The Political Chase

White House authoritarianism vs. Fallon and the rest of the military

David Kurtz gives an excellent analysis and characterization of the mechanisms that forced Admiral Fallon’s retirement today.

Like other professional classes — lawyers and scientists come immediately to mind — the military officer corps is seen by the White House as a threat to its own Executive Branch hegemony.

That’s the key to understanding today’s resignation by Adm. William Fallon, the commander in chief of Central Command.

The resignation of a CINC is a big deal, under almost any circumstance. But considering the Bush Administration’s seven-year effort to put the Pentagon under its thumb, the resignation of a commander like Fallon, who by most accounts was willing to exercise his independent military judgment, is another setback for the professional officer corps as an institution.

Make no mistake. None of the Bush Administration’s efforts in this regard has been about re-asserting civilian control over the military in some constitutional sense. The effort has been focused on degrading the autonomy, independence, and institutional authority of the Pentagon in order to further the narrow ideological and partisan aims of this particular White House.

Gates on Fallon’s ‘retirement’

This is an abbreviated version of Secretary of Defense Bob Gates announcing Admiral Fallon’s “retirement.” A complete transcript of Gates announcement is after the jump.

Video Transcript:

Admiral William Fallon is, at this moment, issuing a statement announcing that he has asked my approval to step down, from his current duties as commander of U.S. Central Command, and retire. Admiral Fallon advised me of his decision early this morning. He told me that, quote, “The current embarrassing situation, public perception of differences between my views and administration policy, and the distraction this causes from the mission make this the rigbt thing to do,” unquote.

I have approved Admiral Fallon’s request, to retire, with reluctance and regret.

Fox Fallon has dedicated his life to the preservation of the freedoms we in this nation enjoy today, and all Americans should be deeply grateful for his dedication. On behalf of the Department of Defense and the nation, I thank him for his years of selfless service.

Admiral Fallon reached this difficult decision entirely on his own. I believe it was the right thing to do even though I do not believe there are, in fact, significant differences between his views and administration policy.

Continue reading ‘Gates on Fallon’s ‘retirement’’

Adm. Fallon falls victim to the Decider

Adm. William Fallon, the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East (CENTCOM) resigned today. Reportedly, the resignation is the culmination of substantial differences between the Admiral and President Bush and more specifically, Iran. The tipping point was obviously a recent piece Esquire ran highlighting their vast differences on Iran.

Adm. Fallon is Gen. David Petraeus’s boss, although no one would ever know it based on White House rhetoric and media reports.

Fallon is just one of several top military commanders that have rotated through CENTCOM and been summarily dismissed by the Decider for expressing opposing views. Fallon became CENTCOM commander after Bush fired Gen. John P. Abizaid in January 2007 because he did not support Bush’s catastrophic foreign policies.

Fallon’s move to CENTCOM was not by choice nor without conflict. Prior to being assigned to what might be the worst possible command in the U.S. military, Admiral Fallon commanded the Pacific Fleet, the Navy’s crown jewel. What Admiral actively seeks to leave that sweet dish for command of the Middle East? Fallon wasn’t pleased.

“I leave this job with great reluctance and with no small sense of loss,” he said in an interview. He noted in particular the relationships cultivated throughout the Asia-Pacific region in the two years he has commanded US forces from the west coast of North America to the east coast of Africa. He had planned to stay in this assignment for another year.

After assuming command of CENTCOM, Adm. Fallon had to deal with George Bush’s and Gen. David Petraeus’s political, narcissistic, love-affair. And it created quite a kerfuffle in mid-to-late 2007.

For two hours, President Bush listened to contrasting visions of the U.S. future in Iraq. Gen. David H. Petraeus dominated the conversation by video link from Baghdad, making the case to keep as many troops as long as possible to cement any security progress. Adm. William J. Fallon, his superior, argued instead for accepting more risks in Iraq, officials said, in order to have enough forces available to confront other potential threats in the region.

The polite discussion in the White House Situation Room a week ago masked a sharper clash over the U.S. venture in Iraq, one that has been building since Fallon, chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Middle East operations, sent a rear admiral to Baghdad this summer to gather information. Soon afterward, officials said, Fallon began developing plans to redefine the U.S. mission and radically draw down troops.

One of those plans, according to a Centcom officer, involved slashing U.S. combat forces in Iraq by three-quarters by 2010. In an interview, Fallon disputed that description but declined to offer details. Nonetheless, his efforts offended Petraeus’s team, which saw them as unwelcome intrusion on their own long-term planning. 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.”

I haven’t read the Esquire piece yet, but this publicized excerpt leads me to believe Adm. Fallon faithfully, honorably, and heroically served his Commander and his country. But my guess is Fallon likely reached a point where he would not let authoritarianism and ideology supersede principles and the rule of law.

If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, 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

House to vote on FISA; How you can help

A few updates on FISA.

First, Politico reports the House will vote on the new FISA bill Thursday. I have some important stuff from Jane Hamsher et al. related to voting on the bill, but I’ll cover that in a moment.

As you know, just before the recess in mid-February, the House rebuked George Bush’s demand to pass the Senate’s version of the bill (S. 2248: FISA Amendments Act) which provided amnesty for the telecoms. As a result, the extant FISA legislation expired, and the House members have been in conference since then working on a revised bill.

There has been a lot of speculation on which way the House would go — (1) let Blue Dog Democrats and the Terrorepublicans take the lead and give immunity to the telecoms (and indirectly the administration); or, (2) submit a bill, in some form, that hopefully would not let the telecoms get away with breaking the law. The latter would be an uphill climb because the Blue Dog Democrats are water carriers for Bush.

It appears the House has prepared a bill that sorta, kinda addresses the amnesty matter, but getting it past the vote Thursday with all the right pieces intact is iffy. A senior House aide stepped Paul Kiel through the proposed bill recently. This is an excerpt of Paul’s report on the structure and mechanics of the bill.

The House leadership’s draft proposal for a surveillance bill contains a provision that would reject giving retroactive immunity to the telecoms. Instead, it would give the courts authorization to hear the classified material at issue in the case — in essence disposing with the administration’s claim of the state secrets privilege.

here’s how that telecom suit provision would work. The lawsuits against the telecoms for participation in the warrantless wiretapping program are currently tied up in court because the government has asserted the state secrets privilege. It’s a state of affairs that the telecoms themselves are not happy with, as Wayne Watts, AT&T’s general counsel, wrote in a letter to lawmakers last October:

"When the subject matter of the litigation involves allegations of highly classified intelligence activities, private parties are disabled from making the factual showing necessary to demonstrate that the cases lack legal merit. If the courts do not swiftly dismiss such cases based on the state secrets privilege, then carriers who are alleged to have cooperated with intelligence activities are faced with years of litigation, at great financial and reputation cost, and are forced to remain mute in the face of extreme allegations, no matter how false."

The House bill seeks to solve this problem by giving the judges hearing these cases authorization to view the classified documents at issue in the case. Here, those would be the orders from the president claiming that the warrantless wiretaps were legal.

So, the House is trying to let the courts decide whether people broke the law or violated the Constitution, which is what the courts are supposed to do, but as I said, getting the bill passed is another matter.

I received an email from Jane Hamsher and Glenn Greenwald today outlining some of their thoughts, efforts, and plans related to the FISA vote. A major emphasis is to hold Representatives accountable for their votes. Kick them out office if they kowtow to Bush. They wrote:

At this point it seems that all is lost on FISA. It looks like in the process of negotiating a compromise with the Senate, the House will be forced to have an up-or-down vote on retroactive immunity. We shouldn’t expect that vote to go our way.

But rather than getting mad while we watch the Fourth Amendment go up in flames, we’re going to start getting even.

We’ve picked out some of most reactionary Democrats, and are turning it over to progressive activists like you to decide who the worst offenders are. We’ll then run ads and robo-calls in their congressional districts to let their constituents know how poorly their Representative is representing their rights.

Go here to cast your vote and chip in to the effort to hold Congress accountable:
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/getevenforfisa

We’re starting our effort to get even on several of the Blue Dog Democrats: John Barrow (GA-12), Leonard Boswell (IA-3), Chris Carney (PA-10), Brad Ellworth (IN-8), Zack Space (OH-18), and Heath Shuler (NC-11). This pack of conservatives may caucus the right way, but they actively work to undermine progressive values, including sending a letter to Speaker Pelosi last week encouraging her to grant the telecom companies retroactive immunity.

Since the final votes haven’t been cast yet on FISA, hopefully we can shame some of them into righting their moral compass and voting against retroactive immunity. If not, we’ll make sure that each one of their constituents knows about it.

Vote on your least favorite here:
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/getevenforfisa

Hopefully when it comes down to the wire, things will go our way, and the House Democrats will stand up for the rule of law. In the meantime, however, we would be naive not to start taking action to hold them accountable if they don’t.

I hope you will take the actions Jane and Glenn requested. This is far too important to let simply slide by.

Clinton purges all things Spitzer

Hillary Clinton didn’t denounce and reject Eliot Spitzer’s indiscretions, she wiped the slate clean, or as Ray Gustini at Radar characterized it: “Clinton yanks Spitzer endorsement faster than a hooker yanks… Well, you get it.” (Emphases and links in original.)

Either way, Hillary Clinton has already delivered the first of many “You’re dead to me, Eliot”-moments, sponging her campaign website clean of all mentions of Spitzer’s endorsement last May. Spitzer’s name was gone from the website less than an hour after the Times story broke—impressive timing when you consider it took Mitt Romney nearly an entire day to decide to throw Larry Craig under a bus last August.

Obama blasts Clinton foreign policy experience

After showing considerable restraint (too much maybe), Barack Obama deftly attacked Hillary Clinton’s foreign-policy and Commander-in-Chief front lines with a devastating blitzkrieg of just words. Focusing on numerous false experience claims Clinton has made since the campaign started, Obama executed the Powell Doctrine — striking with overwhelming force, and intentionally not leaving peacekeeping or nation- building forces.

Here’s the first part of the statement he released earlier today. The full text of the statement is after the jump.

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed "the Commander- in-Chief test" is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue - not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims - i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign - would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, "I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland." It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, "[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord." With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that "[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one."

News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, "[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: "The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it."

Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that "Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage."

Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, "I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo." It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo," however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments - U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, "I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue." Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that "she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations."

Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote - urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda - in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called "a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics." In that speech, he said prophetically:

"[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would "fan the flames of the Middle East," and "strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda." He urged the United States first to "finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda."

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most "experienced" men in national security affairs - Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others - led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test." That claim - as the TV ad - consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation - the War in Iraq - Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled "The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq." As she cast that vote, she said: "This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make - any vote that may lead to war should be hard - but I cast it with conviction." In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued - remarkably - that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization - like a blank check - to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader - an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

Bush popularity hurts library fundraising

President Bush may have to reduce the number copies of My Pet Goat he wanted to keep.

President Bush’s friends are concerned that he will face serious problems raising the estimated $250 million needed to build his presidential library, museum, and policy center at Southern Methodist University…They fear that Bush’s unpopularity will put a damper on donations and that the sour economy will limit contributions even more.

U.S. News - For the Library, Tough Fundraising Challenges Ahead

Gregory to Replace Tucker

David Gregory is taking over Tucker Carlson’s 6:00 PM ET time slot on MSNBC. Gregory will anchor a new show, “Race for the White House.”

The good news: Tucker’s gone, however he will still remain at MSNBC as a reporter.

The bad news: Just what we need. A show dedicated to fueling the media’s obsession with the horse race and not the issues.

Also, Keith Oblermann expands his viewings.  Live broadcast at 8:00 PM ET, re-airs at 10:00 PM ET and 2:00 AM ET.

Franken gets break in MN Senate race

From Roll Call (subscription):

In a somewhat surprising move, wealthy attorney Mike Ciresi has dropped out of the Minnesota Senate race in which he faced anti-war activist Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer and comedian Al Franken for the Democratic nomination.

“In my judgment, continuing the endorsement race would only lead to an unnecessary floor fight,” Ciresi said in a statement. “It is time to step aside.”

Franken had been the frontrunner for months, despite Ciresi tossing some of his own funds into his campaign, and he now seems even more likely to emerge as the nominee.

All three candidates were competing for their party’s endorsement, a designation that will likely be decided in early June at the state convention. State party delegates plan to endorse either Franken or Nelson-Pallmeyer at the convention, and both candidates have promised to abide by the party’s endorsement and not force a September primary.