Bush eyes 'surgical' strikes vs. Iran, sez mag

[tbone]

Did we learn nothing from Iraq?

Bush eyes 'surgical' strikes vs. Iran, sez mag

THE WHITE HOUSE is planning "surgical" strikes in Iran to cripple agents the United States says support Iraqi insurgents fighting American soldiers, a new report says.

The plan coincides with a change in the administration's rhetoric against Iran - redefining the source of tension from nuclear weapon development to Tehran's support of America's enemies, Seymour Hersh writes in this week's New Yorker magazine.

"Now the emphasis is on 'surgical' strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities and elsewhere, which, the administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq," he writes. "What had been presented primarily as a counterproliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism."

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have been working on plans to hit Iran with "a broad bombing attack" on suspected nuclear and military facilities, Hersh says.

However, citing former intelligence officials and diplomats, Hersh reports the revised bombing plan is gaining support from the military leadership and the British government.

But the idea is being resisted by the Israelis, who would rather see Iran's nuclear facilities targeted directly, he said.

Hersh claims the main reasons behind the shift in strategy are a lack of public support for a major bombing campaign, and the belief in intelligence circles that Iran is at least five years away from developing a nuclear weapon.

"We're threatening Iran," Hersh commented on CNN's "Late Edition" yesterday.

"But instead of saying to the American people ... it's going to be about nuclear weapons, it's now going to be about getting the guys that are killing ourboys."

A recently retired CIA official told Hersh that the changing tone toward Iran is similar to the leadup to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, with the agency "moving everybody to the Iran desk."

Bush eyes 'surgical' strikes vs. Iran, sez mag

[Stylerod]

The White House has plans for everything. Hell, up until WW1 we had a plan to invade Canada.

BFD

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

The White House has plans for everything. Hell, up until WW1 we had a plan to invade Canada.

BFD

Why did didn't we...gets those moose humpers!!!

These plans should not be made public, it only make relations worse and diplomacy more apt to fail.

If such plans are discovered internally, it should stay that way and debated within our legislative leaders, not leaked.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Why did didn't we...gets those moose humpers!!!

These plans should not be made public, it only make relations worse and diplomacy more apt to fail.

If such plans are discovered internally, it should stay that way and debated within our legislative leaders, not leaked.

You would think legislators wouldn't want stuff leaked. But they do it all the time if they think it can make the other side look bad.

[tbone]

No doubt we have plans for damn near everything, however these plans have been diplomatically floated to allies, which means they are on the back burner on simmer. This makes me think it's much closer than a "what if" scenario.

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

You would think legislators wouldn't want stuff leaked. But they do it all the time if they think it can make the other side look bad.

so the legislators are the ones sitting at the table with the president and his cabinet while he's getting briefed... THEY are the ones at fault for the leaks

[tbone]

Deja Vu?

2007:

White House dismisses report of Iran attack plans
by Mark Silva

The White House today is dismissing the report of a seasoned journalist that the Bush administration, intent on attacking Iran, has shifted its target from a developing nuclear program in Iran to the supply lines of Iranians reinforcing insurgent fighters inside Iraq.

Writer Seymour Hersh says so in The New Yorker, citing a number of confidential sources.

"Every two months or so, Sy Hersh writes an article in the New Yorker magazine and CNN gives him a forum to talk about his article and all the anonymous sources on it,'' Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, said today, insisting that President Bush still maintains that diplomacy is "the best solution'' for settling differences with Iran.

The Swamp: White House dismisses report of Iran attack plans

2002:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One of the Pentagon's leading advocates of toppling Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein said Saturday that quick action was needed to limit Hussein's ability to threaten the region and Americans.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told CNN's "Novak, Hunt and Shields" that President Bush has not made a decision about military action against Iraq. He said Bush is keeping all of his options, including diplomacy, on the table, but called Hussein a "very dangerous man" who poses a threat to the United States.

Wolfowitz said the Bush administration would prefer to find a diplomatic solution to the Iraq issue, but Hussein "has shown great resistance to accepting any reasonable outcomes."

CNN.com - End Iraq threat now, Pentagon official says - March 16, 2002

[motivez]

Yeah, a lot of the neocons are coming out and beating the war drums.. Bolton said we should "Invade Iran, remove its leader" -- referring to Ahmadinejad.

I am completely amazed that he was talking about Ahmadinejad, seeing how it's really the Mullah's who run everything, control the military, and have final say..