Jim Webb Channels emptywheel

You think the former Secretary of the Navy keeps close ties with Navy officers? Or is Jim Webb calling on Carl Levin to ask Admiral Fallon to testify to the Armed Service Committee because he, like me, thinks Fallon will have a different perspective to offer?

WEBB: [T]here’s something of a kabuki going on right now.You know, the Petraeus report was brought in. On the one hand they’recalling it independent; on the other, General Petraeus and AmbassadorCrocker, from my understanding, gave a one-hour exclusive interview toFox News after their first day of testimony. […]

So it was a very narrow and focused two days of hearings…weneed to hear from people like Admiral Fallon and others to get a senseof how the region is in play. …  He was, by many accounts, questioning keeping these troop levels this high. […]

So I’m going to be recommending to Senator Levin that we get Admiral Fallon in and get his views on the region.

Just remember to ask Admiral Fallon if winning the Iraq War but ruining our military will make us safer, Senator Webb. I have a feeling that Fallon, unlike Petraeus, will have a pretty definite answer.

  1. emptywheel says:

    I’m not sure we want the war czar dude–the idea is someone who still has responsibility for keeping us safe if, say, war in East Asia were to break out. Fallon’s that guy.

  2. Neil says:

    Webb is packing heat in more way than one. I’m all for a complete evaluation of the Iraq War policy and not just an Iraq War product rollout, take 5.

    Yes! Webb is channeling EW but what if EW starts channeling Webb? Would we see the curly locks in red?

  3. Anonymous says:

    Oh, I agree about Lute; it is just interesting how his very existence has disappeared in light of all the fanfare surrounding the search and his coronation. The ability of this administration to run diversion plays, and have all the media pick up the ball and run with it, is simply astounding. Rice is another matter altogether, but she sure is missing in action lately too (not that that is a bad thing maybe).

  4. Neil says:

    Each government official is used for his or her credibility and because of the nature of the sale, their credibility is concurrently expended; Powell, Tenet, Rice… and on and on.

  5. semiot says:

    Senator Webb taking cues from emptywheel? As they like to say in Minnesota, â€You could do a lot worse, ya know.â€

  6. Jane S. says:

    I live in VA and I called Webb and Warner and told their respective staff members that answered the phone that I hoped that they would ask Patreus tough questions and cited Karen Deyoung’s WaPo article. Webb’s staff guy told me that Webb was prepared to ask tough questions. The Warner staff person just politely thanked me. After reading this, I feel like both men have NOT let me down. And this surprises me because as I mentioned before, I live in VA!

  7. Anonymous says:

    Things have been very quiet down Condi way for a long time now. Wonder when they’re packaging her resignation to be announced. Christmas? Maybe she’s getting the UCI Law dean’s job.

  8. pseudonymous in nc says:

    This is where Webb is valuable in the caucus. I’ve squirmed at some of his votes, but ultimately shit will get out in the open courtesy of the committees. And given Webb’s career, you have to assume that he’s not dumping Fallon in the shit without having at least a tacit nod.

  9. radiofreewill says:

    Webb is everything Bush isn’t – authentic, strong and understanding – a real leader, and he’s saying we can get a trustworthy opinion from Adm. Fallon.

    Invading Iran isn’t even possible.

    Punitively attacking Iran in the short term is going to seriously impact the entire globe for a long time to come.

    But, such is Bush – always defiantly ready to go ’a bridge too far,’ like an inexperienced commander with no sense of the human factors in combat operations – just a mission to accomplish now!

    Webb is saying Fallon is Man Enough, and wisened enough by experience, to call Bullshit on that, even if it is Bush.

  10. Jodi says:

    You are barking up the wrong tree if you think that Admiral Fallon will undercut his own man in Iraq!

    If he did then that would essentially put him in charge of Iraq, instead of the whole region. Seems like a bad bad decision.

  11. Anonymous says:


    Check out the Gareth Porter piece at IPS on Adm. Fallon:


    At their first meeting:

    â€Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be â€an ass-kissing little chickenshit†and added, â€I hate people like thatâ€, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.â€

    Truly delicious stuff.

  12. JohnJ says:

    Thank you JohnShreffler for that link. I was kinda’ lost understanding the players in this Kabuki. Thanks to our troll for pointing out the lines of argument that scares his/hers/its masters the most.

  13. Elsie says:

    Admiral Fallon has a responsibility to the troops, who are also his men and women in Iraq, and they are being undercut, cut down and blown up because Petraeus is helping Bush perpetuate false claims that the surge is working. Fallon’s responsibility is to the military at large, not to any one underling who is helping to weaken it.

  14. Anonymous says:


    I don’t find Fallon undercutting Gen. P. that hard to imagine. Bush has chosen to have Gen. P. report directly to the White House, bypassing chain of command. Adm. Fallon is the next rung up the chain, he has the same big ego any 4 star admiral has, and he’s off to the side: Bush has Petraeus for Iraq and STRATCOM for Iran and Fallon is not on board with the plan for either, at least according Porter, whom I find as credible as Seymour Hersh. When you read as much military history as I have, you run into stuff like this all the time, just not so close to real time.