Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Pentagon_rules_out_Fallon_testimony_03212008.html
The congress has requested his testimony but the pentagon wont allow him to.
So we are not going to get the real story on the ground yet again in this fiasco and lives will be lost because of it.
3996
So he can not testify to what he knows because he is not active any more?
You do realize he they work for us dont you?
The "active commander" will give what testimony they can up until they are censured by the administration.
Your answers sound like some that DICK would give. You aren't DICK are you?
Immediately if you can't logically explain your position. Then you launch into this tirade of lies about censured testimony, me being Dick Cheney...
The congress wants to talk to Fallon too guy.
They want to talk to someone who has not got Bush half way up their posteriors.
Okay...repeat after me...
"I have never worked for Haliburton and have never stolen on their behalf."
That would prove you are not DICK.
Don't you think the active commanders could give the same testimony right?
Being active has nothing to do with reporting on what he knew and thought when he was in charge.
Why are so afraid of what he might say?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I guess you missed the repeating pattern of senior military people being relieved from their duty when they didn't agree with Bush.
Start with General Shinseki. Do you remember him? He was Chief of Staff of the Whole Fukking Army. He dared to suggest we needed 200 to 300 thousand troops to do the job right. For the rest of his tour he was pushed aside and ignored.
When we reach 4000 dead you can thank Bush and Cheney for not listening to their Military Commanders unless they heard what they wanted.
So your contention is that Shinseki wanted 400k troops for 5 years in Iraq? You are aware hardly anyone died in the invasion which IS what he meant? Right? That we couldn't have fielded 300 much less 400k from Kuwait to begin with? That the 100 plus thousand we had strained the capacity for Kuwait?
Your ignorance is simply astounding.
The entire premise of this thread is STUPID. When did Fallon retire? Oh, what was THAT? Recently? You mean he could compromise currently ongoing operations with public testimony before for Congress?
Say it ain't so.
Why does Congress only want to talk to senior officer who don't agree with the Bush Administration? Nope, doesn't smack of partisanship at all.
F-ing rubes.
So your contention is that Shinseki wanted 400k troops for 5 years in Iraq? You are aware hardly anyone died in the invasion which IS what he meant? Right?
That we couldn't have fielded 300 much less 400k from Kuwait to begin with? That the 100 plus thousand we had strained the capacity for Kuwait?
Your ignorance is simply astounding.
A\You SURE you were in the military?
The reason for having 300k was not to defeat the iraqi army. It was to bring an iron fist of total, overwhelming security to the country once its civil/military/and governmental infrastructure collapsed.
Did you notice how the looting started, and the insurgency was born in the security vacuum provided by your president, in the month or two after the regime fell???
First, given your abject lack of knowledge of US military deployment in the Balkans - you know, that thread where you embarrased yourself - I'm not going to take your word for what is, or is not, logistically possible from kuwait.
Second, the fact that your president has the diplomatic skills of a chimpanzee, and couldn't secure the cooperation of other allies like saudi, and turkey, is a reflection on the piss poor president you elected. It's not a reflection on the US military.
The entire premise of this thread is STUPID. When did Fallon retire? Oh, what was THAT? Recently? You mean he could compromise currently ongoing operations with public testimony before for Congress?
Say it ain't so.
Why does Congress only want to talk to senior officer who don't agree with the Bush Administration? Nope, doesn't smack of partisanship at all.
F-ing rubes.
