Top U.S. admiral says strike on Iran means turmoil

Reuters UK ^ | Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:42pm BST

[SmithL]

So Mullen understands that war is not pleasant. I like that in a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[WilliamReading]

What is Mullen supposed to say? That it is a great idea and he hopes Israel attacks Iran tomorrow?

I think it all comes down after election day . . especially if Obama wins the election.

[gonzo]

It's only a matter of time. I'm thinkin' the next 'new-moon', but I think that every month, Perdogg.

Who in this world would let Imanutjob actually have nuclear weapons? ............... FRegards

[Wuli]

Top U.S. Admiral says he doesn’t want his sailors to have to fight in the Persian Gulf (why did he and they enlist - just for the pensions and VA health benefits). We have some top officers that epitomize the Peter Principal - rising to their level of incompetence.

[McGruff]

any U.S. or Israeli strike on Iran carried a notable risk of more turmoil in the Middle East

Oh it could get real messy. This would have to be a huge operation over a wide area with many possible scenarios. I hope they are considering them. Don't think Imawhackjob is just going to sit there and not retaliate. The question is how.

[jch10]

Yeah, war usually does cause turmoil.....brilliant, Adm. Mullen.

[SmithL]

I think he should say something like:

...the risk of doing nothing is also big.

And I agree with your analysis.

[MrNatural]

First of all, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not going to sit down for a 20-minute interview with Mike Wallace without explicit permission from the White House, if not actually at the White House's direction. Also, he clearly had been made aware of what to say and what not to say during the interview.

I saw the entire interview. As usual, the MSM (Reuters in this case) ignored the points the Admiral was really making, and pulled a quote out of context that they could use to further their anti-war, anti-US-military cause.

The Admiral was clearly there to present the Administration's position on the Iran situation, i.e., that Iran would be very dangerous with nuclear weapons, and must not be allowed to get them. He also made clear that Iran was not expected to tamely submit, and there would be considerable 'blowback', as he put it, in the middle east and other places around the world. That was the statement Reuters cherry-picked to mention. But there was no backing away from the need to neutralize Iran. He was just making the point that it wouldn't without cost.

He also successfully resisted attempts by Wallace to get him the comment on political or election matters.

All in all an interesting interview, delivered by a very bright man, unquestionably operating under orders from the White House.

[Munz]

Although I *think* the other ME nations might be happy that we attack and dismantle Iran’s Nuclear threat, who knows with these people.

We really need more covert ops on the ground prior to this point mobilizing the population against Iran before we attack .. I mean LONG before. Unfortunately Comrade Clinton did away with 90% of these people who could have done this job. We would have been ready for this now if not for that lying deviant.

[MHGinTN]

Chris Wallace ... not the old curmudgeon, Mike Wallace.

[MHGinTN]

We also need to have started the ‘energy independence’ campaign in earnest before blowing the tinpot islamofascists off the face of the earth. Our strategic reserve is not sufficient to carry US through the astronomical rise in per barreel if the Iranian islamo-madmen close the straits of Hormuz. SinkEmperor clintoon started this hot war response to islamofascists (missles up a camel’s butt posturing, way back when) without doing a single thing to prepare the nation for war, because democraps think it can be waged as a ‘law-enforcement’ campaign. W opened the debate over off-shore drilling and ANWR for a specific reason. Let’s not lose sight of that reality in the rush to drop bombs on deserving demons. We need to do it in our timing ...

[Munz]

I couldn’t agree more with you if I had stated that myself.
Although Clinton was quick to bring us to hot spots they were only for two reasons. A quick response to make him look good and give the economy a boost fast. Then he bailed every time.
All he succeeded in was making himself look good at the time. The long lasting recriminations were that America was left looking like we would only go in, stir things up then leave fast when the heat was on. He fostered long lasting hatred for America with these people we left for dead. He gave our enemies reason to believe that we didn’t have the stomach for prolonged war.

Clinton should have dealt with terrorism head on in Mogadishu instead of bailing out. He should have foreseen what everyone was talking about as far back as Carter and done something serious about energy independence and strengthening our reserves, making more available. He should have kept our military and intelligence services at least where they were when he took over, instead of cutting them to the core. Instead he cut everything, turned acts of war into law enforcement matters and went for quick fixes to make himself look good at the expense of our children’s futures.

Yet he is hailed by so many democraps as their savior. When the sheetheatds see that, they think all American presidents are like that. They believe that we are a self centered, self absorbed country with no backbone.

With all the support for Obama and his promises of handouts without thinking of the future and our freedom, they may be right.

(rant off)

[MrNatural]

Of course, it was Chris not Mike (slaps own face)

Thanks for the correction -