Steve Clemons sez this is about insubordination and not any change in the likelihood of dropping JDAMs on Iran.

The Mark Perry piece has some great laugh lines in it, like "legally constituted chain-of-command" and "the decision for declaring war is in the hands of the U.S. Congress." Guess he hasn't been awake for most of the Bush years. Also, his fastidiousness about talk of China as the "next war" is more than a bit much, given the number of military analysts who have been predicting a strategic contest between the US and China in the near future. It's not like Barnett and Fallon pulled this meme out of thin air.

It is, of course, perfectly possible and even likely that Fallon was a self-aggrandizing media hound who was too sane for the White House. With a White House this stupid, criminal, insane and incompetent, it's not like those are mutual exclusives. And obviously it's absurd to contend that Fallon's leaving will increase the likelihood of war with Iran, as Fallon himself (to his credit) has stated; were Fallon still in place if such an order came down, he'd either obey it or be sacked so that someone else could obey it.

1:Steve Clemons is a rabid centrist with a clear agenda of demonstrating that there exist moderate Republicans involved (and in control?) in foreign policy. Like fucking Rice & Gates. His sources, I think, are the "moderate Republicans" with the same agenda.

He is scrupulously honest, but I give his judgements a score of 7 or 8 of 10 based on this agenda, optmisim, limited access. He should be balanced with Pat Lang, who has different tho probably more limited sources and less optimism.

And obviously it's absurd to contend that Fallon's leaving will increase the likelihood of war with Iran

Well, there might be a period of preparation and planning before an attack that Fallon could not in good conscience assist but his successor might.

I don't know what or whether, and I think that is how this administration wants it. Of course, Iran has some influence on the decision.

My guess right now is that whether Iran gets bombed depends on the Democratic candidate and the polls, and the outcome of the election. Bush/Cheney would be comfortable handing the baton to McCain.

I think the attack is somewhat more likely with an Obama nomination/election than with a Clinton nomination/election, because an Obama peace candidacy would be more challenged, and an Obama Presidency more damaged by an ongoing ME regional war and world depression.

Bob, I totally didn't see that last paragraph coming.

Insubordination, my ass.

If he'd said we probably shouldn't go to war with Belgium, would he be out the door?

5:It is something I have had in mind for at least six months, since Obama's ascendance, and worried over at Ezra's around December(?), when fears about Iran were strong.

I consider Bush/Cheney to be radical enough to do anything to achieve their politico-economic goals.

Of course, there are a lot of "ifs", like how serious is the attack, and what Iran does, if anything, in response.

If the Iranian response is very serious, and America takes casualties here and abroad, Obama will be forced into some very stark choices about remaining dovish or abandoning his bipartisan rhetoric. America will not necessarily rally around the flag, but Republicans certainly will.

A "peace candidacy" with the Bush administration in control of the weapons needed to be fiercely partisan and strident.

It is something I have had in mind mentioned at great length on this blog every day for at least six months

7: 5 was sarcasm, Bob.

And of course you can explain why Obama would be more compromised in this regard than Clinton? Oh wait, you can't.

9:What, now you don't consider Clinton more hawkish than Obama?

I don't know why I bother to respond to you, DS. You argue in bad faith.

I don't know if he was arguing so much as making fun of you.

Fallon Gone.

10: What, now you don't consider Clinton more hawkish than Obama?

No, Bob, I just don't consider gibberish to be an argument. Sifu has it about right.

At the debates:

McCain:Iran is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of American boys, and my opponent is committed to personal talks with the Iranian leadership. Senator Obama, are you planning to beg for peace and ask for terms?

Obama:???

Obama: Strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries. Listening to the views, even of those who we violently disagree with, that sends a signal to the world that we are going to turn the page on the failed diplomacy that the Bush administration has practiced for so long.

Clinton: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table.

But it's Obama who'd have trouble presenting an alternative to McCain, of course.

Is 15.1 viable for a Presidential Candidate in the midst of a shooting war with Iran?

Maybe so, and maybe the Iranian leadership will signal that it could come to terms with Obama, and express a strong preference in the outcome of the election.

And after President Obama in essence surrenders, which certainly would be my advice, the Republicans start impeachment proceedings and filibuster everything. One-term failed Presidency.

I think 12 is right. Folks are looking at the wrong continent. This is clearly a signal about relations with China.

16.1: Excellent question, Bob! It's not like the failure of the Iraq War has seriously deteriorated the GOP's position, or like the American military is openly griping about being run into the ground as it is. Naturally, it would be foolishness to elect a candidate who is actually willing to say out loud that diplomacy can work. It would be much better to have one who is committed in advance to policies which are obvious failures.

Good thinking! I can't imagine why I ever stopped taking you seriously.

18:You really misunderstand me. I prefer Obama's foreign policy to Clinton's, by leaps and bounds. I don't really know if it is poltically viable under all circumstances.

I just think the ground needed to be laid for a peace candidacy by running against the fucking War Party, not by hugging and kissin the motherfuckers.

Obama is credible as a dove or credible as a uniter. He can't have both in 2008. This will bite him in the ass.

I know you don't consider it evidence, but it is clear to me that Republicans think Obama is sincere about the bipartisanship, and bullshit on policy. Democrats think he is bullshitting about comity.

Maybe this isn't, and never will be a problem.

19: You really misunderstand me.

I don't see that there's anything there to understand, Bob. I think that your incoherent babbling about how Obama would make an Iran attack "more likely" for some mysterious reason is of a piece with your babbling about how he and his followers constitute nascent fascism. And I'm losing interest in telling you why this shit is sucking your credibility, such as it was, down the drain.

Did ogged steal his headline from Slate, or vice versa.

(No, I'm not admitting to reading Slate. I just look at it for the headlines.)