Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, April 08, 2006

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think what Seymour Hersh is breaking as a hot story is, in reality, pretty run-of-the-mill Pentagon planning:
The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.
Well of course they are.

It's called contingency planning.

All scenarios are covered and planned for with the operative word being "all". What, you think military actions are done on the fly?

Think about it. Before the first bomb would fall on Iran, a whole heck of a lot of planning has to have been done (and executed). Identifying units which would fit the scenario. Positioning the units. Positioning their logistical support. Deploying the units. Etc., etc., etc.

It doesn't happen by magic.

So you put a plan together (one of many), you put it on the shelf, and if and when you see the assumptions upon which the plan is built coming to pass, you dust it off, update it and turn it from and Operations Plan into and Operations Order. It saves oodles and scads of time.

Folks, that is what planners in the Pentagon get paid to do. We have just about every conceivable scenario you can imagine (to include nuclear) on the shelf and we're constantly reassessing and updating them as new weapons systems, units, tactics or threats are made available or recognized. Believe it or not there are plans sitting on the shelf to nuke China. And North Korea. And probably Russia.

*gasp*

Iran would obviously be no exception.

So, in my opinion, you can take this bit of "reporting"...
A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that "this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war."

The former intelligence officials depicts planning as "enormous," "hectic" and "operational," Hersh writes.

One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government," The New Yorker pointed out.
...with the appropriate large grain of salt. Oh I'm sure it's happening, but not for the reasons implied.

Maybe it's just me, but whenever I see "senior unnamed Pentagon advisors" or "former intelligence" or "former defense officials" cited, well, I'm just not overly impressed. Seems a bit too poorly cited not to mention breathless to me.

Of course, lately, Hersh hasn't at all been impressive in his reporting. Remember this from a Hersh speech?
For me, it's just another story, but out of this comes a core of — you know, we all deal in “macro” in Washington. On the macro, we're hopeless. We're nowhere. The press is nowhere. The congress is nowhere. The military is nowhere. Every four-star General I know is saying, “Who is going to tell them we have no clothes?” Nobody is going to do it. Everybody is afraid to tell Rumsfeld anything. That's just the way it is. It's a system built on fear. It's not lack of integrity, it's more profound than that. Because there is individual integrity. It's a system that's completely been taken over — by cultists.
Yes indeed, and now the cultists are going to nuke Iran.

Like I said ... large grain of salt.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Dude, Hersch’s sort of journalism makes my skin crawl.

I couldn’t help but notice he left himself some wiggle room, too:
"[A] key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility."

It looks like he’s leaving open the chance that our CIA has plans to wipe out another baby-aspirin factory, in which case the headline will be: "Bush Intelligence Failure Kills Babies."

Wanna bet I’m right?
-Steve
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran
McQ...are you quoting Vince Vance and The Valliants?

Woah... your CQ (Cool Quotient) just went up 85%.

And if you have no idea what I am talking about, deduct 90% from your CQ.

Wow....
 
Written By: Rick D.
URL: http://
This is the lead story on foreign shortwave and internet sites today...and the US media has buried it...not even in the top 5 stories on yahoo, cnn, fox, msnbc. For sixty years, the world has avoided "mutually assured destruction" on the theory that no sane world leader would be the first to use nuclear weapons...but we have George W. Bush and the "rapture right."
 
Written By: Frank
URL: http://
You see Frank, it’s like this: we have already tried your way (see Jimmy Carter and Iran hostage crisis). That is why we are faced with the problem today. A little sabre rattling, like a hanging, is wonderful at concentrating the (Iranian) mind. "Nuclear" has a different meaning today (no, I don’t mean "nucular", I mean control of the effects). Also, you are a fearmonger.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
These are the same people now criticizing the pentagon for not doing enough contingency planning in Iraq . . .
 
Written By: Sean
URL: http://www.myelectionanalysis.com
Yes Frank, of course IT’S THE UNITED STATES FAULT, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons...
And why is the US going to use NUCLEAR WEAPONS, any way? Seymour Hersh sure isn’t the most reliable reporter on this sort of thing, I might add.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I’d have to say that Seymour Hersh is helping out the American cause with this story (which should aggravate him to no end once he figures it out). While I’m sure the Pentagon has this plan on its shelves next to thousands of others, and probably has for years, news of that plan being leaked right about now can hardly be accidental. As part of a propaganda/psy-ops campaign against Iran this leak makes perfect sense. Thank you Mr. Hersh for doing your part to help the war effort.
 
Written By: Skorj
URL: http://
Geez. I just got Rick D’s "Barbara Ann" allusion. Guess I get a 33% CQ rating for that. Actually, I’m not very cool.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Okay Frank.
For sixty years, the world has avoided "mutually assured destruction" on the theory that no sane world leader would be the first to use nuclear weapons...but we have George W. Bush and the "rapture right."
Look up. It’s over your head, opposite from your feet. We call this "the sky" and it’s blue, right? If it’s raining or about to rain, maybe it’s gray.

Now look down, below your feet, opposite your head. There’s probably something hard under your feet, and when you jump, you’re drawn right back down to it, right? We call that "the ground," or, if you’re inside, "the floor."

Now go find a stick, Frank. It doesn’t have to be a big one. If you wear glasses, go ahead and take them off. Pick up your stick and jam it in your eye. Ouch! It hurts, huh?

Now read again what you wrote above. One of these things is not like the other, Frank. One of these things does not belong. "The world" hasn’t done sh*t. Mutually Assured Distruction is an American doctrine, Frank, and uniquely so. We invented it. The Soviets’ nuclear doctrine was more or less based on chess, and it was called Strategic Initiative. But you’re right about one thing: MAD kept the world safe from Soviet aggression and expansionism. That’s right Frank, America saved the world from global thermonuclear war. And if we can manage to step over all of the unserious, anti-American obstructionists such as Seymour Hersh and yourself, we’ll save it again.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Yes indeed, and now the cultists are going to nuke Iran.
QUESTION: Thank you for coming to Cleveland, Mr. President, and to the City Club.

My question is that author and former Nixon administration official Kevin Phillips in his latest book, "American Theocracy," discusses what has been called radical Christianity and its growing involvement into government and politics. He makes the point that members of your administration have reached out to prophetic Christians who see the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism as signs of the Apocalypse.

QUESTION: Do you believe this, that the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the Apocalypse?

And if not, why not?

BUSH: Hmmm.

(LAUGHTER)

The answer is I haven’t really thought of it that way.

(LAUGHTER)

Here’s how I think of it.

First, I’ve heard of that, by the way.

I guess I’m more of a practical fellow. I vowed, after September the 11th, that I would do everything I could to protect the American people. And my attitude, of course, was affected by the attacks.

I knew we were at war. I knew that the enemy obviously had to be sophisticated and lethal to fly hijacked airplanes into facilities that would be killing thousands of people, innocent people, doing nothing, just sitting there, going to work.

I also knew this about this war on terror: that the farther we got away from September the 11th, the more likely it is people would seek comfort and not think about this global war on terror as a global war of terror.

And that’s good, by the way. It’s hard to take a risk if you’re a small-business owner, for example, if you’re worried that the next attack is going to come tomorrow. I understand that.

But I also understand my most important job, the most important job of any president today, and I predict, down the road, is to protect America.

And so I told the American people that we would find the terrorists and bring them to justice and that we needed to defeat them overseas so we didn’t have to face them here at home.

I also understood that the war on terror requires some clear doctrine. And one of the doctrines that I laid out was, if you harbor a terrorist, you’re equally as guilty as the terrorist.

And the first time that doctrine was really challenged was in Afghanistan. I guess the Taliban didn’t believe us — or me. And so we acted. Twenty-five million people are now free, and Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for the terrorists.

And the other doctrine that’s really important, and it’s a change of attitude — it’s going require a change in attitude for a while — is that when you see a threat, you’ve got to deal with it before it hurts you.

Foreign policy used to be dictated by the fact we had two ocean protecting us. If we saw a threat, we could deal with it if you needed to you think, or not, but we’d be safe.

My most important job is to protect you, is to protect the American people. Therefore, when we see threats, given the lesson of September the 11th, we’ve got to deal with them.

That does not mean militarily, necessarily. Obviously, the first option for a president has to be the full use of diplomacy.

That’s what you’re watching in Iran right now. I see a threat in Iran.

I’m, kind of, getting off subject here, but not because I don’t want to answer your question. But I guess that’s what happens in Washington, we get a little long-winded.

(LAUGHTER)

But now that I’m on Iran, the threat from Iran, of course...

(LAUGHTER)
Now, if he wanted to answer the question, as he claims he did, it would have been pretty easy, wouldn’t it have? It called for a yes or no answer. Now, the only rational answer would have been something along the lines of the following:
"No, I don’t believe these are signs of the Apocalypse. Next question."
That is the only rational answer. (If someone wants to take a shot at making the counter-argument, I can’t wait to hear it.) But instead, we get long winded drivel that we have heard 1000 times before. And a reference to Iran, when the question itself did not reference Iran.

Now, we alll know the reason Bush couldn’t answer the question, don’t we? A sizeable portion of the Bush cult not only believes these are the End Times, but vote for Bush precisely because they believe he shares their views. Now, is it such a stretch to believe that there are powerful members of this cult, in high places in the government? Of course not. And it is a stretch to believe that they see the nuclear option as fulfilling some version of the prophecy of an End Times? Hardly.

When the President of the United States cannot give a straightforward, rational answer to the question of whether we are in the End Times, and instead refers to the threat posed by Iran, why is it so hard to believe that Hersh has it about right?

God’s Only Party ....


 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Isn’t Hersh the guy who wrote that the US was responsible for KAL 007 being shot down by the Russians?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Speaking of long-winded drivel;

." (If someone wants to take a shot at making the counter-argument, I can’t wait to hear it.)"

I’ll try to answer this as soon as you answer my question to you from a previous post about which graduate school Charlie Sheen went to and what his advanced degree is in.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I’ll try to answer this as soon as you answer my question to you from a previous post about which graduate school Charlie Sheen went to and what his advanced degree is in.
None that I am aware of.

If you think I was defending Sheen, you didn’t read what I wrote.

Ok, your turn.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
MK: "Now, we alll know the reason Bush couldn’t answer the question, don’t we?"
As I read this sentence, I thought of Brando’s colonel (Kurtz?) in "Apocalypse Now", trapped in his cave deep up-river, surrounded by heads on poles, etc. MK has aparently begun imagining that there are others who share his views.
"A sizeable portion of the Bush cult not only believes these are the End Times, but vote for Bush precisely because they believe he shares their views."
I presume that this sentence reveals MK’s opinion of America’s devout Christians? I’ve got it! MK reads the cartoons in "The New Yorker" magazine showing the bearded person with the signboard saying "The World Is Coming To An End" and projects what religion means to religious Bush supporters. Interesting. One thinks of the intellectual acheivements of the "Cargo Cult" SE Asian tribes.
MK: keep it coming
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
I presume that this sentence reveals MK’s opinion of America’s devout Christians? I’ve got it! MK reads the cartoons in "The New Yorker" magazine showing the bearded person with the signboard saying "The World Is Coming To An End" and projects what religion means to religious Bush supporters. Interesting. One thinks of the intellectual acheivements of the "Cargo Cult" SE Asian tribes.
MK: keep it coming
Shorter Notherbob: I’m not going to say you are right, but I am not going to say you are wrong either.

Man, you and Bush do have much in common.


 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Well, why give MK the thread...how about this? This thread is a useful as a thead on Congressperson McKinney.

Hersh has reported, breathlessly, that the US is planning on Nuclear strikes on Iran. That’s hardly news, the US planned nuclear strikes on Iraq, plans them on the DPRK, the PRC and Russia. Technically it planned them on the BRD, an ally. Almost any, and actually probably any geographic command, CentCom, South Com, EuCom, PaCom and the like, have Nuclear Planning Cells/Groups. They plan for the employment of nuclear weapons. It’s what we pay them to do. I would HOPE that they have drafted and updated any number of Plans for the use of nuclear weapons. This is like saying that the local police force has drafted plans on recapturing City Hall from terrorists... it’s true but so what? Plans are just that, plans they aren’t necessarily options that the government would choose, but the planning has been undertaken.

Hersh just gives the Mk’s and Frankie’s of the Blogosphere something else to feel "panic" over in their cases of BDS.

And, of course, in order to tease the story to an even more breathless level, Hersh focuses on the NUCLEAR weapons aspect of the planning. The vast amount of the planning has, no doubt, involved the use of Conventional weapons, to suppress the Iranian air defenses/air force, secure the air sea space around Iran, and to destroy or damage Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. Hersh and others seem to assume, or want YOU to assume that the first and best Bush option out of the box is Nuclear weapons. That’s mostly to sell papers, on the parts of editors, and mostly from Hersh’s BDS. IF MK and others chose to buy into the hype about Nuclear planning, well that’s their right, but it doesn’t mean that their paranoia is justified.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
There are plans on the shelf to nuke the U.S. as well.
No joke, it’s part of all contingency planning.

The difference here is that using a nuclear weapon against Iran is a very real possibility should the administration be foolish enough to launch a non nuclear strike against Iran.

Check the history of the Iran Iraq war and decide for yourself what our options would be if human waves started across the border from Iran to Iraq.

Hersh is trying to sound a warning bell, but the tone deaf are refusing to recognise the tune.
 
Written By: AF Planning
URL: http://
(blush) Well, thank you, MK. Yes, you do get a lot of adoring attention here that never does say if you are right or wrong, does it? We are with you 1,000%. Yes, you are our Tom Eagleton, aren’t you. Keep up the good work.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Jesus mk.

Bush says:
The answer is I haven’t really thought of it that way. Here’s how I think about it...
mkultra would have preferred:
No, I don’t believe these are signs of the Apocalypse. Next question.
I’d call this nitpicking, but if I did I think I’d be overstating your case. It looks more like a distinction without a difference to me, especially considering the whacko charge your trying to support.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Check the history of the Iran Iraq war and decide for yourself what our options would be if human waves started across the border from Iran to Iraq.
Kill them all. Lots of firepower versus human waves tends to come out one way.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Check the history of the Iran Iraq war and decide for yourself what our options would be if human waves started across the border from Iran to Iraq.
Three things which would be quite different.

1. Air superiority

2. DPICM

3. MLRS

Bring ’em on.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
That is the only rational answer. (If someone wants to take a shot at making the counter-argument, I can’t wait to hear it.)
Given that President Bush is a believing Christian, I don’t find his answer out of line.

In your case, MK, the answer to that question would have been and would always be the one which you claim is the only rational answer. You don’t believe in the Apocalypse at all.

Suppose that you do believe that there will be an Apocalypse sometime in the future. You aren’t working to make it come about. You might not personally want it to come about on your watch. "I haven’t really thought of it that way." is a simple statement of truth.

MK, you won’t find a bigger atheist than me. Pull your head out of your fourth point of contact.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
"Sheen is deeply steeped in left political thought. I heard he was huge into Marcuse and Derrida when he was doing his dissertation. He was a huge post-modernist..."

So why was he writing a dissertation?


 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"Sheen is deeply steeped in left political thought. I heard he was huge into Marcuse and Derrida when he was doing his dissertation. He was a huge post-modernist..."

So why was he writing a dissertation?
That was sarcasm. It doesn’t translate well in the written form. Although I do hear that Sheen was generally into literary criticism, the kind of pseudo-scholarship that passed for intellectualism well into the 90’s.

Just kidding.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
I’d call this nitpicking, but if I did I think I’d be overstating your case. It looks more like a distinction without a difference to me, especially considering the whacko charge your trying to support
In your case, MK, the answer to that question would have been and would always be the one which you claim is the only rational answer. You don’t believe in the Apocalypse at all.

Suppose that you do believe that there will be an Apocalypse sometime in the future. You aren’t working to make it come about. You might not personally want it to come about on your watch. "I haven’t really thought of it that way." is a simple statement of truth.

MK, you won’t find a bigger atheist than me. Pull your head out of your fourth point of contact.
Sensitive. Gosh, did I strike a nerve?

The idea of the Apocalypse as some kind of "fact" or realistic possibility - as revealed in the Book of Revelations - is as close to the "fact" as is the Garden of Eden, the Flood, and the Earth being about 6000 years old. Most - and I mean most - Christians do not accept the Revelations as literally true, in the sense that it will happen in real time on planet earth as described.

If you really are an atheist, than you will pull your head out of your a**. It is one thing to respect someone’s right to believe something. It is another thing entirely to think that it is rational to accept something as fact - and to be prepared to accept a politican who believes the same - when you clearly know is not true. If a politican believed that the Tooth Fairy existed, would you vote for him?

Either you accept Revelation as fact, or you reject it as fact, or you occupy some middle ground. But if you don’t accept it as fact, then Bush should blow your mind. Because he has clearly staked out the ground that he will not reject it as fact.

And - and this is the crucial part of the equation - if he accepts Revelation as fact, the citizenry deserves to know that. Because, Revelations is a "public" book of the Bible. It does not prescribe a personal, moral code. It describes an end for us all - you know, the public.

Look, the bottom line is this: Bush has never publicly said Revelations does not represent fact. You know, facts, what we empirically believe to be true?

Bush will not come clean about Revelations. That was my point. And until he does, he deserves all the scrutiny he gets. And until then, the Bush cult members, as quoted above, will parse his words and rationalize his motives and beliefs. Even the atheists, if only to appear fair, because, after all, it is not only the the End Timers who benefit by his lagresse. After all, the GOP coalition is made up of elitist, non-fundamentalist interests too.

But isn’t that the definition of a cult?






 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Now, if he wanted to answer the question, as he claims he did, it would have been pretty easy, wouldn’t it have? It called for a yes or no answer. Now, the only rational answer would have been something along the lines of the following:

"No, I don’t believe these are signs of the Apocalypse. Next question."

That is the only rational answer.
No, that isn’t the only rational answer.

Another rational answer would be, I don’t know. The Bible doesn’t tell us when the Apocalypse will occur, nor does it say we will be able to figure it out ahead of time. Beware false prophets and all that...
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
And personally, I’d be more worried with the views espoused by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran...

He is actively working to make things happen, according his believes in...

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1471465

 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
But Keith, he’s an Iranian, and a Muslim and everyone KNOWS the real threats are from Christian Americans...plus protesting against him would put you in line with those people, you know the Bushies and the Right-Wing Christian fanatics, plus well protesting a strong man in a foreign country, what effect is THAT going to have, whereas protesting in a free country, has an effect.

Man, Keith for a smart guy you sure can be slow.....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
It is one thing to respect someone’s right to believe something. It is another thing entirely to think that it is rational to accept something as fact - and to be prepared to accept a politican who believes the same - when you clearly know is not true. If a politican believed that the Tooth Fairy existed, would you vote for him?
I would have to be a hermit to not deal with people who believe in things which I don’t believe in.

I certainly wouldn’t be discussing things with you, MK, inasmuch as you believe in things which I know are not true.

I don’t care what people believe; I care what they do. President Bush has had 5 years to get another true believer to be the 2nd approving release authority so that he can start the Apocalypse. (I’m assuming that the President isn’t the sole nuclear release authority. We have two man controls everywhere else, AFAIK.) Hasn’t happened yet and it won’t.

You must go through a lot of shampoo.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
August, 2002:
Q Sir, after you’ve studied today the military capabilities of the United States and looking ahead to future threats, one thing that has to factor in is the growing number of U.S. allies, Russia, Germany, Bahrain, now Canada, who say that if you go to war with Iran, you’re going to go alone. Does the American military have the capability to prosecute this war alone?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, if you’re asking — are you asking about Iran? The subject didn’t come up in this meeting. But, having said that, we take all threats seriously and we will continue to consult with our friends and allies. I know there is this kind of intense speculation that seems to be going on, a kind of a — I don’t know how you would describe it. It’s kind of a churning —

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Frenzy.

THE PRESIDENT: Frenzy is how the Secretary would describe it. But the subject didn’t come up. We will obviously continue to consult with our friends and allies. Your question makes certain assumptions that may or may not be true. But we will continue to talk with our — with the people concerned about peace and how to secure the peace, and those are needed consultations. Not only will we consult with friends and allies, we’ll consult with members of Congress. Yes, Terry.

[...]

Q He has said that he is drawing up war plans to provide you with credible options. Now, should the American people conclude from that that you’re reaching some critical point, that a decision is imminent?

THE PRESIDENT: ... one of the jobs that the Secretary of Defense has tasked to members of his general staff is to prepare for all contingencies, whether it be in the particular country that you seem to be riveted on, or any other country, for that matter. We face a — the world is not stable. The world changes. There are — this terrorist network is global in nature and they may strike anywhere. And, therefore, we’ve got to be prepared to use our military and all the other assets at our disposal in a way to keep the peace.

Would you like to comment on that?

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: I would. As the President indicated, one of the things we discussed here today was the contingency planning guidance that he signed. I then meet with all of the combatant commanders for every area of responsibility across the globe. I do it on a regular basis. We go over all the conceivable contingencies that could occur. ... That’s my job. That’s their job, is to see that we have the ability to protect the American people and deal effectively on behalf of our friends and our allies and our deployed forces. So it is their task to work with me and ultimately with the President as the chain of command goes from the Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States, to me, to the combatant commanders. And they’re doing exactly what I’ve asked them to do and what the President has asked me to do.


Now, don’t get me wrong, contingency plans are contingency plans, but we now know that, in August of 2002, the administration was committed to war with Iraq.

Hersh’s article is about more than contingency plans. It’s about the administration’s commitment to regime change in Iran. It’s about their belief in an air strategy that will result in the democratization of Iran. It is about current military action in Iran.

Read the article.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, bomb Iran.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Oops, must have accidentaly changed "Iraq" into "Iran". Otherwise, the quotted text above is faithful to the original.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Hersh’s article is about more than contingency plans. It’s about the administration’s commitment to regime change in Iran
The Clinton administration’s stated policy for Iraq waqs "regime change". They didn’t go to war with Iraq, but I’m sure they planned contingencies around such an assumption.

The fact that the policy for Iran is "regime change" doesn’t mean that this is any more or less of a contingency plan than did the Clinton war plans for Iraq.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider