I pointed out he has a remarkably similar stance on how to deal with Iran and the consequences of using force.

And similar to the former CJCS who was fired for having that opinion.

And that GWB regards it as akin to appeasement, even without knowing what would be said. (He says he endorses "diplomacy" but not discussion. Go figure.

How Mullen gets away with it is a matter of conjecture. If he does. Some reasons he may have said it.

One, to signal a change on the part of the Bush Administration.

Two, to lull the Iranians and the covert program continues it's attack and the overt program continues preparation.

Three, to pre-empt the hawks. Two CJCS disagreeing is quite a barrier for Cheney and McCain to climb over.

But none of them are to endorse Obama. Sorry if I was misleading.

Arf