<<NEW YORK (Reuters) - Despite the Bush administration's insistence it has no plans to go to war with Iran . . . >
Maybe your entreaties should be directed to the AP, BT.
So keep it honest.
Hell, if you do, your personal feelings are clouding your judgement, or some such crap.
I assume we are still dealing with the sergeant?
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.
Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated in 1995 "in war theater plans" to invade first Iraq and then Iran.
Guess you missed Lanya's article, which said in part:QuoteAlready 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.
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.
I disagreed with your assessment of the sergeants statement.
so it goes.
Dusted off from the Clinton era, my ass!
Dusted off from the Clinton era, my ass!
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.>>
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.
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.
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.