SecDef Gates says he accepted Fallon’s request for early retirement “with reluctance and regret.” But everybody knows what’s really going on here: Fallon was pushed out for disagreeing with the Admin’s Iran policy, as reported in Esquire.
How many officers does that make, now, who have been in one way or another cashiered for saying things the Bush Admin did not want to hear or did not want anyone else to hear?
They probably fired him because he hates America.
Tris
To paraphrase a brilliant mind: you go to war with the commander you might want, or wish to have at a later time, not the one you have.
The answer’s blowin in the wind? 
It wasn’t just about Iran, of course. Fallon also opposd the Surge:
Fallon showed no respect for our surgin general Patraeus. Fallon is not interested in going after Iran. He feels we should concentrate on Afghanistan. With crazy ideas like that ,how could they allow him to stay. He shows the ability to think.
He’s a Democrat?
-Joe
Well, he probably is now.
(Or will be if Obama wins the nom, decides Clark is too Hillary-y and wants a military veep)
Doesn’t work. How about “Hillarian”?
Hilarious?
Anything but.
How about Hillish?
The White House is denying that it’s stifling dissent.
It’s a testament to her professional skills that she was able to say that and still keep a straight face. :smack:
Well, it’s possible that Bush does foster that kind of an environment, at least until his handlers usher him to the minibar in the other room to memorize another of their speeches…
I would love to have someone ask as a followup question: “Give me one example in the seven years Bush has been president where there was a vigorous debate between opposing viewpoints before a decision was made. Just one.”
“Should we simply suck Big Oil’s dick, or need we rim them first?”
“Invading Iraq: great idea, or totally awesome!”
Just to shed reason on the question, how do you know for sure there wasn’t?
I don’t…you don’t…is this based on a Keith Olbermann rant?
I’m being serious. People like to throw around a bunch of uninformed (not saying you) opinoins because they don’t agree with something…is there evidence of that (post-Rumsfeld)?
Come on, there was the time in his first term that Colin Powell actually got a word and a half in edgewise about what a bad idea invading Iraq would be before Cheney and Rumsfeld drowned him out.
wasn’t debate?
For Bush and his helpers, I hope there was no debate.
If there was debate he and his helpers look even stupider.
“But, Daddy, if you invade Iraq, won’t that, like, really make a whole bunch of people really, really mad? And cost, like, totally a lot of money?”