PDA

View Full Version : The real reason they are firing General Pace - he opposes attacking Iran


Bill
06-12-2007, 01:31 PM
So, in the midst of the Paris Hilton media frenzy, they annouced General Pace wouldn't be retained as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

What was the supposed reason? They didn't want to go thru a confirmation hearing that would ask questions about Iraq.

But there's another theory - that the Joint Cheifs and the Pentagon oppose attacking Iran, so President Cheney is replacing him with a more compliant puppet.

http://www.attytood.com/2007/06/the_pentagon_shakeup_tough_tal.html

"It's getting harder to believe that Pace's dismissal was about anything else other than the Cheney administration's agenda for war with Iran. It's been increasingly acknowledged that the Joint Chiefs, with Pace at the helm, had been a leader in steering Bush away from half-baked Iran attack schemes.

In April 2006, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker:

Pentagon adviser on the war on terror…confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the {Iran] issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran.

This March, Pace embarassed the Bush White House by knocking down an administration claim about Iranian weapons shipments into Iraq:

Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, said today he has no evidence the Iranian government has been sending military equipment and personnel into neighboring Iraq.

That came just a couple of weeks after award-winning journalist Robert Parry reported this on his Web site:

One intelligence source told me that Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, has explored the possibility of resigning if Bush presses forward with air attacks against Iran, a war strategy that might be done in coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Now Pace doesn't have to resign..he's out, unexpectly, in a move that was announced at an hour that was guaranteed to receive as little media scrutiny as possible. The Navy man who's replacing him, Mullen, hasn't made his views on Iran completely clear, but he may take a harder line than Pace apparently did.

When {Adm. William] Fallon was appointed in January to lead CentCom, analysts noted the choice of a Navy officer reflected “a greater emphasis on countering Iranian power, a mission that relies heavily on naval forces and combat airpower to project American influence in the Persian Gulf.” In announcing the nomination of Mullen this afternoon, CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr said that Mullen “watches Iran closely.”

That was on Friday, an eternity ago. Yesterday, Sen. Joe Lieberman went on CBS' "Face the Nation" to declare: “I think we have to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq."

This is pretty alarming stuff. So when is the war with Iran actually going to begin? What day is Paris going to be released again?

Tommy
06-12-2007, 03:28 PM
I dont really think Bush will attack Iran, its a lot to gamble

fighting 3 wars at one time isnt smart

if that war went badly then the repugs wouldnt have a chance in 2008

Bill
06-12-2007, 03:45 PM
That's what I've always thought - it would be a military disaster that would make Iraq look like disneyland by comparison.

But, then again, Emperor Cheney and Bush the Lessor are acting plumb freekin crazy these days.

The logic behind the article I was reading was that since Cheney is saying "GFY" to congress on the matter of Speedy Gonzales, it doesn't make any sense that the real reason to dump General Pace is to avoid a messy congressional hearing about the state of the war in Iraq.

Because Cheney/Rove/Little Bush don't give a crap what congress says otherwise, why should they give two craps about congress and Gen. Pace?

Tommy
06-12-2007, 03:57 PM
but they are still politicians ... right ???

they are above all things loyal to their party. Talking about miltary action against Iran gives their base a orgasam

they can say GFY in the news but the reality is they need congress

and going to war with Iran would be handing the 2008 election to the Dems and above all they are loyal to their party

Moby
06-13-2007, 10:23 AM
but they are still politicians ... right ???

they are above all things loyal to their party. Talking about miltary action against Iran gives their base a orgasam

they can say GFY in the news but the reality is they need congress

and going to war with Iran would be handing the 2008 election to the Dems and above all they are loyal to their party
They don't need anything or anyone at this point in their careers. They've sold enough favors to make billions from partners in the Middle East.

They have never been loyal to the Republican Party. They have only been loyal to PNAC and no one else. Most Republicans that I've spoken to don't even know about PNAC and believe that Dubya wants a small government, wants to cut spending and wants to stay out of other countries. They have no clue that PNAC wants the opposite.

If a PNAC loyalist wins in November 2008 then Iran is safe. If Giuliiani or a dem wins then I think (I've been saying this since 2000) that Dubya will follow his father's foot steps and attack at least one other country in the last 60 days of office. Iran will be attacked. All issues resulting from that will be blamed on the next President. The same with the debt, the increase in crime and the state of the economy. It's the same script they used when GHB left office.

PNAC will continue attacking every one, rep or dem that goes against them. PNAC only acts like they support Republican values because the Republican sheep accept 3 word slogans and follow anything.