Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran...Vince Vance and the Valiants

[hnumpah]

U.S. developing contingency plan to bomb Iran: report

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Despite the Bush administration's insistence it has no plans to go to war with Iran, a Pentagon panel has been created to plan a bombing attack that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President George W. Bush, The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue.

The special planning group was established within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in recent months, according to an unidentified former U.S. intelligence official cited in the article by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in the March 4 issue.

The panel initially focused on destroying Iran's nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been directed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq, according to an Air Force adviser and a Pentagon consultant, who were not identified.

The consultant and a former senior intelligence official both said that U.S. military and special-operations teams had crossed the border from Iraq into Iran in pursuit of Iranian operatives, according to the article.

In response to the report, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said: "The United States is not planning to go to war with Iran. To suggest anything to the contrary is simply wrong, misleading and mischievous.

"The United States has been very clear with respect to its concerns regarding specific Iranian government activities. The president has repeatedly stated publicly that this country is going to work with allies in the region to address those concerns through diplomatic efforts," Whitman said.

Pentagon officials say they maintain contingency plans for literally dozens of potential conflicts around the world and that all plans are subject to regular and ongoing review.

The article, citing unnamed current and former U.S. officials, also said the Bush administration received intelligence from Israel that Iran had developed an intercontinental missile capable of delivering several small warheads that could reach Europe. It added the validity of that intelligence was still being debated.

The article also included an interview conducted in December with Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who said that while he had no interest in initiating another war with Israel, he was anticipating and preparing for another Israeli attack sometime this year.

Israel launched a cross-border offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon last July.

Nasrallah also said he was open to talks with Washington if such discussions "can be useful and influential in determining American policy in the region," but they would be waste of time if the purpose was to impose policy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070225/pl_nm/usa_iran_dc_1

[BT]

Lanya's article said this was a dusted off Clinton era plan.

[Michael Tee]

<<NEW YORK (Reuters) - Despite the Bush administration's insistence it has no plans to go to war with Iran, a Pentagon panel has been created to plan a bombing attack that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President George W. Bush, The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue.>>

BT:  <<Lanya's article said this was a dusted off Clinton era plan.>>

Oh, I get it.  It doesn't really belong to the new administration, they are allowed to look at it on on paying a viewing fee to the Clinton administration and when they finish looking at it in Bill's library, they have to leave it there with him.  I'm glad we cleared that up, otherwise I'd have to put this down as just one more in an apparently endless chain of Bush Lies.

[BT]

What lie is that?

[Michael Tee]

The "we have no plans to go to war with Iran" lie followed after a little MSM contradiction by "oops heh heh other than this little Clinton-era relic that somebody just dusted off."

[BT]

Seems to me most of the talk has been about not taking options off the table.

I don't recall Bush ruling out any options. Can you provide a quote in context, where he said we would not go tio war with Iran?

or should we just chalk this up to being more of a lie from your side.

[The_Professor]

I would advocate that it is not responsible to NOT have plans for any conceivable contingency. After all, you never know what MIGHT happen, so you need a plan to pull up if it DOES.

[Michael Tee]

BT:  <<Can you provide a quote in context, where he said we would not go tio war with Iran?>>

Didn't have to go far for that one - - it's in the lead of the article itself:

<<NEW YORK (Reuters) - Despite the Bush administration's insistence it has no plans to go to war with Iran . . . >>

[Michael Tee]

<<I would advocate that it is not responsible to NOT have plans for any conceivable contingency. After all, you never know what MIGHT happen, so you need a plan to pull up if it DOES.>>

I don't really know about that, I have no contingency plans to murder my next door neighbour and I don't know why Bush would need plans to commit a purely illegal act of criminal aggression similar to his past crimes, either, but in any event, the lying little bastard apparently has said that he has no such plans and lo and behold, there they are, he DOES have such plans.

[The_Professor]

Nation states need to have these plans.

So what is YOUR plan on delaing with Iran, MT?

[Michael Tee]

<<Nation states need to have these plans.>>

That wasn't the point, Professor.  The AP article claimed that Bush denied having the plans which it appears that he has, and I merely pointed out the guy was a liar (for the 9,000th time.)

I don't know which plans nations need or don't need.  Probably the U.S. plans are first-strike plans, so there is nothing defensive or retaliatory about them.  If the plans were reactive plans, dealing with an IRANIAN first strike, there might be some justification for them, although you'd have to question the wisdom of wasting so much money to formulate a response to an attack which in all probability will never be delivered.

My plan for dealing with Iraq is to indict all the top leadership of their justice system for murder in the case of Zahra Kazemi, convene a session of the International Court of Justice at the Hague for the trial of the indicted, appoint lawyers for them, if they won't choose their own, conduct the trial in absentia if necessary and (if convicted) sentence them all (in an ideal world, to death, in the real world of the U.N. to whatever penalty the court is permitted by law to impose) and then start ordering the torturing, murdering bastards to produce the guilty to serve their sentences.  And then just apply escalating sanctions till they comply.  Or don't.

I really don't know, Professor.  I don't think the U.N. should have told them to stop enriching nuclear fuel.  The threat is real, but it's no more than the threat of Pakistan or Israel having the same weapons, there's no moral jurisdiction for the U.N. to make an order against Iran that it's unwilling or unable to make agaisnt Israel or to sanction Iran but not Israel for breach of U.N. resolutions.  I would try to work on a regional solution that addresses the concerns of all the players, most of which are outraged morally by the ongoing persecutions of the Palestinians.  These issues just can't be allowed to fester any more.

[BT]

<<NEW YORK (Reuters) - Despite the Bush administration's insistence it has no plans to go to war with Iran . . . >

I do believe Bush was discussing chronological aspects, versus tactical.

Try to keep it honest, Mikey. Your side suffers when your credibility does. Do it for them.

[Michael Tee]

<<I do believe Bush was discussing chronological aspects, versus tactical. >>

I do believe you are desperate to read that into the remarks as reported, BT, otherwise your man would again appear to be lying.  But a desperate wish to read something into reported remarks that just isn't there doesn't change what the guy said, does it?

<<Try to keep it honest, Mikey.>>   

Maybe your entreaties should be directed to the AP, BT.  I read the piece again, and I don't see any indication that Bush was qualifying his remarks chronologically or any other way.  In fact, the use of the word "Despite" at the very start of the first sentence clearly indicates that there was an obvious contradiction between what the Bush administration was saying and what the actual truth of the matter was.

<<Your side suffers when your credibility does. Do it for them. >>

That's really very funny, BT.  THAT is an admonition that clearly should be directed to your "President," that lying little shit.  Seems like every day he's caught in one lie or another.  You'd think by now he'd have learned.

[BT]

Maybe your entreaties should be directed to the AP, BT.

I'm not in direct contact with them, besides we know the AP makes stuff up as it goes along.

You, i have direct contact with. And i know you have a sense of honor. You know damn well what Bush was talking about. So keep it honest.

[hnumpah]

So keep it honest.

There's a laffer.

Hell, if you do, your personal feelings are clouding your judgement, or some such crap.

.