This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
he abrupt resignation Tuesday of the combatant commander of U.S. Central Command, Admiral William J. "Fox" Fallon, is not the end of a career but a move calculated to catapult the former naval officer into the vice-presidential sweepstakes. After all, a military man who has proven himself utterly unserious about the Iranian threat would be perfect running mate for either Senators Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Would any president want on his (or her) team an individual who had engaged in serial acts of insubordination and sabotage of a previous commander-in-chief? Consider just a few of the more public examples of such behavior:
The admiral's assignment to Centcom commander came as a shock to those who had observed what some called his "toxic leadership" in the Pacific Command.
Not least, Fallon opined on al-Jazeera last fall that, "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." Asia Times carried a report last year that he would resign if ordered to go to war - a sentiment he never denied.
The question is: Will rank insubordination on a scale arguably not seen in a military commander since MacArthur faded away nearly six decades ago be rewarded by still higher office?
That link is a reprint opinion piece from Nat. Rev. with all sorts of innuendo that if true would convict Fallon of high treason. I wonder why the government hasn't prosecuted the bastard. Probably because it's not true. But don't let the truth get in the way of your spin.
Then answer my question, if those accusations alleged in the article are so true (treasonous to say the least), why hasn't Fallon been courtmartialed or prosecuted?
or how about this
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/13/opini...
Admiral Fallon For VP?
he abrupt resignation Tuesday of the combatant commander of U.S. Central Command, Admiral William J. "Fox" Fallon, is not the end of a career but a move calculated to catapult the former naval officer into the vice-presidential sweepstakes. After all, a military man who has proven himself utterly unserious about the Iranian threat would be perfect running mate for either Senators Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Would any president want on his (or her) team an individual who had engaged in serial acts of insubordination and sabotage of a previous commander-in-chief? Consider just a few of the more public examples of such behavior:
The admiral's assignment to Centcom commander came as a shock to those who had observed what some called his "toxic leadership" in the Pacific Command.
Not least, Fallon opined on al-Jazeera last fall that, "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." Asia Times carried a report last year that he would resign if ordered to go to war - a sentiment he never denied.
The question is: Will rank insubordination on a scale arguably not seen in a military commander since MacArthur faded away nearly six decades ago be rewarded by still higher office?
pc,
That link is a reprint opinion piece from Nat. Rev. with all sorts of innuendo that if true would convict Fallon of high treason. I wonder why the government hasn't prosecuted the bastard. Probably because it's not true. But don't let the truth get in the way of your spin.
i know it is from the national review the cbs piece refers to it and what is there to prosecute..........
pc,
Then answer my question, if those accusations alleged in the article are so true (treasonous to say the least), why hasn't Fallon been courtmartialed or prosecuted?