Posted on 06/09/2007 10:55:45 AM PDT by freedomdefender
By recommending Adm. Michael G. Mullen to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has chosen a low-key pragmatist without a well-established stake in the Iraq strategy to be the country’s next senior military adviser.
Unlike the two previous chairmen, Admiral Mullen, 60, was not in a top Pentagon post when the Bush administration made the decision to invade Iraq. Those who know him say that if confirmed as chairman, he has little reason to stick with a policy if he decides it is not working.
“He will be pragmatic about Iraq,” said retired Adm. Robert Natter, who described himself as a close friend. “I know, because I’ve had long conversations about it with him.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
He must be a bad choice for chairman if the NY Times has anything less than total scorn for him.
I’m with you on that. No question that Pace was sacrificed, or agreed to retire, because he spoke honestly about military policy.
The danger, as we saw with the “tailgate scandal,” is that the leftists can try to use this to further screw up the military. They have no interest in whether the military can fight, only that it should be politically correct.
I’m sorry that the President decided not to fight this battle, which I think could have been won if handled skillfully.
Yep, RATs took out Pace, or did they? Of course, Gen. Pace was his own worst enemy. BUT ... wouldn’t have contentious hearings been just the ticket to differentiate the parties going into ‘08? The hearings would be contentious only from the lib perspective. Wouldn’t most Americans realize the RATs were trying to take out the General in the middle of a war only because of his purported stand on homos, not on his military abilities? After all, the new nominee will face the same war questions as would Pace. It was strictly the homosexual agenda that did in Pace and the republicans let them do it. SHAME!
Sounds like exactly the type of person who should be in charge.
Not reappointing Pace is another Bush sellout.
It's about an 8-1 sellout for conservatives by this president. Tell me the things he has handled skillfully. Remember before the 1st Bush election & GW went to RUSHs home town & met with him. The lovable fussball went to the airwaves & told us that he truly was a conservative. I never believed it nor did some others. In fact, I was so sure that I voted once again voted 3rd party.
A Pragmatist. Great. Haven’t had a Pragmatist since Dewey. Actually haven’t had an American philosopher at all since Dewey.
The fight for the illegals is a much more important cause.
Yes and the DemonicRats are now after that vote....
dims see GOD’s words as hate crime.
LLS
I too am sorry the President didn’t want to fight for this Honorable General.
But I am even MORE SORRY that he seems to have an inexhaustible supply of energy to fight US over Amnesty.
I’m beginning to think we DID elect John Kerry in 2004...
Carl Levin has never served in the military one day in his life. He is not fit to judge General Pace. How would Levin know what the homosexual effect would be on a military force? His chairmanship is only that...General Pace is the one with the bona fides here.
WHY DID THIS REALLY HAPPEN?
Seems odd to me that they have now chosen 2 Navy men to oversee Iraq. Sure, they were not heavily involved before, because it is a land war. doh
I work at a Navy command and we get regular messages from the CNO, Adm. Mullen.
He always seems to be concerned about the importance of “diversity” and other such nonsense. I’ve never been impressed.
The war against Iran will not be a land war.
Then he will heartily be endorsed by the NY Times, Wash Post and other MSM...
OK
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.