The key word in this article is "updating"  which is most likely what it is.  Just a revision of contingency plans.  However with neo-cons and the warmongering right, those contingencies could become reality very quickly.  Remember when we were being told there were no official plans for invading Iraq and then we found out plans were being drawn up for Iraq shortly after 9-11??
  Just keep that in mind!!  Oh and don't forget to read my previous post on the Draft.  Oh boy, oh boy all of you with 18-26 year old kids who fanatically supported the war in Iraq must be absoultely thrilled to hear this news.  Your boys and girls might be going to the Middle East to fight Iran and Syria!!  Calm down, lets not get too excited!!!  

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6099353/site/newsweek/

Great link.  Isn't this what the liberals want...better planning, contingency planning, operations against those who support terrorism or nukes?

Also, I couldn't help notice your peculiar interpretation of the article:

On one hand, the article explicitly states: "even hard-liners acknowledge that...a U.S. attack on either country would be an unlikely last resort."

But, that doesnt make good anti-Bush chatter on the board, so you spin it your own way:

"However with neo-cons and the warmongering right, those contingencies could become reality very quickly"

Hmm.  Talk about twisting the facts!

That's funny.  Wasn't it the liberals that didn't want to attack Iraq saying all sorts of stuff like N. Korea, Syria, Iran and other countries were more of an 'imminant' threat & we should take care of them FIRST before going into Iraq?

Be carefull what you wish for, you just might get it!!

Could you show us a quote somewhere, that any "liberal", has adovcated a war against Iran or North Korea?  

Even those Neocon Nutcases are backing away from such a move, let alone people with brain and patriotism.

Go read Newsweek of last week, not the talking points you get from RNC.

You have missed EV's point.



-- Modified on 9/28/2004 10:19:53 PM

Actually, I'm not sure what EV's point was.  Was it:

1) The neocons and hardliners are planning the next war (which is contradictory to the argument)

2) That the pentagon is doing some productive, "what if" planning (which I think is good)

My talking point: I never suggested liberals support a war in either of those places.  I did suggest they support (and have begged for, in retrospect, in Iraq) scenario and contingency planning, which is precisely what Newsweek says this is.

I am not a member of the RNC nor do I get my 411 from them.

You've got to be kidding me!  Pretty much anyone that opposed going to war in Iraq threw up any kind of roadblock they could think of to derail action being taken.  One of the delaying tactics they used was to try to divert attention away from Iraq to other more "immidiate" danger countries, such as Libia (who are now allowing inspectors in btw).  So it wasn't that the left advocated invading other countries so to speak but that other countries should be dealt with FIRST, and BEFORE we did anything with Iraq.  So by infrence they appeared strong to the average voter.

So basically it was a story of, hey let's not do anything here since there's another problem over there....and if the President said fine, let's take care of Libia first, then the left would have said, uh, wait, let's take care of Syria, or North Korea, or some other country FIRST before we take any action in (insert country name here).

It's just the left trying to have it both ways.

Ok, Quiet American, here you go:
"Our principal focus and attention today ougt to be what is happening in North Korea."
Paula Zahn "interview w/ senator Ted Kennedy" American Morning CNN March 4th 2003.
Ted Kennedy went on to talk about nuclear weapons & N. Korea - conveniently forgetting that President Clinton GAVE North Korea all the stuff to make the nukes in 1994.

I could go on if you want more liberals that suggested N. Korea was a bigger threat than was Iraq, but I think I have made my point.

``by inference they appeared strong to the average voter'' ?  Well, I infer that you are an average voter and therefore view Bush as being strong.  I also suppose it made sense to you that Iraq was an ``imminent threat'' - as opposed to a country such as NK who could do us some serious damage.  

The argument was not let's invade (insert country name here) but that the bull shit excuses for invading Iraq were bull shit (see above).  Do you see the difference ?  I believe Bushie always planned on invading Iraq and it wasn't a heavy burden on him - He did not lose any sleep worrying about the costs (and of course, save his job, had nothing to lose).  His only worry was an excuse - ``Mission Accomplished'' indeed.

I'm still waiting for the president to take care of Osama Bin Laden.  But I guess Hussein was so much easier to take care of - thus impressing the average voter.