of Albany and Tehran, the March 11 resignation of the senior U.S. military commander in the world's most troubled and dangerous region is rife with hypocrisy.
Last week, the April edition of Esquire magazine contained a fawning puff piece on Fallon titled "The Man Between War and Peace." The article describes the commander "as brazenly challenging" President Bush on Iran. The highly provocative piece, written by Thomas Barnett, baldly claims that the White House "has been escalating the war of words with Iran" and seems "ever more determined to strike militarily before the end of this presidency." According to Barnett, Fallon "has urged restraint and diplomacy."
This week, according to his resignation letter released by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Fallon claims that he is relinquishing command because "the current embarrassing situation and public perception of differences between my views and administration policy and the distraction this causes from the mission make this the right thing to do."
That's an interesting way to describe what some might call insubordination. It was, after all, a "public perception of differences between" his "views and administration policy," that resulted in President Harry Truman sacking General Douglas MacArthur on April 11, 1951 -- in the midst of the Korean War.
Within a month of his appointment as commander in chief of Central Command in March 2007, a running gun battle started between Fallon and his subordinate, General David Petraeus, over troop levels in Iraq. Most of those disputes have been aired in military channels -- and resolved in favor of the U.S. commander in Baghdad. Though extremely demanding for the troops on the ground and their families at home, the fact that "the surge" has worked so well in reducing violence in Iraq commends the wisdom of Petreus's plan.
But the admiral's differences with the president over U.S. strategy toward Iran and the threat posed by Tehran's nuclear ambitions have been an entirely different matter. For months now, Fallon -- like MacArthur in 1951 -- has been publicly disputing administration policy toward an avowed adversary. This should have gotten the attention of the Bush White House and the Gates Pentagon without the aid of an article in Esquire.
Last September, while the administration was in the midst of trying to ratchet up U.N. sanctions against Iran and was telling allies and adversaries alike that "all options remain on the table" to deter Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Fallon said on Al Jazeera TV that "this constant drumbeat of conflict is not helpful and not useful." Less than two months later, he told the Financial Times that a military strike against Iran was "not in the offing another war is just not where we want to go."
Despite the way Fallon and the Bush administration are portrayed in the Esquire piece, no one that I know of -- in the White House or the Pentagon -- wants war with Iran. In fact, rather than a rush to war, the Bush administration has been on a rush to diplomacy. And it may even work.
The U.N. Security Council just passed a new sanctions resolution to enforce nuclear inspections. And this week, the U.S. Treasury announced that yet another financial institution connected to the theocrats in Tehran is banned from doing business in the United States.
All that may come as news to Fallon and his supporters in the press and the Democratic Party who now claim that he was sacked for being "too diplomatic." Or maybe it's just time that we're resigned to reality.
Oliver North is the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance and author of The Assassins .
Please Freepmail me to be added to the Ollie North ping list.
I just cannot get my mind around this.
I haven’t followed this but it sure sounds like it’s good he’s going, should have been gone long ago, IMO.
I’m proud of you, Sir. You do put our Nation before any pretty Navy preference.
[You know that’s a joke, vets, in bad taste and good will. There’s a lot of real respect behind it.]
I love Ollie, but it’s difficult enough to get Spitzer in the news, and of course (other that Fox News), no mention in the main stream media that he’s a DEMOCRAT.
Interesting article though.
Am I the only person who cynically sees Fallon positioning himself for a political career now that he’s on his way out the Navy?
For the most part, we have been incredibly blessed with our flag officers over history. Until recently, very few of them have crossed the border that separates political from military affairs. MacArthur was an obvious exception, but then El Supremo never did consider anyone his superior (except maybe his wife).
But these days? I am beginning to lose count of the political admirals and generals who seem to have lost sight of the fact that political decisions belong to the President and their job is to shut up and make those decisions work — or find another job.
I don’t think you’re the only one with those feelings.
I only know what I’ve read yesterday and today about him but I’m not left with a good feeling.
Sounds like it’s a good thing he’s gone.
Liberals hate the military—and yet they seem to be uncomfortable with the fact that in America, the military is subject to civilian authority.
I can’t help but think of Wesley Clark.
LOL! We're thinkin alike, Star. How you been?
mark
I’m doing alright — busy as heck here! Freepmail in a sec.
Oliver North —— one of the few uncorrupted and honorable. Men of integrity like him are getting hard to find these days.
Ouch!!!!
Oliver North is definitely a man of integrity, he calls them as he sees them.
Ouch is right, Ollie sorta nailed it.
That is a great graphic, Smooth, it’s a keeper! :)
Tell it, Ollie! Applause!
I’d hit it :)
Ollie is right again...Still asking why was a Navy Admiral put in charge of ground troops in Iraq in the first place?...
Best place for squids is in the ocean...
with apologies to squids.
Great picture of Pres Reagan Smoothsailing...Would put a 4x6 copy in the living room but the Mrs likes flowers...
"Oh, well if he did it for love - well that's a horse of a whole different color!"
Thank You for the picture.
Is Fallon in the “Shadow Gov.?”
Not any more.
When I’m away from FR a while, I have to go back and check what Ollie North posts I missed. They’re all good. I’m glad he writes.
In a proper state of America, Oliver North is the kind of person who would be leading in the mainstream.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.