I think hat if he touches Gates he will be impeached... but that's a personal poitn of view.. I do think Iran will not be attacked during the Bush administration.
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
And I do think he is in charge... he will not be touched...
There is a chance Iran will be atacked if he changes his opinion.. other than that.. nope.
The Senior admirals have watched the administration throw the army into the meatginder, with very little seeming care for the armys survival. just a desire to prove their own military theories right. I propose that they are not willing to see the Navy go the same way. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
By putting up the "How dare you question the man in uniform with the row of shiny medals" defence in their interactions with other parts of the government, they've sort of painted themselves into a corner while dealing with the admiral.
A man can go from hero to traitor in a day, like nothing happened.
I'd guess that this admiral has a lot of friends in the navy, and maybe one in control of the Pentagon. You can only be sure to survive if you have your own power base.
BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Profile: Joseph Wilson
As acting ambassador to Iraq in the run-up to the first Gulf War, he was the last US diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein, in 1991. He very publicly defied the Iraqi strongman by giving refuge to more than 100 US citizens at the embassy and in the homes of US diplomats - at a time when Saddam Hussein was threatening to execute anyone who harboured foreigners. He then addressed journalists wearing a hangman's noose instead of a necktie. He later told the Washington Post newspaper that the message to Saddam Hussein was: "If you want to execute me, I'll bring my own [expletive] rope."
As acting ambassador to Iraq in the run-up to the first Gulf War, he was the last US diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein, in 1991.
He very publicly defied the Iraqi strongman by giving refuge to more than 100 US citizens at the embassy and in the homes of US diplomats - at a time when Saddam Hussein was threatening to execute anyone who harboured foreigners.
He then addressed journalists wearing a hangman's noose instead of a necktie.
He later told the Washington Post newspaper that the message to Saddam Hussein was: "If you want to execute me, I'll bring my own [expletive] rope."
he's certainly a representative of one of the factions at court. Which is sort of scary really: the military isn't meant to be a court faction in the US, is it?
Given the irrational nature of administration play on Iran, it's refreshing to hear a semblance of sanity from a power center. But it's probably just a voice, albeit one which might mount a counter-coup if it came to that. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
perhaps someone should point out the precedents to george Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
Parameters, US Army War College Quarterly: The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 by Charles J. Dunlap, JR. in Winter 1992
The letter that follows takes us on a darkly imagined excursion into the future. A military coup has taken place in the United States--the year is 2012--and General Thomas E. T. Brutus, Commander-in-Chief of the Unified Armed Forces of the United States, now occupies the White House as permanent Military Plenipotentiary. His position has been ratified by a national referendum, though scattered disorders still prevail and arrests for acts of sedition are underway. A senior retired officer of the Unified Armed Forces, known here simply as Prisoner 222305759, is one of those arrested, having been convicted by court-martial for opposing the coup. Prior to his execution, he is able to smuggle out of prison a letter to an old War College classmate discussing the "Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." In it, he argues that the coup was the outgrowth of trends visible as far back as 1992. These trends were the massive diversion of military forces to civilian uses, the monolithic unification of the armed forces, and the insularity of the military community. His letter survives and is here presented verbatim. It goes without saying (I hope) that the coup scenario above is purely a literary device intended to dramatize my concern over certain contemporary developments affecting the armed forces, and is emphatically not a prediction. -- The Author
The letter that follows takes us on a darkly imagined excursion into the future. A military coup has taken place in the United States--the year is 2012--and General Thomas E. T. Brutus, Commander-in-Chief of the Unified Armed Forces of the United States, now occupies the White House as permanent Military Plenipotentiary. His position has been ratified by a national referendum, though scattered disorders still prevail and arrests for acts of sedition are underway. A senior retired officer of the Unified Armed Forces, known here simply as Prisoner 222305759, is one of those arrested, having been convicted by court-martial for opposing the coup. Prior to his execution, he is able to smuggle out of prison a letter to an old War College classmate discussing the "Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." In it, he argues that the coup was the outgrowth of trends visible as far back as 1992. These trends were the massive diversion of military forces to civilian uses, the monolithic unification of the armed forces, and the insularity of the military community. His letter survives and is here presented verbatim.
It goes without saying (I hope) that the coup scenario above is purely a literary device intended to dramatize my concern over certain contemporary developments affecting the armed forces, and is emphatically not a prediction. -- The Author
There have been media reports, including Sy Hersh, indicating several power enclaves within the military as well. I would doubt that the good general is part of the born-again apocalypsters team.
Battling, corrupt factions with their own power structures was also the way certain fascist governments were organised, and part of the reason they were so dysfunctional. But of course we can't make any comparisons because such comparisons, however apt, apparently trivialise the suffering caused by these governments.
Probably is some kind of mix of being the "new" service (which could be filled with political people... at least when it was new 50 years ago) and the hubris aquired by soaring around in the sky, untouchable, and dropping bombs on people.
Godlike. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
And I was actually thinking more of the WW2 Luftwaffe than the US Air Force, even if that organization had had its fair share of crazies. Like General Curtis LeMay. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
I mean I think this guy is the one really giving the orders... and I think he is for real.
One good thing might be that he has no 'ownership' of the debacle. The whole thing was engineered by the Rumsfeld acolytes - the neo-Blitzkrieg crew. Apparently, they ignored the Navy altogether. It may have been a giant miscalculation on the part of the Cheney cabal: they thought that the Navy would be the spearhead for the Iran attack, so best to get them involved. (Of course, there may be a master plan: get the supplemental budget passed, build the super-bunker-busters, wait for a propitious event, go for it.)
Best hope is that things have evolved somewhat in the last few months. The Turkey/Kurd situation was tense, but not explosive. The Russians had not shown their exasperation with U.S. saber-rattling (maybe their SAMs are better than we know). Even the money crisis may be playing a role, by weakening the U.S. hold on 'allies' and trading partners. paul spencer
At the time I took it to be a challenge to the Iranians. Later I read that he was essentially stiffing the administration's plans. In fact he was alleged to have said that he was trying to "put the crazies back in the box". If true, this bolsters the point-of-view that he opposes military action against Iran - at least for now. Only caveat is - why did the administration follow through with the promotion, given his alleged remarks? paul spencer
