A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

An Appeal to Admiral Fallon on Iran



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 21st 08, 08:19 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval,us.military.navy,soc.veterans,alt.military.retired,alt.war.vietnam
NOMOREWARFORISRAEL[_2_] NOMOREWARFORISRAEL[_2_] is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by AviationBanter: Dec 2007
Posts: 91
Default An Appeal to Admiral Fallon on Iran

An Appeal to Admiral Fallon on Iran
By Ray McGovern
May 19, 2008

http://consortiumnews.com/2008/051908b.html

consortiumnews.com
An Appeal to Admiral Fallon on Iran
By Ray McGovern
May 19, 2008
Dear Admiral Fallon,
I have not been able to find out how to reach you directly, so I
drafted this letter in the hope it will be brought 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. At the same time, you have let it be
known that you do not intend to speak, on or off the record, about
Iran.
But our oath has no expiration date. While you are acutely aware of
the dangers of attacking Iran, you seem to be allowing an inbred
reluctance to challenge the 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 and Trash the Constitution
No doubt you are very clear that an attack on Iran would be a flagrant
violation of our Constitution, which stipulates that treaties ratified
by the Senate become the supreme law of the land; that the United
Nations Charter – which the Senate ratified on July 28, 1945, by a
vote of 89 to 2 – 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 such danger to
the United States or its allies.
You may be forgiven for thinking: Isn’t 41 years of service enough;
isn’t resigning in order to remove myself from a chain of command that
threatened to make me a war criminal for attacking Iran; isn’t making
my active opposition known by talking to journalists – isn’t all that
enough?
With respect, sir, no, that’s not enough.
The stakes here are extremely high and with the integrity you have
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. And, as prominent a person as you are,
the corporate media will do the same.
Indeed, there are clear signs the media have been given their marching
orders to support attacking Iran.
At 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, it is as easy as during the days of the controlled Soviet press
to follow the U.S. government’s evolving line with a daily reading. In
a word, our newspapers are revving up for war on Iran, and have been
for some time.
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 this, precisely
because the media have put the wraps on it, so let me adduce a
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.
But Not for 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’s 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 credibly linked to Iran.
News to you? That’s because this highly 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 to efforts to blacken Iran. A fiasco is only a fiasco if
folks know about it.
The suppression of this episode is the most significant aspect, in my
view, and a telling indicator of how difficult it is to get honest
reporting on these subjects.
Meanwhile, it was announced that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
had formed his own Cabinet committee to investigate U.S. claims and
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
dramatically new conclusion of the National Intelligence Estimate
released on Dec. 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.”
I don’t need to tell you about the Haydens and other smartly saluting
generals in Washington.
Let me suggest that you have a serious conversation with Gen. Anthony
Zinni, one of your predecessor CENTOM commanders (1997 to 2000).
As you know better than I, this Marine general is also an officer with
unusual integrity. But placed into circumstances virtually identical
to those you now face, he could not find his voice.
He missed his chance to interrupt 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 Aug. 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.
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.”
Gen. 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. No, what he and any likeminded officials could have
stopped 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 says Cheney did not follow
the usual practice of clearing his Aug. 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 a bit difficult to believe that Cheney’s shameless speech took
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”
Enco Iran
Admiral Fallon, you know that to be the case also with respect to the
“intelligence” being conjured up 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 the smartly saluting
sycophants.
No doubt you have long since taken the measure, for example, of
Defense Secretary Robert Gates. So have I.
I was one of his first branch chiefs 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.
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 subsequent 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, Gates is now saying 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 leave no doubt as to his loyalty.
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 than I. Bottom line: Gates will
salute smartly 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, who was national security adviser to President
George H.W. Bush, took the prestigious job of Chairman, President’s
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board when asked to 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. All the
more striking what he decided he had to do.
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.
There is ample evidence that Sharon’s successors believe they have 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.
On May 18, speaking at the World Economic Forum at Sharm el Sheikh,
Bush threw in a gratuitous reference to “Iran’s nuclear weapons
ambitions.” He said:
“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 that Iran “is very much behind” all the woes
afflicting the Middle East, from Lebanon to Gaza to Iraq 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 that controversial speech in 2005, Ahmadinejad was actually quoting
from something the Ayatollah Khomeini had said in the early 1980s.
Khomeini was expressing a hope that a regime treating the Palestinians
so unjustly would be replaced by another more equitable one.
A distinction without a difference? I think not. Words matter.
As you may already know (but the American people don’t), the literal
translation from Farsi of what Ahmadinejad said is, “The regime
occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time.”
Contrary to what the administration 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.
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 Oct. 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 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 it’s just rhetoric to “justify” U.S. action to “take care of”
Iran for Israel?
What you can do, Admiral Fallon, is 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.
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, to overturn by force the
ascendancy of Hamas in 2006-07 and Hezbollah more recently. (Abrams
pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of misleading Congress, but was
pardoned by President George H.W. Bush on Dec. 24, 1992.)
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.
If you weigh in as your (non-expiring) oath to protect and defend the
Constitution dictates, you might conceivably prompt other sober heads
to speak out.
And, in the end, if profound ignorance and ideology – supported by the
corporate press and by both political parties intimidated by the
Israel lobby – lead to an attack on Iran, and the Iranians enter
southern Iraq and take thousands of our troops hostage, you will be
able to look in the mirror and say at least you tried.
You will not have to live with the remorse of not knowing what might
have been, had you been able to shake your reluctance to speak out.
There is a large Tar Baby out there – Iran. You may remember that as
Brer Rabbit got more and more stuck, Brer Fox, he lay low.
A “Fox” Fallon, still pledged to defend the Constitution of the United
States, cannot lie low—not now.
Lead.
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.
To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. (To make a blog comment
about this or other stories, you can use your normal e-mail address
and password. Ignore the prompt for a Google account.) To comment to
us by e-mail, click here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

AIPAC is Pushing US to War with Iran (for Israel):

http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot....with-iran.html

Here is a tiny URL for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/24mkej


President Bush intends to attack Iran in coming months


http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...ic.php?t=89840


Here is a tiny URL for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/6mq7o3

Why aren't we talking about this?

Iran War, Real Fear Petraeus Beating War Drums for Attack


http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot....bout-this.html

Here is a tiny URL for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/3vue6c



Additional posts on all three pages (thus far) of:

http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM

Read the UPI article at the beginning of the following URL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...ic.php?t=49800

Here is a tiny URL for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/3wxev8



Even Colin Powell has conveyed (in Washington Post correspondent Karen
DeYoung's bio book about him) that the 'JINSA crowd' was/is control of
the Pentagon (via JINSA associated Dick Cheney of course!):

A War for Israel? Colin Powell seems to think so:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...ic.php?t=61128

Here is a tiny URL for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/2b6p5k

http://NOMOREWARFORISRAEL.BLOGSPOT.COM


  #2  
Old May 25th 08, 10:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval,us.military.navy,soc.veterans,alt.military.retired,alt.war.vietnam
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default An Appeal to Admiral Fallon on Iran



Son go study what else the UN does before whining.

....and bush made a war with lies. It has nothing to do with the UN.



In , on 05/25/2008
at 01:08 PM, "W. D. Allen" said:



"...Nations Charter which the Senate ratified on July 28, 1945, by a
vote of 89 to 2 expressly forbids attacks on other countries unless
they pose an imminent danger...."


So how 'imminent' does a danger have to be to justify preemption? Do any
of the other nations in the UN even pay attention to UN charter clauses?
And how come they ALL silently gloat every time the USA gets attacked?


Let's get real - the UN is worthless for the USA, while we pay the
largest part of the UN budget. Talk about being played for fools!


WDA


end



"NOMOREWARFORISRAEL" wrote in message
...
An Appeal to Admiral Fallon on Iran
By Ray McGovern
May 19, 2008

http://consortiumnews.com/2008/051908b.html

consortiumnews.com
An Appeal to Admiral Fallon on Iran
By Ray McGovern
May 19, 2008
Dear Admiral Fallon,
I have not been able to find out how to reach you directly, so I
drafted this letter in the hope it will be brought 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. At the same time, you have let it be
known that you do not intend to speak, on or off the record, about
Iran.
But our oath has no expiration date. While you are acutely aware of
the dangers of attacking Iran, you seem to be allowing an inbred
reluctance to challenge the 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 and Trash the Constitution
No doubt you are very clear that an attack on Iran would be a flagrant
violation of our Constitution, which stipulates that treaties ratified
by the Senate become the supreme law of the land; that the United
Nations Charter which the Senate ratified on July 28, 1945, by a
vote of 89 to 2 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 such danger to
the United States or its allies.
You may be forgiven for thinking: Isn t 41 years of service enough;
isn t resigning in order to remove myself from a chain of command that
threatened to make me a war criminal for attacking Iran; isn t making
my active opposition known by talking to journalists isn t all that
enough?
With respect, sir, no, that s not enough.
The stakes here are extremely high and with the integrity you have
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. And, as prominent a person as you are,
the corporate media will do the same.
Indeed, there are clear signs the media have been given their marching
orders to support attacking Iran.
At 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, it is as easy as during the days of the controlled Soviet press
to follow the U.S. government s evolving line with a daily reading. In
a word, our newspapers are revving up for war on Iran, and have been
for some time.
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 this, precisely
because the media have put the wraps on it, so let me adduce a
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.
But Not for 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 s 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 credibly linked to Iran.
News to you? That s because this highly 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 to efforts to blacken Iran. A fiasco is only a fiasco if
folks know about it.
The suppression of this episode is the most significant aspect, in my
view, and a telling indicator of how difficult it is to get honest
reporting on these subjects.
Meanwhile, it was announced that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
had formed his own Cabinet committee to investigate U.S. claims and
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
dramatically new conclusion of the National Intelligence Estimate
released on Dec. 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.
I don t need to tell you about the Haydens and other smartly saluting
generals in Washington.
Let me suggest that you have a serious conversation with Gen. Anthony
Zinni, one of your predecessor CENTOM commanders (1997 to 2000).
As you know better than I, this Marine general is also an officer with
unusual integrity. But placed into circumstances virtually identical
to those you now face, he could not find his voice.
He missed his chance to interrupt 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 Aug. 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.
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.
Gen. 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. No, what he and any likeminded officials could have
stopped 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 says Cheney did not follow
the usual practice of clearing his Aug. 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 a bit difficult to believe that Cheney s shameless speech took
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
Enco Iran
Admiral Fallon, you know that to be the case also with respect to the
intelligence being conjured up 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 the smartly saluting
sycophants.
No doubt you have long since taken the measure, for example, of
Defense Secretary Robert Gates. So have I.
I was one of his first branch chiefs 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.
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 subsequent 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, Gates is now saying 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 leave no doubt as to his loyalty.
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 than I. Bottom line: Gates will
salute smartly 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, who was national security adviser to President
George H.W. Bush, took the prestigious job of Chairman, President s
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board when asked to 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. All the
more striking what he decided he had to do.
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.
There is ample evidence that Sharon s successors believe they have 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.
On May 18, speaking at the World Economic Forum at Sharm el Sheikh,
Bush threw in a gratuitous reference to Iran s nuclear weapons
ambitions. He said:
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 that Iran is very much behind all the woes
afflicting the Middle East, from Lebanon to Gaza to Iraq 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 that controversial speech in 2005, Ahmadinejad was actually quoting
from something the Ayatollah Khomeini had said in the early 1980s.
Khomeini was expressing a hope that a regime treating the Palestinians
so unjustly would be replaced by another more equitable one.
A distinction without a difference? I think not. Words matter.
As you may already know (but the American people don t), the literal
translation from Farsi of what Ahmadinejad said is, The regime
occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time.
Contrary to what the administration 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.
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 Oct. 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 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 it s just rhetoric to justify U.S. action to take care of
Iran for Israel?
What you can do, Admiral Fallon, is 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.
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, to overturn by force the
ascendancy of Hamas in 2006-07 and Hezbollah more recently. (Abrams
pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of misleading Congress, but was
pardoned by President George H.W. Bush on Dec. 24, 1992.)
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.
If you weigh in as your (non-expiring) oath to protect and defend the
Constitution dictates, you might conceivably prompt other sober heads
to speak out.
And, in the end, if profound ignorance and ideology supported by the
corporate press and by both political parties intimidated by the
Israel lobby lead to an attack on Iran, and the Iranians enter
southern Iraq and take thousands of our troops hostage, you will be
able to look in the mirror and say at least you tried.
You will not have to live with the remorse of not knowing what might
have been, had you been able to shake your reluctance to speak out.
There is a large Tar Baby out there Iran. You may remember that as
Brer Rabbit got more and more stuck, Brer Fox, he lay low.
A Fox Fallon, still pledged to defend the Constitution of the United
States, cannot lie low not now.
Lead.
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.
To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. (To make a blog comment
about this or other stories, you can use your normal e-mail address
and password. Ignore the prompt for a Google account.) To comment to
us by e-mail, click here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

AIPAC is Pushing US to War with Iran (for Israel):

http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot....with-iran.html

Here is a tiny URL for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/24mkej


President Bush intends to attack Iran in coming months


http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...ic.php?t=89840


Here is a tiny URL for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/6mq7o3

Why aren't we talking about this?

Iran War, Real Fear Petraeus Beating War Drums for Attack


http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot....bout-this.html

Here is a tiny URL for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/3vue6c



Additional posts on all three pages (thus far) of:

http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM

Read the UPI article at the beginning of the following URL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...ic.php?t=49800

Here is a tiny URL for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/3wxev8



Even Colin Powell has conveyed (in Washington Post correspondent Karen
DeYoung's bio book about him) that the 'JINSA crowd' was/is control of
the Pentagon (via JINSA associated Dick Cheney of course!):

A War for Israel? Colin Powell seems to think so:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...ic.php?t=61128

Here is a tiny URL for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/2b6p5k

http://NOMOREWARFORISRAEL.BLOGSPOT.COM



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fallon resigns as Mideast military chief (clear the deck for thecoming war with Iran which will be for Israel just as Iraq has been) NOMOREWARFORISRAEL[_2_] Naval Aviation 1 March 12th 08 05:20 AM
Fallon 'may lose job over Iran war' NOMOREWARFORISRAEL[_2_] Naval Aviation 1 March 9th 08 06:20 AM
Fallon Naval Air Station Austin Powers Naval Aviation 12 March 20th 07 02:11 PM
Phantom at Fallon F9pnthr Naval Aviation 20 November 20th 04 01:12 AM
U.S. friendly-fire pilot Schmidt loses appeal Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 July 20th 04 12:35 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.