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

[BT]

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

If your personal feelings clouded your judgment, recognize and deal with it. If they didn't who gives a damn what others say.

I assume we are still dealing with the sergeant?

[hnumpah]

I assume we are still dealing with the sergeant?

Are we? Or is it a pattern I've seen in here where, when all other answers to an open and honest posting of someone's point of view fail, the fall back position is that somehow they must be deluded, irrational, lacking common sense, letting their emotions cloud their logic, or some such other nonsense?

And I really don't give a damn what you think; I would prefer, though, that you keep it to yourself rather than post your pseudoanalysis of me in this forum. So yeah, I fire back. It's the only way I have of trying to keep you, and others, honest.

Recognize and deal with it.

[BT]

I disagreed with your assessment of the sergeants statement.

so it goes.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.>>

I know what he was talking about, alright - - plans to bomb Iran.  Said he had none.  But it turns out he did.  The story didn't mention that the plans came with an expired shelf life and nothing I've seen from the Bush administration indicates that they're out of time.  That's just in your wishful imagination.  Bush could have said, "I've got some out-dated contingency plans but they're no good any more," if that's in fact the case.  We don't know that it's the case and in any event he never said that.  As far as I'm concerned, the guy just lied again, pure and simple.  If he wants to make the case that he was referring to out-dated plans that couldn't be used, fine with me but right now we don't even know if that's the case.  I'm betting that if the little shit has plans, they're good to go right now.

[Amianthus]

The story didn't mention that the plans came with an expired shelf life and nothing I've seen from the Bush administration indicates that they're out of time.  That's just in your wishful imagination.

Guess you missed Lanya's article, which said in part:

Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated in 1995  "in war theater plans" to invade first Iraq and then Iran.

Wishful thinking would be your insistance that the plans were not just dusted off from the Clinton era.

[sirs]

Guess you missed Lanya's article, which said in part:

Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated in 1995  "in war theater plans" to invade first Iraq and then Iran.

Wishful thinking would be your insistance that the plans were not just dusted off from the Clinton era.

D'OH

[Xavier_Onassis]

We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we will always be free........Ronald Reagan

==================================================
What we should always remember is how the military-industrial complex kept the US in Vietnam for 12 long years while they profited.

We should be proud that we impeached that lying scumbag Nixon and should be working on a greater degree of pride by impeaching both Cheney and Juniorbush.

If we are not prepared for asshole politicians destroying our rights in order to "combat terrorism" by monitoring our every transaction, we won't be free.

Reagan failed to point out that his party was the greatest threat to our freedoms.

[sirs]

We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we will always be free........Ronald Reagan

==================================================
What we should always remember is how the military-industrial complex kept the US in Vietnam for 12 long years while they profited....Reagan failed to point out that his party was the greatest threat to our freedoms.

<----------------------------<<           .           <-------whooooosh------------------------<<

Did you hear it, Hoof?

[Michael Tee]

<<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.>>

That's the first two paras of the article hnumpah quoted from at the start of this thread.

Here's how Ami tries to portray the plans which Prezdint Liar claims not to have:

<<Wishful thinking would be your insistance that the plans were not just dusted off from the Clinton era.>>

Dusted off from the Clinton era, my ass!

[hnumpah]

I disagreed with your assessment of the sergeants statement.

so it goes.

Ayuh. Then a few posts later mentioned to someone that you thought I was letting emotion cloud my judgement, or some such crap.

I really don't give a damn that we disagree. It's your (and others) sly little (mis-) characterizations of me that I mind.

So it goes, indeed.

[Amianthus]

Dusted off from the Clinton era, my ass!

Guess Lanya is posting lies, now.

[Amianthus]

Dusted off from the Clinton era, my ass!

Oh, yeah, and I guess you can no longer say:

The story didn't mention that the plans came with an expired shelf life and nothing I've seen from the Bush administration indicates that they're out of time.  That's just in your wishful imagination.

I've actually quoted the relevant section of Lanya's posted article and you responded to the post in which the quote was contained.

[Michael Tee]

<<I've actually quoted the relevant section of Lanya's posted article and you responded to the post in which the quote was contained.>>

My comment was posted giving the benefit of the doubt to Bush, construing the thing in its most favourable light (that the plans had been prepared in the Clinton era) - - Bush would still be a liar even WITH the benefit of the doubt.  The Hersh article makes it clear that there was no need to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, no need to speculate that the plans were really "dusted off" Clinton plans (as if that would have made him any less of a liar!) and in fact there was nothing dusted off about the lying bastard's plans.

BTW, in response to the allegation that Lanya must be posting lies now, Lanya can speak for herself but I am sure that by posting an AP article, she doesn't vouch for the veracity of every single allegation in it.  The main point of the article was that Bush had lied about not having plans to attack Iran, the source of the plans, erroneously reported as it turns out, were of distinctly secondary importance, particularly since they were irrelevant to the main ideas that (a) Bush had the plans and (b) he had lied about the fact.

[Plane]

<<I've actually quoted the relevant section of Lanya's posted article and you responded to the post in which the quote was contained.>>

My comment was posted giving the benefit of the doubt to Bush, construing the thing in its most favourable light (that the plans had been prepared in the Clinton era) - - Bush would still be a liar even WITH the benefit of the doubt.  The Hersh article makes it clear that there was no need to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, no need to speculate that the plans were really "dusted off" Clinton plans (as if that would have made him any less of a liar!) and in fact there was nothing dusted off about the lying bastard's plans.

BTW, in response to the allegation that Lanya must be posting lies now, Lanya can speak for herself but I am sure that by posting an AP article, she doesn't vouch for the veracity of every single allegation in it.  The main point of the article was that Bush had lied about not having plans to attack Iran, the source of the plans, erroneously reported as it turns out, were of distinctly secondary importance, particularly since they were irrelevant to the main ideas that (a) Bush had the plans and (b) he had lied about the fact.

   This only works if you are very determined to see a deception.

     Before Clinton had a new one drawn up there was probably an older plan dateing from the Carter era.

       If the Pentagon is doing its job it has a contigency plan for every likely situation of the near future , and probly a lot of such plans for unlikely situatons.
       
       By your reasoning no president could ever say wihout lieing that we have no invasion plans for Canada.

        I am quite sure that Thomas  Jefferson had such a plan , and it would not surprise me if James Bucannon had it updated.

        If Al Gore had been elected you would not let him say that he didn't plan to invade Iran? Or  Canada?

[Amianthus]

If the Pentagon is doing its job it has a contigency plan for every likely situation of the near future , and probly a lot of such plans for unlikely situatons.

Mikey doesn't understand that there is a whole (fairly large) group in the Pentagon that does nothing more than get paid to sit around and develop military plans for all sorts of scenarios - likely or not. And they frequently play them out using wargames.

I have a friend that developed the system they use for the wargames. He runs them at various conventions now that he's no longer in the Navy.