You know that Chimpy. He has said a thousand times that he ALWAYS listens to his commanders on the ground.
That is, till they say something the moronic monkey doesn’t want to hear, at which time Chimpy goes shopping for NEW commanders to “always” listen to.
John Abizaid was one of those commanders that Chimpy listened to….. right up to the time he said things Chimpy didn’t want to hear. As such, he joins a long line of top brass purged from the military because of their political unreliability. Stalin went one step further and had them shot. Chimpy doesn’t do that…. not yet, anyway.
I can tell from the speeches Abizaid’s been giving why it was Chimpy forced him out. Abizaid is actually thinking we don’t need another war, and-even worse-trying to dialogue with the smelly brown hordes sitting on all that oil! I’m guessing he must have made Shooter and the rest of the yellow-backs at PNAC furious with his suggestions on how to AVOID war. WTF did he think his job was? How DARE he suggest that we ought to try something other than bullets and bombs!
Chimpy might not want to listen to what General Abizaid had to say, but I think it’s worth a minute or two of your time.
Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday.
John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.
“Iran is not a suicide nation,” he said. “I mean, they may have some people in charge that don’t appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon.”
The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.
“I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear,” he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.
“There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran,” Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. “Let’s face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we’ve lived with a nuclear China, and we’re living with (other) nuclear powers as well.”
But wait…. there’s much more to this than the Apologist Press wanted to cover.
In July, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani complained that Democratic presidential candidates avoided using formulations of the term “Islamic extremists,” saying “I can’t imagine who you insult if you say Islamic terrorist“:
“During their two debates they never mentioned the word Islamic terrorist, Islamic extremist, Islamic fascist, terrorist, whatever combination of those words you want to use, (the) words never came up,” Giuliani said Tuesday in Virginia Beach. “Maybe it’s politically incorrect to say that. I don’t know. I can’t imagine who you insult if you say Islamic terrorist. You don’t insult anyone who is Islamic who isn’t a terrorist.“
In August, Sen. Joe LIEberman (W-Pharmas) said he worries that candidates “don’t use the term ‘Islamist extremism’ or ‘Islamist terrorism’ in the debates.” He said it was “a problem” of “political correctness.”
The hawkish logic of Giuliani and LIEberman was contradicted yesterday by former CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid, who said in a speech that “even adding the word Islamic” makes it “very, very difficult” to “work together” with mainline regional leaders to keep extremism “from becoming mainstream.” Abizaid was speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the role of the military in counterterrorism.
While hawks like Giuliani and Lieberman push to ratchet up the rhetoric, people like Abizaid realize that recklessly conflating Islam with extremism is counterproductive to actually addressing the problem of terrorism, as it alienates necessary allies in the Muslim world.
ABIZAID: I mean, even adding the word Islamic extremism, or qualifying it to Sunni Islamic extremism, or qualifying it further to Sunni Islamic extermism as exemplified by government such as Bin Laden, all make it very, very difficult because the battle of words is meaningful, especially in the Middle East to people. And so, I do think, and I had a chance to get to know many of the regional leaders out there. They clearly understand that we, collectively, are fighting a problem that they don’t want to win, that we don’t want to win. The problem that we have to face is how do we work together to keep this problem from becoming mainstream. […]
The key is to figure out how we don’t turn this into Samuel Huntington’s Battle of Civilization’s and we work toward an area where we respect mainstream Islam. There’s nothing Islamic about Bin Laden’s philosophy, there’s nothing Islamic about suicide bombing. I believe that these are huge difficulties that we need to overcome, this notion of Christianity versus Islam. It’s not that, it doesn’t need to be that.