so, is decommissioned the latest euphemism for , armed and fired at targets in iran?
On 9/5/07, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Coincidence, of course. > > > I should add that we may not have heard the end of > > this yet - as it's not clear why the warheads hadn't > > been removed ahead of time (which is standard > > practice); nor why the first reports said that there > > > were six warheads instead of five! ... > > It should also be mentioned that one blogger called a > retired B-52 pilot (friend) and asked him about > protocol. To paraphrase this and another blog: His > buddy, let's call him Jack D. Ripper, said that when > you put *armed* nuclear weapons on the wings of a B-52 > (which is inherently risky - and extremely dangerous > to all concerned, including the public) then you are > "on alert". > > Jack also mentioned, along with the spiel about > "precious bodily fluids" that Barksdale Air Force Base > is used as a jumping off point for Middle East > operations. Imagine that. > > Now maybe there is an innocent explanation for this, > which makes more sense than the obvious lie coming out > of DC- the Cheney-spin that these advanced missles, > the best we have, were "being decommissioned". Who > knows? > > As one blogger (Larry Johnson) sez: What is certain is > that the pilots of this plane did not just make a last > minute decision to strap on some nukes and take them > for a joy ride. > > **Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the > American people that the Bush Administration is > staging nukes for Iran? I don't know, but it is a > question worth asking.** > > -- That which yields isn't always weak.
