Huh? Not a Big Deal, I Guess
I just watched George Snuffalumpagus on ABC News "debunk" the Sy Hersh story on the U.S. plans for attacking Iran. He said that he hadn't talked to anyone who said that this was in any kind of operational planning. Host Elizabeth Vargas asked why people were saying these things, if we are not "poised to attack." GS answered that the most likely answer is that this is being leaked by generals/military planners who are opposed to an attack on Iran and thus are trying to short-circuit any such move by leaking.
OK, then. Maybe this hasn't reached any magical operational level of planning, whatever that means. (Although what we know about the Iraq War tells us that planning, at least for the initial attack, if not the post-war, was underway for a very, very long time before anyone placed an "operational" label on things.) But apparently GS believes that there are generals, in some kind of position to know what's going on in the White House and the Pentagon, who fear that the WarHawks are serious enough about attacking Iran that they are willing to leak to try to stop the attack.
Yeah, not a big deal if the military brass is leaking the story to Sy Hersh. Nothing to see here. The shit is still miles away from that fan, George. Now, don't worry your objective little head about it, and get your eyebrows waxed again.
The president, btw, called these stories "wild speculation." Applying the patent-pending Bush-Lies-180-Degrees test renders that phrase: "more true than you want to believe."
The shit is on the launching pad, and someone is about to switch the fan into the "on" position. Remember, the non-denial denial says that these stories aren't true, but that, at the same time, all options are on the table, and Cheney recently said that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. If the Iranians bury their nuclear program in bunkers that require tactical nukes to take out, well, I guess all options are on the table.
Bush today, on "the doctrine of prevention" (what the hell?): "It doesn't mean force . . . necessarily."
posted by Number Three @ 6:49 PM
1 Comments:
If I were Iran facing a regime that might attack with nuclear weapons at any time merely because it is in its own perceived interests to do so, I would do everything in my power to get a nuclear weapon so as to protect my country long term. After all, that foe doesn't talk about nuking North Korea, even though it is a fellow member of the "axis of evil." A nuclear weapon is Iran's only hope to avoid being held hostage permanently by an untrustworthy and relentlessly hostile foe.
Post a Comment
<< Home