The Petraeus and Odierno hearings, if handled right, offer a great chance to expose the Bush regime's military blundering and criminality

CENTCOM's "area of responsibility"--well, it does include Iraq.

On our side of the political spectrum there has been a fair amount of shock and horror at the latest round of military-political appointments from Chimpy the War Prez (check out, for example, Spencer Ackerman's take in the Washington Independent):

* The promotion of Gen. David Petraeus to take over command of CENTCOM, the U.S. Central Command (vacant since March 11, when Adm. William Fallon relinquished the post in the wake of the Esquire article in which he sort of suggested that his civilian bosses are, you know, just maybe kind of nuts), even though he has a strong vested interest in justifying his own dubious performance in Iraq and has no demonstrated knowledge of or interest in the rest of his proposed new jurisdiction, which includes such critical hot spots as Afghanistan, with the Taliban apparently gaining strength in the neglected ongoing war, and the wilds of Pakistan, home to apparently growing numbers of real Islamic terrorists (it's apparently also highly unusual to promote a theater commander to the position overseeing his former command, out of concern for lack of objectivity)

* The elevation of Petraeus's current deputy, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, to replace him as commanding general of the "multi-national force" in Iraq, despite widespread feeling that Odierno's military skills are mostly political

Of course, from the realpolitik standpoint these appointments seem so obvious as to be inevitable, given a regime that listens only to military men it trusts--and trusts only military men who say exactly what it wants to hear. Such stoogelike devotion is apparently becoming harder to find in the upper echelons of the U.S. military, however. Still, there's an important opportunity here, or rather two opportunities, in that both positions require Senate confirmation.

Let me stress the obvious at the outset: Neither Petraeus nor Odierno is going to be denied confirmation. However, if their confirmation hearings are planned and executed with real intelligence, they can provide a glorious forum for brutally exposing a whole range of insanities and criminalities in the Bush regime's record of unbroken warmongering--and ideally forcing at least some of the traditional media to transmit some painful exposure of crucial issues like (as our friend Brandon Friedman of VoteVets has put it) "a presidential administration that has overly politicized the highest ranks of the military."

But again, those hearings have to be planned and coordinated with genuine brilliance, to make sure that the right questions are asked in the right way--and re-asked and, perhaps somewhat reformulated, re-asked--and followed up on, and that the significance of the answers, including the inevitable evasions and outright lies, be made clear. We know that the traditional media don't give a damn about the truth, and in matters of "national security" come to the table pre-rolled-over.

Both these sets of hearings offer powerful opportunities to set about setting the public record straight.

#

BUSH REGIME FORCES ADMIRAL FALLON OUT... OPENING THE GATES OF HELL?

Admiral William Fallon, military hero and patriot, + a smirking chimp

A few days ago we discussed how a real American leader was being pressured out of the military by the incompetent and venal nincompoop, the Commander-in-Chimp, still in the White House. It just happened. Gates, who stopped taking Fallon's calls, said resigning was the right thing for him to do. CNN:

"Although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there," Fallon said.

Worries about an imminent sneak attack on Iran were poo-poo-ed by the Regime. Gates: "As I say, the notion that this decision portends anything in terms of change in Iran policy is, to quote myself, 'ridiculous.'" There are a number of ways to interpret that, one of which could be that Cheney's and McCain's heartfelt desire to bomb Iran was always policy and that with Fallon out of the way they can move forward. We'll let you know.

Adam at the National Security Network gathered a compendium of recent statements by Admiral Fallon that American patriots may have appreciated but that Bush, Cheney, McCain and the treacherous and incompetent Neocons surrounding them certainly didn't. Remember, Petraeus-- the political general with uncontainable aspirations to run for the GOP nomination in 2012-- was reporting to Fallon and Fallon was less than enthusiastic about the Bush Regime strategy Petraeus has been carrying out. "His dissenting voice
on the Iraq surge strategy has been disregarded by the White House, and his strong support for balancing our focus on Iraq with other regional priorities has yet to be fully realized." Here are a few:

Fallon's Differences with Petraeus Described as "Armageddon": Fallon "has been saying from Day One, 'This [the surge] isn't working,'" and "The profoundly different views of the U.S. role in Iraq only exacerbated the schism between the two men. 'Bad relations?" said a senior civilian official with a laugh. "That's the understatement of the century. If you think Armageddon was a riot, that's one way of looking at it.'" [Washington Post, 9/9/2007]

"Fallon is also said to believe that giving the Iraqi government a clearer sense that the U.S. troop
commitment is limited would help spur the Iraqis to pass legislation and take other steps aimed at achieving reconciliation among the warring sectarian factions in Iraq." [IHT, 9/7/07]

Fallon Remains More Aggressive on Substantial Troop Reductions than the Administration. Adm. Fallon stated that he would like to see the U.S. "transfer more and more responsibility for security in Iraq to Iraqi security forces and, at the same time, withdrawing a substantial amount of our combat forces." While he favors a pause in troop reductions, he believes it should be "temporary and brief". According to the NY Times, "Admiral Fallon's comments struck a somewhat different tone from the one voiced privately by Bush administration officials who have said they advocate holding to troop levels before the 'surge' for some months, perhaps even until the end of the administration." [NY Times, 2/28/2008; AP, 2/25/2008]

Fallon Favors Focusing on Regional Threats in Afghanistan Instead of Solely Iraq: After very brief troop reduction pause in Iraq, Fallon wants a "resumption of withdrawals to ease stress on the overall
military and allow him to balance deployments across the volatile region." He also stated that he hoped to add "a couple of thousand" military trainers to support Afghan Army and police forces. However, he did acknowledge that more troops in Afghanistan are not enough and that the strategy and execution need to improve. "Could we do better with a few more folks? Of course. But the real challenge is: Where is the economic viability for this place?" [NY Times, 2/28/2008]

RUSS FEINGOLD CONCERNED ABOUT FALLON'S DEPARTURE

Speaker Pelosi put out an official statement about the loss of this distinguished, straight-talking military leader, and Senator Russ Feingold, who visited Sumatra and Banda Aceh, Indonesia with Admiral William Fallon, to review post-tsunami reconstruction efforts, was also disturbed by this development.

"I am very concerned about the news of Admiral Fallon's resignation and what it may mean for our ability to face many difficult challenges in the Middle East as well as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I offer my sincere thanks to Admiral Fallon for his distinguished service to our country. During a trip to Indonesia in 2006, I was fortunate enough to spend time with Admiral Fallon, then the Commander of Pacific Command, and was profoundly impressed with his knowledge of the region as well as with his dedication to his work. He impressed me with his insights and gave me great confidence in the manner in which the United States military was operating in the region. It is no secret that I do not see eye to eye with the administration on most foreign policy issues, and the credibility which Admiral Fallon brought to the issues he was involved in will be sorely missed."

Plenty of rumors that Bush, Cheney and McCain are plotting an attack on Iran in time to impact the November elections.

WILL BUSH FIRE WILLIAM FALLON AS A PRELUDE TO ATTACKING IRAN?

Meet Curveball, a Cheney kinda guy

I'm finishing up an advance copy of Russ Hoyle's new book, Going to War-- How Misinformation, Disinformation and Arrogance Led America Into Iraq. Every time I pick it up I'm just awestruck about the activities of the criminal clique commonly called the Bush Administration. Today I was reading about one of the Neocons most prized sources of intelligence on Saddam's so-called weapons of mass destruction program, a source that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and the rest of the gang treated as though his every word originated with the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Before we get to admiral Fallon, I want to introduce you to Bush Regime secret agent "Curveball" (that's what they called him).

Think back, if you will to Bush's blustering statements about some mobile trucks he claimed were biological weapons labs and proof positive that Saddam was manufacturing WMDs. His source: Curveball.

DIA [the Pentagon's version of the CIA] had provided photos of the trailer trucks to Curveball in Germany, who confirmed that the equipment pictured looked like components he had once worked on at the Djerf al Nadal factory near Baghdad. The CIA and DIA white paper dismissed as a "cover story" the theory that the truck probably produced hydrogen for weather balloons. Yet in the classified DIA review of the evidence that followed , 14 out of 15 bioweapons experts determined that the trucks could not possibly have been used for manufacturing biological agents for weapons. In July, a former British army officer and bioweapons expert named Hamish Killip flew into Baghdad to inspect the trailers as part of [David] Kay's [head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group] team, and quickly agreed with the DIA assessment. Killip and his investigators found the idea laughable that anyone thought the trailer-trucks could be used to make biological weapons. "The equipment was singularly inappropriate," said Killip. "We were in hysterics over this. You'd have better luck putting a couple of dust bins on the back of the truck and brewing it in there." He concluded that the trucks were intended to generate hydrogen.

The lone holdout in the DIA review [that 15th guy referred to above] was a WINPAC intelligence analyst, who was only identified as Jerry, and who continued to insist that the trucks were transportable weapons production facilities. Jerry had helped draft the original white paper on the mobile labs for the White House in 2001, and had become one of the CIA's chief advocates for the mobile weapons labs theory...

Like the German intelligence officials and some CIA officers on the clandestine operations side, Jerry eventually began to have his doubts about Curveball. He traveled to Baghdad to lead a painstaking ISG investigation into the Iraqi defector's background. Kay's ISG investigators fanned out to the Djerf al Nadal plant and other sites identified by Curveball... While search a personnel file in an Iraqi government storeroom, they came across powerful evidence that Curveball was not who he said he was. He had claimed he had graduated first in his engineering class in Baghdad University. Jerry's team now discovered that in fact he had graduated last. Nor was he an engineering project or site manager, as he had claimed, but an entree-level trainee. In 1995, at a time he told interrogators that he had been working on the bioweapons trailers, he had already been fired form his job. Worse, he had been thrown in jail for a sex crime and wound up driving a taxi.

The investigators interviewed some 60 friends, family and coworkers of Curveball. The reports came back with a remarkable consistency. His former bosses knew nothing about mobile germ-producing weapons trucks and dismissed the idea as a product of "water cooler gossip" and corridor conversations." His childhood friends called him "a great liar," a "con artist," and "a real operator." People "kept saying what a rat Curveball was," the team reported. They found it hard to believe the CIA had fallen for Curveball's story...

Jerry appeared crestfallen.

But he was soon more than crestfallen. Cheney and his cabal don't like anyone rewriting their playbook. Curveball was part of the plan and Jerry was told, in no uncertain terms to STFU, as had been everyone who veered about from Neocon orthodoxy and the Iraq agenda. Now what does this have with the Regime's plans for CentCom Chief, Admiral William Fallon?

The March issue of Esquire has a piece by Thomas Barnett, The Man Between War and Peace, that is causing some consternation inside the very brittle and very vindictive Bush Regime.

If, in the dying light of the Bush admin-istration, we go to war with Iran, it'll all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it'll come down to the same man. He is that rarest of creatures in the Bush universe: the good cop on Iran, and a man of strategic brilliance. His name is William Fallon, although all of his friends call him "Fox," which was his fighter-pilot call sign decades ago. Forty years into a military career that has seen this admiral rule over America's two most important combatant commands, Pacific Command and now United States Central Command, it's impossible to make this guy--as he likes to say--"nervous in the service."

...[And] while Admiral Fallon's boss, President George W. Bush, regularly trash-talks his way to World War III and his administration casually casts Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as this century's Hitler (a crown it has awarded once before, to deadly effect), it's left to Fallon--and apparently Fallon alone--to argue that, as he told Al Jazeera last fall: "This constant drumbeat of conflict . . . is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions."

What America needs, Fallon says, is a "combination of strength and willingness to engage."

Those are fighting words to your average neocon--not to mention your average supporter of Israel, a good many of whom in Washington seem never to have served a minute in uniform. But utter those words for print and you can easily find yourself defending your indifference to "nuclear holocaust."

How does Fallon get away with so brazenly challenging his commander in chief?

The answer is that he might not get away with it for much longer. President Bush is not accustomed to a subordinate who speaks his mind as freely as Fallon does, and the president may have had enough.

Just as Fallon took over Centcom last spring, the White House was putting itself on a war footing with Iran. Almost instantly, Fallon began to calmly push back against what he saw as an ill-advised action. Over the course of 2007, Fallon's statements in the press grew increasingly dismissive of the possibility of war, creating serious friction with the White House.

Last December, when the National Intelligence Estimate downgraded the immediate nuclear threat from Iran, it seemed as if Fallon's caution was justified. But still, well-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. If that were to happen, it may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don't want a commander standing in their way.

And so Fallon, the good cop, may soon be unemployed because he's doing what a generation of young officers in the U. S. military are now openly complaining that their leaders didn't do on their behalf in the run-up to the war in Iraq: He's standing up to the commander in chief, whom he thinks is contemplating a strategically unsound war.

Like Jerry, they expect Admiral William Fallon to STFU. Digby thinks starting a war with Iraq may be part of the Republican game plan to win the November elections. Like Bush said when he endorsed McCain at the White House today, "the good news about our candidate there will be a new president, a man of character and courage, but he’s not going to change when it comes to taking on the enemy." It looks like a lot of Americans have already figured that out. New polls showing him trailing Obama by 12 points and Hillary by 6 points.

And despite the powerful narrative crafted by the Bush Regime and McCain PR Machine-- that "the surge is working and things are getting better in Iraq"-- which corporate media repeats ad nauseum, not many people are buying it. "About two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job and think the war was not worth fighting, and most hold those positions 'strongly.' A slim majority also doubts the United States is making progress toward restoring civil order in Iraq, even as McCain and others extol recent successes there."