Hersh, Bush, Nukes and Iran
I seem to be among the last of the political bloggers commenting on Seymour Hersh's article in the New Yorker, where he writes that the Administration has not ruled out the option of using small tactical nukes (including B61-11s) to eliminate the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
I can't say that I'm surprised the nuclear option was on the table; I did write about this exact same bomb not once, but twice in a more hypothetical sense more than a week ago, precisely because I think Bush once said something to the effect that "all options were on the table," and to me, "all" does in fact mean all. Predictably, the left thinks that the Hersh article is this week's concrete proof that Bush is the anti-Christ (as if that is a new opinion for them), some on the far right are ready to nuke first and ask questions later, and most center-right blogger's realize that a the use of a B61-11 is a worst-case scenario option to be used only if all other attempts fail. What does amaze me is rhetoric from some here in the United States willing to label Bush as insane or unhinged for what has been to date a measured, reasonable response, while Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who claims to have felt a holy light while addressing the United Nations in September, has time and again spoken of an "end times" scenario that his regime is rumored to have pledged to try to bring about. A Holocaust-denier with Messianic delusions runs a End-times-focused regime that has openly stated it would like to see Israel "wiped off the map." They are apparently hoping to trigger a massive nuclear war which they think will bring forth the Hidden Imam, and Bush is the one who is insane for being willing to stop them from acquiring nuclear weapons that could end tens of millions of lives? The guys at South Park are correct. We are a nation of people with their heads buried firmly in the sand.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:15 AM
Comments
1
I'm going to study Ahmadinejad's speeches more thoroughly, seems like if Hitler were alive today, he could sue for plagarism. The benefit of this war that few people talk about, is that Libyan leader Qaddhafi caved in, he didn't want to end his days like Saddam.
Posted by: Tom TB at April 10, 2006 07:38 AM (wZLWV)
2
I was watching the news today on this topic. One of the taling heads, it might have been Hersh, was very upset that if we used the nuclear bombs that we would then have 1.2 billion Muslims mad enough at us to go to war. It seems to me we are at war with these people. When is anyone going to wake up??
Posted by: David Caskey, MD at April 10, 2006 10:55 AM (6wTpy)
3
It didn't have to be this way, but that's the way Bush wants it, he gets it...
Posted by: Fred at April 10, 2006 10:59 AM (dbo1X)
4
P.S. Hitler would have a pretty good suit against Ann Coulter as well...
Posted by: Fred at April 10, 2006 11:03 AM (dbo1X)
5
The scary thing is that Bush and Ahmedinejad, with their messianism and certitude, each seem like caricatures of the other. I never imagined I would be nostalgic for the grey pinstriped, achingly restrained "wise men" who kept American foreign policy focused on the balance of power for so many decades. Boring looks good right about now.
Posted by: cwhig at April 10, 2006 11:11 AM (MhCSt)
6
So it was Bush's fault that Sep 11th happened right?? Since that was the major event that took place that led the US into each of the last two Conflicts. (Since congress never made a declaration of war)
I had been sent off the coast of Iraq FIVE times while Clinton was in office and each time Saddam grew bolder. The southern no fly zone was supposed to be exactly that but consistently our pilots would run into MIGs that would turn and run back across the line.
As far as WMD's to think that Saddam didnt have them is quite literally ignorant. If he didnt have them then how did he manage to Kill thousands of Kurds with a chemical strike????
This is all for not though because no matter what I or any other military member says you will continue to sip the Kool Aid and believe GW Bush is a bad man. Thats ok though because the lives of friends and family I have personnaly lost gave you the right to think that way. Hope you sleep well at night.
I had been sent off the coast of Iraq FIVE times while Clinton was in office and each time Saddam grew bolder. The southern no fly zone was supposed to be exactly that but consistently our pilots would run into MIGs that would turn and run back across the line.
As far as WMD's to think that Saddam didnt have them is quite literally ignorant. If he didnt have them then how did he manage to Kill thousands of Kurds with a chemical strike????
This is all for not though because no matter what I or any other military member says you will continue to sip the Kool Aid and believe GW Bush is a bad man. Thats ok though because the lives of friends and family I have personnaly lost gave you the right to think that way. Hope you sleep well at night.
Posted by: 81 at April 10, 2006 12:12 PM (WGcw3)
7
"Has not ruled out nukes." Well, duh. The pentagon damn well should be looking at that. They're paid to figure out ways to win wars. Leave Oh, No, No, Never, to clergymen.
What I also hope is on the table is taking out the Iran Govt, not just their lethal toys. This beast can always grow new claws; growing a new head is considerably harder.
What I also hope is on the table is taking out the Iran Govt, not just their lethal toys. This beast can always grow new claws; growing a new head is considerably harder.
Posted by: igout at April 10, 2006 12:46 PM (rJQZO)
8
Heads in the sand, or else we've passed into Looking-Glass world. Or maybe both at the same time.
Here's my take on the Hersh piece, which is basically the usual game of unattributed "telephone" that he so loves to play, against the usual targets: those neocons. If it weren't for the neocons (Hersh and company seem to think), the mullahs, eminently rational actors, would be sitting down to negotiate in good faith.
Here's my take on the Hersh piece, which is basically the usual game of unattributed "telephone" that he so loves to play, against the usual targets: those neocons. If it weren't for the neocons (Hersh and company seem to think), the mullahs, eminently rational actors, would be sitting down to negotiate in good faith.
Posted by: neo-neocon at April 10, 2006 12:47 PM (B8Vqt)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0081 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0059 seconds, 16 records returned.
Page size 9 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.