lulldapull

the best our retarded president can hope for in Iraq, let alone Iran is anarchy! So they can get the hell out of there leaving things to lackeys to sort out. That is the best possibility keeping in mind the current disastrous situation.

i lay the blame on our response to 9-11. Iraq has become a breeding ground and a magnet for islamic fundo terrorists hell bent on killing our pathetic soldiers. they are streaming in from four corners, just so they can have their ultimate wish fullfilled....of meeting their maker, alongside 72 'Doe-eyed' virgin boys.

if bush thought that taking the fight to "their streets" was a good option, then boy was he dead wrong. Them camel jockies gave such a fight that now we have to withdraw ( Bullshhit aside for a moment)....in a none too different way than the last flight outta Saigon. Are you in any doubt that that wont happen??

Lets tackle em one at a time, and forget Iran for the moment. Right now iraq and Afghanistan are tying down our entire military! 150,000 U.S. troops plus 20,000 or so assorted lackeys along with 100,000 or so iraqi's can't fend off 20,000 or so insurgents. What do you think the reality is??? keeping in focus that this is the third year for us in Iraq.........

Luckily so far its not so bad in afghanistan..but over there too, the end is inevitable. A phyrric victory of ousting Al-qaeda is now showing signs of precipitation. you can't call governing a nation that cannot be governed by sitting garrisoned in kabul. Unfortunately Afghanistan too will eventually have an islamic govt. its only a matter of time.

Iran is a very long shot buddy! thats just the reality. Now don't make me wanna bust out laughin

Ray

I saw thre CNN's Late Night Edition with Wolf Blitzer.

Sy Hersh did not say about any invasion.

It is to take on nuke sites with military action through missiles and Special Forces etc.

The plan is also to get the Iranians to rebel against the Islamic govt.

The article has been published in The New Yorker yesterday.

Can someone get it and give the excerpts?

lemontree

Iran has no other option but to send more insurgents in the Iraqi fire. They do not have the military might to take on the US, even if their nuclear sites are hit.
They are already surrounded from a number of sides by the presence of US forces.

__________________

Cheers!...on the rocks!!

Julie

How do you get Iran is a long shot? US forces surround both sides of Iran, and US are fighting Iranian insurgents on a daily basis in Iraq. The US has a perfect set up if you ask me. No, WMD in Iraq, but while we are all here, let's work on Iran. Tell Iran to get their insurgents back in their country, or we bomb your nuke plants.

nickshepAK

Ray here is the article you were looking for.

THE COMING WARS
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
What the Pentagon can now do in secret.
New Yorker Issue of 2005-01-24 and 31
Posted 2005-01-17

<snip>

The President’s decision enables Rumsfeld to run the operations off
the books—free from legal restrictions imposed on the C.I.A. Under
current law, all C.I.A. covert activities overseas must be authorized
by a Presidential finding and reported to the Senate and House
intelligence committees. (The laws were enacted after a series of
scandals in the nineteen-seventies involving C.I.A. domestic spying
and attempted assassinations of foreign leaders.) “The Pentagon
doesn’t feel obligated to report any of this to Congress,” the
former high-level intelligence official said. “They don’t even call
it ‘covert ops’—it’s too close to the C.I.A. phrase. In their
view, it’s ‘black reconnaissance.’ They’re not even going to tell
the cincs”—the regional American military
commanders-in-chief. (The Defense Department and the White House did
not respond to requests for comment on this story.)

<snip>

“The idea that an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities
would produce a popular uprising is extremely illinformed,” said
Flynt Leverett, a Middle East scholar who worked on the National
Security Council in the Bush Administration. “You have to
understand that the nuclear ambition in Iran is supported across the
political spectrum, and Iranians will perceive attacks on these sites
as attacks on their ambitions to be a major regional player and a
modern nation that’s technologically sophisticated.” Leverett, who
is now a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, at
the Brookings Institution, warned that an American attack, if it takes
place, “will produce an Iranian backlash against the United States
and a rallying around the regime.”

<snip>

The legal questions about the Pentagon’s right to conduct covert
operations without informing Congress have not been resolved. “It’s
a very, very gray area,” said Jeffrey H. Smith, a West Point
graduate who served as the C.I.A.’s general counsel in the
mid-nineteen-nineties. “Congress believes it voted to include all
such covert activities carried out by the armed forces. The military
says, ‘No, the things we’re doing are not intelligence actions
under the statute but necessary military steps authorized by the
President, as Commander-in-Chief, to “prepare the
battlefield.”’” Referring to his days at the C.I.A., Smith
added, “We were always careful not to use the armed forces in a
covert action without a Presidential finding. The Bush Administration
has taken a much more aggressive stance.”

<snip>

The new rules will enable the Special Forces community to set up what
it calls “action teams” in the target countries overseas which
can be used to find and eliminate terrorist organizations. “Do you
remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador?” the
former high-level intelligence official asked me, referring to the
military-led gangs that committed atrocities in the early
nineteen-eighties. “We founded them and we financed them,” he
said. “The objective now is to recruit locals in any area we
want. And we aren’t going to tell Congress about it.” A former
military officer, who has knowledge of the Pentagon’s commando
capabilities, said, “We’re going to be riding with the bad
boys.”

<snip>

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

smilingassassin

Lull, if Iran used a nuke on U.S. troops or interests it would be equivilent to a mosquito biting an elephant.

You seem to forget that the U.S possesses far more nukes then Iran could ever aquire in their wet dreams.

Wake up from your riverie....

Leader

Source

__________________

Parihaka

My only surprise would be if there wasn't any recon teams in Iran, it'd be madness not to have them.

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Leader

Indeed, but I somehow doubt that anyone with such knowledge would be talking about it to the press. Therefore, I believe the Pentagon statement is accurate. Not to mention that people in the administration have called parts of this story "fiction."

Confed999

It would be madness not to have spies in every country.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Major_Armstrong

See
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/671eed44-68...00e2511c8.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4184175.stm

Ray

nickshepAK

Thanks.