Fallon Affair To Make Dems Pay Attention On Iran, Finally?

Posted By Cernig

The White House continues to deny that Admiral Fallon's resignation was because he was a roadblock in the path to war with Iran, with Dana Perino claiming against all evidence that Bush "welcomes robust and healthy debate". But Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and others are calling for investigative hearings over Fallon's departure.

Today, Hillary Clinton called on the armed services committee to investigate whether Fallon had been pushed out for opposing military action against Iran.

"I am asking that the Senate armed services committee hold hearings into the circumstances surrounding his departure."

The committee did not respond to queries about Clinton's request. But former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has echoed her views, and two senior members of Congress had pressed the Pentagon to allow Fallon to testify on the Iraq war before his resignation.

"I am profoundly concerned that Admiral Fallon has decided to take this measure, and I'm hoping that we can hear from him in a more specific way in the future," Democratic senator James Webb said today.

I suppose this is her way of atoning for backing the atrocious Kyl-Lieberman amendment that made Bush's declaring war on Iran so much easier. Nor do I expect the White House to allow Fallon to testify. But at least Clinton and others are paying attention now.

One thing they should be paying attention to is the way in which the U.S. media have acted as stenographers for the White House narrative on Iran's nuclear program. Eric Umansky has a great piece for the Columbia Journalism Review today looking at that process and noting that several experts seemed to have been sidelined in the media precisely because they questioned that narrative. Like George Perkovich, a nonproliferation analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:

In May 2005, Perkovich wrote a paper speculating that Iran’s leaders weren’t actually bent on making the bomb but rather wanted to keep their options open. In that scenario, he wrote, “as Iranian elites began to pay attention to nuclear issues,” they realized their best bet was an above-board civilian nuclear program. Such a path would still allow Iran to “gradually acquire” the know-how and technology to “produce nuclear weapons some day should a dire strategic threat arise”—all the while abiding by international law.

Perkovich wasn’t the only one to guess that Iran wasn’t bent on building the bomb. “I would see intelligence analysts over the last few years and ask, ‘Where’s the evidence of what Iran’s doing now?’” remembers Paul Kerr, formerly an analyst with the Arms Control Association, now with the Congressional Research Service. “And the answers I would get back were just really thin.” Kerr believed the evidence pointed in the other direction. In November 2006, he said so in a piece for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

The very fact that Iran has previously offered several concessions, as well as curtailed some nuclear activities, should signal to the international community that Tehran has not necessarily committed itself to building nuclear weapons—and that there are those within the regime who are reluctant to risk political and economic isolation.

Perkovich, Kerr, and others had been questioning the administration’s many assumptions about Iran: about why Tehran might have an interest in a weapons system in the first place, about whether it had a program to build one, and, if it did, about whether it was willing to do a deal to halt it. The analysts didn’t have exact answers, of course; they were just raising basic questions. What’s striking is how rarely such questions were asked by members of the press.

...Even now, after the NIE changed the landscape, “There is an enormous selective amnesia regarding Iran in U.S. coverage,” says Ali Ansari, a historian at Scotland’s University of St. Andrews, who specializes in Iran-U.S. relations and has long criticized journalists for relying on “worn-out narratives” regarding Iran. “There’s this assumption that the U.S. has always been innocent partner in the relationship. But the two have been equally guilty of mismanaging the relationships and missing opportunities.”

Go read the whole thing. Mrs Clinton certainly should - as Umansky notes - after claiming in January 2006, that “Iran is seeking nuclear weapons” and arguing that the White House actually “chose to downplay the threats.” Just another part of what Fareed Zakaria meant when he wrote “The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality.”

Comments

[jo6pac]

I'm not sure why everyone thinks that they should/will look into this. The Great General Bytrayues will be put into place to finish the absolute failure of his career as a hereo in the eyes of the neocons. I believe congress will not challenge this enough to stop it and they know/should were this will lead on the last months of King G and the DP rule.
Jo6pac
Everything is on schedule, please move along.

[sagebrush]

This is not quite on topic - but it is related to a way possibly that the U. S. could both make and shuffle around nukes - and proliferate them to other countries - under the radar. And avoid things like the Barksdale incident all together. Have your own airbase home brew facility - load it on to a foreign plane - and zrhhoooom.

The Singapore Air Force is now bedding down at Mountain Home. The Israelis, Germans and others are rumored to not be far behind. Ostensibly becuase they all don't have enough aispace to train, so have to sonic boom over our canyons and wildlife like sage grouse and bighorn sheep.

BUT - think of the possibilities - Mountain Home Ar force base in Idaho has its own little home-brew nuclear facility ...
load something onto one of those Singapore planes, the Singapore plane talks off for ... Lord knows where ... And the wonderful proponent - Larry Craig, long-time despoiler of the public lands on logging and grazing and ally of anything not in the public interest.

Interesting ... Especially since our wonderful allies, the Singapore Air
Force and soon-to-be other fer-in-ers, are bedding down at Mountain Home.

http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2008/03/12/news/local_state/132609.txt

Air Force considers nuclear reactor in Idaho
Craig encouraged plans for reactor in Mountain Home
By Matt Christensen
Times-News writer
The U.S. Air Force is considering plans to build a nuclear reactor at its
base in Mountain Home, according to statements made by U.S. Air Force
Secretary Michael Wynne reported on an online military news site.

"The thoughts are, right now, we're talking about Cannon out in New Mexico
and Mountain Home up in Idaho," Wynne said, according to Inside-Defense, a
Web site that covers military issues.

The Air Force announced earlier this month plans to build a small test
reactor, after being prompted to explore nuclear energy by federal lawmakers
including Idaho Sen. Larry Craig. The Air Force would also assume
operational controls of the nuclear facility it builds.

Air Force officials now plan to partner with the nuclear industry to develop
a base-located reactor, though an Air Force spokeswoman downplayed the
finality of the location following Wynne's comments, according to the online
report.

Craig and Wynne have communicated recently about the plans, however, and
have spoken about Idaho, Craig press secretary Dan Whiting confirmed
Tuesday.

"Sen. Craig would love to see a reactor at Mountain Home," Whiting said.

In a letter from Craig to Wynne's Pentagon office dated Aug. 2, the senator
encouraged Wynne to "consider nuclear as a preferred source of electricity
for military facilities for which reliability and security of supply are of
paramount importance."

The military is one of the single largest users of domestic electricity,
Craig said in the letter, and a nuclear reactor could best meet its power
demands and reduce its demand for domestic supplies of power. The
construction of a 5 to 10 megawatt reactor would be enough electricity to
power a typical Air Force base, in addition to surrounding communities.

Wynne and Craig have communicated about nuclear power since August, Whiting
said.

Officials at Mountain Home Air Force Base were not aware of Wynne's
statements, said Sgt. Jasmine Reif, a spokeswoman for the base. Reif said
she would find out more information but did not respond to follow up calls.

Cannon Air Force Base, the other base mentioned by Wynne, is located near
Clovis, N.M.

Matt Christensen may be reached at 735-3243 or at matt.christensen@lee.net.

Click here to view a letter sent from Idaho Sen. Larry Craig to U.S. Air
Force Secretary Michael Wynne about developing a nuclear reactor at an Air
Force baseA

[Tom]

See video: Why Fallon's Resignation is Frightening Defense Secretary Robert Gates did not have to accept Admiral Fallon's resignation. "The military people think basically that Admiral Fallon was PUSHED OUT" - Mark Thompson Time Magazine National Security Correspondent
Fallon is described as "the one person in the military or Pentagon standing between the White House and war with Iran."