It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush may Fire Centcom Commander, Replace with One more 'pliable' to Iran War

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Bush may Fire Centcom Commander, Replace with One more 'pliable' to Iran War


thinkprogress.org

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon “one of the best strategic thinkers in uniform today.” Fallon opposed the “surge” in Iraq and has consistently battled the Bush administration to avoid a confrontation with Iran, calling officials’ war-mongering “not helpful.” Privately, he has vowed that an attack on Iran “will not happen on my watch.”

Unfortunately, this level-headed thinking and willingness to stand up to President Bush may cost him his job. According to a new article by Thomas P.M. Barnett in the April issue of Esquire magazine (on newsstands March 12), Fallon may be prematurely “relieved of his command” as soon as this summer:

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
So our diabolical Decider may just ram through another war after all. Since the Military leaders are opposed to it, he may just fire anyone who won't follow him into armeggedon and replace them with more yes men. Sounds like status quo Dumbya protocol. War and Death at any cost, as long as he and his rich cronies don't have to fight in it.


thinkprogress.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Don't forget they want to make money off it, too.

No doubt we'll end in economic collapse and world war.

I think our soldiers have just about had enough.



posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   
George W. Bush is the first U.S. President I have ever seen who absolutely deserves to be on the receiving end of a coup d'etat.

Watching you U.S. subjects take this from your Decider absolutely blows my mind. Everyday we look to see what the Bu#es are serving for merde du jour and then watch U.S. subjects either yawn or sit mind numbed ... and all the while I keep hoping that you who are still citizens and not subjects will rise up and take to the streets and make all the noise possible demanding their removal from the world stage and the Executive Branch. (And while you are at it please send everyone in your Congress home. You would do better with random selection from the names of all U.S. citizens than this monstrous behemoth you think of as your elected representation in Washington, D.C.



posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Ok. DD that's about the 10th time today.
Condi just "fixed" the ME today... "back on track". Yup, gonna be some shootin', there and in South America, got his new Africa COM up too. Rambo-time comin'. Columbia = Howdy Doody. I find it odd that no one has much mentioned that the leader of Iran visited the leader of Iraq in Iraq for the first time in 200 years. Wink. Yep, wouldn't want to be a Sunni or a Kurd.

Vic



[edit on 5-3-2008 by V Kaminski]



posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Because of idiots like this "semi-general the US hasn't melted Iran yet. Go get'em George.............UUUUUUrraahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by heliosprime
 


Die.

Anyway, this reminds me of the purge before the Iraq invasion, which many US military leaders correctly predicted would end in a disastrous occupation.

Unfortunately, the guys who were right got fired for it.

Another nail in the coffin for the idea that the right-wing "supports" the military.



posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Die.


Umm.. T&C, ever heard of it?

As for this report I'll wait and see, lets not be so quick to crucify the POTUS. There is not need to fire Fallon, he has no say in orders that CENTCOM received form the NCA. If he were to disagree with a decision he would simply be overruled. Disobey and try to block an order and he would be tried for treason, in the most extreme scenario. In any case, I too do not support an attack on Iran at this point but lets not start foaming at the mouth abut Bush again.



posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
When I see that there are a bunch of high level folks on the chopping block in CENTCOM I might start thinking something is up.

Even if they fired the CENTCOM (which would be really stupid if they were going to start something) they would have to wait till they can find a replacement that can get approved.

Are there any other sources that anyone can find?



posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   


Umm.. T&C, ever heard of it?


Well, it wasn't an insult or a threat, just a request


And since it's apparently acceptable to call for the deaths of thousands or millions or entire nations or religions on here, why is it so bad to half-jokingly call for the death of just one?

As for Bush, I'm not convinced he has made a decision in favor of war at this point. Knowing how he operates, if he had made up his mind, I think that the bombs would be falling already.

Cheney and the remaining neocons appear to be pushing a strike.
Rice and most of the military & intel agencies seem to be against it, and are winning at the moment.



posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   
If the Admiral is relieved, it won't because he won't go to war with Iran. The President doesn't need yes men, and seeing as how it'd take Congressional approval for the incoming commander, I doubt the Dems are interested in approving somebody that's itching for expanding war with Iran. I wouldn't take the Esquire as a source for Miltary policy review and change, too seriously.



posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I think too many of you are acting as though this speculation is actually a concrete fact. I strongly believe that President Bush doesn't want to leave office having done nothing to stop Iran's quest for nuclear weapons. But I also believe that he is nowhere near making a decision regarding military action in Iran.

Even if the assertions of many on here are true, and that is that Bush is a "warmonger" and desperately wants to attack Iran, I still think that he has enough sense to recognize the major negative aspects of such a move. Whether he admits it or not, he recognizes the mistakes made in Iraq. He will not send our military into another preemptive war without being certain that we have the troops and the means for victory, as well as the support of our allies.

If I were a betting man, I would say that these kind of stories about Bush wanting to attack Iran are in fact propaganda that is leaked to members of the press by some in the Executive branch. Their goal is to make the world, and in particular Iran, believe that Bush is genuinely serious about attacking Iran. Despite the psychopathic rantings of Iran's President, the Iranian people do not want war with the U.S. I also doubt that a majority of the Iranian government want war, either. Knowing that their nuclear ambitions and support for terrorism could result in a deadly war, just might be enough to force Iran to make some real concessions at the negotiating table.

I'll close by once again stating that far too many ATS members allow their hatred for President Bush to cloud their judgement and common sense. They will believe any story from any source, so long as it paints the president in a negative light. The standard and the burden of proof that so many here carry for things such as UFO sightings, is quickly abandoned when it comes to Bush-bashing. If rense.com had an article stating that Bush feeds on the flesh of infants, I'm sure a good number of people here would give the story some validity. But if the AP ran a story about an enemy of the U.S., or the Bush Administration, that painted them in a negative light, most here would suddenly rediscover their journalistic integrity and cast doubt on the story without absolute proof being presented. I just wish that many here would truly adhere to the motto of this great website, to "Deny Ignorance". And that ignorance should be denied across the board, regardless of your personal feelings. I'm not asking everyone here to abandon their personal beliefs and opinions. I'm just asking that they give the same level of fairness to those they oppose as they do to those they support.



posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
Knowing that their nuclear ambitions and support for terrorism could result in a deadly war, just might be enough to force Iran to make some real concessions at the negotiating table.


Iran has a right to nuclear energy, just like every other peace-loving government on earth. Too bad the US administration currently does not qualify as such, and neither does Iran's. I think you need to look deeper into what really qualifies as a terrorist organization, outside of the agenda-driven designations of the White House and other governments. They tend to designate organizations as such when they no longer fit agenda, or pose a new threat because of being double-crossed by the agenda-pushers themselves.

What concessions is Iran supposed to make? Agree to stop funding militant groups opposed to Israeli and US intrusion of their sacred territory? By intelligence estimate, they stopped weapons production in 2003, and now the IAEA can't even come up with anything meaty to warrant the new round of sanctions just imposed upon Iran by the UN. Why is it Putin feels comfortable with Iran proceeding with their nuclear energy program, given certain verification procedures? If he didn't, he wouldn't have fueled Bushehr.

After doing more research on the supposed Iranian laptop that was seized by the US, stories are surfacing that the documents on it were actually obtained from Israeli Mossad. Just great, eh? Iran has claimed the documents fake, and there is reason to suspect that, although they are pretty good fakes, sources say. But then again, who has ever questioned Mossad's notorious capabilities as one of the best spy agencies on the planet? And talk about motivation- no one likes to be wiped off the map.

If this commander gets fired, I will hate to think what awaits the next President- if there is one and we are lucky enough not to have a dictator.



posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


What sacred territory of Iran, has Israel or the USA occupied? Are you saying sacred territory of muslims? Israel is sacred territory of Jews too, so it would appear that we have a conundrum, except that the Jews haven't said that all Arabs and their countries need to be wiped off the map. If Iran truly were a peaceful nation, then nobody would give it a second thought about them having nuclear power. The fact is that they a state sponsor of terror groups, and as such, pose a huge risk if they had nuclear weapons. Until they demonstrate that they don't feel that wiping Israel off the map, or the intentional killing of civilians is ever acceptable, then they don't need nuclear technology.



posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   
ADM Fallon on Iran, 05 March 2008 video... source DoDvClips.mil, WMPlayer clip.

Vic



posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by V Kaminski
 


Wow, V.

So what the heck is that supposed to mean? On one hand he is not even sure if it's the coalition itself arming the militants? Did I hear that correctly? And then he says he hasn't seen one public action yet by Iran that's been at all helpful?

Well so then what about the $1 Billion dollar loan Iran just agreed to loan Iraq? I'll go dig up the link if anyone wants to see that.



posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


He said that the Iranians have slowed down their support of militants, but wasn't sure if it was because of Tehran, or the coalition efforts. He said nothing about the coalition arming militants.



posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
If this is true, then Bush as Commander in Chief have that right. Its just like President Truman and General MacArthur over the disagreement of the conflict in Korea. Bush can name someone else to replace the commander on the ground.



posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
With the armed forces stretched to the physical and mental breaking point in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, another conflict in Iran is a really bad idea. The troops are sick of getting stop-lossed, we're spending something absurd like $5000 a second for every day we continue to promote our war for "democracy" abroad, and popular approval of yet another unprovoked military escapade into yet another middle easter country is going to be practically non-existent.

The worst thing that can be done right now is to get into another military engagement with Iran, because we are seriously going to have to consider what kind of psychopathic role Israel would likely play in that theater. They seem like they're pretty trigger happy, and we really don't need to give them any more reasons to push the big red button and melt Tehran.

Additionally, the things are still pretty tense down in South America with Venezuela, Columbia, and Ecuador, and the U.S. will undoubtedly get involved if anything actually happens militarily down there. Colombia is the U.S.' Israel in South America, and it will protect it, fund it, and aid it all costs. Additionally, I think, although if I am wrong - please do let me know, that we have one of those mutual protection agreements with Colombia, so we have rush to their aid if anything should happen.

Then, there's Lebanon, and who really knows what's going on there.

There's way too much military conflict happening in the world, and a great deal of it (certainly not all of it) is directly the result of red, white, and blue imperialism. Stop the madness. No more conflicts, no more undeclared wars, and no more mindless violence to forward the agenda of small segment of powerfully wealthy individuals.

We've had enough.



posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Did anyone else happen to catch Fallon's response to this article?

Here it is if you missed it:
Response

If he was about to get the can due to his views, why would he bother to write a response to the article?




top topics



 
4

log in

join