Thats Horse Dookie, Pan and others that have suggested it. The leak wasn't purposely from anyone in the administration. The Mullahs would have to be freakin idiots to not think we were spying, had a contingency plan, etc. since Bush put them on the dumbass Axis of Evil List 3 years ago. Not to mention our relationship with Iran for decades past. Who wouldn't expect that covert ops were going on?
Come on. The info was real, from a person orpeople inside that disagree with the administration because they see it all coming to fruition in the near future. The info was from real inside people that know we are getting ready to be sold another bill of goods.
Think, people. Whoever leaked the info, likely also knows we aren't in a position to do what is being planned.
Here's a nice example:
You can read the whole article at
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/17/international/europe/17spiegel.html?pagewanted=1&adxnnl=0&oref=login&adxnnlx=1106122061-vc0WY04OHrcq1ly%2BIA/INQ
From page 3:
"Proposals being considered to improve the security situation in Iraq also show signs of desperation. For the first time, regular soldiers are being offered training to fight insurgents. Until now, such special training was reserved for members of the elite forces and for marine infantry troops. Part of the training includes
a marines' training manual written in 1940. Some is helpful, but parts are
completely antiquated. For instance, there is a section labeled "working with animals," (mules, mostly) and another on
"mixed-race" companies. According to the manual, such companies are unusually "unmanageable due to a lack of strong character."
More From page 3:
The Pentagon's civilian leadership has not been faced with so much criticism from within its own ranks since the Vietnam War. Retired general D. Barry McCaffrey is even concerned that "the army will lose its base in the next 24 months." General Peter Schoomaker, the current Chief of Staff of the US Army, has already warned Congress against drastic consequences, saying that "it may be necessary to augment the regular armed forces," something that Rumsfeld wants to avoid at all costs, mainly for budgetary reasons.
To maintain a security force of 150,000 troops in Iraq in the longer term, the United States will in fact need three times as many soldiers. According to military planners, a third of these troops would be preparing for deployment, a third would actually be deployed, and a third would be involved in post-deployment work or on vacation.
This approach would thus require 450,000 troops to be available for Iraq at all times. However, the entire US armed forces, which would provide the lion's share of this military force, currently comprises only 500,000 troops. It's mainly because of these anticipated personnel needs that US military commanders are opposed to Rumsfeld's pet project -- converting the US armed forces into a relatively small but highly mobile high-tech commando force designed for lightning missions throughout the world. Military commanders argue that although this concept may have ensured the US a rapid initial victory over Iraq, it cannot guarantee peace in Iraq.
Anyone thinking that an invasion of Iran at this time is anything but suicidal is dilusional, to say the least.
You badly underestimate the military might of the United States. We don't have a 1 dimensional military that has been exhausted in Iraq
