Well....Duh

By John

US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.
The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.

Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed, as are Democratic congressmen and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. The sources said Mr Bush had not yet made a decision. The Bush administration insists the military build-up is not offensive but aimed at containing Iran and forcing it to make diplomatic concessions. The aim is to persuade Tehran to curb its suspect nuclear weapons programme and abandon ambitions for regional expansion.

I love this byline: Despite denials, Pentagon plans for possible attack on nuclear sites are well advanced.

Translated: Lying liars!!

Course we call it 'military deception' in the service. Just sayin'...

Although I'm not too terribly sure that The Guardian has this right. My understanding is that we've said we have no plans to attack Iran at the present. What I have heard is plenty of "all options are on the table" chatter. And the Pentagon plans for everything (like invading Canada!), just because we plan for a contingency doesn't mean it's going to happen. Otherwise we would have conquered the moon years ago (why else would the Marines need a 'space plane')?

I'm not too sure why The Guardian is so skeptical of our 'diplomatic pressure' line. Carrier battle groups send a very strong message, which is why we responded to Chinese chest-thumping by sending two of 'em sailing around Taiwan back in the 1990s.

And if you were wondering, yes... I'm ignoring the not-so-subtle "Bushco is a lying killing killer warmonger!!" narrative. One, it's The Guardian....two, aren't we all used to it by now?

February 10, 2007 07:11 AM Iran

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/731

Comments

Humor aside, John, I am certain that an attack on Iran is coming very soon. I think it will be an airstike.

Gil Roy · February 10, 2007 08:07 AM

Oh an attack is coming alright Gil, but it won't be coming from the Pentagon. Israel is going to handle this. The Guardian is so pathetic in their bias. They do not even try to hide it. F the media, they are trying to make us lose over there.

Genghis · February 10, 2007 08:14 AM

What a crock of crap. Of course we're planning airstrikes against Iran, we're also probably planning airstrikes and military action against China, Vietnam, North Korea, France, and several other countries that do not currently exist. Its what the kids at the pentagon are paid to do, plan, plan, occasionally go out to the troops and do some cheerleading, and then comeback to DC to plan some more. The worst thing that could ever happen is for some wild thing to go down, and then for them to have to tell their commanders that they have no plans involving what the hell to do.

curtis · February 10, 2007 10:17 AM

This is just another instance of the press having no concept of what contingency planning is. OMG, they're "planning" - they're crazy and their going to attack - damn those evil neocons. /snark

Apparently they've never heard of "War Plan Red" either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red

Andy · February 10, 2007 03:13 PM

Duh!

Ben Bauman · February 10, 2007 08:41 PM

GW will not leave office without insuring that Israel does not face a nuclear threat
from Iran. Either the US will initiate it
or we will back up Israel when they do so
with the White Houses's encouragement.
GW is a right wing evangelical zealot who
listens to the likes of Pat Robertson. They
are intent on starting a holy war to bring
about the second coming of Christ.
What is funny - the Israeli's don't believe
in Jesus!

Besides! What about the Israeli nukes? How
can you attack another country for having a
nuclear program to protect a country who you
know for a fact already has nukes.

Someone stupid enough to come up with that
logic would tell us - Saddam Hussein was in
behind the attack on New York and had WMD.

Sarge · February 11, 2007 04:23 AM

very shallow argument Sarge. I'm disappointed.

Gil Roy · February 11, 2007 10:07 AM

Seconded on that. That's not even really an argument, Sarge, it's just a wild bunch of speculation.

Don't assume you know the mind of someone - especially someone you've never even met.

Stefan · February 11, 2007 10:55 PM

Of course there are plans--all possible scenarios must be considered and likely responses must be prepared. To NOT plan would be at best, negligent and at worst, criminal. OPS are a different matter.

Sarge, at what point has Israel threatened to wipe Iran off the map? Also,do you have any evidence to show GWB is a "zealot, bent on bringing about the 2nd coming of Christ?" Do you realize how un-hinged that makes your post read and you lose whatever credability (not to mention readability) you'd hope to obtain? Ranting don't win you no friends or points. -cp

cold pizza · February 12, 2007 12:14 PM

GW is a right wing evangelical zealot who
listens to the likes of Pat Robertson. They are intent on starting a holy war to bring about the second coming of Christ.

Not so sure how well GW fits this profile, but he does pay attention to "his base", many of whom do fit quite nicely.

What is funny - the Israeli's don't believe in Jesus!

True enough, as my Jewish wife would tell you. But there's even more that's funny about this - how about the fact that Muslims DO recognize Jesus as the Messiah, and believe in the Second Coming? (Read the Koran sometime, you might me surprised!) Another funny thing, Jesus himself said that he doesn't know the hour of his return. What makes these people think they can "bring about the second coming of Christ"?

Freeman · February 12, 2007 03:57 PM

Yeah, I love the old media flippy floosey deny denial denies gambit...

"The Pentagon today denied planning to install purple fuzzy toilet seat covers in washrooms throughout thier DC facilty"

"President Bush today denied that he beats his wife."

You get the idea. What the hell are they teaching exactly in Journalism schools?

James · February 14, 2007 07:33 AM

It's known that cash makes people independent. But how to act if one has no cash? The only one way is to receive the personal loans or just short term loan.

HahnShelia · March 9, 2010 12:22 AM