Taking Aim at the Cheney Threat
The Pentagon has launched a preventive strike against a target that military chiefs presumably regard as one of the most active current threats to U.S. and world security—namely, the office of the vice president of the United States. Thrusting back hard against Vice President Dick Cheney’s warmongering, the head of U.S. forces in the Mideast declared that an attack on Iran “is not in the offing,” and more or less urged the vice president and his political allies to shut up.
In a front-page interview published on Nov. 12 by the Financial Times, Adm. William Fallon, who heads the U.S. Central Command, spoke in diplomatic tones, as top military officers usually tend to do when they make strong political statements. Yet there was no mistaking the admiral’s message. While Iran certainly poses a “challenge,” he said, U.S. policymakers must engage Tehran to encourage changes in the regime’s behavior. But the Iranians won’t “come to their senses” while under threat of bombardment, invasion or worse.
“None of this is helped by the stories that just keep going around and around and around that any day now there will be another war, which is just not where we want to go,” he said with a degree of exasperation. “It seems to me that we don’t need more problems. It astounds me that so many pundits and others are spending so much time yakking about this topic [of war against Iran].”
Most of that bellicose speculation can be traced back to vice presidential circles, including the neoconservative ideologues (or as the admiral put it, the “pundits”), who have sought to popularize the notions that Iran is an imminent threat to the United States, Israel and the world and that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is bidding to become the next Hitler. Those themes certainly have a familiar ring; the last imminent threat was Iraq, and the last next Hitler was Saddam Hussein. Not content with the great success of their Mesopotamian misadventure, the same people have been urging action against Iran.
Admiral Fallon’s remarks follow in the wake of recent statements by both President George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney. Not long ago, the president blurted a strange warning that if other nations wish to avert “World War III,” then they had best ensure that Iran never obtains “the knowledge” to construct nuclear weapons. “We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” growled the vice president, muttering about the “serious consequences” that the Iranians would suffer. Since nobody believes that Tehran will come close to acquiring a nuclear weapon before the Bush administration leaves office, the ominous comments were taken as signals that the White House is contemplating preemptive action. Those signals have emanated for years from the office of the vice president and those associated with him.
More important, the nation’s military leaders seem determined to block any rush to war, no matter what the vice president and his right-wing advisers may desire. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have reportedly expressed strong opposition to any military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and little enthusiasm for even limited action against Iranian forces. Their reluctance stems from tactical concerns about the impact of conflict with Iran on U.S. forces in Iraq, and strategic worries over waging wars in three Muslim nations in the region simultaneously.
For now, the influence of sane and sensible officers appears to be ascending. Only a few days before Admiral Fallon spoke with the FT reporters, an Associated Press dispatch touted the U.S. capacity to wage war against Iran. At least that’s what the headline suggested. The story’s details, however, indicate that American officials are quietly reducing our force profile in the Gulf region—for instance, by withdrawing an aircraft carrier that was sent earlier this year to emphasize the American regional security commitment.
As for President Bush, if his own words are to be believed, then he too has decided to pursue the diplomatic option rather than engage in reckless bombing. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has explicitly rejected the idea that the Senate authorized war against Iran through passage of a September resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a “terrorist organization.” She went on to say “the president has also made very clear that he’s on a diplomatic path where Iran comes into focus.”
While calmer counsel may be prevailing, however, tensions are certain to rise again as the U.S. moves for United Nations sanctions against Tehran. It would not take much to provoke fire on either side, which is why rhetorical tone is so important. “You certainly don’t want to encourage any kind of a miscalculation or misstep by talk,” said Admiral Fallon, who fortunately seems to understand how swiftly foolish fantasies of war can be transformed into lethal realities.
And JUST where are the Conason critics on this?
Finding it hard to combat the quotes of Adm. Fallon, an ACTIVE military man of impressive rank..can't box Adm. Fallon into a neat propaganda box of a "sour grapes" retired military man who just wrote a book?
And where are our "fearmongers", who can do nothing more than be afraid...of the truth!
The Conason use of words like "Cheney growled" and Cheney "muttered" point to his personal dislike for the vice president. Conason is a master at childish jibes like this.
Like most of what Conason writes, he makes his point around the thesis that some evil Republican must be stopped. That is why Conason is still devoid of any credibility outside his little circle of left wing cheerleaders.
He could have made his point about the admiral's comments without the silly pokes at Cheney.
The decision to liberate Iraq was a bipartisan decision. If it was a mistake, it was a bipartisan mistake. The lesson to be learned here is that as soon as the Democrats saw a way to political advantage by our "losing" in Iraq, it was no longer a bipartsian mission to liberate Iraq.
At that point it became a game of political football, where the Dems would do all they could to assure our defeat, for the sole purpose of acquiring political power.
Not just some evil Republican, specifically Dick Cheney.
Conason has as much credibility outside of left wing cheerleaders as Rush Limbaugh has outside of right wing dittoheads. Rush uses much harsher language as does Coulter, Hannity,Michael Savage, etc. To criticize Conason for using the terms "growled" or "mumbled" seems absurd considering the bile that comes from the right. Turn on Talk Radio sometimes.
John
Cheney incessentally growls. He sneers, too. No world figure since Martin Luther has so consistently appeared to be constipated.
Richmond, you are way too sensitive criticizing Conason's depiction of Cheney as growling and muttering. Every human has distinct vocal characteristics which typically reflect the personality of their speaker. Marilyn Monroe often "purred"; Vince Lombardi often "barked", etc. etc. You embarrass yourself in defense of Cheney's intellectualism when you attack Conason the reporter for accurately describing a consistent pattern of Cheney's speech. Cheney growls because he is psychologically viscious; he mutters because he is contemptuous. You complain because you are his fan (atical) supporter. Give it a rest and accept the truth about your man. He is a danger to those whom he threatens...
As usual Joe is doing the left wing bidding by ranting and raving against VP Cheney. I never get over how hateful the left is, so why isn't there charges brought up about hate.
These liberals just don't know what the meaning of planning is. All they think about is today. If the military doesn't think about what may happen this country would be in bad shape.
The depiction of Cheney growling is indicative of Conason's hatred. Pure and simple.
That is why he has no credibility among the mainstream. While right wing commentators may at times be harsh, they are in the entertainment business, where ratings are heightened by the perception of conflict. Even so, I challenge any of Conason's cheerleaders to name a time when a right wing commentator stooped to this level.
Conason likes to think he is a serious analyst of politics and policy. He is not. He is a political hack, who specializes in personal attacks against those with whom he disagrees.
Serious right wing commentators like George Will and Charles Krauthammer make strong arguments, and do not make childish jabs. Oh what a world it would be if hacks like Conason could follow their lead, and write with civility.
To Richmond:
I will gladly provide examples. Let me know if you need more because there are plenty.
From the November 21, 2005 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Not really that interested in Murtha, ladies and gentlemen, to tell you the truth. I know he got everybody's dander up all last week, but I think he's just the useful idiot of the moment. He's just -- I mean I'm not taking away from his service in Vietnam. Uh, it's -- it's not his service that we are questioning. We're questioning his judgment here.
The Rush Limbaugh Show from March 15 to April 29. During that time, Limbaugh used the term "femi-Nazis" eight times; he suggested that women want to be sexually harassed; he repeatedly equated Democrats with terrorists; he twice resurrected long-discredited right-wing claims that Clinton deputy White House counsel Vince Foster was murdered; he repeatedly called Senator John Kerry a "gigolo"; he called environmentalists "total wackos"; he called Howard Dean "a very sick man"; he said Democrats "hate this country"; he referred several times to Democratic National Committee Chair Terry McAuliffe as a "punk" ... and so on.
Next!
Peter
More slander from the right!
Interview transcripts from the Today show:
LAUER: On the 9-11 widows, an in particular a group that had been critical of the administration:
COULTER: “These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process.”
“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”
"Coulter was fired from MSNBC when she told a disabled Vietnam veteran, 'people like you caused us to lose that war.' She was fired from the conservative National Review when she turned in a column offering a final solution to the Muslim problem: 'We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity'." [3]
To Richmond:
Here's more from Michelle Malkin:
April 28, 2004, 10:58 a.m.
Commissioner Buffoon
Michelle Malkin on Bob Kerrey & 9/11 Commission on National Review Online
By Michelle Malkin
"Forget Jamie Gorelick. The member of the 9/11 Commission who most deserves the boot — or at least the swiftest kick in the pants — is former Senator Bob Kerrey".
"The man who told PBS newsman Jim Lehrer four years ago that he needed to retire from political life because "it's time for me to breathe some private air" now won't stop polluting the public's airspace.
John C.
To Richmond:
Do you think before you type? Your challenge was too easy. You don't read much do you?
John C.
All anyone needs to know about this argument can be summarized by Richmond's reference to "Serious right wing commentators like George Will and Charles Krauthammer..."
Unlike Coulter and Limbaugh, or for that matter George Will and the chronically wrong Krauthammer, Joe Conason has been making a living for decades as a working journalist and living off of what he writes/reports, not what he's paid to say by his masters in government and/or business.
Also unlike them, and unlike Cheney, he's not known for making demonstrably false statements in pursuit of his chosen ideology.
Anyone ever think that Cheney has had (at least) one heart attack too many? Heart attacks can lead to oxygen deprivation to the brain, which has obviously happened in this case. I remember Cheney when he was Ford's chief of staff. He seemed somewhat reasonable. He didn't seem to want to bomb the USSR back to the "stone age." Of course, then again, Cheney and his followers only go after countries which can't fight back. Remember the Axis of Evil. The only one which was run by a true mad man was North Korea which had nuclear weapons (and was also getting money from Rev. Moon [he of the Washington Times and UPI]). The North Koreans were not invaded only because they had the ability to retaliate. Iraq didn't. Iran doesn't -- but can cause much more damage (without nuclear weapons) than Iraq could.
Cheney is a hero! He had the quinones to help take out one of the worst mass murderers of this century. Where are all the human rights people? If you don't like war, you must love slavery, nazism, communism, fascism. You are all hypocrits and shortsighted pansy ass whiners.
Cheney is a hero! He had the quinones to help take out one of the worst mass murderers of this century. Where are all the human rights people? If you don't like war, you must love slavery, nazism, communism, fascism. You are all hypocrits and shortsighted pansy ass whiners.
Right on Brennan. These people love to pile on, Cheney will go down in history as one of the most effective Vice-Presidents in history, too bad we can't have him as President. He has served his country well, and does not deserve the left wing whacko bashing. He deserves to retire in peace and enjoy the rest of his life. Love to meet him someday, but I wouldn't want to hunting with him!
Oh, that Admiral Fallon is just one of those "phony soldiers" our reputable, unbiased pundits were screaming about. So shut up, you limp-wristed libs.
*sarcasm* icon
Brennan thinks that Cheney led us to "take out one of the worst mass murderers of this century" in Iraq. Sure glad that it's safe now and that the death rate there has fallen. Let's not forget Osama either, unlike CheneyBush.
Interesting how these internet warriors support fellow chickenhawk Cheney, who "had other priorities" during Vietnam.
Surely they'll be first in line to volunteer and to send their kids to Iran.
Cheney growled. Cheney muttered. Conason gripes.
Of course, Conason doesn't like the Vice-President. The fact that he colors his commentary so that this feeling is unmistakeable doesn't bother me. I get a kick out of all Bush/Cheney haters screaming for impeachment for the last six years. Nothing is sweeter than the fact that Democrats took over Congress last year and there is still NOT going to be any impeachment. If I was one of those left-wing nuts, I'd sure feel like a sucker.
Cheney a hero?..You have got to be kidding....Mass murderer Saddam Hussein delt with his warring religous factions and political enemies by rounding them up and killing them off from 1979 to 2003...all the way from Jimmy carter to current President Bush...and only "hero" V.P. Cheney saw the need to stop the mass murdering Saddam!
Truth..we don't care about about mass murder in this country..if we did, we would have sent troops in to Africa to put a stop to the slaughter of millions.
I am sure Dick Cheney cries himself to sleep each night over the millions of dead in Africa...about as quick as a "red neck" racists in the south..using a "rebel flag' as a window curtain of his mobile home!
The “world” is not better off without Saddam Hussein. People keep saying that yet do nothing to show any evidence of it. The Iraqi people are certainly not better off without him. The Kurds in the north were largely autonomous due to US pressure before 2003 and the Shiia weren’t being slaughtered like they are today. Yeah, his enemies were drug off to prison and people were summarily executed but that’s true in any dictatorship. What made the difference in Iraq was oil, plain and simple.
Bush took a horrible idea, combined it with a discredited ideology, implemented it with incompetence and we are where we are today. No amount of calling Hussein names can change the fiasco in which we are engaged. We GET it! Saddam Hussein was a bad, BAD man. Bush is far worse.
John Kerry said that "anyone who doesn't believe that the world is better off with Saddam Hussein in prison, rather than in power, doesn't have the judgment to be President." He said that in response to Howard Dean's ridiculous assertion that we weren't any safer. I agree with Kerry and Hillary does, too! Who are these Democrats that always disagree with their own leaders?
This is delicious.
People posting on this site, take offense at Conason's description of Cheney, (snarling, growling, and sneering), but nobody has disputed the term "warmongering."
Absolutely Delicious!
Conason evidently got that one right!
This is a man who sought and received five draft deferments during the Vietnam War because, in his words, he "had other priorities in the 60's than military service." Dick Cheney is hypocritcal, Hobbesian and paranoid. And just because his shooting in the face of a fellow quail hunter was an accident does not mean he's not dangerous. He is a very dangerous man, and his term in office has been nasty, brutish but without the benefit of being short.
This is a man who sought and received five draft deferments during the Vietnam War because, in his words, he "had other priorities in the 60's than military service." Dick Cheney is hypocritcal, Hobbesian and paranoid. And just because his shooting in the face of a fellow quail hunter was an accident does not mean he's not dangerous. He is a very dangerous man, and his term in office has been nasty, brutish but without the benefit of being short.
Richmond challenged:
"Even so, I challenge any of Conason's cheerleaders to name a time when a right wing commentator stooped to this level."
From the May/June, 1995, Molly Ivins column over at MotherJones.com:
"On his TV show, early in the Clinton administration, Limbaugh put up a picture of Socks, the White House cat, and asked, "Did you know there's a White House dog?" Then he put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was 13 years old at the time and as far as I know had never done any harm to anyone."
Gimme a 'C'
Gimme an 'O' ....
The minority mentals, Bush/Cheney need to wake up. The Big Lie Spin has stopped working-almost everybody knows they are full of "it". Cheney is a "bad man" and Bush is a bad "man".
Read "The 12 Year Reich" by Richard Grunberger and articles/books by Victor Klemperer. Google "the 14 points of Fascism" and "Fascism Anyone" by Dr. Lawrence Britt.
Yes, Cheney does growl and snear. Why "make nice" about it?
How would you describe that otherwise?--"sweetly smile" and "coo"?
What's your problem?
Defensive, over-sensitive or just plain suckin' cuckoo?