Letters to the Editor
-
Joint Chiefs Chair -- at NATO dinner -- says that NATO now faces a "great challenge" and NATO "will have to deal with Iran in the very near future"
Admiral William "Fox" Fallon had his retirement ceremony last week, in Norfolk.
Admiral Mike Mullen isn't retiring.
Fallon's views on Iran got him fired.
Mullen's view on Iran is all fired up.
Monday night, April 21, 2008:
http://acus.org/about-news-Awards_2008MullenSpeech.aspRemarks by Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the Atlantic Council Distinguished Leadership Awards
[...] We live, as has been stated very eloquently this evening, in an extraordinary time, a time of change and a time of great challenge, in a time of great uncertainty. But in that time of change and uncertainty, I believe there is also great opportunity.
[...] We also live in a time where Iran routinely pushes its way into more and more realms of instability. And I, for one, think it is important that we deal with that instability that they create, whether it is Hezbollah, Hamas. Recent operations in Southern Iraq, recent combat operations in Southern Iraq in Basra highlighted yet again Iran's activities in ways that very specifically pointed to activities which, in fact, resulted in the deaths of coalition soldiers. And I think for the ability to create stability in that part of the world that not just this alliance, but those who are allied, will have to deal with Iran in the very near future.
- - Michael Mullen, April 21, 2008
Tony Blair was also at the NATO dinner:
http://kommersant.com/p885686The Atlantic Council of the United States, whose mission is stepping up the cooperation between the USA and its NATO allies, held its annual Awards Gala in Washington [...]
[...] When asked by a reporter with London’s Times, what “the hard policy” meant, Mr Blair said, “We must be prepared to use military force.” In his address at the Dinner, he stressed that “the ideology of fanatics now has a nation, Iran, that seeks to put itself at the head of extreme Islam.” “They need to know what we say, we mean and, if necessary, will do,” Tony Blair claimed.
- - http://kommersant.com/p885686
-
Guess its time to start canceling Broadcast licenses.
Taking away their gravy trains.
-
Where's Israel?
Good column, for sure. But where's AIPAC & Israel in your analysis??
-
How do we get the MSM to change their behavior?
How can we stop the total destruction of independence in MSM (if it exists at all)? I sent Brian Williams an e-mail asking him why this story has not yet been mentioned on the evening news. I'm still waiting for a response.
I'm beginning to feel we are fighting an insurmountable fight against the corporate media and the Bush/Cheney demolition crowd.
-
Its not insurmountable, cj.
I'm beginning to feel we are fighting an insurmountable fight against the corporate media and the Bush/Cheney demolition crowd.
Merely a long-term struggle that will doubtless prove exceedingly slow to show dividends. Inertia, culture and general idiocy aren't the easiest things to turn aside.
-
@Sysprog- don't scare the children needlessly
US military chief calls Iran top challenge, urges dialogue
Apr 15, 2008
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Iran is likely to be the top challenge for the United States over the next five years, the top US military officer said Tuesday, adding that a way should be found to open a dialogue with Tehran.
Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Iran "is at the heart of a great deal of discontent and disruption and instability in that part of the world.
"So I have expectations that Iran will remain front and center certainly for at least the next three to five years," he said, responding to questions after a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank here.
Mullen added that all options needed to be kept on the table, but "I am not arguing that that is where the next conflict occurs."
"And I would hope that in the future we could figure out a way to dialogue with them to figure out a way ahead. We've done that in the past with our enemies. We should be able to do that as well," he said.
President George W. Bush has rejected wide-ranging talks with Iran unless it first halts a uranium enrichment program that Washington suspects is part of a drive to acquire nuclear weapons.
But the United States has engaged Tehran in three rounds of ambassador level talks specifically on Iraq, and has agreed to a fourth round if the Iraq government can arrange it.
Mullen's comments follow angry charges by Washington that Iran's Revolutionary Guard Quds Force is deeply involved in arming, funding and training armed Shiite groups.
They fought government troops to a standstill in the southern Iraqi port of Basra last month, which Mullen said "really highlighted the Iranian influences in ways that some of us had not seen before as directly as occurred in that part of Iraq.
"It certainly got a lot of people's attention. And it was across the board," he said...
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j-uXFsc1PcN1ZuXj2Vl7QOWY0Meg
And yes, women could vote and hold elected office in Iran in 1963, almost ten years before Switzerland. Not all revolutions "progress" in our preferred direction.
-
A Little Off the Subject
Not exactly on message, but still media-related .... I don't watch much MSM-TV any more, but when I do, it seems to me that so many of the network female talking heads style like Ann Coulter clones(except, of course, Kandy Krowley)? Has the Vampire Queen become the paradigm, or is she even relevant anymore? Enlighten me.
-
@L.W.M.
The biggest issue at a NATO dinner, of course is - - why the heck do we still have NATO?
Organizations, once created, will just keep going.
The March of Dimes (originally named the "National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis") didn't dissolve itself just because polio was vanquished.
In a somewhat different league, NATO can't dissolve itself just because the Warsaw Pact was vanquished.
The only reason to have NATO is to deal with an immense threat.
The immense threat is currently named "al Qaeda" or "Iran" (same thing anyway, according to Tony Blair's conflation).
Without NATO, how would we sink all of al Qaeda's submarines and aircraft carriers?
And without an immense threat, there wouldn't be any more "Atlantic Council" gala dinners!
-
@Sysprog
At least, he doesn't sound like General Jack D. Ripper...
http://www.dodvclips.mil/?fr_story=FRdamp266169&rf=sitemap
Maybe you can find a transcript or full video of the speech. He seems to want to focus more on Afghanistan, which is a whole other kettle of fish, especially where NATO is concerned.
When asked about Afghanistan the generals highlighted a statement made by Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he said “in Afghanistan we do what we can and in Iraq we do what we must,” and Gard called Iraq, “a diversion of our resources to the detriment of our security.” Odom said that it is disturbing that “we have bet the future of NATO” on success in creating a centralized government in Afghanistan.
http://talkradionews.com/2008/04/former-generals-the-surge-completely-failed/