Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiTo Admiral William Fallon (USN ret.), With Respect
Open Appeal for Straight Talk on Iran
Dear Admiral Fallon:
I have not been able to find out how to reach you directly, so I have drafted this letter in the hope it will come to your attention.
First, thank you for honoring the oath we commissioned officers take to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. As you are doubtless aware, that oath has no expiration date; it remains on active duty, so to speak.
You have let it be known that, even though you are now retired, you do not intend to speak, on or off the record, about the looming war with Iran.
You are acutely aware of the dangers of attacking Iran, but seem to be allowing an inbred reluctance to challenge your erstwhile commander in chief to trump that oath, and to prevent you from letting the American people know of the catastrophe about to befall us if, as seems likely, our country attacks Iran.
Two years ago I lectured at the Naval Academy in Annapolis. I found it highly disturbing that, when asked about the oath they took upon entering the academy, several of the "Mids" thought it was to the commander in chief. This brought to my mind the photos of German generals and admirals (as well as top church leaders and jurists) swearing personal oaths to Hitler. Not our tradition, and yet.....
I was aghast that only the third Mid I called on got it right -- that the oath is to protect and defend the Constitution, not the president.
Attack Iran: Trash the Constitution
No doubt you are very clear that an attack on Iran would be a flagrant violation of the Constitution of the United States, which stipulates that treaties ratified by the Senate become the supreme law of the land; that the United Nations Charter treaty -- which the Senate ratified by a vote of 89 to 2 on July 28, 1945 -- expressly forbids attacks on other countries, unless they pose an imminent danger; that there is no provision allowing some other kind of "pre-emptive" or "preventive" attack against a nation that poses no imminent danger; and that Iran poses no imminent danger to the United States or its allies.
You may be forgiven for thinking: Isn't 41 years of service enough; isn't it enough that I resigned in order to remove myself from a chain of command with no conscience or respect for national or international law -- that I shuddered at the thought of being charged in some earthly or heavenly court as a war criminal, if I "just followed orders" and helped start an unprovoked war on Iran? Isn't making my misgivings known to journalists last year, realizing fully that this could be a career-ender -- isn't all that enough?
With respect, sir, no, that's not enough. The stakes here are extremely high, and together with the integrity you have already shown goes still further responsibility. Sadly, the vast majority of your general officer colleagues have, for whatever reason, ducked that responsibility. You are pretty much it.
In their lust for attacking Iran, administration officials will do their best to marginalize you, but you do not strike me as one likely to be deterred by that. And, prominent a person that you are, the corporate media surely will try to do the same, if you exposed the lies given as justification for attacking Iran.
Indeed, there are clear signs the media have been given their marching orders to support an attack on Iran-to include pre-censorship of factual stories exposing administration hyperbole and fecklessness, as the White House and the Pentagon paint a dubious portrait of the dangers posed by Iran.
Preparing a Captive Audience for War...
At the CIA I used to analyze the Soviet press, so you will understand when I refer to the Washington Post and the New York Times as the White House's Pravda and Izvestiya. Sadly, these days it is as easy as during the days of the controlled Soviet press to follow our own government's evolving line with a daily reading of our own controlled press.
In a word, our newspapers are dutifully revving up for war on Iran, and are even trotting out some of the most widely discredited cheerleaders for war on Iraq -- the New York Times' Michael Gordon of aluminum tubes fame, for example, who is again parroting what he gets from administration officials and casting it as news.
In some respects the manipulation and suppression of information in the present lead-up to an attack on Iran is even more flagrant and all encompassing than in early 2003 before the invasion of Iraq.
It seems entirely possible that you are unaware of a recent misadventure that speaks volumes about this -- unaware precisely because the media have put the wraps on it. So let me adduce one striking example of what is afoot here. The example has to do with the studied, if disingenuous, effort over recent months to blame all the troubles in southern Iraq on the "malignant" influence of Iran.
Sadly, some of your erstwhile colleagues are among the dramatis personae.
...But Covering Up Fiasco
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen told reporters on April 25 that Gen. David Petraeus would be giving a briefing "in the next couple of weeks" that would provide detailed evidence of "just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability." Petraeus' staff alerted U.S. media to a major news event in which captured Iranian arms in Karbala would be displayed and then destroyed.
Small problem. When American munitions experts went to Karbala to inspect the alleged cache of Iranian weapons they found nothing that could be linked credibly to Iran.
News to you? That's because this potentially embarrassing episode went virtually unreported in the media-like the proverbial tree falling in the forest with no corporate media to hear it crash. So Mullen and Petraeus live, uninhibited and unembarrassed, to keep searching for Iranian weapons so the media can then tell a story more supportive of the orders they have been given to find ways to blame Iran for the troubles in Iraq. Luckily for them, a fiasco is only a fiasco if folks know about it.
Media suppression of this misadventure is the most significant aspect of this story, in my view, and a telling indicator of how difficult it is to find honest reporting on these key issues.
Meanwhile, the Iraqis announced that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had formed his own Cabinet committee to investigate U.S. claims about Iranian weapons, and to attempt to "find tangible information and not information based on speculation."
Dissing the Intelligence Estimate
Top officials from the president on down have been dismissing the key judgment of the National Intelligence Estimate released on December 3, 2007, a judgment concurred in by the 16 intelligence units of our government, that Iran had stopped the weapons-related part of its nuclear program in mid-2003.
Always willing to do his part, the malleable CIA chief, Michael Hayden, on April 30 publicly offered his "personal opinion" that Iran is building a nuclear weapon-the National Intelligence Estimate notwithstanding. For good measure, Hayden added:
"It is my opinion, it is the policy of the Iranian government, approved to the highest level of that government, to facilitate the killing of Americans in Iraq....Just make sure there's clarity on that."
Voicing his various "opinions," Hayden is beginning to sound like the overly clever lawyers who advised him, orally, that it would be just fine to order NSA to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and like the other attorneys who approved water boarding.
And, please; tell me why we should care about Hayden's "personal opinion?" My neighbor Suzie, who gets her news from FOX, keeps voicing her "personal opinion" that all Muslims want to kill Americans, that generals with blue uniforms are the most trustworthy, and that weapons of mass destruction will still be found in Iraq.
But, seriously, I don't need to tell you about the Haydens and the other smartly saluting, desk-riding headquarters generals here in Washington.
The Price of Silence
What I would suggest is that you have a serious conversation with a real general, Gen. Anthony Zinni, one of your predecessor CENTOM commanders (1997 to 2000). As you know probably better than I, this Marine general is an officer of unusual integrity. Nevertheless, when placed into circumstances very similar to those you now face, he could not find his voice. And so he missed his chance to interrupt-or at least slow down-the juggernaut to war in Iraq. You might ask him how he feels about that now, and what he would advise in current circumstances.
Zinni happened to be one of the honorees at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention on August 26,2002, at which Vice President Dick Cheney delivered the exceedingly alarmist speech, unsupported by our best intelligence, about the nuclear threat and other perils awaiting us at the hands of Saddam Hussein. That speech not only launched the seven-month public campaign against Iraq leading up to the war, but set the terms of reference for the Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate fabricated -- yes, fabricated -- to convince Congress to approve war on Iraq, which it did ten days later.
Gen. Zinni later shared publicly that, as he listened to Cheney, he was shocked to hear a depiction of intelligence that did not square with what he knew. Although Zinni had retired two years earlier, his role as consultant had required him to stay up to date on intelligence relating to the Middle East. One Sunday morning three and a half years after Cheney's speech, Zinni told Meet the Press. "There was no solid proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction...I heard a case being made to go to war."
Zinni had as good a chance as anyone to stop an unnecessary war-not a "pre-emptive war," since there was nothing to pre-empt -- and Zinni knew it. What he and other knowledgeable officials could -- and should -- have tried to block was a war of aggression, defined at the post-WWII Nuremberg Tribunal as the "supreme international crime."
Sure, Zinni would have had to stick his neck out. He may have had to speak out alone, since most senior officials, like then-CIA Director George Tenet, lacked courage and integrity. In his memoir published a year ago, Tenet writes that Cheney did not follow the usual practice of clearing his August 26, 2002 speech with the CIA; that much of what Cheney said took him completely by surprise; and that Tenet "had the impression that the president wasn't any more aware of what his number-two was going to say to the VFW until he said it."
It is difficult to believe that Cheney's shameless speech took "slam-dunk" Tenet completely by surprise. We know from the Downing Street Minutes, vouched for by the UK as authentic, that Tenet told his British counterpart on July 20, 2002 that the president had decided to make war on Iraq for regime change and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"
Encore: Iran
Admiral Fallon, you know this to be the case also now with respect to the "intelligence" being fixed to "justify" war with Iran. And no one knows better than you that your departure from the chain of command has turned it over completely to smartly saluting martinets. No doubt you have long since taken the measure, for example, of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. So have I.
I was his branch chief when he was a young, disruptively ambitious, CIA analyst. When Ronald Reagan's CIA Director William Casey sought someone to shape CIA analysis to accord with his own conviction that the Soviet Union would never change, Gates leaped at the chance, proved his mettle, and bubbled right up to be chief of analysis. After Casey died, Gates admitted to the Washington Post's Walter Pincus that he (Gates) watched Casey on "issue after issue sit in meetings and present intelligence framed in terms of the policy he wanted pursued." Gates' entire career showed that he learned well at Casey's knee.
So it should come as no surprise that, despite the unanimous judgment of the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran stopped the weapons-related aspects of its nuclear program in mid-2003, Gates is now repeating the party line that Iran is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Some of his earlier statements were more ambiguous, but Gates recently took advantage of the opportunity to bend with the prevailing winds and freshen his own loyalty oath -- to the president.
In an interview on events in the Middle East with a New York Times reporter on April 11, Gates was asked whether he was on the same page as the president, Gates replied, "Same line, same word." I imagine you are no more surprised at that than I. Bottom line: Gates will salute smartly and transmit the order, legal or illegal, if Cheney persuades the president to let the Air Force and Navy loose on Iran.
You know the probable consequences; you need to let the rest of the American people know.
A Gutsy Precedent
Can you, Admiral Fallon, be completely alone; can it be that you are the only general officer to resign on principle? And, of equal importance, is there no other general officer, active or retired, who has taken the risk of speaking out in an attempt to inform Americans about President George W. Bush's bellicose fixation with Iran. Thankfully, there is.
Gen. Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush, took the prestigious job of Chairman, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board when asked by the younger Bush. From that catbird seat, Scowcroft could watch the unfolding of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Over decades dealing with the press, Scowcroft had honed a reputation of quintessential discretion. Thus, it was all the more striking when he did what he decided he had to do to warn Americans about what may be the president's most dangerous fixation.
In an interview with London's Financial Times in mid-October 2004 Scowcroft was harshly critical of the president, charging that Bush had been "mesmerized" by then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. "Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger," Scowcroft said. "He has been nothing but trouble."
Needless to say, Scowcroft was given his walking papers and told never to darken the White House doorstep again. His very troubling observations have been largely shunned in the media, and banned from polite conversation here in Washington, although the insight they provide is worth a thousand erudite op-eds. Testifying before Congress on June 16, 2005, I alluded to Scowcroft's comments, and was widely pilloried in the media the next day for being, you guessed it, "anti-Semitic."
A Bush Commitment?
There is ample evidence that Sharon's successors believe they have extracted a commitment from President Bush to "take care of Iran" before he leaves office, and that the president has done nothing to disabuse them of that notion -- no matter the consequences.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum at Sharm el Sheikh on Sunday, Bush threw in a gratuitous reference to "Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions."
"To allow the world's leading sponsor of terror to gain the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."
Pre-briefing the press, Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley identified Iran as one of the dominant themes of the trip, adding repeatedly what seemed to be the PR formula of the day; namely, that Iran "is very much behind" all the woes afflicting the Middle East, from Lebanon to Gaza to Iraq, even to Afghanistan.
The Rhetoric is Ripening
In the coming weeks, at least until U.S. forces can find some real Iranian weapons in Iraq, the rhetoric is likely to focus on what I call the Big Lie -- the claim that Iran's president has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." In his controversial speech in 2005, Ahmadinejad was actually quoting from something Ayatollah Khomeini had said in the early eighties. Khomeini was expressing a hope that a regime that was treating the Palestinians so unjustly would be replaced by a more equitable one.
A distinction without a difference? I think not. Words matter. As you may already know (but most Americans don't), the literal translation from Farsi of what Ahmadinejad said is "The regime occupying Jerusalem much vanish from the pages of time." Contrary to what the administration and corporate media would have us all believe, the Iranian president was not threatening to nuke Israel, push it into the sea, or wipe it off the map -- or, as is so often heard, "destroy" it.
President Bush is way out in front on this issue, and this comes through with particular clarity when he ad-libs answers to questions. On October 17, 2007, long after he had been briefed on the key intelligence finding that Iran had stopped the nuclear weapons-related part of its nuclear development program, the president spoke as though, well, "mesmerized." He said:
"But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems you ought to be interested in preventing them from have (sic) the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously."
Some contend that Bush does not really believe his rhetoric. I rather think he does, for the Israelis seem to have his good ear, with the tin one aimed at the U.S. intelligence he has repeatedly disparaged. But, frankly, which would be worse: that Bush believes Iran to be an existential threat to Israel and thus requires U.S. military action? -- or that he knows it's just rhetoric to "justify" U.S. action to "take care of" Iran for Israel?
What You Can Do
Admiral Fallon, you can surely speak authoritatively about what is likely to happen -- to U.S. forces in Iraq, for example -- if Bush orders your successors to begin bombing and missile attacks on Iran. I imagine you have spent more than one sleepless night sorting through the full array of Iranian options for serious retaliation.
And you could readily update Scowcroft's remarks, by drawing on what you observed of the Keystone Cops efforts of White House ideologues like Iran-Contra convict Elliot Abrams, supported by amateurish covert action operatives and Israeli intelligence, to overturn by force the ascendancy of Hamas in 2006-07 and Hezbollah. (Abrams pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of misleading Congress about the Iran-Contra affair, but was pardoned by the first President Bush on Dec. 24, 1992.)
Clearly, it is the arch-neoconservative Abrams, aided, instructed, and abetted by the vice president, who is running U.S. policy toward the Middle East. And it is just as clear that the status of the secretary state has been reduced simply to "frequent flyer."
It is easy to understand why no professional military officer would wish to be in the position of taking orders originating from the likes of Abrams -- not to mention the vice president.
If you weigh in, as I believe your (non-expiring) oath to protect and defend the Constitution dictates, you might conceivably prompt other sober heads and courageous hearts to speak out. I hope you will agree that an attack on Iran can still be prevented, but it seems that this will take more outspokenness and energy than those of us who see what is coming have been able to muster so far. And the controlled press is a huge problem.
Were you to speak out strongly at this stage, the media could not ignore you. I cannot bring myself to believe that you, like so many on the Hill, would be cowed at the prospect of being pilloried by FOX and branded anti-Semitic. And, who knows; perhaps some of those former subordinate officers who admire you for what you have done, will be encouraged to go and do likewise.
And, in the end, if profound ignorance and ideology -- supported by a captive corporate press and abetted by political parties supine before the Israel lobby -- enable an attack on Iran, and the Iranians, for example, take thousands of our troops hostage in southern Iraq, you will be able to look in the mirror, and at the rest of us, and say at least you tried.
You will not have to live with the remorse of not knowing what you might have made possible, had you been able to shake your reluctance to speak out.
Leadership does not end with retirement; neither do oaths.
Respectfully,
Ray McGovern
Steering Group
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
Ray McGovern, a veteran Army intelligence officer and then CIA analyst for 27 years, now works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.
The original version of this article appeared on Consortiumnews.com.
59 Comments so far
Show AllMARK BINOZ: You absolutely misconstructed my words and intent. I have elaborated on this theme before. You have NOT accurately represented MY views.
NAMASTE: Nice work, as usual!
Joy--
I can read Wikipedia too and I am quite familiar with Ray McGovern and VIPS. Are you familiar with the history of the CIA since 1953 when Secy. of State John Foster Dulles and his little Brother Alan Dulles (head of the CIA) decided that the agency ought to be about "regime change"--which is a nice way of saying espionage and subversion-- instead of gathering information about threats to U.S. security (which, curiously enough, was the original purpose of the CIA's being brought into existence in 1947 in the first place).
This sea change in mission long predated Ray McGovern's tenure with the agency and at as high a level as Ray operated would have been impossible for him not to know. None of the countries I detailed in my previous post were ever any kind of serious threat to US security, but down their existing (and usually democratically elected ) governments went with the eager aid and coordination of the CIA.
Now Ray says he is so ashamed to be associated in any way with the Bush crime family, which is a littel like a Gestapo agent from WWII Nazi Germany expressing disdain for Der Feuhrer's style of leadership. Ray was and is an unregenerated American equivalent of the Good German during the Third Reich who went along to get along and now that the crap is hitting the fan big time is oh so disgusted with the leadership he served so faithfully for so many decades.
Joy, McGovern's words mean nothing because they are the utterances of a hypocrite who is (in his own little personal way) just as guilty as those he disdains.
Hey 'presence_aka_Namaste'
What's your problem? It is Siouxrose who confused criticism of Israel with antisemitism. I have little disagreement with your rejigging of my comment.
But I'm afraid that there are many Zionists who would also accuse peace-loving Jewish critics of Israel, who are against war with Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Palestinians, as wimps and self-hating Jews.
So, why am I antisemitic and twisted in discriminating between Jews and the current Israeli government! Justify your accusation instead of mudslinging like they did to Scowcroft as mentioned in the essay.
Much love,
from myself, the "evil-speaker",
to yourself, the "just and fair" speaker.
Pawns rarely need lobbies and pawns don't exract billions of taxpayers dollors.
Sorry but I don't buy that silly argument anymore.
KEMPATRICK - I am with you brother.
KendPotter, I don't know you or your ideas, however I feel that your response was succinct and yet to the point. That is not at all "proving their point". How else can you respond to such blatant ignorance and prejudice?
Think on this:
I knew a few people in the forces who were amoral animals, I also knew a lot of good men and women with integrity and honor (I mean real honor - not just bravery and bravado like in the movies).
Now that I work in an office of bureaucrats, I know a very few people who have integrity and a whole lot of people who are amoral animals willing to screw each other over just to get their way on an insignificant issue.
Our kids are being sent into places like Iraq and Afganistan with little to no real preparation and training. They are being left wild and loose to fend for themselves - if the atrocities are not outright encouraged.
Please don't compare Blackwater Thugs to Professional Soldiers either.
PS -- A large percentage of Jews are self-proclaimed atheists. How can they claim a god-given land?
Its a great piece of PR. First, you make up a god. Then that god orders you to commit genocide against a half dozen or so other groups in your geographic area. That god that you made up also gives you the land that you want to steal. Meanwhile, a couple thousand years later you continue the genocide against others who have also lived in the same general area for thousands of years. And you proclaim your god-given rights, given to you by the god that you proclaimed into existence. Pretty cool.
~GHAWAR~ I thought the Jews already owned America. So why would we have to give them any state? I own my property, so you can't give it to me. Isreal is the land given by God to the Isralites. It's their God given land and they're gonna fight to keep it.
What has always made me wonder, is why didn't God give the Jews the Greek Islands or Hawaii, or Mesopotama with that oil, or even Florida? Obviously God has a warped sense of humor.
kent shaw May 20th, 2008 2:58 pm
Why can't we just give the Israelis a sparsely populated state here in the US? How about Arkansas or Tennessee?
Great idea. I have been urging for a couple of years now that the Israelis be invited to make new homes Texas as Americans. Bigoted Texans might object at first, but would be persuaded of my wisdom when they understood that the Israelis would be allowed to bring their two hundred nuclear weapons with them for the protection of Texas and the memory of Sam Houston, a Jew.
This is not a giveaway program: the Jews are wealthy enough to purchase their homes in Texas. Some might be offered, as needed, tax incentives or long term loans. Others, still unpersuaded, might be directed to reflect on their coming fates as the U.S. withdraws its military and financial support from Israel, and eventually ceases to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation at all. Give them two years, starting now.
I'm serious about this. It would be good for the Jews, who sorely need some liebensraum, and of immeasurable benefit to Texas, which is sorely in need of some culture, some bagels and some brains.
Re: Poet May 21st, 2008 8:24 am on Ray McGovern "Poet May 21st, 2008 8:24 am "he is part of the problem and not part of the solution."
Not true poet. From wikipedia: Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst. He briefed several presidents, the Natioanl Security Advisor, The Joint Chiefs of staff as well as cabinet members...as part of his job. He has been has been an outspoken commentator on intelligence-related issues since the late 1990s.
In 2002 he was publicly critical of President George W. Bush's use of government intelligence in the lead-up to the war in Iraq.In 2003, together with other former CIA employees, McGovern founded the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity or VIPS. The organization is dedicated to analyzing and criticizing the use of intelligence, specifically relating to the War in Iraq.
In January 2006, McGovern began speaking out on behalf of the anti-war group Not in Our Name. According to the group's press release, McGovern served symbolic "war crimes indictments" on the Bush White House from a "people's tribunal." In May 2006, McGovern attended a speech by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and accused him of lying about Iraq prewar intelligence during the question-and-answer session. McGovern challenged Rumsfeld on several statements, in which Rumsfeld was on the record for saying.
Upon retirement, McGovern was awarded the Intelligence Commendation Medal from Bush, WHICH HE RETURNED! He said that he did "not wish to be associated, however remotely, with an agency engaged in torture... this is an order of magnitude different from my experiences in the past — there has been torture before, but never before has it been ordered and openly justified."
He has also publicly called for the impeachment of G W Bush.
He is most definitely, not "part of the problem". His well written letter demonstrates that. I pray that Adm Fallon reads it.
Does anyone hear the giant alarm clock going off in the distance? There is no more time left to hit snooze; millions of lives are at risk.
http://www.ryanhartman.wordpress.com
An excellent and well reasoned letter.
Yes, talk, negotiations, and most importantly 'reasoning' itself, instead of knee-jerk reactions from a knee-jerker like Bush, will defuse the planned expansion of this Middle-East oil-war from spreading in a global nuclear conflagration to Iran.
This ambiguity (and danger) for everyone could be totally eliminated by a simple letter (no 'appeasement' necessary) from Bush to Iran committing only; "we will not preemptively bomb you."
Unfortunately, for us, the insane war criminal, Bush, says that everything is 'on the table' --- except his assurance not to start another immoral and illegal preemptive war.
This mad bomber will not make such assurance that he will not preemptively bomb again; to the US Congress, the US people, or anyone in the world --- because he, like Hitler, does not think he needs to answer or be constrained by anyone or anything in the world --- including the US Constitution.
Siouxrose May 20th, 2008 10:44 pm -- "I see Israel as a pawn ..."
If either Israel or the U.S. is merely a pawn, one or the other must be the most willing pawn ever.
It's probably truer to think of the situation as involving a number of coincident interests and mutual advantages for those in power in both contries. In such circumstances, the issue of which partner leads in developing and implementing any particular aspect of their combined strategy is largely an academic distraction from the underlying purposes and promoters involved.
Interestingly, despite frequent references to Israel as a U.S. "ally", there is actually no formal treaty of mutual defense between the two counties. Maybe Bush created one in some "secret law" we don't know about. On the other hand, considering the recent non-observance of "supreme law" treaties that do exist, it probably doesn't matter much either way.
Oh puke! His royal pain in the ass hypocrite Ray McGovern is pontificating again. Ray baby used to be Pres. GHW Bush's briefer on the latest poop from the CIA. The CIA who decided that it was time for their chief asset in Panama Manual Noriega to go, the same CIA which (despite all their billions of dollars to do otherwise) completely missed the downfall of the Soviet Union and Eatern European satellites--you remmeber "the evil empire".
See Ray isn't a "badda-boom, badda-bing" kind of guy who blows you away at close range with conventional munitions. No, Ray is a "let's just introduce some carcinogins into the body politic of wherever we want to subjugate and see how long it takes for the malignancy to go terminal" kind of a guy.
Instead of a bayonet, Ray believes in a hyperdermic syringe, but the outcome is still the same. That's the way it worked in Iran (1953), Guatamala (1954), the Congo (1960), Vietnam and Laos (all through the 60's), Chili, (1974)Panama and Equador (1979), NIcauragua (1980's),
Afghanistan (1980's--with chief asset Osama Bin Laden), etc.
All of Ray's pontificating blather is just so much bickering over styliastic technique-not about basic goals. Waste not one shred of respect on Ray McGovern or anything he says, he is part of the problem and not part of the solution.
As another 40 plus year retired veteran, although only a lowly enlisted USAF'er, and USAF civil servant, I did, and still DO take the oaths administered (both identical in their phrasing) to "preserve, protect, and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America, against ALL enemies, both foreign AND DOMESTIC", with great seriousness. George Bush, in his dictatorial zeal has shown himself to be one of the domestic enemies in his attacks on the Constitution and or his blatent refusal to acknowledge the content. I am, as an individual, only able to try to protect this precious document by advising others of what has, and is happening. I also add my voice to the growing cry of IMPEACH BUSH...BEFORE it's too late!
.
I hope Adm. Fallon will run for the U.S. Senate, were his strong moral character and life-time of military experience,
will continue to benefit the United States of America.
Thank you Adm. Fallon for your honesty and courage.....
.
Leave it to you progressive fools to bring the jews into everything! We arn't going to attack iran guys, because we don't have the ability to attack iran. If we attack iran, they will send 750k fanatics into iraq on motorcycles and on foot, rendering our airpower useless. There will also be uprisings in iraq coordinated with this. They will sink every ship, at least for a few days, in the straights of hormuz, and oil will go up to 300$ a barrel or something like that. We will be beaten by wave after wave of suicide bombers, and then probably attacked here in the us.
Its just not going to happen.
Mark, why is this stuff about people advocating an attack on iran treated so sinisterly? There are all sorts of pressure groups asking for all sorts of things, and to treat this as somehow inevitable because of one israeli general's comments is a bit much.
Siouxrose, right on the money, though you're still too lefty yourself...
Siouxrose, you are obsessed with talking about Jews when this isn't the topic. You are also keen to insinuate anti-semitism, although in this case, have avoided using the word, because the essay prewarns us of this mindless accusation.
The essay talks about Israel. 'Jews' and 'Israel' are not the same thing. Many Jews hate the current Israeli government. You may refer to them as self-hating Jews.
It is well documented that since "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, former Israeli prime minister Peres and the Israeli Ambassador in Washington, for example, have been advocating an attack on Iran (see references in Mearsheimer and Walts' Israel Lobby p292). And how about the Israeli general who questioned whether Bush had sufficient "political power to attack Iran" and suggested instead that Israel "help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party... and US newspaper editors ... to turn the Iranian issue into a bipartisan one." (p300). Could you be a lieutenant of this general in this war for information dominance?
MORDECHAI: Tonight's post seem the intellectual midpoint (or hybrid) between Paddy Chayevsky and Job (from the Bible).
This essay (if shortened) should appear as a full page "ad" in some major newspaper, and to make that happen, a lot of donations should be sent to McGovern.
I do differ in one area... I see Israel as a pawn in a larger gain, not the main ring master. How much is set in motion by an international secret banking-style elite, or otherwise, it is a mistake to think the US is playing hero to Israel. It's a quid pro quo at the least, and Israel could easily go down as the sacrificial lamb, fulfilling too many centuries of previous plot-lines, if it allows itself to be used much more for the carnage of its neighboring tribes.
Those who see Israel as the MAIN puppet master may be unconsciously responding to the old prejudice that the JEWS own Hollywood and/or rule the world. That sure explains the Holocaust or ages of persecution. Some Jews have learned to utilize the methods of those that would slay them. This is NOT my endorsing such methods, just explaining how they came to be. Many in this forum have remarked that nations that DO have nuclear bombs are NOT the ones the US singles out for attack "games" of let's-make-war/lethal exercises, theaters of "domination" and live-action chances to actually WATCH how these agents of mass death (a/k/a defense/weapons) operate on HUMAN flesh.
He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. NO one is exempt. That's another stylized relating of the law of karma, inviolate and universal.
Thank you, Mr McGovern; you've said it all. Surely there would be others to follow the Admiral.'s lead. All he need do is raise to the occasion.
It is at moments like this that I become wistful for a disgraced organization that was a malign influence in the Roman Empire, the Praetorian Guard. There were instances when if an emperor like Caligula, Caracalla, or Elagabus, was so bad that they would remove him. Dubya, Cheney, & Co. would have been at the wrong end of the Praetorian Guards swords, as the Romans despised rulers who presided over military misadventures.
"When will people in this country wake up to just how much our blind devotion to Israel is costing us?" asks Opeluboy.
When Israel, a tiny nation driven by religious fanatics, pulls the world into a nuclear war that will destroy our planet.
We won't have long to wait!
P.S. Should we shoot all holy books? Check my blog ASAP!
karlof1
You just don't get it. Nukes for Bush's friends aren't a part of his equation. It's only nukes - even imaginary ones - for Bush's enemies that count.
I hate to ever agree with ~KENDPOTTER~ But I totally agree with him on that one. And yeah ~Kent Shaw~. If you agree with the comments of ~JOSEPH MORTON~ you can go do that also.
There are millions of active, inactive and retired military personnel who don't agree with Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld, or the policies regarding Iraq. Where we would be however if we never had men and women who joined the military with the premise that they would be honorably serving their country and who would refuse to follow an illegl order. Of course one little problem there is, most by far who serve in the militay are not lawyers.
At the present time in history, since Bush, I have serious reservations about that, but to put all service personal in one barrel as you two have is wrong.
After all, "What's good for death is good for business."
This should be the new motto for the United States. Dump In God We Trust and use the above. It should certainly be on all our money and the headstones of every citizen who has died for nothing in Iraq. DEATH is now what the USA is all about - death of the body, death of the mind, death of the soul, death of whatever you have in the bank, death of freedom and democracy, even the death of death, for in the USA post-George Wanker Bush, death will be transformed into a Disneyland ride presided over by the ghosts of Jerry Falwell, Lee Atwater and every suicide bomber who blew himself up thinking he was about to get unlimited nooky from 72 virgins. But before you go, we're going to put a gun to your head, turn you upside down and steal every penny you've got. Happy trails to you, until we meet again.
Kendpotter : The person you insulted may have a point. What is yours? You are angry. Do you know another way? What have you done that shows your freedom of mind? How many deaths are under your belt? Are you a war criminal too? As a retired army person, what was your role in maintaining US commercial supremacy?
bbr-001 if you would consult a map, you will learn there is no "sail[ing] fast as hell out of the Persian Gulf" let alone in an unnoticed manner. Further, the best way to ramp up Iran's "infamy" is to sacrifice the US naval vessels in the Gulf as they have replacements.
As for Ray's use of Fallon as a foil for this essay, I think it well done. But Frank1569 shows us why Fallon is unlikely to respond as McGovern requests. I haven't seen this mentioned in this thread, but BushCo has signed a deal to provide Saudi with nukes, which makes the whole nuclear "affair" with Iran moot. Also unnoticed was Bush's muddled admission that since oil has peaked, ME countries must work hard to diversify their economies.
It's time to put the idiocracy behind bars!
All this blather about, and reference to, the Constitution is pointless. The Constitution is a quaint document left from the eighteenth century. It is merely a laundry list of suggestions of how to run a representative government. The real constitution is the series of signing statements codified in the meaningless legislation passed by the irrelevant Congress. When the Commander-in-Chief figures out how to access the Treasury without Congressional authorization the "seperate powers" facade will be finished.
"Nor, generally speaking, is it very wise to do things that your principal banker is likely to disapprove quite strongly unless you plan to settle your debts with military force as well."
Let's see now, just whom might be the principal banker to the United States? OHHH... thats right... COMMUNIST RED CHINA, most favored trading nation. So much for stopping the spread of Communism, eh? But watch out for Cuba! Cuba is DANGEROUS! We simply MUST continue that embargo against those godless communists. Right?
Oh, heck, I forgot. Stopping the spread of communism is just so YESTERDAY. Today, our major fear is a couple dozen guys in caves somewhere near the Afghanistan Pakistan border. These guys are MUCH more dangerous than that old 'world communism thing'.
bbr-001 May 20th, 2008 6:29 pm -- "I think you guys are over drawing the scale of this thing."
Perhaps. But any simplistic scenario requires so-called "U.S. interests" to operate in isolation from other geopolitical considerations and that's not usually a wise assumption. Nor, generally speaking, is it very wise to do things that your principal banker is likely to disapprove quite strongly unless you plan to settle your debts with military force as well.
McGovern is hoping for a lot when he asks Fallon to overcome his gang loyalty. Smedley Butler was right, the USMC was part of an organized crime gang, and they and the other "services" still are. Disloyalty to the US is a strong tradition on all the armed services. One extreme example is Robt. E. Lee, who betrayed his nation and led the way to killing over 600K US citizens in a fight against freedom for US citizens. He is one of the 3 biggest heroes to the cadets at West Point, according to an English teacher who taught there (Newsweek).
kendpotter: "As a retired military person, I can tell you sincerely, and from the bottom of my heart, go fuck yourself."
Thus, beautifully illustrationg josephmorton's points. How articulate. How reasoned. kendpotter, you have already been quite fucked and don't even realize it. That's how brainwashing works.
Kent Shaw
PS -- yeah, yeah, fuck me too!! ;)
Its shocking the midshipmen don't know their own oath. That's like an Eagle Scout who can't remember the Scout Law! (There are no Eagle Scouts with that problem.)
I think you guys are over drawing the scale of this thing. One night in the next few months, the Navy is going to sail fast as hell out of the Persian Gulf. Maybe the Iranians will notice, maybe not, but they will notice the Air Force stealth bombers, cruise missiles... when they hit Natanz and other key nuclear sites. It will all be over in minutes and Iran will have no targets to fire at.
Then war will be up to Iran. Retaliate and get bombed some more or keep a stiff upper lip. The Israelis will be ready to deal with any problems from the Palestinians or Lebanon. The Navy will be back to make sure nothing happens at Hormuz, but no big targets for a cruise missile. A single attack sub or destroyer with the carriers just out of range could probably handle that.
Dubya and Cheney have gambled on war before. Why not one more roll of the dice before they retire? They should have been impeached.
josephmorton,
As a retired military person, I can tell you sincerely, and from the bottom of my heart, go fuck yourself.
When will people in this country wake up to just how much our blind devotion to Israel is costing us?
It's a mistake to assume if they aren't 100% for Bush that makes them allies for those against Bush. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.
H.R. McMaster recently told AEI that Iran was sending sniper teams into Iraq to destabilize it.
I had hoped that McMaster could look past the chaos and see how Bush has put them in an impossible position but this seems not to be.
"absolutely no doubt that Iran is supplying arms and training for insurgents who are killing U.S. troops in Iraq and that news organizations should stop using the qualifying word "alleged" to describe it.". McMaster went on to praise Maliki's Basra campaign and emphasized that Iran was to blame. " this is not just something in Basra. This is last year. This is in Nasiriyah, this is in Samarra, this is in Diwaniya, this is in Amara. And it was in Karbala on August 26 and 27 of last year, and now again in Basra"
Frankly I think it's FUD. (FUDded me over WMD. FUD me once, shame on you. FUD me twice ... )
But even if it is true, really, what did you expect when Bush turned down the Iran's offer of al Qaida suspects in return for not supporting M.E.K.? If US military isn't kept busy in Iraq, it'll be in Iran. It may still end up there. Saddam tried to appease Bush but Bush refused to be appeased. Iran tried to make nice and Bush rejected it.
> "Get serious. They're ants. WHEN the time comes, we'll crush them."
We will. But ya know, we did that in Vietnam. And the ants, they kept coming. It was their anthill not ours.
"Ants" reminded me of Gunner Vat in "Sarkhan" (Lederer & Burdick - "The Ugly American"). Gunner Vat explained (after watching them kill his political officer in a way not kosher with the Geneva Convention) how "ants" defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu. I'm sure the French commander said the same thing as Fallon.
But Mr. McGovern, how is it possible to swear an oath to protect and defend something we no longer have. Our elected president declared "the Constitution is just a G-damn piece of paper". And he has proven that is a fact.
Fallon made a clear and unmistakable statement that cost him his career. How much more do you want one man to do? Fallon did enough. It's now time for other officers and diplomats to step up. Don't look for it. Those who have relatives serving in Iraq ought to be speaking the loudest, yet they too are silent. The only cure for stupidity is death and that is where we are headed. After all, what's good for death is good for business.
Realistically,
What good would it do for Fallon to say we would lose that war.
Hasn't he already said so much. He was responsible for the war Plans on Iran so he is not the only general that knows the USA would lose.
I think he is honorable and resigned because he would not in good conscience go along with Bush's political Bluff.
Bush wants to be able to let McCain say "see the world did not end because we stared down Iran like JFK did to Russia."
That is what the lies are about, political advantage to scare the people that is fascism and Fallon knows the purpose so why would he want to stir the hornets nest of Bush and Cheneys minds? Not smart or safe really.
Now I say what good would it do because if Bush wanted to do it, no general could stop him and even if it was to kill him, once the order was given, Cheney would be there to see it through.
I think that most generals hope that Bush is bluffing like any sane person would but the best way to make a war criminal push the button is to give him no way out... We want him to leave office before he is tempted to push the button.
I think Fallon is afraid of that... (losing a war with Iran and destroying America faster than it is on track now).
I understand why Ray McGovern thinks this is important...about truth and honor and oath to the Constitution, but there is more at risk than that with this insane man.
Let him Bush pretend that he is for Peace because if we push him he will have no way out of the White House but another catastrophic War.
The core issue is that the American people have been lied to for such a long time about so many things that it's difficult to know how to address them all. The new Big Lie about Iran is just the latest edition, albeit especially pernicious. But the problem is that the uncovering of this Big Lie could easily point to another set, and another, until the very fabric of our collective beliefs about our country are torn asunder.
Major General Smedley Butler revealed in the 1930s that war is a racket, and US military actions across the globe for decades have been for the purpose of preserving or making money for the super rich. No one listens.
John Perkins revealed that concealed in our efforts to "help" third world countries post WWII, the American military and business men were actually sowing intentional economic distress, dysfunction and dependency on the US, and routing most of the "aid" to contracts to US based mega-companies like Halliburton. Did anyone notice?
David Ray Griffin offers compelling evidence that 9/11 must have been an inside job. People who noticed simply dismiss it out of hand, for obviously that would have been impossible. Nobody that high up could be that crooked and get away with it. But of course, it did enable the epic and extremely lucrative "War on Terror"...
I do not claim to know exactly how the system functions and who are its key players. But I refuse to believe officially-sanctioned fairytales passing as the truth. I only hope that one day we Americans wake up to the reality of the fetid, filthy corruption and deceit that has had a stranglehold on our great country, and take our nation back.
We are led to believe that supreme political power in this nation is shared among two parties: Democrats and Republicans. There appears to be a third that goes completely unnoticed and is not only uberstealthy and flies under the radar, but is completely invisible. This is The Manchurian Party. It is not the rankest of paranoid delusions to believe that George Wanker Bush and vice president Fat Death have been paid a king's ransom by al Qaeda or the Taliban or the Wahhabis to accelerate the self-destruction of the United States. If Bush/Cheney were paid agents of any of these groups they could not have done more harm to this country. Bush recently said that as soon as he is out of office (presuming he actually leaves) the first thing he's going to do is make money. What other god do these Stalinist and cynical pieces of human excrement worship more than money? Truly, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Just more wrong headed commentary that means nothing. There are no greater whores than military people. They are without brains, intergity, morals or a decent regard for human intelligence. What type of person could take orders without question? We do not need these whores speaking out; I prefer the dirty bastards keep their damn mouth shut, and not try to project themselves as a human being. They are not. They are barbarians and the worst type of people; they are not human but automotons. I do not give a tinkers damn about any of them saying a damn word, because I could not believe, or credit, these monsters with any good will. They need to be at the ICC and then in jail.
"You have let it be known that, even though you are now retired, you do not intend to speak, on or off the record, about the looming war with Iran."
Ray, buddy, did you not read Adm. Fallon's Esquire interview? Here he is responding to a question about Iran:
"Get serious. They're ants. WHEN the time comes, we'll crush them."
He said "when" Ray, not if. He said "serious" people consider 75 million Iranians "ants" to be "crushed" WHEN the time comes, Ray. Not innocent humans with a 4000+ year ancestry - f**king ants. To be crushed. When...
Looking to him for some sort of salvation is clearly a huge misjudgment...
What a well written letter!
I took great comfort in knowing that Admiral Fallon expressly stood in the way of an attack on Iran. As soon as he announced his seemingly abrupt departure I was alarmed and realized that the last obstacle in the way of an attack was gone.
I hope he is a true patriot and doesn't shrink from his obligation to defend his nation, even if it's from enemies within it.
I have actually been expecting an attack on Iran since the spring of 2005. A couple of times I felt an attack was imminent, but then it seemed to have been scuttled for some reason. Now, with the administration's time running out, unless heroic efforts are made by several people of Fallon's stature, I fear an attack on Iran is a done deal. The people in power are simply waiting for an excuse, and will manufacture one if necessary.
Dave
point to the majority of congress for real gutlessness.
Mr. Fallon, please take heed of Mr. Ritter request. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. Please contact others like yourself and stand to defy the lice at the head of our government.
Read Ephesians 6:13
Let's see now.
Hayden, head of the CIA, declares it is known to be Iran's official policy to kill Americans in Iraq. General Petraeus and his occupation brain trust attribute every casualty-producing attack possible inside Iraq as either the product of Iranian weaponry, and/or the work of Al Quaeda in Iraq.
Gates, the SecDef replacement for Rumsfeld, disavows the 2003 NIE conclusion that Iran has ended its nuclear weapons program, and assures the nation that he and Bush are singing from the same page of the same hymnal. The Shrub then gives in an incredibly incendiary valedictory address to the Israeli Knesset to kick off his recent Mideast tour, invoking Old Testament code language about Zionism being God's will, and terming all of those repeated, US-vetoed UN resolutions condemning Israel's policies towards the Palestinians as "shameful."
Outside this executive branch sabre rattling follies, the Kyl-Lieberman bill labels Iran's Quods guards a terrorist organization (thus lumping those units of the regular Iranian armed forces into the same black hole with the Taliban and Al Queda in terms of vanished POW coverage under the Geneva Conventions). Hillary Clinton then announces from the campaign trail that as far as she's concerned, if Iran ever attacked Israel, the US would obliterate Iran in response.
Harry Truman must be rolling over in his grave. His major hesitancy about recognizing the new state of Israel sixty years ago was fear that United States military forces would get sucked into just such an open-ended alliance in a region renown for its ancient, seemingly intractable hostilities. So much for Uncle Sam the honest outside broker.
But most ominous, now that both the neo-cons and the neo-libs have rushed to endorse US military reprisals against Iran for attacks upon Israel, or for Iranian attacks upon Iraqi "coalition" forces, how can we tell if the attack is live or Memorex?
On the very day that George the Lesser delivered his Knesset speech, a rocket fired from Gaza hit an Israeli hospital, causing casualties. Authoritative Israeli military intelligence officials instantly assured the New York Times and the Associated Press that "Iran's fingerprints were all over" the rocket attack.
How many political and sectarian factions, with how many different agendas within and outside of the Muslim world, would like to see the United States turn its military firepower loose upon Iran before Bush leaves office?
How many now sense that the quickest way to achieve that end is to take a whack at Israel, leaving behind a false trail pointing towards Tehran?
Bill from Saginaw
Why can't we just give the Israelis a sparsely populated state here in the US? How about Arkansas or Tennessee? Just forcibly remove the current population, send them off to some part of the southwest desert and forget about them. That would surely solve the Israel/Palestine question.
If the current Israeli regime wants to "take care of Iran," let them do their own dirty work, and take the heat for it.
Excuse me, but the ruling elite, including present and retired military officers are not concerned with 'doing the right thing.' Doing the right thing does not pay at all well, so what's the incentive to put your head on the chopping block? Whistle blowers are demoted or lose their position. Seems no one pledges loyalty to the Constitution anymore, only to their meal ticket. However, thankss to Ray for attempting to break the sound bite barrier.
It is the media and those that own and allow that has betrayed us. Without an unbiased and uncensored media the people will remain uninformed and America will continue to decline. No doubt about it; we are being distorted by both the lies and the omission of truth. All those good patriots standing by as the dream dies and the Bush cabal and those that enabled them fiddle away lives and time. On and on and on…
"when asked about the oath they took upon entering the academy, several of the "Mids" thought it was to the commander in chief."
Better check what they DO swear to...Bush has been known to demand personal loyalty oaths, and may have required one from them..under a secret order
zieg Bush!
I was aghast that only the third Mid I called on got it right — that the oath is to protect and defend the Constitution, not the president.
USan confusion of sovereignty and nationhood with institutionalized and symbolic representations of power and authority is hardly confined to its military academies. The U.S. presidency, with its clustered head of government, head of state and CinC roles and virtually no day-to-day parliamentary accountability, is perhaps the most glaring example even if one discounts the recent "unitary executive" arrogation of powers. In fact, constitutional monarchy appears quite benign by comparison.
It is small wonder that this level of conflation of regal/imperial authority has led to widespread confusion about the true nature of loyalty and patriotism and a tendency to override even the most basic appreciation of the nature of the "republic" itself. So, just as a brief refresher, the fundamental concept is that of sovereignty residing in the people rather than in any monarch or emperor regardless of the title assigned to that imperial office.
The violence and arrogance of the Bush regime never fails to amaze me.
Unfortunately, the apathy of the american people is what I find truly sickening.
Perhaps you should go look at the Admiral's so you'll know what a pair look like.
Well said, Mr. McGovern. I hope that General Fallon's ears are open to this message and that he acts on it soon.
And just this morning I was eagerly counting off the remaining months of this administration...it could be a very long count.