>>>>What is your take? Sanctioned from the highest level or renegade?
>>>>
>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/18/us.iran/index.html?hpt=T1
>>>>
>>>>This is probably an ink blot test here in partisan land. I am hoping for honest reactions.
>>>
>>>I'm a little confused. Are you questioning whether contingency planning is sanctioned by the President? Of course it is. What is renegade about the idea of giving the President a lot of options? Do you honestly believe he has completely taken this off the table?
>>>
>>>If this stuff was leaked to the Times it is either to send a message to Iran or to undercut the more aggressive policy. Or both (by different leakers). We probably have contingency plans to invade Goa. (do they still call it Goa?).
>>>
>>>We've got a stockpile of bunker busters someplace and it is necessary somebody is telling the President what they can and cannot do.
>>>
>>>I got kind of a kick out of Ahmadinijhad's bombast - reminiscent of "mother of all battles". If Israel or the US decides to end the Iranian nuclear program he literally will not know what hit him. I hope someone finds a way to derail the program more ... subtly.\
>>
>>imadinnerjacket is not without cleverness. He has gotten a long way by pulling the lion's mane. Most of what he says can be discounted as intentional provocation. It's no wonder he and Chavez hit it off.
>>
>>No, I did not mean this planning is not a proper function of the military. The leak, that's another story. My point was that it seems like a total end around, and they want everyone to know it. It's like they're not sure their commander in chief agrees with them so they are forcing the issue. They are not supposed to do that, hence my phrase "out of control." Even if you don't care for him, you don't just give the POTUS the finger.
>>
>>I know your background and that you are a hard man when it comes to national security. But regular military guys appearing to go around the President, that's not cool.
>
>Very often leaks like this are from disgruntled insiders who want to derail something - meaning in this case it would be from military who wanted to create public outrage of some kind to deter the President from considering this option.
>
>Another scenario would be Obamites leaking it to shore up the President's national security crd.
>
>A third is leaking it to bolster US negotiating posture with Iran or to slow down momentum in Israel for doing it themselves.
>
>The military "brass" is so highly risk averse (how do you think Powell ever got to the JCS) that it is very unlikely they are the ones driving a push for that option.
>
>To me this is a non-story which is just the NYT trying to be part of scenario one above. Yawn.
>
>I am more interested in the options no one is talking about that I hope are being implemented as we speak.

Oh, I bet you are ;-) Once a cold warrior, always a cold warrior, apparently. You just need a new demon every now and again.

What are these options you hope are being implemented even as we speak?