Admiral Fallon's release is the last step before multilateral attack on Iran with Israel. Though denied the proof is overwhelming!

Originally I thought Fallon's position in charge of middle east operations was in preparation to attacking Iran. However Fallon was against it when all was said and done. Admiral William Fallon, then President George W. Bush’s nominee to head the Central Command (CENTCOM), expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM, according to sources with access to his thinking. Well that was it for him!

According to Gates, Fallon resigned because the fall-out from the article on this Gates said Fallon told him: “The current embarrassing situation, public perception of differences between my views and administration policy, and the distraction this causes from the mission make this the right thing to do.” Gates said he approved Fallon’s request to retire with “reluctance and regret. I heard yesterday and I can no longer find it, that Gates was ignoring Fallon's phone calls and that makes sense. I do not want to discuss this but I do want to discuss the big picture.

Being in charge of CENTCOM he was the final stumbling Block to attacking Iran as was the original plan and reason for attacking Iraq to get into the middle east. Gates is against it but he doesn't matter! Could be around June but definitely it will happen before the election. Kind of suspicious isn’t it that the chief war monger and advocate of attacking Iran Cheney, will be there shortly supposedly to say how much we want peace, Yeah before we friggen attack!

Look at this! First I just saw multiple stories saying Israel would and would not attack Iran unilaterally (alone) They will not! who starts this is still at question. As I keep saying, all that remains now is the excuse to get this going. Remember these 6 steps?

6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran. First not may Is, and it has nothing to do with Iran getting nukes. That is just the excuse to get this war going.
The resignation of the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East is setting off alarms that the Bush administration is intent on using military force to stop Iran's moves toward gaining nuclear weapons. In announcing his sudden resignation today following a report on his views in Esquire, Adm. William Fallon didn't directly deny that he differs with President Bush over at least some aspects of the president's policy on Iran. For his part, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it is "ridiculous" to think that the departure of Fallon -- whose Central Command has been working on contingency plans for strikes on Iran as well as overseeing Iraq -- signals that the United States is planning to go to war with Iran.

Fallon's resignation, ending a 41-year Navy career, has reignited the buzz of speculation over what the Bush administration intends to do given that its troubled, sluggish diplomatic effort has failed to slow Iran's nuclear advances. Those activities include the advancing process of uranium enrichment, a key step to producing the material necessary to fuel a bomb, though the Iranians assert the work is to produce nuclear fuel for civilian power reactors, not weapons.

Here are six developments that may have Iran as a common thread. And, if it comes to war, they may be seen as clues as to what was planned. None of them is conclusive, and each has a credible non-Iran related explanation:

1. Fallon's resignation: With the Army fully engaged in Iraq, much of the contingency planning for possible military action has fallen to the Navy, which has looked at the use of carrier-based warplanes and sea-launched missiles as the weapons to destroy Iran's air defenses and nuclear infrastructure. CENTCOM commands the U.S. naval forces in and near the Persian Gulf. In the aftermath of the problems with the Iraq war, there has been much discussion within the military that senior military officers should have resigned at the time when they disagreed with the White House.

2. Vice President Cheney's peace trip: Cheney, who is seen as a leading hawk on Iran, is going on what is described as a Mideast trip to try to give a boost to stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. But he has also scheduled two other stops: One, Oman, is a key military ally and logistics hub for military operations in the Persian Gulf. It also faces Iran across the narrow, vital Strait of Hormuz, the vulnerable oil transit chokepoint into and out of the Persian Gulf that Iran has threatened to blockade in the event of war. Cheney is also going to Saudi Arabia, whose support would be sought before any military action given its ability to increase oil supplies if Iran's oil is cut off. Back in March 2002, Cheney made a high-profile Mideast trip to Saudi Arabia and other nations that officials said at the time was about diplomacy toward Iraq and not war, which began a year later.

3. Israeli airstrike on Syria: Israel's airstrike deep in Syria last October was reported to have targeted a nuclear-related facility, but details have remained sketchy and some experts have been skeptical that Syria had a covert nuclear program. An alternative scenario floating in Israel and Lebanon is that the real purpose of the strike was to force Syria to switch on the targeting electronics for newly received Russian anti-aircraft defenses. The location of the strike is seen as on a likely flight path to Iran (also crossing the friendly Kurdish-controlled Northern Iraq), and knowing the electronic signatures of the defensive systems is necessary to reduce the risks for warplanes heading to targets in Iran.

4. Warships off Lebanon: Two U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon earlier this month, replacing the USS Cole. The deployment was said to signal U.S. concern over the political stalemate in Lebanon and the influence of Syria in that country. But the United States also would want its warships in the eastern Mediterranean in the event of military action against Iran to keep Iranian ally Syria in check and to help provide air cover to Israel against Iranian missile reprisals. One of the newly deployed ships, the USS Ross, is an Aegis guided missile destroyer, a top system for defense against air attacks.

5. Israeli comments: Israeli President Shimon Peres said earlier this month that Israel will not consider unilateral action to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. In the past, though, Israeli officials have quite consistently said they were prepared to act alone -- if that becomes necessary -- to ensure that Iran does not cross a nuclear weapons threshold. Was Peres speaking for himself, or has President Bush given the Israelis an assurance that they won't have to act alone?

6.Israel's war with Hezbollah: While this seems a bit old, Israel's July 2006 war in Lebanon against Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces was seen at the time as a step that Israel would want to take if it anticipated a clash with Iran. The radical Shiite group is seen not only as a threat on it own but also as a possible Iranian surrogate force in the event of war with Iran. So it was important for Israel to push Hezbollah forces back from their positions on Lebanon's border with Israel and to do enough damage to Hezbollah's Iranian-supplied arsenals to reduce its capabilities. Since then, Hezbollah has been able to rearm, though a United Nations force polices a border area buffer zone in southern Lebanon.

Defense Secretary Gates said that Fallon, 63, asked for permission to retire. Gates said that the decision, effective March 31, was entirely Fallon's and that Gates believed it was "the right thing to do." In Esquire, an article on Fallon portrayed him as opposed to President Bush's Iran policy and said he was a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program. In his statement, Fallon said he agreed with the president's "policy objectives" but was silent on whether he opposed aspects of the president's plans. "Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the CENTCOM region," Fallon, said in the statement issued by CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa, Fla. "And although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there," he said. Gates announced that Fallon's top deputy, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, will take over temporarily when Fallon leaves. A permanent successor, requiring nomination by the president and confirmation by the Senate, might not be designated in the near term. Attacking Iran is a given

President Bush on Tuesday opened his latest drive to shore up support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, emphasizing the stakes in battles that, he said, pit the United States and its allies against a remorseless enemy with little regard for human life. Over the next several months, Bush must decide how many troops in the two major theaters of U.S. military operations to leave his successor, a decision that could influence the fall elections and help shape his legacy. On Iraq, Bush indicated Tuesday, he will be guided solely by his determination of the troop strength necessary to maintain stability.

"The politics of 2008 is not going to enter into my calculation. It is the peace of the years to come that will enter into my calculation," Bush told a friendly audience of religious radio and television broadcasters. White House aides described Tuesday's speech as the first of several in the next few weeks aimed at building support for the decisions Bush will make. Hmm! Bush looking for help so he can attack Iran

This really sickens me primarily because as usual the truth is all too obvious even though we are lied to in order to hide the truth. Attacking Iran is a given and has to occur this year in order for Bush to stay at the helm and prosecute these wars himself as the facade of Democracy and elections continue, to create another diversion. Bush is looking to pressure our allies to put more into the prosecution of his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so he can be freed up to attack Iran! I wish it were not true but it is and though we want to, it will not be avoided!

James Joiner
Gardner Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com